Earlier today (3/6), MassDOT opened bids on a project to replace the guide signs on Interstate 95 (MA Route 128) between Route 9 in Wellesley and Routes 4/225 in Lexington. As with other recent MassDOT signing work of this type, both the panels and support structures will be completely replaced.
The panels on this section of I-95 were last replaced in the early 1990s, so there's no existing button copy or anything unusual (i.e. 'Parkway' embossed letters) that's going away. Of note to some, however, is the fact that this project area includes the now infamous peeling "pull-through" sign northbound in Lexington (the sign was somehow missed during the 1990s work). This panel will be removed but not replaced.
Assuming there are no delays in awarding the contract, actual sign and support replacement should begin sometime in late summer or early fall of 2012.
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2012, 07:46:59 PM
(i.e. 'Parkway' embossed letters)
do you have a photo of this? I don't recall what this means.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 06, 2012, 07:49:44 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2012, 07:46:59 PM
(i.e. 'Parkway' embossed letters)
do you have a photo of this? I don't recall what this means.
'Parkway' lettering was a short-lived 3M product that was produced in the mid to late 1960s and was touted at the time as a less expensive alternative to button copy. Essentially, it consisted of raised one-piece plastic letters made from early retro-reflective material (similar to today's Super Engineer Grade - or Type II - sheeting). On close inspection, it has a similar appearance to button copy except for the absense of reflectors.
It was used on a handful of overhead sign installations in Massachusetts (including MA Route 128 in the Wellesley and Waltham areas) in the late 1960s and early 1970s before 3M's encapsulated lens sheeting (now known as high intensity - or Type III) became the industry norm. As I noted, all the signs on 128 with 'Parkway' legend were replaced during the 1990s update project.
Somewhere in my archives I have some old 3M 'Parkway' lettering sales brochures. If I get a chance, I'll dig them out and scan them for posting to the group.
Too bad that it sounds like a goodly amount of button copy I-shields will go away. Last spring I was in Boston for several days and managed to catch a local news investigative report about replacement of signs that didn't appear to need replacing yet; MassDOT's response on camera was that they got the money to replace the signs so they might as well spend it. (There may be more actual need than that but they didn't say so very well. They made it sound like they were basically spending stimulus money that was thrown at them.) Except for the pull-through that is peeling, the signs in question are in good shape and no doubt the public may be wondering why they are being replaced when there appear to be more urgent needs.
Assuming that signage on intersecting roads and places like the C-D Exits 23-24-25 northbound section of original MA 128 get new signs, it will be the end of these beauties. Pity.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG1967.JPG&hash=422ffae9eacfaf5f1484bd01db0e5a44f5c852fe)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG1905.JPG&hash=298eb82972c34ca7b9eee4c6991734c341285ca8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG1978.JPG&hash=941173e894217cbc2f31da95f93ec6cbdf063482)
Is that last picture from Recreation Road or whatever?
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2012, 08:12:36 PM
'Parkway' lettering was a short-lived 3M product that was produced in the mid to late 1960s and was touted at the time as a less expensive alternative to button copy. Essentially, it consisted of raised one-piece plastic letters made from early retro-reflective material (similar to today's Super Engineer Grade - or Type II - sheeting). On close inspection, it has a similar appearance to button copy except for the absense of reflectors.
It was used on a handful of overhead sign installations in Massachusetts (including MA Route 128 in the Wellesley and Waltham areas) in the late 1960s and early 1970s before 3M's encapsulated lens sheeting (now known as high intensity - or Type III) became the industry norm. As I noted, all the signs on 128 with 'Parkway' legend were replaced during the 1990s update project.
Somewhere in my archives I have some old 3M 'Parkway' lettering sales brochures. If I get a chance, I'll dig them out and scan them for posting to the group.
I had no idea that stuff was called "Parkway". I believe Virginia used it as well in the 60s. it is aluminum forms covered in Engineer Grade scotchlite, if I recall correctly? and it is the same standard fonts as button copy (namely EM and subtle variants thereof)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 07, 2012, 02:29:05 AM
Is that last picture from Recreation Road or whatever?
Yes, Recreation Rd. over the onetime mainline lanes that became NB C-D road for Exits 23-24-25. It wasn't a bad place to get a somewhat unique view of the particular-to-Mass. button copy shields on otherwise reflective signs.
It also was a good example of how they would mix shields with button copy numerals only and shields with button copy numerals AND outlines, sometimes on the same assembly of signs (but never on the same sign as far as I ever saw).
The pics are from August 2010.
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 06, 2012, 10:07:37 PM
Too bad that it sounds like a goodly amount of button copy I-shields will go away. Last spring I was in Boston for several days and managed to catch a local news investigative report about replacement of signs that didn't appear to need replacing yet; MassDOT's response on camera was that they got the money to replace the signs so they might as well spend it. (There may be more actual need than that but they didn't say so very well. They made it sound like they were basically spending stimulus money that was thrown at them.) Except for the pull-through that is peeling, the signs in question are in good shape and no doubt the public may be wondering why they are being replaced when there appear to be more urgent needs.
Assuming that signage on intersecting roads and places like the C-D Exits 23-24-25 northbound section of original MA 128 get new signs, it will be the end of these beauties. Pity.
The news report in question aired on the local FOX station last May. Here's the link:
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/undercover/state-spending-22m-on-signs-20110512
Most of the report focuses on the now completed re-signing project on I-95 between Lexington and Reading. Note that, prior to this project, the panels in this area were last replaced in the early 1990s, and the structures dated from the mid-1970s.
And thanks for the clarification - I forgot to mention that the button copy numeral Interstate shields will indeed go away when these panels are replaced. Current MassDOT standards still require demountable numerals on overhead-mounted Interstate shields. However, the numerals are now fabricated from high-intensity prismatic (HIP) sheeting instead of button copy.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 07, 2012, 11:05:35 AM
I had no idea that stuff was called "Parkway". I believe Virginia used it as well in the 60s. it is aluminum forms covered in Engineer Grade scotchlite, if I recall correctly? and it is the same standard fonts as button copy (namely EM and subtle variants thereof)
Yes, I stand corrected - it was made from aluminum forms, not plastic. And it was produced in standard fonts (Em, etc) like button copy.
Quote from: roadman on March 07, 2012, 01:59:48 PM
The news report in question aired on the local FOX station last May. Here's the link:
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/undercover/state-spending-22m-on-signs-20110512
Most of the report focuses on the now completed re-signing project on I-95 between Lexington and Reading. Note that, prior to this project, the panels in this area were last replaced in the early 1990s, and the structures dated from the mid-1970s.
That's the one! I was in town for four days and managed to see that report while I was there. (I grew up there but the fun button copy shields didn't hit until just as I was going away to college.) The comparison at 1:40 of the video between old and new sign is interesting....the old one isn't much less reflective than the new one. The comments by the motorist are probably typical of what a lot of people are thinking--what is wrong with the old signs that requires they be replaced when there are more pressing needs? (Not arguing that myself up or down--just thinking about what John and Jane Q. Motorist must be thinking.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 07, 2012, 11:05:35 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2012, 08:12:36 PM
'Parkway' lettering was a short-lived 3M product that was produced in the mid to late 1960s and was touted at the time as a less expensive alternative to button copy. Essentially, it consisted of raised one-piece plastic letters made from early retro-reflective material (similar to today's Super Engineer Grade - or Type II - sheeting). On close inspection, it has a similar appearance to button copy except for the absense of reflectors.
It was used on a handful of overhead sign installations in Massachusetts (including MA Route 128 in the Wellesley and Waltham areas) in the late 1960s and early 1970s before 3M's encapsulated lens sheeting (now known as high intensity - or Type III) became the industry norm. As I noted, all the signs on 128 with 'Parkway' legend were replaced during the 1990s update project.
Somewhere in my archives I have some old 3M 'Parkway' lettering sales brochures. If I get a chance, I'll dig them out and scan them for posting to the group.
I had no idea that stuff was called "Parkway". I believe Virginia used it as well in the 60s. it is aluminum forms covered in Engineer Grade scotchlite, if I recall correctly? and it is the same standard fonts as button copy (namely EM and subtle variants thereof)
I believe much of the "original" signage on the Capital Beltway (circa 1964) in Maryland featured this. Never knew it was called Parkway.
Quote from: roadman on March 07, 2012, 01:59:48 PM
Current MassDOT standards still require demountable numerals on overhead-mounted Interstate shields. However, the numerals are now fabricated from high-intensity prismatic (HIP) sheeting instead of button copy.
Is that because of the whole I-95, I-93 thing? What a strange requirement.
Quote from: Steve on March 07, 2012, 07:39:22 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 07, 2012, 01:59:48 PM
Current MassDOT standards still require demountable numerals on overhead-mounted Interstate shields. However, the numerals are now fabricated from high-intensity prismatic (HIP) sheeting instead of button copy.
Is that because of the whole I-95, I-93 thing? What a strange requirement.
The Massachusetts requirement for separate numerals on overhead Interstate shields was initially adopted in the early 1980s. At the time, MassDPW was having some very serious problems with the silk-screen Interstate shields on overhead signs prematurely fading, which in several cases made the numbers illegible at night. The change to demountable numerals seems to have solved this issue.
Since button copy had been discontinued since the mid-1990s, the specification has since revised to specify the use of HIP sheeting demountable numbers instead of button copy for these shields.
And, as noted in a previous post, some current Interstate shields on existing signs along I-95 (MA 128) and connecting roads in the Weston and Waltham area do have both button copy numbers and outlines. Button copy outlines were never a requirement of the Massachusetts specifications, but instead reflects the use of "off-the shelf" Interstate shields that were provided by the sign fabricator at the time.
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2012, 07:46:59 PM
Of note to some, however, is the fact that this project area includes the now infamous peeling "pull-through" sign northbound in Lexington (the sign was somehow missed during the 1990s work). This panel will be removed but not replaced.
Massachusetts seems to have something against pull-throughs. With the exception of the Turnpike, now a part of MassDOT but formerly its own agency, I see only a small handful of them on Massachusetts highways.
Quote from: SidS1045 on March 08, 2012, 11:19:27 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2012, 07:46:59 PM
Of note to some, however, is the fact that this project area includes the now infamous peeling "pull-through" sign northbound in Lexington (the sign was somehow missed during the 1990s work). This panel will be removed but not replaced.
Massachusetts seems to have something against pull-throughs. With the exception of the Turnpike, now a part of MassDOT but formerly its own agency, I see only a small handful of them on Massachusetts highways.
I believe the lack of newer pull-through signs has more to do w/MUTCD not requiring them at all interchanges.
Actually, some of the newer interchange signage along the Pike erected within the last 10 years have no pull-through signs either (Exits 10A, 11 & 13 being 3 examples).
PennDOT and the PTC (Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission) does similar. Case and point: there's not one pull-through sign ANYWHERE along freeway (Blue Route) section of I-476 South.
The MassPike only has pull throughs at the major interchanges. Exit 4 (I-91), Exit 6 (I-291), Exit 9 (I-84), Exit 10 (I-395/290), Exit 11A (I-495), and at the toll plaza Exits 1 (MA-41), 14/15 (I-95), 18/20 (Cambridge)
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 08, 2012, 11:23:17 PM
The MassPike only has pull throughs at the major interchanges. Exit 4 (I-91), Exit 6 (I-291), Exit 9 (I-84), Exit 10 (I-395/290), Exit 11A (I-495), and at the toll plaza Exits 1 (MA-41), 14/15 (I-95), 18/20 (Cambridge)
I know, but it used to have pull-through signs at
ALL of the interchanges west of I-95 (Route 128).
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2012, 07:46:59 PM
Earlier today (3/6), MassDOT opened bids on a project to replace the guide signs on Interstate 95 (MA Route 128) between Route 9 in Wellesley and Routes 4/225 in Lexington. As with other recent MassDOT signing work of this type, both the panels and support structures will be completely replaced.
The panels on this section of I-95 were last replaced in the early 1990s.
Actually most of the signage at Exits 27A-B was erected within the last 2 to 3 years when the interchange was redone and a replacement, higher-clearance overpass was constructed. Will these be replaced as well? Kind of a waste IMHO unless the sign messages contained errors.
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2012, 07:46:59 PMOf note to some, however, is the fact that this project area includes the now infamous peeling "pull-through" sign northbound in Lexington (the sign was somehow missed during the 1990s work).
I remember when that sign when was first erected in the early 80s; when it was new, it was a very good-looking sign in terms of spacing, proper lettering and numeral fonts and their respective sizes. This sign is probably one of the last
MassDPW signage for I-95 still standing that used "
NH - Maine" as a control destination. North of Canton, the listed
distant (or 2nd) destination for I-95 North is now "
Portsmouth NH" except for the exit signs off the Pike.
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 06, 2012, 10:07:37 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG1967.JPG&hash=422ffae9eacfaf5f1484bd01db0e5a44f5c852fe)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG1905.JPG&hash=298eb82972c34ca7b9eee4c6991734c341285ca8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG1978.JPG&hash=941173e894217cbc2f31da95f93ec6cbdf063482)
It's worth noting that in the first 2 pics. those size of those shields are a bit small for the button-copy numerals. The shields should've been a little larger IMHO.
The signs in the 3rd pic are an example of a half-a**ed (IMHO) maneuver on then-MassHighway's part regarding signage replacement projects. The I-90 signage was erected roughly 2-to-3 years earlier than the adjacent MA 30/I-95 North signage. The earlier signage project involved replacing ALL guidance signage along I-95 EXCEPT for the exit signs directing those to I-95 (between Exits 21 through 28) and any pull-through signage. Many of those older signs, the ones erected in the early 1970s still contained just MA 128 listings, were left untouched. I guess MassHighway at the time was still debating whether or not to include MA 128 shields on the new sign panels next to the I-95 shields.
When the new signs were eventually erected, the difference in button-copy I-shields aside; one could clearly see that these signs had a slightly different appearance in terms of colors when placed next to their 2 to 3 year older sign siblings. IMHO, the newer button-copy I-95 signs with the button-copy borders look a lot better.
PhilBos. Thanks for your follow up observations.
The signs recently installed in Waltham as part of the Winter Street interchange rebuild will indeed be retained under the Wellesley to Lexington re-signing project.
Note that MassHighway discontinued the use of "NH-Maine" as a northbound control destination on signs in the early 1990s at the request of FHWA. Portamouth NH is now the accepted control city. This is why some of the present signs in the Weston and Waltham areas weren't installed until 2-3 years after most of the other ones were, because this control city change was requested by FHWA just after the 1991 re-signing contract had been let, but before the signs were fabricated.
Since about 2004, newer overhead guide signs installed in Massachusetts are fabricated from high intensity prismatic sheeting, as opposed to the older high intensity sheeting (you can tell these newer signs at a glance because they have full height exit number tabs). When viewed at certain angles in daylight conditions, the green color of HIP has a different tint than the older H/I sheeting. This is why the Winter Street signs look different than the other ones on this section of I-95.
Lastly, Massachusetts policy since the late 1980s has been not to use pull thru signs except at those locations where the through route is not apparent to the driver. This is per FHWA direction and is consistent with MUTCD guidance since the 1988 edition. However, as the 2009 MUTCD has relaxed the restrictions for using pull-thru signs (it now puts greater emphasis on route guidance as opposed to roadway geometry), it's my understanding that MassDOT may be re-evaluating this policy. While it's highly doubtful we'll see a return to the days where there was a pull-through sign at evey interchange along roads like MA 128, I suspect we wil be seeing more such signs in the future.
Quote from: roadman on March 10, 2012, 12:19:47 PMNote that MassHighway discontinued the use of "NH-Maine" as a northbound control destination on signs in the early 1990s at the request of FHWA. Portamouth NH is now the accepted control city. This is why some of the present signs in the Weston and Waltham areas weren't installed until 2-3 years after most of the other ones were, because this control city change was requested by FHWA just after the 1991 re-signing contract had been let, but before the signs were fabricated.
That explains the delay in northbound signage but one could argue that the southbound signage (w/Providence RI as its either distant or 2nd control destination) should've been erected with the earlier signs. I guess MassHighway wanted to do the all the applicable I-95 exit signs in one shot.
It's worth noting that ramp and guidance (at the rotaries and signalized intersections) signage for MA 128 south in the Gloucester area still list "
NH-MAINE" as its 2nd control destination and I believe the signs in question are of the 90s vintage (that feature the square shields for the route numbers vs. just white numerals). I'll have to recheck the next time I'm up there and have a little time.
Personally (I had a hunch that the FHWA was behind the change), I would've kept the "NH-Maine" as the 2nd control destination along I-95 North up to the MA 4/225 interchange (Exit 31A-B) then switched over to "Portsmouth NH" at the US 3 North interchange (Exit 32A).
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 08, 2012, 11:23:17 PM
The MassPike only has pull throughs at the major interchanges. Exit 4 (I-91), Exit 6 (I-291), Exit 9 (I-84), Exit 10 (I-395/290), Exit 11A (I-495), and at the toll plaza Exits 1 (MA-41), 14/15 (I-95), 18/20 (Cambridge)
We don't have many pull-throughs in Conn. either. I think it is a function of the amount of signage. Pull-throughs are extraneous. In places/states where the interchanges are spaced closely, there really isn't a place for pull-throughs. Coming northbound on I-95 from the NY state line, I don't think there is a single pull-through until New Haven (at mile marker 47). Going the other way, I think there is a pull-through for NY City in the Norwalk area, and that's about it south of New Haven. Other states have pull-through-itis where every couple of miles there is a pull-through if there is an overhead assembly to mount it and the next exit miles away. After the last couple of signing projects it seems pull-throughs weren't replaced. In fact, you can still see the vestiges of where pull-throughs once existed on the overhead assemblies (used to even be some lights remaining mounted with no sign - now that's a blast from the past). A logical control city that isn't is Bridgeport (Connecticut's most populous city).
Here is a better view of a fully-outlined shield (with Portsmouth along for the ride), looking straight at the sign instead of at an angle. I think that the button copy shield on an otherwise reflective sign is a very good look and I'll miss it. (It's sorta the opposite of what most button copy states had, and even what the Mass Pike Boston Extension's 90s signs have--button copy everywhere BUT shields.) As states like New York, Ohio, and Connecticut (among others) that commonly used button copy numerals in I-shields also used the button copy outlines, I think the outline-less ones like the 90 and 95 shields above look a little weird, but I still appreciate the button copy. It has character.....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG1902.JPG&hash=03bdad50e2aa854140540e6ec13ce02c9e5024d6)
This particular sign is/was north of the project in question, at route 38--maybe it's gone now? If it is, I'm glad I got a pic of it when I did.
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 10, 2012, 07:57:05 PM
Coming northbound on I-95 from the NY state line, I don't think there is a single pull-through until New Haven (at mile marker 47). Going the other way, I think there is a pull-through for NY City in the Norwalk area, and that's about it south of New Haven. Other states have pull-through-itis where every couple of miles there is a pull-through if there is an overhead assembly to mount it and the next exit miles away. After the last couple of signing projects it seems pull-throughs weren't replaced. In fact, you can still see the vestiges of where pull-throughs once existed on the overhead assemblies (used to even be some lights remaining mounted with no sign - now that's a blast from the past). A logical control city that isn't is Bridgeport (Connecticut's most populous city).
Actually, the first pullthrough NB on I-95 in CT is at Exit 16 in Norwalk - actually on the same exact gantry as the last SB pullthrough. After that, there's one in Bridgeport at Exit 28, then nothing until New Haven.
I like New Haven as a control city as its a major destination and a junction of I-95 and I-91. It's a lot better than the original turnpike control points "NEW YORK AND WEST" and "RHODE ISLAND AND EAST".
And I still miss the I-95 Mass control point of "NH-MAINE". I remember signs on I-95 NB approaching "128" which had control points for I-95 as "DEDHAM / NH-MAINE", with a 128 shield displayed prominently right next to the I-95 shield on the same overhead sign. Now if you want NH-MAINE control points, you gotta go to the Mass Pike.
Quote from: shadyjay on March 11, 2012, 05:54:58 PM
And I still miss the I-95 Mass control point of "NH-MAINE". I remember signs on I-95 NB approaching "128" which had control points for I-95 as "DEDHAM / NH-MAINE", with a 128 shield displayed prominently right next to the I-95 shield on the same overhead sign. Now if you want NH-MAINE control points, you gotta go to the Mass Pike.
Speaking of the Mass Pike signs, once those are replaced, will the signs for exit 11A (I-495) and exit 14 (I-95/MA 128) still list "NH-Maine" as a control city? If not, what do you think they might use?
Quote from: PennDOTFan on March 11, 2012, 08:19:55 PM
Speaking of the Mass Pike signs, once those are replaced, will the signs for exit 11A (I-495) and exit 14 (I-95/MA 128) still list "NH-Maine" as a control city? If not, what do you think they might use?
I would hope that NH-Maine last longer because the 'pike is more of a long-distance route (because of its widely-spaced exits, vs I-95 or I-495), but if they were to fall, I'd guess Portsmouth NH would be a suitable fit for the Exit 11A EB signs (and WB should be Lowell). The question also should be asked: is Cape Cod a legal control city anymore? We saw what happened in NYC when New England and Upstate were replaced with New Haven CT and Albany. And while we're at it, will "TO ALL MAINE POINTS" on I-95 in Portsmouth be replaced with "PORTLAND"?
Quote from: shadyjay on March 11, 2012, 09:40:45 PM
And while we're at it, will "TO ALL MAINE POINTS" on I-95 in Portsmouth be replaced with "PORTLAND"?
It appears that "Maine Points" (along with "NH Lakes" and "White Mts") managed to make it onto this relatively recent sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5156%2F5915631717_bd11755410_z.jpg&hash=ac3d1879ab332d0acd26ca5795649cc872618002)
With MassPike being part of MassDOT now, I would speculate that the control cities on future signs would be the same as for entrances from other intersecting highways, maybe with the more distant ones for the signage on the Pike and two control cities per direction on the signs at the ramp splits, if there is room. For I-95/128, I could see Providence and Portsmouth becoming the control cities--although neither are in Mass and I don't know how many drivers are going to be headed toward those cities, especially Providence if they could have gotten there via 495 or 146 from the west or down 93/3 to 95 from Boston. Only those joining the Pike relatively close to its intersection with 128 would take the Pike to 128 to head toward Providence. Portsmouth is somewhat less of an issue that way.
As I recall, they have NH-Maine and South Shore for eastbound, and Waltham and Dedham westbound. I could see Dedham staying with Providence for the distant SB control city, and something like Waltham or Peabody and Portsmouth for NB. Peabody has been a NB control city dating back to the amazing indestructible pull-through in Lexington that was mentioned above, where it was accompanied by NH-Maine. Waltham and Dedham seem to be the closer control cities of choice for the previous generation of nearby signs, with Peabody taking over just north of there, probably because that's where I-95 leaves 128. (My past affiliation with Peabody also biases me toward its inclusion.)
I-95 probably could get by with Portland/Augusta instead of To All Maine Points.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on March 11, 2012, 10:12:08 PM
It appears that "Maine Points" (along with "NH Lakes" and "White Mts") managed to make it onto this relatively recent sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5156%2F5915631717_bd11755410_z.jpg&hash=ac3d1879ab332d0acd26ca5795649cc872618002)
Oy, why is NH including "NH" in the control city of Portsmouth? At this point you are so close to Portsmouth, never mind being in the same state, that it just looks bizarre there!
Lakes and Mountains seem excusable because that's where a lot of folks are headed, especially tourists. If the split happened closer to Hampton, they could have included Beaches on the right for a recreational full house!
That looks to be in the area of Exit 3. That may actually be IN Portsmouth itself, near the Greenland town line.
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 11, 2012, 10:23:03 PM
Oy, why is NH including "NH" in the control city of Portsmouth? At this point you are so close to Portsmouth, never mind being in the same state, that it just looks bizarre there!
I wondered this as well when I first saw it. I believe the "NH" is there because of the "Maine Points" underneath, so people won't misread it to say that Portsmouth is in Maine.
Quote from: shadyjay on March 11, 2012, 05:54:58 PMAnd I still miss the I-95 Mass control point of "NH-MAINE". I remember signs on I-95 NB approaching "128" which had control points for I-95 as "DEDHAM / NH-MAINE", with a 128 shield displayed prominently right next to the I-95 shield on the same overhead sign. Now if you want NH-MAINE control points, you gotta go to the Mass Pike.
That older sign (erected circa 1977) you're referring to actually read "
95 NORTH - Dedham - NH-Maine". There was no MA 128 shield on the signboard itself, only ground-mounted trailblazer signs.
The original 60s era signage at that interchange, for obvious reasons, had 128 shields w/button-copy lettering. IIRC, the old sign originally read "
128 NORTH - Dedham"
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 11, 2012, 10:20:47 PMPeabody has been a NB control city dating back to the amazing indestructible pull-through in Lexington that was mentioned above, where it was accompanied by NH-Maine. Waltham and Dedham seem to be the closer control cities of choice for the previous generation of nearby signs, with Peabody taking over just north of there, probably because that's where I-95 leaves 128. (My past affiliation with Peabody also biases me toward its inclusion.)
Yes & no. In the Lexington area "Peabody" was the northbound control city since that sign was erected in the early 80s. Prior to that, there was a 60s era northbound pull-through sign mounted on a train trestle near the MA 4/225 interchange that read "
128 NORTH - Burlington - Gloucester" (said-train trestle still has slight traces of the old mounting brackets that once held the 3 signs (pull-through and the 2 exit signs)) and the old pull-through signage at MA 2A was the old (possibly original) 50s era All-Caps Button-copy that read "
128 - TO RTE. 1 - NO. SHORE".
In the area between US 3 South/MA 3A North and I-93; "Peabody" was used as either the solo or 1st control destination for Route 128 since the early 70s; prior to the I-95 designation.
IIRC and unless there was a recent change, signage at the entrance ramp to I-95 North (& US 3 South) at Middlesex Pike (Burlington Mall) still uses "
Woburn" as I-95's 1st control destination.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2012, 08:18:12 AM
That older sign (erected circa 1977)
how do you know the exact or near-exact years that the signs went up? was it personal observation (wasn't there yesterday, is there today) combined with a sharp memory ... or is there some kind of log that I can access?
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2012, 08:18:12 AM
IIRC and unless there was a recent change, signage at the entrance ramp to I-95 North (& US 3 South) at Middlesex Pike (Burlington Mall) still uses "Woburn" as I-95's 1st control destination.
As part of the recently completed I-95 Lexington to Reading sign work, the I-95 northbound control city on these signs was changed from Woburn to Peabody.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 12, 2012, 11:07:28 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2012, 08:18:12 AM
That older sign (erected circa 1977)
how do you know the exact or near-exact years that the signs went up? was it personal observation (wasn't there yesterday, is there today) combined with a sharp memory ... or is there some kind of log that I can access?
A combination of personal observation and memory. I was riding with my father from Marblehead to Providence that summer (I was 11 at the time) and I saw the then-brand new signs at that interchange.
I first saw the fore-mentioned old 128 signage near the 2A interchange (Exit 30/old Exit 45) while riding with my father back in 1973-74.
My first actual road/highway sign recognition came about in 1972 (I was 6 at the time) was when I was riding on a bus along the old (pre-1974 alteration) of I-95 from US 1 (Danvers/Topsfield) to the Topsfield Road interchange en route to/from a day-camp located in Boxford. During the 4 years I went to that camp, I saw that stretch of I-95 totally transform into what it is today.
Quote from: roadman on March 12, 2012, 12:01:35 PMAs part of the recently completed I-95 Lexington to Reading sign work, the I-95 northbound control city on these signs was changed from Woburn to Peabody.
Thanks for the update.
PhlBos's "circa 1977" timeline regarding the replacement of signs on I-95 northbound at MA 128 in Canton is accurate.
After the Southwest Expressway project was formally cancelled and the I-95 designation offically shifted to MA 128 in early 1975, one of the first projects MassDPW undertook in the Canton area was to replace the MA 128 north (now I-93 south) to I-95 south cloverleaf ramp with the current trumpet ramp connection. This eliminated a hazardous weave between traffic entering from I-95 north onto I-95 north (old MA 128) and traffic exiting onto I-95 south.
This roadway work was completed by the late spring of 1976. I vividly recall that our junior high class trip to Rocky World Amusement Park at the time used the new ramp, which had just been opened to traffic.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2012, 05:37:00 PM
A combination of personal observation and memory.
I wish my memory were that detailed.
the only thing I remember distinctly is in 1986 or so when I first started paying attention, Massachusetts didn't have many state-named interstate shields, while all the surrounding states did. this includes NH and RI, which are very, very tough finds today - nowadays comparable to MA!
there was also an I-86 shield at the Sturbridge exit off I-84 - at the time, I had assimilated it into my memory that the route to New York City was I-90 to I-86 to I-84 to I-684.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 13, 2012, 12:27:25 PM
there was also an I-86 shield at the Sturbridge exit off I-84 - at the time, I had assimilated it into my memory that the route to New York City was I-90 to I-86 to I-84 to I-684.
Before the I-86 designation was changed to I-84 in 1985, the signs on the MassPike for the Sturbridge exit had I-86 and Route 15 shields. When the roadway became I-84 for the final time, the shields on the signs were changed to I-84 and US 20. This was carried over to the current signs, which were installed in 1995.
Also, I-86 between Sturbridge and Hartford was originally signed as an east-west route. When the signs were changed to I-84, West was overlaid with South.
Quote from: roadman on March 13, 2012, 01:00:07 PM
Before the I-86 designation was changed to I-84 in 1985, the signs on the MassPike for the Sturbridge exit had I-86 and Route 15 shields. When the roadway became I-84 for the final time, the shields on the signs were changed to I-84 and US 20. This was carried over to the current signs, which were installed in 1995.
Also, I-86 between Sturbridge and Hartford was originally signed as an east-west route. When the signs were changed to I-84, West was overlaid with South.
as of February 2010, some of the arrows and banners at that Sturbridge exit look well older than 1995, and likely even 1986. I think they date back to the original signing, and were at one point paired with I-86 shields.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 13, 2012, 01:07:06 PM
as of February 2010, some of the arrows and banners at that Sturbridge exit look well older than 1995, and likely even 1986. I think they date back to the original signing, and were at one point paired with I-86 shields.
You are likely correct. I've noticed that there are existing route assemblies at this interchange that don't show up on the plans I've found for either the 1995 MassPike sign project or the 2003 MassHighway I-84 Sturbridge to Holland sign project. Generally with large sign renewal projects of this type, if something isn't shown on the plans as to be replaced, it normally doesn't get removed at all (unless there's a general "remove unless otherwise indicated" note on the plans).
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2012, 07:46:59 PMMassDOT opened bids on a project to replace the guide signs on Interstate 95 (MA Route 128) between Route 9 in Wellesley and Routes 4/225 in Lexington.
Will this project also replace the I-95 exit signs along MA 2 (Exit 29A-B) as well? IIRC, that's the only location
in that area that uses "
Attleboro" for a I-95 South control destination.
The first I-95 South signs (circa early 1980s) at that interchange used "
Braintree" as a control destination.
The original 128 South signs from the 1950s used "
SOUTH SHORE" and/or "
TO RTE. 9 - SOUTH SHORE".
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 13, 2012, 07:22:07 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2012, 07:46:59 PMMassDOT opened bids on a project to replace the guide signs on Interstate 95 (MA Route 128) between Route 9 in Wellesley and Routes 4/225 in Lexington.
Will this project also replace the I-95 exit signs along MA 2 (Exit 29A-B) as well? IIRC, that's the only location in that area that uses "Attleboro" for a I-95 South control destination.
The first I-95 South signs (circa early 1980s) at that interchange used "Braintree" as a control destination.
The original 128 South signs from the 1950s used "SOUTH SHORE" and/or "TO RTE. 9 - SOUTH SHORE".
The signs on Route 2 at I-95 were recently replaced with new signs (using Attleboro as the southbound control city) as part of the just completed Route 2 Lincoln to Arlington sign update project. Not sure of the rationale for not changing it to Providence RI when the signs were updated, however.
Although it doesn't appear on their latest 'official' list (2001?) of control cities, Attleboro has been accepted by both AASHTO and FHWA for use as a southbound control city for I-95 (as an alternative to Providence RI) in Massachusetts since the early 1990s.
Reviving this thread with a news article I just stumbled on...
http://bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220530states_all_signed_up_dot_splurges_45m_on_route_128/srvc=home&position=2
Signage on 13 miles of I-95 / Route 128 from Newton to Lexington will be replaced this summer, which includes most of the oldest signs left on 128.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 30, 2012, 01:21:56 AM
Signage on 13 miles of I-95 / Route 128 from Newton to Lexington will be replaced this summer, which includes most of the oldest signs left on 128.
Some of the oldest guidance signs remaining along 128 are the exit signs for Endicott St. (Exit 24) in Danvers... at least the northbound signs. Those are clearly of the 1977-vintage.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 31, 2012, 07:52:21 AM
Some of the oldest guidance signs remaining along 128 are the exit signs for Endicott St. (Exit 24) in Danvers... at least the northbound signs. Those are clearly of the 1977-vintage.
Those signs are scheduled to be replaced within a year as part of a larger roadway reconstruction and geometric improvement project on Route 128 between Route 114 in Peabody and Route 62 in Beverly.
And the Herald article once again demonstrates one of my pet peeves - referring to Interstate 95 as "Route 128". The highway designation was changed to I-95 only 38 years ago.
Quote from: roadman on May 31, 2012, 10:18:27 AM
And the Herald article once again demonstrates one of my pet peeves - referring to Interstate 95 as "Route 128". The highway designation was changed to I-95 only 38 years ago.
Admittedly though it was 128 for quite a while beforehand, was cosigned with 95 for a while, still exists on paper (and many signs), and has gained a significant status in Boston culture.
Kind of like referring to I-495 as the Beltway.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 31, 2012, 07:52:21 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 30, 2012, 01:21:56 AM
Signage on 13 miles of I-95 / Route 128 from Newton to Lexington will be replaced this summer, which includes most of the oldest signs left on 128.
Some of the oldest guidance signs remaining along 128 are the exit signs for Endicott St. (Exit 24) in Danvers... at least the northbound signs. Those are clearly of the 1977-vintage.
That is what is so strange about the replacement projects further south on 128--they have been replacing signs installed in the early 90s but the signs on 128 in Peabody and Danvers (and possibly some north of there in Beverly) date back to the 1970s. If it was all about replacing signs that are worn out and no longer reflective, the Peabody-Danvers signs would have been replaced a long time ago.
I live in the 1 corridor of Danvers, and not the 128 corridor, so I don't take 128 very often. Last time I did drive through there, though, 128 looked like they were doing some fairly intense construction. I wonder if they'd replace the signs as a result of the ongoing projects in the area.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 31, 2012, 10:40:10 AM
Quote from: roadman on May 31, 2012, 10:18:27 AM
And the Herald article once again demonstrates one of my pet peeves - referring to Interstate 95 as "Route 128". The highway designation was changed to I-95 only 38 years ago.
Admittedly though it was 128 for quite a while beforehand, was cosigned with 95 for a while, still exists on paper (and many signs), and has gained a significant status in Boston culture.
You're fighting a losing battle. Just about every Boston area newscaster, traffic reporter and the like still refer to the Interstate-occupied section of 128 as just 128. The I-93 section is more problematic since all the 128 trailblazer signs are long gone
and 93 runs directionally opposite of 128 (north is south & south is north).
While I was in the Greater Boston area this past weekend, I heard traffic reports on
both WBZ (AM 1030) and Sirrius/XM 132 reporting an accident located along I-93 North at MA 37 (EXIT 6) as
128 South.
The 128 identity for the Interstate-occupied stretches had been a hard one to break for decades. The 80s high-tech boom (I remember the old blue
128 AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY HIGHWAY, later
REGION signs), car dealerships in Wakefield (
128 Ford, Honda, Mazda, etc.) even an Amtrak/MBTA station in Westwood were either built upon the 128 moniker or have
128 in its name.
Had the road just been referred to by its street name, Yankee Division Highway (New Yorkers might've called it the YDH); the route number changes would've largely went unnoticed and the old number would've been quietly discarded. Case & point: most lay people identify the Southeast Expressway as I-93 (as opposed to Route 3) and have done so since the late 70s/early 80s.
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 31, 2012, 11:26:22 AMThat is what is so strange about the replacement projects further south on 128--they have been replacing signs installed in the early 90s but the signs on 128 in Peabody and Danvers (and possibly some north of there in Beverly) date back to the 1970s. If it was all about replacing signs that are worn out and no longer reflective, the Peabody-Danvers signs would have been replaced a long time ago.
Truth be told, those 1977-vintage Endicott St. signs are in much better condition than the infamous early-80s-vintage I-95 North pull-through sign in Lexington (at MA 2A/Exit 30).
Quote from: DBrim on May 31, 2012, 01:50:44 PM
I live in the 1 corridor of Danvers, and not the 128 corridor, so I don't take 128 very often. Last time I did drive through there, though, 128 looked like they were doing some fairly intense construction. I wonder if they'd replace the signs as a result of the ongoing projects in the area.
What part of 128 were you on? The part of 128 that's still just 128 from I-95 to Endicott St. had no construction activity going on that I could see.
As of last weekend, along I-95 from Weston to Waltham, there's a median barrier project taking place and in the Burlington area, there was some resurfacing going on.
Quote from: roadman on May 31, 2012, 10:18:27 AMThose signs are scheduled to be replaced within a year as part of a larger roadway reconstruction and geometric improvement project on Route 128 between Route 114 in Peabody and Route 62 in Beverly.
What type of geometric improvements will be taking place?
BTW, the Route 62 exit (#22) is actually located in Danvers not Beverly; MA 1A (Exit 20) is the westernmost interchange located in Beverly.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 31, 2012, 03:43:28 PM
You're fighting a losing battle. Just about every Boston area newscaster, traffic reporter and the like still refer to the Interstate-occupied section of 128 as just 128.
...and it's not just they. The general population refers to it as 128. I think it's because in a sense 128 "belongs" to them, whereas I-95 is "just passing through."
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 31, 2012, 03:43:28 PMThe I-93 section is more problematic since all the 128 trailblazer signs are long gone and 93 runs directionally opposite of 128 (north is south & south is north).
More problematic, perhaps, but that stretch between the 95-93 junction in Canton and the "Braintree Split" is also still referred to as 128 by the natives, even though there are clear signs at the 95-93 junction stating "END 128" (southbound) or "BEGIN 128" (northbound).
But such attitudes are hardly unique to Boston. You won't find any native New Yorker who refers to Avenue of the Americas as anything but Sixth Avenue. Time will tell if "RFK Bridge" or "Ed Koch Bridge" take hold, but so far, judging by what I've seen and heard, common usage is still Triborough and Queensborough (or 59th Street).
Quote from: NE2 on May 31, 2012, 10:48:34 AM
Kind of like referring to I-495 as the Beltway.
That one's a bit different because the
street name for that highway is indeed the Capital Beltway.
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 31, 2012, 11:10:27 PMBut such attitudes are hardly unique to Boston. You won't find any native New Yorker who refers to Avenue of the Americas as anything but Sixth Avenue. Time will tell if "RFK Bridge" or "Ed Koch Bridge" take hold, but so far, judging by what I've seen and heard, common usage is still Triborough and Queensborough (or 59th Street).
Conversely, in Philly, most have embraced Kelly Drive and the recently-renamed Martin Luther King Drive names over the original East River & West River Drive names. Many younger folks don't know that JFK Blvd. was originally named Pennsylvania Blvd.
Do people in Pittsburgh still refer to the Roberto Clemente Bridge as the 6th Street Bridge?
Back in Boston, many people quickly adapted to calling the Mystic (River) Bridge the (Maurice J.) Tobin Bridge although some reporters refer to it as the Mystic/Tobin Bridge.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 01, 2012, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: NE2 on May 31, 2012, 10:48:34 AM
Kind of like referring to I-495 as the Beltway.
That one's a bit different because the street name for that highway is indeed the Capital Beltway.
Probably the majority of signs that say "Capital Beltway" are special shields. Like the Route 128 shields that appear on the side of the road.
Quote from: NE2 on June 01, 2012, 09:37:23 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 01, 2012, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: NE2 on May 31, 2012, 10:48:34 AM
Kind of like referring to I-495 as the Beltway.
That one's a bit different because the street name for that highway is indeed the Capital Beltway.
Probably the majority of signs that say "Capital Beltway" are special shields. Like the Route 128 shields that appear on the side of the road.
I don't doubt that the
Capital Beltway signs are special shields but that's not what I'm referring to. The
entire Captial Beltway will always be known as such
regardless of whether the route number is I-95 or I-495 because that is the
street name for that road.
In the case of 128, the trailblazer shields along the I-93 stretch were eliminated nearly 2 decades ago but many still refer to that 6 to 7 mile stretch as "128" with its respective cardinal directions (128 South = 93 North and vice-versa). And again, 128 is
not the street name for that highway; the street name is the "
Yankee Division Highway". The only thing is, the name didn't quite resonate with the motorists, reporters and the like as well as the 128 number. Had the road been named after somebody; the name might've stuck regardless of what the route number(s) were/are.
on a related note, I've never heard anyone call it the Willis Tower.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 01, 2012, 08:38:48 AM
Do people in Pittsburgh still refer to the Roberto Clemente Bridge as the 6th Street Bridge?
Sometimes. Though, I will say that it's caught on pretty well. Most news outlets use the new name pretty exclusively.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 01, 2012, 10:50:10 AM
the street name is the "Yankee Division Highway". The only thing is, the name didn't quite resonate with the motorists, reporters and the like as well as the 128 number.
They would probably have had even less success with its original name (as a divided highway): Circumferential Highway. And as a historical note, MA 128 existed long before its current alignment did, as a mish-mash of local streets that somehow, if you de-focused your eyes on a map of greater Boston, described a semi-circular route through the suburbs.
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 31, 2012, 11:26:22 AM
That is what is so strange about the replacement projects further south on 128--they have been replacing signs installed in the early 90s but the signs on 128 in Peabody and Danvers (and possibly some north of there in Beverly) date back to the 1970s. If it was all about replacing signs that are worn out and no longer reflective, the Peabody-Danvers signs would have been replaced a long time ago.
Most of the 1970's vintage signs on Route 128 between Peabody and Gloucester were replaced during a sign replacement project completed in 2007. As the larger construction project between Route 114 and Route 62 was under design at the time, replacement of the 1977 vintage signs in this area was deferred. The same thing is going on on I-95 and I-93 between Wellesley and Randolph, where sign replacement work is being incorporated into the different construction projects for the "add-a-lane" roadway reconstruction and widening work.
And to answer your question, the initial priority for MassDOT's sign replacement program was Interstate routes. It's only been within the past five to seven years that it's been expanded to non-interstate freeways.
Quote from: SidS1045 on June 01, 2012, 11:00:38 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 01, 2012, 10:50:10 AM
the street name is the "Yankee Division Highway". The only thing is, the name didn't quite resonate with the motorists, reporters and the like as well as the 128 number.
They would probably have had even less success with its original name (as a divided highway): Circumferential Highway. And as a historical note, MA 128 existed long before its current alignment did, as a mish-mash of local streets that somehow, if you de-focused your eyes on a map of greater Boston, described a semi-circular route through the suburbs.
A friend of mine's father
had a 1937-vintage road map of Boston and Vicinity that indeed showed the pre-highway layout of 128; I should've snagged the map when I had the opportunity; the map sadly got lost/tossed when they moved.
When most of the highway received its Interstate designation, maybe the DPW should've revived the old pre-highway 128 alignment in those areas.
It's worth noting that when the Yankee Division Highway turned 50 years old in 2001; MassHighway had erected some commemorative trailblazer signs signifying that milestone. I couldn't find any images of those signs but the wording went something like this (going from memory here):
1951-2001
ROUTE 128
YANKEE DIVISION
HIGHWAYI forget whether there was a supplemental 50-year reference or not after the above-messages. I believe that most of those signs have since gone by the wayside.
These signs did include the legend 50 Years Of Service. The signs were installed shortly before MassHighway and FHWA entered into their 2004 agreement to reduce the number of non-conforming and otherwise unnecessary signs on Massachusetts Interstate highways. So, once the one year period of the anniversary had past, most of the "50th Anniversary" signs were quickly removed. IIRC, the last one standing was on I-95 (128) south in Reading prior to I-93, which was removed sometime in 2007.
Sorry to say, I never thought to get a photo of one of those signs myself.
As a sidebar, the ARRA funding signs that were put up for the I-95 Lexington to Reading sign replacement project were finally removed a short time ago.
There's still one standing on 128 southbound where the onramp from 1A southbound merges on: http://goo.gl/maps/7YuR
In case you can't read it, it says:
ROUTE 128
50 years of service
YANKEE DIVISION
HIGHWAY
1951-2001
Quote from: roadman on March 13, 2012, 01:00:07 PM
Also, I-86 between Sturbridge and Hartford was originally signed as an east-west route. When the signs were changed to I-84, West was overlaid with South.
What??? :confused: Are you saying that I-84 near the MassPike was/is signed as north/south?
Quote from: mightyace on June 06, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 13, 2012, 01:00:07 PM
Also, I-86 between Sturbridge and Hartford was originally signed as an east-west route. When the signs were changed to I-84, West was overlaid with South.
What??? :confused: Are you saying that I-84 near the MassPike was/is signed as north/south?
The highway was originally known as MA 15; which indeed was a north-south route.
The
WEST cardinal being overlaid onto the original
SOUTH message sign that Roadman is referring to was located along US 20 westbound in Sturbridge that was erected circa 1973 (when the road was
both I-84(86)
and MA 15, but I don't believe that the MA 15 shields were ever on the main BGS boards). In that particular case, the
SOUTH message was indeed erroneously fabricated onto the main board.
The sign in question was replaced a few years ago.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 07, 2012, 08:47:13 AM
Quote from: mightyace on June 06, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
The highway was originally known as MA 15; which indeed was a north-south route.
The WEST cardinal being overlaid onto the original SOUTH message sign that Roadman is referring to was located along US 20 westbound in Sturbridge that was erected circa 1973 (when the road was both I-84(86) and US 15, but I don't believe that the US 15 shields were ever on the main BGS boards). In that particular case, the SOUTH message was indeed erroneously fabricated onto the main board.
The sign in question was replaced a few years ago.
Besides the sign in question, which was located on US 20 west at I-84, there was at least one other sign (the exact location escapes me at the moment) that had a similar error. Use of "South" instead of "West" may have been a design error, not a fabrication one - I'll have to see if I can dig up the original signing plans for the I-86 widening and improvements that were done in the 1970s.
And you are correct, the only BGSes that had Route 15 shields were the mainline Exit 9 signs on the MassPike. As I noted on a different thread, the Route 15 shields on these signs were replaced with US 20 shields about 1980 - I recall being on a family trip to NY City at the time and noticing the change.
speaking of the Sturbridge area, anyone know when the last I-86 shield was replaced at exit 2? I remember it being there as late as 1987 or so.
I went back in 2010 and the banners and arrows definitely look to be of 70s vintage, but the shield is a modern style I-84 that looks like it has about 25 years of service.
Quote from: roadman on June 07, 2012, 09:39:45 AMBesides the sign in question, which was located on US 20 west at I-84, there was at least one other sign (the exact location escapes me at the moment) that had a similar error. Use of "South" instead of "West" may have been a design error, not a fabrication one - I'll have to see if I can dig up the original signing plans for the I-86 widening and improvements that were done in the 1970s.
Shortly after my previous post, I just remembered that the exit sign for I-84(86) West off US 20
eastbound also contained the same error... at least the DPW was consistent. :)
What's even more interesting was how the DPW replaced the erroneous cardinals. Instead of taking down the old letters and replacing them with new & correct ones (like what was done with the 70s-vintage MA 114 BGS panels at the I-95 & US 1 interchanges in Danvers circa 1974); they just placed wooden panels (wood in type similar to their smaller guidance signs) bearing the correct cardinal over them.
While still effective, the method was clearly on the cheap.
Since my brother & his family moved to Sturbridge over 15 years ago; I've become more familiar with the signs in that area. IIRC, along US 20 westbound just past the ramp for I-84 West, there's one or two ground-mounted '73-vintage BGS' (for Old Sturbridge Villiage Road) still standing.
Quote from: roadman on June 07, 2012, 09:39:45 AMI'll have to see if I can dig up the original signing plans for the I-86 widening and improvements that were done in the 1970s.
Out of interest, are signing plans of that generation pattern-accurate?
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 07, 2012, 10:28:58 AM
Out of interest, are signing plans of that generation pattern-accurate?
The answer is no, at least for Massachusetts. MassDOT only recently converted to a "pattern accurate" format for project guide sign summary sheets.
The I-91 Longmeadow to West Springfield project recently awarded (and the subject of a different thread here on AA Roads) is the first MassDOT sign replacement project to use the new format.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 07, 2012, 10:06:21 AM
Since my brother & his family moved to Sturbridge over 15 years ago; I've become more familiar with the signs in that area. IIRC, along US 20 westbound just past the ramp for I-84 West, there's one or two ground-mounted '73-vintage BGS' (for Old Sturbridge Villiage Road) still standing.
as of Feb 2010, this is correct. I had no idea they went back to '73.
Back to I-95--
I noticed on the MassDOT project listings page that the contract to update the signage from Lexington south to MA 9 has been moved from 'Under Design' to 'Under Construction'. There was no date attached other than the project is suppose to begin in Spring 2012. They also have 'vacant' listed where the project engineer contact information was.
Quote from: bob7374 on June 21, 2012, 10:52:32 PM
Back to I-95--
I noticed on the MassDOT project listings page that the contract to update the signage from Lexington south to MA 9 has been moved from 'Under Design' to 'Under Construction'. There was no date attached other than the project is suppose to begin in Spring 2012. They also have 'vacant' listed where the project engineer contact information was.
That is correct, as the project was just awarded. The MassDOT public web site normally doesn't identify the project resident engineer until after the pre-construction conference is held.
Usually, however, they will list the design project manager until a resident engineer is assigned to the project.
Indicating "vacant" instead is very unusual.
On a weekend trip up 95/128 NB, I noticed that the updated sign for Exit 13 (University Ave) took quite a beating...the right half is all smashed in. I'm assuming that since it was just replaced, the damaged version will remain for quite some time... When a motorist damages a sign, shouldn't they be liable for covering the damage?
Quote from: southshore720 on July 03, 2012, 12:12:37 AM
On a weekend trip up 95/128 NB, I noticed that the updated sign for Exit 13 (University Ave) took quite a beating...the right half is all smashed in. I'm assuming that since it was just replaced, the damaged version will remain for quite some time... When a motorist damages a sign, shouldn't they be liable for covering the damage?
If the driver who damaged the sign can be identified, then they (or their insurance company) will be responsible for reimbursing the state for the cost of replacing the sign. MassDOT has a specific program called "Accident Recovery" that does nothing but deal with these types of issues.
From traveling to and from Maine the past couple days, I have the following information on I-95 signage from Peabody north (pardon, if some of this is old news, I haven't driven this stretch in at least 10 years):
1. Signage has been replaced to current design specs from Exit 55 north to the NH border (with the exception of a few signs near the 3-lane stretch near the Merrimack River which I assume will be replaced after the road is widened to 4-lanes in each direction).
2. There are also new diagrammatic signs heading south at the Route 1 exit (46) prior to reaching 128, along with new signs at the 128 exit itself (45) and the US 1 exit following (44). Any of this part of the sign replacement project for 128 between Gloucester and Peabody?
3. This would leave sign replacement projects needed to be let for Exits 38-43 (44 NB?), 47-54 north of Boston, along with all the signs south of 128 to RI, and the replacement of the remaining older signing as part of the 'Add-A-Lane' project between MA 109 and MA 9, plus the completion of the recently let contract between MA 9 and MA 4/225 to change out all the signs along I-95 in MA and make the route ready for conversion to mileage based exiting. A lot of work, needless to say.
They replaced the signage on 95 southbound at 1? Guess I better head over there then. Last time I drove that was on I believe this past Wednesday and the advance signs were the same old diagrammatics that have been up for years now, and the exit itself was the same old sign with the awkwardly cut-out pull through and the NJ-style US 1 shield.
I just drove US 1 northbound an hour or two ago... if I'd known this I would have tried to look behind me at 95!
Also, noticed today that on MA 2A eastbound approaching 95/128 there is a "JCT 128" sign with no mention of 95. The paddle signs at the interchange itself are the standard 95 only signs, with standalone 128 shields, I just found it interesting that there is no mention of 95 when approaching the interchange.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 25, 2012, 05:26:56 PM
They replaced the signage on 95 southbound at 1? Guess I better head over there then. Last time I drove that was on I believe this past Wednesday and the advance signs were the same old diagrammatics that have been up for years now, and the exit itself was the same old sign with the awkwardly cut-out pull through
You think this is awkward?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fi-95%2Fs46.jpg&hash=76154afe81f681a36e6805b76da7a94eaa64a6a7)
The NY Thruway Authority thinks otherwise.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fi-87%2Fn10.jpg&hash=50dec3a5a8ded9bd37b9b601d8601733e28ffa89)
I knew about and have driven under the NYSTA sign, but that makes the signs no less awkward. In fact I think the NYSTA one is less awkward because it has fully rounded corners, rather than a mix of sharp and rounded like on the Mass sign.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 25, 2012, 12:02:58 PM2. There are also new diagrammatic signs heading south at the Route 1 exit (46) prior to reaching 128, along with new signs at the 128 exit itself (45) and the US 1 exit following (44). Any of this part of the sign replacement project for 128 between Gloucester and Peabody?
The last time I was in the area, Memorial Day weekend, many of the late-80s vintage BGS along MA 128 (up to MA 114) in Peabody were replaced. East of MA 114, there are still a handful of 1977-vintage BGS' remaining. So the newer BGS' along MA 128 near I-95 you saw were part of an I-95 sign replacement project.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 25, 2012, 12:02:58 PM
3. This would leave sign replacement projects needed to be let for Exits 38-43 (44 NB?), 47-54 north of Boston
Many of those BGS were replaced within the last 2 years.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 25, 2012, 05:26:56 PM
They replaced the signage on 95 southbound at 1? Guess I better head over there then. Last time I drove that was on I believe this past Wednesday and the advance signs were the same old diagrammatics that have been up for years now, and the exit itself was the same old sign with the awkwardly cut-out pull through and the NJ-style US 1 shield.
All of the approach BGS to Exit 46 were replaced. No NJ-style US 1 shields on those. As of Memorial Day weekend; the mid-90s vintage cut-out pull-through BGS and the original 1988-vintage BGS for Exit 46 were still present.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 25, 2012, 05:26:56 PM
Also, noticed today that on MA 2A eastbound approaching 95/128 there is a "JCT 128" sign with no mention of 95. The paddle signs at the interchange itself are the standard 95 only signs, with standalone 128 shields, I just found it interesting that there is no mention of 95 when approaching the interchange.
Chances are there probably was a separate
JCT 95 trailblazer sign next the
JCT 128; but it may have been knocked down due to an accident or out-right stolen.
Quote from: Steve on August 26, 2012, 12:13:12 AM
You think this is awkward?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fi-95%2Fs46.jpg&hash=76154afe81f681a36e6805b76da7a94eaa64a6a7)
This may be one of the ugliest BGSs I have ever seen! I've never been that far north up I-95, so I didn't even know it existed until today!
I always thought it was kinda functional and cool. Reduced wind load, and pretty unique iin the state.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 25, 2012, 05:26:56 PM
They replaced the signage on 95 southbound at 1? Guess I better head over there then. Last time I drove that was on I believe this past Wednesday and the advance signs were the same old diagrammatics that have been up for years now, and the exit itself was the same old sign with the awkwardly cut-out pull through and the NJ-style US 1 shield.
All of the approach BGS to Exit 46 were replaced. No NJ-style US 1 shields on those. As of Memorial Day weekend; the mid-90s vintage cut-out pull-through BGS and the original 1988-vintage BGS for Exit 46 was still present.[/quote]
Yeah thats what I said... the only sign with an NJ-style shield was the exit itself. This is still true (I live here I would know!). Nothing has changed...
Quote from: Steve on August 26, 2012, 12:13:12 AM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fi-87%2Fn10.jpg&hash=50dec3a5a8ded9bd37b9b601d8601733e28ffa89)
While this is off-topic; that pull-through BGS needs to be updated to include I-287 in its message. That one predates the I-287 extension from NJ to the Thruway. Even though that stretch has been multiplexed (87/287) for decades; I guess that NYSTA either decided not to include any related I-287 info. on that BGS because the connection to NJ seemed years away or somebody just plain forgot about the road still being multiplexed in that area.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 25, 2012, 12:02:58 PM
There are also new diagrammatic signs heading south at the Route 1 exit (46) prior to reaching 128, along with new signs at the 128 exit itself (45) and the US 1 exit following (44). Any of this part of the sign replacement project for 128 between Gloucester and Peabody?
These signs were replaced as part of a separate project to update the so-called "TasK A" interchange, which encomapsses I-95, Route 128, and Centennial Drive. The work was completed in 2008 and was one of the first projects to implement the HIP grade sheeting.
QuoteThis would leave sign replacement projects needed to be let for Exits 38-43 (44 NB?), 47-54 north of Boston, along with all the signs south of 128 to RI, and the replacement of the remaining older signing as part of the 'Add-A-Lane' project between MA 109 and MA 9, plus the completion of the recently let contract between MA 9 and MA 4/225 to change out all the signs along I-95 in MA and make the route ready for conversion to mileage based exiting. A lot of work, needless to say.
The I-93 Reading to Route 1 Lynnfield section and the RI Line to I-93 Canton sections of I-95 were last re-signed in 2000 (panels only), and currently aren't due for renewal again (panels and structures) until 2017 (pending funding availablity of course).
And, yes, the "top hat" BGS at US 1 south in Peabody will eventually go away. It is proposed to be replaced with a "standard" sized pull-thru sign as part of the pending I-95 Peabody to Rowley sign job. I've been told that this project is ready to go, but has been put on hold until completion of other work in the area (resurfacing and median cable rail barrier installation). Historical note - the original pull-thru sign at this location (which referenced only I-95 south) was full sized when it was installed in the early 1990s. Shortly thereafter, the sign, as well as the previous diagrammatics for US 1, were amended to include TO 128. This was done to appease business owners along Route 1 south in Peabody, who complained that the traffic on US 1 was making it difficult for their customers to enter and exit their driveways. As other posters have surmised, the "top hat" design was used for wind loading reasons (be aware that the original sign change happened during the "reuse the existing structures whenever you can" era at MassHighway).
Regarding future exit number conversion, it appears that MassDOT is actually in good shape regarding existing signs. This is because, unlike most other states, MassDPW standardized their exit tab widths many years ago. In the worst case, a current single digit exit tab (which is 7.5 feet wide) can accommodate a two-digit number, and a current double digit exit tab (which is 8.5 feet wide) can accommodate a three-digit number.
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2012, 03:15:18 PMThe I-93 Reading to Route 1 Lynnfield section and the RI Line to I-93 Canton sections of I-95 were last re-signed in 2000 (panels only), and currently aren't due for renewal again (panels and structures) until 2017 (pending funding availablity of course).
Your info. regarding the stretch between I-93 (Woburn) and US 1, I believe, might be out of date. Many of the BGS' and structures were replaced just a few years ago. The majority of gantries (between North Ave. & US 1) replaced those that were originally erected in 1982. It also meant that all the overhead gantries that had a supplementary left-hand cantilever structure as well were eliminated.
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2012, 03:15:18 PM
And, yes, the "top hat" BGS at US 1 south in Peabody will eventually go away. It is proposed to be replaced with a "standard" sized pull-thru sign as part of the pending I-95 Peabody to Rowley sign job. I've been told that this project is ready to go, but has been put on hold until completion of other work in the area (resurfacing and median cable rail barrier installation). Historical note - the original pull-thru sign at this location (which referenced only I-95 south) was full sized when it was installed in the early 1990s. Shortly thereafter, the sign, as well as the previous diagrammatics for US 1, were amended to include TO 128. This was done to appease business owners along Route 1 south in Peabody, who complained that the traffic on US 1 was making it difficult for their customers to enter and exit their driveways. As other posters have surmised, the "top hat" design was used for wind loading reasons (be aware that the original sign change happened during the "reuse the existing structures whenever you can" era at MassHighway).
Actually, the original BGS' for that interchange along with the approach signage was actually erected circa
1987 w/all the related I-95 South info. (all on the pull-thorugh BGS, partial/left-side on the diagrammatic BGS') covered with black tarp. I have an old print photo of the original pull-through BGS with the tarp cover on it (the message simply read
95 SOUTH Waltham w/3 downward arrows) stacked in a pile somewhere at home. Needless to say, that US 1 Exit BGS is probably the last surviving BGS of that whole I-95 extension project.
BTW, those
TO 128 alterations of the 1990s also meant the demise of the last I-95 South BGS that had
Lynn listed as one of its control destinations. The BGS in question was a pull-through along I-95 South at Exit 50 that was originally erected in the mid-1970s.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 28, 2012, 03:44:13 PM
Your info. regarding the stretch between I-93 (Woburn) and US 1, I believe, might be out of date. Many of the BGS' and structures were replaced just a few years ago. The majority of gantries (between North Ave. & US 1) replaced those that were originally erected in 1982. It also meant that all the overhead gantries that had a supplementary left-hand cantilever structure as well were eliminated.
Yes, you are indeed correct - most of the old structures on the Reading to Peabody section were replaced during the 2000 signing project. It was the RI to Canton section where many of the existing structures were retained during the last update project.
MA 128 Danvers BGS Update:
While riding along MA 128 from Danvers to Rockport last Sunday, I noticed that the replacement BGS' at the MA 35 and the MA 62 interchanges are now erected. It's also worth noting that the number of exit ramps have been reduced. MA 35 is now more of a diamond-style ramp interchange (vs. a very tight cloverleaf) and MA 62 (along northbound 128) is also a half-diamond (vs. a half cloverleaf) as well. The MA 62 ramps to/from MA 128 south remain unchanged.
In short, no more Exits 22E-W (northbound only) or 23N-S; now just Exits 22 & 23.
The Boston Globe on Saturday included a MassDOT notice regarding upcoming contracts, included was the sign replacement contract for I-95 between Peabody and Georgetown with a bid deadline of early December. This contract would complete the upgrade of signage between 128 and the NH border.
Meanwhile, the MassDOT project page indicates the contract to replace the signs between MA 9 and MA 4/225 along I-95/128 has started, with 1% complete. The deadline date for completion is July 2014.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 24, 2012, 10:29:57 PM
The Boston Globe on Saturday included a MassDOT notice regarding upcoming contracts, included was the sign replacement contract for I-95 between Peabody and Georgetown with a bid deadline of early December. This contract would complete the upgrade of signage between 128 and the NH border.
The I-95 Peabody to Georgetown project includes replacing the current "top hat" pull thru sign on I-95 SB at the Route 1 slip ramp in Peabody.
I was down on 128/95 through Waltham the other day, and I noticed that there were still the old rusting sign panels between Bedford and Waltham. Nothing replaced yet.
On a side note, I'm seeing a lot more new layers of pavement between Burlington and Woburn between 33A-B and 37A-B. I know that the sign replacement for that section of I-95 was done through ARRA funding. I'm not sure about the rest of the project though.
Reviving a long dormant topic. Returning South from NH yesterday I used US 3 to I-95/128 to get to the South Shore instead of I-93. I noticed a few new signage changes along the current Add-a-Lane project zone between Needham and Dedham. There are new advance overheads southbound for both Exits 18 and 17 (Great Plain Ave and MA 135) around the current split configuration while they build the new SB bridge. No new signage at the exits themselves. Further along there was also new 1 mile advance signage for MA 109, Exit 16 at the 'Turnout Area' (marked with a new blue sign on the same assembly). It was raining and getting dark, but hope to get photos next time through. I will be posting what I saw along I-93 heading north under that thread soon.
Additionally, there is new secondary signage between Exits 21-26. Exit 21 NB has a Woodland Station MBTA sign, Exit 22 NB & SB has a Riverside Station MBTA sign, Exit 25 SB has a "Worcester, Use 90 West" sign, and Exit 26 has a "To Rte 117, Lincoln/Maynard" sign.
Quote from: southshore720 on July 18, 2013, 12:25:44 PMExit 26 has a "To Rte 117, Lincoln/Maynard" sign.
Personally, I'm a bit surprised that the main exit BGS' for US 20 do not include
TO 117 (w/MA 117 shield). There have been supplemental trailblazer (
TO 117) signage posted next to the BGS gantries for as long as I can remember.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 18, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on July 18, 2013, 12:25:44 PMExit 26 has a "To Rte 117, Lincoln/Maynard" sign.
Personally, I'm a bit surprised that the main exit BGS' for US 20 do not include TO 117 (w/MA 117 shield). There have been supplemental trailblazer (TO 117) signage posted next to the BGS gantries for as long as I can remember.
In this case, putting the "TO 117" info on the ground-mounted BGS panels makes the most sense. If "TO 117" were put on the overhead BGS panels, it would not be possible to put the two destinations for US 20 and the two destinations for MA 117 on the same panels. The destinations in question were already on the ground-mounts that were recently replaced, but without the MA 117 info.
Quote from: massroadpatriot on November 11, 2012, 12:42:58 AM
I was down on 128/95 through Waltham the other day, and I noticed that there were still the old rusting sign panels between Bedford and Waltham. Nothing replaced yet.
On a side note, I'm seeing a lot more new layers of pavement between Burlington and Woburn between 33A-B and 37A-B. I know that the sign replacement for that section of I-95 was done through ARRA funding. I'm not sure about the rest of the project though.
The repaving on this section of I-95/128 is an entirely separate project from the sign work, which is now completed. Typically, MassDOT funds resurfacing work through Interstate Maintenance (IM) funding.
You should also be aware that the ARRA funding program has been completed for some time. There was talk a couple of years ago about a second round of ARRA-funded projects, but that never happened.
Quote from: roadman on July 19, 2013, 07:59:34 PMIn this case, putting the "TO 117" info on the ground-mounted BGS panels makes the most sense. If "TO 117" were put on the overhead BGS panels, it would not be possible to put the two destinations for US 20 and the two destinations for MA 117 on the same panels. The destinations in question were already on the ground-mounts that were recently replaced, but without the MA 117 info.
Who said anything about placing 117 destinations on the main BGS? I'm just saying move the US 20 shield to the left and place the
TO letters in the middle and place the MA 117 shield on the right and get rid of the supplemental trailblazers. Since MA 117 terminates at US 20 in Waltham, the listed eastbound control destination for US 20 East also applies for MA 117 East.
Since westbound MA 117 destinations aren't currently listed along I-95, I'm not even advocating such.
I traveled along I-95/128 South on Saturday evening. In addition to the new ground mounted 'To MA 117' BGSs I also spotted new ground-mounted signs approaching the Mass Pike exit which indicated Using I-90 West to get to Worcester. I am assuming the new overheads will still just list Boston and Albany, NY for control cities.
In addition there was more new signage placed as part of the '128 Add-A-Lane' project further south. There was an additional new BGS for MA 109 and it appeared the 1/2 mile advance signs for US 1 South / To MA 1A had been replaced to match those previously put up at the interchange itself. As for widening work, most of the concrete barriers had been removed that separated the new lane under construction between MA 135 and MA 109, and beyond to the current open lane just north of US 1. If there hadn't been delays in building the new 109 Bridge, perhaps this section might have been ready to open shortly.
Since this thread's been bumped up again, I thought I'd add this regarding the new TO 117 BGS'.
The addition of that BGS, while appropriate, unintentionally creates a redundancy (short-term(?)) regarding the listing of Wayland... at least along I-95 South (I didn't check the BGS' along I-95 North)
The new BGS in question (going by memory) reads TO 117 Wayland Littleton EXIT 26
Further down, there's an older overhead BGS that lists Wayland Marboro EXIT 26:
http://goo.gl/maps/H9P4N (http://goo.gl/maps/H9P4N)
I'm assuming that the replacement for the older BGS will no longer contain Wayland in it since it's already mentioned in the TO 117 BGS.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2013, 01:22:28 PM
Since this thread's been bumped up again, I thought I'd add this regarding the new TO 117 BGS'.
The addition of that BGS, while appropriate, unintentionally creates a redundancy (short-term(?)) regarding the listing of Wayland... at least along I-95 South (I didn't check the BGS' along I-95 North)
The new BGS in question (going by memory) reads TO 117 Wayland Littleton EXIT 26
Further down, there's an older overhead BGS that lists Wayland Marboro EXIT 26:
http://goo.gl/maps/H9P4N (http://goo.gl/maps/H9P4N)
I'm assuming that the replacement for the older BGS will no longer contain Wayland in it since it's already mentioned in the TO 117 BGS.
You are correct in this observation. The new 117 and older overhead are not that far apart. Perhaps this overhead is going to be eliminated completely rather than replaced as the more efficient way to get to Marlboro would be to take the next exit (Mass Pike) to I-495 rather than Route 20.
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 23, 2013, 06:15:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2013, 01:22:28 PM
Since this thread's been bumped up again, I thought I'd add this regarding the new TO 117 BGS'.
The addition of that BGS, while appropriate, unintentionally creates a redundancy (short-term(?)) regarding the listing of Wayland... at least along I-95 South (I didn't check the BGS' along I-95 North)
The new BGS in question (going by memory) reads TO 117 Wayland Littleton EXIT 26
Further down, there's an older overhead BGS that lists Wayland Marboro EXIT 26:
http://goo.gl/maps/H9P4N (http://goo.gl/maps/H9P4N)
I'm assuming that the replacement for the older BGS will no longer contain Wayland in it since it's already mentioned in the TO 117 BGS.
You are correct in this observation. The new 117 and older overhead are not that far apart. Perhaps this overhead is going to be eliminated completely rather than replaced as the more efficient way to get to Marlboro would be to take the next exit (Mass Pike) to I-495 rather than Route 20.
But the Mass Pike isn't free. US 20 is the best way to do it without tolls.
Quote from: 1 on September 23, 2013, 06:41:00 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 23, 2013, 06:15:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2013, 01:22:28 PM
Since this thread's been bumped up again, I thought I'd add this regarding the new TO 117 BGS'.
The addition of that BGS, while appropriate, unintentionally creates a redundancy (short-term(?)) regarding the listing of Wayland... at least along I-95 South (I didn't check the BGS' along I-95 North)
The new BGS in question (going by memory) reads TO 117 Wayland Littleton EXIT 26
Further down, there's an older overhead BGS that lists Wayland Marboro EXIT 26:
http://goo.gl/maps/H9P4N (http://goo.gl/maps/H9P4N)
I'm assuming that the replacement for the older BGS will no longer contain Wayland in it since it's already mentioned in the TO 117 BGS.
You are correct in this observation. The new 117 and older overhead are not that far apart. Perhaps this overhead is going to be eliminated completely rather than replaced as the more efficient way to get to Marlboro would be to take the next exit (Mass Pike) to I-495 rather than Route 20.
But the Mass Pike isn't free. US 20 is the best way to do it without tolls.
This is correct but the additional time and gas mileage may offset the $.70 toll. Additionally I am not sure of state DOT's policy on signing alternate routes to avoid toll roads.
Quote from: 1 on September 23, 2013, 06:41:00 PM
But the Mass Pike isn't free. US 20 is the best way to do it without tolls.
Yes, you can get to Marlborough from 128 via US-20, if you're willing to spend half a day getting there, not to mention the waste of gasoline stopping at dozens of traffic signals and dealing with traffic congestion as US-20 wends its way through MetroWest suburbs on local streets.
Or, you can get on the Pike and be there in half an hour without the wasted gasoline or backed-up traffic.
This is really a cost-effectiveness calculation, with another factor you may have overlooked: What is your time worth?
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 23, 2013, 06:15:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2013, 01:22:28 PM
Since this thread's been bumped up again, I thought I'd add this regarding the new TO 117 BGS'.
The addition of that BGS, while appropriate, unintentionally creates a redundancy (short-term(?)) regarding the listing of Wayland... at least along I-95 South (I didn't check the BGS' along I-95 North)
The new BGS in question (going by memory) reads TO 117 Wayland Littleton EXIT 26
Further down, there's an older overhead BGS that lists Wayland Marboro EXIT 26:
http://goo.gl/maps/H9P4N (http://goo.gl/maps/H9P4N)
I'm assuming that the replacement for the older BGS will no longer contain Wayland in it since it's already mentioned in the TO 117 BGS.
You are correct in this observation. The new 117 and older overhead are not that far apart. Perhaps this overhead is going to be eliminated completely rather than replaced as the more efficient way to get to Marlboro would be to take the next exit (Mass Pike) to I-495 rather than Route 20.
The existing supplemental overheads are going to be removed and replaced with new ground-mount signs. These new signs (which are in addition to the Route 117 ones) are going to read "Wayland Watertown Exit 26". The rationale for removing "Marlboro" from the new signs is a) the signs will now gives supplemental information for both directions on US 20 and b) as others here have pointed out, using US 20 is a horribly inefficent way to get from I-95 to Marlborough.
Note that the new "TO 117" ground-mounts read "TO 117 Lincoln Maynard Exit 26".
Roadman, As usual, thanks for the clarification. Although I could have sworn that I saw Wayland listed on the new TO 117 BGS.
I guess I was hallucinating.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 24, 2013, 02:07:28 PM
Roadman, As usual, thanks for the clarification. Although I could have sworn that I saw Wayland listed on the new TO 117 BGS.
I guess I was hallucinating.
Given the presence of two new ground-mounts in close proximity, your confusion is understandable.
Quote from: roadman on September 24, 2013, 02:38:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 24, 2013, 02:07:28 PM
Roadman, As usual, thanks for the clarification. Although I could have sworn that I saw Wayland listed on the new TO 117 BGS.
I guess I was hallucinating.
Given the presence of two new ground-mounts in close proximity, your confusion is understandable.
Thanks for clarifying Roadman. I took a ride yesterday and I think our confusion is due to the fact that the "Wayland Watertown" sign has already been erected. This results in 2 signs saying "Wayland" no more than 500 feet apart (I noticed it occurs both SB and NB) at least until the overheads are replaced.
Drove up 95/128 North tonight and there are a few new overhead panels installed between Exits 21-25. Not all of them are replaced, but it was neat to see the see the new ones. I-90 (Exit 25) is now being labeled by the control cities "Boston/Albany NY" instead of "Mass Pike."
I also spotted a new overhead for Exit 15 on the Mass Pike for 95/128, but didn't get to take a good look at it. If anyone can take pics, that would be great!
Quote from: southshore720 on October 03, 2013, 11:35:14 PM
Drove up 95/128 North tonight and there are a few new overhead panels installed between Exits 21-25. Not all of them are replaced, but it was neat to see the see the new ones. I-90 (Exit 25) is now being labeled by the control cities "Boston/Albany NY" instead of "Mass Pike."
I also spotted a new overhead for Exit 15 on the Mass Pike for 95/128, but didn't get to take a good look at it. If anyone can take pics, that would be great!
As much as I'd like to see a new sign with 95/128, thanks to our anti-128 friends at MassDOT and FHWA I'd be willing to bet that new sign on the Pike just says 95.
Although funny how they seem to have no issue putting up US 1 and MA 3 along with I-93 on new signs on and near the Southeast Expressway. This considering absolutely no one refers to that road as US 1 or MA 3 whereas many many people refer to the inner belt portion of I-95 as MA 128. Go figure.
I had been told by a MassDOT official a few years ago that, contrary to rumors that the Hat logo was going away, when new signs were installed, the "Mass Pike" text would be replaced by a Mass Pike hat logo shield next to the I-90 shield. Has anyone seen whether the Mass Pike logo is present on the sign?
Yes, the hat is on the sign. Note there is still no reference to Recreation Road (Exit 23) - I guess the sign would be too busy with all that information.
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 04, 2013, 12:21:42 AMAlthough funny how they seem to have no issue putting up US 1 and MA 3 along with I-93 on new signs on and near the Southeast Expressway. This considering absolutely no one refers to that road as US 1 or MA 3 whereas many many people refer to the inner belt portion of I-95 as MA 128. Go figure.
Actually, recent I-93 signage along the Expressway only includes I-93 & US 1 shields. Even weirder is the fact that MassDOT still includes
Cape Cod for the new southbound signage even though that's strictly a MA 3 destination.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 04, 2013, 08:33:30 AM
I had been told by a MassDOT official a few years ago that, contrary to rumors that the Hat logo was going away, when new signs were installed, the "Mass Pike" text would be replaced by a Mass Pike hat logo shield next to the I-90 shield. Has anyone seen whether the Mass Pike logo is present on the sign?
New BGS' were recently (as in a few months ago) erected along MA 30 in Weston for the I-90/Mass Pike entrance ramp and the Mass Pike Pilgrim hat was present (the old BGS' did not have it).
Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 04, 2013, 08:33:30 AM
I had been told by a MassDOT official a few years ago that, contrary to rumors that the Hat logo was going away, when new signs were installed, the "Mass Pike" text would be replaced by a Mass Pike hat logo shield next to the I-90 shield. Has anyone seen whether the Mass Pike logo is present on the sign?
What the MassDOT official told you is correct. Besides making for a consistent message statewide on signs approaching the MassPike on other Interstates and freeways (some signs have logos and others have text), in the weeks leading up to the MassDOT consolidation in 2009, there was some talk about removing the Massachusetts Turnpike name and just referring to the road as I-90. Based on this, the rationale was that, should that ever happen, a logo is easier to remove and said removal is less disruptive to the sign appearance than removing or overlaying the "Mass. Pike" text would be.
The I-95 Wellesley to Lexington signing project plans reflect this, as all new BGSes for the MassPike will now have the Pike LOGO instead of reading "Mass Pike".
Quote from: southshore720 on October 03, 2013, 11:35:14 PM
Drove up 95/128 North tonight and there are a few new overhead panels installed between Exits 21-25. Not all of them are replaced, but it was neat to see the see the new ones. I-90 (Exit 25) is now being labeled by the control cities "Boston/Albany NY" instead of "Mass Pike."
I also spotted a new overhead for Exit 15 on the Mass Pike for 95/128, but didn't get to take a good look at it. If anyone can take pics, that would be great!
The new overhead signs and structure at MassPike Interchange 15 were installed westbound. Although most of the signs and supports in this area are not due to be replaced until the larger 2015 sign replacement projects, the existing support was one of the last aluminum structures on the Pike. It was deemed a priority replacement based on the last inspection reports, so the work was done under the Weston-Newton-Boston sign replacement (not much mainline stuff, mostly secondary road work at Newton Corner and Newton Centre interchanges).
Quote from: HurrMark on October 04, 2013, 08:39:10 AM
Yes, the hat is on the sign. Note there is still no reference to Recreation Road (Exit 23) - I guess the sign would be too busy with all that information.
Note that there was never any reference to Recreation Road on the I-95 NB overhead BGSes for Exits 23-24-24, even prior to the 1991 sign update project.
Quote from: roadman on October 04, 2013, 08:53:44 AM
The new overhead signs and structure at MassPike Interchange 15 were installed westbound. Although most of the signs and supports in this area are not due to be replaced until the larger 2015 sign replacement projects, the existing support was one of the last aluminum structures on the Pike. It was deemed a priority replacement based on the last inspection reports, so the work was done under the Weston-Newton-Boston sign replacement (not much mainline stuff, mostly secondary road work at Newton Corner and Newton Centre interchanges).
Thank you for clarifying this Roadman...I thought for a minute that project was fast-tracked!
While riding along I-95 South last weekend (to the Pike), I did notice some newer BGS for US 20 (Exit 26) are now erected. The older ones haven't been taken down/removed yet. I'm guessing that such removals won't be done until all the new BGS' in that area are erected.
To avoid a bad crash that had the Southeast Expressway at a standstill, I drove I-95 northbound through the Wellesley to Lexington sign project this past Sunday (10-20). The contractor (RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon MA) is making good progress, as a number of new mainline BGS panels (all on cantilever supports) are now in place.
Besides the new BGS northbound at Exits 23-24-25 mentioned in southshore720's post, one other notable improvement is the new overhead 1 mile BGSes southbound for MA 4/225. Two signs are now provided - one on the I-95 mainline prior to the merge from US 3 southbound, and one on the ramp from MA 3 southbound to I-95. Much better than the substandard ground-mount BGS that was installed as part of the US 3 widening project.
Let's hope this pull-through is on the hit-list for this project.
http://goo.gl/maps/Xi8Jd
Quote from: roadman on October 21, 2013, 06:17:54 PMone other notable improvement is the new overhead 1 mile BGSes southbound for MA 4/225
That is indeed a welcome improvement. Originally, at least as far back as the 1960s, the first southbound notice BGS for MA 4/225 (1-3/4 mile IIRC) was mounted on the wide overhead gantry where the gore for US 3 North/Middlesex Pike is located. It was placed to the right of the small
SOUTH 128 pull-through BGS that existed back then. The BGS' then had button-copy lettering with low-profile, horizontal, rectangular beige shields w/a thin black outline.
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 22, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
Let's hope this pull-through is on the hit-list for this project.
http://goo.gl/maps/Xi8Jd
Roadman can confirm, but I believe that pull-through will be ultimately removed w/no updated replacement.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 22, 2013, 09:12:39 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 22, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
Let's hope this pull-through is on the hit-list for this project.
http://goo.gl/maps/Xi8Jd
Roadman can confirm, but I believe that pull-through will be ultimately removed w/no updated replacement.
It certainly doesn't need to be there.
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 22, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
Let's hope this pull-through is on the hit-list for this project.
http://goo.gl/maps/Xi8Jd
Yes indeed, this pull-thru at Route 2A (that should have been removed during the 1992 sign update but wasn't) will be going away for good once the new structure and signs (for 2A east and 2A west) are installed at this location.
Quote from: roadman on October 22, 2013, 09:56:03 AMYes indeed, this pull-thru at Route 2A (that should have been removed during the 1992 sign update but wasn't) will be going away for good once the new structure and signs (for 2A east and 2A west) are installed at this location.
If memory serves, that BGS was only about 10 years old and was in much better condition circa 1992. The likely reason why it wasn't removed was probably the same reason why a smaller
SOUTH 95 pull-through in Waltham at Exit 27 (part of the same 1982 signing contract that erected that northbound pull-through) wasn't removed until just a few years ago. That 1992 signing contract only involved replacing existing exit panel BGS' and not pull-through BGS'.
Similar reasoning was likely why that early-70s vintage
SOUTH 128 pull-through in Burlington (at Exits 33B-A/US 3 South/MA 3A North) remained until a few years ago.
Checked the MassDOT project listing for the I-95 project from Newton to Lexington. The project engineer reports that the contract is now 30% complete. To compare and contrast with the current I-93 signing project, the I-95 project started more than a year later and now is listed as 4% more complete.
I will be taking a trip from the South Shore to the Springfield area tomorrow using I-95 and the Mass Pike and will try to get some photos of the new signage that has been referred to by others in the posts above.
Here is a photo of the new I-90 / Mass Pike signage on I-95 / 128 North that was installed recently:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-L29odTp91MQ%2FUm2Pen0lPAI%2FAAAAAAAABJg%2FXVRUUF4nm-o%2Fs1600%2Fi95sign1013d.jpg&hash=c451356bd5c746a55ab9963d91293d45e5220551)
For photos of a few more of the new I-95 signs (and some plans for I-93 signage) and more, feel free to go to my latest blog post:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/10/i-95-signage-update-and-more.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/10/i-95-signage-update-and-more.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on October 28, 2013, 11:31:39 AM
Here is a photo of the new I-90 / Mass Pike signage on I-95 / 128 North that was installed recently:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-L29odTp91MQ%2FUm2Pen0lPAI%2FAAAAAAAABJg%2FXVRUUF4nm-o%2Fs1600%2Fi95sign1013d.jpg&hash=c451356bd5c746a55ab9963d91293d45e5220551)
For photos of a few more of the new I-95 signs (and some plans for I-93 signage) and more, feel free to go to my latest blog post:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/10/i-95-signage-update-and-more.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/10/i-95-signage-update-and-more.html)
Is it me or do the digits for the I-90 shield appear slightly tilted/angled (especially when compared to the shield on the temporary I-90 LGS behind the gantry)?
it does look likes its about to peel off to the right.
Quote from: roadman on October 21, 2013, 06:17:54 PMone other notable improvement is the new overhead 1 mile BGSes southbound for MA 4/225. Two signs are now provided - one on the I-95 mainline prior to the merge from US 3 southbound, and one on the ramp from US 3 southbound to I-95. Much better than the substandard ground-mount BGS that was installed as part of the US 3 widening project.
I saw those and some new installations closer to the interchange this past Thanksgiving.
The only critique I have regarding the new BGS' is the use of the Series D font for the MA 225 shields (the plural is intentional). The lower-left corner of the first numeral
2 seems to encroach onto the thin-black border (which mimics the stand-alone state shields). While it's not terrible, one does start to notice such after seeing the 3rd consecutive MA 225 shield.
If MA wasn't using the narrow black strip border for its BGS shields, then the Series D 225 numerals would fit better (assuming that the shield width is standard for 3-digit routes).
IMHO, Series C font should have been used for the
225 numerals since there's no
1 in any of the digits. Series D on 3-digit numbers should only be used/work best when there's
at least a single
1 in the route number.
Roadman, was the use of Series D for the MA 225 shields spec'd in the design or did the contractor take some liberties (similar to the smallish & squeezed
95 numerals on those through-I-95 shields at the US 3 North/Middlesex Turnpike interchange Exit 32A-B)?
Some new BGS's going up between US-3 and Route 2 (Exits 29-32). Once they pave 128/95 and re-paint the bridges, it'll actually become a real highway.
Quote from: massroadpatriot on December 16, 2013, 07:50:25 PMOnce they pave 128/95 and re-paint the bridges, it'll actually become a real highway.
As opposed to a "fake" highway? :confused:
I'm a tad confused by your comment.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 17, 2013, 08:26:26 AM
Quote from: massroadpatriot on December 16, 2013, 07:50:25 PMOnce they pave 128/95 and re-paint the bridges, it'll actually become a real highway.
As opposed to a "fake" highway? :confused:
I'm a tad confused by your comment.
I think he means it will look "like new"
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 16, 2013, 03:27:53 PM
Roadman, was the use of Series D for the MA 225 shields spec'd in the design or did the contractor take some liberties (similar to the smallish & squeezed 95 numerals on those through-I-95 shields at the US 3 North/Middlesex Turnpike interchange Exit 32A-B)?
MassHighway/MassDOT standards for state route shields have always specified Series "D" font -see
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/construction/StdDwgsSignsSupports1990.pdf and
http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/manuals/1996Mconst.pdf
QuoteIs it me or do the digits for the I-90 shield appear slightly tilted/angled (especially when compared to the shield on the temporary I-90 LGS behind the gantry)?
Actually, the entire sign appears to me to have a slight upward camber.
Quote from: roadman on December 17, 2013, 11:36:51 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 16, 2013, 03:27:53 PM
Roadman, was the use of Series D for the MA 225 shields spec'd in the design or did the contractor take some liberties (similar to the smallish & squeezed 95 numerals on those through-I-95 shields at the US 3 North/Middlesex Turnpike interchange Exit 32A-B)?
MassHighway/MassDOT standards for state route shields have always specified Series "D" font -see
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/construction/StdDwgsSignsSupports1990.pdf and
http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/manuals/1996Mconst.pdf
Good to know.
However:
BGS' for MA 228, Exit 14 off MA 3 (looks fairly new & Series C to me)
http://goo.gl/maps/j974k (http://goo.gl/maps/j974k)
Recent, and somewhat oversized, free-standing reassurance MA 228 shield assembly (in Series C):
http://goo.gl/maps/EEjxh (http://goo.gl/maps/EEjxh)
Note: the LGS' seem to be the only ones that use Series D for MA 228;
but the majority of LGS' appear to be older in that either has no shield or features the white rectangle but no thin-black border. The only newer-type LGS that features the thin-black border MA 228 shields w/the Series D font are the ones located at the end of the MA 3 exit ramps. However, unlike the MA 225 shields on the newer I-95 BGS', the first
2 of the 228 shields
do not encroach the border.
Fortunately, the majority of 3-digit state routes in MA are 1XX so Series D applications will work without any border encroachment issues. Similar applies if a route number is 21X or 2X1.
I guess sign fabricators need to be a bit more careful when making Series D route shields for MA routes 20A, 28A, 32A, 203, 225, 228, 240, 286 & 295 (obviously, I'm not referring to I-295 in Attleboro).
Things get even more challenging for 4-digit state routes (1XXA); most of which I've seen in either Series B or C.
Apparently, Wiki uses a similar convention with their shields: Series D for 3-digits involving a
1, Series C for all others and Series B for 4-digit routes.
List of numbered routes in Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbered_routes_in_Massachusetts)
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 17, 2013, 02:05:21 PM
I guess sign fabricators need to be a bit more careful when making Series D route shields for MA routes 20A, 28A, 32A, 203, 225, 228, 240, 286 & 295 (obviously, I'm not referring to I-295 in Attleboro).
And 202 if they don't care about it being a US route, which often happens.
Quote from: 1 on December 17, 2013, 02:11:53 PMAnd 202 if they don't care about it being a US route, which often happens.
I saw many erroneous MA 202 shields when I was up there one mid-November weekend; all of them that I saw featured Series C digits.
Quote from: mass_citizen on December 17, 2013, 11:36:06 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 17, 2013, 08:26:26 AM
Quote from: massroadpatriot on December 16, 2013, 07:50:25 PMOnce they pave 128/95 and re-paint the bridges, it'll actually become a real highway.
As opposed to a "fake" highway? :confused:
I'm a tad confused by your comment.
I think he means it will look "like new"
Precisely
Back to the I-95 signing project, the contractor now reports the project is 40% complete.
For those who have not seen the photos of some of the signage placed over the past few years south of the current signing project that I have posted elsewhere, they are available, along with, soon, more recent sign photos, on my new Mass. I-95 Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on December 18, 2013, 11:19:50 PM
Back to the I-95 signing project, the contractor now reports the project is 40% complete.
For those who have not seen the photos of some of the signage placed over the past few years south of the current signing project that I have posted elsewhere, they are available, along with, soon, more recent sign photos, on my new Mass. I-95 Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)
I should say now, 42% complete. I have added photos of new I-95 signage that I had placed in my blog post to the I-95 photo page linked above, if anyone has not seen them.
Bob,
As always, excellent photos of the progress on the I-95 Wellesley to Lexington re-signing, and other current MassDOT signing work.
Can't believe nobody's touched this page for 2 months. Anyways, there are two new sign bridges on I-95 in Newton and Weston. They look good!
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on March 06, 2014, 03:44:34 PM
Can't believe nobody's touched this page for 2 months. Anyways, there are two new sign bridges on I-95 in Newton and Weston. They look good!
I haven't been up that way in awhile to get any photos. Feel free to post any pics you can get from that area. There are new signs up too, I believe, in the Lexington area.
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on March 15, 2014, 09:07:43 PM
Will somebody just please send a freaking picture of the new BGSs on I-95? I mean so many people care more about the current I-93 signing project than they do about this. Will somebody just send photos of the BGSs on the Route 20 interchange for me? Right now?!?!?
There's certain things you don't do on AARoads. This is one of them. Do it yourself if you want to see it badly. Not everyone will have the availability to drive somewhere where new signs are being posted.
Yeah I've been trying to send the picture from my iPhone but I can't copy and paste it what should I do?
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on March 15, 2014, 09:12:59 PM
Yeah I've been trying to send the picture from my iPhone but I can't copy and paste it what should I do?
Connect your iPhone to a PC. Open Windows Explorer, and go to your iPhone (listed on the left where you can see your harddrive). There'll be some random directories in there, sort through them until you find your picture. Then, go to an image hosting site (you can use www.tinypic.com for fast uploads) and upload it there. It'll give you a forum link that is surrounded with
[ img ] tags. Copy and paste that one onto the forum.
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on March 15, 2014, 09:07:43 PM
Will somebody just please send a freaking picture of the new BGSs on I-95? I mean so many people care more about the current I-93 signing project than they do about this. Will somebody just send photos of the BGSs on the Route 20 interchange for me? Right now?!?!?
It's already been done.... shot and linked here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign1013g.jpg&hash=f495b95a29b2db5b3d6813756b48598131d311f6)
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on March 15, 2014, 09:07:43 PM
Will somebody just please send a freaking picture of the new BGSs on I-95? I mean so many people care more about the current I-93 signing project than they do about this. Will somebody just send photos of the BGSs on the Route 20 interchange for me? Right now?!?!?
can you explain why you are so obsessed with a brand new guide sign? it teaches us nothing about the past, and it's not like it won't be there tomorrow.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 15, 2014, 10:35:11 PM
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on March 15, 2014, 09:07:43 PM
Will somebody just please send a freaking picture of the new BGSs on I-95? I mean so many people care more about the current I-93 signing project than they do about this. Will somebody just send photos of the BGSs on the Route 20 interchange for me? Right now?!?!?
can you explain why you are so obsessed with a brand new guide sign?
You mean like how you guys are always obsessed with mile markers? Oh! Snap!
what
Quote from: shadyjay on March 15, 2014, 10:12:21 PM
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on March 15, 2014, 09:07:43 PM
Will somebody just please send a freaking picture of the new BGSs on I-95? I mean so many people care more about the current I-93 signing project than they do about this. Will somebody just send photos of the BGSs on the Route 20 interchange for me? Right now?!?!?
It's already been done.... shot and linked here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign1013g.jpg&hash=f495b95a29b2db5b3d6813756b48598131d311f6)
If folks can be a little patient, :D I will be traveling up to Portsmouth, NH next weekend, I hope to get some new photos to post, depending on time and weather. Meanwhile, MassDOT reports the Newton-Lexington project is now 54% complete and they now have a listing for the Peabody-Georgetown project to be complete in 2015, currently 7% complete. I took some new I-93 sign photos today and will post them on that thread later on today.
For those who want to travel along I-95 right now, I have links on my I-95 Exit List page (along with those for most other MA interstates, except I-495) to videos taken along the length of the highway last spring:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95exits.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95exits.html)
Oh and also there are new ground-mounts on 128 that say "To Boston Logan Airport" with an arrow on the bottom of the sign. Share photos if you can.
Quote from: massroadpatriot on March 16, 2014, 10:54:48 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 16, 2014, 02:59:08 AM
what
huh?
It's a highway forum.
We prefer to think of it as a Goat Fanatics forum, with a few hundred thousand off-topic posts about highways.
Yeah we should stick to the I-95 Newton to Lexington signing project other than I-93
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on March 17, 2014, 04:27:56 PM
Yeah we should stick to the I-95 Newton to Lexington signing project other than I-93
This is an official admin warning. Stop asking for photos, or you will be banned.
Quote from: massroadpatriot on March 16, 2014, 10:54:48 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 16, 2014, 02:59:08 AM
what
huh?
It's a highway forum.
You and the other guy know each other? You can both use a clue how to act in an adult forum.
there's a MassRoadFan95 and a massroadpatriot? are they the same person?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 17, 2014, 07:30:31 PM
there's a MassRoadFan95 and a massroadpatriot? are they the same person?
They are two users with the same modus operandi and we should not differentiate them apart until they prove to us that they are two different people.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 17, 2014, 07:35:51 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 17, 2014, 07:30:31 PM
there's a MassRoadFan95 and a massroadpatriot? are they the same person?
They are two users with the same modus operandi and we should not differentiate them apart until they prove to us that they are two different people.
... please don't comment on users making questionably coherent posts
About the sign.
I'm just here to look at sign porn.
the ratio of scroll wheel revolutions to actual words/thoughts on these last few pages is mind numbing :banghead:
Isn't it, Zeffy?
Anyways, I'm done playing. Just post pictures of signs, please? Thank you.
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on March 17, 2014, 07:07:46 AM
Oh and also there are new ground-mounts on 128 that say "To Boston Logan Airport" with an arrow on the bottom of the sign.
These new signs, which were installed by MassPort's contractor under a MassDOT permit, replace older sign assemblies that were installed about 2000. The original "Best Route to Logan Airport" signs were smaller three piece assemblies made from sheet aluminum and mounted on square tube posts. Most of the existing assemblies had lost pieces over the years due to vehicle impact and snowplows. AFAIK, the new signs are made from extruded aluminum and are mounted on steel beam posts, so they should be much sturdier than the old ones were.
An example of one of these newly installed signs appears in Bob Malme's photo of the new MA 3 south 3/4 mile advance sign on I-93 north in Braintree. The link can be found in the I-93 Randolph to Boston sign project thread.
Quote from: roadman on March 20, 2014, 01:04:05 PM
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on March 17, 2014, 07:07:46 AM
Oh and also there are new ground-mounts on 128 that say "To Boston Logan Airport" with an arrow on the bottom of the sign.
These new signs, which were installed by MassPort's contractor under a MassDOT permit, replace older sign assemblies that were installed about 2000. The original "Best Route to Logan Airport" signs were smaller three piece assemblies made from sheet aluminum and mounted on square tube posts. Most of the existing assemblies had lost pieces over the years due to vehicle impact and snowplows. AFAIK, the new signs are made from extruded aluminum and are mounted on steel beam posts, so they should be much sturdier than the old ones were.
An example of one of these newly installed signs appears in Bob Malme's photo of the new MA 3 south 3/4 mile advance sign on I-93 north in Braintree. The link can be found in the I-93 Randolph to Boston sign project thread.
Cool! I didn't know that...... 😊
I've put up a blog post with photos taken of new signage and construction along I-95 while traveling to NH and back over the past couple days, plus some bonus I-93 and Portsmouth, NH bridge photos. Check it out:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2014/03/two-day-drive-along-i-95.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2014/03/two-day-drive-along-i-95.html)
Here's a preview along I-95 in Newton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-jxCjKEeP0NA%2FUy9Mb-HXIZI%2FAAAAAAAABYI%2Foqehj6MpIgA%2Fs1600%2Fi95signs322e.jpg&hash=677d96b43d2a103e1c4b505da2f41db9b5d271e0)
nice photos and pictures as usual. The US 20 mileage does not seem aligned properly with the shield on the Waltham Exits sign. Also the E seems a little too large in proportion to the other letters in EAST.
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 23, 2014, 10:06:22 PM
nice photos and pictures as usual. The US 20 mileage does not seem aligned properly with the shield on the Waltham Exits sign. Also the E seems a little too large in proportion to the other letters in EAST.
I agree that the mileage listing for US 20 East should be postioned a bit higher. With regards to the large
E in relation to the
AST for
EAST; such is now standard MUTCD practice for signing direction cardinals.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2014, 09:07:29 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 23, 2014, 10:06:22 PM
nice photos and pictures as usual. The US 20 mileage does not seem aligned properly with the shield on the Waltham Exits sign. Also the E seems a little too large in proportion to the other letters in EAST.
I agree that the mileage listing for US 20 East should be postioned a bit higher. With regards to the large E in relation to the AST for EAST; such is now standard MUTCD practice for signing direction cardinals.
Here's a photo of the sign in question:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-b-E9SghJ9Pc%2FUy9FNH7tf1I%2FAAAAAAAABV0%2Fn2nPlLHWeno%2Fs1600%2Fi95signs321k.jpg&hash=ddfb926348caed657f1cc9f5fd35a17a3901ecb0)
Quote from: bob7374 on March 24, 2014, 12:00:46 PMHere's a photo of the sign in question:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-b-E9SghJ9Pc%2FUy9FNH7tf1I%2FAAAAAAAABV0%2Fn2nPlLHWeno%2Fs1600%2Fi95signs321k.jpg&hash=ddfb926348caed657f1cc9f5fd35a17a3901ecb0)
To tell you the truth, I didn't even notice the additional
EAST listings for Trapelo & Totten Pond Roads until you posted the photo here; I only glanced at the photo on your site and assumed the legend matched 100% the previous BGS (which did not include
EAST listings for those 2 exits).
It appears that the
E-s for all the
EAST listings are the same height as the other
upper-case texts and it's the
AST-s that are smaller in height.
I guess that's one way of doing the taller 1st-letter direction cardinal per MUTCD.
With the above in mind, since Trapelo & Totten Pond Road listings feature
EAST listings for the Waltham mileage BGS'; are any of the new
exit or
ramp BGS' or LGS' that will feature similar? Traditional MassDPW/Highway/DOT practice has
usually been
not to do so for unnumbered streets.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2014, 12:32:48 PM
It appears that the E-s for all the EAST listings are the same height as the other texts and it's the AST-s that are smaller in height.
I guess that's one way of doing the taller 1st-letter direction cardinal per MUTCD.
With the above in mind, since Trapelo & Totten Pond Road listings feature EAST listings for the Waltham mileage BGS'; are any of the new exit or ramp BGS' or LGS' that will feature similar? Traditional MassDPW/Highway/DOT practice has usually been not to do so for unnumbered streets.
Traditional MUTCD practice mandates that the first letter be 15" Series E while the rest is 12" Series E. This looks more like 16" first letter and 12" rest of the word. I think it would be easier for the Trapelo Rd / Totten Pond Rd legends to just stick an 'E' after the 'Rd' in the same Series EM font used for the legend itself. The US 20 could stay like that, I guess. But I'm unfamiliar with MassDOT signing practices.
Interesting that the T logo is on the Exit 22 sign; didn't they remove it from an I-93 sign in Quincy/Braintree when replacing signs, using worded "MBTA Station" because FHWA prohibits such logos?
this also raises a good point of why bother signing a direction for those two streets at all? at the bottom of the trapelo road ramp heading SB, you can turn East or West.
also the sign doesn't mention the Winter St. exit which for all intensive purposes is totten pond West.
I could understand if they included a control city after the cardinal direction, but for this EXITS sign I think the use of the EAST designation is confusing and misleading since it fails to mention winter st. or the ability to travel trapelo rd West.
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 24, 2014, 02:45:31 PM
this also raises a good point of why bother signing a direction for those two streets at all? at the bottom of the trapelo road ramp heading SB, you can turn East or West.
also the sign doesn't mention the Winter St. exit which for all intensive purposes is totten pond West.
I could understand if they included a control city after the cardinal direction, but for this EXITS sign I think the use of the EAST designation is confusing and misleading since it fails to mention winter st. or the ability to travel trapelo rd West.
How many people who are going to Waltham and don't know exactly where they are going will be turning west off 128? I could see an argument for Winter Street, but Trapelo west serves only houses and a small industrial park.
FWIW, here's the previous
WALTHAM EXITS BGS
without the extra
EAST listings (http://goo.gl/maps/GFP0N).
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 24, 2014, 02:45:31 PM
this also raises a good point of why bother signing a direction for those two streets at all?
I personally agree. The new BGS should've just kept the same
exact legend as the old BGS it replaced had.
Quote from: NE2 on March 24, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 24, 2014, 02:45:31 PM
this also raises a good point of why bother signing a direction for those two streets at all? at the bottom of the trapelo road ramp heading SB, you can turn East or West.
also the sign doesn't mention the Winter St. exit which for all intensive purposes is totten pond West.
I could understand if they included a control city after the cardinal direction, but for this EXITS sign I think the use of the EAST designation is confusing and misleading since it fails to mention winter st. or the ability to travel trapelo rd West.
How many people who are going to Waltham and don't know exactly where they are going will be turning west off 128? I could see an argument for Winter Street, but Trapelo west serves only houses and a small industrial park.
understood, but my point was not that they should sign both E and W, but that they should have no direction whatsoever, which as PHLBOS pointed out is the previous legend from the old sign.
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 24, 2014, 03:44:07 PM
understood, but my point was not that they should sign both E and W, but that they should have no direction whatsoever, which as PHLBOS pointed out is the previous legend from the old sign.
My point stands - it helps the unfamiliar traveler to know that he should turn east for most of Waltham.
Quote from: NE2 on March 24, 2014, 03:57:49 PMMy point stands - it helps the unfamiliar traveler to know that he should turn east for most of Waltham.
Roadman would likely be the one to confirm whether or not such confusion is actually happening; and if that is the case, why apply the
EASTs
only on one sign for the unnumbered roads and not at the applicable exits & ramps?
Current LGS' at the end of the single Exit 28 off-ramp (not sure if these have been replaced or updated as of yet) do not do such. (http://goo.gl/maps/nvEVP)
Southbound BGS gantry for Exits 27B-A (not sure if this Exit 27B BGS for Winter St. (Winter St. & Totten Pond Rd. meet at the highway overpass) has yet been replaced), no cardinal directions on either BGS', regardless of vintage. (http://goo.gl/maps/sDQXu)
Wouldn't it make sense to also add direction cardinals (as well as a reference to the 'center' of or downtown Waltham) to the BGS'/LGS' located
at the interchanges themselves to be consistent?
That said & IMHO, I have to assume that those additional
EAST cardinals for Trapelo & Totten Pond Roads were
mistakenly placed (though not wrong) on that BGS unless Roadman chimes in and states otherwise.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2014, 05:06:59 PM
why apply the EASTs only on one sign for the unnumbered roads and not at the applicable exits & ramps?
Probably anality over the fact that you're in Waltham, so there shouldn't be a sign pointing to Waltham.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 24, 2014, 12:39:01 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2014, 12:32:48 PM
It appears that the E-s for all the EAST listings are the same height as the other texts and it's the AST-s that are smaller in height.
I guess that's one way of doing the taller 1st-letter direction cardinal per MUTCD.
With the above in mind, since Trapelo & Totten Pond Road listings feature EAST listings for the Waltham mileage BGS'; are any of the new exit or ramp BGS' or LGS' that will feature similar? Traditional MassDPW/Highway/DOT practice has usually been not to do so for unnumbered streets.
Traditional MUTCD practice mandates that the first letter be 15" Series E while the rest is 12" Series E. This looks more like 16" first letter and 12" rest of the word. I think it would be easier for the Trapelo Rd / Totten Pond Rd legends to just stick an 'E' after the 'Rd' in the same Series EM font used for the legend itself. The US 20 could stay like that, I guess. But I'm unfamiliar with MassDOT signing practices.
I'll have to check my copy of the approved sign face drawing for this panel to verify, but IIRC, the legends on the signs are 13.33 inch/10 inch mixed case, and the US 20 shield is 24 inches by 24 inches. As such, per the MUTCD the cardinal direction legends would be 8 inch high with a 12 inch high initial letter.
As regards PHLBOS's query about why the cardinal directions are included with the Totten Pond Road and Trapelo Road legends in the first place, my recollection is that this was requested by staff at the MassHighway/MassDOT District 4 office in Arlington during their preliminary review of the project design in 2008. Personally, I felt the legends on the older sign (without the cardinal directions) were perfectly fine. However, as they are technically not an MUTCD violation and do no harm, apparently the District was allowed to prevail in this case. And of course, they are still better than the sign put up in the 1970s with the banner that read "Waltham Interchanges". Perhaps the designer of that project had seen "Yogi's Ark Lark" (thinking of the "Take the Pismo Beach Interchange" line relayed through the ship) before laying out the panel.
Quote from: roadman on March 24, 2014, 06:18:11 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 24, 2014, 12:39:01 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2014, 12:32:48 PM
It appears that the E-s for all the EAST listings are the same height as the other texts and it's the AST-s that are smaller in height.
I guess that's one way of doing the taller 1st-letter direction cardinal per MUTCD.
With the above in mind, since Trapelo & Totten Pond Road listings feature EAST listings for the Waltham mileage BGS'; are any of the new exit or ramp BGS' or LGS' that will feature similar? Traditional MassDPW/Highway/DOT practice has usually been not to do so for unnumbered streets.
Traditional MUTCD practice mandates that the first letter be 15" Series E while the rest is 12" Series E. This looks more like 16" first letter and 12" rest of the word. I think it would be easier for the Trapelo Rd / Totten Pond Rd legends to just stick an 'E' after the 'Rd' in the same Series EM font used for the legend itself. The US 20 could stay like that, I guess. But I'm unfamiliar with MassDOT signing practices.
I'll have to check my copy of the approved sign face drawing for this panel to verify, but IIRC, the legends on the signs are 13.33 inch/10 inch mixed case, and the US 20 shield is 24 inches by 24 inches. As such, per the MUTCD the cardinal direction legends would be 8 inch high with a 12 inch high initial letter.
You're right - I'm used to Overhead specs which vary slightly from ground-mounted signs. :ded:
Quote from: Zeffy on March 24, 2014, 07:29:08 PM
You're right - I'm used to Overhead specs which vary slightly from ground-mounted signs. :ded:
Not a problem at all. Happens to the best of us.
Quote from: roadman on March 24, 2014, 06:18:11 PMAs regards PHLBOS's query about why the cardinal directions are included with the Totten Pond Road and Trapelo Road legends in the first place, my recollection is that this was requested by staff at the MassHighway/MassDOT District 4 office in Arlington during their preliminary review of the project design in 2008. Personally, I felt the legends on the older sign (without the cardinal directions) were perfectly fine. However, as they are technically not an MUTCD violation and do no harm, apparently the District was allowed to prevail in this case.
Well that certainly explains it; but it's a bit overkill for this particular case IMHO.
Quote from: roadman on March 24, 2014, 06:18:11 PMAnd of course, they are still better than the sign put up in the 1970s with the banner that read "Waltham Interchanges". Perhaps the designer of that project had seen "Yogi's Ark Lark" (thinking of the "Take the Pismo Beach Interchange" line relayed through the ship) before laying out the panel.
Do you have pic of that sign? That's one sign I don't not recall seeing back then; mainly because I didn't venture that far south on 128 back then (while riding w/my father).
I loved the old signs that said "Interchanges"--there were a couple each direction and used that wording because of A-B (or previously E-W) interchanges that they didn't include cardinal directions in the exit list. Mass DPW was not alone in specifying that wording; there are still specimens in Indiana of the same thing (Next X interchanges) where an A-B would throw off the literal count of exits.
It does seem like overkill on the new sign. Even US 20 is a single exit, right? Can't control cities on signage at the exit take care of specifying EAST?
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 25, 2014, 12:12:22 PMIt does seem like overkill on the new sign. Even US 20 is a single exit, right? Can't control cities on signage at the exit take care of specifying EAST?
Yes, US 20 is a single exit but it later branches off into East & West directions and
are marked as such on the BGS' at the split-ramps (http://goo.gl/maps/25ZA3); that's the primary difference between that road and Trapelo & Totten Pond Rds. in terms of
overall signage.
Again, per Roadman's comment, the extra
EASTs on that southbound interchange mileage BGS were a District 4 add-on. I could see
maybe adding such for Trapelo Road (and signing the ramp split as such) but not for Totten Pond Road due to that road, west of the interchange continues
under a different name... Winter St.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 25, 2014, 12:33:52 PM
Yes, US 20 is a single exit but it later branches off into East & West directions and are marked as such on the BGS' at the split-ramps (http://goo.gl/maps/25ZA3); that's the primary difference between that road and Trapelo & Totten Pond Rds. in terms of overall signage.
Is something terribly off with that MA 117 shield or is it just me?
Quote from: Zeffy on March 25, 2014, 12:50:20 PMIs something terribly off with that MA 117 shield or is it just me?
Other than it being oversized with respect to the
TO and the arrow signs (the latter 2 signs should be bigger to better match the shield); there's nothing wrong w/that MA 117 shield.
Saw 2 new overhead structures on I-95 by the MA-2A interchange in Lexington. They were pretty nice. I'll see if I can get some pictures of them
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on April 18, 2014, 05:47:41 PM
Saw 2 new overhead structures on I-95 by the MA-2A interchange in Lexington. They were pretty nice. I'll see if I can get some pictures of them
I drove out there this past weekend to visit family for Easter and noticed the following (no photos yet posted of such):
1. The 1-mile approach BGS for MA 2 (Exits 29B-A) along I-95 Southbound now lists
Boston for the MA 2 eastbound control city.
While technically correct, given the fact that MA 2 between Arlington/Cambridge & Boston is not a major highway; I would've used
Arlington instead (
Cambridge is listed on a newly-erected supplemental ground-mounted BGS). IMHO listing Boston on the primary exit signs for MA 2 East might cause more motorists
unfamiliar with the area to clog the Alewife area; especially given the relative close proximity of this interchange to where the expressway ends (approx. 5 to 6 miles); and no, not all of them are going to jump on the Red Line to head into the city. :)
The current BGS' for MA 2 East (Exit 29A) list
both Arlington & Cambridge on the same panel.
2. The newly-erected overhead BGS' along the northbound collector-distributor road along I-95 Northbound at the MA 30 exit (Exit 24); particularly the pull-through BGS for I-95 North. The
previous overhead BGS' for reference (http://goo.gl/maps/6K2oJ). In addition to only listing
one destination (Portsmouth, NH); it sports a longish (similar to an APL BGS') upward arrow located towards the upper-left corner of the panel and above the destination. While looking somewhat unique; such an application IMHO would be better suited for a ground-mounted BGS vs. an overhead. The more traditional downward-arrow at the lower-center of the panel would've sufficed.
Heck, the old
Waltham-Portmouth, NH listings should've been kept as well IMHO; especially given the densly-populated area
and the fact that the new I-95 exit-BGS off I-90 (westbound for Exit 15) still lists
Waltham for the I-95 North destination. Apparently, the contractor that erected the new exit BGS for I-95 (Exit 15) off I-90 West didn't get the memo that all the other ramp BGS' for I-95 North in this area list
Portsmouth, NH rather than
Waltham.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 22, 2014, 01:57:04 PM
I drove out there this past weekend to visit family for Easter and noticed the following (no photos yet posted of such):
1. The 1-mile approach BGS for MA 2 (Exits 29B-A) along I-95 Southbound now lists Boston for the MA 2 eastbound control city.
While technically correct, given the fact that MA 2 between Arlington/Cambridge & Boston is not a major highway; I would've used Arlington instead (Cambridge is listed on a newly-erected supplemental ground-mounted BGS). IMHO listing Boston on the primary exit signs for MA 2 East might cause more motorists unfamiliar with the area to clog the Alewife area; especially given the relative close proximity of this interchange to where the expressway ends (approx. 5 to 6 miles); and no, not all of them are going to jump on the Red Line to head into the city. :)
The current BGS' for MA 2 East (Exit 29A) list both Arlington & Cambridge on the same panel.
2. The newly-erected overhead BGS' along the northbound collector-distributor road along I-95 Northbound at the MA 30 exit (Exit 24); particularly the pull-through BGS for I-95 North. The previous overhead BGS' for reference (http://goo.gl/maps/6K2oJ). In addition to only listing one destination (Portsmouth, NH); it sports a longish (similar to an APL BGS') upward arrow located towards the upper-left corner of the panel and above the destination. While looking somewhat unique; such an application IMHO would be better suited for a ground-mounted BGS vs. an overhead. The more traditional downward-arrow at the lower-center of the panel would've sufficed.
Heck, the old Waltham-Portmouth, NH listings should've been kept as well IMHO; especially given the densly-populated area and the fact that the new I-95 exit-BGS off I-90 (westbound for Exit 15) still lists Waltham for the I-95 North destination. Apparently, the contractor that erected the new exit BGS for I-95 (Exit 15) off I-90 West didn't get the memo that all the other ramp BGS' for I-95 North in this area list Portsmouth, NH rather than Waltham.
From coverage of the Boston Marathon I noticed they had installed a new I-95 South Providence, RI (only) BGS along MA 30 West at the on-ramp, and I assume at the other eastbound ramps as well. I agree that they should have stuck with the 2 destinations. The route may be an interstate, but there's a lot of local traffic as well, and not everyone using those ramps may be familiar with the area. Besides, being from Mass., are out-of state destination that important? :biggrin:
Quote from: bob7374 on April 25, 2014, 09:51:39 PMFrom coverage of the Boston Marathon I noticed they had installed a new I-95 South Providence, RI (only) BGS along MA 30 West at the on-ramp, and I assume at the other eastbound ramps as well. I agree that they should have stuck with the 2 destinations.
If you're referring to the coverage along the Marathon route itself; the route's along MA
16 in that vicinity. The route doesn't go onto MA 30 until Auburndale, east of I-95 but below the Pike (I-90).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fratherberunning.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F03%2Fboston_course.png&hash=0786c3d5bd0f9d9402ac2fd3aa2576020ac82476)
Quote from: bob7374 on April 25, 2014, 09:51:39 PMThe route may be an interstate, but there's a lot of local traffic as well, and not everyone using those ramps may be familiar with the area. Besides, being from Mass., are out-of state destination that important? :biggrin:
While my 77-year old mother has gotten used to I-95 and MA 128 being the same road for a considerable distance; she still freaks out when seeing
only those out-of-state destinations listed on signs in the Waltham/Weston area and had missed the exit (for I-95 North)
at least twice because of such.
I have no problem with the Portsmouth NH / Providence RI control cities. I do question why "Attleboro" is a control city for I-95 S on Route 2 and why "Waltham / Peabody" was retained for the 93/95 cloverleaf in Woburn. A little consistency would have been nice... :-/
Quote from: southshore720 on April 28, 2014, 02:10:15 PM
I have no problem with the Portsmouth NH / Providence RI control cities. I do question why "Attleboro" is a control city for I-95 S on Route 2 and why "Waltham / Peabody" was retained for the 93/95 cloverleaf in Woburn. A little consistency would have been nice... :-/
I may have mentioned this before a few pages back but here's how I would handle the I-95 exit signs at the following highway interchanges:
I-93 Woburn: List Portsmouth, NH & Waltham for the primary BGS off I-93 North (Peabody & Providence, RI would be on supplemental BGS') and vice-versa for the exits along I-93 South.
US 3 North: leave
Peabody for I-95 North & use
Waltham for I-95 South w/an optional supplemental BGS for Providence, RI.
MA 2: leave
Peabody for I-95 North (w/an optional supplemental BGS for Portsmouth, NH) and use either
Waltham or
Providence, RI for I-95 South w/an optional supplemental BGS for the other destinations. Recommend using
Providence, RI as the primary I-95 South destination off MA 2 West &
Waltham for the primary I-95 South destination off MA 2 East since there's already an exit (Waltham St. - Exit 54A) for Waltham off MA 2 West prior to the I-95 interchange.
I-90/Mass Pike: Portsmouth, NH & Providence RI for eastbound exit signage, Waltham & Dedham for westbound exit signage w/supplemental BGS carrying the unused destinations. The ramp splits beyond the toll booths would contain both local & distant destinations per sign.
I-93 Canton: leave as is but maybe add supplemental BGS for Braintree (for the I-93 North exit) and a mileage BGS that includes Dedham along I-95 North prior to the I-93 exit.
Note: Do
not add US 1 shields to the northbound I-95 BGS' when the current ones w/the button-copy shields are replaced (the ones along I-95 North at the interchange weren't replaced as of yet IIRC); only use US 1 trailblazer signs for supplements (per present signage). The reason: since US 1
through-traffic runs along I-95 South/I-93 North (aka 128) at this interchange; there's no need to place US 1 shields IMHO on the major BGS' along I-95 North.
No photos but an update regarding news BGS' along I-95 between Lexington & Weston as of this past Memorial Day weekend.
Along I-95 (MA 128) Southbound, most if not all of the new BGS' have been erected for the MA 4/225 & 2A interchanges (Exits 30A-B & 31A-B) but the older BGS' have not yet been taken down.
There are now new BGS' for the I-90/Mass Pike and MA 30 interchanges (Exits 25 & 24) along southbound I-95 as well. Note: the new BGS for I-90 now sports a Mass Pike shield as well as Boston & Albany, NY for listed destinations not unlike the earlier-erected northbound signage.
Along northbound I-95, most of the US 20 (Exit 26) BGS' have since been replaced (one older BGS still remains). And most of the new MA 2A signage is erected but the old, delapitatated I-95 North pull-through BGS still has not yet been put out of its misery.
Further up I-95 into Seabrook, NH; I noticed some relatively new overhead BGS' (for MA 286/Exit 60 & I-495/Exit 59) (http://goo.gl/maps/DKwEx) along I-95 South that look like they're MassDOT spec'd but are located about 1/2 mile inside NH. Those might've been there a year ago when I last used that stretch (returning from last year's Portsmouth meet). Just before the southbound exit ramp for NH 107 (Exit 1), there is a NHDOT spec'd BGS for MA 286 that includes an EAST cardinal as well (http://goo.gl/maps/DOUvi).
All of the remaining 90s-era button copy (I-shields only) BGS' for the I-95/495 South split (Exit 59) that were present a year ago have since been replaced.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 27, 2014, 09:04:59 AM
Further up I-95 into Seabrook, NH; I noticed some relatively new overhead BGS' (for MA 286/Exit 60 & I-495/Exit 59) (http://goo.gl/maps/DKwEx) along I-95 South that look like they're MassDOT spec'd but are located about 1/2 mile inside NH. Those might've been there a year ago when I last used that stretch (returning from last year's Portsmouth meet).
Those signs are MassDOT spec for a good reason - they were installed by MassDOT's contractor as part of the I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury sign replacement project. The panels and structure were installed prior to last year's Portsmouth meet, but just barely.
QuoteJust before the southbound exit ramp for NH 107 (Exit 1), there is a NHDOT spec'd BGS for MA 286 that includes an EAST cardinal as well. (http://goo.gl/maps/DOUvi)
That sign was originally planned to be replaced by MassDOT's contractor (and to MassDOT specs) as part of the Georgetown to Salisbury project as well. NHDOT (actually Bureau of Turnpikes) had other ideas, and replaced it themselves as part of the Route 107 bridge reconstruction project.
Quote from: roadman on May 27, 2014, 05:13:11 PMThose signs are MassDOT spec for a good reason - they were installed by MassDOT's contractor as part of the I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury sign replacement project.
While I figured as such; usually (but not always), state DOTs can get a bit
territorial, if you will, regarding signs that are done in an adjacent state's spec. but
installed in their state. Previous signage for the approaching MA interchanges
inside NH were traditionally done in NH's (DOT or Bureau of Turnpikes) spec's. Since the project was Georgetown to Salisbury and not Georgetown to Seabrook, NH; I'd like to know such was pulled off.
I'm not saying MassDOT's encroaching into NH territory w/their signs are necessarily wrong; but it did strike me as a bit odd since such practice hasn't been done along other MA highways going into adjacent states that I'm aware of.
Conversely, This northbound BGS gantry for NH 107/Exit 1 is clearly MassDOT spec'd. (http://goo.gl/maps/ZTQT3) It's located about 1/4 mile south of the NH border.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 27, 2014, 05:36:04 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 27, 2014, 05:13:11 PMThose signs are MassDOT spec for a good reason - they were installed by MassDOT's contractor as part of the I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury sign replacement project.
While I figured as such; usually (but not always), state DOTs can get a bit territorial, if you will, regarding signs that are done in an adjacent state's spec. but installed in their state. Previous signage for the approaching MA interchanges inside NH were traditionally done in NH's (DOT or Bureau of Turnpikes) spec's.
The best is when another state mixes their practices with another state's, such as Pennsylvania referencing NJ 90 on this exit sign on I-95 in Philadelphia (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.004971,-75.076242,3a,54y,240.77h,99.13t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sxt8yorkVF4hNYjtG6aqCSw!2e0). Notice how the sign is most definitely PennDOT with their rounded exit tabs, however the NJ 90 includes the black background behind the shield as that's the New Jersey standard.
EDIT: As usual, GMaps likes to be wonky when I post a link, so hopefully that one isn't as zoomed in.
Quote from: Zeffy on May 27, 2014, 05:42:42 PMThe best is when another state mixes their practices with another state's, such as Pennsylvania referencing NJ 90 on this exit sign on I-95 in Philadelphia (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.004971,-75.076242,3a,30.3y,241.8h,100.19t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sxt8yorkVF4hNYjtG6aqCSw!2e0). Notice how the sign is most definitely PennDOT with their rounded exit tabs, however the NJ 90 includes the black background behind the shield as that's the New Jersey standard.
I'm well aware of that BGS given where I work. However, aside from the NJ 90 shield; the rest of that BGS (and its gantry) is PennDOT spec'd as you mentioned.
A better example of BGS that's
completely in an adjacent DOT's spec in the Delaware Valley would be further north in Yardley, Bucks County, PA. This Exit 2 BGS for CR 579 is clearly in NJDOT specs whereas the adjacent Exit 1 BGS for NJ 29 is PennDOT spec'd. (http://goo.gl/maps/n0Wbq) The Exit 2 BGS was erected later as a means to direct those to Trenton-Mercer Airport (TTN). Nonetheless, that gantry is still PennDOT spec'd.
I was clearly commenting on BGS'
and gantries located in one state (Seabrook, NH) but being done/designed in another state DOT's specs (MassDOT) not just the route shields.
A state spec snafu can be found on I-95 on the CT/RI border. RIDOT installed an advance BGS sign for Exit 93 (CT 184/CT 216) using RI shields for CT 184/CT 216 instead of the black border CT shields. (However, it is mixed practice in CT to use the generic white box for their shields. But these shields clearly have the R.I. initials on them!)
Quote from: southshore720 on May 28, 2014, 10:39:44 AM
A state spec snafu can be found on I-95 on the CT/RI border. RIDOT installed an advance BGS sign for Exit 93 (CT 184/CT 216) using RI shields for CT 184/CT 216 instead of the black border CT shields. (However, it is mixed practice in CT to use the generic white box for their shields. But these shields clearly have the R.I. initials on them!)
BGS in question. (http://goo.gl/maps/QzK3y)
That's definitely an
Oops! on RIDOT's part.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 27, 2014, 05:36:04 PMI'm not saying MassDOT's encroaching into NH territory w/their signs are necessarily wrong; but it did strike me as a bit odd since such practice hasn't been done along other MA highways going into adjacent states that I'm aware of.
In the examples of this I am familiar with, the sign is installed extraterritorially by agreement with the host state DOT and certain parameters are up for grabs while others are not. Sign layout, sheeting, and substrate usually follow the guest state DOT's specs because that DOT's money is actually used to erect the sign, which is usually for the benefit of a city or community on that DOT's side of the border. However, posts often match the host DOT's standards since the sign is located in its jurisdiction and maintenance responsibility falls on it by default.
Two examples:
I-8 in California approaching Yuma, Arizona (https://maps.google.com/maps?vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=32.733772,-114.635854&spn=0.009909,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.73374,-114.635634&panoid=_mdHFJiGLgyooJWgRG1FRw&cbp=12,150.16,,0,6.48)
I-10 Ehrenberg/Parker (Arizona) one-mile advance guide sign just inside California (https://maps.google.com/maps?vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=33.605595,-114.534938&spn=0.009811,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.605635,-114.535103&panoid=PiavPb2rZLXPYGnwjo54aA&cbp=12,106.42,,0,13.89)
In both cases the sign panel layouts are done to the Arizona DOT standards prevailing at the time of installation (layout, sheeting, substrate), but the assembly is mounted on Caltrans-standard redwood posts that are not used in Arizona. (Arizona prefers breakaway metal posts (https://maps.google.com/maps?vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=32.938085,-112.76482&spn=0.002472,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=32.938065,-112.764921&panoid=sIVGfkq0lcSqWEc8RQuh2A&cbp=12,117.47,,0,3.47).)
From the standpoint of the host state DOT, this division of responsibility makes sense. In contracting for signs it is not uncommon to separate the structural element (installation of posts and foundations) from furnishing and installation of sign panels. Moreover, if you allow another state DOT to come in and dig holes for sign foundations beside your road, then you are trusting it to tell you truthfully where the holes were dug, how deep they are, and what is in them, and you may still run into problems and added expense if you later have to widen or reconstruct the road and the foundations the guest state DOT typically installs are not ones your contractors are prepared to handle.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 28, 2014, 11:39:05 AM
Two examples:
I-8 in California approaching Yuma, Arizona (https://maps.google.com/maps?vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=32.733772,-114.635854&spn=0.009909,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.73374,-114.635634&panoid=_mdHFJiGLgyooJWgRG1FRw&cbp=12,150.16,,0,6.48)
I-10 Ehrenberg/Parker (Arizona) one-mile advance guide sign just inside California (https://maps.google.com/maps?vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=33.605595,-114.534938&spn=0.009811,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.605635,-114.535103&panoid=PiavPb2rZLXPYGnwjo54aA&cbp=12,106.42,,0,13.89)
You can
just tell which sign is made where, just because Caltrans refuses to use Clearview and Arizona uses it almost everywhere!
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 28, 2014, 11:39:05 AMFrom the standpoint of the host state DOT, this division of responsibility makes sense. In contracting for signs it is not uncommon to separate the structural element (installation of posts and foundations) from furnishing and installation of sign panels.
In the original I-95 example in NH that triggered this thread tangent,
both the signs
and overhead gantries are MassDOT Spec'd. No division of responsiblity exists in that particular installation that I'm aware of. Roadman can confirm/correct.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2014, 01:03:59 PM
In the original I-95 example in NH that triggered this thread tangent, both the signs and overhead gantries are MassDOT Spec'd. No division of responsiblity exists in that particular installation that I'm aware of. Roadman can confirm/correct.
Signs and structure in question were designed, installed and paid for by MassDOT. Bureau of Turnpike's only involvement, other than entering into an agreement whereby MassDOT assumes responsibility for future maintenance and repair (if necessary) of the signs and structure, was to approve the traffic control plans and issue a work permit to MassDOT's contractor. The one significant concession MassDOT made to Bureau of Turnpikes was to mount both signs on a single structure, instead of locating the MA 286 sign north of the I-495 diagrammatic.
I-95 Newton-to-Lexington project now says 68% complete on MassDOT website.
I spotted updated signage on the Exit 23/24/25 off-ramp yesterday. Recreation Road finally receives a proper BGS!
Quote from: roadman on October 22, 2013, 09:56:03 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 22, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
Let's hope this pull-through is on the hit-list for this project.
http://goo.gl/maps/Xi8Jd
Yes indeed, this pull-thru at Route 2A (that should have been removed during the 1992 sign update but wasn't) will be going away for good once the new structure and signs (for 2A east and 2A west) are installed at this location.
As of Tuesday 7/1, the new structure and signs are up, placed directly in front of the old ones, so I would venture to say the old ones will be history soon.
I traveled the entire Route 128 portion of I-95 on July 12 in the early morning hours (midnight-1am). The old I-95 pull-through is gone. I didn't notice anything else other than what's been posted. No pics since it was early morning and dark. It's amazing there's no lights on Route 128 at all, especially around the southern end. First lights I saw were up by the US Route 3 interchange.
71% complete now!
Wow. This page hasn't received any new posts for over 2 weeks now. Seems like everybody seems to care more about the I-93 resigning project than this one. What is it about I-93's resigning project that's being payed attention to more than the I-95 Newton-to-Lexington sign project? I mean come on!
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on August 07, 2014, 08:02:14 AM
Wow. This page hasn't received any new posts for over 2 weeks now. Seems like everybody seems to care more about the I-93 resigning project than this one. What is it about I-93's resigning project that's being payed attention to more than the I-95 Newton-to-Lexington sign project? I mean come on!
I can't speak for others, but since most of my travels are from the South Shore to Boston, it's easier for me to comment on sign replacement along roads I frequently use, than those I would have to go out of my way to drive. It's not so much due to importance, as convenience. Since you live in Lexington, it should be convenient for you to travel along I-95 and relay what's going on. Feel free to take the initiative and let us know, many here would appreciate your effort.
Is there anything significant signage difference from the I-93/US 1 junction in Canton, MA south to the RI border? I don't think I've been on that part of I-95 since January of 2012. I might be on that stretch tomorrow, but now 100% certain right now.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 07, 2014, 11:29:05 AM
Is there anything significant signage difference from the I-93/US 1 junction in Canton, MA south to the RI border? I don't think I've been on that part of I-95 since January of 2012. I might be on that stretch tomorrow, but now 100% certain right now.
No. The signing on I-95 between Canton and Attleboro has not changed since the signs were installed in 2001. This section is not scheduled for its next signing/structure update until 2018. However, there is a pending project to re-align and widen the exit ramp from I-95 south to I-295 south (this ramp currently has the highest number of truck rollovers in Massachusetts). As part of this work, the new ramp will be two lanes wide, and they will be adding an auxiluary lane on I-95 south. This will create an "option lane" situation at the exit, and will result in new BGSes at the exit (including a new pull-through sign for I-95 south) and in advance of the exit. However, no APL or diagrammatic signs are proposed due to cost and time constraints for the ramp work - this will likely be addressed as part of the 2018 sign update.
Quote from: MassRoadFan95 on August 07, 2014, 08:02:14 AM
Wow. This page hasn't received any new posts for over 2 weeks now. Seems like everybody seems to care more about the I-93 resigning project than this one. What is it about I-93's resigning project that's being payed attention to more than the I-95 Newton-to-Lexington sign project? I mean come on!
Perhaps its because I-93's project involves the replacement of button copy signage, considerably older than those on the 128....err.... 95 project. The last sign on that project that was "of importance" has been replaced, being the pullthrough which advertised Peabody/NH-Maine.
There was also a lot of debate and outright mocking of A0003423429077819742 and his ludicrous posts in the I-93 thread.
On this topic though, I had a chance to go through this segment last night and see all the new NB signs. I noticed that they are putting truck exclusion signs on the gantries over the left two lanes, similar to what has been done on I-93, with one difference. Signs on I-93 say "TRUCKS MUST USE RIGHT TWO LANES". Signs here say "TRUCKS PROHIBITED FROM LEFT TWO LANES". (I may not be exact on the wording - I was navigating stop-and-go traffic and intermittent rain)
I specifically noticed the truck prohibition sign in the section parallel to the Mass Pike ramp C-D road, where recent lane reconfiguration reduced I-95 to three NB lanes. This implies that trucks are only allowed to use the right lane, but I suspect the signs were designed and the locations determined when this was still a four-lane configuration, similar to the rest of I-95 in this area.
The reason the truck prohibition signs on the Southeast Expressway portion of I-93 say "Trucks Must Use Right Two Lanes" instead of "Trucks Prohibited from Left Two Lanes" is because of the moveable 'zipper' HOV lane barrier between Savin Hill and the Braintree spilt. When the HOV lane is deployed, the opposing mainline has only three lanes instead of four. As I-93 between Braintree and Canton, and I-95 north of Canton, don't have this condition, the more traditional "Prohibited From" signs are used on that section instead.
Although the Southeast Expressway 'zipper' lane doesn't extend all the way into Boston, it was decided to use the same "Must Use" restriction signs north of Savin Hill for simplicity.
This was my shot of the I-95 South gantry, crossing from Attleborough, MA into Pawtucket, RI (taken Saturday, August 16, 2014). I'm sure the RI Route 114 square is a MassDOT assembly, since the "R.I." is missing. Are the center exit tabs on top MassDOT as well?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fmnw4stE.jpg&hash=62e31ebb98a0c8d9f492b38533785b2f2bcb3cd9)
There was a matching BBS for McCoy Stadium on I-95 North as well. The only difference is that sign said "NEXT 3 EXITS" instead of 2.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiaZBu3q.jpg&hash=ab829ce4f91f756a1b32374bd37bfdc8abb5cd28)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 17, 2014, 05:30:16 PM
This was my shot of the I-95 South gantry, crossing from Attleborough, MA into Pawtucket, RI (taken Saturday, August 16, 2014). I'm sure the RI Route 114 square is a MassDOT assembly, since the "R.I." is missing. Are the center exit tabs on top MassDOT as well?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fmnw4stE.jpg&hash=62e31ebb98a0c8d9f492b38533785b2f2bcb3cd9)
This is all RIDOT standard. They omitted RI from the shields for a number of years in the 80s-90s.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fri%2Fi-295%2Fn3a.jpg&hash=46dccd4578bca66579e14ce0ad99ebd113e22625)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 17, 2014, 05:30:16 PM
This was my shot of the I-95 South gantry, crossing from Attleborough, MA into Pawtucket, RI (taken Saturday, August 16, 2014). I'm sure the RI Route 114 square is a MassDOT assembly, since the "R.I." is missing. Are the center exit tabs on top MassDOT as well?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fmnw4stE.jpg&hash=62e31ebb98a0c8d9f492b38533785b2f2bcb3cd9)
That gantry & BGS' are actually located in MA (erected by the MassDPW) and date back to 1977 when center-mounted exit tabs were the MUTCD standard.
Tid-Bit: RIDOT BGS' of similar vintages erected along I-95 between the MA State Line and I-195 featured an
experimental full-width, borderless exit tabs that had the text right-justified for right-lane exits and left-justified for left-lane exits (I-195/Exit 20 off I-95 South). These tabs were also taller than the standard exit tabs of the era.
Side bar & back to MA: when are the additional lanes for I-95 (MA 128) & I-93 between MA 9 & MA 24 finally going to be completed & open?
The fourth lane is already open between MA 109 and MA 24. The next opening, between MA 109 and Highland Avenue, is due to open next June. I believe the last stretch, from Highland Avenue to MA 9, will take another two years beyond that.
Bids on the Needham to Wellesley portion of the I-95 "Add A Lane" project (also known as the "Bridge V" contract), which goes from north of Great Plain Avenue to Route 9, and includes construction of a new interchange at Kendrick Street, were just opened on July 22nd. Barletta Heavy Equipment is the apparent low bidder.
Once the Contractor receives the notice to proceed, they have 4.5 years to complete the project.
Quote from: roadman on August 19, 2014, 09:54:56 AM
Bids on the Needham to Wellesley portion of the I-95 "Add A Lane" project (also known as the "Bridge V" contract), which goes from north of Great Plain Avenue to Route 9, and includes construction of a new interchange at Kendrick Street, were just opened on July 22nd. Barletta Heavy Equipment is the apparent low bidder.
Once the Contractor receives the notice to proceed, they have 4.5 years to complete the project.
In addition to the new interchange at Kendrick Street, I understand this project modifies the existing cloverleaf at Route 9 to eliminate loop ramps and add signals on Route 9 for left turns onto I-95/Route 128.
Quote from: spooky on August 20, 2014, 11:14:51 AMIn addition to the new interchange at Kendrick Street, I understand this project modifies the existing cloverleaf at Route 9 to eliminate loop ramps and add signals on Route 9 for left turns onto I-95/Route 128.
Sadly, yes; such was discussed either a few pages back on this thread or in the Massachusetts thread. IMHO, the interchange w/MA 9 is absolutely the wrong place to make this change; there's too many lights & traffic along MA 9 as it is now and adding more left turns
can increase the chances of near-head-on collisions if one either doesn't
properly stop on the red signal.
Adding collector-distributor lanes along MA 9 would be a much better solution to separate the weaving entering/exiting traffic from the through-traffic.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 20, 2014, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: spooky on August 20, 2014, 11:14:51 AMIn addition to the new interchange at Kendrick Street, I understand this project modifies the existing cloverleaf at Route 9 to eliminate loop ramps and add signals on Route 9 for left turns onto I-95/Route 128.
Sadly, yes; such was discussed either a few pages back on this thread or in the Massachusetts thread. IMHO, the interchange w/MA 9 is absolutely the wrong place to make this change; there's too many lights & traffic along MA 9 as it is now and adding more left turns can increase the chances of near-head-on collisions if one either doesn't properly stop on the red signal.
Adding collector-distributor lanes along MA 9 would be a much better solution to separate the weaving entering/exiting traffic from the through-traffic.
Agreed, although this would not solve weaving on the highway, which is the safety issue cited to justify the elimination of loop ramps.
Quote from: spooky on August 20, 2014, 03:20:02 PMAgreed, although this would not solve weaving on the highway, which is the safety issue cited to justify the elimination of loop ramps.
In short, eliminate one safety issue but create another in the process. Can we say
"the cure is worse than the disease"?
Had a chance to take a drive along I-95/128 yesterday afternoon north from MA 2 to MA 4/225 in Lexington and then south down to Canton. Took some photos of the new overhead signs that have appeared due to the Lexington to Newton sign replacement project, which according to the MassDOT listing was 80% complete in early November. Here's one of the new signs southbound for I-90/Mass Pike, and MA 30:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign1115r.jpg&hash=6903a608290f46ace209195be2da6d15a8a5b0ce)
There is still a lot of work to do at the southern end of the project, while it appears most of the signs have been installed north of the Pike. To see more photos, check out my I-95 Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)
As for new overheads further south in the Add-A-Lane project area, nothing new to report since my last drive through a few months ago. It appears, southbound anyway, that most of the work adding the new lane is complete south of Great Plain Avenue (Exit 18), what's holding up opening is work on the MA 109 bridge, which looks far from complete.
Follow-up post, a question regarding this particular overhead sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign1115x.jpg&hash=f4de4b5912ea75f672637105e838d8a8d97351c5)
Shouldn't the exit tab read 'Exit 20AB' since there are separate east and westbound ramps? Is there a reason for the missing letters or is this a sign error?
Quote from: bob7374 on November 17, 2014, 10:04:40 PM
Follow-up post, a question regarding this particular overhead sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign1115x.jpg&hash=f4de4b5912ea75f672637105e838d8a8d97351c5)
Shouldn't the exit tab read 'Exit 20AB' since there are separate east and westbound ramps? Is there a reason for the missing letters or is this a sign error?
Yes Bob, the exit tab should read "Exits 20 B-A". Checked the Wellesley to Lexington plans, and the "Exit 20" tab was indeed an error. I'll forward this to my project contacts and see if it can be corrected. Good catch there!
Quote from: roadman on November 18, 2014, 09:46:56 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 17, 2014, 10:04:40 PM
A similar error was done with this BGS (http://goo.gl/maps/tb60S) 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.
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.
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
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs50915p.jpg&hash=c1d1452285561b8086b9562c60c6b06f5f32fc22)
as well as new overheads going up in the Add-A-Lane project area between Dedham and Needham, such as
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs50915g.jpg&hash=f04e40c8b09ebb9f1bc97ee10506fce9d96685bf)
on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Page http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (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.
QuoteThere 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.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 12, 2015, 12:05:21 AM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs50915p.jpg&hash=c1d1452285561b8086b9562c60c6b06f5f32fc22)
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 (https://www.google.com/maps?q=Weston,+MA&hl=en&ll=42.341193,-71.262025&spn=0.000016,0.008401&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.298758,0.537643&oq=weston,ma&hnear=Weston,+Middlesex+County,+Massachusetts&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.341193,-71.262025&panoid=FGF7a6G4oUQTTc7Z0-04lg&cbp=12,341.96,,0,4.32).
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.
The arrow is not even needed. Just green it out and it will be fine.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2015, 10:50:53 AM
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 12, 2015, 10:49:22 AM
I still prefer the previous layout of the pull-through BGS (https://www.google.com/maps?q=Weston,+MA&hl=en&ll=42.341193,-71.262025&spn=0.000016,0.008401&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.298758,0.537643&oq=weston,ma&hnear=Weston,+Middlesex+County,+Massachusetts&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.341193,-71.262025&panoid=FGF7a6G4oUQTTc7Z0-04lg&cbp=12,341.96,,0,4.32).
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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FI95MA_Exit24_Alt_zps9se3irch.png&hash=bdba5f13af8828b35331634d27349d9f777e4938)
Or, if one wanted to have a pullthrough arrow, even though I think it's not needed here...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FI95MA_Exit24_Alt2_zpsm82qbasg.png&hash=7bf9bfca2901094ef28d4038d7e8d71061f18bec)
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2015, 11:16:27 AM
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
Walthamand 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.
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2015, 11:24:21 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 12, 2015, 10:49:08 PM
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.
Quote from: SignBridge on May 12, 2015, 08:32:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 12, 2015, 10:49:08 PM
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.
Quote from: spooky on May 13, 2015, 06:59:05 AMIt 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.
That is one UGLY ASS ARROW! Why does it have to be so BIG?
Paul
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2015, 11:24:21 AM
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.
Quote from: roadman on May 15, 2015, 12:07:23 PMthe 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.
Quote from: roadman on May 15, 2015, 12:07:23 PMAs 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.
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.
Quote from: roadman on May 15, 2015, 01:08:02 PM
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 13, 2015, 08:21:12 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 12, 2015, 08:32:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 12, 2015, 10:49:08 PM
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.
Quote from: spooky on May 13, 2015, 06:59:05 AMIt 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 (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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_NxQg7HFJeE0%2FSWPhjuevPtI%2FAAAAAAAAAKw%2FEVbkrp90KlY%2Fs1600%2Fma3signexit18onr2.JPG&hash=bba766689b2de33381ae7fcb78dd00127fd32ec4)
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.
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.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 15, 2015, 09:27:29 PMThis 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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_NxQg7HFJeE0%2FSWPhjuevPtI%2FAAAAAAAAAKw%2FEVbkrp90KlY%2Fs1600%2Fma3signexit18onr2.JPG&hash=bba766689b2de33381ae7fcb78dd00127fd32ec4)
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 (https://www.google.com/maps?q=Attleboro,+MA&hl=en&ll=41.894718,-71.375856&spn=0.000011,0.0042&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.29455,0.537643&oq=attle&t=h&hnear=Attleboro,+Bristol+County,+Massachusetts&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.894787,-71.375789&panoid=dM9XWl3mawMQ30pu_J-HsQ&cbp=12,214.17,,0,12.13). 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.
Center-aligned exit tabs...maybe those signs are RIDOT installations, despite being in Massachusetts by a few feet?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 18, 2015, 01:52:21 PM
Center-aligned exit tabs...maybe those signs are RIDOT installations, despite being in Massachusetts by a few feet?
Trust me when I say this:
Those are indeed MassDPW installations! I'm old enough to remember when those particular BGS' were brand, spanking new (while riding with (mostly) my father back then).
Given that those BGS' are from from the 70s (circa 1977); center-aligned exit tabs were still the standard. Left/right-aligned exit tabs didn't start showing up on MA highway BGS'
en masse until the mid-80s (the button-copy BGS' along the Southeast Expressway portion of I-93 (now all replaced) being one of if not the first set of signs to feature such).
Additionally (& ironically), RIDOT BGS' of that same era located just south of there mostly featured full-width (& overheight) exit tabs (with the exit text & number(s) aligned to the right or left depending on which side the exit ramp was located).
I can verify PHLBOS's comments that a) the BGS panels on I-95 southbound at the RI line are indeed MassDPW installations, not RIDOT, and that b) the button copy signs installed as part of the 1984-1985 Southeast Expressway reconstruction project were the first BGSes on Massachusetts to have right/left justified exit tabs.
However, I have no clue as to why those BGSes on I-95 south were not replaced as part of the 2000 Attleboro to Canton sign replacement project.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 12, 2015, 12:05:21 AM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs50915p.jpg&hash=c1d1452285561b8086b9562c60c6b06f5f32fc22)
Update: (Memorial Day weekend observation) a supplemental
NORTH 128 w/up-arrow trailblazer sign featuring a large MA 128 shield has since been erected just prior to the gantry along the left side of the ramp/c-d road.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 26, 2015, 03:20:36 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 12, 2015, 12:05:21 AM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs50915p.jpg&hash=c1d1452285561b8086b9562c60c6b06f5f32fc22)
Update: (Memorial Day weekend observation) a supplemental NORTH 128 w/up-arrow trailblazer sign featuring a large MA 128 shield has since been erected just prior to the gantry along the left side of the ramp/c-d road.
Here's an updated photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign705e.jpg&hash=d94444bffe23b2093e8781ffa011e51b5344064c)
That has been accompanied by a couple other trailblazers on the ramp from I-95 North:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign705d.jpg&hash=1d54f55eed300cbd37878ff1d8b2f554c12708d5)
Several other photos of recently installed I-95/MA 128 shields are on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Page (more to come):
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)
As always, excellent photos Bob. Drove through the project northbound last night, and noted the same lack of foliage clearing that you indicated in your comments. Tree trimming, as MassDOT calls the pay item in sign replacement contracts, is usually one of the last items to be completed. However, now that all the ground-mounted guide signs have been installed, I'll put a call into the project R/E to see if they can expedite the trimming.
Looks like a spec/contractor/fabricator change that took place during this overall project within the last few months with regards to the Interstate shields. The I-shields on the newer installments seem to sport shorter-height numerals (more blue space); a change that I, personally, don't agree with because such:
1. Tend to be less visible from a distance (vs. the previous taller numerals). Such is more of an issue when there's more than one Interstate route involved on signage.
2. Such opens the door for improper placement (too low, high, scrunched or spread-out) of said-numerals.
If one travels southbound along I-95 approaching I-90/Mass Pike; one can see the varying differences with the I-90 shields on the approaching interchange BGS'.
The more recently-erected I-95 trailblazer/reassurance markers shown in the above-pic look like the numbers are spaced closer (but not scrunched) together than on previous installations.
At least the 9s on the newer shields aren't kerning downwards (in a lazy fashion) per several (but not all) of the earlier installations; such is a plus IMHO.
I've posted the rest of the photos I took Sunday of the new reassurance marker signage, including this one with a 'subservient' (smaller) MA 128 shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign705q.jpg&hash=5e2100ab59deb08a00d79354a535d85d031cb460)
For the others, go to: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)
The MassDOT project listing for the I-95 signing project between Newton and Lexington indicates that the project is complete as of 7/27/15 (with the exception of a couple punch list items, I assume these are the two overhead signs to go on the MA 2 bridge currently under construction). Meanwhile the Peabody to Georgetown project is 89% complete.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 07, 2015, 10:31:21 AM
The MassDOT project listing for the I-95 signing project between Newton and Lexington indicates that the project is complete as of 7/27/15 (with the exception of a couple punch list items, I assume these are the two overhead signs to go on the MA 2 bridge currently under construction). Meanwhile the Peabody to Georgetown project is 89% complete.
Had business in Newburyport earlier today, so I drove through the Peabody to Georgetown section of I-95. All new signs and structures/supports are in place, and all the old signs and structures/supports have been removed. My understanding is that the remaining work on this project mostly consists of acceptance testing and remote connection work for the overhead message boards. Only immediate errors I noted were that the signs for the State Police barracks at Route 62 northbound and US 1 southbound were green background, not blue background, and that the post-interchange distance signs seem to use larger legend than MUTCD and MassDOT standards call for. Not sure if these were design or fabrication errors.
Unfortunately, I was unable to get pictures, as I was driving through downpours most of the distance both northbound and southbound.
So I'm assuming that means the "top hat" I-95 SB pullthrough at Exit 46 is gone. What was it replaced with? A standard pullthrough? And I guess there's no more mention of 128 on it.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 21, 2015, 02:19:53 PM
So I'm assuming that means the "top hat" I-95 SB pullthrough at Exit 46 is gone. What was it replaced with? A standard pullthrough? And I guess there's no more mention of 128 on it.
The recent approach signs for that interchange still contain
TO 128 references in them, so I would assume that the new pull-through BGS would include such as well sans the
top-hat design.
Side bar: the original 1988-vintage pull-through BGS was indeed a standard panel with no
TO 128 reference. The top-hat pull-through BGS is from the early 1990s.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 21, 2015, 02:19:53 PM
So I'm assuming that means the "top hat" I-95 SB pullthrough at Exit 46 is gone. What was it replaced with? A standard pullthrough? And I guess there's no more mention of 128 on it.
Yes, the "Top Hat" sign is gone. But the replacement pull thru sign still states "TO 128." The 'TO 128" legend was added to the previous signs in the mid-1990s at the request of Peabody, in an attempt to reduce congestion on US 1 southbound.
The "Top Hat" design was used when the previous pull thru sign was modified due to constraints with the existing structure, which was also replaced as part of the Peabody to Georgetown project.
Quote from: roadman on August 21, 2015, 05:17:55 PMThe "Top Hat" design was used when the previous pull thru sign was modified due to constraints with the existing structure, which was also replaced as part of the Peabody to Georgetown project.
So the whole structure gantry was replaced as well? BTW, I remember the original standard pull-though quite well; IMHO, there was room enough on the original panel to mask the old
95 SOUTH legend with a horizontally-laid out
95 SOUTH TO 128 legend. Such would avoided the cost and design of the
top-hat panel.
Does the new 1-mile notice BGS for the MA 114 interchange
finally have exit numbers (
EXIT 47A-B) on it and has the destinations listed in the correct order? Original 1988-era BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5450832,-70.9827595,3a,75y,10.91h,80.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV0GLZvp0Ra4vya5hEKlACQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
New signs and a full gantry were put in at the "Top Hat" location. And yes, the new 1 mile BGS for 114 has exit numbers and the correct order for destinations.
I got to travel I-95 as far north as Georgetown on Thursday and, sometimes between rain showers, got to take photos of most of the new signs north of MA 128 in Peabody. Given that these have been mentioned in recent posts, here's the new MA 133 1 Mile overhead on I-95 North replacing the sign without exit numbers and the wrong order for destinations:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign91015c.jpg&hash=e02110950c8fbac450c83af5ab92f299d8222112)
And here's the replacement for the "Top Hat" sign at the interchange with US 1 South:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign91015uu.jpg&hash=f40e9a11f10c24fc32440ffb19792d51933fecff)
The rest of the photos can be found on my I-95 Mass. Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)
There are a couple new photos from the now completed Lexington to Newton project below the Peabody to Georgetown photos.
I see they've gotten rid of the "top hat" sign in your second picture!
If all goes as planned, I'm supposed to be in Maine tomorrow and Tuesday. I could see how far north they've gotten with the signs. Mind you I'd be on a bus and likely couldn't take any pictures. We will see.
I-95 now has new signage from the Peabody split on 128 all the way up to the NH state line, with the exception of some signage around Exit 58. Those north of ~ Exit 55, north were replaced about 2 years ago IIRC. I know they were there last July. Only "old" signage remaining is from I-93 to Peabody on the 128 section, and the section from the RI state line up to 128.
Some critiques regarding the new signage (not the photos):
1. The new reassurance markers along this stretch do a much better job with numeral placement (for the I-95 shield) compared to other installations that use smaller numerals. Kudos. Now if such can be applied to the shields on BGS'. Many of the shields sporting smaller 95 numerals are either placed too high or too close together. I still prefer the larger numerals that the new signs erected a year or two ago had.
2. I do not agree with the sign-spreading approach displayed at the MA 62/Exit 49 interchange with the first notice of US 1/Exit 50. Even though the BGS messages are clear; placing an advance BGS for the next interchange just prior to the approaching interchange ramp is IMHO opening the door for confusion and asking for trouble.
The previous applications of the first BGS for US 1/Exit 50 being placed next to the exit BGS for MA 62/Exit 49 on either an overhead gantry (as previously and similar to the one used for Exit 47A-B) or a larger 2-sign cantilever structure (similar to what was done for the US 3 South/MA 3A interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Burlington,+MA/@42.4915869,-71.188059,3a,75y,217.42h,93.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smh-MP9QQSf725O83NASsBw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dmh-MP9QQSf725O83NASsBw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D67.152634%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e3f6f852edf93f:0xee1834ac5b81a90d!6m1!1e1)) should've been carried over.
3. For the southbound pull-through BGS at Exit 50; I would've at least had Boston listed on the sign. My personal preference would've included both Peabody & Boston on the sign.
Possible arrangements:
2-line:
95 SOUTH TO 128
Peabody - Boston
3-line:
SOUTH
95 TO 128
Peabody
Boston
Note: the SOUTH and TO texts would be placed between the I-95 & MA 128 shields in a vertical fashion.
4. For the southbound pull-through BGS at Exit 46; given the width of the sign, I would've done a 2-line arrangement (plus the 3 down-arrows):
95 SOUTH TO 128
Waltham
Quote from: bob7374 on September 12, 2015, 10:34:17 PM
I got to travel I-95 as far north as Georgetown on Thursday and, sometimes between rain showers, got to take photos of most of the new signs north of MA 128 in Peabody. Given that these have been mentioned in recent posts, here's the new MA 133 1 Mile overhead on I-95 North replacing the sign without exit numbers and the wrong order for destinations:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign91015c.jpg&hash=e02110950c8fbac450c83af5ab92f299d8222112)
And here's the replacement for the "Top Hat" sign at the interchange with US 1 South:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign91015uu.jpg&hash=f40e9a11f10c24fc32440ffb19792d51933fecff)
The rest of the photos can be found on my I-95 Mass. Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)
There are a couple new photos from the now completed Lexington to Newton project below the Peabody to Georgetown photos.
As always, excellent photos Bob. One point - the illuminated weigh station signs were installed about 2000 as part of a project requested by the State Police to gate off the stations - which were being used by drivers as rest areas.
Where do they get a small place like Waltham as a control-city on a major Interstate like I-95? I thought "control-cities" would be major cities. At this decision point where Boston is one choice, maybe Providence, R.I. should be the other choice. Remember, as per the MUTCD philosophy, the BGS's are mainly for drivers not familiar with the region.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2015, 08:22:39 PM
Where do they get a small place like Waltham as a control-city on a major Interstate like I-95? I thought "control-cities" would be major cities. At this decision point where Boston is one choice, maybe Providence, R.I. should be the other choice. Remember, as per the MUTCD philosophy, the BGS's are mainly for drivers not familiar with the region.
Waltham's not exactly a
small place but rather a large town with a fair amount of businesses and coincidentally located mid-way along the 128/YDH portion of I-95. Do keep in mind that it's not just the locals that still refer to the latter-mentioned stretch of I-95 as
just 128 despite the multiplex' 40-year existence. Not listing key areas on signs is just asking for trouble IMHO (example: my 78-year old mother missing a northbound entrance ramp off US 20 in Waltham because the sign contained not only no 128 reference but not MA city or town as well (it only listed
Portsmouth, NH)). Had the BGS listed
Peabody along with Portsmouth, NH; such probably wouldn't have been an issue.
Additionally, just because MUTCD says so; doesn't necessarily makes a particular approach right and/or logical. The surrounding conditions, demographics and even common sense need to be taken into account. As I stated multiple times on this thread (several pages back) and on others; given the population and demographics of the region, the previously-accepted practice of listing
2 control destinations on a pull-through sign for certain scenarios should be maintained. Personally, I have never heard of any accident happening because of one reading an additional destination or two on major signs.
That said, this particular stretch of I-95 southbound IMHO hasn't always been signed consistently (especially the stretch between Exits 46 through 50 due to its proximity with the parallel US 1). When the first modern 70s era signage was erected; the southbound signage north of Exit 50 (US 1) listed Danvers & Boston as destinations. At US 1/Exit 50 (the first southbound exit to actually list Danvers (along with Middleton back then)), the first pull-through BGS and entrance ramps for I-95 south listed the originally-planned Lynn/Boston combination. These BGS' lasted
unchanged into the mid-1990s even though I-95 never touched Lynn. South of Exit 50, the original BGS' for the entrance ramps (at MA 62 & Centre St.) for I-95 South only listed Boston. The southbound entrance ramp from MA 114 wasn't present until the late 1990s. The original plan was for Exit 46 to contain the opposite entrance/exit ramp arrangement. Access to I-95 South from 114
was to have been done by using US 1 South to a planned left-lane slip exit ramp to I-95 south just south of the Lowell St. interchange.
Although such wasn't signed, I-95 southbounders seeking Peabody (especially prior to the opening of its extension to MA 128 circa 1988) simply took Exit 50 and were greeted (just after merging w/US 1 South) with a through-BGS that originally read
1 SOUTH TO 114 Peabody.
When the signs were all changed in the 1990s; in addition to most pull-through I-95 BGS' being removed and not replaced, the southbound destination combinations changed. North of Exit 50, Peabody replaced Danvers as the immediate/more local control destiantion for the southbound signs and the old Lynn/Boston southbound pull-through at Exit 50 was replaced with the
SOUTH 95 TO 128 Boston that was just recently replaced.
Interestingly, the 90s-era replacement entrance ramp BGS' for I-95 South from MA 62 (Exit 49) included Peabody along with Boston. In this case, the use of single-destinations would've made more sense since the entrance ramp for nearby US 1 South also lists Peabody.
The I-95 southbound entrance ramp from Centre St. (Exit 48) is the most northerly-listing for Waltham (which is listed along with Boston). I'm assuming that such is still the case.
IMHO, there should be a supplemental BGS north of Exit 50 that reads
Peabody USE EXITS 50 & 45 (or even
West Peabody USE EXIT 50/Downtown Peabody USE EXIT 45) and the US 1/Exit 50 BGS should list Danvers & Peabody (or even W. Peabody) en lieu of Topsfield & Danvers (one needs to keep in mind that southbounders were greeted with Topsfield for the previous 3 interchanges) and the pull-through BGS at Exit 50 should either list Waltham/Boston or even Boston/Providence, RI along with the
95 SOUTH TO 128 listing.
The entrance ramp signage from MA 62 (northbound Exit 49), Centre St. (48) and MA 114 (northbound Exits 47A-B) could listed either
just Boston or Waltham/Boston or Boston/Providence, RI as destination listings.
If the practice of 2-destinations per route direction was still practiced; then the destination listings for Exit 46 could include Saugus along with Boston and the pull-through destination listings would be Waltham/Providence, RI for I-95 South.
A 2-destination listing for Exit 45 (MA 128 North) would include Peabody along with Gloucester and
Salem would replace Peabody for the new supplemental BGS directing those looking for Peabody & Beverly to follow 128 North/Exit 45.
Side bar: had Exit 46 not existed; I-95 south could have been signed for Boston as far south as Exit 45 with the first listed exit for Boston being Exit 44.
Waltham's a fairly significant business hub (many, many office buildings clustered along 95/128 there) but also takes up nearly all the space between the Mass Pike and Route 2, both very major interchanges. It's much more significant a locale than Weston, where the actual Mass Pike exit is, certainly the most prominent of the western arc of 128.
Interesting; I didn't realize that Waltham had become a business hub. PHLBOS, I think I've also said previously that I agree with you that 2 posted destinations might be reasonable in many cases. At that Route-1 exit that we originally were discussing, showing both Waltham and Providence together for I-95 would be fine.
There is a lot of controversy re: destinations on these boards. I too am troubled by the lack of consistency along many routes in the Northeast.
And I absolutely approve of co-signing I-95 and Ma.128. I for one also still think of it as 128, which is what it was back in the 1960's when I travelled it with my parents and apparently is still favored by the locals. Amen to that.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 15, 2015, 08:49:33 PM
Interesting; I didn't realize that Waltham had become a business hub. PHLBOS, I think I've also said previously that I agree with you that 2 posted destinations might be reasonable in many cases. At that Route-1 exit that we originally were discussing, showing both Waltham and Providence together for I-95 would be fine.
There is a lot of controversy re: destinations on these boards. I too am troubled by the lack of consistency along many routes in the Northeast.
And I absolutely approve of co-signing I-95 and Ma.128. I for one also still think of it as 128, which is what it was back in the 1960's when I travelled it with my parents and apparently is still favored by the locals. Amen to that.
Until I read your last paragraph, I was going to say Waltham's been a business hub
since at least the 1980s! But I see your perspective is, shall we say, broader.
Waltham is also home to Brandeis University. Of course, being a college town in the Boston metro area is not really noteworthy.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 15, 2015, 09:37:10 PM
Waltham is also home to Brandeis University. Of course, being a college town in the Boston metro area is not really noteworthy.
And Bentley. And the industrial revolution in the Western Hemisphere. And a gleaming new Market Basket.
Mahket Basket!
Back to the northern MA stretch of I-95 again:
Looking at the exit signage at Exits 51 & 52 (Endicott Rd. & Topsfield Rd.); I noticed that the order of destinations for the southbound BGS' are now the same as those for the northbound signs. Previous generation signage (both from the 70s and from the 90s) carried MassDPW/Highway's long-standing practice of listing the right-turn destination first/left-turn destination second; the opposite of what MUTCD typically specifies. The reasoning for such is because MassDPW/Highway/DOT normally lists the right-turn info. on the top D6 Paddle LGS at the end of the exit ramp and the left turn info. on the lower D8 panel.
Previous southbound signage for Exits 51 & 52 read:
EXIT 51
Endicott Rd.
Middleton
Topsfield
EXIT 52
Topsfield Rd.
Boxford
Topsfield
Minor nitpick, perhaps; but an observation nonetheless.
MassDOT has recently opened a new off-ramp southbound for the University Ave./RR Station exit in Canton. The opening brought two new BGSs. Here's the one at the ramp itself:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign92315d.jpg&hash=7a4c274d20e4e9b1fb235397d6a4d8c6f1b468db)
While checking out these new signs, I notice MassDOT has replaced the existing D-6 Guide 'Paddle' signs at the East Street/Canton Street exit. Here's the new one northbound (also a new smaller style one on the left for southbound I-95):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign92315a.jpg&hash=c434cc0acdfa72f5e6a8efa0e2380e855e5153da)
The new signs do not have any destination signage, nor are there any MA 128 trailblazers at the exit ramps. For the complete set of photos go to the Add-A-Lane section of my I-95 Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)
MassDOT be damned if they omit Route 128. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Route 128 is love. Route 128 is life. Route 128 is GOD.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 23, 2015, 06:04:18 PM
MassDOT has recently opened a new off-ramp southbound for the University Ave./RR Station exit in Canton.
Was this part of the original "Add-A-Lane" project plan, or was this in response to the growing retail sprawl along University Avenue?
Quote from: southshore720 on September 24, 2015, 12:22:57 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 23, 2015, 06:04:18 PM
MassDOT has recently opened a new off-ramp southbound for the University Ave./RR Station exit in Canton.
Was this part of the original "Add-A-Lane" project plan, or was this in response to the growing retail sprawl along University Avenue?
The new southbound ramp at Exit 13 was constructed as part of the current re-development of the University Avenue area. The pavement marking and signing changes within the East Street Rotary were also done as part of the same development work.
At the MA 16 interchange in Newton; the new style D6 LGS (mixed-case lettering for Providence, RI & no longer a paddle) is now posted for for the entrance ramp for I-95 southbound from MA 16 eastbound. I was able to get a photo of it.
Now I just have to learn how to post such on-line. I, personally, have never done such before.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 29, 2015, 09:32:02 AM
At the MA 16 interchange in Newton; the new style D6 LGS (mixed-case lettering for Providence, RI & no longer a paddle) is now posted for for the entrance ramp for I-95 southbound from MA 16 eastbound. I was able to get a photo of it.
Now I just have to learn how to post such on-line. I, personally, have never done such before.
I recommend Imgur (https://imgur.com). They make it very easy. Go to their site, click Upload Images at the top, follow the instructions. It will even give you the right code to paste in your reply here. Just copy the code for BBCode and you'll be all set.
Quote from: storm2k on September 30, 2015, 02:24:46 PM
I have since posted the pic on Facebook's BostonRoads page. (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206912070214161&set=gm.10153536409270630&type=3&theater)
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 29, 2015, 09:32:02 AM
At the MA 16 interchange in Newton; the new style D6 LGS (mixed-case lettering for Providence, RI & no longer a paddle) is now posted for for the entrance ramp for I-95 southbound from MA 16 eastbound. I was able to get a photo of it.
Now I just have to learn how to post such on-line. I, personally, have never done such before.
Here's PHLBOS's photo that I've posted on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Page:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95ma16signpbw.jpg&hash=4fef33646a2e8d9fcbfc5e725248f64939355f39)
The re-configuring of the MA 9 interchange interchange to close two right-hand ramps and replace them with left-turn ramps has brought changes to ramp signage, including this BGS with the preexisting right angled arrow shifted to the other side to point left:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95addalane1015h.jpg&hash=77980a4933c03261e95d5741ce9c377b4710d04b)
More images of the MA 9 interchange signs and other new photos of progress along the I-95 Add-A-Lane Project are can be found at:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)
The MassDOT project listing now indicates the sign replacement contract between Peabody and Georgetown is now 100% complete. I can confirm the southern section is finished from a recent drive-through that allowed me to re-take some of the photos that I had shot in the rain a few months earlier. Such as this 1/2 mile advance SB for the US 1 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign12716q.JPG&hash=abf4a803a3ba1fe0471d2506c2dadea4806277de)
The rest of the new, or newer, shots between US 1 and Topsfield Rd are now on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html) after the Westwood photos.
The next sign replacement project along I-95 will not be until 2018 when signage between the RI border and current Exit 11 Neponset St. (Future Exit 23) is updated. (Apparently new signage NB for the I-93/I-95 interchange will be part of the upcoming reconstruction project).
Quote from: bob7374 on February 05, 2016, 11:17:15 AM
The next sign replacement project along I-95 will not be until 2018 when signage between the RI border and current Exit 11 Neponset St. (Future Exit 23) is updated. (Apparently new signage NB for the I-93/I-95 interchange will be part of the upcoming reconstruction project).
That is correct - signing for the I-95/I-93 interchange will be replaced as part of the flyover project. A little bird (no, not Twitter) tells me that the replacement signs on I-95 northbound will also be 'standard' diagrammatics, only with a more conventional arrow configuration to represent the new 'split' at the exit.
Upcoming when? Don't tell me the only cold place this winter is hell, and there's some kind of movement on this project...
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 05, 2016, 12:58:20 PM
Upcoming when? Don't tell me the only cold place this winter is hell, and there's some kind of movement on this project...
A link to the MassDOT I-93/I-95 interchange project page:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx)
The first phase, reconstructing the University Ave. on-ramp from I-95 SB is complete. The winning bid for the Dedham Street related (Phase II) work is to be announced next Tuesday (2/9). I assume the actual interchange construction will occur after that project is completed.
Quote from: bob7374 on February 05, 2016, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 05, 2016, 12:58:20 PM
Upcoming when? Don't tell me the only cold place this winter is hell, and there's some kind of movement on this project...
A link to the MassDOT I-93/I-95 interchange project page:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx)
The first phase, reconstructing the University Ave. on-ramp from I-95 SB is complete. The winning bid for the Dedham Street related (Phase II) work is to be announced next Tuesday (2/9). I assume the actual interchange construction will occur after that project is completed.
Sorry, I just realized you're talking about the OTHER 93/95 interchange.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 05, 2016, 02:45:33 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 05, 2016, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 05, 2016, 12:58:20 PM
Upcoming when? Don't tell me the only cold place this winter is hell, and there's some kind of movement on this project...
A link to the MassDOT I-93/I-95 interchange project page:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx)
The first phase, reconstructing the University Ave. on-ramp from I-95 SB is complete. The winning bid for the Dedham Street related (Phase II) work is to be announced next Tuesday (2/9). I assume the actual interchange construction will occur after that project is completed.
Sorry, I just realized you're talking about the OTHER 93/95 interchange.
I also believe that both I-93/95 interchanges are proposed to be redesigned. I know the Canton interchange is.. but what about the other junction north of Boston?>
The last I knew, it was stuck in some kind of purgatory brought on by objections of local homeowners to land takings.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 05, 2016, 05:24:39 PM
The last I knew, it was stuck in some kind of purgatory brought on by objections of local homeowners to land takings.
As I understand it, the neighborhood in the northeast quadrant of the Woburn I-95/I-93 interchange has been fighting the proposed improvements based on inaccurate information regarding land takings (the story goes that, at one point, the neighborhood claimed they were told that 175 to 200 houses would need to be taken to construct the project), as well as purely NIMBY objections about being able to see flyover ramps from their properties (this angle occassionaly makes the front page of the local Reading newspaper). Apparently, the leader of this opposition is well connected and has taken this fight all the way to FHWA in Washington DC.
Back when former Massachusetts State Treasurer Shannon O'Brien was running for Governor against Mitt Romney in 2003, she sent out a form letter to every unenrolled voter in the communities in the vicinity of the interchange - including Wakefield and Wilmington - stating that if she were elected Governor, one of her first acts in office would be to direct MassHighway to stop work on the project and go back to square one. For myself and others I know, the very negative tone of the letter (I wish I still had my copy) convinced us to not vote for her in the election (and no, I did not vote for the Mittster, but gave my vote to a third party candidate so their party would have a better chance to be eligible to be on the ballot the next time around).
The official reason why the project is currently in limbo is lack of funding. However, given the background, it's apparent the project is a political hot potato. For one thing, it's no longer classified as a transportation improvement project, but rather as a transportation improvement
study - see http://www.9395info.com/ .
Sadly, it looks like it's going to take a serious crash with multiple fatalities and/or major roadway damage - I'll let you use your imaginations here - for the powers to be to wake up and realize that construction of this project is very important for the region.
Quote from: MazdaStrider on February 05, 2016, 05:18:50 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 05, 2016, 02:18:50 PM
A link to the MassDOT I-93/I-95 interchange project page:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx)
The first phase, reconstructing the University Ave. on-ramp from I-95 SB is complete. The winning bid for the Dedham Street related (Phase II) work is to be announced next Tuesday (2/9). I assume the actual interchange construction will occur after that project is completed.
I also believe that both I-93/95 interchanges are proposed to be redesigned. I know the Canton interchange is.. but what about the other junction north of Boston?>
It looks like the announcement of the winning bid for the Dedham St phase now has been postponed to 3/22, based on a browsing of today's advertisement list on MassDOT's website.
I made a quick road trip through the Dedham and Needham sections of I-95 yesterday to photo some of the new signs put in at exit on-ramps as part of the Add-A-Lane project. The most interesting was that MassDOT put in both an overhead BGS and a ground-mounted guide sign at the on-ramps from MA 109. Here's one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs42416c.JPG&hash=48f8af17f0706fc93c10dbf450498cdfa678ff7d)
More photos have been posted on the Add-A-Lane section of my I-95 in MA Gallery site:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)
Quote from: bob7374 on April 25, 2016, 03:15:47 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs42416c.JPG&hash=48f8af17f0706fc93c10dbf450498cdfa678ff7d)
Similar was commented on Facebook: it looks like MassDOT took a page out of Maryland for its gore exit signage. Nice touch IMHO.
PHLBOS is correct. At locations such as the entrance ramps from Route 109, MassDOT has started phasing out use of gore signs that indicate "EXIT", which are actually inaccurate for freeway entrances from secondary roads, in favor of gore signs with the cardinal direction and route shield for the route you are entering.
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......
Quote from: SignBridge on April 25, 2016, 09:08:51 PM
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 26, 2016, 01:10:06 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 25, 2016, 09:08:51 PM
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.
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?
QuoteThis 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.
Quote from: roadman on June 28, 2016, 07:41:31 PM
QuoteThis 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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign705h.jpg&hash=b83d507f101142404118ad388f8cbce27d42077e)
Quote from: bob7374 on June 28, 2016, 11:25:10 PMThere'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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign705h.jpg&hash=b83d507f101142404118ad388f8cbce27d42077e)
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 29, 2016, 09:15:52 AM
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)
I rarely drive past Alewife on Route 2 headed inward from I-95. :D
Here's the new signage for MA 2. First heading south on I-95:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716c.jpg&hash=2cce81866a784db0aa314e73a0fd35158f3e3d38)
Where's Boston?
Second, heading north, with the addition of Acton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716a.jpg&hash=30d7ab2dd631f5de589226fc0720c1ae54162a9f)
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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716d.jpg&hash=c2cf6a342b99183472bb73f61556284405c1ca01)
The southbound control city is Attleboro.
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?
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?
Quote from: SignBridge on July 17, 2016, 08:30:40 PM
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.
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!
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.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 17, 2016, 12:48:44 AM
Here's the new signage for MA 2. First heading south on I-95:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716c.jpg&hash=2cce81866a784db0aa314e73a0fd35158f3e3d38)
Where's Boston?
Second, heading north, with the addition of Acton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716a.jpg&hash=30d7ab2dd631f5de589226fc0720c1ae54162a9f)
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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716d.jpg&hash=c2cf6a342b99183472bb73f61556284405c1ca01)
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.
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.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 17, 2016, 09:15:53 PM
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.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 17, 2016, 08:39:24 PM
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.
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 17, 2016, 11:58:38 AM
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?
I saw this at this rest stop in Middleton, CT why not just replace the whole sign? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2Ff1dca96bbb605e8a5ad215d89641e840.jpg&hash=d166653ba55584a374e164523d4b56070fd1dd8c)
iPhone
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2F97fdebb62a4306621611a112fc9c0352.jpg&hash=c2332a4c1e194ea18604cfe4127f07672d402f8e)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2Fd50fbb1cf4a9e1dd54462f353dd881d2.jpg&hash=656c9b70d33c0ed0017669a44290f48dae12b427)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2Fad2738cd377793d005cc9e563ec6bc24.jpg&hash=094821b97c9dd6b4d7701b34d929f989722ae5d3)
iPhone
Quote from: MikeCL on July 23, 2016, 05:28:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2F97fdebb62a4306621611a112fc9c0352.jpg&hash=c2332a4c1e194ea18604cfe4127f07672d402f8e)
That sign is more greenout than legend at this point.
Quote from: MikeCL on July 23, 2016, 05:28:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2Fd50fbb1cf4a9e1dd54462f353dd881d2.jpg&hash=656c9b70d33c0ed0017669a44290f48dae12b427)
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).
Quote from: upstatenyroads on July 17, 2016, 09:14:49 PM
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.
Quote from: roadman on July 25, 2016, 09:17:29 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on July 17, 2016, 09:14:49 PM
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.
another reason why "privatization" is a joke. no standard bearer.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 17, 2016, 12:48:44 AMSecond, heading north, with the addition of Acton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716a.jpg&hash=30d7ab2dd631f5de589226fc0720c1ae54162a9f)
Actually, the legend is a
match-in-kind to the older signs.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 17, 2016, 12:48:44 AM
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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716d.jpg&hash=c2cf6a342b99183472bb73f61556284405c1ca01)
The southbound control city is Attleboro.
Those BGS' were fabricated (& installed on previous gantries) when the replacement signs along I-95 and/or MA 2 (beyond the interchange) were erected (the exit tab style matches those along I-95). The slightly older BGS' were simply transferred onto the new gantries.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 17, 2016, 08:30:40 PM
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?
Given the history of this stretch of road (the
128 name lives on) and the heavily populated region (as someone else mentioned, Peabody actually has a larger population then Portsmouth); the use of
Peabody is somewhat justified. Several posts back, I mentioned how the listing of just
Portsmouth, NH on a northbound I-95 entrance ramp sign at US 20 caused my mother (who's in her upper 70s) to miss the ramp. Of course, she's one of those that still calls the road
128, despite knowing that I-95 runs along it for most of the way; and wasn't looking for any supplemental ground-mounted
128 signs. Had the BGS at US 20 listed either
Peabody or
Peabody along with
Portsmouth, NH; she probably wouldn't have missed the ramp (she was heading towards Peabody at the time).
Quote from: shadyjay on July 17, 2016, 08:55:44 PM
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.
Incorrect, especially at this location. Signage along MA 2 showing
Peabody for a northbound I-95/MA 128 listing dates back to 1982. The previous BGS' were wooden (late 50s/early 60s vintage) with all-caps button-copy lettering that read
TO RTE. 1 NORTH SHORE w/MA 128 shields; supplemental I-95 shields were erected above the main panels.
Ramp signage for southbound I-95/MA 128 at MA 2 originally read
TO RTE. 9 SOUTH SHORE. Such changed to
Braintree (w/only I-95 shields on the main BGS panels) in 1982 and then changed to the current
Attleboro circa 1994.
IIRC, the only interchanges that listed
Peabody for a northbound 128 destination
pre-I-95 on steel BGS' were ones from US 3 South/MA 3A North to I-93 that were erected during the early 70s. The original 60s-era BGS' along I-93 were probably the first ones to use
Peabody for a northbound then-just 128 destination.
Quote from: MikeCL on July 23, 2016, 05:26:12 PM
I saw this at this rest stop in Middleton, CT why not just replace the whole sign? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2Ff1dca96bbb605e8a5ad215d89641e840.jpg&hash=d166653ba55584a374e164523d4b56070fd1dd8c)
Simple answer: such was cheaper to do; especially since the rest of the sign is still readable & in good shape (to the delight of button-copy enthusiasts here :) ), faded background notwithstanding.
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2016, 08:38:22 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 23, 2016, 05:28:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2F97fdebb62a4306621611a112fc9c0352.jpg&hash=c2332a4c1e194ea18604cfe4127f07672d402f8e)
That sign is more greenout than legend at this point.
They are really getting their money's worth out of that ancient diagrammatic! Somewhere in the background, I hear "Let It Go!" from Frozen.
Indeed! I remember when the "34" square was on the left side of the big arrow! :)
Lol I think they have too many orange signs up now
iPhone
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2016, 08:38:22 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 23, 2016, 05:28:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2F97fdebb62a4306621611a112fc9c0352.jpg&hash=c2332a4c1e194ea18604cfe4127f07672d402f8e)
That sign is more greenout than legend at this point.
Here's the original sign, courtesy Alps Roads....just to show how green[out] we've become...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fct%2Fi-95%2Fn47_1.jpg&hash=b18d990c3ef12398aa9ce85418c2ec439b813c33)
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2016, 09:41:21 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 17, 2016, 12:48:44 AMSecond, heading north, with the addition of Acton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716a.jpg&hash=30d7ab2dd631f5de589226fc0720c1ae54162a9f)
Actually, the legend is a match-in-kind to the older signs.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 17, 2016, 12:48:44 AM
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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716d.jpg&hash=c2cf6a342b99183472bb73f61556284405c1ca01)
The southbound control city is Attleboro.
Those BGS' were fabricated (& installed on previous gantries) when the replacement signs along I-95 and/or MA 2 (beyond the interchange) were erected (the exit tab style matches those along I-95). The slightly older BGS' were simply transferred onto the new gantries.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 17, 2016, 08:30:40 PM
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?
Given the history of this stretch of road (the 128 name lives on) and the heavily populated region (as someone else mentioned, Peabody actually has a larger population then Portsmouth); the use of Peabody is somewhat justified. Several posts back, I mentioned how the listing of just Portsmouth, NH on a northbound I-95 entrance ramp sign at US 20 caused my mother (who's in her upper 70s) to miss the ramp. Of course, she's one of those that still calls the road 128, despite knowing that I-95 runs along it for most of the way; and wasn't looking for any supplemental ground-mounted 128 signs. Had the BGS at US 20 listed either Peabody or Peabody along with Portsmouth, NH; she probably wouldn't have missed the ramp (she was heading towards Peabody at the time).
Quote from: shadyjay on July 17, 2016, 08:55:44 PM
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.
Incorrect, especially at this location. Signage along MA 2 showing Peabody for a northbound I-95/MA 128 listing dates back to 1982. The previous BGS' were wooden (late 50s/early 60s vintage) with all-caps button-copy lettering that read TO RTE. 1 NORTH SHORE w/MA 128 shields; supplemental I-95 shields were erected above the main panels.
Ramp signage for southbound I-95/MA 128 at MA 2 originally read TO RTE. 9 SOUTH SHORE. Such changed to Braintree (w/only I-95 shields on the main BGS panels) in 1982 and then changed to the current Attleboro circa 1994.
IIRC, the only interchanges that listed Peabody for a northbound 128 destination pre-I-95 on steel BGS' were ones from US 3 South/MA 3A North to I-93 that were erected during the early 70s. The original 60s-era BGS' along I-93 were probably the first ones to use Peabody for a northbound then-just 128 destination.
Quote from: MikeCL on July 23, 2016, 05:26:12 PM
I saw this at this rest stop in Middleton, CT why not just replace the whole sign? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2Ff1dca96bbb605e8a5ad215d89641e840.jpg&hash=d166653ba55584a374e164523d4b56070fd1dd8c)
Simple answer: such was cheaper to do; especially since the rest of the sign is still readable & in good shape (to the delight of button-copy enthusiasts here :) ), faded background notwithstanding.
The whole 91 north is full of button copy in CT so far once you get past Hartford
iPhone
Quote from: shadyjay on August 01, 2016, 10:57:33 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2016, 08:38:22 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 23, 2016, 05:28:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2F97fdebb62a4306621611a112fc9c0352.jpg&hash=c2332a4c1e194ea18604cfe4127f07672d402f8e)
That sign is more greenout than legend at this point.
Here's the original sign, courtesy Alps Roads....just to show how green[out] we've become...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fct%2Fi-95%2Fn47_1.jpg&hash=b18d990c3ef12398aa9ce85418c2ec439b813c33)
If only they would have reversed the button copy I-shields. And just moved the CT 34 shield in inverse colors. Sign would look even better.
As discussed in the Massachusetts thread, MassDOT opened a new exit on I-95 North in Needham to Kendrick Street as part of the Add-A-Lane project. The new exit number is 19. As you can see from the photo below, and based on information from the MassDOT project site, the original number was to be 19A, but the A was removed at the last minute leading to spaces on the overhead exit tab and gore sign (seen in the distance):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95aalproj82116c.jpg&hash=68200de3919d9b10dbe0174614c5360aced0c427)
I have posted more new exit sign and construction photos from the area in the Add-A-Lane section of my I-95 in Mass. photo gallery:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)
Quote from: PurdueBill on August 05, 2016, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 01, 2016, 10:57:33 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2016, 08:38:22 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 23, 2016, 05:28:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160723%2F97fdebb62a4306621611a112fc9c0352.jpg&hash=c2332a4c1e194ea18604cfe4127f07672d402f8e)
That sign is more greenout than legend at this point.
Here's the original sign, courtesy Alps Roads....just to show how green[out] we've become...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fct%2Fi-95%2Fn47_1.jpg&hash=b18d990c3ef12398aa9ce85418c2ec439b813c33)
And the replacement is up:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8070/28805343984_88a974ce7b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KTqVcN)IMG_2060 (https://flic.kr/p/KTqVcN) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Wow I never thought it would get worse
iPhone
Worse how??
My God, it's full of stars.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 22, 2016, 01:13:45 PM
As discussed in the Massachusetts thread, MassDOT opened a new exit on I-95 North in Needham to Kendrick Street as part of the Add-A-Lane project. The new exit number is 19. As you can see from the photo below, and based on information from the MassDOT project site, the original number was to be 19A, but the A was removed at the last minute leading to spaces on the overhead exit tab and gore sign (seen in the distance):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95aalproj82116c.jpg&hash=68200de3919d9b10dbe0174614c5360aced0c427)
I have posted more new exit sign and construction photos from the area in the Add-A-Lane section of my I-95 in Mass. photo gallery:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)
In another thread, it was mentioned that this exit
will become 19A and the current 19A-B (for Highland Ave.) will indeed become 19B-C once the southbound exit ramp for Kendrick St. (via a collector-distributor road) is completed.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 06, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 22, 2016, 01:13:45 PM
As discussed in the Massachusetts thread, MassDOT opened a new exit on I-95 North in Needham to Kendrick Street as part of the Add-A-Lane project. The new exit number is 19. As you can see from the photo below, and based on information from the MassDOT project site, the original number was to be 19A, but the A was removed at the last minute leading to spaces on the overhead exit tab and gore sign (seen in the distance):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95aalproj82116c.jpg&hash=68200de3919d9b10dbe0174614c5360aced0c427)
I have posted more new exit sign and construction photos from the area in the Add-A-Lane section of my I-95 in Mass. photo gallery:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)
In another thread, it was mentioned that this exit will become 19A and the current 19A-B (for Highland Ave.) will indeed become 19B-C once the southbound exit ramp for Kendrick St. (via a collector-distributor road) is completed.
Correct. Also, when the new northbound C/D road for the Highland Avenue exits is opened, an advance sign will be placed on this northbound gantry for "Exits 19B-C Highland Avenue Newton Highlands Needham."
Quote from: roadman on September 06, 2016, 12:52:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 06, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 22, 2016, 01:13:45 PM
As discussed in the Massachusetts thread, MassDOT opened a new exit on I-95 North in Needham to Kendrick Street as part of the Add-A-Lane project. The new exit number is 19. As you can see from the photo below, and based on information from the MassDOT project site, the original number was to be 19A, but the A was removed at the last minute leading to spaces on the overhead exit tab and gore sign (seen in the distance):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95aalproj82116c.jpg&hash=68200de3919d9b10dbe0174614c5360aced0c427)
I have posted more new exit sign and construction photos from the area in the Add-A-Lane section of my I-95 in Mass. photo gallery:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)
In another thread, it was mentioned that this exit will become 19A and the current 19A-B (for Highland Ave.) will indeed become 19B-C once the southbound exit ramp for Kendrick St. (via a collector-distributor road) is completed.
Correct. Also, when the new northbound C/D road for the Highland Avenue exits is opened, an advance sign will be placed on this northbound gantry for "Exits 19B-C Highland Avenue Newton Highlands Needham."
Then why not just sign it 19A now? It's one thing if there was never any plans to put additional exits under the 19 umbrella, but if it's just a temporary thing, it only invites confusion to constantly change exit numbers.
Have they started work on the South of Canton segment of I-95. Last time I was there in 2015 it was pretty much one of the last areas of older "small tab" signs in Massachusetts. I-495 and US 3 seem to be one of the only other highways left with a large quantity of the "small exit tab" signs left.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 06, 2016, 01:14:13 PM
Then why not just sign it 19A now? It's one thing if there was never any plans to put additional exits under the 19 umbrella, but if it's just a temporary thing, it only invites confusion to constantly change exit numbers.
19A already exists.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 06, 2016, 01:14:13 PM
Then why not just sign it 19A now? It's one thing if there was never any plans to put additional exits under the 19 umbrella, but if it's just a temporary thing, it only invites confusion to constantly change exit numbers.
As has been discussed previously, Highland Ave is currently Exits 19A-B. Until the final roadway configuration (and the full signing accompanying that configuration) is in place, having Kendrick Street as Exit 19 and keeping Highland Avenue as Exits 19A and 19B is, IMO, actually less confusing than changing the exit numbers before changing the roadway configuration.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 06, 2016, 01:22:37 PM
Have they started work on the South of Canton segment of I-95. Last time I was there in 2015 it was pretty much one of the last areas of older "small tab" signs in Massachusetts. I-495 and US 3 seem to be one of the only other highways left with a large quantity of the "small exit tab" signs left.
Sign replacement on I-95 between Neponset Street in Norwood and the MA/RI border in Attleboro is presently scheduled to be advertised for bids in late 2018. Sign replacement between Neponset Street and the I-95/I-93 interchange in Canton is to be done as part of the larger Canton interchange improvements:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx
When the new flyover from I-95 north to I-95/MA 128 north is built, the current '270 degree' diagrammatic signs, as well as the large sharp curve/truck rollover warning signs, will go away.
Quote from: roadman on September 06, 2016, 01:28:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 06, 2016, 01:14:13 PM
Then why not just sign it 19A now? It's one thing if there was never any plans to put additional exits under the 19 umbrella, but if it's just a temporary thing, it only invites confusion to constantly change exit numbers.
As has been discussed previously, Highland Ave is currently Exits 19A-B. Until the final roadway configuration (and the full signing accompanying that configuration) is in place, having Kendrick Street as Exit 19 and keeping Highland Avenue as Exits 19A and 19B is, IMO, actually less confusing than changing the exit numbers before changing the roadway configuration.
And of course they will be changing to mile-based numbering soon. ...right?
Quote from: Beeper1 on September 06, 2016, 04:50:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 06, 2016, 01:28:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 06, 2016, 01:14:13 PM
Then why not just sign it 19A now? It's one thing if there was never any plans to put additional exits under the 19 umbrella, but if it's just a temporary thing, it only invites confusion to constantly change exit numbers.
As has been discussed previously, Highland Ave is currently Exits 19A-B. Until the final roadway configuration (and the full signing accompanying that configuration) is in place, having Kendrick Street as Exit 19 and keeping Highland Avenue as Exits 19A and 19B is, IMO, actually less confusing than changing the exit numbers before changing the roadway configuration.
And of course they will be changing to mile-based numbering soon. ...right?
Will the SB exits for Highland Ave be changed as well? There will still be only 2 ramps heading south, and it might be confusing to some if there is 19C, 19B but no 19A (or if milepost numbers are used, 35C, 35B, but no 35A, though the Kendrick St. exit is close enough that it could be signed as 34, solving the problem by letting Highland Ave. be signed 35A and B both ways).
Quote from: bob7374 on September 06, 2016, 06:09:17 PM
Will the SB exits for Highland Ave be changed as well? There will still be only 2 ramps heading south, and it might be confusing to some if there is 19C, 19B but no 19A (or if milepost numbers are used, 35C, 35B, but no 35A, though the Kendrick St. exit is close enough that it could be signed as 34, solving the problem by letting Highland Ave. be signed 35A and B both ways).
All three southbound exits (Highland Ave west, Highland Ave east, and Kendrick Street) will be served from a single C/D road off of I-95 south. In the final configuration, the ramps will be signed as Exits 19C-B-A.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 17, 2016, 12:48:44 AM
Here's the new signage for MA 2. First heading south on I-95:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716c.jpg&hash=2cce81866a784db0aa314e73a0fd35158f3e3d38)
Where's Boston?
Second, heading north, with the addition of Acton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716a.jpg&hash=30d7ab2dd631f5de589226fc0720c1ae54162a9f)
Update: both of those BGS' have since been replaced with ones listing just one control city (Fitchburg for 2 West, Boston for 2 East) that match the surrounding signs.
Either way, and I mentioned such earlier, I don't think it's a good idea to list Boston as an eastbound control city
at this location. While MA 2 itself goes into and ends in Boston; the freeway portion ends about 7 miles from this interchange at the northern end Cambridge, adjacent to the Alewife (MBTA Red Line) Station. Such can easily give someone unfamiliar with the area the false impression that MA 2 is a continuous freeway into Boston.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 29, 2016, 08:37:34 AM
Either way, and I mentioned such earlier, I don't think it's a good idea to list Boston as an eastbound control city at this location. While MA 2 itself goes into and ends in Boston; the freeway portion ends about 7 miles from this interchange at the northern end Cambridge, adjacent to the Alewife (MBTA Red Line) Station. Such can easily give someone unfamiliar with the area the false impression that MA 2 is a continuous freeway into Boston.
It should also be noted that Boston is used as a control city for MA 2 East at I-91 way out in Greenfield. I've never travelled MA 2 between I-91 and Fitchburg, but the maps show it as a combination of surface road in spots and "super 2" in others. Maybe it makes more sense to sign it as Boston that far west and to sign it something more local from 128, especially since just about every exit off 128 will take you to Boston, as long as you head in the right direction off the exit.
Quote from: shadyjay on November 29, 2016, 01:04:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 29, 2016, 08:37:34 AM
Either way, and I mentioned such earlier, I don't think it's a good idea to list Boston as an eastbound control city at this location. While MA 2 itself goes into and ends in Boston; the freeway portion ends about 7 miles from this interchange at the northern end Cambridge, adjacent to the Alewife (MBTA Red Line) Station. Such can easily give someone unfamiliar with the area the false impression that MA 2 is a continuous freeway into Boston.
It should also be noted that Boston is used as a control city for MA 2 East at I-91 way out in Greenfield. I've never travelled MA 2 between I-91 and Fitchburg, but the maps show it as a combination of surface road in spots and "super 2" in others
I've since revised my above-post to emphasize that my only issue with signing eastbound Route 2 to Boston was at this particular location. Further out, such is not an issue; and had the I-695/Inner Belt been built, signing eastbound Route 2 to Boston at Lexington and points east would've made more sense (one heading to Boston would've exited towards I-695 southbound in most instances).
Quote from: shadyjay on November 29, 2016, 01:04:03 PM
Maybe it makes more sense to sign it as Boston that far west and to sign it something more local from 128, especially since just about every exit off 128 will take you to Boston, as long as you head in the right direction off the exit.
Traditionally, only major highways/freeways that actually go into Boston that interchange w/I-95/MA 128 are signed as such.
From Canton to Peabody, the following interchanges list
Boston as a control city are:
Exit 12: I-93 (& US 1) North
Exit 20A: MA 9 East
(current listing includes
Brookline as well, unsure which city (Brookline or Boston) will be listed on replacement signs (assuming only one control city will be used on the main exit signs))
Exit 25: I-90/Mass Pike (eastbound)
Exit 29A: MA 2 East (previous signage listed
Arlington/Cambridge)
Personally, I would've chosen either Arlington or Cambridge for the main exit signs.
Exit 37A: I-93 South
Exit 44 (southbound)/44A (northbound): US 1 South
Exit 46 (southbound only): US 1 South
According to the Needham to Wellesley "Add-a-Lane" project plans (MassDOT Project # 603711), the legend on the replacement signs for Route 9 east (Exit 20A) will be Brookline only.
Quote from: roadman on November 29, 2016, 01:43:00 PM
According to the Needham to Wellesley "Add-a-Lane" project plans (MassDOT Project # 603711), the legend on the replacement signs for Route 9 east (Exit 20A) will be Brookline only.
I figured as much but I didn't want to blindly assume such given the recent Route 2 east signage further north.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 29, 2016, 08:37:34 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 17, 2016, 12:48:44 AM
Here's the new signage for MA 2. First heading south on I-95:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716c.jpg&hash=2cce81866a784db0aa314e73a0fd35158f3e3d38)
Where's Boston?
Second, heading north, with the addition of Acton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs716a.jpg&hash=30d7ab2dd631f5de589226fc0720c1ae54162a9f)
Update: both of those BGS' have since been replaced with ones listing just one control city (Fitchburg for 2 West, Boston for 2 East) that match the surrounding signs.
Either way, and I mentioned such earlier, I don't think it's a good idea to list Boston as an eastbound control city at this location. While MA 2 itself goes into and ends in Boston; the freeway portion ends about 7 miles from this interchange at the northern end Cambridge, adjacent to the Alewife (MBTA Red Line) Station. Such can easily give someone unfamiliar with the area the false impression that MA 2 is a continuous freeway into Boston.
Finally got a photo of the new northbound sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95sign117a.jpg&hash=46e76b536cc04341ed877d3b01de559f48e62e41)
Did not get a photo southbound, will try in the future.
Finally got to take a trip down to Attleboro to see the new signage that came along with the new 2-lane off-ramp for I-295 South on I-95 South. There are two new overheads. The first with 2 arrows, one for the exit only lane:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95signs217a.JPG&hash=7549a0a627689970224ca60f189af45a300d579a)
The second has arrows for both I-95 and I-295:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95signs217b.JPG&hash=902e2822de4e7474ffc9ba1ef8bc83157b164ac5)
Quote from: bob7374 on February 08, 2017, 11:50:02 PM
Finally got to take a trip down to Attleboro to see the new signage that came along with the new 2-lane off-ramp for I-295 South on I-95 South. There are two new overheads. The first with 2 arrows, one for the exit only lane:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95signs217a.JPG&hash=7549a0a627689970224ca60f189af45a300d579a)
The second has arrows for both I-95 and I-295:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95signs217b.JPG&hash=902e2822de4e7474ffc9ba1ef8bc83157b164ac5)
Technically those are supposed to be APL signs, or at the very least diagrammatics.
Quote from: Alps on February 09, 2017, 12:06:48 AMTechnically those are supposed to be APL signs, or at the very least diagrammatics.
To date, I don't believe that there are any APL installs in Massachusetts (thank goodness IMHO).
OTOH, MassDOT has done some newer (not just mere
match-in-kind replacements) diagrammatic signs in recent years. Why such wasn't done here is unknown; Roadman will likely know.
No APLs in Mass that I know of. The I-91 sign replacement projects of the past couple years have retained the status-quo diagrammatics for Exit 12-NB and Exit 27-SB, while the former billboard diagrammatics for Exit 27-NB were replaced with traditional signage. There was no need for any diagram for that exit, as there are no lane drops/exit onlys/etc associated with it. Exit 12-NB probably should be an APL as there is an option lane, but Mass doesn't seem to do APLs....yet....
Quote from: Alps on February 09, 2017, 12:06:48 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 08, 2017, 11:50:02 PM
Finally got to take a trip down to Attleboro to see the new signage that came along with the new 2-lane off-ramp for I-295 South on I-95 South. There are two new overheads. The first with 2 arrows, one for the exit only lane:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95signs217a.JPG&hash=7549a0a627689970224ca60f189af45a300d579a)
The second has arrows for both I-95 and I-295:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95signs217b.JPG&hash=902e2822de4e7474ffc9ba1ef8bc83157b164ac5)
Technically those are supposed to be APL signs, or at the very least diagrammatics.
I find these sign panels very easy to read and understand. Do we really need to go to such great lengths and expense to sign APLs in every one of these instances? APLs seem just so wasteful in money, resources and size. I think these Mass signs fill the need just fine.
As I've said repeatedly in these discussions over the past several years, I think this type of signing works fine for option-lane exits and I believe the FHWA created a problem where there wasn't one. From the looks of things, I'm starting to wonder if maybe some state DOT's feel that way also.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 09, 2017, 07:19:06 PMI find these sign panels very easy to read and understand. Do we really need to go to such great lengths and expense to sign APLs in every one of these instances? APLs seem just so wasteful in money, resources and size. I think these Mass signs fill the need just fine.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 09, 2017, 08:28:11 PM
As I've said repeatedly in these discussions over the past several years, I think this type of signing works fine for option-lane exits and I believe the FWHA created a problem where there wasn't one. From the looks of things, I'm starting to wonder if maybe some state DOT's feel that way also.
I agree with both of the above.
Such signage practice is no different than this older example in NJ. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8795468,-75.1031626,3a,75y,165.04h,80.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOGltLCmYOtuSIvpRfP4sgQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 10, 2017, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 09, 2017, 07:19:06 PMI find these sign panels very easy to read and understand. Do we really need to go to such great lengths and expense to sign APLs in every one of these instances? APLs seem just so wasteful in money, resources and size. I think these Mass signs fill the need just fine.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 09, 2017, 08:28:11 PM
As I've said repeatedly in these discussions over the past several years, I think this type of signing works fine for option-lane exits and I believe the FWHA created a problem where there wasn't one. From the looks of things, I'm starting to wonder if maybe some state DOT's feel that way also.
I agree with both of the above.
Such signage practice is no different than this older example in NJ. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8795468,-75.1031626,3a,75y,165.04h,80.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOGltLCmYOtuSIvpRfP4sgQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
That was pretty much the standard nationwide, except when diagrammatics were used.
Glancing at NJDOT bids, it appears signage comes in at $20 - $30 per square foot. They don't request bids based on each individual sign, rather they just calculate the square footage of signage needed, and receive bids based on that total amount. Using an average of $25 per square foot:
The 2 signs pictured above would probably cost about $9,000 or so.
An APL would probably cost about $18,000 or so.
At first glance, you're looking at double the cost.
But then consider the overhead sign structure. That alone can cost upwards of $100,000 or so. Lighting is extra if used, and costs just as much as the sign. Yes, there's different things to take into account, such as the weight of the signs, etc, but the cost won't vary all that much. A lot of the money is spent on what you're never going to see: The underground bases holding that sign in.
So regardless if it's APL or former standard signage, on projects that cost tens of millions of dollars, they aren't worried about a few thousand bucks on extra signage. There's way, way more money-consuming aspects of the project they are more concerned about.
In Massachusetts, bid prices for overhead sign panels are typically $16 to $18 per square foot. For overhead sign structures, bid prices are typically in the $20,000 to $30,000 range for cantilever supports, and in the $40,000 to $55,000 range for full span supports. Note that MassDOT does not currently accept monotube supports for use on state highway projects. However, the bid prices for the monotube structures specified for the Big Dig project were in the $275,000 to $350,000 range, with certain 'dual' monotube structures (where one structure was placed immediately behind another one and both structures connected together with cross-webbing) costing approximately $450,000 to $500,000.
Not surprised...everything in Jersey costs more!
But the point being, the sign prices are relatively cheap, compared to other components...and especially to the project as a whole.
Quote from: roadman on February 10, 2017, 12:17:30 PM
For overhead sign structures, bid prices are typically in the $20,000 to $30,000 range for cantilever supports, and in the $40,000 to $55,000 range for full span supports.... However, the bid prices for the monotube structures specified for the Big Dig project were in the $275,000 to $350,000 range, with certain 'dual' monotube structures (where one structure was placed immediately behind another one and both structures connected together with cross-webbing) costing approximately $450,000 to $500,000.
Is there an advantage to monotube structures, besides aesthetics, that could justify the huge price differential?
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 09, 2017, 09:04:26 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 09, 2017, 12:06:48 AMTechnically those are supposed to be APL signs, or at the very least diagrammatics.
To date, I don't believe that there are any APL installs in Massachusetts (thank goodness IMHO).
OTOH, MassDOT has done some newer (not just mere match-in-kind replacements) diagrammatic signs in recent years. Why such wasn't done here is unknown; Roadman will likely know.
To properly implement diagrammatic (or APL) signs at this location would have meant replacing not just the exit signs, but all the advance signs for the I-295 interchange, and relocating some of the other existing signs to maintain adequate sign spacing. Because of this, MassDOT designers determined that the additional work was outside the scope of the ramp widening project, especially with design on the pending Attleboro to Norwood sign replacement project to begin in late 2017.
The possible future use of APLs is mentioned in the Massachusetts MUTCD Amendments - see http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/MassMUTCD20120409.pdf . However, at present there are no APL installations on Massachusetts Interstates or freeways. Nor are any APL installations proposed in any of the current or pending sign replacement projects.
Quote from: roadman on February 10, 2017, 12:17:30 PM
Note that MassDOT does not currently accept monotube supports for use on state highway projects.
Aren't these monotube supports, installed last year on the I-91 sign project, W. Springfield to Bernardston?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8142/28328270423_120ec3c842_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KagMRz)91SB-Exit15 (https://flic.kr/p/KagMRz) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Cantilevers and trusses were installed on the couple-years-ago project from Longmeadow to W. Springfield...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8397/28947852842_6cb2ab2432_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/L72j85)91NB-Exit13 (https://flic.kr/p/L72j85) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Why two types used on the same interstate? Granted, two different projects, but is there a particular advantage with one design over the other?
That photo above is not a monotube in the modern sense. That term as I understand it applies to a wider tube that curves from the vertical to horizontal. That one above looks to me like an old design from way back when.
Quote from: shadyjay on February 12, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 10, 2017, 12:17:30 PM
Note that MassDOT does not currently accept monotube supports for use on state highway projects.
Aren't these monotube supports, installed last year on the I-91 sign project, W. Springfield to Bernardston?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8142/28328270423_120ec3c842_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KagMRz)91SB-Exit15 (https://flic.kr/p/KagMRz) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Cantilevers and trusses were installed on the couple-years-ago project from Longmeadow to W. Springfield...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8397/28947852842_6cb2ab2432_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/L72j85)91NB-Exit13 (https://flic.kr/p/L72j85) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Why two types used on the same interstate? Granted, two different projects, but is there a particular advantage with one design over the other?
The structure in the top photograph is actually a single chord support, not a monotube support. Standard MassDOT practice is to give contractors general guidance as to structure design, but leaves the specific design up to the fabricators - subject to approval of the design drawings and calculations for each structure. Note that single chord supports have most of the aesthetic benefits of monotubes, but - being a simpler design - are easier to fabricate and install than monotubes. Costs for single chord supports are also less than for monotubes as well.
Also note that the structure in the bottom photograph spans both sides of the highway ("complete span" support in MassDOT nomenclature). In this case, neither a single chord support nor a monotube would be practical to install due to the span length.
Those single-chord supports were common back in the 1950's, but I'm not aware of them being used anywhere in new construction nowadays. Can they handle the same wind-load as a truss design?
Quote from: SignBridge on February 12, 2017, 08:05:49 PM
Those single-chord supports were common back in the 1950's, but I'm not aware of them being used anywhere in new construction nowadays. Can they handle the same wind-load as a truss design?
Minimum wind speed is a basic parameter that a sign support structure must meet, regardless of whether it is a single chord, dual chord, trichord, box truss, or monotube design. The structures supplied for the recent I-91 Longmeadow to West Springfield and West Springfield to Bernardston sign projects are designed for 130 mph wind speed, in accordance with 2013 AASHTO requirements.
Be reminded that, per MassDOT/MassHighway/MassDPW standard practice since the 1960s, each support structure is actually a custom design to meet the requirements of the span length and sign loading for the specific structure location. While many structures may look similar externally from location to location, specific characteristics such as wall thickness of the uprights and members, number and diameter of anchor bolts, depth of and amount/thickness of reinforcing steel in foundations, etc. are unique to each specific structure. The notable exception to this practice in Massachusetts in recent years was with the monotube supports used on the Big Dig project. In that case, the designers were directed to develop a standard design for the sign support structures (principally for aesthetic reasons), and then develop the sign panel designs so they did not exceed the total panel area and maximum wind loading (IIRC it was 110 mph) permissible for the standard support design.
Interesting. Thanks Roadman.
Isn't this a monotube example here? This is from I-84/US 6 West in Hartford, just after the Exit 48 off ramp:
https://goo.gl/maps/nJ6Sj5qSK772
Quote from: roadman on February 12, 2017, 08:14:34 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 12, 2017, 08:05:49 PM
Those single-chord supports were common back in the 1950's, but I'm not aware of them being used anywhere in new construction nowadays. Can they handle the same wind-load as a truss design?
Minimum wind speed is a basic parameter that a sign support structure must meet, regardless of whether it is a single chord, dual chord, trichord, box truss, or monotube design. The structures supplied for the recent I-91 Longmeadow to West Springfield and West Springfield to Bernardston sign projects are designed for 130 mph wind speed, in accordance with 2013 AASHTO requirements.
Be reminded that, per MassDOT/MassHighway/MassDPW standard practice since the 1960s, each support structure is actually a custom design to meet the requirements of the span length and sign loading for the specific structure location. While many structures may look similar externally from location to location, specific characteristics such as wall thickness of the uprights and members, number and diameter of anchor bolts, depth of and amount/thickness of reinforcing steel in foundations, etc. are unique to each specific structure. The notable exception to this practice in Massachusetts in recent years was with the monotube supports used on the Big Dig project. In that case, the designers were directed to develop a standard design for the sign support structures (principally for aesthetic reasons), and then develop the sign panel designs so they did not exceed the total panel area and maximum wind loading (IIRC it was 110 mph) permissible for the standard support design.
130 MPH. I wonder what it was before 2013. I think of the sign on I-84 in Sturbridge that the tornado hit in 2011. The sign stayed attached, yet the whole vertical pole bent in half. That sign took a direct hit from that thing.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 13, 2017, 09:08:21 AM
Quote from: roadman on February 12, 2017, 08:14:34 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 12, 2017, 08:05:49 PM
Those single-chord supports were common back in the 1950's, but I'm not aware of them being used anywhere in new construction nowadays. Can they handle the same wind-load as a truss design?
Minimum wind speed is a basic parameter that a sign support structure must meet, regardless of whether it is a single chord, dual chord, trichord, box truss, or monotube design. The structures supplied for the recent I-91 Longmeadow to West Springfield and West Springfield to Bernardston sign projects are designed for 130 mph wind speed, in accordance with 2013 AASHTO requirements.
Be reminded that, per MassDOT/MassHighway/MassDPW standard practice since the 1960s, each support structure is actually a custom design to meet the requirements of the span length and sign loading for the specific structure location. While many structures may look similar externally from location to location, specific characteristics such as wall thickness of the uprights and members, number and diameter of anchor bolts, depth of and amount/thickness of reinforcing steel in foundations, etc. are unique to each specific structure. The notable exception to this practice in Massachusetts in recent years was with the monotube supports used on the Big Dig project. In that case, the designers were directed to develop a standard design for the sign support structures (principally for aesthetic reasons), and then develop the sign panel designs so they did not exceed the total panel area and maximum wind loading (IIRC it was 110 mph) permissible for the standard support design.
130 MPH. I wonder what it was before 2013. I think of the sign on I-84 in Sturbridge that the tornado hit in 2011. The sign stayed attached, yet the whole vertical pole bent in half. That sign took a direct hit from that thing.
The sign structure on I-84 that took a direct hit from the tornado was designed for a 110 mph wind speed, as was the replacement structure. Currently, most of Massachusetts is a 110 mph design wind speed, with parts of District 1, District 2, and District 5 having a 130 mph design wind speed. However, ground mounted sign posts are still designed for a 90 mph design wind speed statewide.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane917b.jpg&hash=8cf87dae90c564da53b46a7e364766bb29178aa3)
and southbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane917m.jpg&hash=3fea7bb622ca54bff84368651c6d7d695fe5e2ad)
The full set on my I-95 in MA Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Several new exit signs have now been added northbound in Needham. Including this 2-for-1 special:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane1017b.jpg&hash=44768818e4f5a3f46e4742b62d4bad131fff9e47)
The full set of latest photos can be found on the I-95 in Mass. Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Quote from: bob7374 on October 17, 2017, 06:18:14 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane1017b.jpg&hash=44768818e4f5a3f46e4742b62d4bad131fff9e47)
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4916613,-71.1881069,3a,75y,227.75h,77.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCH0lP8gihtU_24_DsxrxEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
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.
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.
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.
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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane1017m.jpg&hash=747590d16fca254757488d1276e296ff309f74e0)
The new ramp exit sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane1017p.jpg&hash=822a4db0d18d39f3a8422f117388dfdb180dcebc)
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 (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 09, 2017, 05:57:29 PM
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.)
There are many dissenters at FHWA, NCUTCD, and around the country who feel that street names and city names can be combined. I would stay away from adding route shields into that mix - any two out of three, but not all three. But some agencies consciously still put them together on the basis of engineering judgment - people need to navigate.
I completely agree with Alps and roadman on this issue. And I re-emphasize what roadman pointed out, that it's only a recommendation in the Manual, not a standard so no, there will not be any fights with FHWA over this. But the Feds are creating a problem where there isn't one.
JNW, combining street and town names can and does result in well engineered signing legends even if in conflict with MUTCD's recommendations. And it usually does not result in message overload, unless it's done to excess like in New Jersey where NJDOT sometimes displays 3 town names with a route shield, instead of the preferred 2 names.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 09, 2017, 08:40:32 PM
And it usually does not result in message overload, unless it's done to excess like in New Jersey where NJDOT sometimes displays 3 town names with a route shield, instead of the preferred 2 names.
Hey - when the state has 565 towns in an area larger than some counties in Nevada, you can go thru 3 towns just by simply taking the ramp off the highway!!
Hey I just like the CalTrans style floating exit only tab, including with the word "exit" being dropped. I've always liked the CalTrans style exit only tab on MA 24 south at exit 12 which is the more familiar full "EXIT ONLY"
Quote from: SignBridge on November 09, 2017, 08:40:32 PM
I completely agree with Alps and roadman on this issue. And I re-emphasize what roadman pointed out, that it's only a recommendation in the Manual, not a standard so no, there will not be any fights with FHWA over this. But the Feds are creating a problem where there isn't one.
JNW, combining street and town names can and does result in well engineered signing legends even if in conflict with MUTCD's recommendations. And it usually does not result in message overload, unless it's done to excess like in New Jersey where NJDOT sometimes displays 3 town names with a route shield, instead of the preferred 2 names.
I agree. I believe that MD does an excellent job of using route shield, direction, street name, and city name without being overloaded.
Take a look at these examples.
Where there is one ramp allowing you to make a left or a right turn on the cross street (diamond, parclo a4, parclo a2, parclo b2)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0135158,-77.0389682,3a,75y,271.47h,95.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDSJtedhQWXE7TNx1LW3zXw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DDSJtedhQWXE7TNx1LW3zXw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D304.56052%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Exit 31
{97} Georgia Ave
Silver Spring
Wheaton
Where there are two ramps leading to the cross street forcing a right turn (like cloverleaf or parclo b4), each ramp would look like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0133578,-77.0417567,3a,75y,126.97h,92.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syrF14rAk6wHTE3-4oiEV8A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Exit 31A
North
{97} Georgia Ave
Wheaton
IMO, these signs are very balanced. There is a lot of very key information and it is very well presented. In no way does this seem confusing, even at highway speeds. And for different people - they navigate in different ways. Some people use the exit number, some people use the higway number, some people use the street name. And for direction, some people use the cardinal direction and some people use the city.
And I don't beleive a supplemental sign is a substitute. These exit signs generally are more prominently placed than the supplement signs which are generally along the side of the road and signed very low. The exit signs are high and easier to see.
So I am glad that MA and NY are not following CA which is getting rid of control cities left and right.
The only concern I have over the way Maryland does that on the Beltway is the road name should be the same large letter size as the city names, even if it means using a slightly bigger sign.
Back to I-95 in Massachusetts.
Thanksgiving weekend observation (but no photo): for reasons unknown, the I-95 shield on this pull-through BGS was replaced (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5259177,-70.9678956,3a,75y,261.57h,84.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sku1MyiT7PPYwNfm-Z1u7Tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last 2 months with a shield that features slightly smaller numerals with proportionately spacing (many I-95 shields with the smaller numerals I've seen in MA & elsewhere have the numbers placed too close together IMHO).
Anybody know the reasoning why the shield was replaced? It certainly wasn't faded. Recent vandalism (paintball/spraypaint) perhaps?
Took a trip to check out the newly opened ramps along I-95/MA 128 in the Add-A-Lane Project work zone in Needham on Sunday. The new northbound ramp from Kendrick Street features both I-95 and 128 shield on the ramp guide sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane1217gg.jpg&hash=20b54816ad09cd3fea3a279630219efa7807b94f)
Perhaps the contractor views the sign as a trailblazer, since the FHWA has frowned on 128 shields on guide and exit signs. The rest of the photos can be found on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
^^^^^^ Good Grief!
Drove all of I-95 in Massachusetts (actually, from Exit 69 in CT to Exit 2 in NH) on Sunday and got shots of many guide signs along the way. They can be found in my I-95 MASS album at:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157659430958301
Here's a shot in the add-a-lane work zone, which seems largely complete:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1839/44141896511_3dfd6d5633_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2afEKXe)95NB-Exit20-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2afEKXe) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
And a shot of the newly-completed 8-laned Merrimack River Bridge:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1834/43235085985_da83f6f3da_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28Sx7LZ)95NB-Exit58-2 (https://flic.kr/p/28Sx7LZ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Why weren't these signs replaced?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1849/29203839647_1240a5c81f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LuDj5F)95NB-Exit58-5 (https://flic.kr/p/LuDj5F) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
For the rest of the signs, click the link in my sig.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 09, 2017, 05:57:29 PM
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.)
With exception for US highways, the same is generally true for state route numbers in metropolitan areas. I doubt very many people know that Foothill Dr in Salt Lake City is SR 186, or that Sheridan Blvd in Denver is SH 95.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 21, 2018, 06:40:34 PM
Why weren't these signs replaced?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1849/29203839647_1240a5c81f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LuDj5F)95NB-Exit58-5 (https://flic.kr/p/LuDj5F) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
For the rest of the signs, click the link in my sig.
Groan!
MassDOT has advertised today (9/22) for the I-95 sign replacement contract from the RI border to Norwood. The Bid Opening will be on Jan. 29, 2019. The estimated cost for the project is $6.3 million and includes the addition of 3 variable message signs and traffic cameras. Also advertised a couple weeks ago is the I-495 sign replacement contract in Districts 3 and 4 (Harvard to Lowell). The Bid Opening will be 3 weeks earlier om Jan. 8, 2019, the total cost being $3.8 million.
@msrman - here's how they do it in Oregon:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6284409,-123.0618522,3a,75y,14.71h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-RNPiW2R6uLYMXUxFQuWmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: bob7374 on September 22, 2018, 12:39:22 PM
MassDOT has advertised today (9/22) for the I-95 sign replacement contract from the RI border to Norwood. The Bid Opening will be on Jan. 29, 2019. The estimated cost for the project is $6.3 million and includes the addition of 3 variable message signs and traffic cameras. Also advertised a couple weeks ago is the I-495 sign replacement contract in Districts 3 and 4 (Harvard to Lowell). The Bid Opening will be 3 weeks earlier om Jan. 8, 2019, the total cost being $3.8 million.
Will there finally be an actual sign for Exit 1? Ridiculous to have an unsigned exit on I-95 in the boswash corridor
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 26, 2018, 04:05:51 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 22, 2018, 12:39:22 PM
MassDOT has advertised today (9/22) for the I-95 sign replacement contract from the RI border to Norwood. The Bid Opening will be on Jan. 29, 2019. The estimated cost for the project is $6.3 million and includes the addition of 3 variable message signs and traffic cameras. Also advertised a couple weeks ago is the I-495 sign replacement contract in Districts 3 and 4 (Harvard to Lowell). The Bid Opening will be 3 weeks earlier om Jan. 8, 2019, the total cost being $3.8 million.
Will there finally be an actual sign for Exit 1? Ridiculous to have an unsigned exit on I-95 in the boswash corridor
Wow, I wasn't even aware that particular sign was missing. Given that the current stretch of signs are from the 1990s; it's likely that the sign was knocked down and never replaced.
There is a 1/2 mile advance sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9026071,-71.3559417,3a,75y,244.52h,76.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s06YKGqtvcRre2aYbNzvO3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for this exit.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 26, 2018, 04:14:04 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 26, 2018, 04:05:51 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 22, 2018, 12:39:22 PM
MassDOT has advertised today (9/22) for the I-95 sign replacement contract from the RI border to Norwood. The Bid Opening will be on Jan. 29, 2019. The estimated cost for the project is $6.3 million and includes the addition of 3 variable message signs and traffic cameras. Also advertised a couple weeks ago is the I-495 sign replacement contract in Districts 3 and 4 (Harvard to Lowell). The Bid Opening will be 3 weeks earlier om Jan. 8, 2019, the total cost being $3.8 million.
Will there finally be an actual sign for Exit 1? Ridiculous to have an unsigned exit on I-95 in the boswash corridor
Wow, I wasn't even aware that particular sign was missing. Given that the current stretch of signs are from the 1990s; it's likely that the sign was knocked down and never replaced.
There is a 1/2 mile advance sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9026071,-71.3559417,3a,75y,244.52h,76.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s06YKGqtvcRre2aYbNzvO3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for this exit.
Hope they are replacing this sign as well (https://goo.gl/maps/ikTuvi5guWv).
Quote from: bob7374 on September 26, 2018, 04:46:33 PMHope they are replacing this sign as well (https://goo.gl/maps/ikTuvi5guWv).
Given that the latest GSV is from 2016; one would
hope that MassDOT has since done a
one-off replacement for that reassurance sign assembly.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 08:37:15 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 26, 2018, 04:46:33 PMHope they are replacing this sign as well (https://goo.gl/maps/ikTuvi5guWv).
Given that the latest GSV is from 2016; one would hope that MassDOT has since done a one-off replacement for that reassurance sign assembly.
I believe that the reassurance shields are pretty consistently terrible along this corridor, and I suspect that the intent is for wholesale replacement under this particular advertised contract rather than one-off replacement of the worst offenders.
Quote from: spooky on September 27, 2018, 11:47:33 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 08:37:15 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 26, 2018, 04:46:33 PMHope they are replacing this sign as well (https://goo.gl/maps/ikTuvi5guWv).
Given that the latest GSV is from 2016; one would hope that MassDOT has since done a one-off replacement for that reassurance sign assembly.
I believe that the reassurance shields are pretty consistently terrible along this corridor, and I suspect that the intent is for wholesale replacement under this particular advertised contract rather than one-off replacement of the worst offenders.
While that may be the case; I've seen plenty of examples where worn/damaged shields/assemblies (either free-standing or on a sign panel) were replaced and then replaced again shortly thereafter as part of an overall sign replacement contract.
Case & point: This 2017 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3411739,-71.2645283,3a,75y,71.95h,84.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEfUSCuiWjJsBbLkVRhDU8w!2e0!5s20170901T000000!7i13312!8i6656) shows a replacement I-95 shield on the right sign panel (the left one showing the worn shield was replaced shortly thereafter). Both of these signs were completely replaced with brand new signs just over a month ago Scroll down (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i90photos.html) to see the eplacement signs.
Bottom line: As an interim measure, MassDOT may have to replace those worn I-shields (this non-button-copy I-495 shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0271034,-71.2558384,3a,75y,31.46h,86.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sS8dJIzyXYdqWKy3-v3EjJg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DS8dJIzyXYdqWKy3-v3EjJg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D185.92445%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) is pretty worn out as well)
prior to that sign replacement contract commences.
It appears Liddell Bros. was the low bidder ($6.24 million) for the MassDOT I-95 RI border to Norwood sign replacement contract on January 29. Once the project starts, I will see if I can get copies of the sign plans to post on my I-95 in MA gallery site.
Saw these on I-95 today...
I-95 North in Portsmouth, NH. The Piscataqua Bridge ("High Bridge") to Kittery, ME is in the background. A couple A.P.L. signs south of here, between the Hampton toll plaza and Exit 7 also said "Maine" or "All Maine Points".
(https://i.imgur.com/GlFDONC.jpg)
Maine Exit 1 being signed in Portsmouth, NH. Are those NH-DOT specs on this sign? That long gantry wasn't there on my 2017 trip at all.
(https://i.imgur.com/KZKE0MQ.jpg)
I-95/Maine Turnpike north at Exit 44 in Scarborough. Some widening is supposed to start up after this exit soon.
(https://i.imgur.com/l62EHFF.jpg)
Those two New Hampshire signs were both there on my last trip to Maine, 7/2017. The last sign is the northern end of the Maine Turnpike Phase III sign replacement project, though I believe there's a patch going over the Exit 45 sign, reverting that sign back to South Portland/Maine Mall Road.
Speaking of Maine Turnpike signing projects, the Phase IV contract for MM 0-32 was released last week....
http://www.maineturnpike.com/Projects/Construction-Contracts/Guide-Sign-Modifications,-Phase-IV-(Mile-0-0-to-32.aspx
Not sure why it doesn't include Exit 19-NB, or Exit 25 (Kennebunk), bringing it up to the present/just ended Phase III (Biddeford to South Portland). Also of note,
Exits 1-3 in the northbound direction are getting patches, including the two Exit 1 signs on the Piscataqua Bridge. Annotations for Exits 1-3 signs and gantries note that they may be replaced in a future project, so perhaps they're holding out until the Piscataqua gets rehabbed.
I noticed that the Exit 32 sign in Biddeford changed. It now says "ME 111 to US 1". Also, the Exit 42 sign in Scarborough now also references Gorham.
What does NHDOT have against using Portland as a control rather than the MUTCD no-no in using a control state? Personally, I'd even use Portland as a secondary control coming off of 495 North in MA.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 07, 2019, 02:09:37 AM
What does NHDOT have against using Portland as a control rather than the MUTCD no-no in using a control state? Personally, I'd even use Portland as a secondary control coming off of 495 North in MA.
Portland & even Kittery appears on I-95 northbound ramp signage as far south as the MA 110 interchange (Exit 58) in Salisbury/Amesbury.
With regards to that new thru-BGS listing just
Maine: sure, Portland could have been used; but I believe the intent for this BGS at this location is that I-95 serves all Maine points not just the major cities like Portland & Augusta. Personally, I'm surprised it wasn't worded as
All Maine Points. Such would be consistent with the BGS' south of the NH 4 interchange are (which include Portsmouth (NH) listed above said-listing).
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 06, 2019, 09:20:59 PM
I noticed that the Exit 32 sign in Biddeford changed. It now says "ME 111 to US 1". Also, the Exit 42 sign in Scarborough now also references Gorham.
Other changes I've noticed:
1. The exit sign arrows are losing their 'flared' tails.
2. Portsmouth and Boston for control cities versus New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
3. 'Last Exit in Maine' goes from green background to yellow and will be the entire width of the sign it sits under.
4. "The Yorks" becomes just 'York.'
5. Brown signs will say 'Exit XX' versus 'Next Exit.'
6. Dropping km distances on mileage signs allows for space for three cities instead of just two.
7. Exit 19; dropping Sanford in favor of Ogunquit.
Quote from: billpa on March 07, 2019, 10:11:56 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 06, 2019, 09:20:59 PM
I noticed that the Exit 32 sign in Biddeford changed. It now says "ME 111 to US 1". Also, the Exit 42 sign in Scarborough now also references Gorham.
Other changes I've noticed:
1. The exit sign arrows are losing their 'flared' tails.
2. Portsmouth and Boston for control cities versus New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
3. 'Last Exit in Maine' goes from green background to yellow and will be the entire width of the sign it sits under.
4. "The Yorks" becomes just 'York.'
5. Brown signs will say 'Exit XX' versus 'Next Exit.'
6. Dropping km distances on mileage signs allows for space for three cities instead of just two.
7. Exit 19; dropping Sanford in favor of Ogunquit.
I-95 South at Exit 2 in Kittery still said "New Hampshire | Massachusetts" today.
The southbound signs before Exit 2 still had the separate rectangle reading "Last Exit In Maine".
The Exit 19 signs still read "9/109 | Wells/Sanford". However, Sanford is also now mentioned at Exit 32 (ME Route 111) in Biddeford. An extra sign states "Sanford Region - Exits 19 & 32".
The Exit 2-19 project has not yet started... just the contract has been announced, so the "Changes I've noted" hasn't even been constructed yet. It'll most likely start in the spring and be completed in the fall. Its a relatively small project and the largest signs are mostly all overlays.
I'd assume Exit 19 - NB will remain Wells/Sanford, and southbound is being changed because of it now being signed at Exit 32.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 07, 2019, 08:46:55 PM
Quote from: billpa on March 07, 2019, 10:11:56 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 06, 2019, 09:20:59 PM
I noticed that the Exit 32 sign in Biddeford changed. It now says "ME 111 to US 1". Also, the Exit 42 sign in Scarborough now also references Gorham.
Other changes I've noticed:
1. The exit sign arrows are losing their 'flared' tails.
2. Portsmouth and Boston for control cities versus New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
3. 'Last Exit in Maine' goes from green background to yellow and will be the entire width of the sign it sits under.
4. "The Yorks" becomes just 'York.'
5. Brown signs will say 'Exit XX' versus 'Next Exit.'
6. Dropping km distances on mileage signs allows for space for three cities instead of just two.
7. Exit 19; dropping Sanford in favor of Ogunquit.
I-95 South at Exit 2 in Kittery still said "New Hampshire | Massachusetts" today.
The southbound signs before Exit 2 still had the separate rectangle reading "Last Exit In Maine".
The Exit 19 signs still read "9/109 | Wells/Sanford". However, Sanford is also now mentioned at Exit 32 (ME Route 111) in Biddeford. An extra sign states "Sanford Region - Exits 19 & 32".
I was referring to the plans posted above- I should've been clearer. These will be changes made when the signage work is done.
Did Maine go or is going Clearview? Some of the early signing plans between Falmouth and Gardiner had mixed Clearview signage plans.
Steering this thread back to MA for a moment:
Apparently an errant beer truck knocked over a fairly new cantilevered sign gantry along I-95 (MA 128) northbound by Exit 23 22, the Grove St. exit in Newton.
Beer Truck Crashes, Takes Out Highway Exit Sign On I-95 In Newton (https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/03/08/boston-traffic-tractor-trailer-truck-crash-interstate-95-route-128-newton-wellesley-weston-grove-street/?fbclid=IwAR3fJWWq0NCfGD_p9rdjdIl_qnUpJK2m_E_bPz2U6_HT9vRxq2sVK1ePM5o)
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 08, 2019, 09:34:54 AM
Steering this thread back to MA for a moment:
Apparently an errant beer truck knocked over a fairly new cantilevered sign gantry along I-95 (MA 128) northbound by Exit 23, the Grove St. exit in Newton.
Beer Truck Crashes, Takes Out Highway Exit Sign On I-95 In Newton (https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/03/08/boston-traffic-tractor-trailer-truck-crash-interstate-95-route-128-newton-wellesley-weston-grove-street/?fbclid=IwAR3fJWWq0NCfGD_p9rdjdIl_qnUpJK2m_E_bPz2U6_HT9vRxq2sVK1ePM5o)
Here's a photo of the sign at the Grove Street ramp in better days, it was put up in 2013 as part of the Newton to Lexington sign replacement project:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95sign1013c.jpg&hash=9797d80b61d73ac2f28fd800cd51a56ec2daf2e5)
Quote from: OracleUsr on March 08, 2019, 05:51:08 AM
Did Maine go or is going Clearview? Some of the early signing plans between Falmouth and Gardiner had mixed Clearview signage plans.
I would say no. I don't remember ever seeing any Clearview on any MaineDOT freeway or on the Maine Turnpike. I have seen a few newer signs along I-95 recently. Every single one is in FHWA.
There is one newer pull-through going SB just before the bridge to cross into New Hampshire. The sign says "95 South, Portsmouth, Boston". An older one on the C/D road still has "95 South, New Hampshire, Massachusetts".
MassDOT gave the notice to proceed on May 1 for the contract to replace I-95 signage between the RI border and Norwood. Though no completion date was provided, assuming the standard 2-year period for similar contracts, the work schedule probably has a finishing date of Spring 2021.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 05, 2019, 10:27:05 AM
MassDOT gave the notice to proceed on May 1 for the contract to replace I-95 signage between the RI border and Norwood. Though no completion date was provided, assuming the standard 2-year period for similar contracts, the work schedule probably has a finishing date of Spring 2021.
Duration for the Attleboro to Norwood project is 900 calendar days (2 1/2 years) from notice to proceed. The additional time is because, besides signing, the project also involves VMS and camera installations.
Thanks to Charlene White at MassDOT I have obtained the plans for the I-95 Attleboro to Norwood Sign Replacement Project. Not a lot of major changes, the I-495 North control city has changed from Worcester to Marlboro:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95exit62milesplan.jpg&hash=30c37227e782d7f5b1bbe53ce18bef806508f439)
The Coney Street exit will have an additional destination:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95exit101mileplan.jpg&hash=ca02c481a83ece43251a0e54dfcf3e916315e32b)
The project will finally get around to updating the Rhode Island exit signs on I-95 South that are in Massachusetts:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95riexitsplan.jpg&hash=f4c7f6f64f23c96b66c8a1b7c10d98a590fbfae2)
And signs at the on-ramps on secondary roadways will have traditional exit gore signs swapped for these:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95northrampsignplan.jpg&hash=c512b217873d56af08f893ba6d14a6ffe36a5892)
The most interesting item I came across was this note printed on all the sign detail plan pages:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95exitplannote419.jpg&hash=f16ade64537a35a5d4fa397d4876af5facf219a5)
Is MassDOT reconsidering exit number conversion?
Examples of plans for each exit can be found on my I-95 in Mass. Gallery Site:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on May 06, 2019, 11:50:24 PM
Thanks to Charlene White at MassDOT I have obtained the plans for the I-95 Attleboro to Norwood Sign Replacement Project. Not a lot of major changes, the I-495 North control city has changed from Worcester to Marlboro:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95exit62milesplan.jpg&hash=30c37227e782d7f5b1bbe53ce18bef806508f439)
The Coney Street exit will have an additional destination:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95exit101mileplan.jpg&hash=ca02c481a83ece43251a0e54dfcf3e916315e32b)
The project will finally get around to updating the Rhode Island exit signs on I-95 South that are in Massachusetts:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95riexitsplan.jpg&hash=f4c7f6f64f23c96b66c8a1b7c10d98a590fbfae2)
And signs at the on-ramps on secondary roadways will have traditional exit gore signs swapped for these:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95northrampsignplan.jpg&hash=c512b217873d56af08f893ba6d14a6ffe36a5892)
The most interesting item I came across was this note printed on all the sign detail plan pages:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95exitplannote419.jpg&hash=f16ade64537a35a5d4fa397d4876af5facf219a5)
Is MassDOT reconsidering exit number conversion?
Examples of plans for each exit can be found on my I-95 in Mass. Gallery Site:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
I would imagine it's a standard CYA so plans don't have to be redrawn in case of a change to mileage based numbers. but unless the feds threaten to withhold money from the states to force this, i doubt it happens.
Obviously, the signs for the RI exits will have to be numbered accordingly when RIDOT changes over I-95 (Exits 43 and 42)
It's interesting that Newport Ave. is being re-added for the 1A southbound ramp signs but not the northbound ones. The 1977-era BGS' for this interchange listed Newport Ave. along with control cities for both 1A directions.
I didn't realize that most of the I-495 northbound ramp signs at other interchanges south of the Mass Pike (I-90) have since dropped Worcester as a control city. The I-95/Mansfield and MA 24 interchanges are presently the only interchanges that still use Worcester. This change will make the MA 24 the last one standing in terms of signing I-495 northbound for Worcester. Looking along the northern stretch of I-495; Worcester is only used for a southbound I-495 control city where it starts off I-95 in Salisbury.
Even more interesting is that, unlike the recent I-495 interchange signs along I-90, Cape Cod is still used as a primary I-495 southbound destination rather than Taunton (which was on the original 1982 ramp signage), Middleboro, Wareham or even Bourne. Gotta love the consistency *sarcasm*.
That said, I support the continuation of using Cape Cod as a primary control destination/point for ramp/through signage. MUTCD and I part ways on this item.
I also like the use of MD-style gore signage.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 07, 2019, 08:43:12 AM
It's interesting that Newport Ave. is being re-added for the 1A southbound ramp signs but not the northbound ones. The 1977-era BGS' for this interchange listed Newport Ave. along with control cities for both 1A directions.
I didn't realize that most of the I-495 northbound ramp signs at other interchanges south of the Mass Pike (I-90) have since dropped Worcester as a control city. The I-95/Mansfield and MA 24 interchanges are presently the only interchanges that still use Worcester. This change will make the MA 24 the last one standing in terms of signing I-495 northbound for Worcester. Looking along the northern stretch of I-495; Worcester is only used for a southbound I-495 control city where it starts off I-95 in Salisbury.
Even more interesting is that, unlike the recent I-495 interchange signs along I-90, Cape Cod is still used as a primary I-495 southbound destination rather than Taunton (which was on the original 1982 ramp signage), Middleboro, Wareham or even Bourne. Gotta love the consistency *sarcasm*.
That said, I support the continuation of using Cape Cod as a primary control destination/point for ramp/through signage. MUTCD and I part ways on this item.
I also like the use of MD-style gore signage.
I'm not much of a fan of them switching to Marlboro for the I-495 signs, but I do see why since Marlboro is right along I-495 (exits 23C-24), meanwhile Worcester is a much more known city, as well as the Worcester County seat and namesake.
Drove on I-95 South yesterday, from Canton down to Exit 4/Attleboro. No new signs to report (way to early in the project for that), but I did notice the little orange tags put up where a new overhead sign foundation will be located. These don't reach all the way to Canton, SB. I think I recall seeing them further south, closer to I-495.
Also drove I-95 from the Mass Pike down to Canton. Funny how most of the I-95/128 reassurance shields have the 128 shield either propped up at the bottom after falling off, or missing completely. Yet, local traffic reporters (including NECN) continue to solely say "Route 128", even for the I-93 section.
Click the link in my sig below to see my I-90 shots as far east as Exit 14/I-95 (including the offramp signs), plus I-93 and other roads I captured 8/3.
PHLBOS, I agree with your earlier post about using Cape Cod as an effective destination that is easily recognized. I too believe that the MUTCD is too narrow in its requirement of using city names as destinations. As we've discussed in other threads, there are areas where a regional destination or a state name can be more effective.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 04, 2019, 03:58:34 PM
Drove on I-95 South yesterday, from Canton down to Exit 4/Attleboro. No new signs to report (way to early in the project for that), but I did notice the little orange tags put up where a new overhead sign foundation will be located. These don't reach all the way to Canton, SB. I think I recall seeing them further south, closer to I-495.
Here's one of the new tags for the future 1-mile advance for Neponset Street on I-95 South in Norwood:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95signs819a.JPG&hash=d90a16e5e79197b8ce6f7e6bc66d18c6f863eb9d)
Good to see that Massachusetts DOT doesn't subscribe to that idiotic suggestion in the MUTCD about not using a city name and street name on the same sign. They go perfectly well together as New York and Mass. prove in their installations.
I always thought it was ok with MUTCD to have a street name and a city/cities on a BGS as long as it was the only exit for that municipality. What isn't MUTCD compliant is having a route shield, a street name, and a city/town name. The Neponset St sign is fine. But let's say you had one for Exit 5 on the Mass Pike that said MA 33/Memorial Dr/Chicopee. That one wouldn't fly with MUTCD. For some reason, when CTDOT did a recent sign replacement, the signage for CT 372 is inconsistent. The eastbound signage says "CT 372 Crooked St" and eliminated the reference to Plainville. Meanwhile westbound, the exit signage says "CT 372/New Britain Ave/Plainville". Technically, the westbound exit is an exit on CT 72, but is included in westbound signage for the CT 72 West exit itself because it is almost immediately after the 84/72 split.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 04, 2019, 03:58:34 PM
Yet, local traffic reporters (including NECN) continue to solely say "Route 128", even for the I-93 section.
I've recently noticed that the reporters on WBZ now refer to Canton to Braintree as I-93 instead of 128. Yay!!!!!!
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 06, 2019, 11:20:30 AM
I always thought it was ok with MUTCD to have a street name and a city/cities on a BGS as long as it was the only exit for that municipality. What isn't MUTCD compliant is having a route shield, a street name, and a city/town name. The Neponset St sign is fine. But let's say you had one for Exit 5 on the Mass Pike that said MA 33/Memorial Dr/Chicopee. That one wouldn't fly with MUTCD.
From the 2009 MUTCD:
QuoteSection 2E.10 Amount of Legend on Guide Signs
Guidance:
01 No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit
Direction sign. A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided (emphasis added). Where two or three signs are
placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign, or to a total of three in the
display. Sign legends should not exceed three lines of copy, exclusive of the exit number and action or distance
information.
The highlighted statement, which first appeared in the 1971 MUTCD, has often been interpreted by FHWA and others to mean that street and city names on the same sign are generally not permitted. This is not true, especially as this is now a guidance statement. Note that Massachusetts' position on this issue, since it first came up in the late 1980s, has been that a street name with a city name is no different than a route shield with a city name in terms of information presentation. A route shield with a street name and
one city name on a sign would also be acceptable, as this would be three lines of copy.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 06, 2019, 11:20:30 AM
I always thought it was ok with MUTCD to have a street name and a city/cities on a BGS as long as it was the only exit for that municipality. What isn't MUTCD compliant is having a route shield, a street name, and a city/town name.
I would think the opposite would be more important - if there's numerous exits for a town, having a street name narrows down where one should exit. For most municipalities this isn't terribly important. In cities, where there is often a dozen or more exits, it's much more necessary. You can only sign "Philadelphia" in so many ways along the numerous exits in a city, for example.
I think roadman pretty much nailed it down. I first saw that in the 1971 Manual that he mentioned. Now almost fifty years later I still don't know the reason for the FWHA's position on the issue of showing a street name and place name on the same sign. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't now. And I completely agree with Mass DOT's position that roadman cited, that a street name is no different than a route shield in that context.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 04, 2019, 03:58:34 PM
Drove on I-95 South yesterday, from Canton down to Exit 4/Attleboro. No new signs to report (way to early in the project for that), but I did notice the little orange tags put up where a new overhead sign foundation will be located.
These orange tags are also along I-495 between exits 28 and 37, another section of interstate highway in MA that's due for sign replacement.
Quote from: kramie13 on August 08, 2019, 01:49:00 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 04, 2019, 03:58:34 PM
Drove on I-95 South yesterday, from Canton down to Exit 4/Attleboro. No new signs to report (way to early in the project for that), but I did notice the little orange tags put up where a new overhead sign foundation will be located.
These orange tags are also along I-495 between exits 28 and 37, another section of interstate highway in MA that's due for sign replacement.
That's MassDOT Project # 607919, Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on I-495 from Harvard to Lowell.
MassDOT has placed an advertisement for the next I-95 sign replacement contract, from Lynnfield to Reading, Project 608205, with an estimated cost of $3.7 million. The winning bidder is to be announced on Jan. 22, 2020. The bid page is at: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-43924&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-43924&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
I assume the new Interstate 95 signs will retain the current sequential exit numbers while leaving space for mileage-based exit numbers, correct?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 23, 2019, 01:03:57 PM
I assume the new Interstate 95 signs will retain the current sequential exit numbers while leaving space for mileage-based exit numbers, correct?
For that particular stretch, I don't believe any extra spacing is needed for mile-marker-based exit numbers; i.e. no additional suffixed exit numbers will occur as a result of the conversion (if done).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 23, 2019, 01:03:57 PM
I assume the new Interstate 95 signs will retain the current sequential exit numbers while leaving space for mileage-based exit numbers, correct?
Correct. Current MassDOT practice for sign replacement projects is to design exit tabs and gore signs to accommodate the wider of either the current sequential number or the future milepost based number. However, as PHLBOS notes, the exit tabs on the replacement signs for this project should be able to accommodate the eventual milepost numbers without increasing the width.
Bumping this thread to note that, on Tuesday 1/21/20, MassDOT opened bids on Project 608205 - Reading to Lynnfield Fabrication and Installation of Overhead and Ground Mounted Guide and Traffic Signs on a Section of
Interstate 95. The apparent low bidder is Liddell Brothers. Contract completion date is 868 days from Notice to Proceed.
Quote from: roadman on January 23, 2020, 10:03:53 AM
Bumping this thread to note that, on Tuesday 1/21/20, MassDOT opened bids on Project 608205 - Reading to Lynnfield Fabrication and Installation of Overhead and Ground Mounted Guide and Traffic Signs on a Section of
Interstate 95. The apparent low bidder is Liddell Brothers. Contract completion date is 868 days from Notice to Proceed.
Liddell also had the lowest bid for the recent US 1 and MA 28 sign replacement contracts. Given their track record, and that they are currently working on other projects, like I-95 Attleboro to Norwood and, perhaps still the eastern I-90 contract and probably others, can we reasonably expect all the these contracts to be completed on time? Will there be any coordination between each project and, where applicable, the exit renumbering project?
Quote from: bob7374 on January 24, 2020, 12:01:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 23, 2020, 10:03:53 AM
Bumping this thread to note that, on Tuesday 1/21/20, MassDOT opened bids on Project 608205 - Reading to Lynnfield Fabrication and Installation of Overhead and Ground Mounted Guide and Traffic Signs on a Section of
Interstate 95. The apparent low bidder is Liddell Brothers. Contract completion date is 868 days from Notice to Proceed.
Liddell also had the lowest bid for the recent US 1 and MA 28 sign replacement contracts. Given their track record, and that they are currently working on other projects, like I-95 Attleboro to Norwood and, perhaps still the eastern I-90 contract and probably others, can we reasonably expect all the these contracts to be completed on time? Will there be any coordination between each project and, where applicable, the exit renumbering project?
Just noticed on the MassDOT project listing that the notice to proceed for the I-95 signing project above was given in late February. Work has also started on the US 1 project, but not on the MA 28 project, as of yet. Sign of limited resources by Liddell to do all the contracts at the same time?
Quote from: bob7374 on May 02, 2020, 11:19:24 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 24, 2020, 12:01:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 23, 2020, 10:03:53 AM
Bumping this thread to note that, on Tuesday 1/21/20, MassDOT opened bids on Project 608205 - Reading to Lynnfield Fabrication and Installation of Overhead and Ground Mounted Guide and Traffic Signs on a Section of
Interstate 95. The apparent low bidder is Liddell Brothers. Contract completion date is 868 days from Notice to Proceed.
Liddell also had the lowest bid for the recent US 1 and MA 28 sign replacement contracts. Given their track record, and that they are currently working on other projects, like I-95 Attleboro to Norwood and, perhaps still the eastern I-90 contract and probably others, can we reasonably expect all the these contracts to be completed on time? Will there be any coordination between each project and, where applicable, the exit renumbering project?
Just noticed on the MassDOT project listing that the notice to proceed for the I-95 signing project above was given in late February. Work has also started on the US 1 project, but not on the MA 28 project, as of yet. Sign of limited resources by Liddell to do all the contracts at the same time?
IIRC, the US-1 and MA-28 freeways aren't getting exit numbers at all, right? In that case, they shouldn't need replacement, should they? Since they were just replaced in the 2016 contracts?
US 1 Chelsea to Danvers was last resigned in 1999. MA 28 Bourne to Falmouth was last resigned in 1996. So yes, the existing panels on both roads are due for replacement. And 2016 is the year in which the design contracts to prepare the plans and specifications for these projects, and not the construction contracts themselves, were initiated.
Oh weird....I don't remember MA-28 having overhead signage. Has it really been that long since I drove that stretch? O.o
Quote from: DJ Particle on May 06, 2020, 01:58:11 AM
Oh weird....I don't remember MA-28 having overhead signage. Has it really been that long since I drove that stretch? O.o
Here's one of them, https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6449972,-70.6044335,3a,75y,20.96h,98.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siporOzj9h2e7TV329FF65g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: SectorZ on May 06, 2020, 07:39:10 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on May 06, 2020, 01:58:11 AM
Oh weird....I don't remember MA-28 having overhead signage. Has it really been that long since I drove that stretch? O.o
Here's one of them, https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6449972,-70.6044335,3a,75y,20.96h,98.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siporOzj9h2e7TV329FF65g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Funny how those got by the same Cape people who objected to overhead signs on US 6. Or, perhaps they're fine with overheads as long as there are no potential exit numbers to change.
What's funnier is the signing replacement protocols/priorities, Mass VS CT. CT replaced its first generation signs on most state expressways in the mid 1980s, and they haven't been replaced since (on CT 9 & CT 2). The oldest signs in the state on the interstates date back to the mid 80s as well. This, while US 1 is having its signs replaced that were last changed out just before the millennium.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 06, 2020, 12:12:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 06, 2020, 07:39:10 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on May 06, 2020, 01:58:11 AM
Oh weird....I don't remember MA-28 having overhead signage. Has it really been that long since I drove that stretch? O.o
Here's one of them, https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6449972,-70.6044335,3a,75y,20.96h,98.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siporOzj9h2e7TV329FF65g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6449972,-70.6044335,3a,75y,20.96h,98.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siporOzj9h2e7TV329FF65g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Funny how those got by the same Cape people who objected to overhead signs on US 6. Or, perhaps they're fine with overheads as long as there are no potential exit numbers to change.
MA 28 has overhead signs only on the very short stretch of 'true' freeway south of Otis Rotary. Only the signs at the exit ramps are posted overhead, the other advance signs are ground mounted. As part of the new Bourne to Falmouth sign project, the overhead signs at these exits will be replaced with ground-mounted ones. Also, the large BGS panels at the entrance ramps to 28 from connecting roads in this section will be replaced with smaller MA-D1-XX signs.
Quote from: roadman on May 06, 2020, 11:07:15 PM
As part of the new Bourne to Falmouth sign project, the overhead signs at these exits will be replaced with ground-mounted ones.
Yeah, because f--- safety and visibility, right? 🤦🏻♀️
Quote from: DJ Particle on May 07, 2020, 01:10:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on May 06, 2020, 11:07:15 PM
As part of the new Bourne to Falmouth sign project, the overhead signs at these exits will be replaced with ground-mounted ones.
Yeah, because f--- safety and visibility, right? 🤦🏻♀️
That's OK the people on the Cape soon have bigger problems to worry about than how a sign is mounted.
(yet the signs and exit numbers will still be prioritized)
I was able to obtain from Charlene White at MassDOT plans for the current I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project, not a lot of changes to be seen, though did find it interesting that they decided to add a 2-miles advance signs northbound for the US 1/MA 129 exit, recent practice seems to limit those to interstate and other freeway exits:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95planus1ma129tma.jpg&hash=1c6edf970e67654b29b2cdccf2ea36fb534b8c71)
as well as a diagrammatic one for the Route 128 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95planma128tma.jpg&hash=40c94fdc4bb4fd05f9dba9d3189f8fcdbc79cd33)
Other sign plans can be seen on my I-95 in MA Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95planus1nma129eonethirdma.jpg&hash=0c0b4ab2be1ce9198e562838016ba979cd43613e)
Interesting....
Quote from: Ben114 on August 01, 2020, 06:29:24 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95planus1nma129eonethirdma.jpg&hash=0c0b4ab2be1ce9198e562838016ba979cd43613e)
Interesting....
Not something I've ever dived into before, but a letter of support from FHWA seems to say that non-quarter mile increments are allowable. It specifically mentions 1/10 and 2/10 for short distances if needed.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 31, 2020, 09:47:37 PM. . . as well as a diagrammatic one for the Route 128 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95planma128tma.jpg&hash=40c94fdc4bb4fd05f9dba9d3189f8fcdbc79cd33)
No option lane?
Quote from: Alps on August 01, 2020, 07:50:54 AM
Not something I've ever dived into before, but a letter of support from FHWA seems to say that non-quarter mile increments are allowable. It specifically mentions 1/10 and 2/10 for short distances if needed.
I think you meant 'letter of interpretation.' (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/9_09_74.htm)
MassDOT's latest project listing for the Attleboro to Norwood sign replacement project indicated the contractor was finished placing new regulatory and route signs and was about to start constructing foundations for overhead signs. I took a quick trip from Canton to Mansfield over the weekend to check out the new signs. A mixed bag as far as reassurance markers go. Shields size vary from current standard to a replication of some of the former wide shields placed along the corridor. For example, here's the new I-95 South reassurance marker after the MA 140 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95signs820d.JPG&hash=a4509d6b9d2cd0587003fc471d26e281a018c839)
Further images and commentary on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery, after the new sign plans posted for the Reading to Lynnfield section:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on August 03, 2020, 11:53:37 PMFor example, here's the new I-95 South reassurance marker after the MA 140 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95signs820d.JPG&hash=a4509d6b9d2cd0587003fc471d26e281a018c839)
The more things change... :D I couldn't even tell that's a new sign. I guess that's how you keep series E letters.
Quote from: Ben114 on August 01, 2020, 06:29:24 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95planus1nma129eonethirdma.jpg&hash=0c0b4ab2be1ce9198e562838016ba979cd43613e)
Interesting....
It's worth noting that the proposed message, sans the distance listing, is a return to the 1988-era signs that listed Danvers & Lynn on the main panels. Kudos IMHO.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 01, 2020, 11:05:35 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 31, 2020, 09:47:37 PM. . . as well as a diagrammatic one for the Route 128 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95planma128tma.jpg&hash=40c94fdc4bb4fd05f9dba9d3189f8fcdbc79cd33)
No option lane?
Such is mimicking the 1-mile advance diagrammatic sign that was erected several years ago.
With regards to using a diagrammatic sign despite no available option lane; such is allowed (i.e. grandfathered) if supporting and/or predecessor interchange signage contained similar. The original 1988-era signage featured such as well.
For some reason, MassDOT did not replace the current 2-mile sign when it replaced all the signs for the I-95/MA 128 interchange several years back.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 04, 2020, 07:27:50 PMWith regards to using a diagrammatic sign despite no available option lane; such is allowed (i.e. grandfathered) if supporting and/or predecessor interchange signage contained similar. The original 1988-era signage featured such as well.
MUTCD § 2E.20 bans the use of either type of diagrammatic (OAPL or stippled-arrow), without qualification, when option lanes are not present:
Quote from: § 2E.20Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane.
At locations that do have option lanes, stippled-arrow diagrammatics are grandfathered in because § 2E.21 requires OAPL only on new or reconstructed freeways:
Quote from: § 2E.21Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall be used on all new or reconstructed freeways and expressways as described in Section 2E.20.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 06, 2020, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 04, 2020, 07:27:50 PMWith regards to using a diagrammatic sign despite no available option lane; such is allowed (i.e. grandfathered) if supporting and/or predecessor interchange signage contained similar. The original 1988-era signage featured such as well.
MUTCD § 2E.20 bans the use of either type of diagrammatic (OAPL or stippled-arrow), without qualification, when option lanes are not present:
Quote from: § 2E.20Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane.
At locations that do have option lanes, stippled-arrow diagrammatics are grandfathered in because § 2E.21 requires OAPL only on new or reconstructed freeways:
Quote from: § 2E.21Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall be used on all new or reconstructed freeways and expressways as described in Section 2E.20.
With all due respect, and Roadman can confirm/clarify, MassDOT/Mass Highway has used diagrammatic signs in split situations without option lanes
prior to the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD being published.
Even MUTCD somewhat acknowledges that such was used in the past (
bold & underline emphasis added):
Quote from: § 2E.22Design of Freeway and Expressway Diagrammatic Guide Signs for Option Lanes
Support:
01 Diagrammatic guide signs (see Figure 2E-7) are guide signs that show a simplified graphic view of the exit
arrangement in relationship to the main highway. While the use of such guide signs might be helpful for the
purpose of conveying relative direction of each movement, Diagrammatic guide signs have been shown to be less
effective than conventional or Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs at conveying the destination or direction(s)
that each approach lane serves, regardless of whether dedicated or option lanes are present.
Such indirectly
admits that the practice of using diagrammatic signs for interchanges without option lanes have been done in the past.
That said, such wouldn't be the first time a state DOT agency told MUTCD to pound sand on certain criteria items.
As previously stated, other diagrammatic signs with no option lane for the I-95/MA 128 interchange
do presently exist in the field.
3/4 - mile advance diagrammatic sign1/3 - mile advance diagrammatic signThe signs at the I-95/MA 128 Split for the actual lane configuration.
The proposed 2-mile sign is just matching its mates in kind, MUTCD standard or no MUTCD standard.
As previously mentioned and regardless of the above-MUTCD's commentary on its limited effectiveness, the current & previous-original 1988-vintage diagrammatic signs for this interchange
do indeed work. I've passed through this interchange ever since it was first built in the late 80s.
Apparently, MassDOT agrees since brand new diagrammatic signage w/no option lane for the westbound I-90/84 split in Sturbridge has since been recently erected.
1 - mile advance sign for I-90/84I asked Roadman regarding such and he stated that MassDOT thought the diagrammatic design would better assist motorists despite having no option lane. Having used this interchange many times for 30+ years; I have seen several times, vehicles
criss-crossing at the last moment. Time will tell whether or not the new advance diagrammatic signs will reduce the number of last-second criss-crosses and related-accidents.
I don't think those last minute criss-crossers will be influenced one way or the other no matter what type of signing is used. There will always be that percentage of drivers who aren't paying attention and react at the last minute.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2020, 04:48:40 PMSuch indirectly admits that the practice of using diagrammatic signs for interchanges without option lanes have been done in the past.
Yes--stippled-arrow diagrammatics for interchanges without option lanes were kosher until the 2009
MUTCD came into effect, and in fact I think one of the examples in
Standard Highway Signs is for a split with no option lane.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2020, 04:48:40 PMThat said, such wouldn't be the first time a state DOT agency told MUTCD to pound sand on certain criteria items.
Yes. I wondered if that might be going on here, which was my initial motivation for asking. Looking at the StreetView links, I see that besides the consideration of compatibility with existing signing that is not being replaced (important for continuity), there is stuff going on that the diagrammatics don't quite capture, such as the no. 4 lane being gained at an interchange and the no. 5 lane opening just south of the I-95/SR 128 split.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 06, 2020, 05:47:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2020, 04:48:40 PMSuch indirectly admits that the practice of using diagrammatic signs for interchanges without option lanes have been done in the past.
Yes--stippled-arrow diagrammatics for interchanges without option lanes were kosher until the 2009 MUTCD came into effect, and in fact I think one of the examples in Standard Highway Signs is for a split with no option lane.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2020, 04:48:40 PMThat said, such wouldn't be the first time a state DOT agency told MUTCD to pound sand on certain criteria items.
Yes. I wondered if that might be going on here, which was my initial motivation for asking. Looking at the StreetView links, I see that besides the consideration of compatibility with existing signing that is not being replaced (important for continuity), there is stuff going on that the diagrammatics don't quite capture, such as the no. 4 lane being gained at an interchange and the no. 5 lane opening just south of the I-95/SR 128 split.
For the record, I concur with Mr. Winkler: The MUTCD has not allowed non-option lane diagrammatics since 2009.
Quote from: Alps on August 07, 2020, 01:12:14 AMFor the record, I concur with Mr. Winkler: The MUTCD has not allowed non-option lane diagrammatics since 2009.
As stated earlier, Roadman can likely shed some light as towards the whats & whys behind MassDOT's continued use of diagrammatics w/no option lane even though such was no longer allowed since 2009.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 07, 2020, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 07, 2020, 01:12:14 AMFor the record, I concur with Mr. Winkler: The MUTCD has not allowed non-option lane diagrammatics since 2009.
As stated earlier, Roadman can likely shed some light as towards the whats & whys behind MassDOT's continued use of diagrammatics w/no option lane even though such was no longer allowed since 2009.
Is the MA 128/I-95 sign there in an attempt to emphasize the main (or "main") road (I-95) is the route that does not go straight?
Are there any remaining diagrammatics for right-hand exits, vs left-hand ones?
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 06, 2020, 05:47:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2020, 04:48:40 PMSuch indirectly admits that the practice of using diagrammatic signs for interchanges without option lanes have been done in the past.
Yes--stippled-arrow diagrammatics for interchanges without option lanes were kosher until the 2009 MUTCD came into effect, and in fact I think one of the examples in Standard Highway Signs is for a split with no option lane.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2020, 04:48:40 PMThat said, such wouldn't be the first time a state DOT agency told MUTCD to pound sand on certain criteria items.
Yes. I wondered if that might be going on here, which was my initial motivation for asking. Looking at the StreetView links, I see that besides the consideration of compatibility with existing signing that is not being replaced (important for continuity), there is stuff going on that the diagrammatics don't quite capture, such as the no. 4 lane being gained at an interchange and the no. 5 lane opening just south of the I-95/SR 128 split.
That is an issue that the diagrammatics have that an arrow-per-lane wouldn't help with either far enough out, and maybe why the 2-mile advance for 128 was left as-was for so long--the number of lanes doesn't match the diagrammatic. The 2-mile sign shows 5 lanes and there aren't that many there at that point. Same with the new 1-mile advance sign on the Mass Pike for I-84; it shows a 2-2 split but there are 3 lanes. The only advantage of it over an APL if you want to apply very strict logic is that the diagrammatic says literally that what is shown is what will happen in that distance, i.e., in 2 miles, the split shown occurs--never mind what lanes exist right now under the gantry. :P
Quote from: PurdueBill on August 07, 2020, 01:24:17 PMThat is an issue that the diagrammatics have that an arrow-per-lane wouldn't help with either far enough out, and maybe why the 2-mile advance for 128 was left as-was for so long--the number of lanes doesn't match the diagrammatic. The 2-mile sign shows 5 lanes and there aren't that many there at that point. Same with the new 1-mile advance sign on the Mass Pike for I-84; it shows a 2-2 split but there are 3 lanes. The only advantage of it over an APL if you want to apply very strict logic is that the diagrammatic says literally that what is shown is what will happen in that distance, i.e., in 2 miles, the split shown occurs--never mind what lanes exist right now under the gantry. :P
It is a tricky situation. I've been toying with a redesign of the diagrammatic that would show the no. 4 lane gained at the last interchange before the split (as a sort of "tail" at the bottom of the arrow) and the no. 5 lane that opens up on the right (as a sort of "bulge" off the shaft just above the "tail"). But this introduces complexity to the design that I suspect driver comprehension testing would show is counterproductive.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 07, 2020, 03:05:41 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on August 07, 2020, 01:24:17 PMThat is an issue that the diagrammatics have that an arrow-per-lane wouldn't help with either far enough out, and maybe why the 2-mile advance for 128 was left as-was for so long--the number of lanes doesn't match the diagrammatic. The 2-mile sign shows 5 lanes and there aren't that many there at that point. Same with the new 1-mile advance sign on the Mass Pike for I-84; it shows a 2-2 split but there are 3 lanes. The only advantage of it over an APL if you want to apply very strict logic is that the diagrammatic says literally that what is shown is what will happen in that distance, i.e., in 2 miles, the split shown occurs--never mind what lanes exist right now under the gantry. :P
It is a tricky situation. I've been toying with a redesign of the diagrammatic that would show the no. 4 lane gained at the last interchange before the split (as a sort of "tail" at the bottom of the arrow) and the no. 5 lane that opens up on the right (as a sort of "bulge" off the shaft just above the "tail"). But this introduces complexity to the design that I suspect driver comprehension testing would show is counterproductive.
I've seen arrows that introduce a lane prior to the split, but no tail.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 07, 2020, 12:51:39 PMIs the MA 128/I-95 sign there in an attempt to emphasize the main (or "main") road (I-95) is the route that does not go straight?
Such is known as a TOTSO (Turn Off To Stay On) scenario.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 07, 2020, 12:51:39 PMAre there any remaining diagrammatics for right-hand exits, vs left-hand ones?
Absolutely.
Southbound companion to the I-95/MA 128 interchange in Peabody (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5351539,-70.9837653,3a,75y,163.9h,87.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snawoAo6ux9rwL0xk1JgpAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) Note: there
is a shared lane here.
Quote from: Alps on August 07, 2020, 05:01:02 PMI've seen arrows that introduce a lane prior to the split, but no tail.
No current available photo, but this diagrammatic sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1261038,-74.8700738,3a,75y,277.93h,77.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ0xbz_S2qrF_Z3T-32CItA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) along I-95/PA Turnpike approaching I-276 (another right-lane TOTSO scenario as most of us know) and its companions had the lower portion of its right tail
snipped several months ago to more accurately show the actual 2-lane condition. The unaltered signs per the GSV showed the mainline as 3-lanes.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 07, 2020, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 07, 2020, 01:12:14 AMFor the record, I concur with Mr. Winkler: The MUTCD has not allowed non-option lane diagrammatics since 2009.
As stated earlier, Roadman can likely shed some light as towards the whats & whys behind MassDOT's continued use of diagrammatics w/no option lane even though such was no longer allowed since 2009.
Let's remember that MassDOT has a long history of doing things their own way even when in conflict with the MUTCD. Take for instance their long-stemmed down arrows at multi-lane exits with a curve after the split. Not MUTCD compliant but they've defended that practice as being a safer way to emphasize the curvature of a multi-lane exit in their opinion. Funny thing is New York DOT does the same thing using long-stemmed upward pointed arrows. And California does it using upward short-stemmed arrows.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 07, 2020, 08:52:57 PMLet's remember that MassDOT has a long history of doing things their own way even when in conflict with the MUTCD. Take for instance their long-stemmed down arrows at multi-lane exits with a curve after the split. Not MUTCD compliant but they've defended that practice as being a safer way to emphasize the curvature of a multi-lane exit in their opinion. Funny thing is New York DOT does the same thing using long-stemmed upward pointed arrows. And California does it using upward short-stemmed arrows.
Other agencies/DOTs (including NJDOT) have deviated from MUTCD at times as well.
I took some photos this past weekend, on my way back from documenting the new exit numbers on I-195, chronicling the progress in placing new VMSs and ground mounted signage along I-95 as part of the sign replacement project between Attleboro and Westwood. Photos are in the second section of my I-95 in Mass. Gallery:
http://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html (http://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
*POST BUMP* Noticed new "Entering [TOWN]" signs on the Attleboro-Canton stretch of I-95. It's a good sign that they are finally moving on this project!
Quote from: southshore720 on July 26, 2021, 05:20:25 PM
*POST BUMP* Noticed new "Entering [TOWN]" signs on the Attleboro-Canton stretch of I-95. It's a good sign that they are finally moving on this project!
No recent update to the I-95 Sign Replacement Attleboro to Westwood project MassDOT page, now retitled as ProjectInfo, however the listing for the Reading to Lynnfield has an update from July 13 that "Contractor continues to install route and regulatory signs."
Quote from: bob7374 on July 27, 2021, 12:00:08 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on July 26, 2021, 05:20:25 PM
*POST BUMP* Noticed new "Entering [TOWN]" signs on the Attleboro-Canton stretch of I-95. It's a good sign that they are finally moving on this project!
No recent update to the I-95 Sign Replacement Attleboro to Westwood project MassDOT page, now retitled as ProjectInfo, however the listing for the Reading to Lynnfield has an update from July 13 that "Contractor continues to install route and regulatory signs."
Drove through the I-95 Attleboro to Norwood project both ways yesterday. The contractor has begin installing the ground mounted supplemental guide signs on the mainline. All three VMS panels are in, but none are activated yet.
On I-95 south at the I-495 interchange, new exit gore signs have been installed, wide enough to accommodate the new mile-based exit numbers. They look so much better than having a tacked on "exit 12B" or "exit 12A".
Quote from: kramie13 on August 11, 2021, 01:21:32 PM
On I-95 south at the I-495 interchange, new exit gore signs have been installed, wide enough to accommodate the new mile-based exit numbers. They look so much better than having a tacked on "exit 12B" or "exit 12A".
Here's one of the new gore signs, for I-495 South:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs821g.jpg)
Photos of some of the other new signs I spotted between Westwood and Mansfield are at:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
Despite MassDOT's listing of the Attleboro to Westwood sign replacement project as complete on its ProjectInfo site, overhead gantries and signs await in the NB Mansfield Rest Area to be put up. Ground mounted sign placement has continued in the fall, both southbound:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1121f.jpg)
and northbound:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1121bb.jpg)
Feel free to flock over to my I-95 in MA Gallery for the remainder of the new sign photos taken last weekend:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
Quote from: bob7374 on November 25, 2021, 05:48:11 PM
Despite MassDOT's listing of the Attleboro to Westwood sign replacement project as complete on its ProjectInfo site, overhead gantries and signs await in the NB Mansfield Rest Area to be put up. Ground mounted sign placement has continued in the fall, both southbound:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1121f.jpg)
and northbound:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1121bb.jpg)
Feel free to flock over to my I-95 in MA Gallery for the remainder of the new sign photos taken last weekend:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
The aux sign for "Norton" on I-95 South is incorrect. Exit 4A heads to Norton, not Exit 4B.
There hasn't been much progress on sign replacement between Attleboro and Westwood since my last posting in November. I did stop by the Mansfield Rest Area on I-95 North in mid-March to check out the staging area for the project. Here's one of the ground mounted signs that was being stored there:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signsmsa322c.jpg)
There were no overhead signs there at the time, only what they will be placed on.
You can check out some of my other photos taken there at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
Have they fixed that auxiliary sign error on I-95 SB that puts Norton at Exit 4B instead of Exit 4A?
Quote from: southshore720 on April 02, 2022, 05:58:13 PM
Have they fixed that auxiliary sign error on I-95 SB that puts Norton at Exit 4B instead of Exit 4A?
I only got as far south as the I-295 exit, so don't know. Saw no progress in sign replacement on my latest trips along I-95 North and South between Canton and I-295 yesterday.
Quote from: southshore720 on April 02, 2022, 05:58:13 PM
Have they fixed that auxiliary sign error on I-95 SB that puts Norton at Exit 4B instead of Exit 4A?
I was on this stretch of highway on Saturday. The sign now reads, "Norton, Exit 4A". Although it's easier to get to Norton by taking exit 12A for I-495 south.
Overhead signs have still not gone up along the Attleboro to Norwood stretch of I-95, however some progress to report at an exit ramp. In particular the US 1 ramps to I-95 at Exit 19 (Old Exit 9). Supports for overhead guide signs along US 1 have appeared in both directions, here heading north:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs422e.jpg)
Hopefully, this means similar structure will now start appearing on the highway itself with overhead signage soon to follow.
Good and bad news regarding the Attleboro to Norwood sign replacement project based on MassDOT Twitter post, below. Looks like they've started working in earnest to replace the signs, but, it looks like it will be another 6 months though before project is completed:
"Reminder, ongoing work from #Attleboro to #Canton, I-95 NB & SB, for sign replacement work w/ single lane closures as needed. Work continues Mon thru Fri, 7am — 3:30p & Sun thru Thu, 8pm — 5am, through November. Travel allowed through work zone, expect delays.
7:00 PM · May 15, 2022"
As for the project between Reading and Lynnfield, drove NB on Saturday and despite an announcement on the MassDOT project listing that new regulatory and route signs were being installed, saw only 1 new empty sign pole. There were new foundations placed for many, but not all overhead signs, and perhaps a couple new gore signs, such as:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs522p.jpg)
Other photos can be found at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
Back to the Norwood - Attleboro project, new signs have gone up along US 1 South at both the I-95 South ramp and the split of ramps for US 1 South and North, seen in the distance below, but not northbound (see above):
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs522q.jpg)
Would only having 1 Left Exit tab be a better idea here?
The only other new sign related items spotted were right-side support posts at 1/2 mile and at the MA 140 North ramp on I-95 South, nothing new to report heading north between I-495 and Neponset Street. Supposedly the contractor was working both between 9 and 3 PM and 10 PM and 4 AM every night last week, perhaps mostly south of I-495.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 22, 2022, 10:01:33 PM
Back to the Norwood - Attleboro project, new signs have gone up along US 1 South at both the I-95 South ramp and the split of ramps for US 1 South and North, seen in the distance below, but not northbound (see above):
Would only having 1 Left Exit tab be a better idea here?
The only other new sign related items spotted were right-side support posts at 1/2 mile and at the MA 140 North ramp on I-95 South, nothing new to report heading north between I-495 and Neponset Street. Supposedly the contractor was working both between 9 and 3 PM and 10 PM and 4 AM every night last week, perhaps mostly south of I-495.
Both being left exits, they probably both technically require the tab, but requiring it on signs that have a left-pointing arrow seems so silly. The NB exit panel probably needs it so people will get in the left lane and not swerve over.
I agree with Purdue Bill. If the sign has a left arrow, why have the LEFT tab? It's redundant. But it is required by the MUTCD. All the signs in the series for any left exit must have the tab, I guess to maintain consistency of message.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 22, 2022, 10:01:33 PM
Back to the Norwood - Attleboro project, new signs have gone up along US 1 South at both the I-95 South ramp and the split of ramps for US 1 South and North, seen in the distance below, but not northbound (see above):
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs522q.jpg)
Would only having 1 Left Exit tab be a better idea here?
While it's rare having 2 left exits in a row, the signs are correct, and pointing out they're both left exits is helpful.
Quote from: SignBridge on May 22, 2022, 10:25:25 PM
I agree with Purdue Bill. If the sign has a left arrow, why have the LEFT tab? It's redundant. But it is required by the MUTCD. All the signs in the series for any left exit must have the tab, I guess to maintain consistency of message.
Exit signage tends to have a lot of redundancy. The exit tab to the right and a right arrow, for example. The 'Left' tab is a little more "loud" due to it being black on yellow, but it's no more redundant than other features of exit signage.
only change I'd make here is putting the right sign next to the left sign. the gap has it over the right lane which is not really good
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2022, 10:43:54 PM
only change I'd make here is putting the right sign next to the left sign. the gap has it over the right lane which is not really good
At least they have made a start at something addressing that. The old signs had an arrow on the right-hand sign that pointed to the right lane despite the panel having an EXIT LEFT black-on-yellow field.
The latest I-95 in MA sign replacement project, between Lynnfield and Danvers, was given the notice to proceed yesterday (June 2) according to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site. The site no longer provides completion date information therefore, I will assume, despite the relatively small size of the project, that it will take a couple years to complete.
Quote from: bob7374 on June 03, 2022, 12:08:06 PM
The latest I-95 in MA sign replacement project, between Lynnfield and Danvers, was given the notice to proceed yesterday (June 2) according to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site. The site no longer provides completion date information therefore, I will assume, despite the relatively small size of the project, that it will take a couple years to complete.
To clarify. The I-84 Holland to Sturbridge and I-95/128 Lynnfield to Danvers sign replacement projects are mainly to replace the sign panels only, and will reuse the existing structures and posts - which were replaced during the previous sign replacement projects on these roads, and are are still in serviceable condition. With a handful of exceptions in those projects to be let for bids between now and 2026, this will be the normal practice for MassDOT sign replacements going forward for about the next eighteen to twenty years. The duration for so-called "panels only" project is typically between twelve and eighteen months, as there is no structural work involved, just fabricating and installing signs.
New overhead signage has now appeared along I-95 South in Norwood and Canton, here's the new 1 mile advance for the now Coney Street/Norwood Street exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs622c.jpg)
The remainder of new photos can be found at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
Here's what I lensed today on I-95 North between the RI state line and I-495:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52130219933_3c3c7f5780_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nqz1cp)DSC01060 (https://flic.kr/p/2nqz1cp) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52130219923_fc605e4185_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nqz1ce)DSC01061 (https://flic.kr/p/2nqz1ce) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52130694650_9e521b0b93_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nqBrjb)DSC01063 (https://flic.kr/p/2nqBrjb) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52130219733_27f47de266_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nqz18X)DSC01064 (https://flic.kr/p/2nqz18X) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52130435609_6515d26189_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nqA7iX)DSC01065 (https://flic.kr/p/2nqA7iX) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Are they really using two different types of supports for cantilevered signs in the same project?
Nothing new southbound... just some vertical supports up.
Quote from: shadyjay on June 07, 2022, 09:27:31 PM
Are they really using two different types of supports for cantilevered signs in the same project?
Per the current MassDOT standard specifications, cantilever support design is based on arm length. Arms 30 feet and less in length use the 'F' type single plane design, arms over 30 feet use the four chord truss design. This is to meet AASHTO Category 1 fatigue design requirements.
Quote from: bob7374 on June 05, 2022, 10:51:59 PM
New overhead signage has now appeared along I-95 South in Norwood and Canton, here's the new 1 mile advance for the now Coney Street/Norwood Street exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs622c.jpg)
The remainder of new photos can be found at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
What is the state obsession with horizontal lines on exit signs now? Exit 21 of I-95 is NOT, and NEVER has been Norwood St, it's always been Coney St!
The horizontal lines make the signs look HUGE and ruin the view!
Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:33:03 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 05, 2022, 10:51:59 PM
New overhead signage has now appeared along I-95 South in Norwood and Canton, here's the new 1 mile advance for the now Coney Street/Norwood Street exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs622c.jpg)
The remainder of new photos can be found at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
What is the state obsession with horizontal lines on exit signs now? Exit 21 of I-95 is NOT, and NEVER has been Norwood St, it's always been Coney St!
The horizontal lines make the signs look HUGE and ruin the view!
I like them, it tells you that one single ramp gives two distinct options, something that exit clearly does.
Quote from: SectorZ on June 14, 2022, 07:54:28 PM
I like them, it tells you that one single ramp gives two distinct options, something that exit clearly does.
To be fair, Exit 75 on US-6 in Yarmouth should be signed that way. Especially since the Station Ave section to the south has far more importance in terms of business.
Quote from: SectorZ on June 14, 2022, 07:54:28 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:33:03 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 05, 2022, 10:51:59 PM
New overhead signage has now appeared along I-95 South in Norwood and Canton, here's the new 1 mile advance for the now Coney Street/Norwood Street exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs622c.jpg)
The remainder of new photos can be found at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
What is the state obsession with horizontal lines on exit signs now? Exit 21 of I-95 is NOT, and NEVER has been Norwood St, it's always been Coney St!
The horizontal lines make the signs look HUGE and ruin the view!
I like them, it tells you that one single ramp gives two distinct options, something that exit clearly does.
Also better than having overhead signs for one option, but a single ground mounted sign for the other option, which was the case for decades.
Quote from: roadman on June 15, 2022, 09:53:08 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 14, 2022, 07:54:28 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:33:03 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 05, 2022, 10:51:59 PM
New overhead signage has now appeared along I-95 South in Norwood and Canton, here's the new 1 mile advance for the now Coney Street/Norwood Street exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs622c.jpg)
The remainder of new photos can be found at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
What is the state obsession with horizontal lines on exit signs now? Exit 21 of I-95 is NOT, and NEVER has been Norwood St, it's always been Coney St!
The horizontal lines make the signs look HUGE and ruin the view!
I like them, it tells you that one single ramp gives two distinct options, something that exit clearly does.
Also better than having overhead signs for one option, but a single ground mounted sign for the other option, which was the case for decades.
I agree. We'll see the same soon for S. Main St/Mechanic St at Exit 17 (Former 8) and the same setup is in place for Harrison Ave./Central St. (Exit 35A-B) on Rte. 24.
Quote from: southshore720 on June 17, 2022, 09:55:57 AM
Quote from: roadman on June 15, 2022, 09:53:08 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 14, 2022, 07:54:28 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:33:03 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 05, 2022, 10:51:59 PM
New overhead signage has now appeared along I-95 South in Norwood and Canton, here's the new 1 mile advance for the now Coney Street/Norwood Street exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs622c.jpg)
The remainder of new photos can be found at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
What is the state obsession with horizontal lines on exit signs now? Exit 21 of I-95 is NOT, and NEVER has been Norwood St, it's always been Coney St!
The horizontal lines make the signs look HUGE and ruin the view!
I like them, it tells you that one single ramp gives two distinct options, something that exit clearly does.
Also better than having overhead signs for one option, but a single ground mounted sign for the other option, which was the case for decades.
I agree. We'll see the same soon for S. Main St/Mechanic St at Exit 17 (Former 8) and the same setup is in place for Harrison Ave./Central St. (Exit 35A-B) on Rte. 24.
Here's the sign plan for the future Exit 17 overhead signs (but with the old exit number):
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95exit8rampplan.jpg)
Interesting that Mass DOT is doing it this way. The way the MUTCD says to sign this is either just Sharon, Foxboro without the street names OR to sign it S. Main St, Mechanic St. without the town names. And then list the towns on a supplemental sign.
I prefer the latter option, or the Mass DOT approach.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:36:16 PM
Interesting that Mass DOT is doing it this way. The way the MUTCD says to sign this is either just Sharon, Foxboro without the street names OR to sign it S. Main St, Mechanic St. without the town names. And then list the towns on a supplemental sign.
I prefer the latter option, or the Mass DOT approach.
The MUTCD says that "a street name and a city name on the same sign
SHOULD (emphasis added) be avoided", so it's not an explicit prohibition nor was it apparently ever one. As far as directional guidance on freeway signs goes, Massachusetts has always considered the street name to be akin to a route number, and as equally important to navigation as the destination is. In cases like this one where the streets and destinations off an exit are deemed to be of relatively equal importance (usually because the intersecting street name changes at or near the interchange), the MassDOT treatment is a 'cleaner' approach to presenting the information than relegating one street/destination to a supplemental sign is, provided that only one destination is indicated for each street.
Quote from: roadman on June 19, 2022, 10:51:22 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:36:16 PM
Interesting that Mass DOT is doing it this way. The way the MUTCD says to sign this is either just Sharon, Foxboro without the street names OR to sign it S. Main St, Mechanic St. without the town names. And then list the towns on a supplemental sign.
I prefer the latter option, or the Mass DOT approach.
The MUTCD says that "a street name and a city name on the same sign SHOULD (emphasis added) be avoided", so it's not an explicit prohibition nor was it apparently ever one. As far as directional guidance on freeway signs goes, Massachusetts has always considered the street name to be akin to a route number, and as equally important to navigation as the destination is. In cases like this one where the streets and destinations off an exit are deemed to be of relatively equal importance (usually because the intersecting street name changes at or near the interchange), the MassDOT treatment is a 'cleaner' approach to presenting the information than relegating one street/destination to a supplemental sign is, provided that only one destination is indicated for each street.
And I'm a fan of keeping destination and street name on a sign. I just went through Greenwich CT and new signs on I-95 just go by street name. But I missed the "Greenwich next X exits" sign (if there is one), so if I didn't know the area, how would I know where this street takes me vs. a similarly named one at another exit?
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:36:16 PM
Interesting that Mass DOT is doing it this way. The way the MUTCD says to sign this is either just Sharon, Foxboro without the street names OR to sign it S. Main St, Mechanic St. without the town names. And then list the towns on a supplemental sign.
I prefer the latter option, or the Mass DOT approach.
I prefer the "S. Main St, Mechanic St" option (without town names) for this exit. This format is already being used at exit 28 (East St, Canton St). So I don't see a reason why to go double street and double town name here.
Quote from: kramie13 on June 20, 2022, 09:59:47 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:36:16 PM
Interesting that Mass DOT is doing it this way. The way the MUTCD says to sign this is either just Sharon, Foxboro without the street names OR to sign it S. Main St, Mechanic St. without the town names. And then list the towns on a supplemental sign.
I prefer the latter option, or the Mass DOT approach.
I prefer the "S. Main St, Mechanic St" option (without town names) for this exit. This format is already being used at exit 28 (East St, Canton St). So I don't see a reason why to go double street and double town name here.
I'm not 100% positive on this, but presumably the "East Street Canton Street (without towns)" legend was kept that way on the replacement signs installed under the Randolph to Wellesley "add-a-lane" project because most of the streets that feed off of the rotary, serving primarily residental neighborhoods, have heavy commercial vehicle restrictions (HVCE). This may be supported by the fact that there have never been supplemental signs for towns at the East Street exit.
I've updated my I-95 in MA sign gallery to include new photos, now listed by exit, of new signage being put up between Attleboro and Norwood, including all the signs for the I-295 exit on I-95 North:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs622y.jpg)
The entire set is at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
May be about to happen in RI fairly soon.
https://www.wpri.com/dont-miss/ri-to-renumber-i-95-exits-heres-what-your-new-number-will-be/
I took another trip down I-95 from Canton to Attleboro capturing photos of new signs put up in July, such as the 1/2 mile advance sign for the US 1 (to MA 27) exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs722o.jpg)
The rest are at the I-95 in Mass. Gallery:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
Quote from: bob7374 on July 17, 2022, 11:20:46 PM
I took another trip down I-95 from Canton to Attleboro capturing photos of new signs put up in July, such as the 1/2 mile advance sign for the US 1 (to MA 27) exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs722o.jpg)
The rest are at the I-95 in Mass. Gallery:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
Why do the exit 19 signs going north have "Foxboro" as a control destination now? Anyone going north on 95 headed to Foxborough would have gotten off at exit 13B or exit 17. It seems really redundant!
Also, going back to the 1990s, this is the 3rd iteration of signage where MA 27 gets recognition on overhead signs going north, but not going south. (There is a ground-mounted sign that says "to 27, exit 21" going south though.) Why?
Drove along I-95 yesterday between I-495 and the RI border.
Having grown up in Norton, it pains me to see the exit 4 sign going north now reading "Attleboro, S. Attleboro". Why?
All exits for MA 1A have been replaced. What I find odd is outside of the 1 mile advance sign, the signs also say "Newport Ave" in addition to the control city, but only going south. There is also a 1 and a half mile advance sign for Exit 1. And that sign also says "Broadway" in addition to the control city. An "at-exit" sign for Exit 1 has not been installed yet, and has been missing for years.
Even more crazy, MassDOT has installed signs for the first two RI exits going south! They're both between exit 1 and the RI border, and they're fabricated with the soon-to-be-defunct exit numbers (30 and 29)! How wasteful!
Quote from: kramie13 on July 21, 2022, 08:07:17 AM
Even more crazy, MassDOT has installed signs for the first two RI exits going south! They're both between exit 1 and the RI border, and they're fabricated with the soon-to-be-defunct exit numbers (30 and 29)! How wasteful!
MassDOT has ownership and is responsible for signing the highway and they did it with the knowledge available probably 2+ years ago.
As for wasteful, this is like arguing for a $1 price reduction on the price of a house because one light switch cover is missing. It's not worth the effort. There are far bigger sources of waste of which to be concerned
Quote from: DrSmith on July 21, 2022, 10:09:04 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 21, 2022, 08:07:17 AM
Even more crazy, MassDOT has installed signs for the first two RI exits going south! They're both between exit 1 and the RI border, and they're fabricated with the soon-to-be-defunct exit numbers (30 and 29)! How wasteful!
MassDOT has ownership and is responsible for signing the highway and they did it with the knowledge available probably 2+ years ago.
As for wasteful, this is like arguing for a $1 price reduction on the price of a house because one light switch cover is missing. It's not worth the effort. There are far bigger sources of waste of which to be concerned
Here are the two new MassDOT signs with the current I-95 RI exit numbers, photos taken yesterday, in order:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs822i.jpg)
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs822j.jpg)
The 1/2 mile advance in the project's sign plans for Roosevelt Ave. was not present. The exit sign for US 1 South was also not there. It appears one gantry prior to the US 1 South exit will hold both signs. Are they waiting until the RI exit numbers are being changed? If so, why did they post the other signs?
Photos of new signs taken yesterday, and evidence of where the missing sign for Roosevelt Ave. will go is at:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
Let us know when the new signs with the mileage-based exit numbers are erected along Interstate 95 in Rhode Island.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Let us know when the new signs with the mileage-based exit numbers are erected along Interstate 95 in Rhode Island.
Information will be posted here and at New England Exit Renumbering Central:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on August 02, 2022, 01:04:48 PM
The 1/2 mile advance in the project's sign plans for Roosevelt Ave. was not present. The exit sign for US 1 South was also not there. It appears one gantry prior to the US 1 South exit will hold both signs. Are they waiting until the RI exit numbers are being changed? If so, why did they post the other signs?
On larger sign replacement projects like this, the sign structure designs are normally submitted for approval in separate 'groups' of structures, which are generally based on structure and foundation type, as opposed to going in numerical order. This allows for a more steady progression of installation work once the strucutres are fabricated, as opposed to the contractor suddenly being faced with having to install everything in a relatively short time frame. It is likely that the structures that haven't been installed yet are part of a later "group" that is still in fabrication.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 02, 2022, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on July 21, 2022, 10:09:04 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 21, 2022, 08:07:17 AM
Even more crazy, MassDOT has installed signs for the first two RI exits going south! They're both between exit 1 and the RI border, and they're fabricated with the soon-to-be-defunct exit numbers (30 and 29)! How wasteful!
MassDOT has ownership and is responsible for signing the highway and they did it with the knowledge available probably 2+ years ago.
As for wasteful, this is like arguing for a $1 price reduction on the price of a house because one light switch cover is missing. It's not worth the effort. There are far bigger sources of waste of which to be concerned
Here are the two new MassDOT signs with the current I-95 RI exit numbers, photos taken yesterday, in order:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs822i.jpg)
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs822j.jpg)
The 1/2 mile advance in the project's sign plans for Roosevelt Ave. was not present. The exit sign for US 1 South was also not there. It appears one gantry prior to the US 1 South exit will hold both signs. Are they waiting until the RI exit numbers are being changed? If so, why did they post the other signs?
Photos of new signs taken yesterday, and evidence of where the missing sign for Roosevelt Ave. will go is at:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
I wonder why MassDOT decided to use its design for Route 114 instead of a RI-style shield for that exit.
Massachusetts can't make other states' shields. There's a MA 107 (should be NH 107) on I-95 in Salisbury, and I believe the signs pointing to NH 123 and NH 124 (which end at the state line) are just text instead of a shield in Massachusetts.
Quote from: 1 on August 20, 2022, 07:24:06 AM
Massachusetts can't make other states' shields. There's a MA 107 (should be NH 107) on I-95 in Salisbury, and I believe the signs pointing to NH 123 and NH 124 (which end at the state line) are just text instead of a shield in Massachusetts.
I wonder what the deal is with whatever easements or financial arrangements involve Mass and other states for signing out-of-state exits. Mass posts BGS for CT 171, RI 114, and NH 107 with Mass shields and also on I-91 Mass posts BGS for the US 5 exit in Conn. But, Mass goes into NH to post signs for 286 and 495, and when RI does sign an advance for Mass exit like route 81 off of 24, it does so with a RI shield! (RI does the same to Connecticut on I-95, posting RI 216 and 184 on a BGS for the first CT exit.) So maybe the rule is just whoever posts the sign gets to slap their own shields on it! :P
I have no problem understanding a generic square or circular route shield to mean a state route in place of an actual state's shield.
Back before Mass changed the signs on I-91, the signs for CT Exit 49 in Mass said "EXIT 49/ 5 / Enfield Street / Connecticut" without a separate exit tab and with the entire sign in reflective button copy. Several years later, it was changed to this (courtesy Doug Kerr)...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/4207829306/in/album-72157623054027214/
... which kept the same style but got rid of the button copy. Now its a traditional sign with right-aligned exit tab and the control cities changed to "Thompsonville CT / Enfield CT", which changes to "Enfield St" once you cross the border.
So, once upon a time, MA did try to emulate the adjacent state's sign style.
On I-84, the "MA/CT 171" shield is almost identical, except the outline border. So I'm not losing sleep over that, especially with CT now using some square shields with outlines statewide, not just on the 2-lane roads, but on some guide signs now.
I think things break down in the border areas in New England because all of the states involved (except Vermont) use variants of a basic square shield. Something similar happens on I-80/I-94 in Indiana just over the Illinois state line: this first segment inside Indiana was built by Illinois DOT, which used its own shield design ("Indiana" substituted for "Illinois") on the advance signing for SR 152/Indianapolis Blvd. The construction plans did have second seals from PEs registered in Indiana for the work performed there, so Indiana DOT must have signed off on it.
Elsewhere in the US, where adjacent states have highly dissimilar state route shields, it is more common for the state DOT that places the sign to include the neighboring state's shield detail in the construction plans.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 20, 2022, 07:07:51 AM
I wonder why MassDOT decided to use its design for Route 114 instead of a RI-style shield for that exit.
I recall in the 90s, every green highway sign in RI had a square/rectangle shield for state routes, identical to what Massachusetts uses. Did Rhode Island once use the exact same state route shield as Massachusetts then decide to add an "RI" on top of the number one day?
Quote from: kramie13 on August 30, 2022, 11:00:38 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 20, 2022, 07:07:51 AM
I wonder why MassDOT decided to use its design for Route 114 instead of a RI-style shield for that exit.
I recall in the 90s, every green highway sign in RI had a square/rectangle shield for state routes, identical to what Massachusetts uses. Did Rhode Island once use the exact same state route shield as Massachusetts then decide to add an "RI" on top of the number one day?
No, as far as I've been able to tell it's always been RI. Just the highway signs ignored that.
A long long time ago... the entirety of New England used the same square shield. CT was the one to get most creative with it in later years, converting the basic square to include the state's outline (which was later used on Merritt Parkway guide signs). By the (probably) 1970s, we were basically back to the square shield, though you'd see "CONN" on top (like RI, but not on highway guide signs). NH converted their square to include the profile of the "Old Man of the Mountains". VT's developed into a circle, then in the mid 1990s, went green and oval-y. Maine pretty much stayed square.
So maybe Mass still thinks its when all of New England used square shields!
Or... maybe this conversation happened....
"Hey New Hampshire! We're putting up a sign for your exit. Got a NH 107 shield kicking around we could use?"
"No way. You get enough money from taxes. Make your own!"
"Fine".
I've added a few more photos of recent sign updates along I-95 in MA between Norwood and Attleboro, such as this new 2 miles advance sign for US 1 southbound under the Exit 19 section:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs822jj.jpg)
The rest are in my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood)
It appears there may now be less than 10 signs remaining to be replaced, 7 SB and 3 NB.
I have a bone to pick:
What constitutes or mandates a "2 mile" warning sign for highway exits? Some exits in the state have them, but most don't.
And why did the state recently add 2-mile warning signs for the US 1 exits on both I-495 in Plainville and I-95 in Sharon in recent years when they didn't exist at all previously?
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Quote from: kramie13 on August 31, 2022, 11:59:39 AMI have a bone to pick:
What constitutes or mandates a "2 mile" warning sign for highway exits? Some exits in the state have them, but most don't.
It depends on the interchange classification, which can be major (categories A or B), intermediate, or minor (per
MUTCD § 2E.32). Major and intermediate interchanges typically receive two-mile advance guide signs if sign spacing permits (per
MUTCD § 2E.33).
It varies by state, too. Most interchanges in Maine get 2 mile, 1 mile, and "exit now". 1/2 mile advances are rare for interchanges not on the Maine Turnpike. The rest of New England generally features 1 mile, 1/2 mile, and "exit now" signage in rural areas. I can see 2 mile advances for major jcts such as interstates and major state routes that are limited-access.
Quote from: kramie13 on August 31, 2022, 11:59:39 AMI have a bone to pick:
What constitutes or mandates a "2 mile" warning sign for highway exits? Some exits in the state have them, but most don't.
I assume the 2 miles signs have gone up due to the US 1 exit being a primary access point for Gillette Stadium. Of course there's also an auxiliary sign for the stadium for that exit headed south.
It depends on the interchange classification, which can be major (categories A or B), intermediate, or minor (per
MUTCD § 2E.32). Major and intermediate interchanges typically receive two-mile advance guide signs if sign spacing permits (per
MUTCD § 2E.33).
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 31, 2022, 12:54:32 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 31, 2022, 11:59:39 AMI have a bone to pick:
What constitutes or mandates a "2 mile" warning sign for highway exits? Some exits in the state have them, but most don't.
It depends on the interchange classification, which can be major (categories A or B), intermediate, or minor (per MUTCD § 2E.32). Major and intermediate interchanges typically receive two-mile advance guide signs if sign spacing permits (per MUTCD § 2E.33).
MassDOT practice is to provide two 2 mile advance signs for all Interstate routes. Other major interchanges have 2 mile advance signs if spacing permits. But yes, most interchanges in the state get only 1 mile and 1/2 mile advance signs.
New BGS signs have started to be installed on I-95 northbound between Reading and Peabody as of tonight starting at Exit 58 and moving up to Exit 61.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on December 15, 2022, 08:02:59 PM
New BGS signs have started to be installed on I-95 northbound between Reading and Peabody as of tonight starting at Exit 58 and moving up to Exit 61.
Got a chance to check out the new signs on I-95/MA 128 North earlier today, here's the last one at the Salem Street exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1222dd.jpg)
The other new sign photos are at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
As was posted under the Massachusetts topic, the contractors finally got around to placing the last of the new US 1 exit signs in Attleboro in early December which also includes on the same gantry the 1/2 mile advance sign for the first RI exit, Roosevelt Avenue. The new sign though went up with the old exit number however, which you would think that, since the same contractor was responsible for both the MA and RI projects, they would have spotted the error before the sign went up:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1222mm.jpg)
I think you're assuming more communication and knowledge between projects than actually occurs.
Also, if there isn't a change order from Mass for the new exit number, the contractor cannot just change it.
They agreed to fabricate the signs as drawn. It may seem trivial; however, not delivering to specification can result in re-work on decreased payment.
Is there any chance the situation could be rectified, such as placing a 43 on top of the 30 sign? I doubt the exit tab will be removed until the sign is replaced in the future.
Adding a 43 on top of the 30 would make the most sense. But absent that, since (I'm guessing) Rhode Island provides the "Old Exit 30" tab as part of the new signage, MassDOT might not be compelled to do anything for the moment.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2023, 07:30:23 PM
Is there any chance the situation could be rectified, such as placing a 43 on top of the 30 sign? I doubt the exit tab will be removed until the sign is replaced in the future.
A similar patch, but of the whole tab, was done on I-395 when Connecticut renumbered exits, leaving the Mass sign for the exit with the old number. https://goo.gl/maps/pa3zKyaBvTDXLUVN8
No reason they couldn't patch just like they did on existing Mass signs in Mass, but they do need to do it through whatever channels are required.
The timing was just right for it to be planned, fabricated, and installed as RI was changing numbers--any other timing and it wouldn't have been quite as interesting.
Went to RI this weekend on I-95. The sign for the first RI Exit 43/Old Exit 30 in Massachusetts is still signed for the latter, but the sign for the next one just before the state line (Exit 42/Old Exit 29) does reflect the new number.
I've added new photos documenting sign replacement between Reading and Lynnfield on my I-95 in Mass. Gallery including this 2 sign cantilever for the US 1/MA 129 exits northbound:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs323q.jpg)
The rest at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
Took a trip over the weekend to check out any new signage on I-95/MA 128 between Reading and Lynnfield since my last trip in March. All of the signage for the US 1/MA 129 exits as well as the 1 mile advance for the MA 128 exit are up:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs523i.jpg)
The 2 Miles advance NB for 128 and 4 other signs SB still need to be installed. All the photos are at:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
Did they ever fix the former Exit 30/present Exit 43 sign mentioned at the beginning of the year?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2023, 02:27:27 PM
Did they ever fix the former Exit 30/present Exit 43 sign mentioned at the beginning of the year?
I went through the area earlier this month and it still hasn't been corrected.
Yes, Virginia (er, MassDOT), quality control is a thing.
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs323i.jpg)
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet on another thread but, for some reason, most if not all of the yellow LEFT banners on the Exit tab signs approaching both the Canton (I-95/93/MA 128/US 1) & Peabody (I-95/MA 128) have been removed... including the recent installs.
What gives? Scroll down (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
Seems kind of weird, especially since the last sign at the Peabody I-95/MA 128 split now includes a yellow bottom EXIT ONLY banner with black down-arrows as well. A bit overkill IMHO.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 11, 2023, 03:38:32 PM
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet on another thread but, for some reason, most if not all of the yellow LEFT banners on the Exit tab signs approaching both the Canton (I-95/93/MA 128/US 1) & Peabody (I-95/MA 128) have been removed... including the recent installs.
What gives? Scroll down (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
Seems kind of weird, especially since the last sign at the Peabody I-95/MA 128 split now includes a yellow bottom EXIT ONLY banner with black down-arrows as well. A bit overkill IMHO.
I was just on this stretch of highway last week. I've also noticed the "Left" tabs approaching I-93/Exit 26 on I-95/MA 128 south are gone. But it looks like the exit tabs have been "cut off" - the white line at the top is missing.
And of course the number 26 is "plated on" - not fabricated onto the exit tab.
But in my opinion, the yellow "LEFT" tabs are redundant, because the exit tab is on the left side of the sign instead of the right side here.
A lot of ignorant drivers might not know that the exit tab on the left side indicates a left exit. That's why the yellow-boxed left was a good idea in most cases.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 12, 2023, 07:42:10 PM
A lot of ignorant drivers might not know that the exit tab on the left side indicates a left exit. That's why the yellow-boxed left was a good idea in most cases.
Agreed; many drivers may not know that. I hadn't known that fact myself until my mid-20s.
I thought the left tab=left exit thing was a relatively new development in the MUTCD.
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2023, 06:37:21 AM
I thought the left tab=left exit thing was a relatively new development in the MUTCD.
Been that way at least since the 1980's. I remember seeing them on a sign replacement project in my area in 1984. The word
LEFT in the yellow box on the exit tab is relatively new, having appeared in the 2009 Manual, or maybe the short lived 2003 edition; not sure which.
Prior to the past 10-15 years or so, CT exit tabs were still centered, and you assumed the exit was on the right, unless there was a LEFT EXIT banner at the bottom.
Actually, that's how most N.E. states were, it was just CT was the last to make the transtion.
Quote from: shadyjay on June 13, 2023, 08:07:50 PM
Prior to the past 10-15 years or so, CT exit tabs were still centered, and you assumed the exit was on the right, unless there was a LEFT EXIT banner at the bottom.
Actually, that's how most N.E. states were, it was just CT was the last to make the transtion.
LOL In Connecticut the environmentalists probably objected to moving the exit tabs to the right, ya' know: just oppose everything. Probably the same ones that have prevented the connection between Rt.7 and the Merritt Pkwy in the Norwalk area from ever being built.
Sorry for the sarcasm. That connection is a sore point with me.
Quote from: bob7374 on January 01, 2023, 10:27:40 AM
As was posted under the Massachusetts topic, the contractors finally got around to placing the last of the new US 1 exit signs in Attleboro in early December which also includes on the same gantry the 1/2 mile advance sign for the first RI exit, Roosevelt Avenue. The new sign though went up with the old exit number however, which you would think that, since the same contractor was responsible for both the MA and RI projects, they would have spotted the error before the sign went up:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1222mm.jpg)
I was on this stretch of I-95 yesterday. The 1/2 mile sign for the Roosevelt Ave exit now correctly reads "Exit 43" .
Does it also have an old exit 30 sign posted?
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on January 16, 2023, 08:43:12 AM
Went to RI this weekend on I-95. The sign for the first RI Exit 43/Old Exit 30 in Massachusetts is still signed for the latter, but the sign for the next one just before the state line (Exit 42/Old Exit 29) does reflect the new number.
Just drove by there yesterday. I couldn't take pictures, but the exit numbers for the first two RI exits on I-95 south just before the border have been changed to reflect RI's new mileage based exits (43 and 42).
New signage on US 1 North and on the ramp to I-95/MA 128 in Peabody now includes I-95 shields indicating, for those that did not know, there's another way to get to I-95 North besides staying on US 1 North to Danvers:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/us1signs623i.jpg)
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 11, 2023, 03:38:32 PM
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet on another thread but, for some reason, most if not all of the yellow LEFT banners on the Exit tab signs approaching both the Canton (I-95/93/MA 128/US 1) & Peabody (I-95/MA 128) have been removed... including the recent installs.
What gives? Scroll down (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
Seems kind of weird, especially since the last sign at the Peabody I-95/MA 128 split now includes a yellow bottom EXIT ONLY banner with black down-arrows as well. A bit overkill IMHO.
The Left Tabs are present with the new signs that went up... I mentioned it on the general Massachusetts Thread. This pic was from last week.
Quote from: 5foot14 on June 16, 2023, 07:01:06 AM
I didn't really notice if the left tabs were removed previously, but with the sign replacement project going on on I-95 all 4 exit signs currently have the left tab ...(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230616/939b6775134cc9d72eeb334fb3225d68.jpg)
SM-A515U
https://goo.gl/maps/E5Y49Q1b33ERsN8u5
Are these button copy shields now gone?
I believe they have been, but I don't have photos.
That segment of Interstate 95 has narrow shoulders. Too narrow for an Interstate corridor.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 04, 2023, 01:01:00 PM
That segment of Interstate 95 has narrow shoulders. Too narrow for an Interstate corridor.
The old grandfather clause protection. :bigass:
Quote from: roadman65 on July 04, 2023, 11:37:14 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/E5Y49Q1b33ERsN8u5
Are these button copy shields now gone?
Yes, they were replaced last August:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs822qq.jpg)
Quote from: roadman65 on July 04, 2023, 01:16:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 04, 2023, 01:01:00 PM
That segment of Interstate 95 has narrow shoulders. Too narrow for an Interstate corridor.
The old grandfather clause protection. :bigass:
Actually, that particular stretch, from US 1 to the 128 split was redone circa 1988 when I-95/MA 128 interchange was built with the main corridor being widened & re-aligned in the process.
Quote from: SidS1045 on June 01, 2023, 02:04:44 PM
Yes, Virginia (er, MassDOT), quality control is a thing.
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs323i.jpg)
The sign has been fixed.
Any reason why this sign wasn't replaced during the recent sign replacement project between Canton and the RI border?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.042928,-71.2434482,3a,90y,202.75h,101.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snwOBUwMqLXIk33TBPoUbWw!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
All of the other new signs have new exit tabs with the recently-changed (now mileage-based) exit numbers fabricated onto them. But this sign still has a "tacked on" exit number and it really sticks out like a sore thumb. The number is very close to the "exit" text and it's not aligned.
Quote from: kramie13 on August 11, 2023, 10:45:50 AM
Any reason why this sign wasn't replaced during the recent sign replacement project between Canton and the RI border?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.042928,-71.2434482,3a,90y,202.75h,101.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snwOBUwMqLXIk33TBPoUbWw!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
All of the other new signs have new exit tabs with the recently-changed (now mileage-based) exit numbers fabricated onto them. But this sign still has a "tacked on" exit number and it really sticks out like a sore thumb. The number is very close to the "exit" text and it's not aligned.
Aside from the overlay being a bit misaligned, the sign appears to be in great shape, meets current requirements, and is fully functional for motorists. Being skipped over in a sign rehab project isn't surprising, it was probably a budget decision.
Quote from: machias on August 11, 2023, 02:31:12 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 11, 2023, 10:45:50 AM
Any reason why this sign wasn't replaced during the recent sign replacement project between Canton and the RI border?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.042928,-71.2434482,3a,90y,202.75h,101.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snwOBUwMqLXIk33TBPoUbWw!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
All of the other new signs have new exit tabs with the recently-changed (now mileage-based) exit numbers fabricated onto them. But this sign still has a "tacked on" exit number and it really sticks out like a sore thumb. The number is very close to the "exit" text and it's not aligned.
Aside from the overlay being a bit misaligned, the sign appears to be in great shape, meets current requirements, and is fully functional for motorists. Being skipped over in a sign rehab project isn't surprising, it was probably a budget decision.
Right, we wouldn't want to spend any extra money to make the signs consistent.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 11, 2023, 08:23:04 PM
Quote from: machias on August 11, 2023, 02:31:12 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 11, 2023, 10:45:50 AM
Any reason why this sign wasn't replaced during the recent sign replacement project between Canton and the RI border?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.042928,-71.2434482,3a,90y,202.75h,101.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snwOBUwMqLXIk33TBPoUbWw!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
All of the other new signs have new exit tabs with the recently-changed (now mileage-based) exit numbers fabricated onto them. But this sign still has a "tacked on" exit number and it really sticks out like a sore thumb. The number is very close to the "exit" text and it's not aligned.
Aside from the overlay being a bit misaligned, the sign appears to be in great shape, meets current requirements, and is fully functional for motorists. Being skipped over in a sign rehab project isn't surprising, it was probably a budget decision.
Right, we wouldn't want to spend any extra money to make the signs consistent.
In today's world of everything being politicized, functional is much more important than consistent. It'd be nice if the signs were consistent, but many state DOTs are resorting to spot replacements instead of bulk replacements like the did in the latter half of the 20th century. The sign in question doesn't have the "integrated" exit tab like MassHighway used to do, so it's new enough to match the others. The overlay could have been much better (personally I would have included a new "A" in the overlay) but it's readable, functional, and serves its purpose.
Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs923c.JPG)
I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 12, 2023, 11:33:54 AM
Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs923c.JPG)
I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.
Am I seeing this photo correctly? The
1 Mile advance sign for the next exit is placed
before the
exit direction sign for the previous exit? That's definitely not normal practice. The correct and normal way would have been to hang them side by side on a full size overhead gantry. Good old Massachusetts........
Quote from: SignBridge on September 12, 2023, 09:02:46 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 12, 2023, 11:33:54 AM
Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs923c.JPG)
I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.
Am I seeing this photo correctly? The 1 Mile advance sign for the next exit is placed before the exit direction sign for the previous exit? That's definitely not normal practice. The correct and normal way would have been to hang them side by side on a full size overhead gantry. Good old Massachusetts........
They've been doing this for a while now. A number of years back (in 2015), they replaced the full-width gantry with an advance for US 1 (then Exit 50) and the at-exit sign for route 62 (Exit 49) with separate cantilevers, one further back from route 62 showing only US 1 in 1 mile, and one at the exit just for 62. They are taking the MUTCD sign spreading advice a little too far almost.
One sentence in it says:
QuoteThe Exit Direction sign should be the only sign used in the vicinity of the gore (other than the Exit Gore sign). It should be located overhead near the theoretical gore and generally on an overhead sign support structure.
Possibly from this, they decided to not have a sign for the next exit near the gore of the first exit.
However, the next sentence in the MUTCD sign spreading advice says:
QuoteThe Advance Guide sign to indicate the next interchange exit should be placed near the crossroad location. If the crossroad goes over the mainline, the Advance Guide sign should be placed on the overcrossing structure or on a separate structure immediately in front of the overcrossing structure.
Having the sign for the following exit coming right before the at-exit sign for the first isn't really in the spirit of this.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 12, 2023, 09:02:46 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 12, 2023, 11:33:54 AM
Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs923c.JPG)
I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.
Am I seeing this photo correctly? The 1 Mile advance sign for the next exit is placed before the exit direction sign for the previous exit? That's definitely not normal practice. The correct and normal way would have been to hang them side by side on a full size overhead gantry. Good old Massachusetts........
This happens. In NJ you get the 2-mile advance for Exit 41 (I-80) before the advance for Exit 40 (CR 511) on I-287.
Well in the Massachusetts case they've done the MUTCD sign-spreading concept in reverse. I'm sure that's not what was intended in the Manual.
And in the New Jersey I-287 case as I suggested earlier the two signs should be hung together on a full-width gantry showing the distances to the next two exits. This an especially common practice in Chicago on the Dan Ryan Expwy, I-90-94.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 12, 2023, 09:02:46 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 12, 2023, 11:33:54 AM
Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs923c.JPG)
I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.
Am I seeing this photo correctly? The 1 Mile advance sign for the next exit is placed before the exit direction sign for the previous exit? That's definitely not normal practice. The correct and normal way would have been to hang them side by side on a full size overhead gantry. Good old Massachusetts........
They've been doing this for a while now. A number of years back (in 2015), they replaced the full-width gantry with an advance for US 1 (then Exit 50) and the at-exit sign for route 62 (Exit 49) with separate cantilevers, one further back from route 62 showing only US 1 in 1 mile, and one at the exit just for 62. They are taking the MUTCD sign spreading advice a little too far almost.
One sentence in it says:
The Exit Direction sign should be the only sign used in the vicinity of the gore (other than the Exit Gore sign). It should be located overhead near the theoretical gore and generally on an overhead sign support structure.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 12, 2023, 09:34:07 PM
Well in the Massachusetts case they've done the MUTCD sign-spreading concept in reverse. I'm sure that's not what was intended in the Manual.
And in the New Jersey I-287 case as I suggested earlier the two signs should be hung together on a full-width gantry showing the distances to the next two exits. This an especially common practice in Chicago on the Dan Ryan Expwy, I-90-94.
Indeed they seem to have it backwards, putting the sign for the next exit before the first one instead of after it. In Ohio, I can't even think of any spreading examples; they almost always do what is common in most places with a sign for the next exit on the same sign bridge as the at-exit sign for the one leaving.
Quote from: PurdueBill on September 12, 2023, 10:07:05 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 12, 2023, 09:02:46 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 12, 2023, 11:33:54 AM
Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs923c.JPG)
I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.
Am I seeing this photo correctly? The 1 Mile advance sign for the next exit is placed before the exit direction sign for the previous exit? That's definitely not normal practice. The correct and normal way would have been to hang them side by side on a full size overhead gantry. Good old Massachusetts........
They've been doing this for a while now. A number of years back (in 2015), they replaced the full-width gantry with an advance for US 1 (then Exit 50) and the at-exit sign for route 62 (Exit 49) with separate cantilevers, one further back from route 62 showing only US 1 in 1 mile, and one at the exit just for 62. They are taking the MUTCD sign spreading advice a little too far almost.
One sentence in it says:
The Exit Direction sign should be the only sign used in the vicinity of the gore (other than the Exit Gore sign). It should be located overhead near the theoretical gore and generally on an overhead sign support structure.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 12, 2023, 09:34:07 PM
Well in the Massachusetts case they've done the MUTCD sign-spreading concept in reverse. I'm sure that's not what was intended in the Manual.
And in the New Jersey I-287 case as I suggested earlier the two signs should be hung together on a full-width gantry showing the distances to the next two exits. This an especially common practice in Chicago on the Dan Ryan Expwy, I-90-94.
Indeed they seem to have it backwards, putting the sign for the next exit before the first one instead of after it. In Ohio, I can't even think of any spreading examples; they almost always do what is common in most places with a sign for the next exit on the same sign bridge as the at-exit sign for the one leaving.
This seems to be standard MassDOT practice now, it's repeated prior to the MA 129 exit:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs523s.jpg)
This is what the overhead signage looked like before the new 1 Mile advance went up for MA 129:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs423e.jpg)
Well I for one, think what Mass DOT is doing here is a bad practice. It counter-intuitive, illogical and potentially confusing to drivers. I couldn't say for sure whether it's MUTCD compliant or not, but I'd sure like to see an FHWA opinion on this issue.
Also, just a point of info: The sign-spreading concept in the Manual is only a recommendation, not a standard. All the instructions say should, not shall. So even if Massachusetts is mis-applying the concept, I'm not sure it matters since sign-spreading is not required.
As was reported in the Massachusetts thread, replacement signs for the overheads at the I-495 North ramp that were taken down shortly after they were put up in 2022 have been placed:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1123o.JPG)
Also, though not open yet, but apparently getting close, new overheads have gone up on I-95 in Canton for the Dedham Street exit, covered with a temporary 'Ramp Closed' sign:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1123p.JPG)
Quote from: bob7374 on November 26, 2023, 10:19:24 PM
Also, though not open yet, but apparently getting close, new overheads have gone up on I-95 in Canton for the Dedham Street exit, covered with a temporary 'Ramp Closed' sign:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1123p.JPG)
TIL the SB entrance was only open this century. And the base map at historicaerials suggests this will be a full diamond, not half?
Quote from: Alps on November 27, 2023, 12:15:55 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 26, 2023, 10:19:24 PM
Also, though not open yet, but apparently getting close, new overheads have gone up on I-95 in Canton for the Dedham Street exit, covered with a temporary 'Ramp Closed' sign:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1123p.JPG)
TIL the SB entrance was only open this century. And the base map at historicaerials suggests this will be a full diamond, not half?
It could have been a whole diamond a few years ago, but there has been construction where the ramps would be, including the Boston area's new Topgolf.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 26, 2023, 10:19:24 PM
Also, though not open yet, but apparently getting close, new overheads have gone up on I-95 in Canton for the Dedham Street exit, covered with a temporary 'Ramp Closed' sign:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1123p.JPG)
It's been a minute since I last checked in with the status of this project. Thanks for the update.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 26, 2023, 10:19:24 PM
Also, though not open yet, but apparently getting close, new overheads have gone up on I-95 in Canton for the Dedham Street exit, covered with a temporary 'Ramp Closed' sign:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1123p.JPG)
Just drove by the area this PM, and the new Exit 25 is now open. The secondary sign mentions the Amtrak/MBTA station.
So, with the opening of this interchange, I'm guessing MassDOT wants motorists to take the new Exit 25 to reach the "Route 128 Station". That seems to reason that any reconstruction of the I-95/I-93-128 interchange would involve a flyover coming in to the left at some point near the present University Ave exit on I-95/128 North.
ConnDOT recently added a 2-lane left exit flyover on I-91 to reach the Charter Oak Bridge in Hartford... I wonder if something similar could be snuck in, coming in on the left side of 128, shifting the existing 4 lanes over to the right to accomodate such a ramp. The farthest lane right could become an "Exit only" ramp for University Ave/present Route 128 Station exit. Certainly leaves the door open for such a configuration, and with this ramp open, there wouldn't be a need for I-95 North traffic to access University Ave via that exit... instead, that traffic could take this new exit.
But that's all probably several years away, given the present big ticket interchange items ongoing (I-90/I-495, I-90/Allston Viaduct, etc).
Quote from: shadyjay on December 09, 2023, 09:06:46 PM
So, with the opening of this interchange, I'm guessing MassDOT wants motorists to take the new Exit 25 to reach the "Route 128 Station". That seems to reason that any reconstruction of the I-95/I-93-128 interchange would involve a flyover coming in to the left at some point near the present University Ave exit on I-95/128 North.
ConnDOT recently added a 2-lane left exit flyover on I-91 to reach the Charter Oak Bridge in Hartford... I wonder if something similar could be snuck in, coming in on the left side of 128, shifting the existing 4 lanes over to the right to accomodate such a ramp. The farthest lane right could become an "Exit only" ramp for University Ave/present Route 128 Station exit. Certainly leaves the door open for such a configuration, and with this ramp open, there wouldn't be a need for I-95 North traffic to access University Ave via that exit... instead, that traffic could take this new exit.
But that's all probably several years away, given the present big ticket interchange items ongoing (I-90/I-495, I-90/Allston Viaduct, etc).
Many have been concerned that Dedham St./University Ave. are going to be clogged due to people wanting to avoid the 93/95 interchange. I'm sure people will try it...until they realize that the gauntlet of traffic lights (that favor the plaza) on University Ave. does not make this a huge time saver!
I'm sure some people heading north on 95 will use Exit 25 to go to the train station. But the traffic on Dedham Street will likely grow as some use the exit to avoid the congestion at the 95N to 95N loop ramp, which is getting worse. Between the lights and the growing number of businesses in the area (hello, Topgolf), it may be easier to stay on 95.