New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia all have made improvements to there long distance roads.
I am puzzled that in Massachusetts needed improvements have not been made.
Most glarringly to me is
1) The I-84 interchange. This is a high volume interchange like the terminus of the NJTP at I-295.
Delaware fixed there flawed toll booth on I-95 and yet I hear of nothing in MA where this interchanged would be expanded to accomodate high speed traffic like the NJTP or Delaware tolls.
2) Widening. Not so much lane additions, but better medians and fewer curves so I-90 is more up to freeway standards.
3) 390/495/95 interchanges.
-Do I have to say anything? Again Maryland has upgraded the 95/695 interchange, I don't understand why Massachusetts has let these outdated interchanges remain instead of doing a re-build like Delaware did at Christinia.
MA is a pretty progressive current state so I'm surprised they have lagged far behind their counterparts.
While there are plans for state wide electronic high speed tolling within a couple years, don't count on any major interchange improvements or widening anytime soon. As you stated, MA is "progressive" which brings along with it the NIMBY's and environmentalists who will never, EVER let you widen anything. The current trend is actually to take away vehicle travel lanes in favor of bike lanes, wider sidewalks, etc. ("Complete Streets"). After the Big Dig and US 3, there is so much anti major road work sentiment around here that the 128/95 Add-a-lane will probably be the last major widening we'll see for a long, long time. They've been analyzing the 93/95 interchange in Woburn for over a decade now and still no ground breaking.
Yet if you poll the daily commuters, I'm sure they'd be in favor of it. However the progressive folks that live AND work in the city will out voice those that simply just work in the city. Their favorite argument is "if you build it they will come" ; in other words, adding a lane to a freeway will somehow magically create a proportionate amount of additional volume leading to the same traffic jams. This straw man only has credibility if one assumes there will be that many additional jobs created solely because of an additional lane and it will generate that many additional trips. It also assumes that there's that much room for people to move to the suburbs, which thanks to these same progressives that want to keep their "town feel", housing expansion is slow to nonexistent and prices are still through the roof despite the economy.
But I digress....
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 11, 2013, 01:43:10 PMYet if you poll the daily commuters, I'm sure they'd be in favor of it. However the progressive folks that live AND work in the city will out voice those that simply just work in the city. Their favorite argument is "if you build it they will come" ; in other words, adding a lane to a freeway will somehow magically create a proportionate amount of additional volume leading to the same traffic jams. This straw man only has credibility if one assumes there will be that many additional jobs created solely because of an additional lane and it will generate that many additional trips. It also assumes that there's that much room for people to move to the suburbs, which thanks to these same progressives that want to keep their "town feel", housing expansion is slow to nonexistent and prices are still through the roof despite the economy.
The above is one reason why
it is important to show up at the polls at every election and not just the presidential and gubernatorial campaigns if one's a registered voter.
Many of these decisions & policies originate on the smaller, local, representive level. If your local or State Rep. and State Senator are pandering to the NIMBYs;
you vote for their primary and/or general election opponent. If they're running unopposed; you either write in a candidate of leave that part of the ballot blank.
An unopposed candidate receiving only say 52% of the general votes tallied will send a strong message for them to either shape up or they'll be gone in the next go-around should a challenger arise.
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2013, 12:14:42 PM
1) The I-84 interchange. This is a high volume interchange like the terminus of the NJTP at I-295.
Delaware fixed there flawed toll booth on I-95 and yet I hear of nothing in MA where this interchanged would be expanded to accomodate high speed traffic like the NJTP or Delaware tolls.
Yes, the interchange can get backed up, but with the "all-electronic tolling" on the horizon, the toll plaza on the ramp will go away. The heaviest-congested ramps (Pike WB to I-84 and I-84 to Pike EB) are already two lanes. Get rid of the toll plaza and you won't have the backups associated with it, including the frantic "find the correct lane" before and the "20 lanes merge into 3" after said plaza.
Quote2) Widening. Not so much lane additions, but better medians and fewer curves so I-90 is more up to freeway standards.
The only delay I've encountered on the pike itself has been EB approaching 128. Again, toll plaza related. See above. Once you get west of I-84, the traffic dies down. I've never encountered any traffic delays west of Springfield.
Quote3) 390/495/95 interchanges.
Yes, the I-495 interchange and the I-95 interchange can both be a cluster[you know]. Perhaps way down the road something will get done to replace the outdated trumpet-trumpet connections. Again, after the pike goes all electronic, you won't need trumpets. Would flyovers be nice? Yes. But let's first get rid of the toll plazas and see how traffic moves. Then there's the trumpet-trumpet-trumpet between the 'pike and I-91, which I would think could get redone at some point. But again, I've never really encountered a delay more than a minute or so, and that was just in line waiting for my ticket or paying my toll.
Overall, the 'pike is pretty descent. Traffic moves along pretty well. It helps that there are few interchanges so there's less points of traffic entering/exiting. Long term, I can see some interchange improvements (especially the I-395/I-290/20 cluster and at I-495) but as far as widening, I can't see it in the cards.
Of course, I'm talking about the original pike, the section west of 128.
On a "semi-related" note:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/main/tabid/1075/ctl/detail/mid/2937/itemid/359/Western-Turnpike-Toll-Collection-Resumes-October-15--2013-Between-Interchanges-1-and-6.aspx
Tolls fund roadway improvements, but the press release doesn't call for any major projects, outside of general "state of good repair" work. I thought an interesting tidbit in the release said that funds cannot be used for any turnpike work east of I-95/128. This is the "Boston Extension" that was constructed in the 1960s.
Now that Mass Pike is under the aegis of Mass Highway, don't expect anything to happen. They have a LONG time before getting any Federal money thanks to the Big Dig. I don't know how the revenue from the tolls is spread around, but with the state so handicapped, my guess is that it pays for anything remotely tangentially related to the Mass Pike.
Can someone summarize for me the actual reason(s) the Mass. Turnpike Authority was abolished? I've not seen this done in any of the other northeastern states with toll roads. Though I don't remember what agency in Connecticut collected tolls on I-95 and the Merritt Pkwy. back when they had tolls.
Also, why can MassPike tolls not be used for improvements on the Boston Extension? That section is tolled too, right?
People in western MA didn't want to pay for stuff in Boston. The reason why the tolls went away in the first place is because they didn't want to pay for the Big Dig (which was actually a Turnpike Authority project despite not being on the Turnpike).
Quote from: SignBridge on October 15, 2013, 08:46:36 PM
Can someone summarize for me the actual reason(s) the Mass. Turnpike Authority was abolished? I've not seen this done in any of the other northeastern states with toll roads. Though I don't remember what agency in Connecticut collected tolls on I-95 and the Merritt Pkwy. back when they had tolls.
Also, why can MassPike tolls not be used for improvements on the Boston Extension? That section is tolled too, right?
The Boston Extension was constructed after the original turnpike which was from 128 to NY. Because of this it has different bond holders and therefore the pots of toll money are kept separate. The Boston Extension has all gated toll plazas whereas the Western Turnpike has plazas off the mainline.
QuoteTheir favorite argument is "if you build it they will come" ; in other words, adding a lane to a freeway will somehow magically create a proportionate amount of additional volume leading to the same traffic jams. This straw man only has credibility if one assumes there will be that many additional jobs created solely because of an additional lane and it will generate that many additional trips.
Not entirely true on your latter point. If there's enough latent demand that isn't being met (common with major urban areas), that extra capacity will fill up even if there isn't additional job growth in the area.
Quote from: froggie on October 16, 2013, 03:38:23 AMNot entirely true on your latter point. If there's enough latent demand that isn't being met (common with major urban areas), that extra capacity will fill up even if there isn't additional job growth in the area.
Job growth (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it. In situations where people see roads being built or improved, and mass transit stagnant and neglected, their impulse is to stop using mass transit and switch over to driving. It was proven repeatedly in New York City, in the era when Robert Moses was paving over significant portions of the city with new highways, always promising the PTB that the new roads would relieve congestion on the old roads. It never happened. The new roads were congested within days of opening and the old roads were just as congested as before.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 15, 2013, 08:46:36 PM
Can someone summarize for me the actual reason(s) the Mass. Turnpike Authority was abolished? I've not seen this done in any of the other northeastern states with toll roads.
The Turnpike Authority was folded into MassDOT in 2006 as part of a larger effort to streamline state government. It was viewed as unnecessarily redundant to have both.
NH did similar - their Turnpikes are administered by the Bureau of Turnpikes, which is an office within NHDOT, if I understand correctly. Any work crews or maintenance vehicles you see though will be NHDOT.
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 16, 2013, 10:35:18 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 16, 2013, 03:38:23 AMNot entirely true on your latter point. If there's enough latent demand that isn't being met (common with major urban areas), that extra capacity will fill up even if there isn't additional job growth in the area.
Job growth (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it. In situations where people see roads being built or improved, and mass transit stagnant and neglected, their impulse is to stop using mass transit and switch over to driving. It was proven repeatedly in New York City, in the era when Robert Moses was paving over significant portions of the city with new highways, always promising the PTB that the new roads would relieve congestion on the old roads. It never happened. The new roads were congested within days of opening and the old roads were just as congested as before.
MBTA ridership has been growing rapidly over the last few years-mainly due to the increase in rush hour traffic as well as rising fuel prices. If the widening of certain roads leads to the same traffic jams, the MBTA people will continue to use public transit. And if they continue to use MBTA then who is left to fill up the roads?
I understand your point but to use a traffic engineering term, trips have to be "generated". Usually this is a new shopping mall, restaurant, casino, etc. The fact is widening a road does increase capacity and level of service. This is why US 3 was widened and it in fact has improved traffic flow. When it was 2 lanes the traffic would be stopped from Burlington to Nashua-grid locked. While you still have traffic now with 3 lanes, the backups don't nearly extend as far as they used to. This is also why NHDOT is widening I-93 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. To sum my point: if widening had a negative effect and wouldn't solve traffic problems, DOT's wouldn't be undertaking these widening projects. Any widening project is supported by a traffic engineering study which, if done right, will also look at impacts on public transit, local streets, and the environment. More often than not these studies indicate that additional capacity will improve level of service.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2013, 01:10:29 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 15, 2013, 08:46:36 PM
Can someone summarize for me the actual reason(s) the Mass. Turnpike Authority was abolished? I've not seen this done in any of the other northeastern states with toll roads.
The Turnpike Authority was folded into MassDOT in 2009 as part of a larger effort to streamline state government. It was viewed as unnecessarily redundant to have both.
Corrected the date for you. And, with respect, abolishing the Turnpike Authority had very little to do with streamlining state government - if that were the case, it still doesn't explain why the MBTA and Massport (the two other large state quasi-government transportation agencies) were allowed to remain independent. The common "justification" given for this is because of bondholders and other financial complexities - which (IMHO) is total BS, because the Turnpike had exactly the same types of issues that MBTA and Massport still do.
When you get past the "official" reasons and justifications, the real truth is that the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was abolished for purely political reasons - simply to appease Howie Carr and the
Boston Herald, who had what they labeled a "patronage haven" in their sights for years.
Quote from: roadman on October 16, 2013, 06:41:18 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2013, 01:10:29 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 15, 2013, 08:46:36 PM
Can someone summarize for me the actual reason(s) the Mass. Turnpike Authority was abolished? I've not seen this done in any of the other northeastern states with toll roads.
The Turnpike Authority was folded into MassDOT in 2009 as part of a larger effort to streamline state government. It was viewed as unnecessarily redundant to have both.
Corrected the date for you. And, with respect, abolishing the Turnpike Authority had very little to do with streamlining state government - if that were the case, it still doesn't explain why the MBTA and Massport (the two other large state quasi-government transportation agencies) were allowed to remain independent. The common "justification" given for this is because of bondholders and other financial complexities - which (IMHO) is total BS, because the Turnpike had exactly the same types of issues that MBTA and Massport still do.
When you get past the "official" reasons and justifications, the real truth is that the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was abolished for purely political reasons - simply to appease Howie Carr and the Boston Herald, who had what they labeled a "patronage haven" in their sights for years.
I was giving the more PC answer ;-)
But when it comes to roads, yes, it did streamline everything. The newly formed MassDOT included MassHighway, plus the Turnpike Authority, and also assumed control of all Massport roads (Tobin Bridge), and many DCR roads (not sure on the specifics regarding the DCR transaction though).
Also, MassDOT does have an oversight role when it comes to the T. The MassDOT Rail Division is responsible for planning and oversightof both the T and freight rail statewide.
Finally, thank you for correcting the date. 6's and 9's are easy to mix up.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2013, 09:52:02 PMThe newly formed MassDOT included MassHighway, plus the Turnpike Authority, and also assumed control of all Massport roads (Tobin Bridge), and many DCR roads (not sure on the specifics regarding the DCR transaction though).
Let's hope we start to see improvements in the gawd-awful DCR signage along the way. I never quite figured out the logic behind signing rotaries as simple intersections.
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 17, 2013, 10:43:58 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2013, 09:52:02 PMThe newly formed MassDOT included MassHighway, plus the Turnpike Authority, and also assumed control of all Massport roads (Tobin Bridge), and many DCR roads (not sure on the specifics regarding the DCR transaction though).
Let's hope we start to see improvements in the gawd-awful DCR signage along the way. I never quite figured out the logic behind signing rotaries as simple intersections.
MassDOT took over snow removal and maintenance activities on many DCR roads. However, design and construction of roadway improvements (including signing) on these roads is still overseen by DCR, and not MassDOT Highway Division. And, as DCR roads are considered to be "historic" parkways, there's a whole list of special dos and don'ts that have to be followed - see
http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/manuals/HPguidelinesfinal.pdf
In other words, don't expect the (&^%%! DCR signing to be replaced any time soon.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2013, 09:52:02 PMAlso, MassDOT does have an oversight role when it comes to the T. The MassDOT Rail Division is responsible for planning and oversight of both the T and freight rail statewide.
You are correct. However, Rail and Transit's oversignt role of the MBTA is very limited. For one thing, the MBTA still has a separate general manager, and retains an independent board of directors.
Quote from: roadman on October 17, 2013, 12:49:03 PM
Since this thread concerns the Mass Pike; it's worth pointing out that new BGS' were erected along I-90 Westbound at the I-95/MA 30/(128) interchange (Exit 15). I saw it this past weekend.
As expected, the BGS for I-95 no longer has a MA 128 shield mounted
on the panel.
The selected control destinations are
Waltham and
Providence, RI. IMHO, I would have used the more-distant
Providence, RI southbound destination for the
Eastbound BGS panels (and use
Portsmouth, NH for the northbound destination) and use
Dedham for the Westbound panel. It would've made for a narrower BGS panel.
The new pull-through BGS for I-90 West
still includes the Mass Pike Pilgrim Hat shield and lists
Worcester and
Albany, NY as control destinations.
Unlike the previous BGS for Exit 15, there's no reference to MA 30 and Weston on the new BGS panel. I'm assuming that a supplemental
30 Weston USE EXIT 15 BGS or equivalent will be erected in the near-future once all the remaining approach BGS for Exit 15 are replaced.
Execellent observations PHLBOS. As I noted in another thread, the BGS panels and structure westbound at Exit 15 were replaced owing to flaws found in the existing sign structure (which was one of the last aluminum structures on the Pike). The remaining signs and structures eastbound and westbound are scheduled to be replaced under one of the pending MassPike sign replacement contracts scheuduled for advertisement in 2015.
Your comment about revising sign legends is noted. However, this would be inconsistent with FHWA policy regarding consistency of sign messages on both approaches to an interchange.
Lastly, IIRC, the original panel design for the replacement I-95 sign at IC 15 did include the MA 30 information, which was separated from the I-95 information with a vertical divider. Haven't yet had a chance to check out the new sign installation to verify this.
Quote from: roadman on October 17, 2013, 01:24:44 PMYour comment about revising sign legends is noted. However, this would be inconsistent with FHWA policy regarding consistency of sign messages on both approaches to an interchange.
Fair enough, maybe it's just the North Shore part of me that associates the
95/Waltham/Providence, RI BGS with I-95 South between Peabody/Lynnfield and Lexington.
Quote from: roadman on October 17, 2013, 01:24:44 PMLastly, IIRC, the original panel design for the replacement I-95 sign at IC 15 did include the MA 30 information, which was separated from the I-95 information with a vertical divider. Haven't yet had a chance to check out the new sign installation to verify this.
The BGS I'm referring to is the one just prior to the gore read:
EXIT 15
95
Waltham ^
Providence, RI / Pardon my attempt of showing an angled right-arrow.
That's a real shame that they don't even co-sign I-95/Ma.128 anymore. They can call it I-95 if they want, but to us old school highway buffs it will still be Route-128.
I don't quite agree with the westbound destinations on I-90 from Boston. I would have thought Springfield would be a better target city than more distant Albany.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 17, 2013, 03:33:28 PM
That's a real shame that they don't even co-sign I-95/Ma.128 anymore. They can call it I-95 if they want, but to us old school highway buffs it will still be Route-128.
that's a bit silly of a reason to ask that it be signed. I call I-110 "bear 11" but I don't expect the designation to ever show up again.
Well, LOL there's no real reason to retain button-copy either nowadays, but I like it, and wish it's use would have been continued. Looks like you're something of a traditionalist too (chuckle!)
Quote from: roadman on October 17, 2013, 01:24:44 PM
Lastly, IIRC, the original panel design for the replacement I-95 sign at IC 15 did include the MA 30 information, which was separated from the I-95 information with a vertical divider. Haven't yet had a chance to check out the new sign installation to verify this.
There is a new sign Westbound prior to the toll booths with the 30 designation and vertical divider.
Quote from: roadman on October 17, 2013, 01:24:44 PMYour comment about revising sign legends is noted. However, this would be inconsistent with FHWA policy regarding consistency of sign messages on both approaches to an interchange.
I meant to ask this earlier, is the above an actual mandate or
suggested guidance?
If it's the former, then will the new Exit 14 BGS for I-90 Eastbound also contain the MA 30 info. on the same panel? The current panels do not, although there is a supplemental BGS that lists such. The reasoning for such is due to the previous exit (Exit 13) is also for MA 30.
Personally, I would recommend adding a supplemental BGS along for MA 16 since there is no Exit 16 (for MA 16) along eastbound I-90. Is that in the works?
While I agree
in principle with consistent legends for exit signs in both directions of a highway; there are cases where it's not always appropriate & applicable to do such.
Example: the exit panels for the PA Turnpike (I-76/276) Valley Forge interchange is an example of such: the I-476 shield was recently removed from the westbound exit signs (and replaced w/a US 422 shield) because there exists a direct exit from I-276 to I-476 South several miles beforehand. Consistency in this case created an unnecessary redundancy.
Most Providence-bound motorists coming from Boston and points east aren't going to use I-90 West to I-95 South; they'll likely use I-93 South to I-95 South (barring a major traffic jam). That's why I suggested the use of
Dedham for the southbound control city. If legend consistency's an issue, then the Waltham/Dedham combo could also be used for the eastbound exit signage because
most NH or RI bound drivers from the Pike (at least west of Framingham) will use either I-495 or MA 146 for such.
Personally, I would use Waltham/Dedham for westbound exit signage and Portsmouth, NH/Providence, RI exit signage for the eastbound signage with supplemental signage for the local destinations. But that's just me.
Side bar: I would personally alternate the I-95 exit destination legends at the I-93 (Woburn) and MA 2 interchanges as well. But that's another subject for another thread.
I would probably use "Canton" instead of "Dedham" as a control city to be consistent with recent signage upgrades on MA 3 and I-93.
Quote from: southshore720 on October 18, 2013, 01:28:02 PM
I would probably use "Canton" instead of "Dedham" as a control city to be consistent with recent signage upgrades on MA 3 and I-93.
After doing some checking, most if not all of the I-95 Southbound BGS' between I-90 and MA 16 (Exits 25 through 21) use
Dedham as its local control city (along w/Providence, RI). Although a newly erected I-95 South BGS along MA 30 now only lists just
Providence, RI on it. Not sure single-destination-only BGS' at other entrance ramps for I-95 will replace all the remaining 2-destination BGS'; Roadman can confirm.
IMHO given the area/region/population density, having 2-destinations listed on BGS/LGS at each entrance ramp from non-freeways makes more sense; especially given this particular highway's dual identity (I-95/MA 128) history.
OTOH I-95 South BGS' from MA 9 to US 1 (Exits 20 through 15) list Canton along w/Providence. Personally, for Exit 15 (US 1/MA 1A), I would've used
Boston along with the
Providence, RI listing since US 1 North multiplexes along I-95 South at that point instead of Canton; but that's just me.
Personally, I'm surprised about listing of Dedham on I-95/YDH (Yankee Division Highway) signage being phased out. It's been a
listed destination for YDH (MA 128, I-95/93) since the mid-1960s and has a larger population than Canton.
So the
Dedham destination listing for the I-95 North/US 1 South pull-through BGS along I-93 South in Canton will soon likely be the only listing of that town on I-95 signage.
Oh well, once upon a time
Burlington used to listed on various I-95 & MA 128 signage; not anymore; although one 1977-era lower-panel LGS listing such still survives along Salem St. in Lynnfield/Wakefield (near Exit 42) to this day.
http://goo.gl/maps/0wG3u (http://goo.gl/maps/0wG3u)
Back to the Mass Pike and Exit 15 BGS at hand. You're right (southshore720). Given the above,
Canton could be used as a local I-95 South control city for that BGS.
PHLBOS is correct that Dedham is being phased out as a control city in favor of Canton. However, most of the existing signs with Dedham are south of Route 9, and will remain until the Needham to Wellesley section of the Randolph to Boston "add-a-lane" project is completed in 2016 or 2017 (this section is about to be advertised for bids).
Although it's not yet listed in the 'official' Interstate control cities listing (which hasn't been formally updated in many years), both AASHTO and FHWA have recognized the use of Canton as a control city along I-95 since the early 1990s. The rationale for this is that, since late 1974, Canton has been the location of the junction of I-95 and I-93.
Quote from: roadman on October 18, 2013, 05:25:14 PM
PHLBOS is correct that Dedham is being phased out as a control city in favor of Canton. However, most of the existing signs with Dedham are south of Route 9, and will remain until the Needham to Wellesley section of the Randolph to Boston "add-a-lane" project is completed in 2016 or 2017 (this section is about to be advertised for bids).
I think you have that backwards; the signs that still list
Dedham for I-95 South are between MA 16 and I-90 (the new I-95 South BGS for MA 30 being the exception in that vicinity).
MA 9 West approaching I-95 South ramp (note the early-80s trailblazer sign for I-95 w/the funky experimental font off to the side):
http://goo.gl/maps/WjzJh (http://goo.gl/maps/WjzJh)
LGS
paddle along MA 16 East for I-95 South:
http://goo.gl/maps/NtT2o (http://goo.gl/maps/NtT2o)
BGS along MA 16 West for I-95 South:
http://goo.gl/maps/vHEVH (http://goo.gl/maps/vHEVH)
Quote from: roadman on October 18, 2013, 05:25:14 PMAlthough it's not yet listed in the 'official' Interstate control cities listing (which hasn't been formally updated in many years), both AASHTO and FHWA have recognized the use of Canton as a control city along I-95 since the early 1990s. The rationale for this is that, since late 1974, Canton has been the location of the junction of I-95 and I-93.
While that may be technically true, there's not much else out there in Canton (no offense to those that may live there). One could make a similar argument for Woburn (where I-93 & 95 interchange again at Exit 37) which is a
city with a larger population but any listings of Woburn on I-95 signs have rarely existed aside from an old LGS for I-95 North at Exit 32B that's been since replaced.
Here's my list of what the control cities for several MA Interstate highways
should be (see page 4 of the below-thread):
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5081.75 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5081.75)
Thanks for the clarifications PHLBOS. And I appreciate your suggested control city list - it's given me some food for thought.
Lets remember that we are talking about major interstate highways. And the MUTCD philosophy is that the BGS's are oriented to drivers NOT familiar with the local area. Therefore, IMO, the destinations shown should usually be large cities that every driver on the road can relate to. So in the case of the I-95/90 vicinity, wouldn't it be best to stick with Providence, and Portsmouth, not small cities like Needham, Dedham, Waltham, Canton, etc. that out-of-area drivers may not have ever heard of?
BTW, Roadman: can you please tell us the section of the Manual that insists on the same destinations in both directions at interchanges. I have to agree with the above posters that in some cases, identical destinations may not be appropriate.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 18, 2013, 07:13:34 PMquote author=SignBridge link=topic=10628.msg253881#msg253881 date=1382138014]
BTW, Roadman: can you please tell us the section of the Manual that insists on the same destinations in both directions at interchanges. I have to agree with the above posters that in some cases, identical destinations may not be appropriate.
You are correct that there are no specific requirements in the MUTCD that destinations on guide signs be identical for each approach to an intersection or interchange. My earlier comment was based on my 20+ years of dealings I've had with the FHWA Massachusetts Division Office. They have always insisted that guide sign destinations be identical for each approach to a secondary road entrance or mainline interchange.
To be honest, until reading some of the comments posted here, I'd never given much thought to the idea that using different destinations on each approach might be better in certain circumstances. Guess I've got some more food for thought.
Roadman, I wasn't saying you were wrong, LOL. I was just hoping you could cite the section for me 'cause I was too lazy to search for it myself. But you answered my question; thanks!
Quote from: SignBridge on October 18, 2013, 07:13:34 PM
Lets remember that we are talking about major interstate highways. And the MUTCD philosophy is that the BGS's are oriented to drivers NOT familiar with the local area. Therefore, IMO, the destinations shown should usually be large cities that every driver on the road can relate to. So in the case of the I-95/90 vicinity, wouldn't it be best to stick with Providence, and Portsmouth, not small cities like Needham, Dedham, Waltham, Canton, etc. that out-of-area drivers may not have ever heard of?
Let's also remember we're referring to a highway
wasn't always a major interstate highway and was originally constructed as a bypass/beltway surrounding the city of Boston (aka Route 128/YDH). YDH's temini was never outside of the Commonwealth (Gloucester & Braintree).
Additionally, towns or small cities like Peabody, Waltham & Dedham aren't exactly hick towns w/little or no populations. Canton, IMHO although only having a population about 2000 less than Dedham, still has more of a town-like look & feel compared to its northwestern neighbor.
Granted when 128 was first constructed in the 1950s, more generic control destinations like
North Shore and
South Shore were typically used on signage but when the use of actual cities and towns started appearing on BGS'/LGS' in the mid-1960s; many of the fore-mentioned towns started to blossom in population growth and development.
When I-95 was placed along 128 in the mid-1970s, I'm fairly sure (and Roadman can confirm) that the MassDPW ultimately
still wanted at least one or two metropolitan Boston area cities or towns listed on I-95 signage along that particular YDH/128 corridor stretch as opposed to just Portsmouth NH (previously NH-Maine) and Providence, RI. Some of the fore-mentioned larger municipalities along the YDH were the most logical choices.
Again, the above just reinforces my opinion that the listing of
two destinations for each highway direction is appropriate in larger, more populous metropolitan regions.
In the case of the I-90/95 signage; the current 90s-vintage BGS' after the toll booth list 2 destinations for both I-95 North & South directions... I'm not sure if that will change w/the new BGS' (Roadman can confirm). OTOH, the 90s-vintage I-90 split BGS' only list one destination for each direction; the original BGS' listed 2 to 3 destinations.
Either way, I would recommend a supplemental BGS listing the 2nd or alternate control destinations for ones not listed on the primary BGS; similar to what was done at the I-90/495 interchange (Exit 11A) with the
Marlborough-Milford supplemental BGS.
PHLBOS, you actually make a very good argument for showing 2 destinations. Maybe the FHWA should modify the MUTCD to recommend showing a major target city and a local destination where applicable, since many states do it already. So for instance, I-95/128 south could be signed for Providence - Canton (or Dedham). The problem with multiple destinations on an overhead display of signs is that it can make the signs too wordy, which takes too long to safely read as you go by at highway speed. In fact the Manual recommends (Section 2E.10) a maximum of 2 destinations on any one sign and a limit of 3 destinations in a multiple-sign overhead display.
I never understood how the German Autobahn could have so many destinations on their signs and expect people to read them at the speed of travel on those roads. Maybe 'cause they're paying less attention to the route shield displayed on the bottom line with no compass direction!
The U.S. Manual's approach has always been to just have the major destination on the primary signs and a supplemental sign showing up to 2 additional destinations (after the first advance sign). I believe the purpose was for brevity and quick readability, which I generally agree with.
BTW, (chuckle!) I remember riding on the original Route-128 as a kid circa 1960 on the way to Maine with my parents in my Dad's '57 Chevy. It was only 2 lanes in each direction. And there were signs designating the lane usage as Passing Lane/Travel Lane/Breakdown Lane. It's all good!
Quote from: SignBridge on October 21, 2013, 09:25:02 PM
BTW, (chuckle!) I remember riding on the original Route-128 as a kid circa 1960 on the way to Maine with my parents in my Dad's '57 Chevy. It was only 2 lanes in each direction. And there were signs designating the lane usage as Passing Lane/Travel Lane/Breakdown Lane. It's all good!
Thank goodness not too many years later the civil engineers/politicians of the day had the common sense and forethought to widen the road to 4 lanes.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 21, 2013, 09:25:02 PM
The problem with multiple destinations on an overhead display of signs is that it can make the signs too wordy, which takes too long to safely read as you go by at highway speed. In fact the Manual recommends (Section 2E.10) a maximum of 2 destinations on any one sign and a limit of 3 destinations in a multiple-sign overhead display.
First of all, if you reread most of my posts more closely; I was mainly advocating 2 destinations per direction for mostly
entrance ramp signage from
non-freeways.
Second, placing 2 destinations per direction on overhead signs (including pull-throughs) has been done for decades and, to the best of my knowledge, wasn't a safety hazzard. Massachusetts isn't the only state that still does such. I've seen similar done in CT, DE, ME, NH, NJ and even PA.
Third, if MassDOT is now going 100% by the MUTCD book; then nearly every one of its signs at interchanges with roads w/out route numbers are not in compliance since the BGS legends include the street name
and destination(s). MUTCD
recommends one
or the other. Again, I've seen BGS exit signs bearing street names
and destinations in other states (CT & NJ) as well.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 22, 2013, 08:58:36 AM
Third, if MassDOT is now going 100% by the MUTCD book; then nearly every one of its signs at interchanges with roads w/out route numbers are not in compliance since the BGS legends include the street name and destination(s). MUTCD recommends one or the other. Again, I've seen BGS exit signs bearing street names and destinations in other states (CT & NJ) as well.
I personally don't like when BGS signs include simply a street name. For example until recently, exit 39 on I-93 in Mass was simply "Concord St." Most people would have no idea that Concord St. is in Wilmington (the new sign includes both legends). Also some of the exits in Waltham on 128 such as "Winter St." or "Totten Pond Rd" are also rather vague to the out of towner. IMHO, putting a street name with city name is the same information load as putting a route number with a city name.
I agree w/ Mass Citizen. In CT, they have "Town/City Line" secondary signage that informs you what exits serve the town/city (e.g. "Branford Town Line, Exits 53-56.") MA does not subscribe to this...therefore, the street name paired with the village/town is extremely helpful.
Thanks PHLBOS, for the clarification re: entrance-ramp signing. I agree that 2 destinations on entrance ramp signs could be useful without overloading the drivers' perception.
And add New York to states that routinely show both a street name and destination on BGS's. It's common on Long Island and I don't see a problem with it either. The Manual discourages it, but doesn't actually prohibit the practice. I never understood why they disapprove of it.
Quote from: southshore720 on October 22, 2013, 01:18:47 PM
I agree w/ Mass Citizen. In CT, they have "Town/City Line" secondary signage that informs you what exits serve the town/city (e.g. "Branford Town Line, Exits 53-56.") MA does not subscribe to this...therefore, the street name paired with the village/town is extremely helpful.
I believe there is a "Waltham Exits" ground mounted BGS but as with any ground mount, it receives much less visibility/attention than an overhead advanced guide sign. Especially with everyone looking at their phone or GPS it is easy to miss.
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 22, 2013, 01:11:50 PMI personally don't like when BGS signs include simply a street name. For example until recently, exit 39 on I-93 in Mass was simply "Concord St." Most people would have no idea that Concord St. is in Wilmington (the new sign includes both legends). Also some of the exits in Waltham on 128 such as "Winter St." or "Totten Pond Rd" are also rather vague to the out of towner. IMHO, putting a street name with city name is the same information load as putting a route number with a city name.
Playing Devil's Advocate for moment here with the below-reply.
The reasoning for just having
Concord Rd. on the old BGS was likely due to 2 other exits (MA 129 & 62) located on both sides of the Concord Rd. interchange already having
Wilmington listed. If Concord Rd. was either the only exit serving Wilmington or the first Wilmington exit that one approaches; then adding the destination to that BGS would be more appropriate IMHO.
In the case of the Winter St./Totten Pond Rd. interchange off I-95/MA 128 not listing
Waltham on the BGS; the reasoning for doing so are:
1. There are interchange mileage BGS' for the several Waltham exits along I-95.
2. Like the Concord Rd. interchange off I-93, Winter St./Totten Pond Rd. (Exits 27A-B) is located between the other two Waltham interchanges, Trapelo Road (Exit 28) and US 20 (Exit 26).
IMHO, not placing towns on BGS' in the above-two scenarios are justified.
My beef w/MUTCD's current policy/guidance regarding signing roads w/out route numbers came about when PennDOT first opened I-476 in late 1991 and signed its Baltimore Pike interchange as
Media/Swarthmore rather than
Baltimore Pike/Media/Swarthmore. After receiving much criticism from the public (and
The Philadelphia Inquirer); PennDOT erected supplemental BGS listing Exit 3 (then Exit 2) as Baltimore Pike and Springfield (an additional complaint was that Springfield wasn't listed for that exit either). IMHO, PennDOT should've just listed Baltimore Pike on the major signage, along with the destinations Media & Swarthmore, and simply provided supplemental signage for Springfield and been done with it.
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 22, 2013, 01:30:10 PMI believe there is a "Waltham Exits" ground mounted BGS but as with any ground mount, it receives much less visibility/attention than an overhead advanced guide sign.
Maybe those supplemental BGS' should be overheads mounted on a cantilever gantry. One older supplemental BGS for the US 20 interchange (listing Wayland & Marlboro) was such a type.
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 22, 2013, 01:30:10 PMEspecially with everyone looking at their phone or GPS it is easy to miss.
That's a completely different problem and I have very strong opinions of such (the latter in particular) and have posted such on other related-threads.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 22, 2013, 01:31:57 PM
2. Like the Concord Rd. interchange off I-93, Winter St./Totten Pond Rd. (Exits 27A-B) is located between the other two Waltham interchanges, Trapelo Road (Exit 28) and US 20 (Exit 26).
Good points. However, I believe that the BGS for Trapelo Rd says "Trapelo Rd Belmont Lincoln" and there is no mention of Waltham. In addition, the fact that it has a street name and 2 destinations is all the more reason to have at least the 1 Waltham designation at the other exits.
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 22, 2013, 01:45:53 PMHowever, I believe that the BGS for Trapelo Rd says "Trapelo Rd Belmont Lincoln" and there is no mention of Waltham. In addition, the fact that it has a street name and 2 destinations is all the more reason to have at least the 1 Waltham designation at the other exits.
The reasoning for listing
Belmont and
Lincoln for the Trapelo Rd. exit is because the interchange itself is
in Waltham and that Belmont & Lincoln are the adjacent east and west towns respectively. This is one reason
why MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT has placed a mileage BGS for the Waltham interchanges (prior to Trapelo Rd. along I-95 south).
Also, Trapelo Road is located towards the northern limits of Waltham and doesn't go through the center of the town.
I observed some new signage in place at the West Newton 30/16 interchange (off the mainline). It appeared to improve things at that confusing rotary-type interchange. It included some new paddles and overheads including an APL overhead. Don't have pics unfortunately.
Quote from: mass_citizen on November 08, 2013, 05:03:01 PM
I observed some new signage in place at the West Newton 30/16 interchange (off the mainline). It appeared to improve things at that confusing rotary-type interchange. It included some new paddles and overheads including an APL overhead. Don't have pics unfortunately.
That's the Weston-Newton-Boston sign replacement project, which is nearing completion. The focus of that project was secondary signing at the Newton Corner and Newton Centre interchanges, but they did a couple of mainline structures as well.