News:

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

Main Menu

MA Turnpike Improvements?

Started by bluecountry, October 11, 2013, 12:14:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

southshore720

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.


PHLBOS

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

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.

GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

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

PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman on October 18, 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

LGS paddle along MA 16 East for I-95 South:
http://goo.gl/maps/NtT2o

BGS along MA 16 West for I-95 South:
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
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

Thanks for the clarifications PHLBOS.  And I appreciate your suggested control city list - it's given me some food for thought.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

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

SignBridge

#30
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. 

roadman

#31
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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

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

SignBridge

 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!

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

SignBridge

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!   

mass_citizen

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.

PHLBOS

#36
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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

mass_citizen

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.

southshore720

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.

SignBridge

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.

mass_citizen

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.

PHLBOS

#41
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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

mass_citizen

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.

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

mass_citizen

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.

roadman

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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

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



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