Saw the good threads regarding I-91 and I-95 signing and had some information about I-93, so I thought I'd start a new topic...
Here's what I have on the various I-93 signing projects in Mass.:
North of Boston
According to the project web pages both projects (from MA 28/38 in Somerville to MA 129 in Wilmington and from Wilmington to the NH Border) are over 60% complete. The southern contract info has been updated in the middle of April and the page indicated the work was 61% complete and the contractor was installing 'D-6' and 'D-8' signage. The northern contract was 64% complete, but the project info dates from 2/15 where the page indicated foundations for the same D-6 and D-8 signs were being poured. Based on recent construction information on the MassDOT website it appears they may be installing some of the overhead sign structures since many lanes of the highway, especially just south of the I-495 interchange, have been closed late at night. A look at the only traffic camera on I-93 between I-95 and Somerville appears to show a new vertical sign post behind the current Exit 36 Montvale Ave. exit assembly on I-93 South. I hope to get to take a road trip up there in the next few weeks and will post a link to any photos if I get them. Both projects are to be completed this summer.
South of Boston
There is one official sign contract covering I-93 from Exit 4 (MA 24) in Randolph north to Exit 20 (Mass Pike). Work here, though given the go ahead last fall, has recently begun with the MassDOT page for the contract indicating its 3% complete as of last week. The only visible evidence are orange contractor tags being placed along the right side of the highway. These tags appear only at overhead signs on the '128' portion between Exits 4 and 7, but are more numerous on the SE Expy portion. A few of these have a 'VMS' plus a number indicating a site for a future permanent VMS sign. Since this area is closer to my house, I visit more frequently, perhaps taking a trip later this weekend, if so I'll post an update. This project is not supposed to be complete until March 2014. The remainder of I-93 is being re-signed under the '128 Add-A-Lane' project close to completing the widening from MA 24 to I-95. All the signage has been replaced except 2 overheads for MA 24 northbound and 2 for Houghton's Pond/Ponkapaug (Exit 3) SB. For some photos of these signs, go to this blog entry (I also have previous entries under my name with more sign photos): http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-mini-road-trip-report.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-mini-road-trip-report.html)
Thanks for the update. Looking forward to more updates and pics, especially when signage is replaced at the Braintree split. Last time I drove through there, the I-93 NB pullthrough was an old style (1980s) sign which had shields for I-93/US1/MA 3, with the US 1 shield being a jersey-style shield with the black border, the same as on I-95 SB in Peabody.
Is that second picture along I-95 South, before going straight turns the road into I-93 North in Canton, MA? I've been at that interchange plenty of times, but in the other direction, going from I-93/US 1 South, taking Exit 1 for I-95 South.
The project has already replaced one pull-through on 93 north just after the left-lane ramp merge from Storrow Drive that had to be part of the road's original signage. It lost all reflectivity about two decades ago and had the older version of the Highway Gothic font. The new sign is not a pull-through, but points to exit 29 as the way to Assembly Square, which is a shopping mall just off the exit to MA-28 north, 1/2 mile from the sign.
Also, the southbound-only exit 35 has been renamed. It was originally "Winchester Highlands - So. Stoneham," was re-signed in the late 1960s as "Winchester Highlands - Melrose," and is now officially "Park Street - Stoneham - Melrose." The sign at the exit hasn't been replaced yet (as of Friday morning 5/4), but there is now a 1/2-mile-to-exit sign with the new designation.
Quote from: bob7374A look at the only traffic camera on I-93 between I-95 and Somerville appears to show a new vertical sign post behind the current Exit 36 Montvale Ave. exit assembly on I-93 South.
I'm wondering if that will be a one-mile advance sign for the Park Street exit.
I took a trip along the southern end of I-93 earlier today. I have posted photos and comments regarding construction and signage in the blog entry here:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/05/sunday-drive-down-i-93-to-i-95.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/05/sunday-drive-down-i-93-to-i-95.html)
Also included are some current sign photos, which hopefully will soon be replaced.
MassDOT has updated the completion information on their project listings for the 2 I-93 signing projects north of Boston (though not the project status comments which are still dated 4/15 and 2/15). The project from Somerville to Wilmington is now 62% complete while Wilmington to the NH border is 69% done. Ironically, the latter project was way behind (31%) this winter, while the southern project was near 60% back in January.
Two segments? Is the "gap" the area where I-495 interchanges with I-93?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 07, 2012, 01:26:00 PM
Two segments? Is the "gap" the area where I-495 interchanges with I-93?
No, Wilmington is far south of the 93-495 interchange. Wilmington exits include MA-129, Dascomb Road and MA-62.
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 07, 2012, 04:01:29 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 07, 2012, 01:26:00 PM
Two segments? Is the "gap" the area where I-495 interchanges with I-93?
No, Wilmington is far south of the 93-495 interchange. Wilmington exits include MA-129, Dascomb Road and MA-62.
It's common to break a longer project into segments so that each one can be assigned to a different contractor - not only does work get done faster, but more contractors are happily employed (sharing the wealth), and there's not much loss from dealing in bulk because each contractor still has large volumes of materials ordered. In the case of the NJ Turnpike widening, you have segments defined by each interchange, but with plenty of interchanges on I-93, MA probably just picked the halfway point to make the two contracts roughly equal in terms of number or area of signs.
Here's the description of the two north of Boston I-93 signing contracts from the MassDOT Project Listings:
Contract 604938 Somerville - Wilmington - Guide & Traffic Sign Replacement on I-93, From Sullivan Square (EXIT 28) to Route 129 (EXIT 38) [11 Miles]
Contract 605396 Wilmington - Methuen - Guide & Traffic Sign Replacement on I-93, From SR 129 (EXIT 38) TO SR 213 (EXIT 48) [13 Miles]
It appears that both north of Boston contracts have gotten to the overhead sign replacement phase. The MassDOT project listing now indicates the southern contract is now 66% complete while the northern is 71%. From scanning traffic impact listings, it appears multiple lanes of I-93 in both directions are being closed at night both this week and next within the two contract areas. A scan of the few traffic cameras along I-93 has provided evidence (in the form of bright and shiny backs of overhead signs) that new signs have gone up at least southbound after the I-95 interchange and northbound along the last part of the Upper Deck heading toward the MA 28/38 exit. I hope to be able to take a road trip to confirm this sometime next week. Anyone driven I-93 north of Boston recently?
Quote from: bob7374 on May 18, 2012, 01:57:30 PMAnyone driven I-93 north of Boston recently?
Every single work-day. It does look as if the northbound signage between the end of the Zakim bridge and the MA 28/38 entrance ramp has been changed out (not all the signs were changed, as some were newer than others, but the ones that needed changing were done).
As of last weekend, most new structures and sign panels are now in place between Somerville and Route 129 in Wilmington, and most foundations for new overhead structures are in place between Concord Street in Wilmington and the NH line.
Photos and comments about my road trip yesterday along I-93 north of Boston checking out progress in the sign replacement projects are in this blog entry:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/05/i-93-sign-replacement-project-update.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/05/i-93-sign-replacement-project-update.html)
Excellent blog post about the I-93 signs Bob. Some points for your consideration:
Unlike the I-93/I-95 junction in Canton, the I-93/I-95 (MA 128) interchange in Woburn is a standard cloverleaf, with no exit only lanes or 'option' lanes. Therefore, it wouldn't qualify for the present 'arrow-per-lane' signs, nor would it qualify for diagrammatic signs under the pre-2009 MUTCD standards.
Even though they still aren't on the 'official' list (a pet peeve of mine), both AASHTO and FHWA have recognized both Peabody and Waltham as acceptable control cities for I-95 since the early 1990s.
The change on the new overhead signs for Commerce Way (Exit 37C) is that the current signs now include a reference to "ANDERSON RTC", which is a combination commuter rail station/park and ride lot/Logan Airport Shuttle Bus facility. The facility was named after Jimmy Anderson, a 10 year Woburn boy who died from lukemia after being exposed to toxic chemicals at the former W.R. Grace plant - the book and movie "A Civil Action' are based on the subseqent lawsuits filed against Grace in the 1980s.
The new overhead signs for Exit 35 southbound, which used to read "Winchester Highlands", now read "Park Street Melrose Stoneham", with "Winchester Highlands" being relegated to a ground-mounted supplemental sign (but I don't think that panel is in place yet). The reason for this change was simple - there hans't been a direct route from Exit 35 into Winchester Highlands since the mid-1970s (the access is via a long route that has multiple turns through several narrow residental streets), whereas Park Street connects to both Route 28 and South Border Road, which provide direct access to Stoneham and Melrose.
Quote from: roadman on May 24, 2012, 02:35:23 PM
Excellent blog post about the I-93 signs Bob. Some points for your consideration:
Unlike the I-93/I-95 junction in Canton, the I-93/I-95 (MA 128) interchange in Woburn is a standard cloverleaf, with no exit only lanes or 'option' lanes. Therefore, it wouldn't qualify for the present 'arrow-per-lane' signs, nor would it qualify for diagrammatic signs under the pre-2009 MUTCD standards.
Even though they still aren't on the 'official' list (a pet peeve of mine), both AASHTO and FHWA have recognized both Peabody and Waltham as acceptable control cities for I-95 since the early 1990s.
The change on the new overhead signs for Commerce Way (Exit 37C) is that the current signs now include a reference to "ANDERSON RTC", which is a combination commuter rail station/park and ride lot/Logan Airport Shuttle Bus facility. The facility was named after Jimmy Anderson, a 10 year Woburn boy who died from lukemia after being exposed to toxic chemicals at the former W.R. Grace plant - the book and movie "A Civil Action' are based on the subseqent lawsuits filed against Grace in the 1980s.
The new overhead signs for Exit 35 southbound, which used to read "Winchester Highlands", now read "Park Street Melrose Stoneham", with "Winchester Highlands" being relegated to a ground-mounted supplemental sign (but I don't think that panel is in place yet). The reason for this change was simple - there hans't been a direct route from Exit 35 into Winchester Highlands since the mid-1970s (the access is via a long route that has multiple turns through several narrow residental streets), whereas Park Street connects to both Route 28 and South Border Road, which provide direct access to Stoneham and Melrose.
Thanks for the feedback. I have edited my post to include some of your comments. From monitoring traffic cams, it appears work crews were back out last night northbound near the I-95/128 interchange.
Update regarding Exit 35 - I drove from Montvale Avenue south into Boston yesterday. While the advance signs and support structures have been replaced with the new "Park St" signs, the sign at the exit ramp hasn't. The panel still reads "Winchester Highlands Melrose", and is still on the mid-1970s vintage aluminum four-post cantilever support.
Quote from: roadman on May 28, 2012, 07:59:35 PM
Update regarding Exit 35 - I drove from Montvale Avenue south into Boston yesterday. While the advance signs and support structures have been replaced with the new "Park St" signs, the sign at the exit ramp hasn't. The panel still reads "Winchester Highlands Melrose", and is still on the mid-1970s vintage aluminum four-post cantilever support.
The sign was replaced sometime over the past few days. I didn't notice if the support structure has changed, but the sign is now "Park St - Stoneham - Melrose."
Took note of the support structure this morning. It hasn't changed.
Was up on I-93 between Somerville and Wilmington earlier today to take a look at the progress of the re-signing work.
Noticed that all the overhead changeable message sign (CMS) panels (as noted on the bottom left face of the panels, they are made by a company called Skyline) are in. However, I'm not sure if they're actually connected to MassDOT's Highway Operations Center yet, as all of them were blank.
It also appears that MassDOT's contractor has been focusing on installing the overhead signs and structures, as there are several older ground-mounted guide signs on the I-93 mainline that still haven't been replaced, or at least need to be reset because they are now too close (in some cases 50 to 100 feet) to some of the new overhead signs.
Also, the new exit direction sign at Park Street (formerly Winchester Highlands) southbound was indeed mounted on a new cantilever structure, and not the existing one as Sids1045 mentioned. Most of MassDOT's contractors and fabricators prefer using a box truss arm as opposed to a single chord tube. At a glance, these supports look very similar to the old 1970s multi-post upright cantilever design the previous "Winchester Highlands" sign was attached to.
Was up on I-93 north of Wilmington earlier this evening, and took some notes of the progress of the Wilmington to Methuen portion of the current I-93 signing work. The majority of the foundations for the new OH structures are in, and a number of the uprights for new cantilever supports (and uprights for a couple of the full spans) have been installed as well.
It also appears that the majority of the independent route markers, as well as other regulatory and warning signs, have been installed, as have most of the smaller sheet aluminum directional signs on the secondary roads.
Based on how the Somerville to Wilmington project has progressed to date, my best guess is that most of the overhead structures and panels on the Wilmington to Methuen section will be in by early to mid September of this year.
Looking forward to the Exit 4-20 replacement...looooooong overdue. Especially replacement of the disgusting button copy. Also looking forward to seeing what the large BGS for the 93/3 split in Braintree will look like. How do you think they are going to handle the Rte 3S Exit 18/19 (Washington St/Burgin Pkwy) approach on 93N? Do you think it will be part of the larger Exit 7 display, or do you think it will be signed separately? I think it should be on one sign, much like the BGS on 95/128 for Exits 32A-B for U.S. 3/Middlesex Tpke.
In the future, they also need to eliminate that on-ramp from Rte 37W to 93N...it's so dangerous for someone to cut across 6 lanes of traffic to access 93N! The earlier on-ramp for 93N should be used for 37 in both directions to allow more time for traffic to get into the left lanes.
Quote from: southshore720 on July 11, 2012, 01:26:05 AM
...replacement of the disgusting button copy.
By
disgusting, are you referring to the current condition of the signs or the stye/layout in general? If it's the former, I agree at least in terms of the condition of many of the BGS-mounted shields (the Interstate ones in particular).
Quote from: southshore720 on July 11, 2012, 01:26:05 AM
In the future, they also need to eliminate that on-ramp from Rte 37W to 93N...it's so dangerous for someone to cut across 6 lanes of traffic to access 93N! The earlier on-ramp for 93N should be used for 37 in both directions to allow more time for traffic to get into the left lanes.
First and foremost, MA 37 is a N-S route not an E-W route; so when you say 37W, do you really mean 37N? Second, while your point/suggestion is still valid, one is only weaving through 3 to 4 lanes of I-93 North traffic in the above-mentioned maneuver not 6. The
total number of lanes along mainline I-93 (both directions) from MA 24 to MA 3 is 8.
Along those lines (eliminating crossing multi-lanes from an entrance ramp to an adjacent left-lane exit aka
the suicide move); I, for one, would like to see a separate entrance ramp from MA 28 directly to MA 24 South. There's wide enough median space between I-93 North and South between MA 24 (Exit 4) & MA 28 (Exits 5A-B) to place a one-lane ramp from the left side of MA 28 (between the dual I-93 overpasses) to the ramp to MA 24 South from I-93 South. This would eliminate the weaving through 3 to 4 lanes of for one getting from MA 28 (either direction) to MA 24 South. Granted, the new ramp would be a left-lane merge, but there is enough room to make the merge more gradual; just make sure the merge ends before the ramp merges with the MA 24 South ramp from I-93 North.
If this ramp were, added, it would be wise to insert a separate collector-distributor lane along I-93 South at the MA 28 interchange and have it end beyond the MA 24 exit. Exit signage from MA 28 to I-93 would need to be worded as
I-93 South ONLY or equivalent.
But since the subject of this thread only involves sign replacements (as opposed to interchange redesign); taking about interchange revisions is kind of moot for now.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 11, 2012, 09:20:23 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on July 11, 2012, 01:26:05 AM
...replacement of the disgusting button copy.
By disgusting, are you referring to the current condition of the signs or the stye/layout in general? If it's the former, I agree at least in terms of the condition of many of the BGS-mounted shields (the Interstate ones in particular).
my major complaint with Mass. button copy is that a reflective sheeting background with button copy foreground elements looks nearly disastrous when new, and then gets more and more disastrous with time.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 11, 2012, 09:20:23 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on July 11, 2012, 01:26:05 AM
...replacement of the disgusting button copy.
By disgusting, are you referring to the current condition of the signs or the stye/layout in general? If it's the former, I agree at least in terms of the condition of many of the BGS-mounted shields (the Interstate ones in particular).
Quote from: southshore720 on July 11, 2012, 01:26:05 AM
In the future, they also need to eliminate that on-ramp from Rte 37W to 93N...it's so dangerous for someone to cut across 6 lanes of traffic to access 93N! The earlier on-ramp for 93N should be used for 37 in both directions to allow more time for traffic to get into the left lanes.
First and foremost, MA 37 is a N-S route not an E-W route; so when you say 37W, do you really mean 37N? Second, while your point/suggestion is still valid, one is only weaving through 3 to 4 lanes of I-93 North traffic in the above-mentioned maneuver not 6. The total number of lanes along mainline I-93 (both directions) from MA 24 to MA 3 is 8.
Along those lines (eliminating crossing multi-lanes from an entrance ramp to an adjacent left-lane exit aka the suicide move); I, for one, would like to see a separate entrance ramp from MA 28 directly to MA 24 South. There's wide enough median space between I-93 North and South between MA 24 (Exit 4) & MA 28 (Exits 5A-B) to place a one-lane ramp from the left side of MA 28 (between the dual I-93 overpasses) to the ramp to MA 24 South from I-93 South. This would eliminate the weaving through 3 to 4 lanes of for one getting from MA 28 (either direction) to MA 24 South. Granted, the new ramp would be a left-lane merge, but there is enough room to make the merge more gradual; just make sure the merge ends before the ramp merges with the MA 24 South ramp from I-93 North.
If this ramp were, added, it would be wise to insert a separate collector-distributor lane along I-93 South at the MA 28 interchange and have it end beyond the MA 24 exit. Exit signage from MA 28 to I-93 would need to be worded as I-93 South ONLY or equivalent.
But since the subject of this thread only involves sign replacements (as opposed to interchange redesign); taking about interchange revisions is kind of moot for now.
I had RI 37 on the brain with the E-W alignment. Also meant to hit the "3" key, not the "6" key. Need to stop posting right before bedtime!
And I was referring to the current condition of the button copy...although I'm not a fan in general.
Quote from: southshore720 on July 11, 2012, 01:26:05 AM
Looking forward to the Exit 4-20 replacement...looooooong overdue. Especially replacement of the disgusting button copy. Also looking forward to seeing what the large BGS for the 93/3 split in Braintree will look like. How do you think they are going to handle the Rte 3S Exit 18/19 (Washington St/Burgin Pkwy) approach on 93N? Do you think it will be part of the larger Exit 7 display, or do you think it will be signed separately? I think it should be on one sign, much like the BGS on 95/128 for Exits 32A-B for U.S. 3/Middlesex Tpke.
I think the initial signs for Exit 7 will be similar NB to those for US 3/Middlesex Tpke. However, the complication is the use of two different exit number systems (I-93 vs. MA 3). Perhaps the signs after the current MA 37 ramps will be similar to what is there now but with I-93/US 1 (supposedly restricting all overhead signs to only 2 route designations) North over the two leftmost lanes, Exit 7 MA 3 second from the right and the rightmost signs being for Washington St/Burgin Parkway, but with a banner saying use Exit 7 for those destinations, but not having the MA 3 exit numbers on them until after the MA 3 ramp begins. Will be interested to see what they come up with when the serious overhead sign work starts.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 11, 2012, 10:29:19 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on July 11, 2012, 01:26:05 AM
Looking forward to the Exit 4-20 replacement...looooooong overdue. Especially replacement of the disgusting button copy. Also looking forward to seeing what the large BGS for the 93/3 split in Braintree will look like. How do you think they are going to handle the Rte 3S Exit 18/19 (Washington St/Burgin Pkwy) approach on 93N? Do you think it will be part of the larger Exit 7 display, or do you think it will be signed separately? I think it should be on one sign, much like the BGS on 95/128 for Exits 32A-B for U.S. 3/Middlesex Tpke.
I think the initial signs for Exit 7 will be similar NB to those for US 3/Middlesex Tpke. However, the complication is the use of two different exit number systems (I-93 vs. MA 3). Perhaps the signs after the current MA 37 ramps will be similar to what is there now but with I-93/US 1 (supposedly restricting all overhead signs to only 2 route designations) North over the two leftmost lanes, Exit 7 MA 3 second from the right and the rightmost signs being for Washington St/Burgin Parkway, but with a banner saying use Exit 7 for those destinations, but not having the MA 3 exit numbers on them until after the MA 3 ramp begins. Will be interested to see what they come up with when the serious overhead sign work starts.
My spies tell me that the signs on I-93 southbound for the I-93/MA 3 "split" in Braintree will be diagrammatic signs (the project was designed back before most diagrammatic signs were eliminated and "arrow per lane" signs were mandated by the 2009 MUTCD). The new diagrammatics will not include information about Exits 19-18 on MA 3 - there is sufficient length on MA 3 prior to the ramp for standard advance exit signs for 19-18, which were installed under MassDOT's recently completed MA 3 Plymouth to Braintree signing project.
Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2012, 02:36:47 PM
most diagrammatic signs were eliminated and "arrow per lane" signs were mandated by the 2009 MUTCD
False. Read the MUTCD. Diagrammatic are one of three options - arrow per lane are far from mandated.
Quote from: Steve on July 12, 2012, 11:12:41 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2012, 02:36:47 PM
most diagrammatic signs were eliminated and "arrow per lane" signs were mandated by the 2009 MUTCD
False. Read the MUTCD. Diagrammatic are one of three options - arrow per lane are far from mandated.
Yes, diagrammatic signs are still shown as an option in the 2009 MUTCD. However, my understanding is that new diagrammatics are permitted only for "in-kind" sign replacement work where the existing support structures are being retained. If the signs are being replaced as part of other construction work such as roadway widening or interchange reconstruction, then new diagrammatics are not allowed.
In those cases in reconstruction projects where the revised roadway configuration involves an "option" exit lane, the 2009 MUTCD calls for "arrow per lane" signs as a "shall" condition (see Sections 2E.20 and 2E.21) and does not permit the use of new diagrammatic panels.
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 10:40:24 AM
In those cases in reconstruction projects where the revised roadway configuration involves an "option" exit lane, the 2009 MUTCD calls for "arrow per lane" signs as a "shall" condition (see Sections 2E.20 and 2E.21) and does not permit the use of new diagrammatic panels.
I'm old enough to remember when diagrammatic signs were considered better than "arrow per lane" with down arrows. Why the regression back to a modification of an old standard?
Quote from: hbelkins on July 13, 2012, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 10:40:24 AM
In those cases in reconstruction projects where the revised roadway configuration involves an "option" exit lane, the 2009 MUTCD calls for "arrow per lane" signs as a "shall" condition (see Sections 2E.20 and 2E.21) and does not permit the use of new diagrammatic panels.
I'm old enough to remember when diagrammatic signs were considered better than "arrow per lane" with down arrows. Why the regression back to a modification of an old standard?
I suspect much the same reason as why we now have Clearview - because some human factors "experts" did a bunch of lab and/or test track simulations (as opposed to actually putting signs out on highways and evaluating them under real driving conditions), decided the results were positive, and convinced FHWA to adopt the "new" way as a standard.
And I share your opinion that the 2009 MUTCD restrictions on diagrammatic signs are a big step backwards. As a non-roadgeek friend of mine commented when I was explaining the issue to him "How does changing guide signs that older drivers have gotten used to seeing for the past forty years an improvement for those drivers?"
As the re-signing project progresses, it looks like they may be taking down at least some of the across-the-road sign gantries. At Exit 31 northbound (MA16), they mounted a new short gantry (anchored off the right shoulder) right in front of the across-the-road gantry, hiding the older MA16 exit BGS with the new one.
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 25, 2012, 03:44:02 PM
As the re-signing project progresses, it looks like they may be taking down at least some of the across-the-road sign gantries. At Exit 31 northbound (MA16), they mounted a new short gantry (anchored off the right shoulder) right in front of the across-the-road gantry, hiding the older MA16 exit BGS with the new one.
Current MassDOT practice is to space the advance signs to exits at the 1 mile and 1/2 mile intervals whenever it is practical. Because of this, many signs in the I-93 corridor and elsewhere have been/are being relocated from their current locations. Note that, as part of the current sign updating cycle, MassDOT is also replacing the sign structures as well as the panels.
If you have no need for a full span (or complete span) truss across the roadway to support only one sign, then why go through the extra expense and constructability issues (the new MA 16 sign you noted is in an area of "back to back" median barrier).
On I-93 between Somerville and Methuen, the sign panels were last replaced in the early 1990s, but the majority of the sign supports date from the early to mid-1970s. AFAIK, the only existing OH sign supports that are being retained are those at the southern end of the Somerville to Wilmington contract, which are built into the I-93 bridge structure itself.
As of sometime yesterday or the day before, the across-the-road gantry at Exit 31 northbound is gone. They have also constructed a new across-the-road gantry right behind the southbound VMS just ahead of the diamond lane, which holds one of the panels that will eventually show travel times.
Returning from a trip to Maine yesterday, I drove I-93 South to Boston from the I-95/128 interchange. It appears that, all the exit signage has been replaced from Exit 37 to Exit 28. From observing the shiny backs of all the overhead signs going northbound, it may be the same case there. There still may be additional new signage needed for the intersecting roadways, but the project appears almost complete. According to the MassDOT project list, this contract was 82% complete as of August 15. (The northern contract from MA 129 to NH was listed as 76% complete as of the end of July).
Given the same contractor working north of Boston is responsible for the I-93 sign replacement contract to the south as well, hopefully the pace will pick up between Randolph and Boston once the other projects are complete. I noticed nothing new driving I-93 south to Exit 12 that was not there in my previous trip in May (with the exception of some new Speed Limit 55 signs, which may be a separate contract since 2 of the signs were placed on the existing overhead sign supports that are to be replaced). Since the notice to proceed was given by MassDOT last September 27, only 4% of the work on this contract has been completed.
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 10:40:24 AMIn those cases in reconstruction projects where the revised roadway configuration involves an "option" exit lane, the 2009 MUTCD calls for "arrow per lane" signs as a "shall" condition (see Sections 2E.20 and 2E.21) and does not permit the use of new diagrammatic panels.
Actually, that is not completely true.
§ 2E.21 only requires that arrow-per-lane signs be used
as provided for in § 2E.20 on new or reconstructed facilities; the intent is therefore to prohibit the use of stippled-arrow diagrammatics on new or reconstructed facilities, and not to require the use of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics on new freeways where they would not otherwise be called for by § 2E.20. § 2E.20 itself establishes a
mandatory requirement for diagrammatics (i.e., arrow-per-lane with the option to use stippled-arrow instead on existing facilities) only for:
* Multilane exits with an option lane
where the through route exits; and
* Splits with an option lane.
On all other exits with an option lane, the use of a diagrammatic guide sign is optional. (At exits without option lanes, the use of diagrammatics is now prohibited. This is a change from the 2003 and earlier editions of
MUTCD, which allowed stippled-arrow diagrammatics in the absence of an option lane.)
Some state DOTs have chosen to adopt a more stringent and expensive policy that calls for provision of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics at
all exits with option lanes. That decision is theirs to make and to defend: they cannot blame it on the
MUTCD.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 25, 2012, 11:40:25 AM
Returning from a trip to Maine yesterday, I drove I-93 South to Boston from the I-95/128 interchange. It appears that, all the exit signage has been replaced from Exit 37 to Exit 28. From observing the shiny backs of all the overhead signs going northbound, it may be the same case there. There still may be additional new signage needed for the intersecting roadways, but the project appears almost complete. According to the MassDOT project list, this contract was 82% complete as of August 15. (The northern contract from MA 129 to NH was listed as 76% complete as of the end of July).
Given the same contractor working north of Boston is responsible for the I-93 sign replacement contract to the south as well, hopefully the pace will pick up between Randolph and Boston once the other projects are complete. I noticed nothing new driving I-93 south to Exit 12 that was not there in my previous trip in May (with the exception of some new Speed Limit 55 signs, which may be a separate contract since 2 of the signs were placed on the existing overhead sign supports that are to be replaced). Since the notice to proceed was given by MassDOT last September 27, only 4% of the work on this contract has been completed.
Some additional information. A couple sign changes noted southbound (besides Park St replacing Winchester Highlands) include Exit 32 that was MA 60 Medford Square is now MA 60 to MA 16 West (Exit 31 already being MA 16 East). Also the former MA 28 MA 38 exit (30) whose ramp accesses MA 38 (and thus should probably should have been MA 38 to MA 28), is now just MA 38.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 25, 2012, 12:27:55 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 10:40:24 AMIn those cases in reconstruction projects where the revised roadway configuration involves an "option" exit lane, the 2009 MUTCD calls for "arrow per lane" signs as a "shall" condition (see Sections 2E.20 and 2E.21) and does not permit the use of new diagrammatic panels.
Actually, that is not completely true.
§ 2E.21 only requires that arrow-per-lane signs be used as provided for in § 2E.20 on new or reconstructed facilities; the intent is therefore to prohibit the use of stippled-arrow diagrammatics on new or reconstructed facilities, and not to require the use of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics on new freeways where they would not otherwise be called for by § 2E.20. § 2E.20 itself establishes a mandatory requirement for diagrammatics (i.e., arrow-per-lane with the option to use stippled-arrow instead on existing facilities) only for:
* Multilane exits with an option lane where the through route exits; and
* Splits with an option lane.
On all other exits with an option lane, the use of a diagrammatic guide sign is optional. (At exits without option lanes, the use of diagrammatics is now prohibited. This is a change from the 2003 and earlier editions of MUTCD, which allowed stippled-arrow diagrammatics in the absence of an option lane.)
Some state DOTs have chosen to adopt a more stringent and expensive policy that calls for provision of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics at all exits with option lanes. That decision is theirs to make and to defend: they cannot blame it on the MUTCD.
You are indeed correct in that what you stated is the current "letter of the law" regarding arrow-per-lane signs. However, the commonly accepted interpertation of the 2009 MUTCD is that diagrammatic signs can be replaced "in-kind" during sign replacement projects (like MassDOT's current Randolph to Boston work i cited) or incidental to other "minor" work such as resurfacing. If there's more substantial work involved, or if the sign replacement project includes structure replacement, FHWA generally wants to see the signs updated to "arrow per lane".
And I still mantain that no longer alllowing diagrammatic signs for those locations that don't have an option lane is a huge step backwards.
Quote from: roadman on August 27, 2012, 08:53:10 PMYou are indeed correct in that what you stated is the current "letter of the law" regarding arrow-per-lane signs. However, the commonly accepted interpertation of the 2009 MUTCD is that diagrammatic signs can be replaced "in-kind" during sign replacement projects (like MassDOT's current Randolph to Boston work I cited) or incidental to other "minor" work such as resurfacing. If there's more substantial work involved, or if the sign replacement project includes structure replacement, FHWA generally wants to see the signs updated to "arrow per lane".
And I still mantain that no longer allowing diagrammatic signs for those locations that don't have an option lane is a huge step backwards.
I did not agree with that change either. Part of the original purpose for diagrammatic signs was to advise motorists of unusual road geometry, which can exist whether there is an option lane or not.
It is not actually in the use of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics in contracts involving sign structure renewal that I think state DOT provision has been more luxurious than what the
MUTCD requires. Rather, it is in the provision of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics where the through route does not exit, as in this example (at an interchange which, if memory serves, did not previously have a diagrammatic at all):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7153%2F6679127745_e466ac5f3f_b.jpg&hash=7e6270b778be5f6b407c13fafb388cf4f19b036c)
This is a classic example of a situation where the
MUTCD allows but does not require diagrammatics. The cost of these signs has given rise to some grumbling in the traffic engineering community and I tend to feel these complaints would be eased by not using them in permissive cases such as this.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2012, 10:24:27 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7153%2F6679127745_e466ac5f3f_b.jpg&hash=7e6270b778be5f6b407c13fafb388cf4f19b036c)
Looking at this sign, I wonder if anybody has ever taken the first ramp thinking it will lead them to Exit 8A.
^^^^^^^
That's in Missouri, right? Shouldn't the control city for I-70 west be Kansas City?
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2012, 03:45:20 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2012, 10:24:27 AM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7153%2F6679127745_e466ac5f3f_b.jpg&hash=7e6270b778be5f6b407c13fafb388cf4f19b036c)
Looking at this sign, I wonder if anybody has ever taken the first ramp thinking it will lead them to Exit 8A.
I don't know if anyone has made that particular mistake, but it is possible only because the designers tried to combine advance information for Exit 8A with the pull-through message. MoDOT would have been better off if it had used one pull-through for Topeka, one advance guide sign for Exit 8A, and an exit direction sign for Exit 8B with yellow "EXIT ONLY" bottom panel and two downward-pointing arrows, per
MUTCD 2009 criteria.
This is a classic example of a design that looks really, really good on the sign panel detail sheet but totally falls down when it is actually fabricated and installed on a gantry.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 29, 2012, 09:25:50 AMThat's in Missouri, right? Shouldn't the control city for I-70 west be Kansas City?
Yes, it is in Missouri. No, Kansas City is not really an appropriate control-city choice at this location because it is already in Kansas City, so long-distance traffic is better able to orient itself if the control city flips over to Topeka.
I know that is Kansas City in the background of that picture and I know that at that point, signing the next city for long-distane traffic is appropriate. But just looking at that picture, I wonder if someone would think, wow that's Topeka ahead...that city sure has grown up!
Sept. 27 marks the first anniversary of the Notice to Proceed on the I-93 sign replacement project between Randolph and Boston. The project page still lists the contract as 4% complete. At this pace, the job will be done in 2036. Any reason to hope more progress will be made in the next year?
Meanwhile, the north of Boston projects are 84% (Somerville to Wilmington) and 77% (Wilmington to NH Line) complete as of the end of last week. I hope to get the chance to check out the progress in person soon.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 27, 2012, 11:27:44 AM
Sept. 27 marks the first anniversary of the Notice to Proceed on the I-93 sign replacement project between Randolph and Boston. The project page still lists the contract as 4% complete. At this pace, the job will be done in 2036. Any reason to hope more progress will be made in the next year?
I just find it ironic that this stretch has some of the oldest existing signs in the MA road system and yet, didn't receive top billing in the sign replacement projects. To say that I've even seen 4% complete would be stretching it!
I took a road trip Thursday (10/11) to check out the progress on the sign replacement projects on I-93 north of Boston. Photos and comments on what I saw are here: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-93-signage-update.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-93-signage-update.html) Enjoy.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 12, 2012, 04:06:46 PM
I took a road trip Thursday (10/11) to check out the progress on the sign replacement projects on I-93 north of Boston. Photos and comments on what I saw are here: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-93-signage-update.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-93-signage-update.html) Enjoy.
Bob,
Another excellent blog entry regarding the current I-93 signing projects. However, I remind you that the MassDOT policy regarding no 128 markers on BGSes for the I-95/128 overlap is one of the stipulations FHWA originally put on MassHighway - starting in the early 1990s - as a condition of receiving Federal matching funds for Interstate guide sign replacement projects.
One other thing I will note is that, although "Anderson RTC" is included on the new OH signs for Commerce Way (Exit 37C), the "next train in X minutes" information is only provided on I-93 southbound. An existing portable CMS panel at the Concord Street interchange is presently being used for this. However, I've heard talk that the CMS will eventually be replaced with a "hybrid" assembly (static sign with small CMS) similar in design to the signs currently in use on I-93 between Wilmington and Methuen for the weekday peak-hour breakdown lane travel.
And, unless the Massachusetts Legislature is successful in blocking the plan (BTW this is the real reason the I-95/Route 128 overlap south of Peabody still exists), reference-based exit numbering should eventually come to Massachusetts Interstates and freeways.
My spies tell me that the current timetable is to have the entire state converted, on a route-by route basis, within the next ten years. As I understand it, the current plan is to do short routes (I-291, I-84, I-395, I-190, etc.) with relatively new signs first, then tackle the longer routes (I-95, I-495, I-93) once those signs are updated. The work should consist mostly of overlays on existing exit tabs and E5-1a gore signs.
Some new signage has popped up on the Exit 12 on-ramp to I-93 N from I-95 N for the Exit 2A-B approach (never there before), as well as on the Rte 24 NB on-ramp to I-93 S for the Exit 3 approach at the 1/2 mile marker (also never there before). The add-a-lane project seems to add-a-sign along the way, which is fine by me!
Do any of you recall the mileage-based signing experiment that MassHighway did back in the 1970's on parts of I-91 in western MA? They would sign the exits as "Exit 2/Mile 6" or something along the lines of that. IIRC, those signs stayed up for a few years and were then replaced with standard sequential exit number references.
Good to see that MA is finally going to get with the program.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 17, 2012, 04:54:54 PM
Do any of you recall the mileage-based signing experiment that MassHighway did back in the 1970's on parts of I-91 in western MA? They would sign the exits as "Exit 2/Mile 6" or something along the lines of that. IIRC, those signs stayed up for a few years and were then replaced with standard sequential exit number references.
Good to see that MA is finally going to get with the program.
The dual exit tabs (i.e. EXIT 3 MILE 5) was a short-lived experiment based on a late 1960s FHWA human factors study (the title escapes me at the moment). I don't recall any of these special tabs appearing on I-91 in Massachusetts (I think CT experimented with them on I-91 however), but they were indeed put in place on exit signs on I-93 between
the lower deck in Somerville and I-95 (at the time, 128) in Woburn Somerville and Methuen in 1974 and 1975. When the I-93 sign panels were replaced in 1991 and 1992, the dual tabs were removed and replaced with standard tabs.
Rhode Island used the dual tab system for some time on I-295. Those signs lasted until a couple of years ago, when all panels and supports on I-295 were replaced.
Post updated on 10/18 to correct limits of I-93 dual exit tabs
Quote from: roadman on October 18, 2012, 09:21:45 AMthey were indeed put in place on exit signs on I-93 between the lower deck in Somerville and I-95 (at the time, 128) in Woburn in 1974. When the I-93 sign panels were replaced in 1991, the dual tabs were removed and replaced with standard tabs.
Actually, I-93 had dual-tabs all the way up to the NH State Line at the time.
Quote from: roadman on October 18, 2012, 09:21:45 AM
The dual exit tabs (i.e. EXIT 3 MILE 5) was a short-lived experiment based on a late 1960s FHWA human factors study (the title escapes me at the moment). I don't recall any of these special tabs appearing on I-91 in Massachusetts (I think CT experimented with them on I-91 however), but they were indeed put in place on exit signs on I-93 between the lower deck in Somerville and I-95 (at the time, 128) in Woburn in 1974.
Yes, they were in place on I-91 in MA, from the CT line to the VT line, back around 1975-76 or so. I do not recall them along I-91 in CT back then, but perhaps this was done at an earlier time before I would have ever seen them.
Thanks everyone for the clarifications. Now that I think about it more, I do remember seeing dual tabs on the upper portion of I-93 in my younger days. As for I-91, I suspect the dual tabs didn't last very long, because the sign plans for the 1994 Longmeadow to Northampton sign replacement project (panels only) show only single EXIT X" tabs on the signs being removed.
I've posted a set of photos taken on Sunday (11/11) covering new signage put up in the last couple months as part of the '128-Add-A-Lane' project along I-93 between MA 24 and I-95 in the blog article below:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/11/i-93-signage-south-of-boston-update.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/11/i-93-signage-south-of-boston-update.html) Enjoy.
Sweet...Thanks Bob!
This is NOT the only project replacing signs on I-93...to that in a moment. But I finally found out why the on-ground sign for my exit (46) on SB 93 was out for a while earlier this year.
Now to that other project...New Hampshire, from Salem at the state line to Manchester. This is more of a construction project but they ARE replacing signs because of that. There are new signs for Exit 1 (which does NOT need to say "Exit Only" and has not needed it for YEARS, it is now a full interchange--but signs still say it) among other things. At the state line, they just replaced that "WELCOME TO NEW HAMPSHIRE" sign. I'll look through my image folders to see if I can get any photos of anything.
Quote from: nwrgeek on November 17, 2012, 04:31:45 PM
There are new signs for Exit 1 (which does NOT need to say "Exit Only" and has not needed it for YEARS, it is now a full interchange--but signs still say it) among other things.
??? 'Exit only' means that the right lane must exit. A partial interchange gets text like 'no northbound re-entry'.
Quote from: NE2 on November 17, 2012, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: nwrgeek on November 17, 2012, 04:31:45 PM
There are new signs for Exit 1 (which does NOT need to say "Exit Only" and has not needed it for YEARS, it is now a full interchange--but signs still say it) among other things.
??? 'Exit only' means that the right lane must exit. A partial interchange gets text like 'no northbound re-entry'.
Hmm. Well, there IS an EXIT ONLY where you can't get back on in that direction. It's I-495 (MA) Exit 55, you can only get off northbound. It leads to I-95 - both directions on 55, and going straight takes you to North only. Additionally you can only get on southbound and can't get off SB and one must instead continue one exit on 95 SB. It all probably depends on your state's DOT.
Quote from: nwrgeek on November 17, 2012, 05:20:23 PM
Hmm. Well, there IS an EXIT ONLY where you can't get back on in that direction. It's I-495 (MA) Exit 55. Probably depends on your state's DOT.
Technically that lane begins before the overhead, but that is probably an erroneous 'exit only'. Note that only the sign right at the exit has it (as of the Goog's 2009 photos).
The MUTCD is clear about use of 'exit only': http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E24
I don't know if the MUTCD has any 'no reentry' signs; these seem to vary by state.
If you're in the far right lane on I-93 north at Exit 1 in Salem NH, you have to exit (it's been this way since they originally widened the road between the rest area and the Exit 1 off-ramp in the 1970s). The current overhead sign reflects this, as the black on yellow "Exit Only" banner is centered over the right lane, and does not extend across the full width of the panel.
It will be interesting to see if NHDOT goes with Arrow Per Lane signs for the final configuration. Anbody have a copy of (or a link to) the sign plans?
Quote from: roadman on November 18, 2012, 11:34:06 AMIt will be interesting to see if NHDOT goes with Arrow Per Lane signs for the final configuration. Anbody have a copy of (or a link to) the sign plans?
NHDOT has plans online:
ftp://dot.bid:H1ghway@nhftp.admin.state.nh.us/ (ftp://dot.bid:H1ghway@nhftp.admin.state.nh.us/)
However, each of the ZIPs is password-protected and you don't get the password unless you order a copy of the paper plans.
There are no words to express the depth of my disgust with this arrangement.
Quote from: roadman on November 18, 2012, 11:34:06 AM
If you're in the far right lane on I-93 north at Exit 1 in Salem NH, you have to exit (it's been this way since they originally widened the road between the rest area and the Exit 1 off-ramp in the 1970s). The current overhead sign reflects this, as the black on yellow "Exit Only" banner is centered over the right lane, and does not extend across the full width of the panel.
I noticed that when I was in that area about an hour ago. But I really don't understand WHY that is..
The latest information from the MassDOT website on the I-93 projects north of Boston are that signing has been completed from Somerville to Wilmington with the contractor now 'removing old sign foundations' on I-93. The project is 89% complete as of 11/20/2012. There's no longer a place to list project details on the northern work from Wilmington to the NH border but that contract was 86% complete also as of 11/20. (As for south of Boston, no changes seen from driving the Braintree to Randolph stretch last week and MassDOT still lists the contract as 7% complete).
Had an event to go to in Boston this evening so I took the opportunity when going home to drive I-93 from Boston to Randolph southbound to check for any progress in updating signage. There were no changes in road signage since my last trip a couple months ago. There is also no evidence on any new signage appearing anytime soon on I-93 itself. No poles for new signage, nor signs (sorry) of digging any foundations for new overhead signs. The one change I did notice was that the Mass Guide Signs leading to, and for, the on-ramp southbound for Exit 9 had been updated from ones indicating I-93/MA 3 to ones showing I-93/US 1, identical to those already present at Exit 15 and Exit 8 northbound. Next time I'll check to see if the other signs, not visible from I-93, in that area have been changed as well. The project is still listed as 8% complete in the MassDOT project listing.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 03, 2013, 10:53:44 PMThe one change I did notice was that the Mass Guide Signs leading to, and for, the on-ramp southbound for Exit 9 had been updated from ones indicating I-93/MA 3 to ones showing I-93/US 1, identical to those already present at Exit 15 and Exit 8 northbound. Next time I'll check to see if the other signs, not visible from I-93, in that area have been changed as well. The project is still listed as 8% complete in the MassDOT project listing.
So MA 3 is now the proverbial red-haired stepchild along the Southeast Expressway, interesting.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 03, 2013, 10:53:44 PM
There were no changes in road signage since my last trip a couple months ago. There is also no evidence on any new signage appearing anytime soon on I-93 itself. No poles for new signage, nor signs (sorry) of digging any foundations for new overhead signs.
Bob, if you drive down I-93S, you will see before Exit 5 a couple of sign foundations that are installed on the right hand side. Looks like they are going to start in Randolph first and work their way up. These installations are probably why the 7% went up to 8% complete. Progress?
Post Merge: April 04, 2013, 01:54:41 PM
And a question...on I-93 SB, there are newer BGSs for Exit 15 that list "UMass" and "JFK Library" as primary locations. Shouldn't these be on a secondary sign? Is that MUTCD compliant? I'm wondering if they are going to make it primary on NB Exit 14 as well once the button-copy is replaced. It would be more appropriate if Exit 15 SB said, "Columbia Rd./Dorchester" instead.
Quote from: southshore720 on April 04, 2013, 11:34:32 AM
And a question...on I-93 SB, there are newer BGSs for Exit 15 that list "UMass" and "JFK Library" as primary locations. Shouldn't these be on a secondary sign? Is that MUTCD compliant? I'm wondering if they are going to make it primary on NB Exit 14 as well once the button-copy is replaced. It would be more appropriate if Exit 15 SB said, "Columbia Rd./Dorchester" instead.
Who wants to go to Dorchester? :)
Quote from: southshore720 on April 04, 2013, 11:29:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 03, 2013, 10:53:44 PM
There were no changes in road signage since my last trip a couple months ago. There is also no evidence on any new signage appearing anytime soon on I-93 itself. No poles for new signage, nor signs (sorry) of digging any foundations for new overhead signs.
Bob, if you drive down I-93S, you will see before Exit 5 a couple of sign foundations that are installed on the right hand side. Looks like they are going to start in Randolph first and work their way up. These installations are probably why the 7% went up to 8% complete. Progress?
Post Merge: April 04, 2013, 01:54:41 PM
And a question...on I-93 SB, there are newer BGSs for Exit 15 that list "UMass" and "JFK Library" as primary locations. Shouldn't these be on a secondary sign? Is that MUTCD compliant? I'm wondering if they are going to make it primary on NB Exit 14 as well once the button-copy is replaced. It would be more appropriate if Exit 15 SB said, "Columbia Rd./Dorchester" instead.
Thanks for pointing out the foundations for the MA 28 exit, the southbound sign was already replaced a couple years ago to the current design, so I assume these are before the northbound exit. It was dark, so I must have missed them.
As for the newer Exit 15 signage, the RFP for the contract specifically mentioned that the contractor was not to replace these signs but to prepare new text that was to be mounted on backing that would cover over the wording on the current sign. Perhaps to fix the MUTCD compliance issue as mentioned. Columbia Road also goes to South Boston, if no one wants to go to Dorchester. :D
The foundations were BEFORE Exits 5B-A SB at the 1 mile and 1/2 mile marks. Before the recently-replaced MUTCD sign at Exit 5A. I haven't noticed any NB yet.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 04, 2013, 08:10:10 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 03, 2013, 10:53:44 PMThe one change I did notice was that the Mass Guide Signs leading to, and for, the on-ramp southbound for Exit 9 had been updated from ones indicating I-93/MA 3 to ones showing I-93/US 1, identical to those already present at Exit 15 and Exit 8 northbound. Next time I'll check to see if the other signs, not visible from I-93, in that area have been changed as well. The project is still listed as 8% complete in the MassDOT project listing.
So MA 3 is now the proverbial red-haired stepchild along the Southeast Expressway, interesting.
Oh, I'm going Fictional here and I know it, but it would make sense to terminate MA 3 where it meets I-93 and then have US 3 begin at the Storrow Drive interchange. No one thinks of them as the same route.
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2013, 05:47:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 04, 2013, 08:10:10 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 03, 2013, 10:53:44 PMThe one change I did notice was that the Mass Guide Signs leading to, and for, the on-ramp southbound for Exit 9 had been updated from ones indicating I-93/MA 3 to ones showing I-93/US 1, identical to those already present at Exit 15 and Exit 8 northbound. Next time I'll check to see if the other signs, not visible from I-93, in that area have been changed as well. The project is still listed as 8% complete in the MassDOT project listing.
So MA 3 is now the proverbial red-haired stepchild along the Southeast Expressway, interesting.
Oh, I'm going Fictional here and I know it, but it would make sense to terminate MA 3 where it meets I-93 and then have US 3 begin at the Storrow Drive interchange. No one thinks of them as the same route.
If the locals insist on retaining MA 3 south of Braintree (as opposed to a new designation), you could also change 3 north of Cambridge from an US route to a MA route, and have New Hampshire change their portion from Nashua north to a NH route as well. Based on the current route numbering policies, I can't imagine AASHTO rejecting that proposal.
Quote from: roadman on April 08, 2013, 07:34:50 PM
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2013, 05:47:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 04, 2013, 08:10:10 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 03, 2013, 10:53:44 PMThe one change I did notice was that the Mass Guide Signs leading to, and for, the on-ramp southbound for Exit 9 had been updated from ones indicating I-93/MA 3 to ones showing I-93/US 1, identical to those already present at Exit 15 and Exit 8 northbound. Next time I'll check to see if the other signs, not visible from I-93, in that area have been changed as well. The project is still listed as 8% complete in the MassDOT project listing.
So MA 3 is now the proverbial red-haired stepchild along the Southeast Expressway, interesting.
Oh, I'm going Fictional here and I know it, but it would make sense to terminate MA 3 where it meets I-93 and then have US 3 begin at the Storrow Drive interchange. No one thinks of them as the same route.
If the locals insist on retaining MA 3 south of Braintree (as opposed to a new designation), you could also change 3 north of Cambridge from an US route to a MA route, and have New Hampshire change their portion from Nashua north to a NH route as well. Based on the current route numbering policies, I can't imagine AASHTO rejecting that proposal.
No. Why? US 3 is NH's backbone. A state can have two same-numbered routes without an issue.
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2013, 05:47:52 PMOh, I'm going Fictional here and I know it, but it would make sense to terminate MA 3 where it meets I-93 and then have US 3 begin at the Storrow Drive interchange. No one thinks of them as the same route.
If one did that, one would likely need to redesignate most of the northern stretch of MA 3A in the South Shore as an extension of MA 203.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 09, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2013, 05:47:52 PMOh, I'm going Fictional here and I know it, but it would make sense to terminate MA 3 where it meets I-93 and then have US 3 begin at the Storrow Drive interchange. No one thinks of them as the same route.
If one did that, one would likely need to redesignate most of the northern stretch of MA 3A in the South Shore as an extension of MA 203.
I dunno. You have, for example, MD Business 3 extending beyond the terminus of MD 3, when it ought to be Business I-97 (or just part of MD 3, really). I have no problem with running 203 down 3A, as that road has changed numbers many times with no effect on residents. But really, it is a direct northern extension of the entire rest of 3A, so why not just let it be? If you want to gripe, gripe at there being two 3As for two different classes of routes, and as far as I can tell, no mileage connection between them, unlike the MA 1As.
Steve, the reasoning behind my suggestion of redesignating part of 3A as 203 has to do with the fact that if the northern terminus of MA 3 was indeed truncated to the Braintree split; MA 3A's northern terminus would be a few miles beyond where its parent route ends.
It has nothing to do about there being two different 3As.
Quote from: Steve on April 09, 2013, 11:14:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 09, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2013, 05:47:52 PMOh, I'm going Fictional here and I know it, but it would make sense to terminate MA 3 where it meets I-93 and then have US 3 begin at the Storrow Drive interchange. No one thinks of them as the same route.
If one did that, one would likely need to redesignate most of the northern stretch of MA 3A in the South Shore as an extension of MA 203.
I dunno. You have, for example, MD Business 3 extending beyond the terminus of MD 3, when it ought to be Business I-97 (or just part of MD 3, really). I have no problem with running 203 down 3A, as that road has changed numbers many times with no effect on residents. But really, it is a direct northern extension of the entire rest of 3A, so why not just let it be? If you want to gripe, gripe at there being two 3As for two different classes of routes, and as far as I can tell, no mileage connection between them, unlike the MA 1As.
MA 3A is also a continuous route according to MassDOT. Mileage includes the distance along MA/US 3 between the junction of I-93 in Neponset and I-95 in Winchester. My suggestion, if MA 3 were dropped as a designation south of Boston, would be to extend MA 53 north from Quincy to Neponset Circle and south from Kingston to Plymouth to cover that section of 3A and either make the 3A route between those two sections 53A, or give it a new unused state route number.
Meanwhile, I drove over to Quincy to check whether more Mass Guide Signs at I-93 on-ramps had been changed. The ones at Furnace Brook Parkway (Exit 8) also now indicate I-93/US 1. I took some photos and will provide a link when they get posted. This now means the only remaining on-ramp signage along the SE Expressway which still refers to it as I-93/MA 3 are at Exits 11, 12, and 14 (SB). Signage leading to the I-93/US 1 signed ramps at the Columbia Rd (Exit 15) interchange also need to be updated. One still refers to the Expressway as MA 3 and has not been changed since the 1970s. I don't count a relatively new (1-2 year old) guide sign at the UMass Boston intersection with Morrissey Blvd which also indicates a MA 3 only expressway, which needless to say was wrong from the day it was put up, but knowing MassDOT it may not be replaced anytime soon.
@bob7434
I can't recall the last time I heard a traffic reporter in the Boston area call the highway between Boston and Braintree as "Route 3". For that matter, I can't recall the last time it was called "I-93". It's always been called the Southeast Expressway in reports.
As for the ramp signs in the Columbia Road area, some were put up by the DCR (former MDC), and some were put up as part of a project several years back on Columbia Road. You can tell these "foreign" guide signs, as most of them have inset borders (which is supposed to be a no-no for "positive contract" signs).
I've posted photos of the new I-93/US 1 signage plus other new I-93 signage project related photos and comments in this blog entry: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/04/april-i-93-signage-project-update.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/04/april-i-93-signage-project-update.html)
Quote from: roadman on April 10, 2013, 08:22:01 PM
@bob7434
I can't recall the last time I heard a traffic reporter in the Boston area call the highway between Boston and Braintree as "Route 3". For that matter, I can't recall the last time it was called "I-93". It's always been called the Southeast Expressway in reports.
That likely is due to the fact that prior to 1971, the Southeast Expressway north of Granite Ave. had no route number. MA 3 exited off there and ran along Granite Ave. to Gallivan Blvd. (current MA 203) and continued westward along Gallivan (current MA 203).
Before the 1984/1985 overhaul of the Southeast Expressway, there was an old early 60s era gound-mounted BGS along the northbound expressway that featured a blank square shield with the word
NORTH to the right of it along the top 'line' of the BGS. Prior to '71, I'm sure that BGS once stated
3 NORTH. I forget what the rest of the BGS listed but it featured button-copy lettering in all CAPS and was referring to the approaching northbound Granite Ave. exit.
In this sign replacement they left MA 38 South signs on the new BGSes south of the southern terminus of MA 38. I tried asking Mass DOT, but this is obviously low on their list of concerns.
Also, I'm curious about the situation where there's an older sign gantry around there (I think the HOV announcement here: http://goo.gl/maps/IbLc4) with a new electronic message board sitting unused for about a year behind it.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2013, 10:41:01 PM
In this sign replacement they left MA 38 South signs on the new BGSes south of the southern terminus of MA 38.
Are you sure the south end of Route 38 is at 28, not 99?
I'm almost certain 38 ends at 99, but this is Massachusetts so you never can be completely certain.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 10, 2013, 11:13:08 PM
I've posted photos of the new I-93/US 1 signage plus other new I-93 signage project related photos and comments in this blog entry: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/04/april-i-93-signage-project-update.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/04/april-i-93-signage-project-update.html)
As usual, nice photos Bob. My sources at MassDOT have confirmed your suspicions regarding the staging of the I-93 Randolph to Boston sign work. The project contractor (Liddell Brothers of Halifax, MA) is currently proceeding with foundation installation and support fabrication for the major overhead and ground-mounted sign supports between Route 24 in Randolph and the Braintree split. Foundation installation and support fabrication for the section north of the Braintree split to Southampton Street (railroad overpass) in Boston is expected to begin by mid-summer of 2013.
It is also my understanding that none of the existing signs and supports on Route 37 will be replaced under the Randolph to Boston work. These signs and supports, which were last updated about 2000, are still in relatively good shape. In addition, there are strong rumblings that MassDOT will be shortly beginning a design project for re-configuring the ramps at the I-93/Route 37 interchange - as I understand it, one of the purposes of the project is to eliminate the very short weave area on I-93 north between the ramp from Route 37 north and the exit to MA 3 south.
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2013, 12:17:04 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2013, 10:41:01 PM
In this sign replacement they left MA 38 South signs on the new BGSes south of the southern terminus of MA 38.
Are you sure the south end of Route 38 is at 28, not 99?
In the early 1990s, I had a interesting discussion with an older MassDPW engineer about the history of the numbered routes in the Boston area. He told me that, as part of the Central Artery North Area work that preceded the Big Dig in the late 1980s, the MA 38 designation was extended from MA 28 in Somerville south to City Square Charlestown. MA Route 99, which apparently went into City Square at one point, was then truncated at MA 38 at Sullivan Square.
Apparently, this information never filtered down to MassHighway's planning folks, as the current road inventory maps still show no route designations on either Rutherford Ave or Mystic Ave south of O'Brien Highway in Somerville.
Quote from: roadman on April 12, 2013, 06:20:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2013, 12:17:04 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2013, 10:41:01 PM
In this sign replacement they left MA 38 South signs on the new BGSes south of the southern terminus of MA 38.
Are you sure the south end of Route 38 is at 28, not 99?
In the early 1990s, I had a interesting discussion with an older MassDPW engineer about the history of the numbered routes in the Boston area. He told me that, as part of the Central Artery North Area work that preceded the Big Dig in the late 1980s, the MA 38 designation was extended from MA 28 in Somerville south to City Square Charlestown. MA Route 99, which apparently went into City Square at one point, was then truncated at MA 38 at Sullivan Square.
Apparently, this information never filtered down to MassHighway's planning folks, as the current road inventory maps still show no route designations on either Rutherford Ave or Mystic Ave south of O'Brien Highway in Somerville.
This is all news to me. Time to go poke at my Massachusetts pages, where I was convinced 38 ended at 28 and 99 ended at US 1. Oh, wait, that sudden dread realization that I don't think I've ever driven 38 between 28 and 99. Back to Boston...
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2013, 12:17:04 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2013, 10:41:01 PM
In this sign replacement they left MA 38 South signs on the new BGSes south of the southern terminus of MA 38.
Are you sure the south end of Route 38 is at 28, not 99?
The 0.0 milepost on 38 is at the intersection with 28. So somebody's wrong, somewhere.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 13, 2013, 10:48:10 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2013, 12:17:04 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2013, 10:41:01 PM
In this sign replacement they left MA 38 South signs on the new BGSes south of the southern terminus of MA 38.
Are you sure the south end of Route 38 is at 28, not 99?
The 0.0 milepost on 38 is at the intersection with 28. So somebody's wrong, somewhere.
MA 38 ending at MA 28 is also what MassDOT's Numbered Routes with Mile Points state map seems to indicate, go to: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/MapsDataandReports/Maps/NumberedRouteswithMilePoints.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/MapsDataandReports/Maps/NumberedRouteswithMilePoints.aspx) to check it out. (You must use the state map, the district maps are not state route maps, but in fact road jurisdiction maps. :confused:)
With all the events going on in the Boston area this week, I haven't had time to post about the latest progress on the I-93 signing projects according to MassDOT. The project from Wilmington to Methuen is now indicated to be 95% complete. The contract from Somerville to Wilmington is listed as 90% complete. Lastly, and lagging behind, the southern contract from Randolph to Boston is now listed as 9% complete. The contractor there though has been busy lately along the '128' stretch from MA 28 to MA 3 putting in foundations for the new overhead assemblies. Hopefully, new signs will be coming soon.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 20, 2013, 04:54:41 PM
With all the events going on in the Boston area this week, I haven't had time to post about the latest progress on the I-93 signing projects according to MassDOT. The project from Wilmington to Methuen is now indicated to be 95% complete. The contract from Somerville to Wilmington is listed as 90% complete. Lastly, and lagging behind, the southern contract from Randolph to Boston is now listed as 9% complete. The contractor there though has been busy lately along the '128' stretch from MA 28 to MA 3 putting in foundations for the new overhead assemblies. Hopefully, new signs will be coming soon.
I asked my sources at MassDOT about the status of this work. They told me that the I-93 Somerville to Methuen sign projects are essentially complete, except for a) final testing and acceptance of the CMS boards, b) installation of an extra CMS board to replace a failed one in Medford (the current board, controller, etc. were toasted by a severe lightning strike a couple of years ago), c) final installation of the highway advisory radio (HAR) system, and d) installation of flashers on the "Reduced Salt Area" signs north of I-495 in Andover. If I had to say, I'd peg current progress at closer to 96% than 90%.
As for Randolph to Boston, I've been told that the current construction plan is indeed to complete the majority of the OH signs and structures between Route 24 in Randolph and the Braintree split first, then complete the signs and structures on the section between Braintree and Southampton Street in Boston. Besides the fact that the Southeast Expressway portion is far trickier than the Randolph to Boston section in terms of traffic control, this is likely due to more potential issues resulting from utilities and other conflicts north of the split.
In the meantime, the contractor has also been proceeding with the installation of route, regulatory and warning signs, as well as LGS panels on intersecting streets, throughout the entire project. As such, I'd peg the current progress at about 16% instead of 9%.
Unfortunately, I have no clue as to the exact basis MassDOT uses in calculating project completion percentages, nor how often the information is updated on their public web site.
Quote from: roadman on April 26, 2013, 07:47:54 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 20, 2013, 04:54:41 PM
With all the events going on in the Boston area this week, I haven't had time to post about the latest progress on the I-93 signing projects according to MassDOT. The project from Wilmington to Methuen is now indicated to be 95% complete. The contract from Somerville to Wilmington is listed as 90% complete. Lastly, and lagging behind, the southern contract from Randolph to Boston is now listed as 9% complete. The contractor there though has been busy lately along the '128' stretch from MA 28 to MA 3 putting in foundations for the new overhead assemblies. Hopefully, new signs will be coming soon.
I asked my sources at MassDOT about the status of this work. They told me that the I-93 Somerville to Methuen sign projects are essentially complete, except for a) final testing and acceptance of the CMS boards, b) installation of an extra CMS board to replace a failed one in Medford (the current board, controller, etc. were toasted by a severe lightning strike a couple of years ago), c) final installation of the highway advisory radio (HAR) system, and d) installation of flashers on the "Reduced Salt Area" signs north of I-495 in Andover. If I had to say, I'd peg current progress at closer to 96% than 90%.
As for Randolph to Boston, I've been told that the current construction plan is indeed to complete the majority of the OH signs and structures between Route 24 in Randolph and the Braintree split first, then complete the signs and structures on the section between Braintree and Southampton Street in Boston. Besides the fact that the Southeast Expressway portion is far trickier than the Randolph to Boston section in terms of traffic control, this is likely due to more potential issues resulting from utilities and other conflicts north of the split.
In the meantime, the contractor has also been proceeding with the installation of route, regulatory and warning signs, as well as LGS panels on intersecting streets, throughout the entire project. As such, I'd peg the current progress at about 16% instead of 9%.
Unfortunately, I have no clue as to the exact basis MassDOT uses in calculating project completion percentages, nor how often the information is updated on their public web site.
Well, you may have more of a clue than you think. Over the past couple days the Randolph-Boston project completion has gone up to 15%, the Wilmington to Methuen now is listed at 96%.
I do wish there would be some consistency in how projects are updated on their list. Some project engineers (assuming they provide this info) appear to be more diligent than others in providing new information. Some are forthcoming with frequent updates as to what is currently being done at a particular date while others who may simply give a percentage every few months, if at all.
I plan to take a road trip out to I-93 either on Saturday or Sunday to check out what has progressed in the past few weeks. I'll post my observations upon my return.
Took the SE Expressway in its entirety from Braintree to Boston and back on Saturday. I had to deal with the congestion remaining from a 2-car accident on the way in, and waiting for a funeral procession to go by trying to get on near Andrew Square, but I did have some time to check out sign progress:
A few new regulatory signs (speed limit, bridge clearance height) have appeared on the highway itself in the Milton area. I am hoping for some new route shields soon along the entire route. Those that still remain from the early 1980's (or 1989 in the case of US 1) are in bad shape. As for new signage at the on-ramps, progress has proceeded northward to Granite Ave. (Exit 11) and include changing the one I-93/MA 3/US 1 guide sign that was put up NB at exit 9 to I-93/US 1. The only remaining signs to be switched out are at the NB ramp from Neponset Circle and the 2 southbound ramps taking traffic from Morrissey Blvd. Since the signs in the Neponset area are a mix of ground-mounted and overheads, I suspect the latter will be updated when the other overheads are replaced on the Expressway proper later in the year.
I am off to a job interview tomorrow morning which will have me taking '128' from Braintree to Dedham. I'll report on any sign progress along that stretch of I-93, and perhaps a link to photos from the two trips, later in the day.
Good luck tomorrow and thanks for the update man!
The interview went well and was over early enough to do some sign-seeing after. I've posted an update on the I-93 signage project and some other interesting signage from my last two road trips in a new blog entry:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/04/another-i-93-update-plus-other-signs.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/04/another-i-93-update-plus-other-signs.html) Enjoy.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 29, 2013, 09:49:37 PM
The interview went well and was over early enough to do some sign-seeing after. I've posted an update on the I-93 signage project and some other interesting signage from my last two road trips in a new blog entry:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/04/another-i-93-update-plus-other-signs.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/04/another-i-93-update-plus-other-signs.html) Enjoy.
The newish JCT US 1 assembly in Dedham on Washington St. was there back in 2011 (and maybe even 2010) and appeared to be part of heavy work on Washington Street--it may have been a cookie-cutter replacement for an old sign that was in the records from back when US 1 actually went through the intersection ahead. The paddle signs were not there then.
Somewhere I have pics from 2010 and 2011 trips through there; I should find them to pin down the date that I saw that new large JCT assembly.
EDIT TO ADD: Found the post from last year. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5079.msg151976#msg151976) The JCT assembly does predate the paddle sign--the JCT sign was new in 2010 or shortly before.
QuoteHere's a close-up which has a unique take on the US shield border than typically seen in MA
I don't know for certain but I wonder if this might be a new standard. Most, if not all, new paddle signs I've seen across the state recently have had that shield design. I believe I've seen them for 1, 20, 202, 6, and possibly 3.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 05, 2013, 08:03:57 PM
QuoteHere's a close-up which has a unique take on the US shield border than typically seen in MA
I don't know for certain but I wonder if this might be a new standard. Most, if not all, new paddle signs I've seen across the state recently have had that shield design. I believe I've seen them for 1, 20, 202, 6, and possibly 3.
For MA state shields mounted on LGS and BGS panels, using an inset border (similar to independent markers) has been MassHighway/MassDOT standard since the mid-1990s. However, for US state shields mounted on LGS and BGS panels, the MassHighway/MassDOT standard is still to not use an inset border (MUTCD spec).
My guess is that the 'cutout with border' design was done by a contractor. While MassDOT has specific field control measures in place for signs - see:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/engineeringDirectives/2008/e-08-002.pdf
it seems likely that the presence or lack of a border on a cutout shield is the type of thing that wouldn't necessarily be flagged as incorrect by the MassDOT field inspector. Of course, the other possibility is that these signs were installed as part of private developer projects, which aren't subject to the same level of construction oversight and field review that MassDOT-designed and/or funded contracts are.
Quick trip along the '128' section of I-93/US 1 this morning. Additional progress to report on placing foundations for the new overhead signs. Additional foundations have been placed on both sides of the southbound roadway between Exits 5 (MA 28) and 4 (MA 24). Work had started in the same location heading northbound with one foundation complete. Work appears to still be needed also between the Split and Exit 6 (MA 37). The project page lists the percentage completed now at 17%. MassDOT has also moved the northernmost I-93 signage project between Wilmington and the NH border to their completed list. The other project from Somerville to Wilmington is now at 92%. complete.
I am planning another trip along the I-93 corridor (up to Reading, anyway) tomorrow on my way up to NH to check on the progress on I-93 signing progress. Or should I say completion. MassDOT has updated the project listing for the project between Somerville and Wilmington, moving it to join the Wilmington to NH project as being complete. This only leaves the project from Boston to Randolph to finish, making my road trips to check progress substantially shorter from now on (unless I want to check progress on I-95 from MA 9 to Lexington, but that's another thread). I'll post what I find over the weekend.
One thing that's a bit odd in one of those new LGS' is that while it only contains I-93 & US 1 shields, it still contains CAPE COD in the destination listing (a MA 3 destination). The above-BRAINTREE covers all three routes.
One would've thought that MassDOT would've started using PROVIDENCE RI as a distant control destination instead of the Cape; or at least use Cape Cod & Providence and ditch the more local Braintree listing.
This thread desperately need more pictures.
Wait till I get home. I drove all of I-93 all the way from I-91 at St. Johnsbury to I-95 south of Boston today.
I checked out I-93 in the Braintree and Randolph area this morning. It appears most, if not all, the supports for the new overhead signs have been placed. Nothing else new as far as on-road signage. However, when I was exiting at MA 37 in Braintree I saw something curious sign-wise along Forbes Road which parallels the NB side of I-93. These were two new looking Mass Guide Signs which had a few problems. This is a photo of the first one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fi93us3sign1.jpg&hash=74d2b94ce96094ab2b95abba8ffc6a9cd7c003ae)
The second one is identical and can be found at http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign2.jpg (http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign2.jpg). From what was listed on the back of the sign (photo can be seen at http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign1b.jpg (http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign1b.jpg)) the 2 were installed last October. If you look closely at the US shield on both signs, it appears the number was originally 6 and changed to 3. Not quite US 1 which is supposed to be signed, but getting closer. The US shields again have the border not found in typical MassDOT signage. Were they trying to get both US 1 and MA 3 on the sign and ended up with this combination? :confused:
Many newer mass Paddle Signs installed in the last two years or so have the black outline on both US and MA route shields.
Quote from: Beeper1 on June 13, 2013, 09:13:21 PM
Many newer mass Paddle Signs installed in the last two years or so have the black outline on both US and MA route shields.
I think one of the issue(s) with those BGS' that Bob7374 is referring to is that fact that the BGS' feature
US 3 shields (which appear to be corrected/recycled US 6 shields). In all likelihood, it's
supposed to be a US 1 shield next to the I-93 shield... based on MassDOT's current signing protocol.
If Route 3 was intended to be included in the BGS', it should be
State Route 3 (aka MA 3).
Quote from: bob7374 on June 13, 2013, 05:54:09 PM
I checked out I-93 in the Braintree and Randolph area this morning. It appears most, if not all, the supports for the new overhead signs have been placed. Nothing else new as far as on-road signage. However, when I was exiting at MA 37 in Braintree I saw something curious sign-wise along Forbes Road which parallels the NB side of I-93. These were two new looking Mass Guide Signs which had a few problems. This is a photo of the first one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fi93us3sign1.jpg&hash=74d2b94ce96094ab2b95abba8ffc6a9cd7c003ae)
The second one is identical and can be found at http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign2.jpg (http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign2.jpg). From what was listed on the back of the sign (photo can be seen at http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign1b.jpg (http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign1b.jpg)) the 2 were installed last October. If you look closely at the US shield on both signs, it appears the number was originally 6 and changed to 3. Not quite US 1 which is supposed to be signed, but getting closer. The US shields again have the border not found in typical MassDOT signage. Were they trying to get both US 1 and MA 3 on the sign and ended up with this combination? :confused:
AFAIK, these installs were not part of the current Randoplh to Boston project. Private developer perhaps?
A private contractor would make a Massachusetts paddle sign like that?
As for I-93 and US Route 3, do those two roads ever intersect north of Boston?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 14, 2013, 02:22:37 PM
A private contractor would make a Massachusetts paddle sign like that?
As for I-93 and US Route 3, do those two roads ever intersect north of Boston?
Granite St. is well-known to be in Randolph.
there are many US-3/I-93 junctions but the southernmost one is in the northern parts of Manchester, NH.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 14, 2013, 02:22:37 PM
A private contractor would make a Massachusetts paddle sign like that?
I do recall that in the late 80s, several paddle signs were erected on Northshore Mall property as part of the reconstruction of route 114; a couple were even put up for the ramp to 128 south from the parking lot. They were all cut to usual state specs and probably were put up by crews working on the overall project with permission from the mall ownership. Some of them went away when the mall driveway changed over time, but the 128 ones lasted a lot longer.
Never seen a paddle sign that appeared to be designed and erected on public ROW by private concerns, though. US shield interior outlines being rare anyway, I wonder what would cause the outline to appear on an otherwise standard-looking sign?
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 14, 2013, 03:06:19 PM
Never seen a paddle sign that appeared to be designed and erected on public ROW by private concerns, though. US shield interior outlines being rare anyway, I wonder what would cause the outline to appear on an otherwise standard-looking sign?
I was just in MA a month ago, and I noted lots of new signs appearing with double-outlined US and state shields.
I think it's officially a new standard for US routes, but not state routes. it seems more prevalent on the US shields, but - this being Massachusetts - both variants appear for both types of route.
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 14, 2013, 03:06:19 PMI do recall that in the late 80s, several paddle signs were erected on Northshore Mall property as part of the reconstruction of route 114; a couple were even put up for the ramp to 128 south from the parking lot. They were all cut to usual state specs and probably were put up by crews working on the overall project with permission from the mall ownership. Some of them went away when the mall driveway changed over time, but the 128 ones lasted a lot longer.
Those were the LGS' that listed the southbound 128 destinations as
BURLINGTON - WALTHAM.
Some of the LGSes on North SHore Mall property were put up under the Route 114 reconstruction, others were put up under the last 128 Peabody to Gloucester sign update project.
The ones I recall were all from the same time--strangely 128 paddles inside the property for the ramp to 128 by Sears Auto, while not really related to 114, went up with the 114-related ones. The old, old signs on 128 itself were all still there then--the ones that were changed from E-W to A-B exit numbers despite not adding EAST or WEST text to the main panels. (I worked right in that neighborhood for some time and saw those signs very frequently.)
The old-old 128 South signs inside the North Shore (then-Shopping Center) that you speak of listed BOSTON as its control destination (with no TO RTE. 1 reference) were not DPW-spec'd and were likley erected when the shopping center first opened in the 50s. IIRC, the 114/128 cloverleaf was expanded to its current configuration around the same time-frame.
You're right, one or two of them indeed survived into the 1990s. The 128 South paddles near Sears Auto (I remember when those were erected in the 80s) were indeed DPW-spec'd. Those were placed at an entrance ramp to 128 South that merged with the 128 South ramp from 114 East. Since that ramp was part of the overall cloverleaf interchange, the DPW saw fit to replace all the signs at once.
What's funny about the old North Shore Shopping Center green signage was that it was better than most of the signage that the City of Peabody came up with itself! Square signal ahead symbol signs? Tiny directional signs with more information than a DPW paddle sign crammed in? Peabody could make those! :P
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 19, 2013, 10:51:38 AM
What's funny about the old North Shore Shopping Center green signage was that it was better than most of the signage that the City of Peabody came up with itself! Square signal ahead symbol signs? Tiny directional signs with more information than a DPW paddle sign crammed in? Peabody could make those! :P
The goal of most cities and towns in Massachusetts is to make their signs as small as possible, to minimize the "negative" asthetic impacts. MDC/DCR is much the same way, especially in regards to truck restriction and low clearance signs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 19, 2013, 09:15:03 AM
The old-old 128 South signs inside the North Shore (then-Shopping Center) that you speak of listed BOSTON as its control destination (with no TO RTE. 1 reference) were not DPW-spec'd and were likley erected when the shopping center first opened in the 50s. IIRC, the 114/128 cloverleaf was expanded to its current configuration around the same time-frame.
what color were these?
I know Mass DPW was using white signs in 1959, and green signs by 1962.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 19, 2013, 12:31:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 19, 2013, 09:15:03 AM
The old-old 128 South signs inside the North Shore (then-Shopping Center) that you speak of listed BOSTON as its control destination (with no TO RTE. 1 reference) were not DPW-spec'd and were likley erected when the shopping center first opened in the 50s. IIRC, the 114/128 cloverleaf was expanded to its current configuration around the same time-frame.
what color were these?
I know Mass DPW was using white signs in 1959, and green signs by 1962.
My earliest memories of the North Shore Shopping Center are from about 1964 (long before it was expanded and converted to an indoor mall). I remember the "on-site" (i.e. non-MassDPW) directional signs to Route 128 as always being green.
Quote from: roadman on June 19, 2013, 01:00:01 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 19, 2013, 12:31:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 19, 2013, 09:15:03 AM
The old-old 128 South signs inside the North Shore (then-Shopping Center) that you speak of listed BOSTON as its control destination (with no TO RTE. 1 reference) were not DPW-spec'd and were likley erected when the shopping center first opened in the 50s. IIRC, the 114/128 cloverleaf was expanded to its current configuration around the same time-frame.
what color were these?
I know Mass DPW was using white signs in 1959, and green signs by 1962.
My earliest memories of the North Shore Shopping Center are from about 1964 (long before it was expanded and converted to an indoor mall). I remember the "on-site" (i.e. non-MassDPW) directional signs to Route 128 as always being green.
Correct, although the shade of green used (granted they may have been faded during the early 70s when I first saw them) was a lighter & paler shade than what the DPW used on their LGS'.
While the DPW may have still used white w/black lettering on their paddle signs; the original large 128 signage along 114 itself (at least dating back to the North Shore Shopping Center opening) were wooden, dark-green w/button-copy lettering (in all caps) with non-button copy shields located in the upper-center of each BGS panel.
The layout of the old BGS' were similar to layout of their paddle signs.
Examples of the original BGS legends (sorry no vintage photos):
------ 128 ---->
BEVERLY
GLOUCESTER
------ 128 ---->
TO RTE. 1
BOSTON
Exit signage from southbound 128:
EXIT 25N (later changed to 25W)
------ 114 ---->
NO. ANDOVER
LAWRENCE
(supplemental
SHOPPING CENTER plaque was placed below the BGS)
EXIT 25S (later changed to 25E)
------ 114 ---->
MARBLEHEAD
SWAMPSCOTT
Exit signage from northbound 128:
EXIT 25S (later changed to 25E)
------ 114 ---->
SALEM
MARBLEHEAD
(supplemental
SHOPPING CENTER plaque was placed below the BGS)
EXIT 25N (later changed to 25W)
------ 114 ---->
MIDDLETON
NO. ANDOVER
You are correct - the "off-site" signs at North Shore Shopping Center were always a different shade of green than MDPW signs were.
I've posted a blog entry about my quick trip to VT this week that includes photos of I-93 signage in both MA and NH:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/07/vermont-road-trip-day-one.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/07/vermont-road-trip-day-one.html)
I mention in the post that there has been no activity along the SE Expressway portion of I-93 with regard to the signage replacement project. This info is now out-of-date as I saw on one of the MassDOT traffic cameras tonight workers putting up a new exit gore sign for Columbia Road on I-93 South. They had placed the support posts and were directing a crane lifting the new shiny Exit 4 left arrow sign when someone realized that sign belonged at the other end of the project at MA 24. They put that sign back and lifted what I assume was the sign with the correct number and right arrow (could only see the back) for placement on the support poles.
Would this crew be only putting up gore signs tonight, or might there be other regulatory or route signage going up as well? Maybe I'll have to have another road trip this weekend along that portion of I-93.
Thursday night (7/11) there were crews out doing gore signs as well.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 13, 2013, 12:59:57 AM
Thursday night (7/11) there were crews out doing gore signs as well.
Did a quick trip along I-93 tonight from MA 24 to Exit 11 NB then back south to MA 3 (Exit 7). It appeared most of the gore signs had been replaced along this stretch, though I'll have to take another trip during the day to better confirm signs in the opposite direction. There were no gore signs at all for Exits 10 and 9 southbound.
Standard practice for the contractor that is doing the I-93 Randolph to Boston sign project has been to install signs and supports in groups based on sign type. On a typical project, the installation sequence is: warning, regulatory and route marker signs and posts; then secondary road LGS(i.e. "paddle" signs) and posts; then mainlne gore signs and posts; followed by mainline ground-mount BGS and posts; and lastly, overhead BGS signs and supports. Plus, this project has an extra component - overhead changeable message sign (CMS) panels and support structures.
As has been noted in other posts on this subject, for construction purposes, work on the Randolph to Boston project has been split into two sections - MA 24 in Randolph to MA 3 in Braintree, and MA 3 in Braintree to Southampton Street in Boston.
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2013, 11:55:01 AM
Standard practice for the contractor that is doing the I-93 Randolph to Boston sign project has been to install signs and supports in groups based on sign type. On a typical project, the installation sequence is: warning, regulatory and route marker signs and posts; then secondary road LGS(i.e. "paddle" signs) and posts; then mainline gore signs and posts; followed by mainline ground-mount BGS and posts; and lastly, overhead BGS signs and supports. Plus, this project has an extra component - overhead changeable message sign (CMS) panels and support structures.
As has been noted in other posts on this subject, for construction purposes, work on the Randolph to Boston project has been split into two sections - MA 24 in Randolph to MA 3 in Braintree, and MA 3 in Braintree to Southampton Street in Boston.
The MassDOT project listing now has the I-93 project as 20% complete.
Funny how the contractor does not seem to following the standard order for this project. For Randolph to Braintree, it appears it has gone: putting up the ground mounted blue (Series E ) service signs, putting up regulatory signage, putting in foundations for new overhead signage, putting up new gore signs. For the SE Expressway section, putting in regulatory signage (though many of the new speed limit signs were placed on the existing overhead sign support poles, so they will have to be put up again), putting in most of the secondary road LGS (paddle signs), then putting up new gore signs. In neither section has new route signage been placed along the mainline, this type of signage is severely lacking on the Expressway portion since most of the shield assemblies put up in the 1980s (I-93/MA 3 early '80s, US 1 in 1989) are now missing. There is only one set remaining northbound, after the Columbia Road exit, and southbound there are usually just 1 or 2 of the route shields left, if there are any at all.
Took a trip to Bridgewater to meet a friend for dinner. Took I-93 from Braintree to MA 24 to MA 106 and back. The MA 24 paving project between MA 139 and I-93/US 1 is almost complete. Work was still going on in the left lanes in the evening.
But back to I-93 between Braintree and Randolph. Though no new overhead signs have appeared there has been progress with the ground level signage. New town/city line signs have been installed that are bigger than past ones MassDOT has put up, but are mounted on one centered post. There are now 'Entering Quincy' and 'Entering Randolph' southbound and 'Entering Quincy' northbound. There still needs one more NB for the Braintree town line. A new sign has been placed northbound beyond the MA 37/Granite St bridge indicating that those heading for the Quincy Adams T Station (no logo) should use the Burgin Parkway exit. Is the T station info to be removed from the MA 3 Exit 19 overhead signage? New interchange signage has appeared for all ramps to I-93/US 1 from MA 28 (Exit 5). The sign information is not new but the signs are larger with bigger route shields.
It was raining heading down and dark heading back so I didn't take any photos. Hopefully, I will get back to the area in the next week or two to more fully document what's been going on.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 01, 2013, 10:58:33 PM
Took a trip to Bridgewater to meet a friend for dinner. Took I-93 from Braintree to MA 24 to MA 106 and back. The MA 24 paving project between MA 139 and I-93/US 1 is almost complete. Work was still going on in the left lanes in the evening.
But back to I-93 between Braintree and Randolph. Though no new overhead signs have appeared there has been progress with the ground level signage. New town/city line signs have been installed that are bigger than past ones MassDOT has put up, but are mounted on one centered post. There are now 'Entering Quincy' and 'Entering Randolph' southbound and 'Entering Quincy' northbound. There still needs one more NB for the Braintree town line. A new sign has been placed northbound beyond the MA 37/Granite St bridge indicating that those heading for the Quincy Adams T Station (no logo) should use the Burgin Parkway exit. Is the T station info to be removed from the MA 3 Exit 19 overhead signage? New interchange signage has appeared for all ramps to I-93/US 1 from MA 28 (Exit 5). The sign information is not new but the signs are larger with bigger route shields.
I should have waited a day to remark about progress in installing the overhead signs. They started last night installing the support posts, as shown in this photo from this afternoon:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs8213i.jpg&hash=313c6919a9ec8e3f151c4fca1993044ac9a1a1c2)
For more images of the new posts (specifically there were 3, 2 installed on I-93 North for MA 37 cantilever advance signs at 1 mile and 1/2 mile and on I-93 South on the right side for the overhead signs prior to the MA 28 North ramp) and of the other new signs mentioned above, visit my new I-93 photo page at http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html). This page is part of a larger project still in progress, so sorry for any broken links.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 02, 2013, 11:40:49 PMvisit my new I-93 photo page at http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html). This page is part of a larger project still in progress, so sorry for any broken links.
I realize that this is semi-off-topic; but with regards to your
unofficial future mile-marker-based exit numbers section for I-93, I have the following comment:
Given the fact that the first several exits along I-93 are close to a mile apart from eachother; I honestly believe that the first 13 (based on your mileage chart) exits (up to Freeport St.) will likely
not change from their current numbers outside of the pull-through for I-95 North becoming Exit 1A (or B) and I-95 South becoming Exit 1B (or A).
Similar was done along the southern end of I-95 in PA when the Keystone State adopted mile-marker based exit numbers a decade ago; one of two interchanges/ramps being located slightly outside the usual tolerance range of the mile markers. The exit for US 322 West (Exit 3A) was originally planned to change to Exit 2A but PennDOT decided not to bother. Similar held true for the Lansdale interchange off the PA Turnpike NE Extension (I-476). Although the interchange is located right on Mile 30; the interchange kept it original Exit 31 number.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 05, 2013, 09:44:22 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 02, 2013, 11:40:49 PMvisit my new I-93 photo page at http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html). This page is part of a larger project still in progress, so sorry for any broken links.
I realize that this is semi-off-topic; but with regards to your unofficial future mile-marker-based exit numbers section for I-93, I have the following comment:
Given the fact that the first several exits along I-93 are close to a mile apart from each other; I honestly believe that the first 13 (based on your mileage chart) exits (up to Freeport St.) will likely not change from their current numbers outside of the pull-through for I-95 North becoming Exit 1A (or B) and I-95 South becoming Exit 1B (or A).
That may be the case. My list is unofficial, and is partly put up there to spark debate and eventually compare it to the actual numbers, when they are put up. I have put together lists for all Mass interstates as well as other current expressways. I plan to put the others up over the next month, sometimes in tandem with related route galleries where I have photos. The next list to be put up will probably be I-95.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 05, 2013, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 05, 2013, 09:44:22 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 02, 2013, 11:40:49 PMvisit my new I-93 photo page at http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html). This page is part of a larger project still in progress, so sorry for any broken links.
I realize that this is semi-off-topic; but with regards to your unofficial future mile-marker-based exit numbers section for I-93, I have the following comment:
Given the fact that the first several exits along I-93 are close to a mile apart from each other; I honestly believe that the first 13 (based on your mileage chart) exits (up to Freeport St.) will likely not change from their current numbers outside of the pull-through for I-95 North becoming Exit 1A (or B) and I-95 South becoming Exit 1B (or A).
That may be the case. My list is unofficial, and is partly put up there to spark debate and eventually compare it to the actual numbers, when they are put up. I have put together lists for all Mass interstates as well as other current expressways. I plan to put the others up over the next month, sometimes in tandem with related route galleries where I have photos. The next list to be put up will probably be I-95.
As for those numbers...I think Exit 48 will become 45B and 47 to be 45A. Current 48 is actually at 45.2 if their milepost sign is right, and 47 is a few feet before 45.0, so I'll give the VERY low chance of 47 becoming 44, but that would be just under a mile off so I don't see it likely. Again, just my 2 cents.
I-93 south to I-95 south will indeed become Exit 1B, and I-93 south to I-95 north will indeed become Exit 1A. However, it is my understanding that this change was actually supposed to happen as part of the add-a-lane work (if you look at the newly installed signs on I-93 south, you will see there's space on the exit tabs for the number/letter combos), and is not contingent upon MassDOT's eventual conversion to mileage-based exit numbers.
Quote from: roadman on August 05, 2013, 06:06:49 PM
I-93 south to I-95 south will indeed become Exit 1B, and I-93 south to I-95 north will indeed become Exit 1A. However, it is my understanding that this change was actually supposed to happen as part of the add-a-lane work (if you look at the newly installed signs on I-93 south, you will see there's space on the exit tabs for the number/letter combos), and is not contingent upon MassDOT's eventual conversion to mileage-based exit numbers.
That being the case, why wasn't a
blank left exit tab placed on the I-95 North pull-through BGS?
Great pictures Bob! Keep it up! I'm looking forward to better advance signage for the 93/3 split in both directions... Maybe people will actually make an effort to move into the correct lanes ahead of time instead of the last minute!
I have two questions about Interstate 93 in Massachusetts:
1. I thought interstate standards required exits to be more than 1 mile apart. How is this possible?
2. Why are the electronic signs in the sky always off? (They are often on if they are on the ground, and the New Hampshire ones are sometimes on.)
Quote from: 1 on August 10, 2013, 04:16:16 PM
I have two questions about Interstate 93 in Massachusetts:
1. I thought interstate standards required exits to be more than 1 mile apart. How is this possible?
Nope.
Quote2. Why are the electronic signs in the sky always off? (They are often on if they are on the ground, and the New Hampshire ones are sometimes on.)
I'm not on 93 enough to reliably speak for them, but the overhead message boards on 95 are regularly used to warn of lane closures for road work (Whittier Bridge and overpass work around exits 53-55).
I believe there are a few that do not work though, and apart from some targeted campaigns (recent ones include cell phone use, being aware of motorcycles, and keeping right except to pass), I believe it is MassDOT policy to leave them off unless there is a message to display.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 11, 2013, 12:26:49 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 10, 2013, 04:16:16 PM
I have two questions about Interstate 93 in Massachusetts:
1. I thought interstate standards required exits to be more than 1 mile apart. How is this possible?
Nope.
Quote2. Why are the electronic signs in the sky always off? (They are often on if they are on the ground, and the New Hampshire ones are sometimes on.)
I'm not on 93 enough to reliably speak for them, but the overhead message boards on 95 are regularly used to warn of lane closures for road work (Whittier Bridge and overpass work around exits 53-55).
I believe there are a few that do not work though, and apart from some targeted campaigns (recent ones include cell phone use, being aware of motorcycles, and keeping right except to pass), I believe it is MassDOT policy to leave them off unless there is a message to display.
Well...if MassDOT wants to use the portable ground ones
instead of the overheads...they're crazy. The Andover overhead /I believe VMS's if my memory recalls correctly/ north of exit 45 seems to always be off, and I live in the exit 46 area (right across the river).
Quote from: MVHighways on August 11, 2013, 08:04:09 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 11, 2013, 12:26:49 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 10, 2013, 04:16:16 PM
I have two questions about Interstate 93 in Massachusetts:
1. I thought interstate standards required exits to be more than 1 mile apart. How is this possible?
Nope.
Quote2. Why are the electronic signs in the sky always off? (They are often on if they are on the ground, and the New Hampshire ones are sometimes on.)
I'm not on 93 enough to reliably speak for them, but the overhead message boards on 95 are regularly used to warn of lane closures for road work (Whittier Bridge and overpass work around exits 53-55).
I believe there are a few that do not work though, and apart from some targeted campaigns (recent ones include cell phone use, being aware of motorcycles, and keeping right except to pass), I believe it is MassDOT policy to leave them off unless there is a message to display.
Well...if MassDOT wants to use the portable ground ones instead of the overheads...they're crazy. The Andover overhead /I believe VMS's if my memory recalls correctly/ north of exit 45 seems to always be off, and I live in the exit 46 area (right across the river).
Like I said, there are a fair number that completely do not work. That may be one of them. Next time I'm at the traffic operations center I may ask if they have a list of broken ones.
You are correct though, MassDOT does generally prefer the portable ones. There are a few reasons for this:
- The new travel time signs are a trial system that is not integrated with the main message board system, which is why they're on portable signs. These also made rolling out travel times significantly cheaper than if they had to build new permanent overhead signs.
- Generally any road work that needs a message board (Whittier Bridge, overpass replacement projects, even some paving projects) has a portable one included as part of the project, often provided by the contractor and included in their bid.
Back to I-93 signage. Drove out this morning to take some photos after my trip last Monday revealed much progress in installing support posts for the future overhead signs between Randolph and Braintree. Ended up disappointed though, nothing new has been placed since my last trip. Still need left-hand supports southbound and supports period for the MA 28 and MA 3 interchanges northbound. The only new construction last week was completing the foundation for the future 1 mile advance sign for Furnace Brook Parkway on I-93 north between the MA 3 South exit and MA 3 North merge.
Seeing little new on '128', I decided to venture up the SE Expressway, to see if there was something new to see there. I had spotted a new South I-93 reassurance marker replacing the previous one that stood between Southampton St and the Columbia Rd exit on Saturday during a trip to Boston. Turns out they replaced another I-93 shield that had stood south of Neponset Ave. since the early 1980's. Wasn't too impressed with it, can you find it in this photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs811g.jpg&hash=4f4266885a4afa729df48331e6dce86562b39d32)
First, the shield is much smaller, second its missing the south directional banner. Meanwhile, the contractors simply removed the remaining stand-alone shields after Columbia Road and after the off-ramp to MA 3A at Neponset Circle. There are now no old I-93 signs heading south. They also removed what was left of a South US 1 marker after Columbia Rd as well. I'm hoping there will be more progress this week on both the route shield and overhead sign fronts. To see other photos I took from today's trip visit the I-93 photo page at: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Some things I noticed on the trip to Franconia Notch State Park yesterday:
Everything here is in New Hampshire.
Exits 1 to 2 going North were going REALLY slowly due to it being 2 lanes instead of 3. However, one sign said "expect minor delays". Those were not minor.
Exit 5's sign (going north) is ORANGE, not green.
Between two exits somewhere in the 20s, 93 North was a detour for 93 South.
Going south, somewhere in the 20s, there was "left lane closes", then 5 miles later, "right lane closes".
Quote from: 1 on August 12, 2013, 12:25:45 PM
Exit 5's sign (going north) is ORANGE, not green.
Because it is a temporary sign in a temporary location that is part of a temporary interchange setup.
Orange is correct.
This is semi-related.. Signing replacement on I-495 is crawling. I've been on the majority of the road now thanks to a trip to the National Weather Service in Taunton - Exit 38 to Exit 9 I was on - and the remainder of the road northward to Salisbury/I-95 in another recent trip to our beach rental at Salisbury. Basically...nothing's been replaced south of, I'd say Haverhill or so.
Quote from: MVHighways on August 17, 2013, 05:25:08 AM
This is semi-related.. Signing replacement on I-495 is crawling. I've been on the majority of the road now thanks to a trip to the National Weather Service in Taunton - Exit 38 to Exit 9 I was on - and the remainder of the road northward to Salisbury/I-95 in another recent trip to our beach rental at Salisbury. Basically...nothing's been replaced south of, I'd say Haverhill or so.
Last I checked, it was actually Exit 54 to Exit 7. Unless things have changed since I've been down there last.
Quote from: massroadpatriot on August 17, 2013, 11:13:08 AM
Quote from: MVHighways on August 17, 2013, 05:25:08 AM
This is semi-related.. Signing replacement on I-495 is crawling. I've been on the majority of the road now thanks to a trip to the National Weather Service in Taunton - Exit 38 to Exit 9 I was on - and the remainder of the road northward to Salisbury/I-95 in another recent trip to our beach rental at Salisbury. Basically...nothing's been replaced south of, I'd say Haverhill or so.
Last I checked, it was actually Exit 54 to Exit 7. Unless things have changed since I've been down there last.
Yeah, somewhere in that exit 54 vicinity. I keep forgetting the exact number, but I live near there, I could swear 53 and maybe 52 had new signs. As for your exit 7 comment, nothing new yet at exit 9 just to the north.
I take exit 53 every morning, and nothing's changed as long as I've been taking it. Still an older generation of signs.
Same with exit 54. Exit 55, however, does have nice beautiful brand new signage. It's been a while since I've been south of exit 53 though.
A short note about progress on the re-signing project on I-93 from Boston to Randolph. Had a ride back from Boston this evening along I-93 between I-90 and MA 3A (Neponset Circle). Nothing new to report on the mainline, however, the Mass Guide (aka paddle) signs have been updated over the past week or so and now read I-93/US 1 North, Boston heading eastbound into Neponset Circle. The overheads in the vicinity still need to be changed. The only remaining surface signage that needs an update are those on Morrissey Blvd and at the southbound on-ramp across from Exit 14 NB.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 18, 2013, 09:19:42 PM
I take exit 53 every morning, and nothing's changed as long as I've been taking it. Still an older generation of signs.
Same with exit 54. Exit 55, however, does have nice beautiful brand new signage. It's been a while since I've been south of exit 53 though.
Yeah, I knew it was in the 54/55 area. MassDOT is REALLY acting like a snail with this if they only have 55. I may be going back up towards 95 again soon so I'll check on that. My memory apparently corrupted me and made me forget. :P
Just drove 495 SB this morning from Salisbury down to the Mass Pike, and there are no new signs along that stretch. I did notice NB new signs for 495's last exit but that's it. Also in that whole stretch SB there was quite the mix of reassurance shields. Most were small, only saw a couple of the former standard large variety.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 18, 2013, 09:19:42 PM
I take exit 53 every morning, and nothing's changed as long as I've been taking it. Still an older generation of signs.
Same with exit 54. Exit 55, however, does have nice beautiful brand new signage. It's been a while since I've been south of exit 53 though.
The signs on I-495 NB at Exit 55 were last replaced as part of the previous I-95 sign project in the mid-1990s, which is why they were just updated again under the recently completed I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury work.
The signs between Methuen and Exit 55 were last replaced in the early 2000s. They are scheduled to be replaced again beginning in late 2017-early 2018, pending funding.
As for other parts of I-495, design of a re-signing project between Lowell and Methuen (excluding the Marston Street/Commonwealth Drive interchange, which was done as part of the late 2000s reconstruction project) is nearing completion, with bids expected to be let by mid to late fall of 2013. Preliminary design is also progressing on a re-signing project between Taunton and Bolton, which should be let for bids by mid to late 2014 - again, pending funding.
Roadman,
Have you heard anything about any sign replacement on the 'pike? Those signs between 128 and 18/19/20 are still button copy, aren't they? And the ones to the west, they have been in place for at least since the early 90s.
Also drove down I-395 today after I-495. Any reason as to why they've gone to overhead signs on 2-lane roads, where side-mounted signs would've done just fine? Is this something to expect when the signs on I-91 north of Holyoke get replaced? Seems like it would just add more to the project cost, where its not really necessary on a 2 lane road. Actually it's not really necessary on a 4 lane road (see I-95/NH). Are there rules in the MUTCD regarding placement of signs overhead vs side mounted?
Quote from: shadyjay on August 21, 2013, 10:43:54 PMAny reason as to why they've gone to overhead signs on 2-lane roads
Guess on my part is that MassDOT now
typically uses overhead BGS' for primary exit signs when the road in question is an Interstate even if it's only a 4-laner (2 each-direction). Granted, there are some exceptions (example: BGS' for MA 4/225 (Exits 31A/B) along I-95, which is an 8-laner).
Roadman can either confirm/correct/add to the above as needed.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 21, 2013, 10:43:54 PM
Roadman,
Have you heard anything about any sign replacement on the 'pike? Those signs between 128 and 18/19/20 are still button copy, aren't they? And the ones to the west, they have been in place for at least since the early 90s.
Also drove down I-395 today after I-495. Any reason as to why they've gone to overhead signs on 2-lane roads, where side-mounted signs would've done just fine? Is this something to expect when the signs on I-91 north of Holyoke get replaced? Seems like it would just add more to the project cost, where its not really necessary on a 2 lane road. Actually it's not really necessary on a 4 lane road (see I-95/NH). Are there rules in the MUTCD regarding placement of signs overhead vs side mounted?
At this time, sign replacement on the Mass Pike (I-90) is planned to begin in 2015 and 2016 under two contracts: Exit 1 West Stockbridge to Exit 10 Auburn, and Exit 10A Millbury to Exits 18-19-20 Allston. Under the second contract, the remaining mainline button copy signs will be replaced - note that the button copy signs on secondary roads within the Newton Corner and Newton Centre interchanges have just been replaced under the Weston-Newton-Boston sign contract.
It is current MassDOT policy to place all major guide signs on Interstates and freeways overhead (the only exception right now is Route 146 between Millbury and the RI line, which had its signs last updated just before the policy change). This is to insure adequate visibilty for the life of the sign, and eliminates the need for eventual clearing and grubbing of brush - which has been in an issue on previous ground-mount installations. The ground-mount signs on I-95 south prior to 4/225 in Lexington were put in as a temporary measure under the US 3 widening project, and are scheduled to be replaced with overhead signs on cantilever supports as part of the Wellesley to Lexington sign update project presently under construction.
Quote from: roadman on August 22, 2013, 11:37:11 AM
It is current MassDOT policy to place all major guide signs on Interstates and freeways overhead (the only exception right now is Route 146 between Millbury and the RI line, which had its signs last updated just before the policy change). This is to insure adequate visibilty for the life of the sign, and eliminates the need for eventual clearing and grubbing of brush - which has been in an issue on previous ground-mount installations. The ground-mount signs on I-95 south prior to 4/225 in Lexington were put in as a temporary measure under the US 3 widening project, and are scheduled to be replaced with overhead signs on cantilever supports as part of the Wellesley to Lexington sign update project presently under construction.
Hmmm... interesting. It'll be strange to see all overhead signs on I-91 north of Northampton when they are up for replacement.
As a side, CT has moved several signs from overhead to mounted on the side in recent years. But then again, they don't bother replacing their gantries with any regularity during a sign replacement project.... just "spot" replacements here n' there.
Did ConnDOT ever replace the sign which was ruined on I-84 West in Manchester a few years ago? A dump truck or something hit it. There was a small guide sign installed near that spot for the given exit.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 22, 2013, 03:52:06 PM
Did ConnDOT ever replace the sign which was ruined on I-84 West in Manchester a few years ago? A dump truck or something hit it. There was a small guide sign installed near that spot for the given exit.
As of three weeks ago, the "temporary" ground-mount sign was still there. Saw an overhead sign upright adjacent to the sign, but I couldn't tell from the angle if it was the old one that was struck, or a new one awaiting the installation of the cantilever arm.
Well according to here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/sets/72157634544716285/page4/ there is a brand new 3/4 mile advance sign for Exit 63, and the temporary sign (shown on page 3 of that site) is a 1 mile advance sign, so I would think eventually the 1 mile temp sign would come down.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 22, 2013, 05:53:39 PM
Well according to here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/sets/72157634544716285/page4/ there is a brand new 3/4 mile advance sign for Exit 63, and the temporary sign (shown on page 3 of that site) is a 1 mile advance sign, so I would think eventually the 1 mile temp sign would come down.
My bad. I mistook the location for the eastbound Corbins Corner sign that got hit awhile back.
There are complete provisions in place at the south end of I-93 to number both exits. The large pull through panels have the border in the top-left corner squared off to allow for a potential exit tab. This is in addition to a covered up "S" in the word "Exits" on the first advance sign, and spaces for the letters "A" and "B" on all existing tabs. It seems from all of this that the intent is certainly to do this, thus I cannot figure out why MassDOT would not install them — it is badly needed if they really want to eradicate "128 Syndrome" .
Quote from: AMLNet49 on August 30, 2013, 10:15:52 AM
There are complete provisions in place at the south end of I-93 to number both exits. The large pull through panels have the border in the top-left corner squared off to allow for a potential exit tab. This is in addition to a covered up "S" in the word "Exits" on the first advance sign, and spaces for the letters "A" and "B" on all existing tabs. It seems from all of this that the intent is certainly to do this, thus I cannot figure out why MassDOT would not install them — it is badly needed if they really want to eradicate "128 Syndrome" .
Is "128 Syndrome" the fact that they won't put 95 and 128 on the same sign, or is it that 128 goes too far?
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2013, 10:19:54 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on August 30, 2013, 10:15:52 AM
There are complete provisions in place at the south end of I-93 to number both exits. The large pull through panels have the border in the top-left corner squared off to allow for a potential exit tab. This is in addition to a covered up "S" in the word "Exits" on the first advance sign, and spaces for the letters "A" and "B" on all existing tabs. It seems from all of this that the intent is certainly to do this, thus I cannot figure out why MassDOT would not install them — it is badly needed if they really want to eradicate "128 Syndrome" .
Is "128 Syndrome" the fact that they won't put 95 and 128 on the same sign, or is it that 128 goes too far?
In this case, "128 Syndrome" refers to the fact that traffic reporters continue to refer to the section of I-93 between Canton and Braintree as Route 128, even though the 128 designation was officially removed from that section of highway in 1989. Adding exit numbers for both 'legs" of I-95 from I-93 south is expected to emphasize that the 128 overlap ends in Canton. And, I don't know why the full numbers haven't yet been applied to the I-95 signs yet.
The reason 128 does not appear on BGS or LGS panels along the I-95/128 overlap between Canton and Peabody is because, in the early 1990s, when MassHighway was beginning to do sign updates (with Federal money), FHWA specifically dictated that 128 shields not be added to signs.
And, yes, I am aware that some recently-installed LGS panels in Lynnfield and Wakefield have both I-95 and 128 shields. It is my understanding that these signs were installed as part of private development projects, and that the panels will eventually be corrected by MassDOT District 4 forces.
Keep chasing that white whale.
The I-93 Signing Project south of Boston has reached a minor milestone. Now being reported on the MassDOT project listing as being 25% complete. I have not had a chance to check out any recent progress, but hope to remedy this by next weekend.
I do find it interesting that this project has been going on since the Fall of 2011, is only 1/4 complete and only in the past few months have workers gotten to putting in the new overhead foundations. Meanwhile, the I-95 sign project from MA 9 to MA 4/MA 225 started by the end of summer 2012 and the project listing says that it is now 20% complete and contractors are already planning the placement of foundations for their overheads.
I was able to a take a Sunday morning drive along I-93 South of Boston and have some progress to report. Photos and commentary can be found here: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/09/september-i-93-signage-update-plus-mass.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/09/september-i-93-signage-update-plus-mass.html)
"There has been no activity seen to replace the first advance sign for the next exit on I-93 South (Ponkapaug Rd), however this is probably under the domain of the I-93 Add-A-Lane contractors than the folks responsible for sign replacements down to Exit 4."
Is it possible that the Ponkapaug Rd 1-mile advance sign will be included in the Exit 4 overhead assembly?
Quote from: bob7374 on August 01, 2013, 10:58:33 PM
But back to I-93 between Braintree and Randolph. Though no new overhead signs have appeared there has been progress with the ground level signage. New town/city line signs have been installed that are bigger than past ones MassDOT has put up, but are mounted on one centered post. There are now 'Entering Quincy' and 'Entering Randolph' southbound and 'Entering Quincy' northbound. There still needs one more NB for the Braintree town line.
The NB 'Entering Braintree' sign is still missing. As a Braintree resident, I wonder what the signing contractor has against us.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 08, 2013, 04:22:55 PM
I was able to a take a Sunday morning drive along I-93 South of Boston and have some progress to report. Photos and commentary can be found here: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/09/september-i-93-signage-update-plus-mass.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/09/september-i-93-signage-update-plus-mass.html)
Nice detailed report. I'm curious to see how much work gets done before the winter slowdown.
It's coming along, but the street lighting really needs to be re-thought and upgraded, at least to 24. It can be bad interchange at times, and everyone speeds on it(southbound) until you get to 24, and then slam on the brakes! Sucks! The ramps are dark and deceiving, could really use some advanced warning signs and some high mast lighting could help..Going to Canton, not so bad..
Quote from: roadman on August 30, 2013, 12:23:15 PM
In this case, "128 Syndrome" refers to the fact that traffic reporters continue to refer to the section of I-93 between Canton and Braintree as Route 128, even though the 128 designation was officially removed from that section of highway in 1989. Adding exit numbers for both 'legs" of I-95 from I-93 south is expected to emphasize that the 128 overlap ends in Canton. And, I don't know why the full numbers haven't yet been applied to the I-95 signs yet.
I heard on the radio this morning that there was a crash on 128 in
Attleboro...no amount of exit renumbering is going to fix that!
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on September 10, 2013, 12:47:01 AM
It's coming along, but the street lighting really needs to be re-thought and upgraded! Rather have a root-canal and tooth extraction sometimes..bad interchange and everyone speeds on it until you get 24 and then slam on the brakes! Sucks!
My understanding is MassDOT has a project to redo the lighting on the Braintree to Boston portion of I-93 (SE Expressway) in preliminary design.
On my way up to the Road Meet in NH this weekend I did a quick detour to check out progress in the signing project along I-93 between Randolph and Braintree. Saw no changes since last week. From my trip further north up the Expressway into Boston it would appear most of the effort recently has been concentrated on placing foundations for the new overhead signs. Perhaps so the concrete can cure before the real cold weather kicks in. In addition to the several foundations southbound I saw before, there were new foundations northbound in the Neponset Ave to Morrissey Blvd area. No new ground-mounted signage of any type since my last trip.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 23, 2013, 11:58:12 AM
On my way up to the Road Meet in NH this weekend I did a quick detour to check out progress in the signing project along I-93 between Randolph and Braintree. Saw no changes since last week. From my trip further north up the Expressway into Boston it would appear most of the effort recently has been concentrated on placing foundations for the new overhead signs. Perhaps so the concrete can cure before the real cold weather kicks in. In addition to the several foundations southbound I saw before, there were new foundations northbound in the Neponset Ave to Morrissey Blvd area. No new ground-mounted signage of any type since my last trip.
Hopefully they can mount signs on the new foundations during the winter as that is not temperature sensitive.
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 23, 2013, 06:11:15 PM
Hopefully they can mount signs on the new foundations during the winter as that is not temperature sensitive.
Just as long as we don't have an excessively snowy winter, that may be likely.
This project is taking forever...other sign projects seem to be moving a lot quicker. Is a crappy contractor to blame? :confused:
Quote from: southshore720 on October 18, 2013, 05:54:48 PM
This project is taking forever...other sign projects seem to be moving a lot quicker. Is a crappy contractor to blame? :confused:
don't expect it to ramp up anytime soon with the winter settling in.
*Glacial Pace*.. Just sayin' this could have been long done, by now...
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 19, 2013, 01:34:13 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on October 18, 2013, 05:54:48 PM
This project is taking forever...other sign projects seem to be moving a lot quicker. Is a crappy contractor to blame? :confused:
don't expect it to ramp up anytime soon with the winter settling in.
It appears, IMHO that the contractor has some resource problems. This view is based on work on the current project not really starting until the other I-93 signing projects it was working on north of Boston were largely finished (a few months behind schedule) a year after the current project was let. Also, you see lots of work done for a week or two and then nothing for a month of more, implying the company needs to pull its assets from one project to another one or more. Lastly, the work stoppages occur randomly, often with not all work on a current phase being completed. Along the Randolph to Braintree stretch not all the sign foundations were put in before work stopped for a while. Then the foundations and most of the support posts were put up southbound but not northbound. A few weeks later most of the northbound posts, but not all, were put up. They still haven't completed that work.
Hopefully they can get around to putting up overhead signs soon where the posts have been placed, cold weather is not as much an issue with that. I was told in June that the new signs along the southern stretch were to be placed in September. Needless to say October will be over soon. The project has been listed as 26% complete since late August.
I drove through the Randolph to Boston project (southbound) on my way to Rhode Island on Sunday (10-20) and noted that nearly all the uprights for the new overhead signs south of the Braintree split are in place, but without the horizontal arms (for cantilever supports) or members (for full span supports).
Not entirely sure I agree with the process, but this is obviously the contractor's preferred way to stage their work, as they used a similar method for installing the overhead signs and supports on the I-93 Somerville to Wilmington and Wilmington to Methuen sign replacement projects.
With all these ridiculous delays, I would certainly hope that the contractors don't receive the full payment of their bid... They practically threw their timeline right out the window on this one.
Quote from: southshore720 on October 21, 2013, 06:20:53 PM
With all these ridiculous delays, I would certainly hope that the contractors don't receive the full payment of their bid... They practically threw their timeline right out the window on this one.
yeah, most likely theyre going to receive MORE than they bid since i'm sure theyre claiming these delays are not their fault and are due to latent conditions.
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 21, 2013, 06:25:14 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on October 21, 2013, 06:20:53 PM
With all these ridiculous delays, I would certainly hope that the contractors don't receive the full payment of their bid... They practically threw their timeline right out the window on this one.
yeah, most likely theyre going to receive MORE than they bid since i'm sure theyre claiming these delays are not their fault and are due to latent conditions.
Well, it looks like there will be some interesting things to see sign-wise once the project is complete. I contacted the MassDOT records office (thanks for the tip, Roadman) and received copies of all the plans in 49 separate TIF files. After briefly looking through most of them, the most interesting things (that have not been done yet) I've found are:
1. In addition to the new I-93/US 1 guide/paddle signs at entrance ramps, most of which have been installed, the plans indicate they are to install standalone MA 3 North or South trailblazer signs at least at the most important SE Expressway ramps as well (including additional Jct MA 3 signs both ways at the Granite Ave interchange).
2. The reassurance markers to be put up north of exit 7 will have all 3 route shields on one post (suggesting the couple new I-93 South signs put up a couple months ago are not part of the contract work).
3. As indicated by Roadman, the left-hand signs northbound at the Braintree split (Exit 7) will only have I-93 and US 1. North MA 3 trailblazers will be put up on the left support posts. The northbound signs are also not going to have any diagrammatic features, only the southbound signs will and Providence, RI is the only control city for I-93/US 1 South.
4. There will be new warning signs put up at 3 miles and 2 miles out in addition to the existing 1 mile indicating height and truck restrictions for the Big Dig Tunnel.
5. A new I-90 1 1/2 mile advance sign will be placed in the vicinity of the Columbia Rd off-ramp northbound.
6. The signs northbound after Exit 15 put up for the Big Dig will not be replaced but they will be moved onto new support structures.
7. The Exit 15 Columbia Rd control 'cities' are now going to be Dorchester and S. Boston in both directions (the current JFK Library text going south is on a removable panel with the new destinations underneath).
8. There are no indications on the plans that changes are to be made to the signs on the MA 3 North ramp from Washington St that were not swapped out during the MA 3 signing project, nor that US 1 or MA 3 shields or trailblazers will be added to the current signs.
9. The project will also not replace the current overhead exit signage for I-93 on MA 24 NB nor for the MA 37 interchange (which means the button copy I-93 and I-95 shields will remain).
If anyone would like copies of some of the plans, I have a list of what's on each sheet I can forward, particularly if you would like only certain interchanges diagrams or sign only plans.
interesting that much effort is made to include the state route designation (MA 3) on trail blazers/reassurance assemblies on this interstate route whereas MA 128 is intentionally left out of the new I-95 sign work being done. Especially since more people would be looking for signs on how to get to MA 128 then they would the SE expressway/I-93 portion of MA 3. Conspiracy maybe by anti-128 traffic engineers at MADOT/FHWA?
also curious that the MA 37 interchange was excluded, considering its right in the middle of the project limits. Do they intend to replace that signage as part of a standalone project?
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 22, 2013, 01:35:49 AM
interesting that much effort is made to include the state route designation (MA 3) on trail blazers/reassurance assemblies on this interstate route whereas MA 128 is intentionally left out of the new I-95 sign work being done.
MA 128 shields are still being erected (along w/I-95 shields) for the trailblazer/reassurance markers. I've seen some new signs along the Peabody-Burlington stretch.
To my knowledge, any existing MA 128 trailblazer assemblies at the various entrance ramps will likley remain. Roadman can confirm/correct this.
Correct PHLBOS. Current MassDOT policy is to provide trailblazer assemblies for MA 128 at entrance ramps along the I-95/128 overlap section.
Why no diagrammatics northbound for Exit 7? It's a major split! Will the final NB signbridge before the split contain one arrow-per-lane BGS panel (the new generation BGS with the upward facing arrows), or separate BGS panels with downward facing arrows? It's a tricky signage situation in that area because there needs to be advanced signage for MA 3's Exit 19-18...
Quote from: roadman on October 22, 2013, 09:58:18 AM
Correct PHLBOS. Current MassDOT policy is to provide trailblazer assemblies for MA 128 at entrance ramps along the I-95/128 overlap section.
I stand corrected! Long live 128! :-D
Quote from: southshore720 on October 22, 2013, 01:09:38 PM
Why no diagrammatics northbound for Exit 7? It's a major split!
I was wondering that too; especially since the
through-routes (I-93/US 1 North) are making the sharp left.
Quote from: southshore720 on October 22, 2013, 01:09:38 PMIt's a tricky signage situation in that area because there needs to be advanced signage for MA 3's Exit 19-18...
Assuming that the existing control destinations of
Boston and
Cape Cod carry-over onto the new BGS'; a diagramatic panel could be small/narrow enough to allow for that advance-Exit 19-18 BGS for MA 3 South to be erected alongside it.
Quote from: southshore720 on October 22, 2013, 01:09:38 PMWill the final NB signbridge before the split contain one arrow-per-lane BGS panel (the new generation BGS with the upward facing arrows), or separate BGS panels with downward facing arrows?
IMHO, I hope not. The more I look at those layouts; the less I like them. The upward arrows for the straight-through traffic (while I realize the intent of those) just look wrong and the BGS panels become just as tall if not taller than a digrammatic BGS.
My
guess is that MassDOT will just use the same format as the current BGS' in advance of the split: use
LEFT LANES label for I-93/US 1 North and downward arrows for MA 3 South.
The replacement signs on I-93 NB for the Exit 7 MA 3 'split' will not be APL panels.
Quote from: roadman on October 22, 2013, 01:55:34 PM
The replacement signs on I-93 NB for the Exit 7 MA 3 'split' will not be APL panels.
Unless lane balance is changing, APL is not possible because there's no option lane.
Quote from: southshore720 on October 22, 2013, 01:09:38 PM
Why no diagrammatics northbound for Exit 7? It's a major split! Will the final NB signbridge before the split contain one arrow-per-lane BGS panel (the new generation BGS with the upward facing arrows), or separate BGS panels with downward facing arrows? It's a tricky signage situation in that area because there needs to be advanced signage for MA 3's Exit 19-18...
Here's an excerpt of the sign plans for Exit 7 on I-93 Northbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-jufSdzQphOY%2FUm2Xbj8OD7I%2FAAAAAAAABLY%2FZrGeGE1aLrQ%2Fs1600%2Fi93signnbexit7.jpg&hash=1554228612b94824d3f4198dba5064a6870d6027)
I have posted the plans for the southbound Exit 7 signs and another set of plans at the bottom of my latest blog posting covering new I-95 signage (nothing new to report for actual signs on I-93, unfortunately):
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)
It would've been nice if the exit tab said:
MA 3
EXITS 19-18
as not to confuse those unfamiliar with the stretch, but I guess beggars can't be choosers.
Thanks for the maps and good work on your blog, Bob!
Quote from: southshore720 on October 28, 2013, 03:44:36 PM
It would've been nice if the exit tab said:
MA 3
EXITS 19-18
as not to confuse those unfamiliar with the stretch, but I guess beggars can't be choosers.
Given the fact that the Exit 19-18 BGS is situated
next to the Exit 7/MA 3 South exit BGS & located just to the right of it; it should be fairly intuitive even for a novice. Plus not everybody goes by nor refers to the interchanges by exit number in the Greater Boston area.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 28, 2013, 04:07:37 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on October 28, 2013, 03:44:36 PM
It would've been nice if the exit tab said:
MA 3
EXITS 19-18
as not to confuse those unfamiliar with the stretch, but I guess beggars can't be choosers.
Given the fact that the Exit 19-18 BGS is situated next to the Exit 7/MA 3 South exit BGS & located just to the right of it; it should be fairly intuitive even for a novice. Plus not everybody goes by nor refers to the interchanges by exit number in the Greater Boston area.
There is an existing 3/4 mile advance BGS for Exit 19-18 that has an exit tab with the number removed. I always assumed that was to avoid confusion over the exit numbering.
Quote from: spooky on October 28, 2013, 05:27:30 PM
There is an existing 3/4 mile advance BGS for Exit 19-18 that has an exit tab with the number removed. I always assumed that was to avoid confusion over the exit numbering.
The exit 7 sign at the split has greenout behind the 7, but exit 18 doesn't have any. But the tabs are too wide for the numbers (but not wide enough for 19-18). Perhaps the signs date back to when they were exits 69S (?) and 26 (but was it changed to 18 before Burgin Parkway was built?).
Quote from: NE2 on October 28, 2013, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: spooky on October 28, 2013, 05:27:30 PM
There is an existing 3/4 mile advance BGS for Exit 19-18 that has an exit tab with the number removed. I always assumed that was to avoid confusion over the exit numbering.
The exit 7 sign at the split has greenout behind the 7, but exit 18 doesn't have any. But the tabs are too wide for the numbers (but not wide enough for 19-18). Perhaps the signs date back to when they were exits 69S (?) and 26 (but was it changed to 18 before Burgin Parkway was built?).
If it's the BGS' I'm thinking of, with the tab placed at the center-top, it was erected during the 1980s when the Southeast Expressway was overhauled
and just prior to I-93's (Expressway & 128) exit numbers changing. The tabs were blank for about a year after they were first erected.
http://goo.gl/maps/rLqjk (http://goo.gl/maps/rLqjk)
MA 3's exit numbers, south of the Expressway changed a few years prior to the Expressway overhaul (& the fore-mentioned I-93's numbers changing) so the DPW was not going to place any
EXIT 26 tabs (for Exit 19-18) in that area in the 1980s.
As far as the exit tabs are concerned, it appears that the numerals are taller than the tabs themselves. Some of MassDPW's exit tabs from the 1970s featured exit numbers at the same heights as the
EXIT text. It's possible that these tabs were fabricated under those specs.
Clearly, the
7s were placed too close to the
EXIT text; same could be said for the
EXIT 18 tabs.
Since it was likely known within the DPW's inner circle that the exit numbers along the Expressway and now-officially-former-MA 128 were changing (or going to be changed) following the 80s Expressway reconstruction project; no effort nor provisions were made to show the old 128 exit numbering on these then-new BGS'.
BTW, 128's original Exit 69 was for MA 3
North not South. MA 3 South from then-128 South was the through-route. Addtionally, MA 128
piggybacked along MA 3 down to the MA 228 (old MA 128) interchange in Hingham until the late 1960s.
The old 60s-era BGS' featuring large route shields and cardinals occupying the entire left sides of the BGS boards sported the old exit tabs.
The old BGS' read:
EXIT 69
NORTH Quincy
3 Bostonand
SOUTH Weymouth
3 Cape CodNot sure how the BGS for MA 3 South originally read prior to the 60s 128 truncation in terms of route shields.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2013, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 28, 2013, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: spooky on October 28, 2013, 05:27:30 PM
There is an existing 3/4 mile advance BGS for Exit 19-18 that has an exit tab with the number removed. I always assumed that was to avoid confusion over the exit numbering.
The exit 7 sign at the split has greenout behind the 7, but exit 18 doesn't have any. But the tabs are too wide for the numbers (but not wide enough for 19-18). Perhaps the signs date back to when they were exits 69S (?) and 26 (but was it changed to 18 before Burgin Parkway was built?).
If it's the BGS' I'm thinking of, with the tab placed at the center-top, it was erected during the 1980s when the Southeast Expressway was overhauled and just prior to I-93's (Expressway & 128) exit numbers changing. The tabs were blank for about a year after they were first erected.
http://goo.gl/maps/rLqjk (http://goo.gl/maps/rLqjk)
MA 3's exit numbers, south of the Expressway changed a few years prior to the Expressway overhaul (& the fore-mentioned I-93's numbers changing) so the DPW was not going to place any EXIT 26 tabs (for Exit 19-18) in that area in the 1980s.
As far as the exit tabs are concerned, it appears that the numerals are taller than the tabs themselves. Some of MassDPW's exit tabs from the 1970s featured exit numbers at the same heights as the EXIT text. It's possible that these tabs were fabricated under those specs.
Clearly, the 7s were placed too close to the EXIT text; same could be said for the EXIT 18 tabs.
Since it was likely known within the DPW's inner circle that the exit numbers along the Expressway and now-officially-former-MA 128 were changing (or going to be changed) following the 80s Expressway reconstruction project; no effort nor provisions were made to show the old 128 exit numbering on these then-new BGS'.
BTW, 128's original Exit 69 was for MA 3 North not South. MA 3 South from then-128 South was the through-route. Addtionally, MA 128 piggybacked along MA 3 down to the MA 228 (old MA 128) interchange in Hingham until the late 1960s.
The old 60s-era BGS' featuring large route shields and cardinals occupying the entire left sides of the BGS boards sported the old exit tabs.
The old BGS' read:
EXIT 69
NORTH Quincy
3 Boston
and
SOUTH Weymouth
3 Cape Cod
Not sure how the BGS for MA 3 South originally read prior to the 60s 128 truncation in terms of route shields.
I can't remember that far back either, but I do remember a green sign after the split and just before merging with 3 South traffic that may have dated back to that time. It stated something like '128 Exit Numbers End. Exits numbers continued from SE Expressway, Next Exit 26.' This was removed when the Washington St interchange was re-worked in the early 1980's.
Bob7374,
Those fore-mentioned 60s-era BGS' were around until the mid-80s when the Southeast Expressway was completely overhauled. Personally, I do not recall seeing a 128 Exit Numbers End sign; but then again, I never used that particular ramp until the late-80s. That sign was likely a hold-over from when MA 128 extended east of the Braintree Split.
Another wrinkle to the "portion of Route 128 that isn't 128 any more"....Mass DOT is not helping the case:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/main/tabid/1076/ctl/detail/mid/2938/itemid/365/Canton-Milton---Route-128-South-I-93-North---Weekend-paving-work.aspx
QuoteOn Saturday, October 26, 2013, beginning at 8 AM and continuing through 8 PM, there will be multiple lane closures on the section of Route 128 South/I-93 North in the area between Ponkapoag Trail (Exit 3) and Route 24 (Exit 4) in Milton and Randolph to allow work crews to complete roadway paving operations.
Quote from: shadyjay on October 31, 2013, 03:07:09 PM
Another wrinkle to the "portion of Route 128 that isn't 128 any more"....Mass DOT is not helping the case:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/main/tabid/1076/ctl/detail/mid/2938/itemid/365/Canton-Milton---Route-128-South-I-93-North---Weekend-paving-work.aspx
QuoteOn Saturday, October 26, 2013, beginning at 8 AM and continuing through 8 PM, there will be multiple lane closures on the section of Route 128 South/I-93 North in the area between Ponkapoag Trail (Exit 3) and Route 24 (Exit 4) in Milton and Randolph to allow work crews to complete roadway paving operations.
LMAO. score 1 for the pro-128 camp! looks like the PR people at MassDOT have different opinions on 128 than the traffic geeks and fhwa. fine by me- one road, one route.
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 31, 2013, 04:22:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 31, 2013, 03:07:09 PM
Another wrinkle to the "portion of Route 128 that isn't 128 any more"....Mass DOT is not helping the case:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/main/tabid/1076/ctl/detail/mid/2938/itemid/365/Canton-Milton---Route-128-South-I-93-North---Weekend-paving-work.aspx
QuoteOn Saturday, October 26, 2013, beginning at 8 AM and continuing through 8 PM, there will be multiple lane closures on the section of Route 128 South/I-93 North in the area between Ponkapoag Trail (Exit 3) and Route 24 (Exit 4) in Milton and Randolph to allow work crews to complete roadway paving operations.
LMAO. score 1 for the pro-128 camp! looks like the PR people at MassDOT have different opinions on 128 than the traffic geeks and fhwa. fine by me- one road, one route.
I see two reasons for this. First, since the Randolph to Wellelsley project was first proposed in the mid-1970s, it has always been referred to as the "Route 128 "add-a-lane" project, even on the project plans - which refer to the highways as 128/I-95 and 128/I-93. The PR folks get their info from the project manager, who likely uses the '128' description.
Second, unlike the old MassDPW days where the PR folks were engineers who were given PR training, the current breed of MassDOT PR people, although good at what they do, were mostly brought in from outside media companies. Not only are they "generalists", but they also have a reporter's mindset which instinctively tells them "The public calls it 128, so we'll call it 128" - irrespective of the fact that, with one exception (a lone trailblazer sign on the S.E. Expressway south at the Braintree split), all traces of the 128 designation (signs, etc) have long since been removed from the highway between Braintree and Canton.
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2013, 12:43:37 PM
Not only are they "generalists", but they also have a reporter's mindset which instinctively tells them "The public calls it 128, so we'll call it 128" - irrespective of the fact that, with one exception (a lone trailblazer sign on the S.E. Expressway south at the Braintree split), all traces of the 128 designation (signs, etc) have long since been removed from the highway between Braintree and Canton.
Even more reason why I-93 should be routed down Route 3 to the Cape. Then "128" can begin/end at the Braintree split once again. And exit numbers can be "fudged" to meet up with I-95's future mileage numbers. Yes, the first exit may be XX instead of 1, but if that's what it takes....
With I-93 "proposed" to be extended down MA 24, maybe 128 would pick up the slack between there and I-95. Or just better yet, call it I-128. Heck, if CA can do it....
Still find that PR funny, but there are apparently those at MassDOT who refuse to let the old designation die.
In 2004, MassHighway actually considered ending I-93 in Braintree as one option to end the Globe's whining about route numbers, especially the (inaccurate) designation of I-93 south/128 north that the media and the traffic reporters love to use. The Canton to Braintree highway would have been designated I-595 instead.
After due consideration, AASHTO and FHWA finally nixed the idea, citing the AASHTO "2di should begin/end at another 2di" "rule". Not sure how'd they react to extending I-93 all the way to the Cape, especially as MA 3 is hardly close to Interstate standards south of Weymouth.
MA 24 south of Raynham suffers the same "doesn't meet Interstate standards" problem, though much worse, so I wouldn't count on an I-93 extension to Fall River in the near future either. Especially as it seems that the state is starting to put a large effort into the South Coast Rail project, which would make doing a major MA 24 widening project both financially and politically difficult.
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2013, 06:32:29 PM
In 2004, MassHighway actually considered ending I-93 in Braintree as one option to end the Globe's whining about route numbers, especially the (inaccurate) designation of I-93 south/128 north that the media and the traffic reporters love to use. The Canton to Braintree highway would have been designated I-595 instead.
Personally, I'm surprised that proposal was even seriously considered; Globe or no Globe.
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2013, 06:32:29 PM
After due consideration, AASHTO and FHWA finally nixed the idea, citing the AASHTO "2di should begin/end at another 2di" "rule".
And rightly so. IIRC, that was the whole reason for extending I-93 south of Boston (via the Expressway & 128) to Canton (I-95) in the first place.
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2013, 06:32:29 PMNot sure how'd they react to extending I-93 all the way to the Cape, especially as MA 3 is hardly close to Interstate standards south of Weymouth.
For one thing it would make the
Cape Cod destination listings on the Southeast Expressway BGS' more logical with respect to the primary route. :)
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2013, 12:43:37 PM
Second, unlike the old MassDPW days where the PR folks were engineers who were given PR training, the current breed of MassDOT PR people, although good at what they do, were mostly brought in from outside media companies. Not only are they "generalists", but they also have a reporter's mindset which instinctively tells them "The public calls it 128, so we'll call it 128" - irrespective of the fact that, with one exception (a lone trailblazer sign on the S.E. Expressway south at the Braintree split), all traces of the 128 designation (signs, etc) have long since been removed from the highway between Braintree and Canton.
Make that two exceptions.
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=42.228228,-71.015052&spn=0.348793,0.721664&cbp=12,263.21,,0,6.37&layer=c&panoid=DxJZ6xzQdmiaQFuTUR26xA&cbll=42.228228,-71.015052&t=h&z=11
Quote from: spooky on November 04, 2013, 02:10:01 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2013, 12:43:37 PM
Second, unlike the old MassDPW days where the PR folks were engineers who were given PR training, the current breed of MassDOT PR people, although good at what they do, were mostly brought in from outside media companies. Not only are they "generalists", but they also have a reporter's mindset which instinctively tells them "The public calls it 128, so we'll call it 128" - irrespective of the fact that, with one exception (a lone trailblazer sign on the S.E. Expressway south at the Braintree split), all traces of the 128 designation (signs, etc) have long since been removed from the highway between Braintree and Canton.
Make that two exceptions.
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=42.228228,-71.015052&spn=0.348793,0.721664&cbp=12,263.21,,0,6.37&layer=c&panoid=DxJZ6xzQdmiaQFuTUR26xA&cbll=42.228228,-71.015052&t=h&z=11
I believe that
NORTH 128 trailblazer sign is a left-over from the mid-to-late 1980s, when the road still was designated as MA 128 along w/I-93.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 04, 2013, 03:25:48 PM
Quote from: spooky on November 04, 2013, 02:10:01 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2013, 12:43:37 PM
Second, unlike the old MassDPW days where the PR folks were engineers who were given PR training, the current breed of MassDOT PR people, although good at what they do, were mostly brought in from outside media companies. Not only are they "generalists", but they also have a reporter's mindset which instinctively tells them "The public calls it 128, so we'll call it 128" - irrespective of the fact that, with one exception (a lone trailblazer sign on the S.E. Expressway south at the Braintree split), all traces of the 128 designation (signs, etc) have long since been removed from the highway between Braintree and Canton.
Make that two exceptions.
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=42.228228,-71.015052&spn=0.348793,0.721664&cbp=12,263.21,,0,6.37&layer=c&panoid=DxJZ6xzQdmiaQFuTUR26xA&cbll=42.228228,-71.015052&t=h&z=11
I believe that NORTH 128 trailblazer sign is a left-over from the mid-to-late 1980s, when the road still was designated as MA 128 along w/I-93.
It absolutely is, as is the other sign that roadman mentioned.
Quote from: spooky on November 04, 2013, 04:01:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 04, 2013, 03:25:48 PM
Quote from: spooky on November 04, 2013, 02:10:01 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2013, 12:43:37 PM
Second, unlike the old MassDPW days where the PR folks were engineers who were given PR training, the current breed of MassDOT PR people, although good at what they do, were mostly brought in from outside media companies. Not only are they "generalists", but they also have a reporter's mindset which instinctively tells them "The public calls it 128, so we'll call it 128" - irrespective of the fact that, with one exception (a lone trailblazer sign on the S.E. Expressway south at the Braintree split), all traces of the 128 designation (signs, etc) have long since been removed from the highway between Braintree and Canton.
Make that two exceptions.
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=42.228228,-71.015052&spn=0.348793,0.721664&cbp=12,263.21,,0,6.37&layer=c&panoid=DxJZ6xzQdmiaQFuTUR26xA&cbll=42.228228,-71.015052&t=h&z=11
I believe that NORTH 128 trailblazer sign is a left-over from the mid-to-late 1980s, when the road still was designated as MA 128 along w/I-93.
It absolutely is, as is the other sign that roadman mentioned.
Doing a quick check on Google Earth StreetView, the only two 128 trailblazer signs along I-93 South
approaching the Braintree Split do
include the word
TO in them above the
NORTH 128 listing. He may indeed be refering to the sign you just posted, which is actually located at at a split ramp for I-93 North & South from Burgin Parkway (Exit 19 off MA 3). While it's located south of the Braintree Split; it's not along the Southeast Expressway per say*.
*Some old Universal Street Maps still list MA 3 south of Braintree as the Southeast Expressway; but it's commonly-referred-to street name, I believe is Pilgrim's Highway.
I had forgotten about that sign on the service road, and the sign I mentioned on the S. E. Expressway was referring to the trailblazer sign prior to the Braintree split. Although the sign is a trailblazer, instead of a junction or confirmatory marker, MassHighway/MassDOT policy has been that NO references to Route 128 should occur east of Canton.
These particular signs should have been removed as part of the "clean-sweep" that occurred as part of the early 1990s Canton to Braintree I-93 sign replacement project - not sure why they still remain.
It should be noted that the fore-mentioned TO NORTH 128 trailblazer sign with the arrow along I-93 South appears not to be completely state-spec'd (the numerals & letters appear too bold). It might been designed (& erected) by a private contractor doing a state project.
OTOH, the service road sign is clearly MassDPW-spec'd.
According to MassDOT, the I-93 project is now 30% complete, still trailing the later-started I-95 Project at 32%, however. Nothing new on I-93 between Braintree and Randolph based on a trip through there Monday night.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 08, 2013, 11:08:11 AM
According to MassDOT, the I-93 project is now 30% complete, still trailing the later-started I-95 Project at 32%, however. Nothing new on I-93 between Braintree and Randolph based on a trip through there Monday night.
I observed work on the traffic cameras this past week mostly on the SE expressway portion of I-93. It would appear they are progressing North and hopefully will eventually start erecting signs once they finish the Expressway foundations?
Quote from: roadman on June 14, 2013, 12:43:51 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 13, 2013, 05:54:09 PM
I checked out I-93 in the Braintree and Randolph area this morning. It appears most, if not all, the supports for the new overhead signs have been placed. Nothing else new as far as on-road signage. However, when I was exiting at MA 37 in Braintree I saw something curious sign-wise along Forbes Road which parallels the NB side of I-93. These were two new looking Mass Guide Signs which had a few problems. This is a photo of the first one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fi93us3sign1.jpg&hash=74d2b94ce96094ab2b95abba8ffc6a9cd7c003ae)
The second one is identical and can be found at http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign2.jpg (http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign2.jpg). From what was listed on the back of the sign (photo can be seen at http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign1b.jpg (http://www.gribblenation.net/i93us3sign1b.jpg)) the 2 were installed last October. If you look closely at the US shield on both signs, it appears the number was originally 6 and changed to 3. Not quite US 1 which is supposed to be signed, but getting closer. The US shields again have the border not found in typical MassDOT signage. Were they trying to get both US 1 and MA 3 on the sign and ended up with this combination? :confused:
AFAIK, these installs were not part of the current Randolph to Boston project. Private developer perhaps?
I was back in the Braintree area this afternoon. The signs along Forbes Road have been fixed. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1124f.jpg&hash=eacf0009ddaecd723cdd919a966d4edcb84f16de)
This was the only new sign I saw along the I-93 corridor from Braintree to Randolph. No sign related work has been done along I-93 itself for at least the past month. I'll post my SE Expressway observations below.
I traveled up the I-93 / Southeast Expressway north to Morrissey Blvd and back this afternoon. While no new signs have been posted in the past month. I did take some photos of the new guide/paddle signs installed in the Neponset Circle area back in October. Here's the one at the ramp to the Expressway North:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1124b.jpg&hash=0eacf22feaa359b8163c12c9f042cc309f46bbd0)
There has been work on placing foundations for the future overhead signs. It appears most of the foundations have been placed northbound, while heading south there is still a lot to be done between Exits 12 (MA 3A) and 8 (Furnace Brook Parkway), which now will probably have to wait for spring. So far, no support poles have been placed on top of the new foundations in either direction. I did not notice any new ground mounted signs.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 24, 2013, 11:01:51 PMI was back in the Braintree area this afternoon. The signs along Forbes Road have been fixed. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1124f.jpg&hash=eacf0009ddaecd723cdd919a966d4edcb84f16de)
The font on that MA 3 shield (series E) reminds me of the old 70s-era MA 3 shields that were once all along the Southeast Expressway.
It's equally more interesting that the erroneous US 3 shield (which showed traces of a numeral
6 that was whited out) wasn't replaced with a US 1 shield to match the rest of the newer LGS paddles. I guess the MA 3 shield replacement came from a private contractor rather than Mass DOT perhaps?
since the interchange that sign is directing to you is just prior to the 93/3 split, I'd say the MA 3 shield is more appropriate than US 1.
mass_citizen is correct. The principal rationale for using I-93 and MA 3 on the Route 37 signs is the fact that much of the traffic at this location heading for I-93 and MA 3 is coming out of the South Shore Plaza. I've also been told that the Town of Braintree has had issues with this traffic using local streets as a cut-through to get to Union Street and MA 3 south.
Quote from: roadman on November 25, 2013, 03:18:10 PM
mass_citizen is correct. The principal rationale for using I-93 and MA 3 on the Route 37 signs is the fact that much of the traffic at this location heading for I-93 and MA 3 is coming out of the South Shore Plaza. I've also been told that the Town of Braintree has had issues with this traffic using local streets as a cut-through to get to Union Street and MA 3 south.
My bad, I thought that particular LGS was located further north along I-93 (the Southeast Expressway). I must've been mixing Granite St. up w/Granite Ave. (Exit 11).
I spotted on one of the MassDOT traffic cameras last night what appeared to be work to place a new overhead sign along I-93/US 1 South between Exits 5 and 6. I drove through there earlier this afternoon and spotted 3 new overheads. Two advance signs for the MA 37 Exit (1 Mile, 1/2 Mile) heading northbound, here's the 1/2 mile advance sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1206c.jpg&hash=709fd259d70956edc5808589e35f71a69db18ccf)
and a new overhead left-side auxiliary sign indicating for Brockton and New Bedford use MA 24 Exit 5, going south. A photo of that, and the other new MA 37 sign are here:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
very good news. glad they seem to be making forward progress finally
I don't know whether to faint or applaud! :clap:
I've always wondered why Holbrook was never acknowledged for Rte 37 (Exit 6) on the Northbound side. (Even a secondary "Holbrook, Exit 6" would've done the trick.) Since 37 technically ends at I-93, why the need to address W. Quincy? It's easier to access W. Quincy at Exit 8.
Quote from: southshore720 on December 10, 2013, 01:21:33 PM
It's easier to access W. Quincy at Exit 8.
true but not when 93 NB traffic is backed up 8-12 hours a day.
I continued my thoughts about this snubbing on a new thread because I didn't want to go completely off-topic on the I-93 Signage updates.
Quote from: southshore720 on December 10, 2013, 01:21:33 PMI've always wondered why Holbrook was never acknowledged for Rte 37 (Exit 6) on the Northbound side. (Even a secondary "Holbrook, Exit 6" would've done the trick.) Since 37 technically ends at I-93, why the need to address W. Quincy? It's easier to access W. Quincy at Exit 8.
Short and sweet answer: MA 37 didn't always end at I-93 (old MA 128). W. Quincy was a carry-over from when it was originally a northbound MA 37 destination.
At least that was the case for the I-93 Northbound (old 128 Southbound) exit signage.
The only reason why MassDOT changed the I-93 Southbound exit signage (W. Quincy replacing Holbrook) was to mimic the northbound sigange; guess on my part. Nonetheless that one surprises me as well. When the current BGS' for the Braintree Split were erected in the mid-1980s, the old 60s-era BGS' for this exit (from I-93 North/MA 128 South) actually had the
W. eliminated from the BGS'. The likely reason may have been due to
Quincy was no longer listed for the then-new I-93 northbound signage; the old 60s-era BGS had Quincy/Boston listed as North 3 destinations.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 10, 2013, 02:15:55 PM
The only reason why MassDOT changed the I-93 Southbound exit signage (W. Quincy replacing Holbrook) was to mimic the northbound sigange; guess on my part. Nonetheless that one surprises me as well.
I'm pretty sure the Braintree/Holbrook pair is being retained SB...was there a change in the plans?
Quote from: southshore720 on December 10, 2013, 11:39:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 10, 2013, 02:15:55 PM
The only reason why MassDOT changed the I-93 Southbound exit signage (W. Quincy replacing Holbrook) was to mimic the northbound sigange; guess on my part. Nonetheless that one surprises me as well.
I'm pretty sure the Braintree/Holbrook pair is being retained SB...was there a change in the plans?
My bad, I misread Bob7374's caption. My earlier post has since been modified to delete the error.
Quote from: southshore720 on December 10, 2013, 11:39:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 10, 2013, 02:15:55 PM
The only reason why MassDOT changed the I-93 Southbound exit signage (W. Quincy replacing Holbrook) was to mimic the northbound sigange; guess on my part. Nonetheless that one surprises me as well.
I'm pretty sure the Braintree/Holbrook pair is being retained SB...was there a change in the plans?
It is, both the plans and the new overhead sign they've put up tonight retain the Braintree/Holbrook text. The new sign is visible on MassDOT's I-93 SB Exit 7 traffic camera for those who can't wait until I get an official photo.
Quote from: bob7374 on December 12, 2013, 09:51:50 PM
Bob7374, you recent post came a tad late; well after I acknowledged and corrected my erroneous comment.
For those on FB, Bob posted the MassDOT traffic-cam shot there as well.
Quote from: bob7374 on December 12, 2013, 09:51:50 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 10, 2013, 11:39:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 10, 2013, 02:15:55 PM
The only reason why MassDOT changed the I-93 Southbound exit signage (W. Quincy replacing Holbrook) was to mimic the northbound sigange; guess on my part. Nonetheless that one surprises me as well.
I'm pretty sure the Braintree/Holbrook pair is being retained SB...was there a change in the plans?
It is, both the plans and the new overhead sign they've put up tonight retain the Braintree/Holbrook text. The new sign is visible on MassDOT's I-93 SB Exit 7 traffic camera for those who can't wait until I get an official photo.
Here's one of the three new MA 37 overheads put up last night: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1213c.jpg&hash=4dabd21595107d2ec6ed733b718b1905ae69c104)
The others can be found on my I-93 photo page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
In a continuation of the contractor's pattern, three new signs have been installed this week for Exit 5A/B MA 28. Here's the 1/2 mile advance heading southbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93sign1221a.jpg&hash=a1029e7dce0291fe335fd69ea87895fd455d7a71)
They also placed a 1 mile advance southbound and a 3/4 mile advance northbound between the on- and off-ramps from MA 24. It appears that all the cantilever overheads have now been placed northbound between Exits 4 and 7 while one still remains to be placed (the 1 mile, left-side, advance for MA 24) southbound.
In other interesting sign news, they've also put up left-hand exit tabs on the preexisting I-95 diagrammatic overheads in Canton. Here's the 1/2 mile advance signage:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93sign1221c.jpg&hash=1b53bdcb56dd19ebb068a57c64f448a6ae696ee7)
The 2-mile advance exit tab has been updated to indicated Exits 1A and B, and the gore sign at the I-95 South off-ramp has been updated as well. I've included photos of all the new signs (or exit tabs) I took today on the I-93 signage page (the I-95 exit tab pics are near the bottom):
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
i am getting a 404 error
only works if i copy and paste. for some reason when i click it directly it takes me to an address ending "93signs.html" instead of "93photos"
Because:
Quote from: bob7374 on December 21, 2013, 11:29:19 AM
[url http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93signs.html]http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html[/url]
Quote from: bob7374 on December 21, 2013, 11:29:19 AM
In other interesting sign news, they've also put up left-hand exit tabs on the preexisting I-95 diagrammatic overheads in Canton. Here's the 1/2 mile advance signage:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93sign1221c.jpg&hash=1b53bdcb56dd19ebb068a57c64f448a6ae696ee7)
The 2-mile advance exit tab has been updated to indicated Exits 1A and B, and the gore sign at the I-95 South off-ramp has been updated as well. I've included photos of all the new signs (or exit tabs) I took today on the I-93 signage page (the I-95 exit tab pics are near the bottom):
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Great to hear! Given that the lane configuration depicted on the sign has been in place for over a year now, it's about time.
Quote from: bob7374 on December 21, 2013, 11:29:19 AM
In other interesting sign news, they've also put up left-hand exit tabs on the preexisting I-95 diagrammatic overheads in Canton. Here's the 1/2 mile advance signage:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93sign1221c.jpg&hash=1b53bdcb56dd19ebb068a57c64f448a6ae696ee7)
Granted, the I-shields appear slightly blurred but it looks like the
9s on both those I-shields are tilted/reclined. Looking at photos of the other BGS'; this 1/2 mile advance BGS appears to be the only ones (for this interchange anyway) that have this abnormality.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2013, 09:21:10 AM
Granted, the I-shields appear slightly blurred but it looks like the 9s on both those I-shields are tilted/reclined. Looking at photos of the other BGS'; this 1/2 mile advance BGS appears to be the only ones (for this interchange anyway) that have this abnormality.
Here's a view of the 2-mile advance sign to compare the I-95 shields above with:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93sign1228b.jpg&hash=57e1a92fd3ff995dd65f2db6481ad139799ecebb)
Also, I drove the length of the SE Expressway both north and south on Christmas Day. Nothing new to report sign project-wise. No new foundations for what I could see, no support posts have been placed on any existing foundations, and no other paddle/guide signs have been replaced along intersecting roadways north of Neponset Circle.
I had a chance to check out parts of the SE Expressway today as I had an appointment in Cambridge and took the Red Line, which parallels I-93 north of Neponset, from North Quincy. The only new signage I can report seeing are new I-93/US 1 Mass. Guide or paddle signs have been placed along the roads leading to the Columbia Rd interchange. These replaced MA 3 only paddle signs dating from the early 1970s that were at the entrances to the rotary a block to the east and viewable from the subway. I hope to get up there by car soon to take some photos. That would leave only 2 other paddle signs that need replacing, if they haven't already, one at the SB entrance ramp from Freeport St/Morrissey Blvd (Exit 14) and a NB sign at Southampton Street (Exit 16).
I drove home via the southern end of the Expressway and can report nothing new with the exception of a new cantilever overhead for the HOV lane just north of the Braintree split having been placed on a support post that was put up a couple months ago. Nothing new report at all since the end of the year between Exits 7 and 4 in both directions on I-93/US 1.
I still can't believe the contractor was allowed to milk this signing project for 3 years...I guess that's what you get when you accept the lowest bidder! :rolleyes:
Quote from: southshore720 on January 28, 2014, 01:54:36 AM
I still can't believe the contractor was allowed to milk this signing project for 3 years...I guess that's what you get when you accept the lowest bidder! :rolleyes:
I noticed today that MassDOT's project listing has pushed back the completion of the project to this summer from mid-April. Given its listed as still only 30% complete, that's probably still too optimistic. Especially, as Roadman has pointed out, the same firm had the winning bid for an another signage project on I-495.
Quote from: bob7374 on January 28, 2014, 11:07:48 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 28, 2014, 01:54:36 AM
I still can't believe the contractor was allowed to milk this signing project for 3 years...I guess that's what you get when you accept the lowest bidder! :rolleyes:
I noticed today that MassDOT's project listing has pushed back the completion of the project to this summer from mid-April. Given its listed as still only 30% complete, that's probably still too optimistic. Especially, as Roadman has pointed out, the same firm had the winning bid for an another signage project on I-495.
I believe there were also recent posts about the same contractor having the winning bid on the Lowell Connector and I-290 sign projects.
Quote from: bob7374 on December 30, 2013, 10:36:07 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2013, 09:21:10 AM
Granted, the I-shields appear slightly blurred but it looks like the 9s on both those I-shields are tilted/reclined. Looking at photos of the other BGS'; this 1/2 mile advance BGS appears to be the only ones (for this interchange anyway) that have this abnormality.
Here's a view of the 2-mile advance sign to compare the I-95 shields above with:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93sign1228b.jpg&hash=57e1a92fd3ff995dd65f2db6481ad139799ecebb)
Also, I drove the length of the SE Expressway both north and south on Christmas Day. Nothing new to report sign project-wise. No new foundations for what I could see, no support posts have been placed on any existing foundations, and no other paddle/guide signs have been replaced along intersecting roadways north of Neponset Circle.
The signs look very "professional", for lack of a better word. Like they're made to last. And from what I can tell, they're nearly flawless in design - the only thing I would question is the lack of a space between the "1" and "B" in the exit tab - I thought the latest MUTCD required something like 'EXIT 1 B-A', which is much like it was a long time ago.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 28, 2014, 08:17:55 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 30, 2013, 10:36:07 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2013, 09:21:10 AM
Granted, the I-shields appear slightly blurred but it looks like the 9s on both those I-shields are tilted/reclined. Looking at photos of the other BGS'; this 1/2 mile advance BGS appears to be the only ones (for this interchange anyway) that have this abnormality.
Here's a view of the 2-mile advance sign to compare the I-95 shields above with:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93sign1228b.jpg&hash=57e1a92fd3ff995dd65f2db6481ad139799ecebb)
Also, I drove the length of the SE Expressway both north and south on Christmas Day. Nothing new to report sign project-wise. No new foundations for what I could see, no support posts have been placed on any existing foundations, and no other paddle/guide signs have been replaced along intersecting roadways north of Neponset Circle.
The signs look very "professional", for lack of a better word. Like they're made to last. And from what I can tell, they're nearly flawless in design - the only thing I would question is the lack of a space between the "1" and "B" in the exit tab - I thought the latest MUTCD required something like 'EXIT 1 B-A', which is much like it was a long time ago.
These signs were installed under one of the I-95/I-93 "Add-A-Lane" contracts (Randolph to Westwood Roadway I project IIRC), which was designed according to the 2003 MUTCD. Providing a discernable space between number and suffix on exit numbers didn't become a requirement until the 2009 MUTCD.
I will also note that these signs were fabricated and installed by a different contractor than the one doing the Randolph to Boston project.
Quote from: roadman on January 29, 2014, 11:49:20 AMProviding a discernable space between number and suffix on exit numbers didn't become a requirement until the 2009 MUTCD.
I have to ask this (not to you personally, Roadman); was there
really a problem with people mistaking Exit XB for Exit X8 (X denoting a generic interchange number, I'm obviously not referring to the Canton I-93/95 interchange example) that triggered the change (in the MUTCD standard)? IMHO, that would be the only
logical reasoning for mandating such.
With regards to the I-93/95 exit BGS' in Canton: not to pick on you Roadman but given the fact that the LEFT EXIT 1B tabs were just recently added and the fact that the
1 exit numeral for the I-95 South exit was previously erected with the entire BGS'; shouldn't the A-B retro-fits been done in accordance to the 2009 MUTCD standards? When were the design documents for that signing contract issued?
I realize that such would've likely triggered a change notice (or a field change) but given that the exit number is a single-digit, numberwise; one could've simply shifted the existing
1s slightly to the left or placed a whole new placard with the new spacing over the exit panels without a change in overall signwidth.
Note: I personally don't care either way regarding how suffixed exit numbers are signed spacingwise; I'm just asking the above out of curiousity.
As usual, PHLBOS raises some interesting questions here.
Regarding the "discernible space" between an exit number and suffix letter now required by the 2009 MUTCD, this sounds like more FHWA human factors specialists deciding national standards without the extensive field research and "real world" test installations that used to be required before anything made it to being an MUTCD requirement. Sure, this one's minor - and can easily be adopted in states like Massachusetts that have adopted minimum exit tab widths based on various number-letter combinations. However, my gripe is that, similar to APL signs, this type of "instant standard" represents a disturbing trend within FHWA and the NCUTCD where an increasing number of things have gone from "good idea" to "national mandate" at the blink of an eye. (and yes - I'll get down off my soapbox now).
Now, back to the subject at hand (I-93 signing). IIRC, the final sign panel design for the Randolph to Westwood segment of the I-95/I-93 "add-a-lane" project was completed sometime in mid to late 2008. Note that MassDOT did not officially adopt the 2009 MUTCD until sometime in late 2010. By this time. construction of the Randolph to Westwood project was already underway.
I cannot figure any logical reason for not posting the "LEFT" and "1A, 1B" tabs on the new I-95 diagrammatic signs until over a year after the signs were initially installed, especially as those tabs were included in the original panel designs (perhaps the "Keep 128 Forever" forces - who refuse to officially acknowledge that the 128 designation has ended in Canton since 1989 - had something to do with it). The fact that the signing under the project was installed by a subcontractor on a larger construction project, as opposed to the typical MassDOT sign replacement contract where the sign and support installer is the principal contractor, may explain why the necessary tabs were missing for so long.
Quote from: roadman on January 29, 2014, 06:25:06 PMHowever, my gripe is that, similar to APL signs, this type of "instant standard" represents a disturbing trend within FHWA and the NCUTCD where an increasing number of things have gone from "good idea" to "national mandate" at the blink of an eye.
I am not so sure the NCUTCD can be included in the blame, except as an (unwitting?) enabler. In the run-up to
MUTCD 2009, the NCUTCD was urging a form of passive resistance, where instead of making comments on specific items in the rulemaking notice, draft
MUTCD text, and draft
MUTCD figures, state DOT engineers and other professional commenters would instead complain about the excessively wide scope of the changes and the limited amount of time available for review and comment.
I thought this was a dumb strategy because my own experience of the earlier
MUTCD rulemaking (leading to the 2003 edition) was that FHWA paid careful attention to specific comments while ignoring others that were broad in scope, including "meta" ones dealing with the structure of the rulemaking process. But a surprising number of state DOT commenters did as the NCUTCD suggested, and later found themselves having to cohabit with objectionable provisions which they had not addressed specifically in their comments.
I noticed over the last couple days that the contractor has replaced the SB advance overhead diagrammatic signs for Exit 4.
One notable change is that "TO 95" is added to the mainline legend. The old sign had "South 93 1" in a vertical stack, as can be seen in the distance in Bob's picture here:
Quote from: bob7374 on December 21, 2013, 11:29:19 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93sign1221a.jpg&hash=a1029e7dce0291fe335fd69ea87895fd455d7a71)
The new sign has:
SOUTH
93 1
TO 95
The new sign has:
SOUTH
93 1
TO 95
That's consistent with how it's labeled at the MA 24 split. I'm assuming that "Fall River" is now the control city for 24 South on I-93 South instead of "Brockton"?
Quote from: southshore720 on January 30, 2014, 08:24:50 AM
The new sign has:
SOUTH
93 1
TO 95
That's consistent with how it's labeled at the MA 24 split. I'm assuming that "Fall River" is now the control city for 24 South on I-93 South instead of "Brockton"?
you are correct in your assumption.
Quote from: spooky on January 30, 2014, 09:35:43 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 30, 2014, 08:24:50 AM
The new sign has:
SOUTH
93 1
TO 95
That's consistent with how it's labeled at the MA 24 split. I'm assuming that "Fall River" is now the control city for 24 South on I-93 South instead of "Brockton"?
you are correct in your assumption.
As is it consistent with the signage plans. I am currently leaning towards doing a quick road trip out there on Super Bowl Sunday morning. I'll try to get photos of the new sign, or hopefully, signs to post on my I-93 photo site.
Quote from: bob7374 on January 30, 2014, 11:13:47 AM
Quote from: spooky on January 30, 2014, 09:35:43 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 30, 2014, 08:24:50 AM
The new sign has:
SOUTH
93 1
TO 95
That's consistent with how it's labeled at the MA 24 split. I'm assuming that "Fall River" is now the control city for 24 South on I-93 South instead of "Brockton"?
you are correct in your assumption.
As is it consistent with the signage plans. I am currently leaning towards doing a quick road trip out there on Super Bowl Sunday morning. I'll try to get photos of the new sign, or hopefully, signs to post on my I-93 photo site.
The two signs showed up on consecutive days, so maybe something else is going up tonight.
I spotted the new HOV zipper lane entrance overhead sign this morning on I-93 N after the Rte 3 merge. Why did they use a green background? Isn't the standard to use black font on white background for all HOV signage (with the diamond emblem)?
Quote from: southshore720 on February 01, 2014, 09:36:36 AM
I spotted the new HOV zipper lane entrance overhead sign this morning on I-93 N after the Rte 3 merge. Why did they use a green background? Isn't the standard to use black font on white background for all HOV signage (with the diamond emblem)?
Per the 2009 MUTCD, advance signs for HOV lane entrances on freeways are considered to be guide signs, so they are now white on green. However, HOV related signs (or banners on signs) for freeways indicating HOV hours of operation or other regulations/restrictions are considered regulatory, and are still black on white.
These new standards were promulgated in large part due to the Atlanta bus crash in 2007, where the driver mistook a left exit ramp for a continuation of the HOV lane, went up the ramp, and couldn't stop before running off the end of the bridge (the ramp ended in a T intersection).
Quote from: roadman on February 01, 2014, 06:38:13 PM
Per the 2009 MUTCD, advance signs for HOV lane entrances on freeways are considered to be guide signs, so they are now white on green. However, HOV related signs (or banners on signs) for freeways indicating HOV hours of operation or other regulations/restrictions are considered regulatory, and are still black on white.
These new standards were promulgated in large part due to the Atlanta bus crash in 2007, where the driver mistook a left exit ramp for a continuation of the HOV lane, went up the ramp, and couldn't stop before running off the end of the bridge (the ramp ended in a T intersection).
Here's a photo of the sign in question:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs2214a.jpg&hash=a680122feb69be773c020ea747aa5594a569f1a8)
Here's a photo of the newly replaced MA 24 1 Mile Advance sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs2214g.jpg&hash=3553ded09eb18692038e24f6dd617fd686e434e2)
There is also a new overhead 1/2 mile advance sign. They also have replaced the overheads at the MA 28 interchange both south and northbound as well. This leaves only the remaining MA 24 signage at the ramp southbound, and MA 28 North signage northbound (along with a right-hand support for the combination VMS/ MA 28 exit overhead) to complete the work for all the exits south of the Split. They still need to put up all the new signs northbound for Exit 7 itself and put up new reassurance markers to complete the work from MA 24 to MA 3. No new work on the SE Expressway portion that I could see when I drove it this morning.
You can view all the photos I took this morning, including new paddle signs along Columbia Rd on my I-93 photo page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on February 02, 2014, 03:28:24 PM
Here's a photo of the newly replaced MA 24 1 Mile Advance sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs2214g.jpg&hash=3553ded09eb18692038e24f6dd617fd686e434e2)
The only critique I have regarding the arrangement of that diagramatic BGS is with the lop-sided green-space.
I would've either moved the entire
SOUTH 93 1 TO 95 legend down to a point where the
SOUTH legend aligns with the top of the vertical arrow-head or arranged the
SOUTH 24 part of the legend vertically similar to the
SOUTH 93 1 arrangement. Such practice was used on the original late-80s vintage I-95/MA 128 interchange diagramatic BGS'.
Doing the suggested-former would've reduced the overall BGS panel height.
Another way to address that large green-space, contentwise, would've been to add a 2nd MA 24 South control destination (Brockton perhaps?) to the main panel. Yes I'm aware that such practice is now not normal cookie-cutter MUTCD; but adding
Brockton to the main panel still keeps the gantry well below the maximum 4-control destinations-per-gantry
standard that
supposedly exists.
Maybe one of our BGS artists in the
Road-related Illustrations threads can play around with this panel and see what they come up with.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 03, 2014, 02:44:58 PM
Maybe one of our BGS artists in the Road-related Illustrations threads can play around with this panel and see what they come up with.
Here's what I've devised:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA24_DiagrammaticRedo_zpsbe33aacb.png&hash=96f7f9e48fe8747a464cf738f776d348d7ac2507)
The MA 24, I-93 / US 1 shields are all aligned so that the left legend isn't so far down on the left side of the sign. I myself would add a control city to the right side of the sign, since I don't like guessing where you may end up, but I'm not familiar with the area. I did see Providence RI as a possibility. If anyone wants to throw in some suggestions, I'll revise my sign based on your input.
Also sorry if the scaling is off - diagrammatic signs are done with Inkscape, and sometimes I goof on the scale of the diagram. This throws off my other things, so I attempted to adjust accordingly, but I may have messed some things up.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 03, 2014, 03:43:14 PMHere's what I've devised:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA24_DiagrammaticRedo_zpsbe33aacb.png&hash=96f7f9e48fe8747a464cf738f776d348d7ac2507)
The MA 24, I-93 / US 1 shields are all aligned so that the left legend isn't so far down on the left side of the sign. I myself would add a control city to the right side of the sign, since I don't like guessing where you may end up, but I'm not familiar with the area. I did see Providence RI as a possibility. If anyone wants to throw in some suggestions, I'll revise my sign based on your input.
Nice job. FYI,
Providence, RI would not be a MA 24 destination but rather a I-93/95 destination.
Personally, I would move the US 1 shield to a post-mounted trailblazer (due to US 1 multiplexing w/I-93 for roughly 18-19 miles) and add either
Canton of or Dedham for a I-93/95 destination. Such an addition would not cause the BGS to be wider.
Personally, I'm a bit more old-school and would have 2 destinations for both directions featured. For I-93 South to I-95; I would list Dedham (or Canton) & Providence, RI.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 03, 2014, 03:43:14 PM
Also sorry if the scaling is off - diagrammatic signs are done with Inkscape, and sometimes I goof on the scale of the diagram. This throws off my other things, so I attempted to adjust accordingly, but I may have messed some things up.
No worries, it's a good start. My only critique would be that the route shields need to be slightly larger.
Here's two more versions of the sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA24_DiagrammaticRedo_zpsb7e49a58.png&hash=117b1d0a87bf84ae5d24e626b9fdab395cb02a00)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA24_DiagrammaticRedo2_zps14872e5b.png&hash=95ba91508ba789fa9378ebcd6f2d81f2a49ef1c5)
The first sign still contains the I-93/US 1 multiplex. However, in order to be able to accommodate the 'Providence RI' legend, I had to expand the sign's width - but this presented an excellent opportunity to re-align the TO I-95 legend to the same line as the rest of the shields, making the sign look more uniform.
The second sign removes the US 1 shield from the sign entirely, and the I-95 shield is once again able to be brought up from it's location to make it look better. The small destination legend means the sign is roughly the same size as the sign without the destinations.
Also, I used the SVG versions of both the US and Interstate shields rather than my raster versions (normally used in PowerPoint), which results in a much crisper image. These signs are comprised entirely of vector elements. The quality speaks for itself.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 03, 2014, 05:08:49 PM
Here's two more versions of the sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA24_DiagrammaticRedo_zpsb7e49a58.png&hash=117b1d0a87bf84ae5d24e626b9fdab395cb02a00)
Not bad.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 03, 2014, 05:08:49 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA24_DiagrammaticRedo2_zps14872e5b.png&hash=95ba91508ba789fa9378ebcd6f2d81f2a49ef1c5)
For I-93 South destinations, one either uses
Dedham or Canton not both. Even if both were used on the same I-93 South BGS panel, Canton would be before Dedham. Note: Canton is I-93's southern-most destination whereas Dedham is an I-95 (North)/US 1 destination a few miles north of I-93's end. Dedham was included in past signage because it was originally a MA 128 destination as well as a post-1974 I-95 North destination.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 03, 2014, 05:08:49 PM
The first sign still contains the I-93/US 1 multiplex. However, in order to be able to accommodate the 'Providence RI' legend, I had to expand the sign's width - but this presented an excellent opportunity to re-align the TO I-95 legend to the same line as the rest of the shields, making the sign look more uniform.
Widening the BGS board to include
Providence, RI was an automatic given.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 03, 2014, 05:08:49 PM
The second sign removes the US 1 shield from the sign entirely, and the I-95 shield is once again able to be brought up from it's location to make it look better. The small destination legend means the sign is roughly the same size as the sign without the destinations.
See earlier comment regarding the use of Canton or Dedham and not both.
Bleh. Your original post said 'Canton of Dedham' - my brain didn't process that as 'or' like it should've been.
However, because ZeffyDOT can not keep wasting material to replace the sign, a piece of greenout shall be used to remove Dedham from the sign. :bigass:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA24_DiagrammaticRedoGO_zpsf8329444.png&hash=6b2d25aadd4abb3d083578769e13e744df00b1f9)
All in all, I probably would prefer the Providence RI version, but that's me.
Brockton should be listed before Fall River.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 03, 2014, 06:20:56 PM
Bleh. Your original post said 'Canton of Dedham' - my brain didn't process that as 'or' like it should've been.
Clearly a typo on my part. I indeed intended to use
or.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 03, 2014, 06:20:56 PM
All in all, I probably would prefer the Providence RI version, but that's me.
Same here.
BTW, when I chimed in regarding modifications to the BGS in question; I was implying that such would be done in the
Road-Related Illustrations thread rather than here. It wasn't my intention to hijack Bob7374's sign installation update thread into BGS design exercise.
Quote from: spooky on February 04, 2014, 08:57:57 AM
Brockton should be listed before Fall River.
:wow: Wow, I must've been either tired or overworked to completely miss that one in my previous comments. You're right;
Brockton should be placed above/before
Fall River.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 04, 2014, 12:11:14 PM
BTW, when I chimed in regarding modifications to the BGS in question; I was implying that such would be done in the Road-Related Illustrations thread rather than here. It wasn't my intention to hijack Bob7374's sign installation update thread into BGS design exercise.
Quote from: spooky on February 04, 2014, 08:57:57 AM
Brockton should be listed before Fall River.
:wow: Wow, I must've been either tired or overworked to completely miss that one in my previous comments. You're right; Brockton should be placed above/before Fall River.
Oops. Sorry about that Bob7374 - I'll probably go make a Redesign This! entry and see what others can come up with.
I observed another new BGS Southbound at the Braintree split
There's some interesting background history about the diagrammatic signs on I-93 southbound at Route 24. When the original signs were installed in 1992, they only had a "Brockton" destination for Route 24 south, and no destinations for I-93 south (not even "TO 95" under the I-93 and US 1 shields).
Shortly after the signs were put in, MassHighway was approached by the state legislative delegation representing New Bedford and Fall River. Apparently, there is a Massachusetts legislative act passed sometime in the 1960s that directed MassDPW to place Brockton, Fall River, and New Bedford on the destination signing on Route 128 (now I-93) southbound at Route 24. At one point back in the old plywood panel/monotube support days, all three destinations actually appeared on a single sign panel.
As a result of this issue, MassHighway petitioned FHWA to add "Fall River" to the diagrammatic signs. Their rationale was that, as there were no destinations posted for I-93 south, adding a second destination for Route 24 south (which could easily be accommodated within the panel dimensions), although a violation of MUTCD standards regarding "no more than one destination per route on a diagrammatic sign", did not violate the rule of "no more than two destinations total on a diagrammatic sign".
However, despite support from the local legislators, as well as the area Congressman and Senator, FHWA refused MassHighway's request. This is why supplemental signs were installed at the time, and were recently replaced under both the I-93 Randolph to Boston sign project and the Randolph to Westwood segment of the I-93/I-95 "add-a-lane" project. The only difference is that the original supplemental signs stated "Fall River New Bedford" whereas the new signs state "Brockton New Bedford", "Fall River" having replaced "Brockton" on the overheads.
So, in summary, while I like the alternative designs presented here, it is highly unlikely that FHWA would agree to any of them.
Quote from: roadman on February 05, 2014, 05:03:27 PMSo, in summary, while I like the alternative designs presented here, it is highly unlikely that FHWA would agree to any of them.
Fair enough, but that still doesn't completely explain why the panel height of the new I-93/MA 24 diagramatic BGS' are abnormally large.
As I mentioned earlier; one could've just slid the entire
SOUTH 93 1 TO 95 legend down a bit and the overall panel wouldn't need to be as tall. Such would still have kept the BGS MUTCD compliant.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2014, 05:36:01 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 05, 2014, 05:03:27 PMSo, in summary, while I like the alternative designs presented here, it is highly unlikely that FHWA would agree to any of them.
Fair enough, but that still doesn't completely explain why the panel height of the new I-93/MA 24 diagramatic BGS' are abnormally large.
As I mentioned earlier; one could've just slid the entire SOUTH 93 1 TO 95 legend down a bit and the overall panel wouldn't need to be as tall. Such would still have kept the BGS MUTCD compliant.
Actually, the proper way to reduce the sign height and remain MUTCD compliant would have been to put "SOUTH" to the right of the I-93 and US 1 shields, instead of above. This change would maintain the "route shield lined with arrowhead" requirement. As for your question about why the sign was designed the way it was, I do not have an answer for you.
Quote from: roadman on February 06, 2014, 11:30:45 AMActually, the proper way to reduce the sign height and remain MUTCD compliant would have been to put "SOUTH" to the right of the I-93 and US 1 shields, instead of above. This change would maintain the "route shield lined with arrowhead" requirement.
The reasoning for placing
SOUTH above the I-93 & US 1 shields are obvious in terms of keeping the overall width of the BGS at bay.
Such practice was done with both the present and previous BGS' along I-95 in Burlington for the diagramatic I-95/US 3 North/Middlesex Tpk. interchange (Exits 32A-B). For the I-95 North/US 3 South diagramatic; one could've very easily either stacked the
NORTH 95 SOUTH 3 legend vertically in either a 4-line or 2-line fashion.
4-line:
NORTH
95
SOUTH
32-line:
NORTH 95
SOUTH 3vs. Current I-95/US 3 diagramatic BGS in Burlington, MA (http://goo.gl/maps/iPO6X)
I think you missed my point PHLBOS. On the new Route 24 signs, placing "TO 95" to the right of the "SOUTH 93 1" information does not save you panel height unless you align the cardinal direction with the arrowhead and lower the shields to the arrow shaft. That contradicts MUTCD requirements.
As for the diagrammatics in Burlington at US 3, as I-95 and US 3 are two different directions, placing the direction above each shield is the most efficient use of space, both from a sign design perspective and a visual perspective for drivers. Granted, the shields aren't quite in line with the arrowhead, as required by the MUTCD, but as the saying goes "close enough for government work".
Quote from: roadman on February 06, 2014, 03:14:53 PMOn the new Route 24 signs, placing "TO 95" to the right of the "SOUTH 93 1" information does not save you panel height unless you align the cardinal direction with the arrowhead and lower the shields to the arrow shaft. That contradicts MUTCD requirements.
I never said anything about moving the
TO 95 text to the right of the
SOUTH 93 1 legend whatsoever. I was simply saying
slide the entire legend in its current arrangement downward enough so that the
SOUTH aligns with the top of the arrow head. There looks to be about 3 to 4 feet of blank green-space above that upright arrowhead.
Quote from: roadman on February 06, 2014, 03:14:53 PMAs for the diagrammatics in Burlington at US 3, as I-95 and US 3 are two different directions, placing the direction above each shield is the most efficient use of space, both from a sign design perspective and a visual perspective for drivers.
See this Exit 153B BGS along the Northbound Garden State Parkway in Clifton for the general stacked horizontal layout of two routes and their respective cardinals (WEST 3 TO WEST 46) (http://goo.gl/maps/il2I3).
Arranging the
NORTH 95 SOUTH 3 legend in a similar fashion doesn't change the current BGS width one iota. One actually might save about a foot width. Nonetheless, it's 6 on one hand; half-dozen on the other.
Quote from: roadman on February 06, 2014, 03:14:53 PMGranted, the shields aren't quite in line with the arrowhead, as required by the MUTCD, but as the saying goes "close enough for government work".
I'm not sure you're aware of this but you just completely trashed & contradicted the whole MUTCD criteria argument regarding shield placement w/the shields with respect to arrowheads with the above-post. Why was it okay to do such with the I-95/US 3 diagramatic BGS (where there was plenty of room to do such & was also a fairly recent installation) but not okay for the I-93/US 1/MA 24 BGS (where the through-traffic legend is 3-lines high)?
Such begs the question regarding how strict MUTCD really is regarding certain criteria.
Quote from: mass_citizen on February 04, 2014, 06:55:16 PM
I observed another new BGS Southbound at the Braintree split
Here's a photo (sorry for the glare, I hope to get a better shot when time and a better sun angle permit):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs2714a.jpg&hash=a1c36db1c95c5712ced597251edf0fdc93e11a08)
They also put up this week one overhead for Exit 7 Northbound at the MA 37 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs2714c.jpg&hash=d4210037829cb9fd096afbaaa4997c253829cf52)
I also have a photo of the NB overheads put up last week at the MA 28 exit on my I-93 photo page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
How hard would it have been to make a new sign for only two arrows-per-lane for the 93 SB Exit 7 overhead? This new sign looks ridiculous. This contractor is awful...can't even roll with the last-minute punches!
Quote from: southshore720 on February 08, 2014, 10:00:40 PM
How hard would it have been to make a new sign for only two arrows-per-lane for the 93 SB Exit 7 overhead? This new sign looks ridiculous. This contractor is awful...can't even roll with the last-minute punches!
most likely the sign was already fabricated. someone would have had to pay to fab a new sign either massdot or the contractor and obviously neither of them volunteered the money.
Probably has to do with the old sign (picture from Steve's site (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/i-93/1.html)) being for 3 lanes as things used to be striped. The #3 lane used to split into one more lane for Route 3; now it doesn't. They probably changed the plans after the specs for the sign were cut and the manufacturer isn't responsible for that, nor is the state going to pony up.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fi-93%2Fs7.jpg&hash=569cab892a8b6abf9f71b0aa39eadbfecf2f60dd)
The new signs on 93 South in Somerville have a bold yellow stripe indicating "Tobin Bridge Truck Detour" for Exit 28 (added because trucks have been banned from the Chelsea exits of the Tobin since the previous signs were erected).
This puzzles me because there are no other mentions of the Tobin going south. In other words, there is an alternate route posted without a primary route.
I understand that money, geography, and politics made a direct ramp impractical, but I still don't get why it's not useful to inform motorists that Exit 28 to Sullivan Square and 99 South is a relatively quick and easy route to the Tobin Bridge. I use that route all the time.
Quote from: mass_citizen on February 09, 2014, 02:16:41 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 08, 2014, 10:00:40 PM
How hard would it have been to make a new sign for only two arrows-per-lane for the 93 SB Exit 7 overhead? This new sign looks ridiculous. This contractor is awful...can't even roll with the last-minute punches!
most likely the sign was already fabricated. someone would have had to pay to fab a new sign either massdot or the contractor and obviously neither of them volunteered the money.
I'll try to make lemonade out of this lemon...if they wanted to create a third lane again, they could easily tack on the down arrow instead of make the new sign. I'll look at it as "insurance" for the future. :sombrero:
Quote from: bob7374 on February 08, 2014, 07:24:39 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on February 04, 2014, 06:55:16 PM
I observed another new BGS Southbound at the Braintree split
Here's a photo (sorry for the glare, I hope to get a better shot when time and a better sun angle permit):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs2714a.jpg&hash=a1c36db1c95c5712ced597251edf0fdc93e11a08)
What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps? Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 10, 2014, 09:08:48 AM
What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps? Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.
MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.
Quote from: bob7374 on February 10, 2014, 10:36:52 AMMassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.
IIRC, those zipper lanes didn't make the scene until the 1990s. I used that stretch of I-93 (both the Expressway & YDH/128 portions) during my college years (1984-1988) as well as at least once a week during the early part of 1990 and the Expressway was still in its original 6-lane configuration back then.
IIRC, the zipper-lane retro fit occurred
after the Tappan Zee Bridge in NY adopted such in the early-to-mid 1990s. The TZ Bridge was the first location I personally saw such.
Personally, not only the Southeast Expressway should've been widened to 8-lanes (
with shoulders) when it was completely reconstructed in the mid-1980s and the HOV lanes termini should've been laid out the same way the ones along I-84 in East Hartford, CT are set up; the HOV lane(s) having their own interchange ramps that blend into the main interchange. Granted, all the above would've meant widening the Expressway's Right-Of-Way and triggered some additional land-takings; but tough. The highway's been there since the 1950s and quickly became an over-crowded parking lot in short order due to the absence of the Southwest Expressway (the original I-95). IMHO, the improvements would outweigh the land/home-takings.
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 09, 2014, 03:43:14 PM
Probably has to do with the old sign (picture from Steve's site (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/i-93/1.html)) being for 3 lanes as things used to be striped. The #3 lane used to split into one more lane for Route 3; now it doesn't. They probably changed the plans after the specs for the sign were cut and the manufacturer isn't responsible for that, nor is the state going to pony up.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fi-93%2Fs7.jpg&hash=569cab892a8b6abf9f71b0aa39eadbfecf2f60dd)
Correct. The revised lane configuration for MA 3 south at the Braintree split was recently changed (it was a District 6 project). By that time, the new signs and support at this location had already been approved and were in fabrication.
Quote from: bob7374 on February 10, 2014, 10:36:52 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 10, 2014, 09:08:48 AM
What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps? Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.
MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.
Wait, huh? Making the third lane an option lane vs. exit-only to I-93 (I'm counting 3 as the through route here) has absolutely no effect on how far people have to cut over from the HOV.
Quote from: Alps on February 11, 2014, 08:51:36 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 10, 2014, 10:36:52 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 10, 2014, 09:08:48 AM
What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps? Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.
MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.
Wait, huh? Making the third lane an option lane vs. exit-only to I-93 (I'm counting 3 as the through route here) has absolutely no effect on how far people have to cut over from the HOV.
That was my reaction as well although having grown up around there I learned to not bother asking questions like that because no one knows the answer! :P
Indeed, doesn't funneling Route 3 traffic into the #1 and #2 lanes just make for more people in those lanes that one has to merge into and cut over through than if some of them were in the #3 lane as well? It doesn't make sense to me but I'm not an expert....
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 11, 2014, 09:21:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 11, 2014, 08:51:36 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 10, 2014, 10:36:52 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 10, 2014, 09:08:48 AM
What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps? Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.
MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.
Wait, huh? Making the third lane an option lane vs. exit-only to I-93 (I'm counting 3 as the through route here) has absolutely no effect on how far people have to cut over from the HOV.
That was my reaction as well although having grown up around there I learned to not bother asking questions like that because no one knows the answer! :P
Indeed, doesn't funneling Route 3 traffic into the #1 and #2 lanes just make for more people in those lanes that one has to merge into and cut over through than if some of them were in the #3 lane as well? It doesn't make sense to me but I'm not an expert....
It doesn't make sense to me either, and I am! (:
The solution is clear. Restripe the way it used to be and put the old signs back up, at least the left-hand one. Presto!
Quote from: Alps on February 11, 2014, 08:51:36 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 10, 2014, 10:36:52 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 10, 2014, 09:08:48 AM
What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps? Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.
MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.
Wait, huh? Making the third lane an option lane vs. exit-only to I-93 (I'm counting 3 as the through route here) has absolutely no effect on how far people have to cut over from the HOV.
My recollection is that the third lane wasn't an option lane - the highway widened to 5 lanes before the zipper lane exit.
Quote from: spooky on February 12, 2014, 01:10:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 11, 2014, 08:51:36 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 10, 2014, 10:36:52 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 10, 2014, 09:08:48 AM
What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps? Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.
MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.
Wait, huh? Making the third lane an option lane vs. exit-only to I-93 (I'm counting 3 as the through route here) has absolutely no effect on how far people have to cut over from the HOV.
My recollection is that the third lane wasn't an option lane - the highway widened to 5 lanes before the zipper lane exit.
Google Maps still has the old config. The third lane becomes wide, but it never separates into two lanes (with striping) before the gore. That said, the best compromise may have been to adjust the striping into more of a taper.
Quote from: spooky on February 12, 2014, 01:10:30 PM
My recollection is that the third lane wasn't an option lane - the highway widened to 5 lanes before the zipper lane exit.
you are correct. it was reduced to 4 lanes with no option lane.
New sign bridges are up for Exit 4 SB and for Exit 7 NB...they look good!
Quote from: southshore720 on February 17, 2014, 09:40:34 PM
New sign bridges are up for Exit 4 SB and for Exit 7 NB...they look good!
Here's the new overheads at the MA 24 ramps southbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs22214a.jpg&hash=e4bafdecc12a7cab2fa3f195387c8093b328a9ed)
And, the final new overheads at the MA 3 exit heading north:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs22214c.jpg&hash=313b63f4efbf04220781662935f4140174ca69da)
Another new northbound photo can be found on the I-93 photo page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Had a job interview in Cambridge today, and being Friday afternoon I decided to avoid the traffic and take the Red Line. The T line does parallel the SE Expressway/I-93 in places and so I took the opportunity to note anything new. No changes BGS wise such as no new poles put up on any of the existing foundations, however, there has been some action regarding ground-level signage. These include a new blue 'Attractions Next Exit' sign NB before the Columbia Rd exit (the sign is currently blank) and a new white HOV lane sign southbound beyond Columbia Rd, probably replacing the one on bolted to the Savin Hill Ave bridge. There were also two new green signs southbound, a 'Next Exit 12' prior to the Freeport St on-ramp and a 'Marina Bay Exit 12' sign 1/2 mile before that off-ramp.
If I get this job, I will be driving into Cambridge 3 days a week via I-93 between Exits 7 and 20, so I'll be able to keep up with signage changes on a more frequent basis. According to the MassDOT project listing, the contract is now 36% complete and still has a completion date of this summer.
thanks for the update. perhaps there are no attractions at that exit hence why the sign is blank? :-D
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 02, 2014, 09:12:52 PM
thanks for the update. perhaps there are no attractions at that exit hence why the sign is blank? :-D
LOGO panels for the individual attractions at Columbia Road should be added to the signs sometime this week.
Are they going to direct people to use Exit 15 going NB for the JFK Library/U MASS now instead of Exit 14 (Morrissey Blvd)? I'm assuming "JFK Library" is going to be deleted from the BGS panels as it wouldn't be MUTCD compliant.
Quote from: southshore720 on March 03, 2014, 04:36:36 PM
Are they going to direct people to use Exit 15 going NB for the JFK Library/U MASS now instead of Exit 14 (Morrissey Blvd)? I'm assuming "JFK Library" is going to be deleted from the BGS panels as it wouldn't be MUTCD compliant.
Correct on both counts. This decision was made during the original project design in 2007. Apart from MUTCD legend restrictions, this is principally due to the bus and truck restriction at Exit 14 - which will be prominently displayed on a black on white banner incorporated into the new Exit 14 BGSes.
^^ Very informative! Thank you!
I just used the Columbia Road exit southbound, and what a mess of new signs are up. Is it a separate contract to remove old signs from the one to put in the new ones? It is a mess of distraction there now with old and new every few feet.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2014, 05:37:17 PM
I just used the Columbia Road exit southbound, and what a mess of new signs are up. Is it a separate contract to remove old signs from the one to put in the new ones? It is a mess of distraction there now with old and new every few feet.
The contract stipulates that no old signs can be removed until a replacement is put in place. Perhaps there's only one truck doing this and they do not want to mix up the old and new ones... Could you provide details as to what the new signs are?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2014, 05:37:17 PM
I just used the Columbia Road exit southbound, and what a mess of new signs are up. Is it a separate contract to remove old signs from the one to put in the new ones? It is a mess of distraction there now with old and new every few feet.
Current MassDOT practice is that removing and discarding the old signs and supports that have been replaced is included in sign replacement contracts, and there are separate pay items for the work (as opposed to the work bring incidental to providing the new installations). To give the contractor additional incentive to do the work in a timely manner, the old signs and supports become the Contractor's property, who then sells them for the scrap value of the materials.
Despite these provisions, however, MassDOT still occasionally has problems on such projects where old signs are not removed in a timely manner (i.e. several days or weeks) after the new ones have been installed - this is normally more of an issue with the regulatory and warning signs than it is for the overhead panels and structures. In this case, I will get in touch with my contact on the I-93 Randolph to Boston project and inform them of the situation so they can get the superfluous signs removed in a timely manner.
Bob raises a good point as well about the Contractor's crew not wanting to inadvertently remove newly installed signs - I will inquire about how long the new signs have been in place as well.
I would probably not think much of it if it weren't common practice in the area to a) leave duplicate signs up, one right in front of the other, for long periods, and b) to cram so many signs into a given stretch of road -- often blocking one another -- that reading them all varies between dangerous and impossible.
I used that exit earlier this evening and didn't notice any duplicate signs, although I did notice there is a lot of different signs leading to information overload.
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 11, 2014, 09:51:50 PM
I used that exit earlier this evening and didn't notice any duplicate signs, although I did notice there is a lot of different signs leading to information overload.
This is one of the new signs approaching Columbia Road, though not for the Columbia Rd exit, but for I-90--
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs31214a.jpg&hash=0e0689b654a7f281daf15e03ac1a294a9f5d38fb)
This is to be paired with a new overhead with a 1 1/2 mile Exit 20 advance sign and a Columbia Rd 1/2 mile advance sign further south. It appeared that most of the old signage had been removed prior to the exit and on the exit ramp. I did notice there are some duplicate speed limit signs, but since many of the older signs were put on the current overhead sign support posts, they should come down when the new overheads go up. No posts up yet for any new overheads along the Expressway though.
I have a few more photos of auxiliary and entrance ramp signs installed the past week, along with a better Exit 7 SB photo, now posted on my I-93 photo page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
The new brown auxiliary sign for Adams Nat'l Park looks so much better SB than its NB counterpart. Why did they use a weird font for the NB sign?
I also noticed that they used the same weird font for a brown auxiliary sign on I-95 SB in RI for the Downtown Pawtucket Historic district (Exit 29). Is this a new standard for brown auxiliary signs?
Quote from: southshore720 on March 13, 2014, 10:34:46 AM
The new brown auxiliary sign for Adams Nat'l Park looks so much better SB than its NB counterpart. Why did they use a weird font for the NB sign?
I also noticed that they used the same weird font for a brown auxiliary sign on I-95 SB in RI for the Downtown Pawtucket Historic district (Exit 29). Is this a new standard for brown auxiliary signs?
Google Earth shows the fore-mentioned BBS along I-95 South in standard FHWA font.
Is the Adams Nat'l Park BBS containing the 'weird' font along I-93 northbound or MA 3 northbound?
Most BBS' usually feature a Roman-style font.
It's on I-93 NB before Exit 6. It may be a thinner FHWA font...but I don't understand why they didn't use the standard font that they used for the I-93 SB counterpart. It just doesn't look visually appealing to me.
Quote from: southshore720 on March 13, 2014, 12:44:23 PM
It's on I-93 NB before Exit 6. It may be a thinner FHWA font...but I don't understand why they didn't use the standard font that they used for the I-93 SB counterpart. It just doesn't look visually appealing to me.
If it's
this BBS (http://goo.gl/maps/sxfGE) (assuming that it wasn't recently replaced since GSV - it's actually closer to Exit 5B BTW), that is indeed the Roman font I was referring to; though the
Adams National Historical Park text appears to be a larger than normal size (compared to other-like BBS'). In restropect, a larger signboard or slightly smaller text should've been used.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 13, 2014, 01:16:13 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on March 13, 2014, 12:44:23 PM
It's on I-93 NB before Exit 6. It may be a thinner FHWA font...but I don't understand why they didn't use the standard font that they used for the I-93 SB counterpart. It just doesn't look visually appealing to me.
If it's this BBS (http://goo.gl/maps/sxfGE) (assuming that it wasn't recently replaced since GSV - it's actually closer to Exit 5B BTW), that is indeed the Roman font I was referring to; though the Adams National Historical Park text appears to be a larger than normal size (compared to other-like BBS'). In restropect, a larger signboard or slightly smaller text should've been used.
That sign is gone and was replaced by the weird font sign being discussed, which is closer to Exit 6.
I would've been fine with the Roman font as that font is commonly used for historical sites (especially in the D.C. area). But I just don't like the font choice for this particular sign.
Quote from: southshore720 on March 13, 2014, 12:44:23 PM
It's on I-93 NB before Exit 6. It may be a thinner FHWA font...but I don't understand why they didn't use the standard font that they used for the I-93 SB counterpart. It just doesn't look visually appealing to me.
Might've been a fabricator error.
the NB sign has been up for sometime now. I never noticed that it might be an off font at 65 mph, perhaps someone who lives that way can get a photo? if not I will try to get one late next week.
The contractor this past week has been putting up new route shields along both the mainline and, at least at, one interchange. Here's the first of the 3 shield stack reassurance markers to go up along the SE Expressway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs31614a.jpg&hash=b57242c9e46c3f84bafdac7fbc09181a5f2dbc4f)
There are also new I-93/US 1 sign assemblies along the '128' portion as well. Trailblazer signage for MA 3 north has been put up on 2 of the 3 left-side support poles for the Exit 7 overheads, here's the final one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs31614f.jpg&hash=8abc5a03b7e68fa01c8a7626ce3c82d0bf9894e4)
To see other examples of new signage, check out the top of the I-93 Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 14, 2014, 03:14:37 AM
the NB sign has been up for sometime now. I never noticed that it might be an off font at 65 mph, perhaps someone who lives that way can get a photo? if not I will try to get one late next week.
Traffic was slow enough last night that I was able to snap a pic.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7vbnMLw.jpg%3F2&hash=4f0ac01052bfdc96d9bc4255784b8aacf4e723b5)
Quote from: spooky on March 18, 2014, 06:00:46 AMTraffic was slow enough last night that I was able to snap a pic.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7vbnMLw.jpg%3F2&hash=4f0ac01052bfdc96d9bc4255784b8aacf4e723b5)
It looks like the main font is Series D rather than E or E(M). Either somebody misjudged the signboard size or went one text height size too large.
Quote from: spooky on March 18, 2014, 06:00:46 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7vbnMLw.jpg%3F2&hash=4f0ac01052bfdc96d9bc4255784b8aacf4e723b5)
I think the Series D looks fine in that usage. E / EM would've needed a bigger sign panel.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 18, 2014, 11:07:55 AM
Quote from: spooky on March 18, 2014, 06:00:46 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7vbnMLw.jpg%3F2&hash=4f0ac01052bfdc96d9bc4255784b8aacf4e723b5)
I think the Series D looks fine in that usage. E / EM would've needed a bigger sign panel.
Improper kerning, letters too close together.
Quote from: Alps on March 19, 2014, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 18, 2014, 11:07:55 AM
Quote from: spooky on March 18, 2014, 06:00:46 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7vbnMLw.jpg%3F2&hash=4f0ac01052bfdc96d9bc4255784b8aacf4e723b5)
I think the Series D looks fine in that usage. E / EM would've needed a bigger sign panel.
Improper kerning, letters too close together.
Still beats "properly done" Clearview imo though!
Quote from: Alps on March 19, 2014, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 18, 2014, 11:07:55 AM
Quote from: spooky on March 18, 2014, 06:00:46 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7vbnMLw.jpg%3F2&hash=4f0ac01052bfdc96d9bc4255784b8aacf4e723b5)
The sign looks good! There's nothing wrong with it.
I think the Series D looks fine in that usage. E / EM would've needed a bigger sign panel.
Improper kerning, letters too close together.
The bottom letters are series C actually while I agree that the top two rows are D
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 20, 2014, 05:35:00 PM
The bottom letters are series C actually while I agree that the top two rows are D
I don't believe that anybody's even commenting on the bottom letters at all (which are indeed Series C and are fine as they are).
The key words in my original comment were
main font which implies (or at least
should imply) that I was only referring to the larger-sized text.
Spooky, thanks for snapping that pic. I still think it's UGLY...
In other on-topic news, I noticed on my train ride in the other morning that they finally posted the "attractions" on the Exit 15 Attractions signs. Interesting how they used brown panels on the blue background. Prior practice in MA was blue panels on blue background.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 21, 2014, 09:01:31 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 20, 2014, 05:35:00 PM
The bottom letters are series C actually while I agree that the top two rows are D
I don't believe that anybody's even commenting on the bottom letters at all (which are indeed Series C and are fine as they are).
The key words in my original comment were main font which implies (or at least should imply) that I was only referring to the larger-sized text.
I wasn't referring to yours or anyone else's previous comment for that matter. Which is why I didn't use the "quote" feature. I was just simply making my own comment intended to add content to the conversation...no need to defend your original point-I am in full agreement.
Quote from: southshore720 on March 21, 2014, 11:00:41 AM
Spooky, thanks for snapping that pic. I still think it's UGLY...
In other on-topic news, I noticed on my train ride in the other morning that they finally posted the "attractions" on the Exit 15 Attractions signs. Interesting how they used brown panels on the blue background. Prior practice in MA was blue panels on blue background.
Blue backgrounds were specified for all generic (text) LOGOs on the signs installed under MassHighway's statewide Attractions signing program completed in 2000 and 2001. Since that time, MassHighway/MassDOT has allowed brown panels for certain Attractions, as you noted on the new signs at Columbia Road.
Quote from: roadman on March 21, 2014, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on March 21, 2014, 11:00:41 AM
Spooky, thanks for snapping that pic. I still think it's UGLY...
In other on-topic news, I noticed on my train ride in the other morning that they finally posted the "attractions" on the Exit 15 Attractions signs. Interesting how they used brown panels on the blue background. Prior practice in MA was blue panels on blue background.
Blue backgrounds were specified for all generic (text) LOGOs on the signs installed under MassHighway's statewide Attractions signing program completed in 2000 and 2001. Since that time, MassHighway/MassDOT has allowed brown panels for certain Attractions, as you noted on the new signs at Columbia Road.
I snapped a photo of that sign today (best I could anyway, there is a light pole practically right in front of it). I will post it, along with other sign photos I took today (and hopefully tomorrow), mostly along I-95, by Sunday. The attractions now posted are the State Archives Center, JFK Library, and the Commonwealth Museum (the Archives and the Museum are in the same building-should that make them 1 attraction?).
Quote from: bob7374 on March 21, 2014, 11:30:42 PM
The attractions now posted are the State Archives Center, JFK Library, and the Commonwealth Museum (the Archives and the Museum are in the same building-should that make them 1 attraction?).
All that information wouldn't fit on one LOGO, hense the reason they are listed as two attractions. BTW, I forwarded your photo to my MassDOT project contact to see if they can get that utility pole moved so it's not blocking the sign.
Quote from: roadman on March 24, 2014, 10:20:39 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 21, 2014, 11:30:42 PM
The attractions now posted are the State Archives Center, JFK Library, and the Commonwealth Museum (the Archives and the Museum are in the same building-should that make them 1 attraction?).
All that information wouldn't fit on one LOGO, hense the reason they are listed as two attractions. BTW, I forwarded your photo to my MassDOT project contact to see if they can get that utility pole moved so it's not blocking the sign.
Great, hopefully the pole can be moved. If you think anyone else at MassDOT would like to have any other of my road photos, feel free to forward them. They can use them as long as proper credit is given.
Quote from: bob7374 on March 24, 2014, 11:58:00 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 24, 2014, 10:20:39 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 21, 2014, 11:30:42 PM
The attractions now posted are the State Archives Center, JFK Library, and the Commonwealth Museum (the Archives and the Museum are in the same building-should that make them 1 attraction?).
All that information wouldn't fit on one LOGO, hense the reason they are listed as two attractions. BTW, I forwarded your photo to my MassDOT project contact to see if they can get that utility pole moved so it's not blocking the sign.
Great, hopefully the pole can be moved. If you think anyone else at MassDOT would like to have any other of my road photos, feel free to forward them. They can use them as long as proper credit is given.
I hate to say this but; wouldn't it have made better sense to place that sign in
front of that existing light pole? Light poles are traditionally placed at assigned distance intervals to distribute the light more evenly.
The
Lesson Learned here is that when preparing a sign layout plan;
check the existing site conditions (features and utilities)
prior to finalizing the sign location(s). IMHO, this oversight
could've been easily avoided.
once again nice photos Bob. I would point out that the obstruction isn't as bad as it seems. you can see the exit number and read the attraction clearly from just a bit further back (say 50 feet, my best guess at 60 mph). it only is an issue if you try to read it at the last second and are in the far right lane.
It was the first time I've seen the Archives and Museum referred to independently. I was wondering about that.
Is the last spot reserved for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate?
Finally, I hope MassDOT can someday take to heart that U-Mass, U Mass, U.Mass, Umass, and UMASS are all stylistic deviations from "correct." The University's shortened form is UMass, as seen all over the place at umass.edu, uml.edu, umb.edu, etc. Are style guidelines of this kind promulgated agency-wide, or is it left to individual offices to use their creative interpretation? It varies from sign to sign statewide.
I hope they write it UM ass to fuck with the anals.
Please, don't tempt them with retroactive excuses, or they'll say "olny" is a dialectical choice.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 24, 2014, 07:40:35 PM
Please, don't tempt them with retroactive excuses, or they'll say "olny" is a dialectical choice.
Please, don't confuse MassDOT with DCR.
Quote from: roadman on March 24, 2014, 07:56:40 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 24, 2014, 07:40:35 PM
Please, don't tempt them with retroactive excuses, or they'll say "olny" is a dialectical choice.
Please, don't confuse MassDOT with DCR.
Fair enough. But it's a pretty low bar for someone with a job in public communication to be able to handle spelling, grammar, and style, and for someone in the organization to own the editing, fact-checking, and proofreading. These are not really optional skills.
Saw today that the MassDOT listing for the I-93 signing project has the completion percentage up to 40%. Must be for actions of a few weeks ago. A trip up and back the SE Expressway this afternoon and evening revealed nothing new as far as preparation to install new overhead signs or more new shield markers along the roadway in the past couple weeks. There was, curiously, a couple new ground-mounted yellow Next Exit signs northbound after Columbia Rd. Curious to me anyway, because the one's they've installed southbound are green.
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 11, 2014, 09:51:50 PM
I used that exit earlier this evening and didn't notice any duplicate signs, although I did notice there is a lot of different signs leading to information overload.
I am just now getting around to following up with this. Here's the off-ramp to Columbia Rd from 93 SB:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3802/13838027093_797ddf8920.jpg)
Admittedly, there's some foreshortening involved, so it's not like they're touching. But this just seems like too much clutter for me, even if they're 20 feet apart.
This is particularly egregious to me:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/13838375254_e486a7a6e6_n.jpg)
(The reverse-facing sign explains that pedestrians, bicycles, and horses should not enter 93 up this off-ramp.)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 13, 2014, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 11, 2014, 09:51:50 PM
I used that exit earlier this evening and didn't notice any duplicate signs, although I did notice there is a lot of different signs leading to information overload.
I am just now getting around to following up with this. Here's the off-ramp to Columbia Rd from 93 SB:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3802/13838027093_797ddf8920.jpg)
Admittedly, there's some foreshortening involved, so it's not like they're touching. But this just seems like too much clutter for me, even if they're 20 feet apart.
This is particularly egregious to me:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/13838375254_e486a7a6e6_n.jpg)
(The reverse-facing sign explains that pedestrians, bicycles, and horses should not enter 93 up this off-ramp.)
I am going to be driving into Boston at least 3 times a week using I-93/SE Expressway for the foreseeable future. I can check the Columbia Rd SB off-ramp to see if the clutter still exists. Hopefully, there will be progress to report on new signage at Exit 15 and southward from my trips, nothing much has happened in the past month with the exception of a new I-93 shield replacing the badly faded one on the existing BGS on MA 203 East heading into Neponset Circle. Of course, this BGS is due to be replaced under the current signing project, so hopefully the new replacement shield can be reused elsewhere.
fortunately the stop light at the end of this ramp allows time to read everything :bigass:
The only progress to report new signage wise on the SE Expressway portion of I-93 the past couple weeks has been the addition of two yellow 'No Exit 17' signs northbound between Columbia Rd and Mass Ave. Here's one of them:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs41814b.jpg&hash=ef0b497ac33138fb67e608a304f40de82de99496)
This is the second after the Exit 16 on-ramp. I've posted a photo of the first one and one of an earlier installed green 'Next Exit' sign on my I-93 Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
A question that comes up is why there being no Exit 17 is important enough to mandate 2 signs and in a yellow background? Plus, if the exit numbers are to change to mile-based numbers in a few years, this is one part of I-93 that there will be several consecutive numbers under the new system where there currently are many skipped numbers. Why put up these (and the 'Next Exit' signs) when they will soon be outdated?
I have always found it amazing and cool how long some of the old lighting has remained around there. The light poles visible in the background there are really, really old and even have their original light fixtures. Similar lighting on the old Central Artery bit the dust way before the road itself did; the total redo of the Southeast Expressway did away with most such light poles in the early-to-mid 80s. Somehow those in the background escaped and have survived. Long may they live....
It is strange how NO EXIT 17 requires yellow. It looks like a Louisiana LEFT EXIT tab all in yellow or something. Try again! :P
Quote from: PurdueBill on April 20, 2014, 11:29:16 AM
I have always found it amazing and cool how long some of the old lighting has remained around there. The light poles visible in the background there are really, really old and even have their original light fixtures. Similar lighting on the old Central Artery bit the dust way before the road itself did; the total redo of the Southeast Expressway did away with most such light poles in the early-to-mid 80s. Somehow those in the background escaped and have survived. Long may they live....
It is strange how NO EXIT 17 requires yellow. It looks like a Louisiana LEFT EXIT tab all in yellow or something. Try again! :P
Hm... it's informational... so it probably should be green like the old signs were.
to play devils advocate, I would differentiate between a "NO Exit XX" sign and a "NEXT Exit XX". You could say that the former is more of a warning while the latter is more informational.
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:17:00 PM
Hm... it's informational... so it probably should be green like the old signs were.
But at the same time, it's almost like a warning telling you "hey, there's no Exit 17 you know."
Since in a sequential based exit system the driver expects the next exit to be 17, this sign could fall under the MUTCD definition of warning sign: giving notice of a situation that might not be readily apparent.
Quote from: Zeffy on April 21, 2014, 10:44:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:17:00 PM
Hm... it's informational... so it probably should be green like the old signs were.
But at the same time, it's almost like a warning telling you "hey, there's no Exit 17 you know."
It's not a warning. Warnings inform you of roadway conditions. This isn't a roadway condition, it's just a fact related to guidance. Guidance = green. We have NCUTCD members on the forum who can weigh in.
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 11:31:08 PM
It's not a warning. Warnings inform you of roadway conditions. This isn't a roadway condition, it's just a fact related to guidance. Guidance = green. We have NCUTCD members on the forum who can weigh in.
True, since there being no Exit XX isn't related to anything on the road itself, then, yes, it should be white on green. I tend to forget that warnings imply the entire roadway - whether it be the right lane ending or the risk of cows falling on your car. Wait. Was that last one real?
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 11:31:08 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on April 21, 2014, 10:44:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:17:00 PM
Hm... it's informational... so it probably should be green like the old signs were.
But at the same time, it's almost like a warning telling you "hey, there's no Exit 17 you know."
It's not a warning. Warnings inform you of roadway conditions. This isn't a roadway condition, it's just a fact related to guidance. Guidance = green. We have NCUTCD members on the forum who can weigh in.
While you make a good point I would not confine warning signs only to physical roadway conditions. What about Runaway Truck Ramp 1 Mile (W7-4) which also has a yellow background? Or A W16-8AP (intersection plaque)? These also provide some kind of guidance information. "Last Exit Before Toll" is also a fact related to guidance yet it is yellow.
MUTCD states the function of warning signs is: "Warning signs call attention to unexpected conditions on or adjacent to a highway, street, or private roads open to public travel
and to situations that might not be readily apparent to road users. Warning signs alert road users to conditions that might call for a reduction of speed or an action in the interest of safety and efficient traffic operations."
The definition includes not only road conditions but also "situations" not readily apparent to drivers. I think the point I made earlier regarding driver expectations with sequential numbering systems stands. If a driver passes exit 16 and his desired exit is 18, he may not be inclined to slow down or change lanes if he is assuming the next exit is 17. This same analogy applies to yellow "Left" exit plaques. Since drivers have an expectation of right exits, a left exit is a "situation" (not necessarily a physical road condition) that merits warning.
Now my point here is not to say that one is right and one is wrong, but just to say that MassDOT is not totally out of line in using a yellow background. I think either choice would suffice here.
Quote from: mass_citizen on April 22, 2014, 01:24:16 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 11:31:08 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on April 21, 2014, 10:44:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:17:00 PM
Hm... it's informational... so it probably should be green like the old signs were.
But at the same time, it's almost like a warning telling you "hey, there's no Exit 17 you know."
It's not a warning. Warnings inform you of roadway conditions. This isn't a roadway condition, it's just a fact related to guidance. Guidance = green. We have NCUTCD members on the forum who can weigh in.
While you make a good point I would not confine warning signs only to physical roadway conditions. What about Runaway Truck Ramp 1 Mile (W7-4) which also has a yellow background? Or A W16-8AP (intersection plaque)? These also provide some kind of guidance information. "Last Exit Before Toll" is also a fact related to guidance yet it is yellow.
MUTCD states the function of warning signs is: "Warning signs call attention to unexpected conditions on or adjacent to a highway, street, or private roads open to public travel and to situations that might not be readily apparent to road users. Warning signs alert road users to conditions that might call for a reduction of speed or an action in the interest of safety and efficient traffic operations."
The definition includes not only road conditions but also "situations" not readily apparent to drivers. I think the point I made earlier regarding driver expectations with sequential numbering systems stands. If a driver passes exit 16 and his desired exit is 18, he may not be inclined to slow down or change lanes if he is assuming the next exit is 17. This same analogy applies to yellow "Left" exit plaques. Since drivers have an expectation of right exits, a left exit is a "situation" (not necessarily a physical road condition) that merits warning.
Now my point here is not to say that one is right and one is wrong, but just to say that MassDOT is not totally out of line in using a yellow background. I think either choice would suffice here.
Agreed, but this 'situation' is readily mitigated by the overhead sign, not shown in the photo, for Exit 18 Mass Ave just a few feet past the No Exit sign which the driver should see at the same time, which is preceded by another Exit 18 sign 1/2 mile earlier. Unless someone is specifically looking for an 'Exit 17' that doesn't exist, I don't see the necessity of having one No Exit warning sign, let alone 2.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 20, 2014, 12:13:57 AMA question that comes up is why there being no Exit 17 is important enough to mandate 2 signs and in a yellow background? Plus, if the exit numbers are to change to mile-based numbers in a few years, this is one part of I-93 that there will be several consecutive numbers under the new system where there currently are many skipped numbers. Why put up these (and the 'Next Exit' signs) when they will soon be outdated?
If memory serves, Exit 17
used to exist as a right-hand exit to the northbound frontage road when the old Mass Ave. (Exit 18) exit ramp was a left-lane exit (the original Mass Ave. interchange was designed as the I-95/Southwest Expressway branch-off).
It's worth noting that prior to the last I-93 exit number changes that took place during the mid-80s; the ramp to the frontage road had no exit number; Mass Ave. was originally Exit 15 and the exit for Southhampton St. was & still is Exit 16. The DPW decided to assign that northbound ramp a number back then.
When the Mass Ave. interchange was redesigned to its current layout; it was consolidated into one exit (& number) with the frontage road exit ramp.
FWIW, here's how the area looked circa 1978. (http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=327&lon=-71.06286315752878&lat=42.332011062776814&year=1978)
While one could argue the necessity of those
NO EXIT 17 BYS' for the current sequential exit numbering; once I-93 converts to mile-marker-based exit numbering, such signs would no longer be needed.
IMHO, I-93 should've switched over to mile-marker-based exit numbering
right after the Big Dig was completed due to the current gaps of exit numbering along the new O'Neill Tunnel vs. the old Central Artery. It would've served as a
test-case for such in MA.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 22, 2014, 12:33:43 PM
IMHO, I-93 should've switched over to mile-marker-based exit numbering right after the Big Dig was completed due to the current gaps of exit numbering along the new O'Neill Tunnel vs. the old Central Artery. It would've served as a test-case for such in MA.
I like your thinking. Isn't the Masspike going to be the first to convert, now?
Quote from: Alps on April 22, 2014, 06:23:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 22, 2014, 12:33:43 PM
IMHO, I-93 should've switched over to mile-marker-based exit numbering right after the Big Dig was completed due to the current gaps of exit numbering along the new O'Neill Tunnel vs. the old Central Artery. It would've served as a test-case for such in MA.
I like your thinking. Isn't the Masspike going to be the first to convert, now?
According to Roadman, shorter-distance highways (Interstate & non-Interstate) w/exit numbers will change over first.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 22, 2014, 06:44:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 22, 2014, 06:23:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 22, 2014, 12:33:43 PM
IMHO, I-93 should've switched over to mile-marker-based exit numbering right after the Big Dig was completed due to the current gaps of exit numbering along the new O'Neill Tunnel vs. the old Central Artery. It would've served as a test-case for such in MA.
I like your thinking. Isn't the Masspike going to be the first to convert, now?
According to Roadman, shorter-distance highways (Interstate & non-Interstate) w/exit numbers will change over first.
I-290 would be interesting. Many exits in the first few miles, then very spaced out for the rest of it. And it currently doesn't begin at 0 or 1.
Quote from: 1 on April 22, 2014, 06:46:26 PMI-290 would be interesting. Many exits in the first few miles, then very spaced out for the rest of it. And it currently doesn't begin at 0 or 1.
I-290's current exit numbers are basically a continuation of the I-395 exit numbers. The irony here is that the I-290 segment was built years if not decades
before the I-395 (originally MA 52) segment.
Nonetheless, the mile markers do indeed reset to 0 near/at the I-90/Mass Pike interchange (http://goo.gl/maps/nZr2F).
Has the Commonwealth given any consideration to a single 395 number for 290/395, or will this mislead the few people who would expect a long 395 to connect to 95 somewhere other than at Long Island Sound?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 23, 2014, 12:16:41 PM
Has the Commonwealth given any consideration to a single 395 number for 290/395, or will this mislead the few people who would expect a long 395 to connect to 95 somewhere other than at Long Island Sound?
Personally, I'm not aware of such; Roadman would likely have a more definitive answer regarding such. I remember one 80s-vintage Arrow map that showed I-395 listed as I-190.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 23, 2014, 12:16:41 PM
Has the Commonwealth given any consideration to a single 395 number for 290/395, or will this mislead the few people who would expect a long 395 to connect to 95 somewhere other than at Long Island Sound?
I can say with 99.9999999 percent certainty that this suggestion has never come up among MassDPW, MassHighway, or MassDOT folks.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 15, 2014, 10:01:22 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 13, 2014, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 11, 2014, 09:51:50 PM
I used that exit earlier this evening and didn't notice any duplicate signs, although I did notice there is a lot of different signs leading to information overload.
I am just now getting around to following up with this. Here's the off-ramp to Columbia Rd from 93 SB:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3802/13838027093_797ddf8920.jpg)
Admittedly, there's some foreshortening involved, so it's not like they're touching. But this just seems like too much clutter for me, even if they're 20 feet apart.
This is particularly egregious to me:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/13838375254_e486a7a6e6_n.jpg)
(The reverse-facing sign explains that pedestrians, bicycles, and horses should not enter 93 up this off-ramp.)
I am going to be driving into Boston at least 3 times a week using I-93/SE Expressway for the foreseeable future. I can check the Columbia Rd SB off-ramp to see if the clutter still exists./quote]
I didn't get a photo today, but the reverse-facing horse/bike/ped sign has been moved to the reverse of the furthest sign in the background, and I believe the JFK Library/Expo Center sign has been removed.
It's a better situation, but it just occurred to me – hasn't the expo center been closed for years? I recall it shutting down several years ago (all the shows go to the three other big exhibit halls in town) and the parking lot has been empty every time I've been by for a long time. Its website has been dead since 2010 or 11. Another case of contractors just replacing what's there?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 23, 2014, 08:47:41 PM
I didn't get a photo today, but the reverse-facing horse/bike/ped sign has been moved to the reverse of the furthest sign in the background, and I believe the JFK Library/Expo Center sign has been removed.
It's a better situation, but it just occurred to me ÂÂÂ hasn't the expo center been closed for years? I recall it shutting down several years ago (all the shows go to the three other big exhibit halls in town) and the parking lot has been empty every time I've been by for a long time. Its website has been dead since 2010 or 11. Another case of contractors just replacing what's there?
Bayside Expo Center has been closed for some time, and the property was actually sold to U-Mass. Not excusing the fact the old signs have been replaced "in-kind" despite this, but you have to remember that the design of the Randolph to Boston project was completed in 2006, when the Expo Center was still alive and well.
Quote from: roadman on April 24, 2014, 10:37:47 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 23, 2014, 08:47:41 PM
I didn't get a photo today, but the reverse-facing horse/bike/ped sign has been moved to the reverse of the furthest sign in the background, and I believe the JFK Library/Expo Center sign has been removed.
It's a better situation, but it just occurred to me ÂÂÂ hasn't the expo center been closed for years? I recall it shutting down several years ago (all the shows go to the three other big exhibit halls in town) and the parking lot has been empty every time I've been by for a long time. Its website has been dead since 2010 or 11. Another case of contractors just replacing what's there?
Bayside Expo Center has been closed for some time, and the property was actually sold to U-Mass. Not excusing the fact the old signs have been replaced "in-kind" despite this, but you have to remember that the design of the Randolph to Boston project was completed in 2006, when the Expo Center was still alive and well.
Plus, currently UMass Boston is using the Expo Center parking lot as an overflow lot while new buildings are being constructed on campus. They usually tell visitors to park there and use a shuttle to get to campus, so having signs for the Expo Center still serves a useful purpose.
Wow, I didn't know about the Bayside Expo being closed. I attended the Auto Show there back in late 1989 when I still resided in the Bay State and the facility was brand spanking new then.
I didn't know it closed down either. But now that I think about it, the 1990s-era Red Line cars with the automated messages used to announce "Bayside Exposition Center" immediately following "JFK/UMASS." I haven't heard that in a while!
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 24, 2014, 11:10:31 AM
Wow, I didn't know about the Bayside Expo being closed. I attended the Auto Show there back in late 1989 when I still resided in the Bay State and the facility was brand spanking new then.
The new convention center has pulled the biggest shows, the World Trade Center has the mid-sized ones. The hotel boom down there makes both more attractive. The Hynes Auditorium has survived this arrangement despite initial predictions of its closure following the convention center's opening. I guess location goes a long way.
After a lull of more than a month, the contractors are back putting up overhead BGSs along Northbound I-93/SE Expressway. Over the past week a new cantilever sign went up at the ramp to Furnace Brook Parkway (Exit 8) and new supports have started going up further north for advance signs for Exits 9 and 11. A northbound support is also in place northbound between Exits 8 and 9 for the major overhead that will have the first advance signs southbound for the Exit 7 'Braintree split'. I also spotted new I-93/US 1 trailblazers at the Furnace Brook Parkway ramps. I hope to get photos of all of this (and hopefully more) by the end of the week.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 21, 2014, 12:07:30 AM
After a lull of more than a month, the contractors are back putting up overhead BGSs along Northbound I-93/SE Expressway. Over the past week a new cantilever sign went up at the ramp to Furnace Brook Parkway (Exit 8) and new supports have started going up further north for advance signs for Exits 9 and 11. A northbound support is also in place northbound between Exits 8 and 9 for the major overhead that will have the first advance signs southbound for the Exit 7 'Braintree split'. I also spotted new I-93/US 1 trailblazers at the Furnace Brook Parkway ramps. I hope to get photos of all of this (and hopefully more) by the end of the week.
As promised here's a photo of the new Exit 8 sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs522a.jpg&hash=b6960cbae6864257d8f30c650a68c3e3b33965e8)
When I drove on I-93 yesterday I counted over 10 new support posts that have gone up over the past week northbound as far as just beyond Morrissey Blvd. (Exit 14) plus they also had put in several southbound as well. I've included photos of many of them, in addition to the sign above, on my I-93 Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Over the past couple weeks the contractor has placed many new sign onto the right-side support posts put up the weeks before along the SE expressway portion of I-93. A dozen new exit or auxiliary signs have been put up, including this new 1 Mile Advance BGS for MA 3A:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs608a.jpg&hash=8dc2154911358a792cc6e77f467b02e40ade29af)
Photos of the other new signs, including one currently well hidden, can be found on my I-93 Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Bob, great pics as ALWAYS! :nod:
I'm surprised that the aux sign for Exit 7 for "Braintree" didn't say "LEFT Exit 7" like the aux sign for Rte 24's aux "Brockton/New Bedford" a little further down for Exit 4.
Quote from: southshore720 on June 09, 2014, 10:19:30 AM
I'm surprised that the aux sign for Exit 7 for "Braintree" didn't say "LEFT Exit 7" like the aux sign for Rte 24's aux "Brockton/Fall River" a little further down for Exit 4.
Now that's actually a good idea. I'll forward the suggestion to my MassDOT contacts in District 6. Shouldn't be an issue to add a "LEFT" panel as an overlay, even if it results in the legend not being centered on the sign.
One thing in this area that frustrates me is the insistence on awkwardly signing the through movement of 93S into 95/128N as an exit.
From a system logic point of view, yes, this can technically be viewed as an exit. But only under that logic. From a simple user-friendliness approach, "exit" clearly means "point where one leaves the main body of the highway." That's not what this is, and "left exit" does not do a good job of explaining "four lanes continue through with a different number designation."
A much more intuitive way to inform folks of what happens here is something like this sign (http://goo.gl/maps/zAIE7) on 495 North in Salisbury where it merges into 95 North.
Sometimes I feel like there's a failure to consider how something reads before approving the signing plans. Is there some kind of human-factors editor for this stuff?
My picture of the same sign from May of 2011. Was it replaced since this time?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvqDM98Q.jpg&hash=9595e7bfe100ac031393bcf4d52da67def4c6217)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 10, 2014, 01:01:28 AM
My picture of the same sign from May of 2011. Was it replaced since this time?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvqDM98Q.jpg&hash=9595e7bfe100ac031393bcf4d52da67def4c6217)
I would say
Yes (but replaced in kind) due to your photo shows the BGS being faded... especially at the red parts of the I-shields.
I saw that particular BGS (the one on GSV) last year en route to the Portsmouth, NH meet and it looked brand new.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 10, 2014, 08:50:32 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 10, 2014, 01:01:28 AM
My picture of the same sign from May of 2011. Was it replaced since this time?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvqDM98Q.jpg&hash=9595e7bfe100ac031393bcf4d52da67def4c6217)
I would say Yes (but replaced in kind) due to your photo shows the BGS being faded... especially at the red parts of the I-shields.
I saw that particular BGS (the one on GSV) last year en route to the Portsmouth, NH meet and it looked brand new.
The sign in question was originally installed in late 2004 as part of a statewide contract to provide advance signing indicating the endpoints of Interstates and other numbered freeways. It was replaced as part of the I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury sign updating project, which included the upper end of I-495 in Salisbury.
I don't like the verbiage on that sign, so I whipped up my concept of that sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA_I495-EndSign_zpsd749105e.png&hash=4210e58214311bd65c057c02175c0cc4809582e1)
This is essentially the way New Jersey signs the current gap in I-95, which I think works well here as well.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 10, 2014, 12:07:54 PM
I don't like the verbiage on that sign, so I whipped up my concept of that sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA_I495-EndSign_zpsd749105e.png&hash=4210e58214311bd65c057c02175c0cc4809582e1)
This is essentially the way New Jersey signs the current gap in I-95, which I think works well here as well.
But 95 doesn't begin there.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 10, 2014, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 10, 2014, 12:07:54 PM
I don't like the verbiage on that sign, so I whipped up my concept of that sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA_I495-EndSign_zpsd749105e.png&hash=4210e58214311bd65c057c02175c0cc4809582e1)
This is essentially the way New Jersey signs the current gap in I-95, which I think works well here as well.
But 95 doesn't begin there.
And there also isn't an I-95 'gap' in that vicinity either.
If one doesn't like the phrase
ENTERING 95 NORTH, one could just use
JCT. or
JUNCTION 95 NORTH instead.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 10, 2014, 12:27:01 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 10, 2014, 12:18:36 PM
But 95 doesn't begin there.
And there also isn't an I-95 'gap' in that vicinity either.
If one doesn't like the phrase ENTERING 95 NORTH, one could just use JCT. or JUNCTION 95 NORTH instead.
In my opinion, I-295 turning into I-95 north of Trenton isn't really beginning I-95 either, considering the real I-95 is located east of here with the New Jersey Turnpike. I guess you can argue that BEGIN should only be used for terminii, but ENTERING just sounds
so horrible to me.
In any case, here's another version omitting the BEGIN and substituted with JCT...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA_I495-EndSign2_zps23239e62.png&hash=35ba841937ad8b507d5a77533782d89c264935cf)
This sign has one and only one purpose: to communicate to drivers in the clearest way possible that by going straight ahead they are no longer going to be on the road they were on, but rather on this other road. Does "JCT" communicate that most clearly to most drivers? Does "BEGIN"? Does "ENTERING"?
How about "LEFT EXIT"?
California tends to do one of the following:
* unsigned (405 south end at 5)
* dual-signed reassurance panels leading up to the end (101 south end approaching 5, 73 north end approaching 405)
* explicit TO, omitting the actual number in favor of the next number (the west end of US-50 is signed as "TO I-80")
of these, I prefer the middle one, and would add a TO as appropriate.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 10, 2014, 12:59:08 PMHow about "LEFT EXIT"?
Given the fact that that there's a 2-mile stretch of I-495 between its final exit (for MA 110 East) and where 495 actually merges w/95;
LEFT EXIT notations would not be appropriate.
OTOH,
JCT. or
JUNCTION is a more commonly used term. To a degree, such (http://goo.gl/maps/qAevF) has been applied before. Like its MA counterpart, this I-495 also just blends/merges into I-95 North.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 10, 2014, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 10, 2014, 12:59:08 PMHow about "LEFT EXIT"?
Given the fact that that there's a 2-mile stretch of I-495 between its final exit (for MA 110 East) and where 495 actually merges w/95; LEFT EXIT notations would not be appropriate.
OTOH, JCT. or JUNCTION is a more commonly used term. To a degree, such (http://goo.gl/maps/qAevF) has been applied before. Like its MA counterpart, this I-495 also just blends/merges into I-95 North.
My point with saying "LEFT EXIT" is that it doesn't make sense in Canton, either. Joe Traveler isn't going to consider that an exit, and the signs ought to reflect reality as it is commonly understood, not as makes sense in a logic puzzle.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 10, 2014, 02:50:52 PM
My point with saying "LEFT EXIT" is that it doesn't make sense in Canton, either. Joe Traveler isn't going to consider that an exit, and the signs ought to reflect reality as it is commonly understood, not as makes sense in a logic puzzle.
I agree with you but only up to a point. The
LEFT EXIT over that I-95 North (& US 1 South) BGS in Canton, while it took me by surprise initially since the exit tab was erected well after the main signboard, is somewhat forgivable because one indeed merges with the through-I-95 North traffic
just beyond that interchange... not 2 miles away like the I-95/495 North merge in Salisbury.
Additionally, unlike the Canton interchange, which includes a
direct exit ramp to I-95 South; there is no direct exit ramp that runs from I-495 North to I-95 South. If such existed
closer to the actual merge (to my knowledge, MassDOT has no plans for such since the traffic counts on MA 110 aren't large enough to warrant such), maybe
LEFT EXIT signage for I-95 North there would be MUTCD-warranted.
To the mods,
I would suggest that posts #360 through
372 374
be moved to this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6287.200) due to the current discussion being primarily focused on I-95 signage rather than those along I-93.
LEFT EXIT 45 where 128 leaves 95 in Peabody doesn't look like an exit to most people either (especially when 128 was there first and that's what people call the whole road anyway) but the rules and regs say to sign it that way now. Both I-93 SB Left Exit 1B and I-95 NB Left Exit 45 are pseudo-exits in people's minds but technically exits. The I-495 northern end could take an exit number the same way, I suppose, if the exit number were assigned at the MA 110 interchange...offer Exit 55A (the current exit) to MA 110 TO I-95 SB, and Exit 55B (the two thru lanes) as an "exit" to I-95 NB. Sure the "ramp" (the I-495 mainline winding down to join I-95) is 2 miles long but now everything's got an exit number. :P
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 10, 2014, 02:50:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 10, 2014, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 10, 2014, 12:59:08 PMHow about "LEFT EXIT"?
Given the fact that that there's a 2-mile stretch of I-495 between its final exit (for MA 110 East) and where 495 actually merges w/95; LEFT EXIT notations would not be appropriate.
OTOH, JCT. or JUNCTION is a more commonly used term. To a degree, such (http://goo.gl/maps/qAevF) has been applied before. Like its MA counterpart, this I-495 also just blends/merges into I-95 North.
My point with saying "LEFT EXIT" is that it doesn't make sense in Canton, either. Joe Traveler isn't going to consider that an exit, and the signs ought to reflect reality as it is commonly understood, not as makes sense in a logic puzzle.
I think the addition of the LEFT and EXIT 1B tabs to the diagrammatic sign was a lot more noticeable to us than it was to Joe Traveler. I think the more noticeable (and confusing) signage for Joe Traveler is in the opposite direction, where the "exit"
isn't an exit, but the mainline through highway is.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 10, 2014, 03:12:11 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 10, 2014, 02:50:52 PM
My point with saying "LEFT EXIT" is that it doesn't make sense in Canton, either. Joe Traveler isn't going to consider that an exit, and the signs ought to reflect reality as it is commonly understood, not as makes sense in a logic puzzle.
I agree with you but only up to a point. The LEFT EXIT over that I-95 North (& US 1 South) BGS in Canton, while it took me by surprise initially since the exit tab was erected well after the main signboard, is somewhat forgivable because one indeed merges with the through-I-95 North traffic just beyond that interchange... not 2 miles away like the I-95/495 North merge in Salisbury.
Additionally, unlike the Canton interchange, which includes a direct exit ramp to I-95 South; there is no direct exit ramp that runs from I-495 North to I-95 South. If such existed closer to the actual merge (to my knowledge, MassDOT has no plans for such since the traffic counts on MA 110 aren't large enough to warrant such), maybe LEFT EXIT signage for I-95 North there would be MUTCD-warranted.
To the mods,
I would suggest that posts #360 through 372 374 be moved to this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6287.200) due to the current discussion being primarily focused on I-95 signage rather than those along I-93.
My posts in this range are all directly or indirectly about the 93 signing where it meets 95, but appeal away if you like.
I've posted my latest photos of the new signage along I-93 between Braintree and Boston put up the last couple weeks on my I-93 website, it includes the new diagrammatic for the MA 3 South Exit (with the old sign in the background):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs622n.jpg&hash=51b99c28c69b3b37c5a2f68c22ac6b4f3a5b542f)
Along with some new trailblazer photos and new overhead advisory signs. All are available at:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
This may be my last photo post for a while since, with a few exceptions, the contractor has not created the foundations for the remaining signs yet to be installed. This includes most of the signage north of Morrissey Blvd (Exit 14). The good news is that more than 75% of the signs along the entire Randolph to Boston stretch are up.
As always, excellent photographs Bob. Note that the arrows on the diagrammatic signs were originally fabricated according to the project plans (three lanes to MA 3 and two lanes to I-93 south). These arrows were subsequently overlaid with the present two-and-two arrows to reflect District 6's recent change in lane configuration. One of the ways you can tell is that the overlaid arrow falls lower on the panel than MUTCD specs call for (i.e. the left arrowhead should align with the MA 3 shield, and not the Cape Cod legend).
Quote from: bob7374 on June 22, 2014, 10:27:28 PM
I've posted my latest photos of the new signage along I-93 between Braintree and Boston put up the last couple weeks on my I-93 website, it includes the new diagrammatic for the MA 3 South Exit (with the old sign in the background):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs622n.jpg&hash=51b99c28c69b3b37c5a2f68c22ac6b4f3a5b542f)
Along with some new trailblazer photos and new overhead advisory signs. All are available at:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html).
Now
that is a left exit.
Quote from: bob7374 on June 22, 2014, 10:27:28 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs622n.jpg&hash=51b99c28c69b3b37c5a2f68c22ac6b4f3a5b542f)
I'm disappointed in this diagrammatic...I think the arrow assembly in the middle is too small, especially compared to some of the other diagrammatics from the "add-a-lane" project further down the highway.
Here's my version of that diagrammatic, done only because I was bored...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FI93-US1-MA-Diagrammatic_zpsb293d5b5.png&hash=87a82d9bb726783ac91b61bcaeef10ed22235b00)
It makes the MA 3 legend more in line with the I-93/US 1 TO I-95 legend, instead of the MA 3 one slumping towards the bottom because of the oddly positioned arrow.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2014, 12:49:44 AM
Here's my version of that diagrammatic, done only because I was bored...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FI93-US1-MA-Diagrammatic_zpsb293d5b5.png&hash=87a82d9bb726783ac91b61bcaeef10ed22235b00)
It makes the MA 3 legend more in line with the I-93/US 1 TO I-95 legend, instead of the MA 3 one slumping towards the bottom because of the oddly positioned arrow.
Only constructive comment I have is that the stem should start with 4 lanes. (They started out with the #3 lane being able to go either way and restriped; now the diagrammatic isn't totally necessary because "regular" signs with downward arrows would work without two arrows pointing at one lane.)
Quote from: southshore720 on June 24, 2014, 11:53:13 PM
I'm disappointed in this diagrammatic...I think the arrow assembly in the middle is too small, especially compared to some of the other diagrammatics from the "add-a-lane" project further down the highway.
I would bet that the arrows on this one are a last-minute fudge job to account for the change in striping at the exit. I'd bet the sign was originally designed with the #3 lane splitting. (Guessing, but based on the last-minute deletion of the arrow on the sign at the exit, it seems like all the signs were probably designed already before the striping change.)
Quote from: southshore720 on June 24, 2014, 11:53:13 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 22, 2014, 10:27:28 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs622n.jpg&hash=51b99c28c69b3b37c5a2f68c22ac6b4f3a5b542f)
I'm disappointed in this diagrammatic...I think the arrow assembly in the middle is too small, especially compared to some of the other diagrammatics from the "add-a-lane" project further down the highway.
Granted, the diagrammatic arrow was a last-minute change per Roadman's explanation; but it could've at least been better positioned (higher). That would've helped in making it look less like an afterthought.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2014, 12:49:44 AM
Here's my version of that diagrammatic, done only because I was bored...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FI93-US1-MA-Diagrammatic_zpsb293d5b5.png&hash=87a82d9bb726783ac91b61bcaeef10ed22235b00)
It makes the MA 3 legend more in line with the I-93/US 1 TO I-95 legend, instead of the MA 3 one slumping towards the bottom because of the oddly positioned arrow.
Not a bad layout. However and per MUTCD standards, the route shields are
supposed to be aligned with the respective arrowheads. Obviously, the actual BGS doens't reflect such due to the reason earlier explained.
It's worth noting that there are other diagrammatic BGS' around that don't always follow the MUTCD shields being aligned next to the arrowheads.
Side bar: I just noticed that the there's a slight change in MassDOT's
LEFT EXIT tab design with this BGS. The top part of the green tab no longer has a white border. Many of the earlier LEFT EXIT tab installations featured at least a white border on top of the green tab; some even featured a black border along the bottom of the yellow part of the tab.
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 25, 2014, 08:58:42 AM
I would bet that the arrows on this one are a last-minute fudge job to account for the change in striping at the exit. I'd bet the sign was originally designed with the #3 lane splitting. (Guessing, but based on the last-minute deletion of the arrow on the sign at the exit, it seems like all the signs were probably designed already before the striping change.)
You are correct in that the arrows on these signs were revised after the panels were originally fabricated. The original arrows showed five lanes at the bottom of the shaft, with three lanes going to MA 3 south and two lanes going to I-93 south. Note that there never was an option lane at this split, even before the recent
lane configuration change.
Quote from: roadman on June 25, 2014, 09:11:41 AMNote that there never was an option lane at this split, even before the recent lance configuration change.
Lance? Is Zorro now working for MassDOT lol? :sombrero:
Sorry Roadman, I just
had to do it. :)
Quote from: southshore720 on June 24, 2014, 11:53:13 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 22, 2014, 10:27:28 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs622n.jpg&hash=51b99c28c69b3b37c5a2f68c22ac6b4f3a5b542f)
I'm disappointed in this diagrammatic...I think the arrow assembly in the middle is too small, especially compared to some of the other diagrammatics from the "add-a-lane" project further down the highway.
Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 25, 2014, 09:18:29 AM
Quote from: roadman on June 25, 2014, 09:11:41 AMNote that there never was an option lane at this split, even before the recent lance configuration change.
Lance? Is Zorro now working for MassDOT lol? :sombrero:
Sorry Roadman, I just had to do it. :)
No problem. BTW, I corrected my post.
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 09:57:00 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 24, 2014, 11:53:13 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 22, 2014, 10:27:28 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs622n.jpg&hash=51b99c28c69b3b37c5a2f68c22ac6b4f3a5b542f)
I'm disappointed in this diagrammatic...I think the arrow assembly in the middle is too small, especially compared to some of the other diagrammatics from the "add-a-lane" project further down the highway.
Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium
Doesn't MUTCD want only one control city per arrow on a diagrammatic though?
(As far as thinking there was an option lane, I think I was recalling common driving practice of moving over at the last minute vs. the actual striping. :D I still don't get why they deleted a lane for route 3 or didn't make the #3 lane an option lane though. Probably zipper-lane related, but still....)
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 09:57:00 AM
Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium
Enough with the New York City crap... if there were to be another control city, it should be New Haven or Bridgeport (presumably with the CT suffix after the actual city).
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2014, 03:16:33 PM
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 09:57:00 AM
Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium
Enough with the New York City crap... if there were to be another control city, it should be New Haven or Bridgeport (presumably with the CT suffix after the actual city).
I agree I think New Haven Ct will next control city after Providence
HOWEVER I do suggest that Foxba]oro will be a good control point better then Attobaro becasue Foxboro is home to Gellett Stadiam where the New England Pats play and that makes an important control city.
I suggest that on SE expressway (I-93 south Cape Cod, Providence RI) or (I-93 south Quincy, Providence RI)so people coming from Boston will know how to get to Providence or Cape Cod. after exit 7 (I-93 US-1 south to I-95 Foxboro Providence RI) and at Exit 1 (I-95 south Foxboro Providence RI) I also suggest that for a Main idea for I-93 to I-95 idea like put (I-93 south to I-95 Canton, RI-CT-NY) I-95 and Rt-24 are the main routes to get to RI.
Speeking of that I think Providence RI as a control city for I-93 south of Boston is a good idea like for example in Boston to exit 9 (I-93 south Cape Cod, Providence RI) or (I-93 south Quinzy Providence RI) and some for north of Boston as 2nd control city like between exits 33-28 (I-93 south Boston Providence RI)
Unrelated to that I know that many people from Maine or NH to get to Boston use I-95 to I-93. when I was in Lawerance I saw signs for (I-495 south to I-93 Lowell) for people heading to Boston from Lawerance. For people from Peabody and the east, I suggest that on I-95 Rt-128 sb between Exits 42-38 (I-95 south to I-93 Boston Waltham) the other way around on I-93 for those who are leaving for I-95 Rt-128 I suggest on I-93 nb between Exits 32-36 (I-93 north to I-95 Concord NH, Portsmouth NH)
Last of all on I-93 nb before I-95 jct in Woburn I suggest (Gloucester, Portsmouth NH use I-95 north exit 37A)
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2014, 03:16:33 PM
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 09:57:00 AM
Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium
Enough with the New York City crap... if there were to be another control city, it should be New Haven or Bridgeport (presumably with the CT suffix after the actual city).
For that particular location; if a 2nd I-93 destination were to be chosen, it would be either
Dedham (see the older BGS in the background) or
Canton... as per other I-93 South signage beyond this interchange.
At present & even at its southernmost interchange in MA (Exit 2A-B/MA 1A-Newport Ave.);
Providence, RI is the furthest listed destination for I-95 south signage.
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 05:35:45 PMI think Providence RI as a control city for I-93 south of Boston is a good idea like for example in Boston
I've been stating such on other threads & even previous pages of this thread for some time.
Now that MassDOT has banished MA 3 shields (the only route on the Expressway that actually goes to the Cape) along the Southeast Expressway signage to just supplemental trailblazers (and made room for US 1 shields); they should have done the following for their destinations signs (both BGS' & LGS'):
1. For single-destination southbound signage use either
Quincy (north of Exit 12) or
Braintree (from Exits 11B-A to 8).
2. For 2-destination southbound listings, use the more distant
Cape Cod and
Providence, RI destinations
in that order for signs from Boston down to Exit 8.
3. From Exit 7 to Exits 2B-A; use
Canton or
Dedham along with
Providence, RI as presently. I personally would use Dedham over Canton due to the town being larger in size and the fact that it's where US 1 breaks off the YDH (I-95/MA 128) and continues south.
Side bar: not everybody along I-93 & 95 south is heading to
Gillette Stadium in
Foxboro for a Patriots game (which only accounts for the fall and winter months and once maybe twice-a-week at best) or a concert. The existing supplemental signage along I-95 as shown here (http://goo.gl/maps/0V5yh) is sufficient enough.
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2014, 03:16:33 PM
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 09:57:00 AM
Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium
Enough with the New York City crap... if there were to be another control city, it should be New Haven or Bridgeport (presumably with the CT suffix after the actual city).
I agree I think New Haven Ct will next control city after Providence
HOWEVER I do suggest that Foxba]oro will be a good control point better then Attobaro becasue Foxboro is home to Gellett Stadiam where the New England Pats play and that makes an important control city.
I suggest that on SE expressway (I-93 south Cape Cod, Providence RI) or (I-93 south Quincy, Providence RI)so people coming from Boston will know how to get to Providence or Cape Cod. after exit 7 (I-93 US-1 south to I-95 Foxboro Providence RI) and at Exit 1 (I-95 south Foxboro Providence RI) I also suggest that for a Main idea for I-93 to I-95 idea like put (I-93 south to I-95 Canton, RI-CT-NY) I-95 and Rt-24 are the main routes to get to RI.
Speeking of that I think Providence RI as a control city for I-93 south of Boston is a good idea like for example in Boston to exit 9 (I-93 south Cape Cod, Providence RI) or (I-93 south Quinzy Providence RI) and some for north of Boston as 2nd control city like between exits 33-28 (I-93 south Boston Providence RI)
Unrelated to that I know that many people from Maine or NH to get to Boston use I-95 to I-93. when I was in Lawerance I saw signs for (I-495 south to I-93 Lowell) for people heading to Boston from Lawerance. For people from Peabody and the east, I suggest that on I-95 Rt-128 sb between Exits 42-38 (I-95 south to I-93 Boston Waltham) the other way around on I-93 for those who are leaving for I-95 Rt-128 I suggest on I-93 nb between Exits 32-36 (I-93 north to I-95 Concord NH, Portsmouth NH)
Last of all on I-93 nb before I-95 jct in Woburn I suggest (Gloucester, Portsmouth NH use I-95 north exit 37A)
Sure, Gillette Stadium/Foxboro is an important destination, but it doesn't need to be a control city. Providence is better because it's more of a long distance destination for people traveling south. Plus, Gillette Stadium is really only busy during the soccer and football seasons so it's not a really important destination for people.
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 25, 2014, 02:33:40 PM
Doesn't MUTCD want only one control city per arrow on a diagrammatic though?
Correct. At least FHWA didn't insist on APL signing at this location, which may have been a possibility given that the project had to be re-advertised for bids after Massachusetts adopted the 2009 MUTCD.
Quote(As far as thinking there was an option lane, I think I was recalling common driving practice of moving over at the last minute vs. the actual striping. :D I still don't get why they deleted a lane for route 3 or didn't make the #3 lane an option lane though. Probably zipper-lane related, but still....)
Again correct. District 6's rationale for changing the lane configuration was to reduce the merging/weaving problems the end of the zipper lane and the MA 3/I-93 split.
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 05:35:45 PM
HOWEVER I do suggest that Foxba]oro will be a good control point better then Attobaro becasue Foxboro is home to Gellett Stadiam where the New England Pats play and that makes an important control city.
I suggest that on SE expressway (I-93 south Cape Cod, Providence RI) or (I-93 south Quincy, Providence RI)so people coming from Boston will know how to get to Providence or Cape Cod. after exit 7 (I-93 US-1 south to I-95 Foxboro Providence RI) and at Exit 1 (I-95 south Foxboro Providence RI) I also suggest that for a Main idea for I-93 to I-95 idea like put (I-93 south to I-95 Canton, RI-CT-NY) I-95 and Rt-24 are the main routes to get to RI.
Sure. I've made some renders of appropriate signs to send to MassDOT. I'll also throw in the nominal fee to rename the highway in your honor.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FOMGSTAHP-1_zps24430309.png&hash=0ba0fa3590a791fa43afc02ae4ee99c067d68785)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FOMGSTAHP-2_zps338b3fe6.png&hash=b1551877fe3a5e1b764f178825d5f986512e2238)
Quote from: roadman on June 25, 2014, 05:49:25 PM
Correct. At least FHWA didn't insist on APL signing at this location, which may have been a possibility given that the project had to be re-advertised for bids after Massachusetts adopted the 2009 MUTCD.
I actually like how MassDOT continues with the diagrammatic signs instead of jumping on the APL bandwagon (well, if you call it that).
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 05:35:45 PM
Foxba]oro
Attobaro
becasue
Gellett Stadiam
Speeking
Quinzy
Lawerance
we are forbidden by board rules to point out deficiencies in the spelling and grammar of posters, so I will just, out of the blue, for completely unrelated reasons, tell you to kindly go fuck yourself.
My rendition of A00420BLARGH approved signage:
(warning: big file, click at your own risk)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmqImy3T.png&hash=06627a92388e100c8fba4c70a7aea79ff003984e)
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2014, 06:03:33 PMI actually like how MassDOT continues with the diagrammatic signs instead of jumping on the APL bandwagon (well, if you call it that).
IIRC, MUTCD's APL design are only to be used if there's a middle lane that splits into two different directions. Such middle-lane split does not
currently exist with the Braintree Split interchange.
When it did (for I-93 & MA 3 South); the signage (mid-1980s vintage) obviously predated the MUTCD APL standard.If one scrolls down the OP's I-93 signage page (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html), or a previous page of this thread (scroll down) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6633.250); one sees that MassDOT used yellow
LEFT or
RIGHT 2 LANES banners instead of a diagrammatic.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 25, 2014, 06:18:01 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2014, 06:03:33 PMI actually like how MassDOT continues with the diagrammatic signs instead of jumping on the APL bandwagon (well, if you call it that).
IIRC, MUTCD's APL design are only to be used if there's a middle lane that splits into two different directions. Such middle-lane split does not exist with the Braintree Split interchange.
Aha! :D Google street view and aerial view (http://goo.gl/maps/DsP5h) seems to show what I thought I remembered--the #3 lane used to split at the exit but it now doesn't (after the aerial and street views were taken). Had they left the option lane, APL could have been viable (and may have been required). With the new striping, APL is inappropriate (thank goodness).
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 25, 2014, 06:26:31 PM
Aha! :D Google street view and aerial view (http://goo.gl/maps/DsP5h) seems to show what I thought I remembered--the #3 lane used to split at the exit but it now doesn't (after the aerial and street views were taken). Had they left the option lane, APL could have been viable (and may have been required). With the new striping, APL is inappropriate (thank goodness)
Okay, so the #3 lane is NOT an option lane looking at the Google Maps aerial view. Yeah, that makes sense. Although, couldn't you just sign it as two separate signs instead of a diagrammatic at that point though?
Sidebar: Are lane stripings supposed to not line up with one another? I noticed it on the Google Maps view.
Quote from: Alex4897 on June 25, 2014, 06:15:03 PM
My rendition of A00420BLARGH approved signage:
I don't think it would look anywhere near that good
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/foxbaro.png)
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 05:35:45 PMFor people from Peabody and the east, I suggest that on I-95 Rt-128 sb between Exits 42-38 (I-95 south to I-93 Boston Waltham) the other way around on I-93 for those who are leaving for I-95 Rt-128 I suggest on I-93 nb between Exits 32-36 (I-93 north to I-95 Concord NH, Portsmouth NH)
Everyone says that.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 25, 2014, 07:03:44 PM
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 05:35:45 PMFor people from Peabody and the east, I suggest that on I-95 Rt-128 sb between Exits 42-38 (I-95 south to I-93 Boston Waltham) the other way around on I-93 for those who are leaving for I-95 Rt-128 I suggest on I-93 nb between Exits 32-36 (I-93 north to I-95 Concord NH, Portsmouth NH)
Everyone says that.
Although not a full-blown limited-access highway for most of its route,
US 1 not I-93 is used &
signed as the primary way of getting to/from Boston from the northeast and
inside I-95/MA 128.
I-95 South loses its Boston destination listing to US 1 South at Exit 46 (a slip-ramp interchange). Further south, the US 1 interchange at the Lynnfield/Peabody line (Exit 44) uses Boston for the US 1 South destination.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 25, 2014, 06:18:01 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2014, 06:03:33 PMI actually like how MassDOT continues with the diagrammatic signs instead of jumping on the APL bandwagon (well, if you call it that).
IIRC, MUTCD's APL design are only to be used if there's a middle lane that splits into two different directions. Such middle-lane split does not currently exist with the Braintree Split interchange. When it did (for I-93 & MA 3 South); the signage (mid-1980s vintage) obviously predated the MUTCD APL standard.
If one scrolls down the OP's I-93 signage page (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html), or a previous page of this thread (scroll down) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6633.250); one sees that MassDOT used yellow LEFT or RIGHT 2 LANES banners instead of a diagrammatic.
You are correct about the "option lane" APL requirements. Actually, per the 2009 MUTCD, traditional diagrammatics are now only to be used at "option lane" configurations as well.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2014, 06:55:48 PM
Quote from: Alex4897 on June 25, 2014, 06:15:03 PM
My rendition of A00420BLARGH approved signage:
I don't think it would look anywhere near that good
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/foxbaro.png)
LOL! Reminds me of Lex Luthor's "New West Coast" map in the original
Superman movie, where Ned Beatty scrawled "Otisburg (with a reversed 'S')" in crayon on it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 25, 2014, 07:13:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 25, 2014, 07:03:44 PM
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 05:35:45 PMFor people from Peabody and the east, I suggest that on I-95 Rt-128 sb between Exits 42-38 (I-95 south to I-93 Boston Waltham) the other way around on I-93 for those who are leaving for I-95 Rt-128 I suggest on I-93 nb between Exits 32-36 (I-93 north to I-95 Concord NH, Portsmouth NH)
Everyone says that.
Although not a full-blown limited-access highway for most of its route, US 1 not I-93 is used & signed as the primary way of getting to/from Boston from the northeast and inside I-95/MA 128.
I-95 South loses its Boston destination listing to US 1 South at Exit 46 (a slip-ramp interchange). Further south, the US 1 interchange at the Lynnfield/Peabody line (Exit 44) uses Boston for the US 1 South destination.
What impresses me most about this is that you apparently made some sense of the paragraph I quoted.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2014, 06:03:33 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FOMGSTAHP-1_zps24430309.png&hash=0ba0fa3590a791fa43afc02ae4ee99c067d68785)
You spelled Gellet wrong.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1001.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf138%2Fjakez1112%2Ffoxbpoaroroor_zps9c676ce0.png&hash=8f350188735abdbbb8b80bace7e110de086199c5)
Not my best sign, but it makes a point.
It's Foxba]oro. Remember the bracket.
Quote from: 1 on June 25, 2014, 10:03:13 PM
It's Foxba]oro. Remember the bracket.
Oops. :banghead:
Quote from: roadman on June 25, 2014, 05:49:25 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 25, 2014, 02:33:40 PM
(As far as thinking there was an option lane, I think I was recalling common driving practice of moving over at the last minute vs. the actual striping. :D I still don't get why they deleted a lane for route 3 or didn't make the #3 lane an option lane though. Probably zipper-lane related, but still....)
Again correct. District 6's rationale for changing the lane configuration was to reduce the merging/weaving problems the end of the zipper lane and the MA 3/I-93 split.
Yes, now instead of having to cross two lanes from the zipper lane to a lane that accesses I-93 South, vehicles only have to cross two lanes!
Does anyone know what will happen with the signs on Route 37/exit 6? Another poster pointed out that the plans do not call for them to be replaced, yet they are old button copy. I am confused as to what larger corridor replacement project they would ever be apart of in the future?
Quote from: mass_citizen on June 26, 2014, 04:01:26 PM
Does anyone know what will happen with the signs on Route 37/exit 6? Another poster pointed out that the plans do not call for them to be replaced, yet they are old button copy. I am confused as to what larger corridor replacement project they would ever be apart of in the future?
Are you referring to the BGS' along MA 37 itself? The ones along I-93 for Exit 6, were replaced late last year/early this year.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on June 26, 2014, 04:01:26 PM
Does anyone know what will happen with the signs on Route 37/exit 6? Another poster pointed out that the plans do not call for them to be replaced, yet they are old button copy. I am confused as to what larger corridor replacement project they would ever be apart of in the future?
Are you referring to the BGS' along MA 37 itself? The ones along I-93 for Exit 6, were replaced late last year/early this year.
He's talking about the signs on MA 37 itself. They are not being replaced, and they are in good enough shape not to be. They were installed in the 1990s and therefore not probably in need of replacement for 10 or more years.
What about the BGS signage on Morrissey Blvd at I-93 and MA 3A? That is in dire need of replacement. Was that part of this contract?
Quote from: bob7374 on June 26, 2014, 11:18:17 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on June 26, 2014, 04:01:26 PM
Does anyone know what will happen with the signs on Route 37/exit 6? Another poster pointed out that the plans do not call for them to be replaced, yet they are old button copy. I am confused as to what larger corridor replacement project they would ever be apart of in the future?
Are you referring to the BGS' along MA 37 itself? The ones along I-93 for Exit 6, were replaced late last year/early this year.
He's talking about the signs on MA 37 itself. They are not being replaced, and they are in good enough shape not to be. They were installed in the 1990s and therefore not probably in need of replacement for 10 or more years.
even still, if they are pushing 20 years old at least the sign panels should be replaced, save the structural supports. At least get rid of the button copy with its deficient night time visibility.
bob7374 can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in either the sample plans you posted or somewhere else in this thread I saw that some signs near Mass ave/southhampton street are being replaced? These were installed even more recently near the completion of the big dig.
@mass_citizen Save for the numerals in the I-93 shields, the signs on Route 37 are NOT button copy. The signs and supports were last updated in 1997, and the sign legends are high intensity demountable copy, which was MassHighway standard for overhead BGSes at the time (the current MassDOT standard is for high intensity prismatic legend and background on extruded BGSes).
As for the signs on the northern end of the Boston to Randolph project, most signs and supports north of Columbia Road that were installed at the tail end of the Big Dig will now be retained (plans called for the signs to be reset on new supports, but that was changed once the supports were inspected and evaluated). The principal exception is signing for the Mass. Ave exit, which is also the designated haz-mat/overheight route around the I-93 tunnel. The new signs for Mass. Ave will include the "haz-mat/overheight must exit here" information as a banner on the signs, instead of the previous single separate "must exit here" panel at the exit ramp. This is to reduce the chances of such traffic missing the proper exit, and is also consistent with most other signing within the tunnel system. Also, the southbound advance signs for Columbia Road that were installed under the Big Dig will be changed by overlaying "U Mass JFK Library" with "Dorchester S. Boston", to match the other new Columbia Road signs within the project.
Quote from: southshore720 on June 26, 2014, 11:39:19 PM
What about the BGS signage on Morrissey Blvd at I-93 and MA 3A? That is in dire need of replacement. Was that part of this contract?
Yes, the signing you are referring to, as well as similar signing within Neponset Circle, is to be replaced under the Randolph to Boston contract as well.
Quote from: roadman on June 27, 2014, 11:15:19 AM
@mass_citizen Save for the numerals in the I-93 shields, the signs on Route 37 are NOT button copy. The signs and supports were last updated in 1997, and the sign legends are high intensity demountable copy, which was MassHighway standard for overhead BGSes at the time (the current MassDOT standard is for high intensity prismatic legend and background on extruded BGSes).
you are correct-my mistake for not specifying that only the shields are button copy. Even still, the signs being 17 years old (yes it has already been 17 years since 1997, can you believe it!) I thought typically massdot replaces sign panels about every 20 years or so. It would make sense to at least put new panels on the existing supports since they fall within the corridor of the Boston to Randolph project and it is unlikely another large scale sign replacement project will hit that area for some time.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 25, 2014, 07:13:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 25, 2014, 07:03:44 PM
Quote from: A00234826 on June 25, 2014, 05:35:45 PMFor people from Peabody and the east, I suggest that on I-95 Rt-128 sb between Exits 42-38 (I-95 south to I-93 Boston Waltham) the other way around on I-93 for those who are leaving for I-95 Rt-128 I suggest on I-93 nb between Exits 32-36 (I-93 north to I-95 Concord NH, Portsmouth NH)
Everyone says that.
Although not a full-blown limited-access highway for most of its route, US 1 not I-93 is used & signed as the primary way of getting to/from Boston from the northeast and inside I-95/MA 128.
I-95 South loses its Boston destination listing to US 1 South at Exit 46 (a slip-ramp interchange). Further south, the US 1 interchange at the Lynnfield/Peabody line (Exit 44) uses Boston for the US 1 South destination.
US-1 from Peabody to Boston is a 6 lane road (like a normal 6 lane highway) "HOWEVER" there lots of shops and restraints on the side of the road, the narrow entrances to the parking lots for all the businesses on US-1 can be distracting and dangerous (especially during peak time) when merging on and off with through traffic.
I prefer I-95 Rt-128 south to Exit 37A to I-93 south becasue 2 reasons. 1.US-1s toben Bridge cost $3 for cash travelers and Rt-128 and I-93 dont have any toll plazas in Boston. 2. drivers on US-1 needed to be cairful with people heading off and back on the road after stopping at the busineses on the side of the road and that can slow down traffic even more then an average highway like Rt-128 and I-93.
PS
Remember Commercial vehicles with hazours material heading south of Boston to ether Cape Cod by US-3 or I-95 through Providence RI, New York City CANT use I-93 in Bostons tunnels at all as a throughway from NH to points south of Boston, they must use Rt-128. I suggest a sign near Rt-128 jct on I-93 also on US-3 and I-95 in Peabody for Commercial Vechicals heading south reminding them (RI-CT-NY points use I-95 Rt-128 south) or (to I-90 mass pike, Providence RI, New York City use I-95 Rt-128 south) since some take Rt-128 to Exit 25 were I-90 jcts.
Quote from: A00234826 on June 28, 2014, 10:39:35 PM
Remember Commercial vehicles with hazours material heading south of Boston to ether Cape Cod by US-3 or I-95 through Providence RI, New York City CANT use I-93 in Bostons tunnels at all as a throughway from NH to points south of Boston, they must use Rt-128. I suggest a sign near Rt-128 jct on I-93 also on US-3 and I-95 in Peabody for Commercial Vechicals heading south reminding them (RI-CT-NY points use I-95 Rt-128 south) or (to I-90 mass pike, Providence RI, New York City use I-95 Rt-128 south) since some take Rt-128 to Exit 25 were I-90 jcts.
I think this sign on I-93 SB prior to 128 serves that purpose. There is a similar sign on US 3 SB prior to 128 as well. And I believe also on 95 SB prior to 128 in Peabody.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.521193,-71.134138,3a,15y,203.68h,89.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNkB3JkBSqek8ekJqE5k20g!2e0?hl=en
@mass_citizen Correct on all counts regarding the haz mat signs. There are also similar signs to advise northbound traffic on Route 3 in Braintree, Route 24 in Randolph, and I-95 in Norwood.
Quote from: A00234826 on June 28, 2014, 10:39:35 PMUS-1 from Peabody to Boston is a 6 lane road (like a normal 6 lane highway) "HOWEVER" there lots of shops and restraints on the side of the road, the narrow entrances to the parking lots for all the businesses on US-1 can be distracting and dangerous (especially during peak time) when merging on and off with through traffic.
With all due respect, did you even bother to read
all of my post that you quoted particularly the first 8 words (reposted below in
bold & in red)?
QuoteAlthough not a full-blown limited-access highway for most of its route
Let me
politely remind you that I grew up in the North Shore and and well aware of what US 1's like along that stretch; short-comings and all. It hasn't really changed all that much over the last few decades. Addtionally, most people on this forum already know of such. Incidentally, US 1 isn't
continously 6 lanes from Peabody to Boston; it drops to 4 lanes between MA 99 in Saugus and MA 60 in Revere.
Quote from: A00234826 on June 28, 2014, 10:39:35 PMI prefer I-95 Rt-128 south to Exit 37A to I-93 south becasue 2 reasons. 1.US-1s toben Bridge cost $3 for cash travelers and Rt-128 and I-93 dont have any toll plazas in Boston. 2. drivers on US-1 needed to be cairful with people heading off and back on the road after stopping at the busineses on the side of the road and that can slow down traffic even more then an average highway like Rt-128 and I-93.
While doing such is certainly your choice; it usually adds more travel time (it's longer in miles)
in most instances. If you frequently head to Boston, you might consider investing in an EZPass.
Quote from: A00234826 on June 28, 2014, 10:39:35 PMRemember Commercial vehicles with hazours material heading south of Boston to ether Cape Cod by US-3 or I-95 through Providence RI, New York City CANT use I-93 in Bostons tunnels at all as a throughway from NH to points south of Boston, they must use Rt-128. I suggest a sign near Rt-128 jct on I-93 also on US-3 and I-95 in Peabody for Commercial Vechicals heading south reminding them (RI-CT-NY points use I-95 Rt-128 south) or (to I-90 mass pike, Providence RI, New York City use I-95 Rt-128 south) since some take Rt-128 to Exit 25 were I-90 jcts.
I'm going to say this again (
in bold & in red): regardless of whether a vehicle is transporting hazardous material or not,
through-traffic will not be going through Boston PERIOD!As stated by others, there are already signs posted directing through-traffic carry hazardous materials to go
around Boston by way of I-95 at key locations. The bigger issue for such vehicles would be where to go if their destination is actually
in or near Boston. But that's another topic for another thread.
Seriously dude, your spelling is absolutely atrocious (and I can tell that they're not merely just typos). I haven't seen a misspelling of
careful since probably the 2nd grade. Do yourself and all of us a favor and
proof-read what you type and check your spelling prior to hitting the Post button.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 30, 2014, 09:56:01 AM
Seriously dude, your spelling is absolutely atrocious (and I can tell that they're not merely just typos). I haven't seen a misspelling of careful since probably the 2nd grade. Do yourself and all of us a favor and proof-read what you type and check your spelling prior to hitting the Post button.
Completely agreed, although the quality of spelling seems to match the thoughts being presented.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 30, 2014, 09:56:01 AM
Seriously dude, your spelling is absolutely atrocious (and I can tell that they're not merely just typos). I haven't seen a misspelling of careful since probably the 2nd grade. Do yourself and all of us a favor and proof-read what you type and check your spelling prior to hitting the Post button.
QUOTED FOR TRUTH! However, the spelling I think is indicative of how nonsense some of his posts are... he wants to re-sign everything for New York City, but I don't think he realizes that making a new sign
costs money. Does a state want to spend money on highway signs just to make sure people can find New York City easily? NO! The general consensus of the community is that I-93, I-95, MA 128, and whatever else routes you decide to list, are all
signed fine. And besides - if someone wants to get to New York City, don't you think they would have a GPS or a map to do so?
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 30, 2014, 09:56:01 AM
Quote from: A00234826 on June 28, 2014, 10:39:35 PMUS-1 from Peabody to Boston is a 6 lane road (like a normal 6 lane highway) "HOWEVER" there lots of shops and restraints on the side of the road, the narrow entrances to the parking lots for all the businesses on US-1 can be distracting and dangerous (especially during peak time) when merging on and off with through traffic.
With all due respect, did you even bother to read all of my post that you quoted particularly the first 8 words (reposted below in bold & in red)?
QuoteAlthough not a full-blown limited-access highway for most of its route
Let me politely remind you that I grew up in the North Shore and and well aware of what US 1's like along that stretch; short-comings and all. It hasn't really changed all that much over the last few decades. Addtionally, most people on this forum already know of such. Incidentally, US 1 isn't continously 6 lanes from Peabody to Boston; it drops to 4 lanes between MA 99 in Saugus and MA 60 in Revere.
Quote from: A00234826 on June 28, 2014, 10:39:35 PMI prefer I-95 Rt-128 south to Exit 37A to I-93 south becasue 2 reasons. 1.US-1s toben Bridge cost $3 for cash travelers and Rt-128 and I-93 dont have any toll plazas in Boston. 2. drivers on US-1 needed to be cairful with people heading off and back on the road after stopping at the busineses on the side of the road and that can slow down traffic even more then an average highway like Rt-128 and I-93.
While doing such is certainly your choice; it usually adds more travel time (it's longer in miles) in most instances. If you frequently head to Boston, you might consider investing in an EZPass.
Quote from: A00234826 on June 28, 2014, 10:39:35 PMRemember Commercial vehicles with hazours material heading south of Boston to ether Cape Cod by US-3 or I-95 through Providence RI, New York City CANT use I-93 in Bostons tunnels at all as a throughway from NH to points south of Boston, they must use Rt-128. I suggest a sign near Rt-128 jct on I-93 also on US-3 and I-95 in Peabody for Commercial Vechicals heading south reminding them (RI-CT-NY points use I-95 Rt-128 south) or (to I-90 mass pike, Providence RI, New York City use I-95 Rt-128 south) since some take Rt-128 to Exit 25 were I-90 jcts.
I'm going to say this again (in bold & in red): regardless of whether a vehicle is transporting hazardous material or not, through-traffic will not be going through Boston PERIOD!
As stated by others, there are already signs posted directing through-traffic carry hazardous materials to go around Boston by way of I-95 at key locations. The bigger issue for such vehicles would be where to go if their destination is actually in or near Boston. But that's another topic for another thread.
Seriously dude, your spelling is absolutely atrocious (and I can tell that they're not merely just typos). I haven't seen a misspelling of careful since probably the 2nd grade. Do yourself and all of us a favor and proof-read what you type and check your spelling prior to hitting the Post button.
Hear hear!
I too grew up on the North Shore (in Peabody) and wouldn't bother going over to 93 to avoid a toll on the Tobin Bridge (or Sumner Tunnel)--not worth it timewise or distance-wise to me.
New York City on all the signs he suggests is crazy.
And the spelling thing is getting to be too much to take.
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 30, 2014, 01:54:58 PM
I too grew up on the North Shore (in Peabody) and wouldn't bother going over to 93 to avoid a toll on the Tobin Bridge (or Sumner Tunnel)--not worth it timewise or distance-wise to me.
I lived in Lynn until 1990, and would rarely take I-93 into Downtown Boston instead of the Tobin Bridge or the Sumner Tunnel. My first car even had Tobin Bridge commuter stickers (remember those) on it. IIRC, the toll was normally 25 cents, but with the sticker it was only a dime.
I now normally take I-93 into Boston, but that's because I now live in Wakefield. Unless there's a total cluster on I-93 south, going over to the Tobin or the Sumner makes no sense at all.
Quote
New York City on all the signs he suggests is crazy.
Tried to figure out the rationale on that one until I was reminded of a line from Monty Python's
Gumby Theater sketch
QuoteMy brain hurts!
Quote
And the spelling thing is getting to be too much to take.
Ditto in spades.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 30, 2014, 09:56:01 AM
regardless of whether a vehicle is transporting hazardous material or not, through-traffic will not be going through Boston PERIOD!
On a side note, haz-mat traffic is allowed on Boston surface artery streets from 8pm to 6am. I do frequently see truckers get off at Sullivan square, travel through downtown, and re-enter I-93 at Albany St. Vice-versa for NB traffic. Still must save time versus taking 128, depending on their final destination (most likely south shore/cape cod).
anyway, back on topic....any updates on I-93 signage? I did notice work crews out on my way to the cape the other night.
Quote from: mass_citizen on July 03, 2014, 03:19:45 PMOn a side note, haz-mat traffic is allowed on Boston surface artery streets from 8pm to 6am. I do frequently see truckers get off at Sullivan square, travel through downtown, and re-enter I-93 at Albany St. Vice-versa for NB traffic. Still must save time versus taking 128, depending on their final destination (most likely south shore/cape cod).
Are all these truckers carrying haz-mats driving through Boston
non-stop or are they making a stop along the way (via surface streets) and then continuing? I'd be curious to know what the percentage of
through haz-mat traffic there is vs. O&D haz-mat traffic.
The time differential vs. using I-95/MA 128 may be dependent upon how many red stop-lights one encounters on the surface streets. While 8PM-6AM isn't rush-hour, if one hits certain areas at the wrong time of night (examples: TD Garden following a concert or Celtics/Bruins game, or Fenway Park following a Red Sox game) nulls any associated time savings.
most of these night time truckers are through traffic-if they are making a stop on the surface streets they are permitted to do so during the day. through traffic may only travel during night.
and you are correct regarding event traffic. I have seen tankers stuck in cycle delays after a mass exodus of event go-ers
Nothing too significant to report this week. The project is now 61% complete according to MassDOT. The contractor has started constructing the foundations for the remaining overhead signs needed along the Southeast Expressway. They have also removed all the old signs, allowing me to get an unobstructed photo of the NB Morrissey Blvd exit sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs710a.jpg&hash=f22bf4c5a7520c751e5a325350ae8845a6de75de)
A rather small auxiliary sign has been placed on the 1 mile advance sign support for the Columbia Road exit SB 'UMass Boston, JFK Library Exit 15'. The existing overhead sign panels with the same information though have not been replaced with 'Dorchester S. Boston' as of yet. Since today was the last regular commute I will take on I-93 for the foreseeable future, I will post photos of any new signs when I get a chance. I have also posted a photo of the new MassDOT 'No Littering' signage on the I-93 Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Took a quick trip up I-93 as far as Granite Ave. earlier this week. Nothing new to report up until then and didn't want to get stuck in the traffic beyond that was indicated by the number of minutes to I-90 on the VMS sign at Exit 11. I did take a few shots of some of the new, and not so new, auxiliary MA 3 trailblazers at both Granite Ave and at Exit 9 for the southbound on-ramps. This is a close-up of the South MA 3 trailblazer just over the Neponset River in Milton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs727b.jpg&hash=3dd10cd7aaae5b690f6472a810b05ec4bb99d244)
The other photos are on the I-93 Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on August 01, 2014, 02:32:26 PM
Took a quick trip up I-93 as far as Granite Ave. earlier this week. Nothing new to report up until then and didn't want to get stuck in the traffic beyond that was indicated by the number of minutes to I-90 on the VMS sign at Exit 11. I did take a few shots of some of the new, and not so new, auxiliary MA 3 trailblazers at both Granite Ave and at Exit 9 for the southbound on-ramps. This is a close-up of the South MA 3 trailblazer just over the Neponset River in Milton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs727b.jpg&hash=3dd10cd7aaae5b690f6472a810b05ec4bb99d244)
The other photos are on the I-93 Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
As usual, great pictures Bob. Regarding the "Entering Quincy" sign at the Exit 9 on-ramp, I agree that the location looks odd at first glance. However, mounting the sign on the left would not be feasible due to the moveable HOV "zipper" lane barrier here. If the sign were located to the right of the on-ramp. it would not be visible to mainline traffic.
The established practice in Massachusetts is to locate town/city line signs as close as practical to the actual boundary - this is done for legal reasons related to police jurisdiction and enforcement. Although, in this case, it would likely be less of an issue on an Interstate highway patrolled by the State Police than with roads and streets patrolled by local cops.
Of course, my reaction upon seeing that sign is "But, how long will it last before it gets hit?"
They updated the Exit 15 SB "Big Dig" signage and overlayed the "UMass/JFK Library" with "Dorchester/S. Boston" via green-out on the 1 Mile and 1/2 Mile signs. The green-out does not look bad or obvious, thankfully. I would have preferred the old copy de-mounted and new copy mounted, but at least it doesn't look like crap!
Quote from: southshore720 on August 12, 2014, 12:02:13 PM
They updated the Exit 15 SB "Big Dig" signage and overlayed the "UMass/JFK Library" with "Dorchester/S. Boston" via green-out on the 1 Mile and 1/2 Mile signs. The green-out does not look bad or obvious, thankfully. I would have preferred the old copy de-mounted and new copy mounted, but at least it doesn't look like crap!
Appreciate the update southshore720. Unless a BGS is relatively new, MassDOT practice for legend revisions is to apply a greenout panel instead of replacing individual letters on the original panel. The principal reason for this is that, when removed, the original demountable copy will leave a shadow of the image. In the old button copy/non-reflective background days, it was an easy matter to wash the sign background to remove the shadowing. However, with refective sheeting backgrounds, that is now not possible without risking damage to the sign panel.
I also noticed what appear to be temporary wooden bgs signs in the Neponset circle area
I like those newer and larger town line signs on I-93 South. I think one sign is still missing between Braintree and Canton somewhere, however. Anyways, for not being on this stretch in quite some time, I have to ask...Has this gantry been up at the Braintree split long?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2SiKsvT.jpg&hash=5fe3b400c8e3bbb9b0cfbc1accb2b29369a74638)
Also, any more tree/shrub growth and this I-93 sign will do the Homer Simpson disappearing into the bushes act!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0dvd8Sr.jpg&hash=d7f4e00d8c3c523df5554acf27d65b26d4409e59)
that sign is fairly new as part of that project however it was fabricated prior to the restriping at the split---which is why there is an arrow missing
I was driving on I-93 NB this afternoon and noticed that the sides of the sign bridges have been erected at Exit 5B and right after Exit 6 at the still-existing "Washington Street/T Station" 3/4 advance relic from the 1980s.
Quote from: mass_citizen on August 12, 2014, 11:35:06 PM
I also noticed what appear to be temporary wooden bgs signs in the Neponset circle area
It appears these temporary signs are in place while a new overhead sign is constructed right next to the Pope John Paul park entrance. Sorry don't have pictures. Not sure how much longer these temp signs will be there
Quote from: mass_citizen on August 31, 2014, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on August 12, 2014, 11:35:06 PM
I also noticed what appear to be temporary wooden bgs signs in the Neponset circle area
It appears these temporary signs are in place while a new overhead sign is constructed right next to the Pope John Paul park entrance. Sorry don't have pictures. Not sure how much longer these temp signs will be there
Hopefully, not too long. The project information page still has the contract to be completed this summer. I wonder whether they plan to recycle the new I-93 shield that replaced the faded shield on the old BGS a few months ago on the new signage. At least the Exit 5B sign looks like it will be up soon, accompanied by a VMS. Contract still listed as 65% complete.
I saw a few new steel uprights installed today
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 10, 2014, 06:55:05 PM
I saw a few new steel uprights installed today
The traffic camera at Columbia Road now appears to show a new upright post heading north before the Exit 15 on-ramp, this is for an assembly which will have new advance signs for the Mass Ave and I-90 exits. Is that one of those you saw?
I saw various uprights scattered about the length of the SE expressway actually. No complete structures though.
These pictures are making me want to road trip to Massachusetts...........
Damn being broke :(
other than some shiny signs you're not missing much...
:bigass:
After a couple month lull, action has again picked up on the I-93 sign replacement project. The last two new structures to go up on the '128' section were placed late last week, they are combination exit sign and VMS, here's the one in Braintree:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs921t.jpg&hash=841112921def9c4874f8f42f50196ab2f3828c9f)
Almost all the supports for the remaining new overheads along the SE Expressway have been placed. So far, the only new signage is in the Neponset Circle area for the Exit 12 on-ramps. Here's signage toward the northbound ramp:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs921l.jpg&hash=0479ca1b717c79b3bda1022901ea966ebe643ba0)
(Why does MassDOT insist on 'To' for the MA 203 signs?) The project is listed at 71% complete. Hopefully, the signs will go up on the new support posts soon. I'll take another trip for photos when that occurs.
All my photos from today's trip can be found at the top of the I-93 Photos site:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
MassDOT reports the project is now 78% complete (the same percentage as that listed for the I-95 project from Newton to Lexington). Almost all the remaining supports have been placed and new signs went up in Quincy last week. Hopefully, this means the remaining overhead signs can be taken care of within the next month.
thanks for the update glad its finally coming together
It appears the end is in sight for the signing project on I-93. The latest MassDOT project listing indicates the contract is 83% complete. Over 90% of the new overheads have been placed, including the final advance diagrammatic for Exit 7:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs928e.jpg&hash=864a2e1c0a446304d0b646e9f5b66062e1ae6f49)
All the overheads are now up south of Morrissey Blvd (Exit 14) with the exception of 2 replacements for bridge mounted signs in Milton. I have not traveled all the way into Boston the past few weeks to see how many more possibly new signs are up for Columbia Road and beyond, but hopefully progress has been made there. At least one of the new Mass Ave (Exit 18) signs has also been put up from looking at a traffic camera.
Besides overheads, the remaining work needed, based on the plans, includes replacing the last few old I-93/MA 3 guide/paddle signs and putting up the remaining trailblazers at on-ramps and reassurance markers along the Expressway, besides the one I-93/US 1/MA 3 assembly beyond Exit 9 northbound. Hopefully, this can be done in the next month or so.
All my recent photos from the past few weeks can be found at:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
There is new signage for all approach BGS' for Exit 15 NB, one new one for Exit 16 NB, a new 2 1/4 mile approach for Exit 20 NB, and a new Exit 18 NB sign with a hazardous cargo banner on the bottom. Hopefully Bob can take some pics soon for us! He's done a great job so far! :clap:
Quote from: southshore720 on October 13, 2014, 10:28:23 PM
There is new signage for all approach BGS' for Exit 15 NB, one new one for Exit 16 NB, a new 2 1/4 mile approach for Exit 20 NB, and a new Exit 18 NB sign with a hazardous cargo banner on the bottom. Hopefully Bob can take some pics soon for us! He's done a great job so far! :clap:
I had to drive into Boston last Wednesday and was able to get photos of the new signs. Here's the most interesting one given the wide gap in sequential numbers, the lack of a Mass Pike logo for Exit 20, and the addition of information about South Station, or should I say S. Station?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1015b.jpg&hash=ec9d193b299d495a58e309588abc1ffa13e7b323)
As always, all the photos are on my I-93 Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Why was "Andrew Square" preserved for Exit 16? I didn't think that "squares" were MUTCD compliant. "S. Boston" or "Newmarket" would have been more appropriate.
Newmarket Square, you mean? Doesn't that repeat the problem?
Quote from: bob7374 on October 17, 2014, 10:58:48 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on October 13, 2014, 10:28:23 PM
There is new signage for all approach BGS' for Exit 15 NB, one new one for Exit 16 NB, a new 2 1/4 mile approach for Exit 20 NB, and a new Exit 18 NB sign with a hazardous cargo banner on the bottom. Hopefully Bob can take some pics soon for us! He's done a great job so far! :clap:
I has to drive into Boston last Wednesday and was able to get photos of the new signs. Here's the most interesting one given the wide gap in sequential numbers, the lack of a Mass Pike logo for Exit 20, and that the sign also has info for Exit 18, but no number given:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1015b.jpg&hash=ec9d193b299d495a58e309588abc1ffa13e7b323)
As always, all the photos are on my I-93 Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
90 Toll? Would it kill them to include the much more commonly used "Mass Pike"? Foolish loyalty to rule books.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 17, 2014, 10:58:48 PM
I has to drive into Boston last Wednesday and was able to get photos of the new signs. Here's the most interesting one given the wide gap in sequential numbers, the lack of a Mass Pike logo for Exit 20, and that the sign also has info for Exit 18, but no number given:
I'm confused, what part of that sign references anything at Mass Ave/Exit 18? South station and I-90 are both accessed by exit 20. One can get off at exit 18 if they choose and eventually get to South station, but I think the purpose of the sign is to direct motorists to use exit 20.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 17, 2014, 10:58:48 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on October 13, 2014, 10:28:23 PM
There is new signage for all approach BGS' for Exit 15 NB, one new one for Exit 16 NB, a new 2 1/4 mile approach for Exit 20 NB, and a new Exit 18 NB sign with a hazardous cargo banner on the bottom. Hopefully Bob can take some pics soon for us! He's done a great job so far! :clap:
I has to drive into Boston last Wednesday and was able to get photos of the new signs. Here's the most interesting one given the wide gap in sequential numbers, the lack of a Mass Pike logo for Exit 20, and that the sign also has info for Exit 18, but no number given:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1015b.jpg&hash=ec9d193b299d495a58e309588abc1ffa13e7b323)
As always, all the photos are on my I-93 Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Two things I note: The use of three destinations (on both signs), as well as putting the period after a direction (S. Boston, S. Station). I believe both of these practices are now prohibited in the 2009 MUTCD.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 12:19:53 AM
90 Toll? Would it kill them to include the much more commonly used "Mass Pike"? Foolish loyalty to rule books.
I assume that Mass Pike is referenced more than I-90? Who knows, maybe they (the sign designers) didn't have a Mass Pike symbol in the GuidSIGN / SignCAD libraries.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 18, 2014, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 12:19:53 AM
90 Toll? Would it kill them to include the much more commonly used "Mass Pike"? Foolish loyalty to rule books.
I assume that Mass Pike is referenced more than I-90? Who knows, maybe they (the sign designers) didn't have a Mass Pike symbol in the GuidSIGN / SignCAD libraries.
I-90 isn't the Mass Pike anymore. They're changing it back to just I-90. Starting about 3 months ago (estimate), any VMS mentioning I-90 will say "I-90", not "Mass Pike".
Quote from: 1 on October 18, 2014, 10:12:49 AM
I-90 isn't the Mass Pike anymore. They're changing it back to just I-90. Starting about 3 months ago (estimate), any VMS mentioning I-90 will say "I-90", not "Mass Pike".
The Mass Pike is going the way of the Connecticut Turnpike? Was this a fairly recent change?
EDIT: By "going the way of the Connecticut Turnpike" I meant that it's not being signed anymore, not having the tolls removed or anything.
Quote from: 1 on October 18, 2014, 10:12:49 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 18, 2014, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 12:19:53 AM
90 Toll? Would it kill them to include the much more commonly used "Mass Pike"? Foolish loyalty to rule books.
I assume that Mass Pike is referenced more than I-90? Who knows, maybe they (the sign designers) didn't have a Mass Pike symbol in the GuidSIGN / SignCAD libraries.
I-90 isn't the Mass Pike anymore. They're changing it back to just I-90. Starting about 3 months ago (estimate), any VMS mentioning I-90 will say "I-90", not "Mass Pike".
It is still the Mass Pike for sure, but I suspect the thinking here is that by simply referring to it as "I-90 (toll)," it makes familiar a format that could easily be applied to "I-93 (toll)" or "I-95 (toll)."
In any case, willfully working against the public is bad road management specifically and bad public policy in general.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 12:17:50 AM
Newmarket Square, you mean? Doesn't that repeat the problem?
I thought it was a neighborhood, like Savin Hill...oops!
And I agree with the crowd that the MassPike shield should've been posted next to the I-90 shield on that sign.
Quote from: southshore720 on October 18, 2014, 12:52:50 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 12:17:50 AM
Newmarket Square, you mean? Doesn't that repeat the problem?
I thought it was a neighborhood, like Savin Hill...oops!
I don't really know the origin of that name. I know the produce market there is not terribly old, since a lot of that area was the South Bay until the middle of the last century.
I see both Newmarket and Newmarket Square used, but the former mostly recently. The new MBTA station there is called Newmarket, but the MBTA never uses the word "square" anyway.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 04:08:53 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on October 18, 2014, 12:52:50 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 12:17:50 AM
Newmarket Square, you mean? Doesn't that repeat the problem?
I thought it was a neighborhood, like Savin Hill...oops!
I don't really know the origin of that name. I know the produce market there is not terribly old, since a lot of that area was the South Bay until the middle of the last century.
I see both Newmarket and Newmarket Square used, but the former mostly recently. The new MBTA station there is called Newmarket, but the MBTA never uses the word "square" anyway.
Well, there's Government Center "Blue Line at Scollay Square" type signage but that's all gone for the time being. :D
Quote from: Zeffy on October 18, 2014, 10:10:22 AM
Two things I note: The use of three destinations (on both signs), as well as putting the period after a direction (S. Boston, S. Station). I believe both of these practices are now prohibited in the 2009 MUTCD.
There are Mass Pike shields on replacement signs on 95/128. I thought that they had said once that the Mass Pike name/shield was not going to be retired. East of 93, there isn't a toll on what's left of 90 on the way to Logan and 1A, so the TOLL banner is a little odd.
Interestingly, there is no period after Rd but is after S. I wish they'd allow periods after all proper abbrevs., but that's just me. The Rd is part of a street name, while the S is part of a proper name, so I see just enough wiggle room to argue for its inclusion. (I cringe when I see "Ft Wayne" but cringe less so if I see something like "Lafayette Center Rd" or something. If the FHWA people come complaining to MassDOT, I say MassDOT should go ahead and put a greenout reading "South Station" over "S. Station". :D
Keep in mind as I believe roadman mentioned earlier in this thread that this project was designed well before the 2009 MUTCD was issued
The new signs on 495 also have the MassPike logo on them.
Quote from: 1 on October 18, 2014, 10:12:49 AM
I-90 isn't the Mass Pike anymore. They're changing it back to just I-90. Starting about 3 months ago (estimate), any VMS mentioning I-90 will say "I-90", not "Mass Pike".
Given how many signs across the Commonwealth still refer to "Mass Pike" it's going to take years, if not decades, to erase that moniker from the public consciousness.
I think putting much stock in what any VMS says is a mistake.
IMHO, the likely rationale for not placing a Mass Pike shield for this particular exit (& BGS') is that I-90 East of this point is actually the Liberty (the short tunnel where the ceiling collapsed several years ago) & the Ted Williams Tunnel. While the 2 tunnels are still technically part of the Massachusetts Turnpike system (when it first opened); it may not be necessarily viewed as part of the Mass Pike per say.
Since the exit ramp is one of those exit ramps that later splits into separate ramps (one for I-90 West, the other for I-90 East); placing the yellow TOLL banner/placard on the main exit BGS', even though one direction (at the ramp split) does not involve any tolls is justified. That toll-free ramp choice restricts one's destination to either the South Boston exit (Exit 25) or the Ted Williams Tunnel.
The Turnpike Authority was responsible for the building of that tunnel, and it continues the Mass Pike exit numbers. Seems odd to arbitrarily need to distinguish it.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 18, 2014, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 17, 2014, 10:58:48 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on October 13, 2014, 10:28:23 PM
There is new signage for all approach BGS' for Exit 15 NB, one new one for Exit 16 NB, a new 2 1/4 mile approach for Exit 20 NB, and a new Exit 18 NB sign with a hazardous cargo banner on the bottom. Hopefully Bob can take some pics soon for us! He's done a great job so far! :clap:
I has to drive into Boston last Wednesday and was able to get photos of the new signs. Here's the most interesting one given the wide gap in sequential numbers, the lack of a Mass Pike logo for Exit 20, and that the sign also has info for Exit 18, but no number given:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1015b.jpg&hash=ec9d193b299d495a58e309588abc1ffa13e7b323)
As always, all the photos are on my I-93 Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Two things I note: The use of three destinations (on both signs), as well as putting the period after a direction (S. Boston, S. Station). I believe both of these practices are now prohibited in the 2009 MUTCD.
The MassDOT MUTCD Amendments specifically provide for using a period with a cardinal direction abbreviation (N., S. E. W.). Personally, I believe it gives a more 'finished' look to the sign legend.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 12:19:53 AM
90 Toll? Would it kill them to include the much more commonly used "Mass Pike"? Foolish loyalty to rule books.
If you look closely at the project plans, and the existing signs for Exit 20, you will see no provisions for either a MassPike LOGO or a 'TOLL' banner. My sources tell me that the TOLL banner was an 'add-on' initiated by the project contractor, and was not requested by MassDOT HQ or the District 6 office.
Quote
I assume that Mass Pike is referenced more than I-90? Who knows, maybe they (the sign designers) didn't have a Mass Pike symbol in the GuidSIGN / SignCAD libraries.
MassDOT has required its designers to use SignCAD only since 2007. As for the MassPike LOGO, there are a number of bitmap files for the LOGO that can be easily imported into SignCAD. However, as I noted above, none of the Big Dig era Exit 20 signs included a MassPike logo, so the additional Exit 20 signs provided on the Randolph to Boston project didn't either.
Quote from: roadman on October 20, 2014, 05:23:13 PM
The MassDOT MUTCD Amendments specifically provide for using a period with a cardinal direction abbreviation (N., S. E. W.). Personally, I believe it gives a more 'finished' look to the sign legend.
Bravo MassDOT! I like that they actively chose to pursue putting the period there. It does seem to belong there in my mind
If the TOLL banner is off-book, at least the contractor didn't go NH style and add a yellow A TOLL ROAD panel across the top or something. :D
How much latitude is the contractor supposed to have? If MassDOT ordered the signs a certain way, shouldn't the contractor deliver what's ordered?
Quote from: PurdueBill on October 20, 2014, 06:14:48 PM
How much latitude is the contractor supposed to have? If MassDOT ordered the signs a certain way, shouldn't the contractor deliver what's ordered?
This is actually the first instance in almost thirty years that I'm aware of where the contractor chose to make a change that was not on the plans or approved face drawing, nor was subsequently requested by the state. The usual course of action is for the contractor/fabricator to make the signs exactly according to the approved face drawings, even when those face drawings include a misspelling (like the infamous Borad Street error that appeared on the then new I-495 BGSes at Exit 53 in Merrimack for a short period in the mid-1990s).
Quote from: PurdueBill on October 20, 2014, 06:14:48 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 20, 2014, 05:23:13 PM
The MassDOT MUTCD Amendments specifically provide for using a period with a cardinal direction abbreviation (N., S. E. W.). Personally, I believe it gives a more 'finished' look to the sign legend.
Bravo MassDOT! I like that they actively chose to pursue putting the period there. It does seem to belong there in my mind
If the TOLL banner is off-book, at least the contractor didn't go NH style and add a yellow A TOLL ROAD panel across the top or something. :D
How much latitude is the contractor supposed to have? If MassDOT ordered the signs a certain way, shouldn't the contractor deliver what's ordered?
Quote from: bob7374 on March 23, 2014, 06:14:53 PM
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)
it looks like they did decide to use both the mass pike shield and "toll road" on the I-95 project however.
As I understand it, the decision to NOT use the MassPike shield and/or a TOLL banner on the Exit 20 signs (both the I-93 Randolph to Boston signs and the signs originally installed during the Big Dig) was because the principal destinations people use Exit 20 for (Ted Williams Tunnel/South Station/Chinatown/South Boston) do not require you pay a toll to access them. This decision was apparently made in the late 1980s during the early days of Big Dig project sign planning.
I've also been told that the principal reason the MassPike shield was not included on the Exit 20 signs was political. When the Big Dig project management was taken away from MassDPW, it was not handed to the Mass. Turnpike Authority. Rather, a separate entity - the Metropolitan Highway System - was created by the Legislature instead. For all practical purposes, the MHS could have been considered a subsidiary of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, but the politicians wanted to 'hide' that fact.
As the new signs on I-93 north supplement the existing Exit 20 signs installed during the Big Dig, it is actually logical they would use the same legends for consistency - the I-93 project contractor's actions notwithstanding.
Is there some equivalent of an "editor" in these decisions? Someone, in other words, whose job is to ensure the primary criteria of clarity, consistency, and accuracy are being met, rather than simply replicating a previous decision? I worked in publishing for quite a while, and in that realm, there is always a seasoned set of eyes reviewing for those criteria. Highway departments seem to seldom apply the most basic ability to exercise this kind of judgement to good visual/verbal communications decision-making.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 20, 2014, 11:49:10 AM
The Turnpike Authority was responsible for the building of that tunnel, and it continues the Mass Pike exit numbers. Seems odd to arbitrarily need to distinguish it.
Do keep in mind that the exit numbers are also those of I-90.
Roadman summoned earlier:
Quote from: roadman on October 20, 2014, 07:38:56 PMI've also been told that the principal reason the MassPike shield was not included on the Exit 20 signs was political. When the Big Dig project management was taken away from MassDPW, it was not handed to the Mass. Turnpike Authority. Rather, a separate entity - the Metropolitan Highway System - was created by the Legislature instead. For all practical purposes, the MHS could have been considered a subsidiary of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, but the politicians wanted to 'hide' that fact.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 20, 2014, 08:17:47 PM
Is there some equivalent of an "editor" in these decisions? Someone, in other words, whose job is to ensure the primary criteria of clarity, consistency, and accuracy are being met, rather than simply replicating a previous decision? I worked in publishing for quite a while, and in that realm, there is always a seasoned set of eyes reviewing for those criteria. Highway departments seem to seldom apply the most basic ability to exercise this kind of judgement to good visual/verbal communications decision-making.
That person does exist, but it is naive to think that they are immune to political decision making that happens above their pay grade. That person also loses any sense of authority once a project goes to construction and decisions are left to the resident engineer and the District office.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 21, 2014, 08:16:22 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 20, 2014, 11:49:10 AM
The Turnpike Authority was responsible for the building of that tunnel, and it continues the Mass Pike exit numbers. Seems odd to arbitrarily need to distinguish it.
Do keep in mind that the exit numbers are also those of I-90.
Roadman summoned earlier:
Quote from: roadman on October 20, 2014, 07:38:56 PMI've also been told that the principal reason the MassPike shield was not included on the Exit 20 signs was political. When the Big Dig project management was taken away from MassDPW, it was not handed to the Mass. Turnpike Authority. Rather, a separate entity - the Metropolitan Highway System - was created by the Legislature instead. For all practical purposes, the MHS could have been considered a subsidiary of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, but the politicians wanted to 'hide' that fact.
Yes, I saw his response. I get it, yet reporting at the time strongly indicated the responsibility for the Big Dig was handed to the Turnpike Authority because it has an independent revenue stream. You'll remember the Extension tolls then went up around 2000 or so.
Quote from: spooky on October 21, 2014, 09:10:24 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 20, 2014, 08:17:47 PM
Is there some equivalent of an "editor" in these decisions? Someone, in other words, whose job is to ensure the primary criteria of clarity, consistency, and accuracy are being met, rather than simply replicating a previous decision? I worked in publishing for quite a while, and in that realm, there is always a seasoned set of eyes reviewing for those criteria. Highway departments seem to seldom apply the most basic ability to exercise this kind of judgement to good visual/verbal communications decision-making.
That person does exist, but it is naive to think that they are immune to political decision making that happens above their pay grade. That person also loses any sense of authority once a project goes to construction and decisions are left to the resident engineer and the District office.
For god's sake, it's a goddamn
highway sign we're talking about. Its job is to get people from A to B the best it can and not do anything else. It is a reasonable expectation that this should not be a realm of political meddling.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 21, 2014, 11:13:58 AMIt is a reasonable expectation that this should not be a realm of political meddling.
Excuse me, but what rock have you been living under for the past X years?
This is Massachusetts. EVERYTHING is political.
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 21, 2014, 03:32:24 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 21, 2014, 11:13:58 AMIt is a reasonable expectation that this should not be a realm of political meddling.
Excuse me, but what rock have you been living under for the past X years?
This is Massachusetts. EVERYTHING is political.
Charming insult. Just because it happens and everyone seems to take pride in dirty, crooked government, it doesn't make it unreasonable to expect issues of basic common sense to be immune to it.
In fact, it's sad and pathetic to not expect better.
Okay to clarify: I was the one that emailed MassDOT several years ago. The MassPike branding is not going away. Any place that the "Mass Pike" text was on a sign it was replaced with a MassPike shield. The Turnpike Authority does not exist any longer but the "Mass Turnpike" branding is not going away any time soon, because according to my sources, nothing has changed within the power structure of MassDOT since the initial merger in 2009 that would change that decision. The Pike extends from Exit 1 in West Stockbridge to Exit 26 in East Boston. The tunnels are part of the MassPike. Before the merger they were technically a separate entity but for all practical purposes, it was still a part of the Pike from 2003-2008. Why there is no MassPike shield on the sign from I-93 I don't know, but I can tell you that it is the Mass Pike both east and west of the interchange. Also, no exit numbers on the Pike are skipped, like a lot of closed circuit toll roads all 26 interchanges have individual names, including those that only have entrances and not exits. The only real exception is the Allston-Brighton Interchange. Exit 18 is the eastbound exit, Exit 19 is the main toll, Exit 20 is the westbound exit.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 21, 2014, 05:10:33 PM
Okay to clarify: I was the one that emailed MassDOT several years ago. The MassPike branding is not going away. Any place that the "Mass Pike" text was on a sign it was replaced with a MassPike shield. The Turnpike Authority does not exist any longer but the "Mass Turnpike" branding is not going away any time soon, because according to my sources, nothing has changed within the power structure of MassDOT since the initial merger in 2009 that would change that decision. The Pike extends from Exit 1 in West Stockbridge to Exit 26 in East Boston. The tunnels are part of the MassPike. Before the merger they were technically a separate entity but for all practical purposes, it was still a part of the Pike from 2003-2008. Why there is no MassPike shield on the sign from I-93 I don't know, but I can tell you that it is the Mass Pike both east and west of the interchange. Also, no exit numbers on the Pike are skipped, like a lot of closed circuit toll roads all 26 interchanges have individual names, including those that only have entrances and not exits. The only real exception is the Allston-Brighton Interchange. Exit 18 is the eastbound exit, Exit 19 is the main toll, Exit 20 is the westbound exit.
It seems like the unofficial idea of the 'Mass Pike' goes from the NY border to the Allston tolls (with east of I-95 being the extension). The commonwealth seems to be reinforcing that in the signage; whether that's intentional or coincidental who knows. It's like with 128, old habits die hard.
Quote from: Cjzani on October 21, 2014, 05:52:29 PMIt seems like the unofficial idea of the 'Mass Pike' goes from the NY border to the Allston tolls (with east of I-95 being the extension). The commonwealth seems to be reinforcing that in the signage; whether that's intentional or coincidental who knows. It's like with 128, old habits die hard.
There is more to this than simply "old habits die hard." People consider the full road to be the Mass Pike because to a typical human brain, that is a logical concept.
To have some sort of administrative distinction of the road no longer being the Mass Pike after a certain exit a few miles from its end defies the one job of road designation and signage — to make sense with as little necessary extra thought on the part of the driver as is possible.
If there is indeed some kind of desire on the part of those making these decisions to have signs instead make subtle administrative distinctions that have no meaningful bearing on the use of the road, those people should be replaced with people who understand what signs are for.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 21, 2014, 06:26:49 PM
Quote from: Cjzani on October 21, 2014, 05:52:29 PMIt seems like the unofficial idea of the 'Mass Pike' goes from the NY border to the Allston tolls (with east of I-95 being the extension). The commonwealth seems to be reinforcing that in the signage; whether that's intentional or coincidental who knows. It's like with 128, old habits die hard.
There is more to this than simply "old habits die hard." People consider the full road to be the Mass Pike because to a typical human brain, that is a logical concept.
To have some sort of administrative distinction of the road no longer being the Mass Pike after a certain exit a few miles from its end defies the one job of road designation and signage — to make sense with as little necessary extra thought on the part of the driver as is possible.
If there is indeed some kind of desire on the part of those making these decisions to have signs instead make subtle administrative distinctions that have no meaningful bearing on the use of the road, those people should be replaced with people who understand what signs are for.
I really don't think it has anything to do with any kind of hidden agenda or anything like that. The Pike goes from the NY border to East Boston, and I dont think there is some sort of secret hidden agenda to make it only go to Allston/Brighton. I think it is quite simply a decision based on the fact that within city limits, they probably felt the need to simplify information because there are exactly zero people who call that road "I-90" even within Boston. East of the South Bay Interchange (also a term nobody used), they just call it the Ted Williams Tunnel. Zero people would distinguish the Fort Point Tunnel from the Ted Williams Tunnel. So because of this fact, it was just easier to list it as I-90, but its no conspiracy or culture change, the I-90 name east of Allston/Brighton is very much alive and well.
It's also worth noting that the last incarnation of pre-Big Dig-completion signage had an I-90 shield and "Mass. Pike", in addition to signage for South Station. It wasn't until the present generation signage came about when reference to the 'Pike was removed. By that time, the anti-Pike "movement" was underway. There was talk of merging the original pike (west of 128) into the state highway system and abolishing its tolls, but keeping the "Boston Extension" as part of the MHS. Hence, control cities/points were added. I think Logan and Worcester make sense. A Mass Pike shield next to the I-90 shield would be cool, but for some reason, would seem kind of odd in Boston.
Anyway, here's a shot of the sign I referenced at the top of this post. Note the I-93 control cities....
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6ob9ifS0dUA/VEcLU2SDrrI/AAAAAAAAUW0/su6iBLmAs-U/s927/NB-Exit%252020.jpg)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 21, 2014, 03:37:10 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 21, 2014, 03:32:24 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 21, 2014, 11:13:58 AMIt is a reasonable expectation that this should not be a realm of political meddling.
Excuse me, but what rock have you been living under for the past X years?
This is Massachusetts. EVERYTHING is political.
Charming insult. Just because it happens and everyone seems to take pride in dirty, crooked government, it doesn't make it unreasonable to expect issues of basic common sense to be immune to it.
In fact, it's sad and pathetic to not expect better.
With respect, if insisting on a certain legend for a highway sign, instead of going with a person's (or group's) request that still conforms to standards instead, potentially jepoardizes approvals or permits for the project, would YOU stand your ground? Unfortunately, these are some of the realities that people who oversee signing for state DOTs have to deal with.
As the saying goes - there are certain battles not worth fighting.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 19, 2013, 09:15:03 AM
The old-old 128 South signs inside the North Shore (then-Shopping Center) that you speak of listed BOSTON as its control destination (with no TO RTE. 1 reference) were not DPW-spec'd and were likley erected when the shopping center first opened in the 50s. IIRC, the 114/128 cloverleaf was expanded to its current configuration around the same time-frame.
You're right, one or two of them indeed survived into the 1990s. The 128 South paddles near Sears Auto (I remember when those were erected in the 80s) were indeed DPW-spec'd. Those were placed at an entrance ramp to 128 South that merged with the 128 South ramp from 114 East. Since that ramp was part of the overall cloverleaf interchange, the DPW saw fit to replace all the signs at once.
Noodling around just now with regard to the mile marker thread, I noticed that the footing for the late 80s paddle sign for 128 south near Sears Auto still lives. Amazing that they haven't taken it out if the sign isn't going to be replaced (http://goo.gl/maps/dKHT6), but there it is.
The old paddle sign was much better than the mall-erected signage that is there now. Bummer that the paddle is gone.
As far as the Mass Pike name being omitted from the signage on the Southeast Expressway and the yellow TOLL banner appearing, it doesn't seem like a huge deal but something about the contractor doing what they like vs. what they were asked to is still irksome. I know that print shops always say that they will not correct anything and will print what you give them, typos and all. While the contractor probably should mention if they see something obviously misspelled or an erroneous shield in the plans, changing other things seems out of bounds.
@PurdueBill MassDOT practice for old sign foundations is to excavate the foundation to six inches below grade, then backfill the area. They do not completely remove the foundation.
Quoteauthor=PurdueBill link=topic=6633.msg2017476#msg2017476
As far as the Mass Pike name being omitted from the signage on the Southeast Expressway and the yellow TOLL banner appearing, it doesn't seem like a huge deal but something about the contractor doing what they like vs. what they were asked to is still irksome. I know that print shops always say that they will not correct anything and will print what you give them, typos and all. While the contractor probably should mention if they see something obviously misspelled or an erroneous shield in the plans, changing other things seems out of bounds.
What's worse than the print shop printing whatever's on the paper (just like Ron Burgundy reading whatever's presented on the TelePrompTer) is the fact that they will actually erect a BGS/LGS with incorrect spelling. When they prepare to install these signs, doesn't anyone take three steps back and say, "Hey, wait a minute! That doesn't look right! Maybe we should call someone and not hang this one..."?? :banghead:
Quote from: roadman on November 03, 2014, 09:57:17 AM
@PurdueBill MassDOT practice for old sign foundations is to excavate the foundation to six inches below grade, then backfill the area. They do not completely remove the foundation.
I'm guessing the mall ownership took it down (or never put it back up if knocked down)...then-DPW forces installed the sign on the mall property way back when but probably haven't had anything to do with it since. I am surprised that to this day the base sticks up out of the grass like that, stopping at the breakaway point.
As far as Ron Burgundy reading whatever's on the prompter, I can hear Bobbie Battista right now, at least once reading "full screen!" which was a note that a map would be shown full-screen at that point. I remember a character in Annie reading "drop page!" as well, but forget who that was. You'd think that when it comes to something like a big highway sign, someone would ask if "NORHT" is really supposed to be on there like that--but that hasn't stopped NORHT from appearing in more than one state.
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 03, 2014, 05:10:10 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 03, 2014, 09:57:17 AM
@PurdueBill MassDOT practice for old sign foundations is to excavate the foundation to six inches below grade, then backfill the area. They do not completely remove the foundation.
I'm guessing the mall ownership took it down (or never put it back up if knocked down)...then-DPW forces installed the sign on the mall property way back when but probably haven't had anything to do with it since. I am surprised that to this day the base sticks up out of the grass like that, stopping at the breakaway point.
As far as Ron Burgundy reading whatever's on the prompter, I can hear Bobbie Battista right now, at least once reading "full screen!" which was a note that a map would be shown full-screen at that point. I remember a character in Annie reading "drop page!" as well, but forget who that was. You'd think that when it comes to something like a big highway sign, someone would ask if "NORHT" is really supposed to be on there like that--but that hasn't stopped NORHT from appearing in more than one state.
I blame the unions. Too much delimiting of personal responsibility.
Note that in this case since this is a private mall it is most likely the work was done by a non-union contractor on the cheap. Also, the private mall owner probably didn't want to pay for the foundation to be removed since he doesn't really care about state construction practices.
Until somebody trips over the exposed foundation and stub post. Then let's see how quickly the mall cries "But that's STATE property. not ours."
Quote from: mass_citizen on November 04, 2014, 03:07:30 PM
Note that in this case since this is a private mall it is most likely the work was done by a non-union contractor on the cheap. Also, the private mall owner probably didn't want to pay for the foundation to be removed since he doesn't really care about state construction practices.
I was more referring to having the authority to interrupt the process when something like "NORHT" appears (or "OLNY"), but I suppose there are lots of potential failings possible.
Quote from: roadman on November 04, 2014, 03:30:58 PM
Until somebody trips over the exposed foundation and stub post. Then let's see how quickly the mall cries "But that's STATE property. not ours."
Contractors were at work Wed. night in Quincy removing, or based on previous posts, guess I should say partially removing the exposed above ground portion of, one of the former overhead sign foundations for the Furnace Brook Parkway exit southbound.
No new overhead signs to report this week, but plenty of new reassurance markers along the SE Expressway in both directions. I'll try to get some photos over the weekend.
Why is it that the HOV lanes on the north side have new overhead signs that are white (regulatory/restricted) and the new ones on the south side are green (guide)?
There are new all white ground mounted HOV signs heading NB which only tell the hour restrictions. The new overhead signs NB are green guide signs which tell you "HOV 1 mile" etc. They do have a white background strip that specify the hours.
Quote from: mass_citizen on November 13, 2014, 03:46:37 PM
There are new all white ground mounted HOV signs heading NB which only tell the hour restrictions. The new overhead signs NB are green guide signs which tell you "HOV 1 mile" etc. They do have a white background strip that specify the hours.
Here's a photo of the NB I-93 HOV sign in Quincy, for those who haven't seen the signs in person:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs2214a.jpg&hash=a680122feb69be773c020ea747aa5594a569f1a8)
Quote from: bob7374 on November 07, 2014, 10:58:34 AM
No new overhead signs to report this week, but plenty of new reassurance markers along the SE Expressway in both directions. I'll try to get some photos over the weekend.
Here's one of the new 3-shield reassurance markers along the SE Expressway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1109e.jpg&hash=6cdaa20bffaf95660e8432ceefa65310ee3a1c69)
Feel free to check out of the remainder of the latest photos:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
The MassDOT listing indicates the I-93 project is 90% complete (meanwhile the I-95 project between Newton and Lexington is 80% done, the I-95 project from Peabody to Georgetown is 39%).
I was very surprised today to see how much new signage there is on Morrissey Boulevard and the adjacent part of Gallivan Boulevard where they meet 93. I didn't realize there would be such extensive work there as part of this project.
Everything on Morrissey and Gallivan Boulevards that was just replaced under the Randolph to Boston project was installed during the 1984-1985 Southeast Expressway reconstruction project. As it was all overdue for replacement, inclusion in the current project was the most logical course of action.
But Pete is correct - it is rare for a MassDOT freeway signing project to include so much secondary road signing.
It's not just the replacement that was striking, but that there seemed to be more, much larger signs then were there on my most recent visit to that spot a couple of months ago. They really went all out.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 14, 2014, 06:23:42 PM
It's not just the replacement that was striking, but that there seemed to be more, much larger signs then were there on my most recent visit to that spot a couple of months ago. They really went all out.
The only significant difference from the 1985 signing I'm aware of is at the I-93 north/Morrissey Blvd/MA 203 'split'. Owing to right of way constraints and utility conflicts, MassDOT had to scrap their original plan to put all the overhead signs at this location on a single full span structure (notwithstanding the fact there was a full span structure previously in place). So, as shown in Bob Malme's photos, they went with a pair of cantilever supports instead.
The other notable difference in this area is at the entrance ramp from Morrissey Blvd to I-93 southbound (at the DCR's ice skating rink). Because of right of way issues (even though the DCR is a state agency), the previous full span structure was replaced with a 'butterfly' cantilever support - again as shown in Mr. Malme's photos.
Other than those changes, all the signs and supports in this area were replaced "in-kind". I suspect one of the reasons the new signs appear larger to most people is because the old signs were so worn out (despite the button copy).
I'm going to compare to the GSV next time I'm down there to figure out why the difference seems so profound to me. The "newness" is certainly part of it. I did notice that "butterfly" structure. It was one of the things that really jumped out at me.
I noticed a new permanent ground-based VMS after Exit 4 on I-93 SB that will seemingly replace the portable VMS that is currently there.
I thought everything was going to be mounted overhead, including VMSs? (With the exception of the ground-based mileage/"minutes to xxx" VMSs)
Are they going to make all the portable VMSs permanently ground-based?
Most of the ground-mounted "permanent portable" CMS panels are being replaced with new overhead ones. However, new ground-mounted CMS panels are being provided in certian locations (such as adjacent to Route 24) where it is not practical to get commercial power to the sign. Due to the constraints with solar power, smaller CMS panels are required. For cost reasons, it was decided not to place these smaller panels on overhead structures.
The ground-mounted portable CMS panels currently being used to display travel time information will be replaced with hybrid sign panels (static signs with LED inserts for the travel time information). Phase 1 of this work (12 signs) was recently completed on Cape Cod. Phase 2 of this work (152 signs) will encompass all the remaining Interstates and freeways in Massachusetts, and just been awarded to a contractor. Expected completion for Phase 2 is in late 2015.
As for the older (mid-1990s) overhead CMS panels, most of which are in the immediate Boston area, these signs are scheduled to be replaced under a project expected to be advertised for bids in mid to late 2015.
Based on a trip into and out of Boston on I-93 yesterday, I can report that the last of the 1980s era signs on the SE Expressway has been replaced. The lone holdout was the bridge mounted 1 mile advance sign SB for Exit 9 in Milton. That should complete the work in that direction. There is still one more Mass Ave exit sign to be changed, plus one more reassurance marker after Exit 8 heading NB to be placed, according to the plans. The contractor reports they are 92% complete.
The I-93 project is now 94% complete, according to the MassDOT project listing. The only remaining overhead sign to be placed, according to the plans, is the last one northbound at the Mass. Ave exit. This photo sums up the progress of the nearly complete project by showing examples of the new reassurance markers, regulatory and advisory signage, and overhead exit signs, in this case northbound before Exit 9 in Quincy:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs1214a.jpg&hash=f6af0a0ae2e4bd2b28a1dd27caf5bdb40c4c96e8)
I've place all the latest photos on the I-93 Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
Nice pics.
IMHO, MassDOT should've went with smaller US 1 & MA 3 shields on their trailblazer/reassurance markers. Although those shields are the same size as the I-93 shields; they seem to be a bit overpowering... especially since I-93 is the primary/dominant route.
We'll see how long the new reassurance shields stay standing before the next couple of snowstorms knock them off their feet...
I'm also curious when they're going to turn on the new VMSs...especially the new thin ones for the HOV lane that hang below the new HOV BGSs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 15, 2014, 12:50:52 PM
Nice pics.
IMHO, MassDOT should've went with smaller US 1 & MA 3 shields on their trailblazer/reassurance markers. Although those shields are the same size as the I-93 shields; they seem to be a bit overpowering... especially since I-93 is the primary/dominant route.
At least, by the pics, it seems like they are smaller than those found elsewhere in eastern Mass. Take a look at the giant I-95 shields south of "128". And there used to be some quite large 128 shields when 95 and 128 shields were posted on separate assemblies. Now, at least they're mounted on a single post, which tames their size down. Then there's the giant cutouts on US 3 north of 128. And some supersized I-495 shields as well. So at least the ones on 93 and 95/128 seem like a good compromise, in terms of size.
I still don't know why MA 3 is even signed at all on I-93 north of Braintree. If it wasn't important enough to be featured on BGSs, why is it important enough to even warrant cosigning with I-93 and US 1? Or is it just there to "maintain continuity" between MA 3 and US 3?
Quote from: shadyjay on December 15, 2014, 04:15:44 PMAt least, by the pics, it seems like they are smaller than those found elsewhere in eastern Mass. Take a look at the giant I-95 shields south of "128".
If you're referring to the ones that use a 3di-shield (some of those also exist along the Wakefield-to Lynnfield stretch as well); I will agree with you to a point. Those are only ungainly IMHO because the fact that the 3di-shields contain only a 2-digit number (95).
Quote from: shadyjay on December 15, 2014, 04:15:44 PMAnd there used to be some quite large 128 shields when 95 and 128 shields were posted on separate assemblies. Now, at least they're mounted on a single post, which tames their size down. Then there's the giant cutouts on US 3 north of 128. And some supersized I-495 shields as well. So at least the ones on 93 and 95/128 seem like a good compromise, in terms of size.
You might be misinterpreting my earlier comment. I wasn't necessarily stating that
all the shields are too large; just when the three are grouped together. Given the length of the multiplex; it just my opinion that the US 1 & MA 3 shields when placed with the I-93 shields should be one-size smaller. IMHO, similar should also be done with the MA 128 shields along the Canton-to-Peabody stretch of I-95 as well.
Quote from: shadyjay on December 15, 2014, 04:15:44 PMI still don't know why MA 3 is even signed at all on I-93 north of Braintree. If it wasn't important enough to be featured on BGSs, why is it important enough to even warrant cosigning with I-93 and US 1? Or is it just there to "maintain continuity" between MA 3 and US 3?
You just answered your own question in your last sentence. ;-)
Personally, what MassDOT should've done was re-establish its pre-1971 northern routing of MA 3 (it would connect to the Expressway at Granite Ave.). Equally, since the primary reasoning behind rerouting US 1 circa 1989 onto I-93 (& a 3-mile stretch of I-95/MA 128) was to avoid Storrow Drive (w/its low clearance overpasses & structures); US 1 could've exited off at Granite Ave. and run west (along the current MA 203) via the Arborway and then turned south onto its original corridor (at Centre St.). Such a routing would've eliminated MA 203's western terminus and MA 109's eastern terminus currently aimlessly ending at unnumbered intersections.
I know, I know; fictional territory.
It would make the most sense if US 3 made its way down to I-93 and ended in downtown Boston.
The VMS signs for this replacement project are FINALLY operational. Even the thin VMS signs for the carpool lane are working, although they currently say "TESTING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9."
Quote from: southshore720 on April 22, 2015, 05:33:23 PM
The VMS signs for this replacement project are FINALLY operational. Even the thin VMS signs for the carpool lane are working, although they currently say "TESTING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9."
When will 1700 AM go live? Those new signs have been tarped for a year or two.
Quote from: southshore720 on April 22, 2015, 05:33:23 PM
The VMS signs for this replacement project are FINALLY operational. Even the thin VMS signs for the carpool lane are working, although they currently say "TESTING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9."
Meanwhile, the project itself has been stuck at 97% complete since the winter. Only one more BGS needs to be replaced, according to the signage plans, the last one for Mass Ave northbound, and the current sign is not old, just now inconsistent with the rest, not having the white 'Hazardous Materials/Overheight Vehicles Must Exit' banner (information now on a separate sign to the left).
Had a field meeting in Fall River early this morning (Monday 4/27), so I drove I-93 through the Boston to Randolph project both ways today. Apart from the "TESTING 12345678" sequence on the single line CMS panels on the overhead zipper HOV2+ lane BGSes, the only CMS panels I noticed in operation were the southbound overhead CMS attached to the overpass at Savin Hill Avenue and the northbound overhead CMS prior to the Braintree split.
I forget exactly what the northbound CMS was displaying (except that it wasn't a test message), as I was distracted by traffic. The southbound CMS was displaying a single message (no sequencing) about the current "U TEXT U PAY" enforcement campaign. This really bothered me, as the principal purpose of this CMS is to inform drivers of the SB left lane closure when the NB zipper lane is in operation - which was the case when I passed the sign about 7:15.
It also appears that the last new overhead BGS at the Mass Ave exit has finally been installed as well.
Quote from: roadman on April 27, 2015, 05:40:16 PM
Had a field meeting in Fall River early this morning (Monday 4/27), so I drove I-93 through the Boston to Randolph project both ways today. Apart from the "TESTING 12345678" sequence on the single line CMS panels on the overhead zipper HOV2+ lane BGSes, the only CMS panels I noticed in operation were the southbound overhead CMS attached to the overpass at Savin Hill Avenue and the northbound overhead CMS prior to the Braintree split.
I forget exactly what the northbound CMS was displaying (except that it wasn't a test message), as I was distracted by traffic. The southbound CMS was displaying a single message (no sequencing) about the current "U TEXT U PAY" enforcement campaign. This really bothered me, as the principal purpose of this CMS is to inform drivers of the SB left lane closure when the NB zipper lane is in operation - which was the case when I passed the sign about 7:15.
It also appears that the last new overhead BGS at the Mass Ave exit has finally been installed as well.
I took some photos of the VMS signs over the weekend, including those in test mode. I will post a link to them as soon as I upload them on my I-93 photo page. Are any of the new VMSs going to be used to provide travel time information, or will that stay with the portable VMSs until the new travel time message signs are installed? Any word as to when exactly that will be regarding I-93 south of Boston?
At present, there are no plans to use the new overhead CMS panels to display travel time information. Rather, separate "hybrid' travel time signs will be installed on I-93 to replace the current portable CMS panels. It's my understanding that I-93 and I-95 are the priority corridors for installation of new travel time signs under the Statewide RTTM Project # 607422 - signs and related equipment are currently expected to be installed on these roads by late summer or early fall of this year.
I drove I-93 South from NH to the Braintree Split and every thing looked pretty good including the electronic signs(still being tested). Now, if they could only fix that I-93/95 MA 128 interchange..Which probably needs it's own thread, but that really needs to be addressed. I almost got clobbered. It will be a long time before we see a stack or flyover, since MA loves it's cloverleafs.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on April 28, 2015, 03:16:12 PM
I drove I-93 South from NH to the Braintree Split and every thing looked pretty good including the electronic signs(still being tested). Now, if they could only fix that I-93/95 MA 128 interchange..Which probably needs it's on thread, but that really needs to be addressed. I almost got clobbered. It will be a long time before we see a stack or flyover, sine MA loves it's cloverleafs.
The process was shelved ~10 years ago amid opposition from abutting residents.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on April 28, 2015, 03:16:12 PM
I drove I-93 South from NH to the Braintree Split and every thing looked pretty good including the electronic signs(still being tested). Now, if they could only fix that I-93/95 MA 128 interchange..Which probably needs it's on thread, but that really needs to be addressed. I almost got clobbered. It will be a long time before we see a stack or flyover, sine MA loves it's cloverleafs.
The project hasn't been totally shelved. See http://www.9395info.com/
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on April 28, 2015, 03:16:12 PM
Now, if they could only fix that I-93/95 MA 128 interchange..Which probably needs it's on thread, but that really needs to be addressed. I almost got clobbered. It will be a long time before we see a stack or flyover, sine MA loves it's cloverleafs.
That's not the issue. The Commonwealth recognized long ago that this interchange cannot handle its daily traffic load and is in dire need of a rebuild.
The issue is the residences and commercial properties in the way of that rebuild. I live about a mile from that interchange, in Stoneham, and it's at least as contentious an issue in the town as any other. No matter which design MassDOT approves, it will be tied up in litigation for at least another decade, because it will involve the taking of at least a dozen commercial or residential properties, and I can practically guarantee that no one will be satisfied with their compensation. These aren't exactly wide open spaces. They're tightly-packed middle- to high-income suburbs (Reading, Stoneham and Woburn) with many homes in the half-million-dollar or more category. Condemnation is not going to be cheap.
It's been awhile since I looked at the conceptual plans for the project. However, as I understand it, the need for takings only comes into play if they construct the "full build" option. This would entail the construction of collector distributor roads along I-95, starting south of Washington Street and ending north of Route 28.
If you scrap that option, and limit the work to new flyover ramps at I-95/I-93 itself, you can easily construct the new interchange within the existing footprint with no need for takings.
Sorry, guys..Didn't mean to hijack the thread..It's about signs, not that miserable interchange.
Quote from: roadman on April 28, 2015, 04:30:13 PM
It's been awhile since I looked at the conceptual plans for the project. However, as I understand it, the need for takings only comes into play if they construct the "full build" option. This would entail the construction of collector distributor roads along I-95, starting south of Washington Street and ending north of Route 28.
If you scrap that option, and limit the work to new flyover ramps at I-95/I-93 itself, you can easily construct the new interchange within the existing footprint with no need for takings.
I had literally not seen the final report until now, and it looks like takings, if any, will be slim, possibly less than 4000 square feet at the most. Hard to understand what the homeowners are so torqued about. The final report even shows street-level renderings which show that in most cases, the new ramps and C/D roads won't even be an eyesore. There's even talk about adding a fourth lane to I-95/MA-128 between exits 37 and 40, moving the lane drop to north of the MA-129 exit.
Having said that: The final report was issued eight years ago, and the project has apparently stopped dead with no indication as to why. Clearly something has to be done, but, as the report points out, if not now, when? The problem won't solve itself.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 23, 2015, 10:46:36 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on April 22, 2015, 05:33:23 PM
The VMS signs for this replacement project are FINALLY operational. Even the thin VMS signs for the carpool lane are working, although they currently say "TESTING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9."
Meanwhile, the project itself has been stuck at 97% complete since the winter. Only one more BGS needs to be replaced, according to the signage plans, the last one for Mass Ave northbound, and the current sign is not old, just now inconsistent with the rest, not having the white 'Hazardous Materials/Overheight Vehicles Must Exit' banner (information now on a separate sign to the left).
As promised, here's a photo of one of the new HOV Lane VMSs taken last weekend while still in testing mode:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs42515i.jpg&hash=76ffb98589c84f4539ef262eb12ecb382aa9bf9b)
For some additional photos, go to my I-93 in Massachusetts Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html)
According to the latest update on the MassDOT Projects listing. The I-93 Signing project between Randolph and Boston is now 100% complete. Apparently, as I surmised, the last overhead sign for the Mass Ave. exit northbound was not replaced:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs42515c.jpg&hash=a0e8dfe63244c45dc22da5b44783731058e7c786)
The signage plans I have indicated it would be changed, and made consistent with the previous advance signs, as shown here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signex18.jpg&hash=b276e0cad93570ab37d551df064feeb8196b638a)
Also, there was still one remaining old South I-93/MA 3 Guide (Paddle) sign on Morrissey Blvd. northbound as of Wednesday afternoon (7/8). So, unless they've replaced that in the past day or so, they may not be quite finished yet. However, this does more or less complete all the sign replacement projects for I-93 in Mass. There are two I-95 projects still going on. The one from Newton to Lexington is 88% complete while that from Peabody to Georgetown in 73% done.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 10, 2015, 10:58:00 AM
However, this does more or less complete all the sign replacement projects for I-93 in Mass. There are two I-95 projects still going on. The one from Newton to Lexington is 88% complete while that from Peabody to Georgetown in 73% done.
You forgot I-195 Seekonk to Dartmouth, including the section of MA 24 between the RI/MA border and I-195, which MassDOT's web site shows as 49% complete. There's also I-91 West Springfield to Bernardston, which is still under construction but not listed on MassDOT's project web site for some reason.
As of a month ago, there was no evidence in the field of the I-91 signing project starting yet. No small orange markers up yet where new overhead supports will go.
Quote from: shadyjay on July 13, 2015, 01:02:50 PM
As of a month ago, there was no evidence in the field of the I-91 signing project starting yet. No small orange markers up yet where new overhead supports will go. I'll be checking again this weekend.
Note that the orange markers you see are not a MassDOT requirement, but rather the preference of a particular contractor - who is not the contractor that won the I-91 West Springfield to Bernardston job. And, while substansive work has not yet begun on this project, I still find it odd that the project is not listed on MassDOT's project web site. This is because such a listing is usually SOP once a project has been awarded to a contractor.
They've officially de-commissioned the HOV exit at Exit 20. They've added "white out" to the White BGSs and covered the HOV 2+ references.
Correction: They have replaced the signage on Frontage Rd with an LGS 1/2 green, 1/2 white stating that the Bypass Road is restricted to commercial vehicles EXCEPT between 6-10 AM.
New MassDOT 'Go Time' travel time signs are now going up along I-93. Southbound one has appeared in Somerville and this one in Milton after the MA 24 on-ramp:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93nrttrandolph716a.JPG&hash=f6f7ba4ee4b634f59aad4313e4e06aee3015e8e5)
(This must be for those traveling '128' since there is no mention the listed exits are on I-95 North).
The first sign northbound has also been placed (with it likely, from appearances, the next one in Braintree will be installed this week) at the Houghton Pond/Ponkapaug Rd exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93nrttmilton716.jpg&hash=cf7cd0d3e72f3b15498eb03b69df68b7fa9184bc)
The first travel time sign on the SE Expressway section of I-93 has been now been installed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93srttboston1716a.jpg&hash=620c6c2e459558df68a8b076457e69733649da9d)
Who at MassDOT does their mileage calculations? The distance listed for MA 3 is 4 miles. The mile marker in the photo is 12.4, the MA 3 interchange is at mile 6.8. Funny, when I subtract 6.8 from 12.4 I get 5.6. If you want to use rounded figures, then 12-7=5, neither gets you 4. This isn't the only example, the next sign will list the distances to MA 24 and I-95. They are listed as being only 2 miles apart when the MA 24 exit is perhaps 1/4 beyond the Mile 4 milepost. The 2 Mile Advance sign for I-95 is after the next (Ponkapaug Rd) exit.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 21, 2016, 12:30:25 AM
The first travel time sign on the SE Expressway section of I-93 has been now been installed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93srttboston1716a.jpg&hash=620c6c2e459558df68a8b076457e69733649da9d)
Who at MassDOT does their mileage calculations? The distance listed for MA 3 is 4 miles. The mile marker in the photo is 12.4, the MA 3 interchange is at mile 6.8. Funny, when I subtract 6.8 from 12.4 I get 5.6. If you want to use rounded figures, then 12-7=5, neither gets you 4. This isn't the only example, the next sign will list the distances to MA 24 and I-95. They are listed as being only 2 miles apart when the MA 24 exit is perhaps 1/4 beyond the Mile 4 milepost. The 2 Mile Advance sign for I-95 is after the next (Ponkapaug Rd) exit.
Do the signs perhaps refer to how far the traffic associated with each interchange usually backs up to?
its so bad I even had to post this one on the erroneous signs thread. Two locations miles apart yet according to the sign they are the same distance.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2160015#new (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2160015#new)
Quote from: mass_citizen on July 21, 2016, 02:41:48 AM
its so bad I even had to post this one on the erroneous signs thread. Two locations miles apart yet according to the sign they are the same distance.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2160015#new (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2160015#new)
This is definitely one on the contractor, as I've posted to the erroneous signs thread, the mileage in the sign plan lists 2 miles for the Zakim and 5 for Mass Ave. But yes, someone should have noticed that before they put it up.
Reviving this thread with new signage in Methuen related to the MA 110/113 Rotary replacement project. A new northbound ramp was created servicing MA 110/113 West with the existing ramp reconstructed to serve eastbound traffic. As a result the exits are now 46 A/B on I-93 in that direction. Here's the first advance sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi93signs1017b.JPG&hash=f6f69bc2e136a8a0f9a19754e2365515ab891cf9)
Remaining photos can be found on my I-93 in Mass. Photo Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i93photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i93photos.html)