I-90 / Mass Pike Signing Work

[roadman]

MassDOT opened bids on the Auburn to Boston sign replacement earlier today.  Liddell Brothers of Halifax (MA) is tha apparent low bidder.

Apparently, based on the posted bid results, the lowest of only 2 bidders. The other bidder was RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon. Both bids were substantially lower than the estimated cost. Any estimated date for the Notice to Proceed?

Based on similar contracts, NTP should be late March or early April.

[canav08]

Interesting that, from looking at the links, the new mile markers are going to be on the left side of the road. As we know, this is the current situation on the MA Pike but the rest of the state switched mile markers from the left to the right side of divided highways when they did the replacement in 09-ish. Wonder why the pike is bucking the trend and going left side? The only thing I can think of is there are a lot more places on the pike with no median whatsoever and money can be saved using the same pole and mounting 2 signs back to back. I still do t agree with this, just keep it uniform. It would not be MA if they did not do something odd.

[AMLNet49]

The only thing I can think of is there are a lot more places on the pike with no median whatsoever and money can be saved using the same pole and mounting 2 signs back to back.

This seems likely, given that the Mass Pike (like the Pennsylvania Turnpike) has long stretches with only a jersey barrier as the median. So to mount them back to back would make sense. The only problem with it is that stranded motorists in the breakdown lane would not be able to find the mile marker. However, a state police cruiser would probably find them relatively quickly given how many of them drive on that road.

[cl94]

They wouldn't be the only state that uses median placement. Ohio places all of the enhanced markers in the median regardless of median width. In a few places, it looks quite ridiculous.

[bob7374]

Interesting that, from looking at the links, the new mile markers are going to be on the left side of the road. As we know, this is the current situation on the MA Pike but the rest of the state switched mile markers from the left to the right side of divided highways when they did the replacement in 09-ish. Wonder why the pike is bucking the trend and going left side? The only thing I can think of is there are a lot more places on the pike with no median whatsoever and money can be saved using the same pole and mounting 2 signs back to back. I still don't agree with this, just keep it uniform. It would not be MA if they did not do something odd.

Yes, all the signs will be in the median mounted back-to-back with the exception of 4 places where they will be put on individual signs, a cost-saving design. According to the documents, most are indicated to be 'mount on barrier' with the next popular option 'mount on post', with two to be mounted on bridges (MM 98.6 and 106.8)

[KEVIN_224]

I guess Mile Marker 100 under that given bridge in Grafton will stay put then!

[Alps]

Downside of median mounted signs is that they are much more likely to be struck, being much closer to the travel lane. All sorts of crazy things happen along the median.

[bob7374]

I was able to get a hold of the plans for the second sign replacement contract from Auburn to Boston this morning. Here's what the new eastbound 1-Mile advance sign will look like for what will be just the I-95 exit in Weston:


This is the sign for what will be the same numbered exit heading west:


I've loaded, for now, images of all the 1-Mile advance signs for the project area on my I-90 Photo Gallery Site:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i90photos.html

[cl94]

I was able to get a hold of the plans for the second sign replacement contract from Auburn to Boston this morning. Here's what the new eastbound 1-Mile advance sign will look like for what will be just the I-95 exit in Weston:


This is the sign for what will be the same numbered exit heading west:


I've loaded, for now, images of all the 1-Mile advance signs for the project area on my I-90 Photo Gallery Site:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i90photos.html

No APL? Wow.

[roadman]

For situations where the lane configuration at the advance signs is not the same at at the exit direction sign (like with the new I-90 eastbound diagrammatics in Weston), MassDOT prefers to stick with traditional diagrammatic signs instead of APLs.

The westbound signs are designed to accommodate the pending reconfiguration of the westbound I-95/Route 30 exit.  As part of the legacy toll plaza demolition projects to be advertised later this spring, the westbound interchange will be re-configured into two separate exits, one for I-95 and one for MA 30.  Spacing constraints on the Extension preculded installing separate sign sequences for the new dual exits.

[PHLBOS]

So such will become Exits 123 B-A when all is said and done?

This is the sign for what will be the same numbered exit heading west:

I still think that Dedham should be used for the I-95 southbound destination from I-90 westbound instead of Providence, RI for the simple reason that most people heading to Providence east of this interchange (especially from Boston) are more likely to use I-93 South to get to I-95 South.

Such would've also made for a narrower sign panel.

[Beeper1]

Surprised that Lowell isn't the control city for I-495 north.   

[KEVIN_224]

Why does the westbound Massachusetts Turnpike sign for I-95 say Waltham/Providence instead of Portsmouth/Providence? 

[mariethefoxy]

because they want you to take 495 to 95 for Portsmouth since it bypasses a lot of the closer in Boston traffic, same reason the exit for 128 has Waltham they want you to use 128 for more closer destinations.

[AMLNet49]

Caltrans layout?

[Rothman]

Heh.  Signage for that half-interchange has always been different (may have to do with the clearance of the bridge?).  When I was a kid, the sign was even more scrunched with a tiny MA 16 shield.

[PHLBOS]

Caltrans layout?

Just mimicking the current BGS layouts.

Signage for that half-interchange has always been different (may have to do with the clearance of the bridge?).

All the MA 16 BGS' along I-90 westbound are like that, regardless of any bridge clearances.  IIRC, the new replacement BGS' will be all gantry-mounted.

When I was a kid, the sign was even more scrunched with a tiny MA 16 shield.

... and more rectangular (shield) as well.

[bob7374]

Surprised that Lowell isn't the control city for I-495 north.   

It will be mentioned, along with Cape Cod, on a ground mounted auxiliary sign:


Meanwhile, MA 30, but not MA 128, will be on an auxiliary sign before the I-95 exit eastbound:


I have placed additional auxiliary sign plans on my I-90 photo gallery as well:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i90photos.html

[PHLBOS]

Why does the westbound Massachusetts Turnpike sign for I-95 say Waltham/Providence instead of Portsmouth/Providence? 

because they want you to take 495 to 95 for Portsmouth since it bypasses a lot of the closer in Boston traffic, same reason the exit for 128 has Waltham they want you to use 128 for more closer destinations.

It should be noted that the original Exit 11A signage had Marlborough and Milford listed as I-495 destinations.  Sometime during the mid-80s, after I-495 was extended east of I-95; the destinations for the eastbound Pike BGS' were changed to NH-Maine and Cape Cod.  The current BGS', most of which were erected during the 90s had NH-Maine and Cape Cod listed on both eastbound and westbound ramp signs.

While the change from MH-Maine to Portsmouth, NH was expected (and consistent); the use of Taunton came as a bit of surprise... especially since new signage for both MA 3 and the Southeast Expressway (I-93) that were erected within the last 2 years still used Cape Cod for a control destination.  IMHO, either Wareham (where I-495 actually ends) or Bourne (for the Bourne Bridge) should have been used on the Pike exit signs instead.

Historical tid-bit: when I-495 was extended east of I-95 in Mansfield during the early 80s, the Exit 6A BGS' for I-495 South listed Taunton on the major signs.  Such was changed to Cape Cod when the current BGS' were erected in the 90s.

[cl94]

Does this mean they're going to finally get rid of the Route 128 signage south/west of Peabody?

[PHLBOS]

Does this mean they're going to finally get rid of the Route 128 signage south/west of Peabody?

Current MassDOT specs/regs prohibit any display of 128 shields on the major signs along the I-95 stretch of the Yankee Division Highway (YDH).  However, supplemental 128 trailblazer & reassurance signs erected near/alongside the main signs are permitted.

The current mile-markers and subsequent mile-marker-based interchange renumbering for 128 east of I-95/Peabody has the first 128-only mile marker at 37.2 rather than 0 (128's Exit 29 is slated to become Exit 37).  So far and for the time being; MassDOT is still acknowledging the Canton I-95/93 interchange (I-95's Exit 12) as 128's southern terminus.

Regarding the Pike interchange, something tells me that supplemental 128 trailblazers will be erected at key points later on.

[bob7374]

Though not sign related, for those interested in seeing the detail plans of the contract that will demolish and remove the toll booths and related structures for current Exits 3 to 8 on the Mass Pike/I-90 after electronic tolls are instituted this fall (winning bid to announced a week from Tuesday (5/3)), links are available at:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000007759&external=true&parentUrl=bid
The estimated cost is almost $14 million.

[bob7374]

Question for Roadman. It's now been over 6 months since the notice to proceed was given to the first I-90 re-signing project, and a couple months since the winner for the second project was announced. Based on information from the MassDOT project listings, it appears work has not started on the first contract nor a notice to proceed issued for the second. Is this due to the renewed debate within in the agency about switching to milepost based numbers, issues with the contractor, or something else?

[Pete from Boston]

because they want you to take 495 to 95 for Portsmouth since it bypasses a lot of the closer in Boston traffic, same reason the exit for 128 has Waltham they want you to use 128 for more closer destinations.

Westbound to Lowell via 495 from Weston?  I doubt it.  That's a seriously long detour over 128 to 3.

[mariethefoxy]

if I was heading to Maine or Portsmouth coming from the pike I would take 495 up to 95 rather than stay on the pike to 95/128.

When I went to Kittery from Nashua las year I went down to 495 to 95 then up 95 to Maine.