I-90 / Mass Pike Signing Work

[bob7374]

I have posted photos of more new signage on the Mass Pike from a trip over this past weekend which include this cantilever double sign installation for the I-91/US 5 exit in West Springfield westbound:


and one of the two new APL signs at the end of I-84 East at the former Sturbridge toll plaza:


on my I-90/Mass Pike Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i90photos.html

There is now a sharp contrast between progress by the two sign contractors. Most, if not all, one post cantilever signs have been installed on the western project, while only sign post foundations have appeared for the eastern one. Also new 2/10 mile markers are now present from Mile 92 westward, at least for the westbound lanes, while nothing in the east. The actual contract progress % is unknown since both project listings on the MassDOT site have not been updated since June.

[roadman]

One clarification.  The new APLs on I-84 (as Bob notes on his web page, the first APLs in the state) were done as part of the legacy toll plaza demo contract for Interchange 9, and not under the West Stockbridge to Auburn project.  Signing for most of the toll plaza demo contracts, which MassDOT has on an accelerated schedule, is being done by Liddell Brothers, who also has the Auburn to Boston sign project.

[kefkafloyd]

I have posted photos of more new signage on the Mass Pike from a trip over this past weekend which include this cantilever double sign installation for the I-91/US 5 exit in West Springfield westbound:

On your comments on the US 5 1 mile sign on eastbound (whehter it was new or old), it is an old sign that's been there for-ever. It's always been notable for having mismatching green panels. It should be replaced as part of the project.

Also wondering whether the button copy signs on the US 5 ramps to/from the turnpike will be replaced as part of this project as well as the turnpike entrance signs on US 5. They are real oldies.

[jp the roadgeek]

Noticed one inconsistency between the APL sign at Exit 9 and the reassurance sign at Exit 4:  The APL has just "Albany" as a control city, while the sign at Exit 4 has "Albany NY" as the control city.  Is MassDOT moving away from using the 2 letter abbreviation for out of state control cities other than NYC now that the MTA has been merged?

[roadman]

Noticed one inconsistency between the APL sign at Exit 9 and the reassurance sign at Exit 4:  The APL has just "Albany" as a control city, while the sign at Exit 4 has "Albany NY" as the control city.  Is MassDOT moving away from using the 2 letter abbreviation for out of state control cities other than NYC now that the MTA has been merged?

Good catch.  Using state abbreviation for out of state destinations is still current MassDOT practice.  Not sure why NY was omitted from these APLs, but I'll check with my District contacts.

[bob7374]

One clarification.  The new APLs on I-84 (as Bob notes on his web page, the first APLs in the state) were done as part of the legacy toll plaza demo contract for Interchange 9, and not under the West Stockbridge to Auburn project.  Signing for most of the toll plaza demo contracts, which MassDOT has on an accelerated schedule, is being done by Liddell Brothers, who also has the Auburn to Boston sign project.

Here are new overheads in Auburn beyond the former toll plaza, assuming also placed under the toll demo contract:


Other AET project related images from a week ago are now up on the I-90/Mass Pike Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i90photos.html#aet

[PHLBOS]

Here are new overheads in Auburn beyond the former toll plaza, assuming also placed under the toll demo contract:

Given that the location of that overhead is prior to the ramp for MA 12 South (to US 20 West); there appears to be a (permanent) sign missing for that movement.  What gives?

[cl94]

Have they been taking out the town line signs with the current sign project? I only saw 1 tonight when I drove the Pike WB west of Springfield, but it may have been due to how dark it was. Ironically, that one I saw was for West Stockbridge, which got a new sign with the toll booth removal after not having one for 10+ years.

[roadman]

Have they been taking out the town line signs with the current sign project? I only saw 1 tonight when I drove the Pike WB west of Springfield, but it may have been due to how dark it was. Ironically, that one I saw was for West Stockbridge, which got a new sign with the toll booth removal after not having one for 10+ years.

Town line signs are being replaced under the current sign projects, not the toll plaza demo work.  Existing median signs being changed to new right side signs, but old signs should not be removed until new signs in place - this is MassDOT SOP.

[cl94]

Have they been taking out the town line signs with the current sign project? I only saw 1 tonight when I drove the Pike WB west of Springfield, but it may have been due to how dark it was. Ironically, that one I saw was for West Stockbridge, which got a new sign with the toll booth removal after not having one for 10+ years.

Town line signs are being replaced under the current sign projects, not the toll plaza demo work.  Existing median signs being changed to new right side signs, but old signs should not be removed until new signs in place - this is MassDOT SOP.

That's what I figured,  but there are definitely a few town lines missing any type of sign. The new Stockbridge/W Stockbridge sign is the old Pike standard in the median.

[shadyjay]

Drove the 'pike between Sturbridge and Auburn on Saturday.  The transition between I-84 and I-90 where the toll plaza was is nice and looked largely completed.  As stated above, there are APLs, 1 and 1/2 mile out, but the sign right at the split between I-90 East and West has not yet been replaced.  It still has the "NH-Maine/Boston" control points for I-90 East.  I'm assuming this will get replaced as part of the West Stockbridge to Auburn project, vs part of the toll demolition project.  I noticed all new advance signage for Exit 10 in the eastbound direction EXCEPT at Exit 10 itself.  In the westbound direction, no new guide signs for Exit 9.  All existing signs are in their original configuration, mix of ground and overhead.  It was dark so I didn't notice foundations, but saw no supporting structures for any new BGSs in the westbound direction between Exits 10 & 9. 

It was dark for most of the trip, so I only lensed a couple of the Exit 10 signs, all of which are similar to those previously posted here, but they're over on my FLICKR page anyway.  The sun hadn't come up yet for me to get the I-84 APLs. 

[PHLBOS]

and one of the two new APL signs at the end of I-84 East at the former Sturbridge toll plaza:

Personally, I'm surprised that there aren't Exit (4)A-B tabs placed on that APL.  Maybe such will come later should MassDOT adopt mile-marker-based interchange numbering; such would become Exits 7A-B.

[jp the roadgeek]

and one of the two new APL signs at the end of I-84 East at the former Sturbridge toll plaza:

Personally, I'm surprised that there aren't Exit (4)A-B tabs placed on that APL.  Maybe such will come later should MassDOT adopt mile-marker-based interchange numbering; such would become Exits 7A-B.

Different states have different standards about numbering the end of freeway interchanges, and some even have different standards for different highways, and some even have different standards for different ends of the same highway (I-291 in CT has exit numbers at its western terminus for I-91/CT 218, but no numbers for I-84/I-384).   I would agree that the numbers should be added; the only time I wouldn't number one of them is when the mainline of the freeway clearly joins in to one side of the connecting freeway, which is the case with I-91's southern end joining I-95 South (the I-95 North ramp should get a number), I-384 West joining I-84 West (I-84 East/I-291 West should be Exit 1A and Spencer St westbound becomes 1B), and I-691 West joining I-84 West (when renumbered, I-84 East should be Exit 1, and westbound no #).  Here, I-84 doesn't mainline into the Mass Pike, so Exit numbers would be appropriate.  More accurately under mileage based, they'd be 8 A-B because they're closer to 8 miles from the CT border; 7 A-B would be for US 20.

[PHLBOS]

Here, I-84 doesn't mainline into the Mass Pike, so Exit numbers would be appropriate.  More accurately under mileage based, they'd be 8 A-B because they're closer to 8 miles from the CT border; 7 A-B would be for US 20.

I-84 in MA has no Mile Marker 8 (Wiki lists it as only 7.7 miles long) & the US 20 interchange is spread out between MM 6.2 & 7; so 6 A-B would be more appropriate for US 20 & 7 A-B would be 84's terminus with I-90.

[shadyjay]

If you're gonna number one ramp, while the other transitions right onto the other road (such as 91SB->95SB in CT), you might as well just number the both, for consistency. 

When signs on I-93 in Mass. were replaced, exit numbers were adjusted on the southern end of I-93 at I-95(128).  In the past, just the ramp from I-93 SB to I-95 SB was numbered Exit 1.  Now both the exit and the "thru route" to I-95/128 NB got numbers (Exits 1A and 1B for I-95 NB and SB). 

With the I-84 case, perhaps they're just waiting to see what's going to happen with mile-based exits before they go ahead and add a new exit number.

[Alps]

If you're gonna number one ramp, while the other transitions right onto the other road (such as 91SB->95SB in CT), you might as well just number the both, for consistency. 

When signs on I-93 in Mass. were replaced, exit numbers were adjusted on the southern end of I-93 at I-95(128).  In the past, just the ramp from I-93 SB to I-95 SB was numbered Exit 1.  Now both the exit and the "thru route" to I-95/128 NB got numbers (Exits 1A and 1B for I-95 NB and SB). 

With the I-84 case, perhaps they're just waiting to see what's going to happen with mile-based exits before they go ahead and add a new exit number.

See, I disagree on this philosophy. To me, there's no reason to number exits at the terminus of a highway as long as the split is roughly equal. If not, number the one that's less equal. I've seen things as dumb as a 3-lane through highway have an exit number because the route I'm on ends - this is not an exit! You're exiting nothing!

[jp the roadgeek]

If you're gonna number one ramp, while the other transitions right onto the other road (such as 91SB->95SB in CT), you might as well just number the both, for consistency. 

When signs on I-93 in Mass. were replaced, exit numbers were adjusted on the southern end of I-93 at I-95(128).  In the past, just the ramp from I-93 SB to I-95 SB was numbered Exit 1.  Now both the exit and the "thru route" to I-95/128 NB got numbers (Exits 1A and 1B for I-95 NB and SB). 

With the I-84 case, perhaps they're just waiting to see what's going to happen with mile-based exits before they go ahead and add a new exit number.

See, I disagree on this philosophy. To me, there's no reason to number exits at the terminus of a highway as long as the split is roughly equal. If not, number the one that's less equal. I've seen things as dumb as a 3-lane through highway have an exit number because the route I'm on ends - this is not an exit! You're exiting nothing!

That's exactly what Exit 1B above, and the reverse, Exit 12 on I-95 SB, are: 3 lane mainline connections where I-95 exits to the southwest.  But I-86 West to I-390 north in Avoca, NY is similar, but does not have a number (yet I-86 East to I-390 North is numbered.)

Question is what do you do when a duplex of equal interstates splits up?  That's also a case-by-case basis.  For example, the upcoming I-81/I-86 duplex should have I-81 Exit numbers for where I-86 joins/leaves I-81.  The I-20/I-59 splits both use I-59 exit numbers for I-20 joining/leaving the duplex, and the I-65/I-70 duplex in Indy has I-65 exit numbers for where I-70 joins/leaves.  For state turnpikes, tie goes to the interstate that remains on the mainline the longest.

[Alps]

You do use exit numbers if your route continues. I'm only referring to a route that ends.

[bob7374]

I received an e-mail with a question about this destination mileage sign on I-90 West after the Palmer exit (Exit 8) which I thought I'd seek answers to here:


The e-mailer said the mileage to Ludlow has changed from 7 on the previous sign to 8. Checking out GSV to confirm, I also noticed the distance to Springfield had also changed, it previously read as 10 miles. From my list of proposed milepost exit numbers it appears the distance to Springfield was changed to that of the mileage to the I-291 exit (12 miles from Exit 8 at mile 63 to I-291 at mile 51) and the mileage of I-291 to its end at I-91 (5 miles). In the past Mass Pike mileages for destinations along the Pike have been based simply on the distance to the destination's exit. With the Pike now under the control of MassDOT, has there been a change to how distance numbers are calculated? What would account for the change in the Ludlow number, a different rounding method?

[jp the roadgeek]

I received an e-mail with a question about this destination mileage sign on I-90 West after the Palmer exit (Exit 8) which I thought I'd seek answers to here:


The e-mailer said the mileage to Ludlow has changed from 7 on the previous sign to 8. Checking out GSV to confirm, I also noticed the distance to Springfield had also changed, it previously read as 10 miles. From my list of proposed milepost exit numbers it appears the distance to Springfield was changed to that of the mileage to the I-291 exit (12 miles from Exit 8 at mile 63 to I-291 at mile 51) and the mileage of I-291 to its end at I-91 (5 miles). In the past Mass Pike mileages for destinations along the Pike have been based simply on the distance to the destination's exit. With the Pike now under the control of MassDOT, has there been a change to how distance numbers are calculated? What would account for the change in the Ludlow number, a different rounding method?

Probably that the center of Ludlow is about a mile south of the Pike on MA 21.  Seems they're using distances to the city/town center. So unless the exit empties directly into the town center, mileages will most likely be adjusted.  Worcester will have to be by about 6 miles eastbound (using I-290), and about 4 miles westbound (using MA 146)

[roadman]

I received an e-mail with a question about this destination mileage sign on I-90 West after the Palmer exit (Exit 8) which I thought I'd seek answers to here:


The e-mailer said the mileage to Ludlow has changed from 7 on the previous sign to 8. Checking out GSV to confirm, I also noticed the distance to Springfield had also changed, it previously read as 10 miles. From my list of proposed milepost exit numbers it appears the distance to Springfield was changed to that of the mileage to the I-291 exit (12 miles from Exit 8 at mile 63 to I-291 at mile 51) and the mileage of I-291 to its end at I-91 (5 miles). In the past Mass Pike mileages for destinations along the Pike have been based simply on the distance to the destination's exit. With the Pike now under the control of MassDOT, has there been a change to how distance numbers are calculated? What would account for the change in the Ludlow number, a different rounding method?

Probably that the center of Ludlow is about a mile south of the Pike on MA 21.  Seems they're using distances to the city/town center. So unless the exit empties directly into the town center, mileages will most likely be adjusted.  Worcester will have to be by about 6 miles eastbound (using I-290), and about 4 miles westbound (using MA 146)

That is exactly correct.  Mass. Turnpike Authority policy for distance signs was to provide the distance to the interchange, and not the city/town center.  So, a sign indicating the distance to Palmer would show the distance to Exit 8, and not the town center.

Current MassDOT policy is to measure distances either to the city/town center, or to the city boundary for larger cities such as Springfield (as evidenced on the newer travel time signs). Hence the longer distances on the new Pike signs.

[jp the roadgeek]

The 95 to Albany would put you right at about the I-90/I-787 junction.  Seeing that it was originally 7 miles to the Ludlow exit (at MP 55), it's 62 miles to the NY border, then 18 miles west on the Berkshire Spur to B1 (Free 90).  Rounding off, the remaining distance on Free 90 would put you right about at that junction just across the Hudson and the city line.

[DrSmith]

The some of new overhead signs are up eastbound for Rt 146 and Rt 122.

[PHLBOS]

The some of new overhead signs are up eastbound for Rt 146 and Rt 122.

I'll get a chance to see those during the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday/weekend.

[bob7374]

The some of new overhead signs are up eastbound for Rt 146 and Rt 122.

I'll get a chance to see those during the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday/weekend.

I may try to get a look at them the weekend before.
Looks like there will be a delay in getting the remaining signage up for Auburn and west. The contract completion date for that project has been moved from Fall 2017 to Spring 2018.