Interstate 95 signing work

[Alps]

As far as message loading, in my view, having a street name and a city name on a sign is no different than using a shield and a city name - it's still two units of information the driver has to process.

The question then becomes:  how is this better than having just the street name by itself, which is only one unit of information?  In cases where separate municipalities are part of the same urban agglomeration, how do drivers benefit from having the city name on every sign in an action signing sequence rather than on a supplemental sign?  I'd imagine drivers rely more on the street name than the city name for last-mile navigation.  (I can see the city name still being valuable, especially at interchanges fitting into certain unusual configurations, for drivers who treat cities as discrete points for orienteering purposes.  But digital mapping makes street names easier to find in unfamiliar large metropolitan areas, and tends to favor their use for last-mile navigation.)

There are many dissenters at FHWA, NCUTCD, and around the country who feel that street names and city names can be combined. I would stay away from adding route shields into that mix - any two out of three, but not all three. But some agencies consciously still put them together on the basis of engineering judgment - people need to navigate.

[SignBridge]

I completely agree with Alps and roadman on this issue. And I re-emphasize what roadman pointed out, that it's only a recommendation in the Manual, not a standard so no, there will not be any fights with FHWA over this. But the Feds are creating a problem where there isn't one.

JNW,  combining street and town names can and does result in well engineered signing legends even if in conflict with MUTCD's recommendations. And it usually does not result in message overload, unless it's done to excess like in New Jersey where NJDOT sometimes displays 3 town names with a route shield, instead of the preferred 2 names.

[jeffandnicole]

And it usually does not result in message overload, unless it's done to excess like in New Jersey where NJDOT sometimes displays 3 town names with a route shield, instead of the preferred 2 names.

Hey - when the state has 565 towns in an area larger than some counties in Nevada, you can go thru 3 towns just by simply taking the ramp off the highway!!

[AMLNet49]

Hey I just like the CalTrans style floating exit only tab, including with the word "exit" being dropped. I've always liked the CalTrans style exit only tab on MA 24 south at exit 12 which is the more familiar full "EXIT ONLY"

[mrsman]

I completely agree with Alps and roadman on this issue. And I re-emphasize what roadman pointed out, that it's only a recommendation in the Manual, not a standard so no, there will not be any fights with FHWA over this. But the Feds are creating a problem where there isn't one.

JNW,  combining street and town names can and does result in well engineered signing legends even if in conflict with MUTCD's recommendations. And it usually does not result in message overload, unless it's done to excess like in New Jersey where NJDOT sometimes displays 3 town names with a route shield, instead of the preferred 2 names.

I agree.  I believe that MD does an excellent job of using route shield, direction, street name, and city name without being overloaded.

Take a look at these examples. 

Where there is one ramp allowing you to make a left or a right turn on the cross street (diamond, parclo a4, parclo a2, parclo b2)

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0135158,-77.0389682,3a,75y,271.47h,95.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDSJtedhQWXE7TNx1LW3zXw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DDSJtedhQWXE7TNx1LW3zXw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D304.56052%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Exit 31
{97} Georgia Ave
Silver Spring
Wheaton

Where there are two ramps leading to the cross street forcing a right turn (like cloverleaf or parclo b4), each ramp would look like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0133578,-77.0417567,3a,75y,126.97h,92.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syrF14rAk6wHTE3-4oiEV8A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Exit 31A
North
{97} Georgia Ave
Wheaton

IMO, these signs are very balanced.  There is a lot of very key information and it is very well presented.  In no way does this seem confusing, even at highway speeds.  And for different people - they navigate in different ways.  Some people use the exit number, some people use the higway number, some people use the street name.  And for direction, some people use the cardinal direction and some people use the city.

And I don't beleive a supplemental sign is a substitute.  These exit signs generally are more prominently placed than the supplement signs which are generally along the side of the road and signed very low.  The exit signs are high and easier to see.

So I am glad that MA and NY are not following CA which is getting rid of control cities left and right.

[SignBridge]

The only concern I have over the way Maryland does that on the Beltway is the road name should be the same large letter size as the city names, even if it means using a slightly bigger sign.

[PHLBOS]

Back to I-95 in Massachusetts.

Thanksgiving weekend observation (but no photo): for reasons unknown, the I-95 shield on this pull-through BGS was replaced within the last 2 months with a shield that features slightly smaller numerals with proportionately spacing (many I-95 shields with the smaller numerals I've seen in MA & elsewhere have the numbers placed too close together IMHO).

Anybody know the reasoning why the shield was replaced?  It certainly wasn't faded.  Recent vandalism (paintball/spraypaint) perhaps?

[bob7374]

Took a trip to check out the newly opened ramps along I-95/MA 128 in the Add-A-Lane Project work zone in Needham on Sunday. The new northbound ramp from Kendrick Street features both I-95 and 128 shield on the ramp guide sign:


Perhaps the contractor views the sign as a trailblazer, since the FHWA has frowned on 128 shields on guide and exit signs. The rest of the photos can be found on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane

[roadman]

^^^^^^ Good Grief!

[shadyjay]

Drove all of I-95 in Massachusetts (actually, from Exit 69 in CT to Exit 2 in NH) on Sunday and got shots of many guide signs along the way.  They can be found in my I-95 MASS album at:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157659430958301


Here's a shot in the add-a-lane work zone, which seems largely complete:
95NB-Exit20-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

And a shot of the newly-completed 8-laned Merrimack River Bridge:
95NB-Exit58-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Why weren't these signs replaced?
95NB-Exit58-5 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

For the rest of the signs, click the link in my sig.

[US 89]

As far as message loading, in my view, having a street name and a city name on a sign is no different than using a shield and a city name - it's still two units of information the driver has to process.

The question then becomes:  how is this better than having just the street name by itself, which is only one unit of information?  In cases where separate municipalities are part of the same urban agglomeration, how do drivers benefit from having the city name on every sign in an action signing sequence rather than on a supplemental sign?  I'd imagine drivers rely more on the street name than the city name for last-mile navigation.  (I can see the city name still being valuable, especially at interchanges fitting into certain unusual configurations, for drivers who treat cities as discrete points for orienteering purposes.  But digital mapping makes street names easier to find in unfamiliar large metropolitan areas, and tends to favor their use for last-mile navigation.)

With exception for US highways, the same is generally true for state route numbers in metropolitan areas. I doubt very many people know that Foothill Dr in Salt Lake City is SR 186, or that Sheridan Blvd in Denver is SH 95.

[roadman]

Why weren't these signs replaced?
95NB-Exit58-5 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

For the rest of the signs, click the link in my sig.

Groan!

[bob7374]

MassDOT has advertised today (9/22) for the I-95 sign replacement contract from the RI border to Norwood. The Bid Opening will be on Jan. 29, 2019. The estimated cost for the project is $6.3 million and includes the addition of 3 variable message signs and traffic cameras. Also advertised a couple weeks ago is the I-495 sign replacement contract in Districts 3 and 4 (Harvard to Lowell). The Bid Opening will be 3 weeks earlier om Jan. 8, 2019, the total cost being $3.8 million.

[wilbur_the_goose]

@msrman - here's how they do it in Oregon:

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6284409,-123.0618522,3a,75y,14.71h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-RNPiW2R6uLYMXUxFQuWmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[AMLNet49]

MassDOT has advertised today (9/22) for the I-95 sign replacement contract from the RI border to Norwood. The Bid Opening will be on Jan. 29, 2019. The estimated cost for the project is $6.3 million and includes the addition of 3 variable message signs and traffic cameras. Also advertised a couple weeks ago is the I-495 sign replacement contract in Districts 3 and 4 (Harvard to Lowell). The Bid Opening will be 3 weeks earlier om Jan. 8, 2019, the total cost being $3.8 million.

Will there finally be an actual sign for Exit 1? Ridiculous to have an unsigned exit on I-95 in the boswash corridor

[PHLBOS]

MassDOT has advertised today (9/22) for the I-95 sign replacement contract from the RI border to Norwood. The Bid Opening will be on Jan. 29, 2019. The estimated cost for the project is $6.3 million and includes the addition of 3 variable message signs and traffic cameras. Also advertised a couple weeks ago is the I-495 sign replacement contract in Districts 3 and 4 (Harvard to Lowell). The Bid Opening will be 3 weeks earlier om Jan. 8, 2019, the total cost being $3.8 million.

Will there finally be an actual sign for Exit 1? Ridiculous to have an unsigned exit on I-95 in the boswash corridor

Wow, I wasn't even aware that particular sign was missing.  Given that the current stretch of signs are from the 1990s; it's likely that the sign was knocked down and never replaced.

There is a 1/2 mile advance sign for this exit.

[bob7374]

MassDOT has advertised today (9/22) for the I-95 sign replacement contract from the RI border to Norwood. The Bid Opening will be on Jan. 29, 2019. The estimated cost for the project is $6.3 million and includes the addition of 3 variable message signs and traffic cameras. Also advertised a couple weeks ago is the I-495 sign replacement contract in Districts 3 and 4 (Harvard to Lowell). The Bid Opening will be 3 weeks earlier om Jan. 8, 2019, the total cost being $3.8 million.

Will there finally be an actual sign for Exit 1? Ridiculous to have an unsigned exit on I-95 in the boswash corridor

Wow, I wasn't even aware that particular sign was missing.  Given that the current stretch of signs are from the 1990s; it's likely that the sign was knocked down and never replaced.

There is a 1/2 mile advance sign for this exit.

Hope they are replacing this sign as well.

[PHLBOS]

Hope they are replacing this sign as well.

Given that the latest GSV is from 2016; one would hope that MassDOT has since done a one-off replacement for that reassurance sign assembly.

[spooky]

Hope they are replacing this sign as well.

Given that the latest GSV is from 2016; one would hope that MassDOT has since done a one-off replacement for that reassurance sign assembly.

I believe that the reassurance shields are pretty consistently terrible along this corridor, and I suspect that the intent is for wholesale replacement under this particular advertised contract rather than one-off replacement of the worst offenders.

[PHLBOS]

Hope they are replacing this sign as well.

Given that the latest GSV is from 2016; one would hope that MassDOT has since done a one-off replacement for that reassurance sign assembly.

I believe that the reassurance shields are pretty consistently terrible along this corridor, and I suspect that the intent is for wholesale replacement under this particular advertised contract rather than one-off replacement of the worst offenders.

While that may be the case; I've seen plenty of examples where worn/damaged shields/assemblies (either free-standing or on a sign panel) were replaced and then replaced again shortly thereafter as part of an overall sign replacement contract.

Case & point: This 2017 GSV shows a replacement I-95 shield on the right sign panel (the left one showing the worn shield was replaced shortly thereafter).  Both of these signs were completely replaced with brand new signs just over a month ago Scroll down to see the eplacement signs.

Bottom line: As an interim measure, MassDOT may have to replace those worn I-shields (this non-button-copy I-495 shield is pretty worn out as well) prior to that sign replacement contract commences.

[bob7374]

It appears Liddell Bros. was the low bidder ($6.24 million) for the MassDOT I-95 RI border to Norwood sign replacement contract on January 29. Once the project starts, I will see if I can get copies of the sign plans to post on my I-95 in MA gallery site.

[KEVIN_224]

Saw these on I-95 today...

I-95 North in Portsmouth, NH. The Piscataqua Bridge ("High Bridge") to Kittery, ME is in the background. A couple A.P.L. signs south of here, between the Hampton toll plaza and Exit 7 also said "Maine" or "All Maine Points".


Maine Exit 1 being signed in Portsmouth, NH. Are those NH-DOT specs on this sign? That long gantry wasn't there on my 2017 trip at all.


I-95/Maine Turnpike north at Exit 44 in Scarborough. Some widening is supposed to start up after this exit soon.

[shadyjay]

Those two New Hampshire signs were both there on my last trip to Maine, 7/2017.  The last sign is the northern end of the Maine Turnpike Phase III sign replacement project, though I believe there's a patch going over the Exit 45 sign, reverting that sign back to South Portland/Maine Mall Road. 

Speaking of Maine Turnpike signing projects, the Phase IV contract for MM 0-32 was released last week....
http://www.maineturnpike.com/Projects/Construction-Contracts/Guide-Sign-Modifications,-Phase-IV-(Mile-0-0-to-32.aspx

Not sure why it doesn't include Exit 19-NB, or Exit 25 (Kennebunk), bringing it up to the present/just ended Phase III (Biddeford to South Portland).  Also of note,
Exits 1-3 in the northbound direction are getting patches, including the two Exit 1 signs on the Piscataqua Bridge.  Annotations for Exits 1-3 signs and gantries note that they may be replaced in a future project, so perhaps they're holding out until the Piscataqua gets rehabbed.

[KEVIN_224]

I noticed that the Exit 32 sign in Biddeford changed. It now says "ME 111 to US 1". Also, the Exit 42 sign in Scarborough now also references Gorham.

[jp the roadgeek]

What does NHDOT have against using Portland as a control rather than the MUTCD no-no in using a control state?  Personally, I'd even use Portland as a secondary control coming off of 495 North in MA.