When the BGS isn't enough

[Mergingtraffic]

I find it annoying when there is a BGS and then there's a small shield or trailblazer nearby saying what is on the BGS....like the BGS isn't good enough or noticeable.

Here is one example, look at the "JCT 49" in the background...there's no reason for it to be there. The BGS pretty much sums it up.



There's a lot worse but the only one I had a pic of. 

[SectorZ]

US 3 from I-95 to the NH border, pre- and post-widening, has the same problem at every interchange. Full BGS treatment than the little "JCT" whatever sign right before the exit.

[nexus73]

At least it is a button copy sign...LOL!

Rick

[NE2]

LOL! So funny!

[bzakharin]

I feel like this type of thing is pretty common. You have pull-thrus and reassurance shields on freeways all the time. I'm pretty sure I've also seen stand-alone shield assemblies with arrows at exits that have BGS ahead of them listing the same routes, more so when exits are not numbered.

[jakeroot]

I agree that the trailblazer is a bit redundant, however, my guess is that the trailblazer is a requirement and the BGS is not; the DOT wanted to provide some context to the junction, so they installed the (rather brilliant) button copy sign.

[roadman65]

It is quite common to see the little shields along with the larger signs.  Maybe that JCT sign should be moved back to before this sign.  JCT signs should be first anyway followed by the directions afterwards.

[PHLBOS]

It's worth noting that the BGS (the MA 49 shield on it is indeed a newer replacement - the original shield was rectangular, note the 4 screw holes) predated the JCT. 49 trailablazer.  The latter was probably erected to be kosher w/MUTCD later on; although IMHO, it should've been erected prior to the BGS.

[Pete from Boston]

It's worth noting that the BGS (the MA 49 shield on it is indeed a newer replacement - the original shield was rectangular, note the 4 screw holes) predated the JCT. 49 trailablazer.  The latter was probably erected to be kosher w/MUTCD later on; although IMHO, it should've been erected prior to the BGS.

Judging by its appearance, and my memory of that area, that sign is decades old.

For this topic I nominate everywhere Mass. 128 signs are mounted to the pole because some regulatory directive arbitrarily disallows posting the most useful information on the BGS.

[PHLBOS]

Judging by its appearance, and my memory of that area, that sign is decades old.

My guess would be late 60s/very early 70s.

For this topic I nominate everywhere Mass. 128 signs are mounted to the pole because some regulatory directive arbitrarily disallows posting the most useful information on the BGS.

Similar's now being done regarding MA 3 signs along the Southeast Expressway (I-93/US 1); not sure if such is now a written directive like the MassDOT 128 shield prohibition on BGS'/LGS' along the I-95 section.

[Pete from Boston]

Judging by its appearance, and my memory of that area, that sign is decades old.

My guess would be late 60s/very early 70s.

I can only say I remember signs of that legend from the late 1970s, and that the makeup of them is not of the types installed in Mass. in the times since so they are unlikely to have been replaced.

[roadman65]

When is the People of Massachusetts going to finally accept that I-95 is here to stay?

[Pete from Boston]

When is the People of Massachusetts going to finally accept that I-95 is here to stay?

Around when people from other states stop telling us how to think.

As is beaten to death all over the place, the loop around Boston has an identity of its own for reasons that have nothing to do with 95, so people use the only name there is that denotes that discrete part. 

If the experts really wanted to get rid of "128," they'd address that fact, but instead the choice has been to perpetuate the problem.

I would suggest that if you want to discuss it further that you reopen one of the many debates out there in the forums because it will just derail this thread entirely.

[PHLBOS]

Judging by its appearance, and my memory of that area, that sign is decades old.

My guess would be late 60s/very early 70s.

I can only say I remember signs of that legend from the late 1970s, and that the makeup of them is not of the types installed in Mass. in the times since so they are unlikely to have been replaced.

According to Wiki, MA 49 (that version of it anyway) was built in 1972; so that BGS, along with its companions is definitely original sans the newer MA 49 shields.

As mentioned earlier, look a tad closer to the BGS near the MA 49 shield.  One can see there was previously a more-horizontal shield mounted.  Lower-profile, horizontal shields (even for 2-digit routes) on BGS' was common MassDPW practice until about the very early 70s.  The original MA 49 shields for those BGS' were not only rectangular but were likely off-white/beige in color and were non-reflectorized, again common DPW practice until the 70s.

The shields were probably replaced sometime in the 80s or early 90s due to fading & (lack of) reflectivity issues.

[PurdueBill]

Steve's page with a night pic of the same sign shows the former rectangle shield area very well. 

[PHLBOS]

Steve's page with a night pic of the same sign shows the former rectangle shield area very well. 

Olllllld button-copy. I'm giving you the nighttime version so that you can see the trace of the original shield, which would have been a borderless rectangle with "49" centered inside. I don't know why old BGS's used rectangles instead of squares for 2-digit routes.

MassDPW didn't start using borderless SR shields on their BGS' until about 1973; after MA 49 was built & its BGS' were erected.  That said, the original rectangular MA 49 shield would've still had the black-offset border.

The earliest BGS' with borderless MA shields I'm aware of were along US 1 in Danvers between Dayton St. and I-95 at the Topsfield border (the ones containing MA 62 & 114 shields).  Although it was not opened to traffic for a few years (about one year for I-95 Northbound), the then-newly built parallel stretch of I-95 also had similar vintage & type BGS' erected from Centre St. (Exit 48) to US 1 (Exit 50).

[SidS1045]

When is the People of Massachusetts going to finally accept that I-95 is here to stay?

"How about 'never?'  Does 'never' work for you?"

[AMLNet49]

It's perpetuated by traffic news people. One day a young crop of traffic reporters will crop up that will call the road whatever Google Maps calls it, and that will be I-95, and then people will change.

[kkt]

It's perpetuated by traffic news people. One day a young crop of traffic reporters will crop up that will call the road whatever Google Maps calls it, and that will be I-95, and then people will change.

Perhaps it will be Google Maps that adjusts to what people call it?

[bzakharin]

This might better go to another thread, but I wonder where traffic reporters get their info. I would assume they have some sort of map they look at. Are they consciously substituting what people call roads for what they see written? Or do they have special made maps?

[roadman]

It's perpetuated by traffic news people.

Not to mention the editorial staff of the Boston Globe (a.k.a. the Keep Route 128 Forever committee).  Every time the state has proposed to decomission the highway south of Peabody, the Glob(e) has responded with a scathing editorial accusing the Highway Department of heresy.

Now, to get back on topic, it should be noted that the junction assemblies on the US 3 mainline between Burlington and Tyngsborough predate the installation of the original overhead button copy signs on that highway, and were presumably installed by District maintenance staff.  Reliable sources tell me that the markers were supposed to be removed as part of the last sign update that preceded the widening project, but for some reason that instruction was never included in the final contract documents.

[Pete from Boston]

Maybe the Globe understands the issue planners don't. 

[SidS1045]

This might better go to another thread, but I wonder where traffic reporters get their info. I would assume they have some sort of map they look at. Are they consciously substituting what people call roads for what they see written? Or do they have special made maps?

They get their info from the same place any reporter who's new to an area gets it...from the old-timers who've been doing the same job before.  They have to learn the geography, the place names and their peculiar pronunciations, and the common names applied to the roads...the names people actually know, not what's printed on some map or official document.

Ever since the stretch of I-93 between the I-95 junction in Canton and the MA-3 junction in Braintree lost the 128 designation, I have yet to hear any traffic reporter refer to it by any name other than 128.  If they had looked on a map or an official document, they wouldn't keep making the reference, but they do.

[spooky]

This might better go to another thread, but I wonder where traffic reporters get their info. I would assume they have some sort of map they look at. Are they consciously substituting what people call roads for what they see written? Or do they have special made maps?

They get their info from the same place any reporter who's new to an area gets it...from the old-timers who've been doing the same job before.  They have to learn the geography, the place names and their peculiar pronunciations, and the common names applied to the roads...the names people actually know, not what's printed on some map or official document.

Ever since the stretch of I-93 between the I-95 junction in Canton and the MA-3 junction in Braintree lost the 128 designation, I have yet to hear any traffic reporter refer to it by any name other than 128.  If they had looked on a map or an official document, they wouldn't keep making the reference, but they do.

I watch Fox 25 news in the morning, and it's common for them to say that backups are starting near Exit 6 on 128 South. Now this of course the exit for Route 37 on I-93N in Braintree.

There was a while where they were switching between different reporters for the traffic each day, and there was one who would actually call that segment I-93. The rest say 128.

Now they have a new traffic reporter who looks like a hooker and doesn't seem to know the roads at all. She recently reported on an accident on I-95 east at Exit 20.

[bzakharin]

This might better go to another thread, but I wonder where traffic reporters get their info. I would assume they have some sort of map they look at. Are they consciously substituting what people call roads for what they see written? Or do they have special made maps?

They get their info from the same place any reporter who's new to an area gets it...from the old-timers who've been doing the same job before.  They have to learn the geography, the place names and their peculiar pronunciations, and the common names applied to the roads...the names people actually know, not what's printed on some map or official document.

Ever since the stretch of I-93 between the I-95 junction in Canton and the MA-3 junction in Braintree lost the 128 designation, I have yet to hear any traffic reporter refer to it by any name other than 128.  If they had looked on a map or an official document, they wouldn't keep making the reference, but they do.

I may not have explained it clearly enough, but when there is an incident somewhere, these days, how does that get to the reporter who then mentions it in the traffic report? It can't be exclusively helicopters or live reporters on the scene. They must have a version of something like Google maps or local 511s with the traffic info shown. Presumably, those maps show the official names or numbers on the roads, so do they translate it in their heads or what?