Bids were opened earlier today for the I-495 Harvard to Lowell sign replacement project (MassDOT Project # 607919), which runs from south of Route 111 in Harvard/Boxborough to north of Woburn Street in Lowell.
Liddell Brothers of Halifax, MA is the apparent low bidder.
What's wrong with the current signs?
Quote from: 1 on December 18, 2018, 02:52:42 PM
What's wrong with the current signs?
With the exception of the new signs at the Route 2 interchange, which were replaced during the recent interchange re-configuration project and will be retained, the signs on this section of I-495 were last replaced in 1995-1996. The support structures were installed in the early to mid-1970s.
Liddell Brothers shouldn't be allowed to bid until they finish other jobs they started years ago that should have been done, well, years ago.
Quote from: SectorZ on December 19, 2018, 06:54:35 PM
Liddell Brothers shouldn't be allowed to bid until they finish other jobs they started years ago that should have been done, well, years ago.
It's Massachusetts. If it takes less than six years to complete, you're too competent for work there.
Thanks to Charlene White of MassDOT, I was able to get the plans for the I-495 Harvard to Lowell replacement project. I have posted examples for each exit on my new I-495 in Mass. Photo Gallery. I also received plans for the other project currently going on between Methuen and Amesbury. Those plans show that the gore signs are designed for future 3 digit exit numbers, and in some cases, like below, for 3 digits and a letter:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi495signplanexit49gore.jpg&hash=a76ef1b33a52ca7ba53eae573f19e49772e73289)
Examples for the signs for that contract, as well as photos of previously replaced signs, such as at the I-90/Mass Pike exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi495signs718u.JPG&hash=aa2ab8228a05f83c4b36511a69ebe59e76604727)
are available at: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on October 23, 2019, 06:22:18 PMI also received plans for the other project currently going on between Methuen and Amesbury. Those plans show that the gore signs are designed for future 3 digit exit numbers, and in some cases, like below, for 3 digits and a letter
Many of those signs along that northern leg of I-495 were replaced roughly 5(?) years ago. If the issue is that the exit tabs on those signs aren't wide enough to accommodate 3-digit number (should MassDOT ever convert); why not just replace the tabs?
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 23, 2019, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 23, 2019, 06:22:18 PMI also received plans for the other project currently going on between Methuen and Amesbury. Those plans show that the gore signs are designed for future 3 digit exit numbers, and in some cases, like below, for 3 digits and a letter
Many of those signs along that northern leg of I-495 were replaced roughly 5(?) years ago. If the issue is that the exit tabs on those signs aren't wide enough to accommodate 3-digit number (should MassDOT ever convert); why not just replace the tabs?
Actually, the only signs within the current Methuen to Amesbury project that were recently replaced are on I-495 northbound starting at the exit direction sign for Route 150 (Exit 54) and continuing past Route 110 East (Exit 55) to the merge with I-95. Six new overhead signs on three new structures and five new ground-mounted signs on new posts were installed as part of the I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury sign replacement (MassDOT Project # 605688) completed in 2014. The reason for this is that the signs in question referenced I-95. While MassDOT normally does not replace signs for an Interstate on intersecting Interstate highways as part of sign replacement projects in specific corridors and segments of highway, an exception was made here due to both the age of the signs and to improve the presentation of the information on certain signs. These signs and structures/posts will be retained as part of the Methuen to Amesbury project.
Quote from: roadman on October 24, 2019, 10:23:55 AMActually, the only signs within the current Methuen to Amesbury project that were recently replaced are on I-495 northbound starting at the exit direction sign for Route 150 (Exit 54) and continuing past Route 110 East (Exit 55) to the merge with I-95. Six new overhead signs on three new structures and five new ground-mounted signs on new posts were installed as part of the I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury sign replacement (MassDOT Project # 605688) completed in 2014. The reason for this is that the signs in question referenced I-95. While MassDOT normally does not replace signs for an Interstate on intersecting Interstate highways as part of sign replacement projects in specific corridors and segments of highway, an exception was made here due to both the age of the signs and to improve the presentation of the information on certain signs.
So I guess the question here is, will those now-5-year-old signs be replaced in this upcoming project as well?
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 24, 2019, 11:11:19 AM
Quote from: roadman on October 24, 2019, 10:23:55 AMActually, the only signs within the current Methuen to Amesbury project that were recently replaced are on I-495 northbound starting at the exit direction sign for Route 150 (Exit 54) and continuing past Route 110 East (Exit 55) to the merge with I-95. Six new overhead signs on three new structures and five new ground-mounted signs on new posts were installed as part of the I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury sign replacement (MassDOT Project # 605688) completed in 2014. The reason for this is that the signs in question referenced I-95. While MassDOT normally does not replace signs for an Interstate on intersecting Interstate highways as part of sign replacement projects in specific corridors and segments of highway, an exception was made here due to both the age of the signs and to improve the presentation of the information on certain signs.
So I guess the question here is, will those now-5-year-old signs be replaced in this upcoming project as well?
No. These signs and structures will be retained - have amended my original post.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 23, 2019, 06:22:18 PM
Thanks to Charlene White of MassDOT, I was able to get the plans for the I-495 Harvard to Lowell replacement project. I have posted examples for each exit on my new I-495 in Mass. Photo Gallery. I also received plans for the other project currently going on between Methuen and Amesbury. Those plans show that the gore signs are designed for future 3 digit exit numbers, and in some cases, like below, for 3 digits and a letter:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi495signplanexit49gore.jpg&hash=a76ef1b33a52ca7ba53eae573f19e49772e73289)
Examples for the signs for that contract, as well as photos of previously replaced signs, such as at the I-90/Mass Pike exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi495signs718u.JPG&hash=aa2ab8228a05f83c4b36511a69ebe59e76604727)
are available at: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html)
Thanks for the link to your page (as always). I like the add of "To 110" on Exit 32 and the correction of "110 to 4" for exit 34 s/b.
Refreshing this post now that the overhead signs are starting to go up. Here's one of the new signs for the MA 2 exit on I-495 South that could have used better spacing for the control cities:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495signs1221j.jpg)
Other photos, including one of a sign with a short term error, can be found at:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html)
Wouldn't it make more sense for the Rte. 2 East control city to be Concord? Okay, Rte. 2 *does* go to Boston, but it just seems weird.
Quote from: kramie13 on December 20, 2021, 05:00:11 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense for the Rte. 2 East control city to be Concord? Okay, Rte. 2 *does* go to Boston, but it just seems weird.
Boston's fine.
I was just on I-495 between Bolton and Lowell yesterday and so I got to see the new signage for myself. They have recently put up new overhead signage at Exit 79 in Littleton. Does anyone know when this project is supposed to be done by? It was supposed to be finished by 2021.
Wasn't able to snap a pic as I was driving but on 495 North today, and say the new Boston Road/110 signs up
Drove this stretch of 495 going north today. Current missing signs are:
-An "entering Harvard" sign between exits 70 and 75
-The "at exit" sign for exit 75, MA 111
-The "at exit" sign for exit 88, MA 110
-All of the signs at the US 3/Lowell Connector interchange
-All signs for exit 91, Woburn St.
For some reason, the new exit 83 sign has a "to 110" underneath a horizontal line, and there is a 2 and a quarter mile sign for the US 3/Lowell Connector exits! Why does this exit need a 2.25 mile warning sign, in addition to the 1 and 0.5 mile signs? :-/ :confused:
Quote from: kramie13 on February 15, 2022, 02:04:14 PM
For some reason, the new exit 83 sign has a "to 110" underneath a horizontal line, and there is a 2 and a quarter mile sign for the US 3/Lowell Connector exits! Why does this exit need a 2.25 mile warning sign, in addition to the 1 and 0.5 mile signs? :-/ :confused:
Because that exit is a pretty major interchange and its good to give a 2 mile advance for major interchanges. The I-93 interchange further up gets the same treatment. New signs in CT are giving a (roughly) 2 mile advance for interstate jcts as well.
Quote from: shadyjay on February 15, 2022, 05:01:34 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 15, 2022, 02:04:14 PM
For some reason, the new exit 83 sign has a "to 110" underneath a horizontal line, and there is a 2 and a quarter mile sign for the US 3/Lowell Connector exits! Why does this exit need a 2.25 mile warning sign, in addition to the 1 and 0.5 mile signs? :-/ :confused:
Because that exit is a pretty major interchange and its good to give a 2 mile advance for major interchanges. The I-93 interchange further up gets the same treatment. New signs in CT are giving a (roughly) 2 mile advance for interstate jcts as well.
2 makes sense. 2¼ doesn't.
A 2 mile advance would have to be on another gantry. Makes sense for two signs to share one support structure, vs two cantilevers 1/4 mile apart. Sometimes compromises have to be made, and this one is just not that big of a deal.
Quote from: kramie13 on February 15, 2022, 02:04:14 PM
For some reason, the new exit 83 sign has a "to 110" underneath a horizontal line, and there is a 2 and a quarter mile sign for the US 3/Lowell Connector exits! Why does this exit need a 2.25 mile warning sign, in addition to the 1 and 0.5 mile signs? :-/ :confused:
The line separating certain items on signs is a new Massachusetts thing over the past decade. It seems to be their way of splitting two different concepts that the same sign conveys. This sign on MA 2 at US 202/MA 2A was the first instance I saw of this new concept, https://goo.gl/maps/v4pXXvPJzbagCks47
Quote from: SectorZ on February 15, 2022, 05:22:13 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 15, 2022, 02:04:14 PM
For some reason, the new exit 83 sign has a "to 110" underneath a horizontal line, and there is a 2 and a quarter mile sign for the US 3/Lowell Connector exits! Why does this exit need a 2.25 mile warning sign, in addition to the 1 and 0.5 mile signs? :-/ :confused:
The line separating certain items on signs is a new Massachusetts thing over the past decade. It seems to be their way of splitting two different concepts that the same sign conveys. This sign on MA 2 at US 202/MA 2A was the first instance I saw of this new concept, https://goo.gl/maps/v4pXXvPJzbagCks47
I don't like it. It makes the sign so huge! The same thing happened with the US 3/MA 3A interchange with I-95/MA 128 in Burlington!
Old: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.496521,-71.1752826,3a,75y,240.83h,102.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0uPedFd1ikHjLXmMqC1CRA!2e0!5s20090501T000000!7i3328!8i1664
New: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4974524,-71.1701321,3a,75y,250.56h,92.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdDIi6AxVNaOjdNPMKDVqOg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: Rothman on December 20, 2021, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on December 20, 2021, 05:00:11 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense for the Rte. 2 East control city to be Concord? Okay, Rte. 2 *does* go to Boston, but it just seems weird.
Boston's fine.
When dealing with shadow cities (those prior to a bigger city on a major corridor) you have this always ( except in PA where they would sign Concord if they ran here) where the smaller cities take a back seat. Now if MA 2 was two lanes and a lot of stop and go between, yes Boston would stink here. However look at I-5 in Oregon to make my point.
I-5 uses Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, and Medford, however not northbound. All are great cities to use, but Northbound you have Portland at the end of the line. So it overpowers it all. You have Portland used as far south as Anderson, CA over the many smaller cities.
Now if Greenfield was as popular as Boston and Springfield, Leominster would not be used here either.
Quote from: kramie13 on February 16, 2022, 09:45:04 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 15, 2022, 05:22:13 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 15, 2022, 02:04:14 PM
For some reason, the new exit 83 sign has a "to 110" underneath a horizontal line, and there is a 2 and a quarter mile sign for the US 3/Lowell Connector exits! Why does this exit need a 2.25 mile warning sign, in addition to the 1 and 0.5 mile signs? :-/ :confused:
The line separating certain items on signs is a new Massachusetts thing over the past decade. It seems to be their way of splitting two different concepts that the same sign conveys. This sign on MA 2 at US 202/MA 2A was the first instance I saw of this new concept, https://goo.gl/maps/v4pXXvPJzbagCks47
I don't like it. It makes the sign so huge! The same thing happened with the US 3/MA 3A interchange with I-95/MA 128 in Burlington!
Old: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.496521,-71.1752826,3a,75y,240.83h,102.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0uPedFd1ikHjLXmMqC1CRA!2e0!5s20090501T000000!7i3328!8i1664
New: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4974524,-71.1701321,3a,75y,250.56h,92.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdDIi6AxVNaOjdNPMKDVqOg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The difference with the US 3/MA 3A one on 95, compared to the one I posted and the new I-495 one is that the latter two are only one single exit, where as the first one is an A/B exit. At least it's a tad more logical on that one, since it is two different exits.
https://goo.gl/maps/Em7nHF7VKfhaaZZE6
The same route from two locations but only one control city is the same. On I-95 they use Fitchburg instead of Leominster for Route 2 west. Sort of like NCDOT and alternatively using either Wilson or Rocky Mount on I-95 North.
I have added photos taken of new I-495 signage in late February by Kevin Manfra, including this:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495signskm222s.jpg)
To my I-495 in Mass. Photo Gallery: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html)
It includes new signs for the MA 4, MA 110 and US 3/Lowell Connector exits (Only NB has been replaced). The latest MassDOT Project listing has the contract as 80% complete.
I've got my share too from last Sunday (2/27) over on my I-495 page... starting about halfway down this page:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157684290796051/page3
Among them, this one of "a work in progress"...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51907757376_8988322205_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n5UPQ5)495NB-Exit89-ramp-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2n5UPQ5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Work is near completion for the project. During March most signs from Woburn Street (Exit 91) to MA 4 (Exit 88) were placed along I-495 South, such as for US 3, photo taken by Kevin Manfra:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495signskm322c.jpeg)
Other new photos can be found on my I-495 in Mass. Photo Gallery:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html)
Drove through the project last weekend as well. Only mainline primary sign not up yet that I noticed was the Exit 35 "exit now" sign, which will also feature pull-thrus.
(side note: some new signs on I-290 at I-395 were recent installs, right at the I-90 interchange).
See the link in my sig for more.
From a round trip from Lowell to Burlington and back on Saturday, it appears all but 1 of the overhead sign assemblies has been replaced, the one SB prior to the start of the C/D lanes for the Lowell Connector/US 3 exits. All the other signs are up north of there to MA 38:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495signs522q.jpg)
Other new sign photos can be found toward the bottom of the sign replacement project section of:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i495photos.html)