If you take a look at the following video of a news report covering a water main break on Monday morning (8/12) at the corner of Tremont St and Mass Ave in Boston: http://www.necn.com/08/12/13/Water-restored-to-part-of-Bostons-South-/landing.html?blockID=849235 (http://www.necn.com/08/12/13/Water-restored-to-part-of-Bostons-South-/landing.html?blockID=849235) you will notice about half way through the appearance of several MA route marker assemblies. There is one for MA 28 and a straight arrow and two for MA 2A with East and West banners and right and left arrows.
Last time I checked, MA 2A ended about 1/2 mile to the west at the intersection of Mass Ave and Comm Ave (MA 2). Last month I noticed a new 'To MA 2A' sign at the corner of The Fenway and Boylston St. However, there were no further MA 2A signs approaching or at Mass Ave/Boylston intersection. At the time I just thought the To sign was to help direct people wanting to cross over to Cambridge. Do these two other instances of MA 2A signs further east indicate an extension of the route further down on Mass Ave? And if its logical to end an alternate route at its parent, does this mean they are shifting the route of MA 2 as well? I couldn't find anything on the MassDOT website to indicate 2A (or MA 2's) had been changed.
MA 2 isn't moving, they've just put up new signs along Beacon and Comm.
I may be up that way early next week to see the locations of those signs myself. My guess is that those 2A signs (w/the directions) southeast of Commonwealth Ave. (MA 2) are likely in error.
This is just part of a recent trend towards thoroughly signing state routes in the city. 28 and 9 have gotten an abundance of new signage lately as well.
In fact, new signage for 9 led to an interesting discussion on Universal Hub today: http://www.universalhub.com/2013/citizen-complaint-day-again-stupid-rte-9-signs
Holy crap - they're actually putting up signs? (But yeah, don't block the sidewalk (http://www.universalhub.com/2012/citizen-complaint-day-dpw-slacking-new-signs-still) with them. That's bad.)
(And roadman's beating the 128 dead horse again in that discussion.)
I looked into this a bit more for CHM purposes. The 2012 MassDOT Road Inventory shapefiles still show 2A ending at Commonwealth.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 14, 2013, 08:56:50 AM
I may be up that way early next week to see the locations of those signs myself. My guess is that those 2A signs (w/the directions) southeast of Commonwealth Ave. (MA 2) are likely in error.
If they are an error, then it's a major one. I went out to check out Mass Ave between Tremont and Huntington Aves during lunch hour yesterday (9/5). There are MA 2A reassurance signs in both directions after both the Tremont St and Columbus Ave (MA 28) intersections. There are also West and East 2A signs along Columbus Ave approaching Mass Ave (and MA 28 signs on Mass Ave). Though there are no MA 2A signs at the Huntington Ave intersection which does have new MA 9 East and West arrow signs along Mass Ave.
There is also a 'East 2A' sign along Mass Ave heading toward Cambridge by the Christian Science Plaza. Yes, I said East, all the directional banners I indicated above, along with those first spotted on Tremont, are reversed. There is also a 'West' MA 28 sign on Tremont at the Mass Ave intersection as well. So, either all the 2A signs are in error, or the shields are correct but the directional banners are wrong. I've posted photos on both the NortheastRoads and BostonRoads Facebook group pages, (if you haven't joined, maybe its time to do so :D). I will plan also to post a link when I get the photos posted on my own website by the end of the weekend.
I've added some of the Mass Ave MA 2A photos I took last week to the bottom of my new blog entry on the I-93 Signage Update project:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/09/september-i-93-signage-update-plus-mass.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/09/september-i-93-signage-update-plus-mass.html)
I inquired about the new MA route signs in the City of Boston and got this response from MassDOT District 6:
This is in response to your e-mail regarding Route Number signage:
MassDOT is in general responsible for the installation and maintenance of Route Number signs. However, recently an unknown organization has started to install route number signs all over the City of Boston. I have had discussions with the City sign shop and they were unaware of who is installing the signs. MassDOT is not installing these signs, and will not maintain these signs.
Quote from: roadman on September 10, 2013, 04:39:03 PMrecently an unknown organization has started to install route number signs all over the City of Boston.
paging R. Ankrom.
Quote from: roadman on September 10, 2013, 04:39:03 PM
I inquired about the new MA route signs in the City of Boston and got this response from MassDOT District 6:
This is in response to your e-mail regarding Route Number signage:
MassDOT is in general responsible for the installation and maintenance of Route Number signs. However, recently an unknown organization has started to install route number signs all over the City of Boston. I have had discussions with the City sign shop and they were unaware of who is installing the signs. MassDOT is not installing these signs, and will not maintain these signs.
Assuming this is the case, and the District 6 response is not an overtly facetious way to avoid admitting they made a mistake with some of their sign placements, and an 'unknown organization' is placing signs along Boston streets, why can't MassDOT or the city simply remove them, since they would have been placed along public streets illegally? Many of the new signs have been there 6 months and longer. It must be a well-funded unknown group since the signs appear to be up to current specs, are mostly mounted on new posts embedded in concrete, and have appeared in many areas of the city. Hope it's not too long before the true sign installer's identity is known.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 10, 2013, 08:34:23 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 10, 2013, 04:39:03 PM
I inquired about the new MA route signs in the City of Boston and got this response from MassDOT District 6:
This is in response to your e-mail regarding Route Number signage:
MassDOT is in general responsible for the installation and maintenance of Route Number signs. However, recently an unknown organization has started to install route number signs all over the City of Boston. I have had discussions with the City sign shop and they were unaware of who is installing the signs. MassDOT is not installing these signs, and will not maintain these signs.
Assuming this is the case, and the District 6 response is not an overtly facetious way to avoid admitting they made a mistake with some of their sign placements, and an 'unknown organization' is placing signs along Boston streets, why can't MassDOT or the city simply remove them, since they would have been placed along public streets illegally? Many of the new signs have been there 6 months and longer. It must be a well-funded unknown group since the signs appear to be up to current specs, are mostly mounted on new posts embedded in concrete, and have appeared in many areas of the city. Hope it's not too long before the true sign installer's identity is known.
Rather than remove the signs, how about simply correcting them? If we aren't going to sign state routes within the city than we might as well just truncate the routes at the city line since they are serving no purpose (particularly the ones that terminate in the city itself as opposed to pass through like 28).
I'm wondering if this was the same company that put the route 9 signs up in another article someone quoted? I find it hard to believe the city didn't know about this as i'm sure there was a police detail when the concrete drilling operation was going on since the contractor's equipment was most likely parked on the street.
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 11, 2013, 10:40:36 PM
Rather than remove the signs, how about simply correcting them? If we aren't going to sign state routes within the city than we might as well just truncate the routes at the city line since they are serving no purpose (particularly the ones that terminate in the city itself as opposed to pass through like 28).
I'm wondering if this was the same company that put the route 9 signs up in another article someone quoted? I find it hard to believe the city didn't know about this as i'm sure there was a police detail when the concrete drilling operation was going on since the contractor's equipment was most likely parked on the street.
Well, if the route signs are where they should be, then I have no problem with them there. But the Route 2A shields are apparently not. I visited the area near the Mass Ave/Comm Ave intersection today and there are new signs along Mass Ave for MA 2 with the correct directions and new guide/paddle signs for MA 2A West to Cambridge, but no references to 2A East. The first 2A sign headed toward Cambridge is correctly marked as West 2A. This confirms to me that 2A East ends still at Comm Ave.
I did spot some more wrong signs. There was a sign for MA 2A put up along Boylston St at Mass Ave heading toward Copley Square placed since I had last been there in mid-June. It had another wrong directional banner. With MA 2A West indicated if you turned right toward Huntington Ave. There was also a MA 2 West arrow sign along Mass Ave at Beacon St. I took a few photos and will provide a link once they have been posted.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 13, 2013, 10:36:02 PM
Well, if the route signs are where they should be, then I have no problem with them there. But the Route 2A shields are apparently not. I visited the area near the Mass Ave/Comm Ave intersection today and there are new signs along Mass Ave for MA 2 with the correct directions and new guide/paddle signs for MA 2A West to Cambridge, but no references to 2A East. The first 2A sign headed toward Cambridge is correctly marked as West 2A. This confirms to me that 2A East ends still at Comm Ave.
I did spot some more wrong signs. There was a sign for MA 2A put up along Boylston St at Mass Ave heading toward Copley Square placed since I had last been there in mid-June. It had another wrong directional banner. With MA 2A West indicated if you turned right toward Huntington Ave. There was also a MA 2 West arrow sign along Mass Ave at Beacon St. I took a few photos and will provide a link once they have been posted.
I am in full agreement that any incorrect banners or signs should be corrected (and unless there is a "TO" plaque above, any 2A/2 signs on roads that are not actually 2A/2). I did however take a drive through the city and am impressed at the number of signs that were put up. I do like that the effort was finally made to sign these inner city routes. My feeling is that although MassDOT told roadman they will not maintain these signs, they should still look into the ones that are incorrect since part of their duty of signing state routes is to make sure they are signed correctly, whether they were put up by someone else or not. Most would be a simple fix-just unbolt and switch a few banners or rotate some arrows. I noticed there are other new signs for MA 28 and 9 as well. I actually think the contractor did do a good job of laying out and installing the signs (those done correctly)
I've done some further digging in response to the MassDOT District 6 Office's claims that they do not know who is installing the US 20 and MA 2A, 9, 28, etc. route signs around Boston. Turns out there is an active contract listed on the MassDOT's project listing page: Contract # 67312 -- Construction Contract; Fabrication and Installation of Overhead and Ground Mountain Guide Signs at Various Locations. City of Boston. 28% Complete.
Would 'Guide Signs' cover the placement of route shields, or just the green 'paddle signs?' I visited the area where MA 2A should end. There are new MA 2A Guide Signs at the intersection of Mass. Ave and Comm. Ave, they only indicate one direction for 2A, and unlike the Route 2A shields in the area, these have the correct directional banner-West (have photos posted again on BostonRoads Facebook page). That they seem to have been installed around the same time as the misplaced, or at least misplaced directional, 2A signs along Mass Ave. seems more than just a coincidence IMO. A new West 2A assembly (with arrow pointing East) was put up also further East along Boylston St heading toward Mass Ave from The Fenway since I was previously there in June. It was paired with a new 'To I-90 West' shield (with correct arrow) a few feet away. A new West I-90 shield and arrow were also placed at the on-ramp to the Mass Pike from Mass Ave. Could two different entities be responsible for placing new signs in the same area?
Link to the project: http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=606234
Quote from: NE2 on September 23, 2013, 11:50:45 AM
Link to the project: http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=606234
My guess would be that this project is for replacing guide signs on a maintenance basis (i.e. one or two at a time, not an entire corridor) throughout district 6 ("various locations") the location is listed as city of Boston most likely because D6 headquarter office is in Boston.
I've put together most of the MA 2A Mass Ave photos (and some of intersecting routes) I've taken over the past month along with what's been learned so far on whether these are a mistake or not on this page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#mass2a (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#mass2a) Feel free to check it out.
Quote from: bob7374 on September 23, 2013, 09:35:55 PM
I've put together most of the MA 2A Mass Ave photos (and some of intersecting routes) I've taken over the past month along with what's been learned so far on whether these are a mistake or not on this page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#mass2a (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#mass2a) Feel free to check it out.
Nice work. I also noticed some incorrect directional banners/arrows for MA 9 (Huntington Ave.) in the Museum of Fine Arts area (mostly on side streets). I will try to obtain photos.
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 23, 2013, 05:58:54 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 23, 2013, 11:50:45 AM
Link to the project: http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=606234
My guess would be that this project is for replacing guide signs on a maintenance basis (i.e. one or two at a time, not an entire corridor) throughout district 6 ("various locations") the location is listed as city of Boston most likely because D6 headquarter office is in Boston.
You are exactly correct. The contract is a district-wide one for routine sign maintenance. Installation of a large number of new route markers, like the ones that have been magically appearing in Downtown Boston, would normally be done as a separate stand-alone contract.
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 23, 2013, 10:40:26 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 23, 2013, 09:35:55 PM
I've put together most of the MA 2A Mass Ave photos (and some of intersecting routes) I've taken over the past month along with what's been learned so far on whether these are a mistake or not on this page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#mass2a (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#mass2a) Feel free to check it out.
Nice work. I also noticed some incorrect directional banners/arrows for MA 9 (Huntington Ave.) in the Museum of Fine Arts area (mostly on side streets). I will try to obtain photos.
Had a chance to drive Commonwealth Ave west from Berkeley St to a few blocks beyond the BU Bridge over the weekend, unfortunately, not with a camera. The MA 2A sign put in at the end of the road going from WB Comm Ave to Mass Ave has only one direction indicated, West, which is correct, but, the arrow is pointing to the left, not the right as it should. Also, there are several new 'West MA 30/US 20' signs west of Kenmore Square (and a 'To West MA 30/US 20' sign prior to the Kenmore lights). I assume the MA 30 signs are in error, like those for 2A east of Comm. Ave.
Even if MassDOT does not know who put up the signs, could they at least reverse arrows, switch directional banners, and/or remove signs that are not correct? Wouldn't a maintenance contract cover these activities? Isn't a sign placed incorrectly just as bad as a missing sign that I assume a replacement of would be installed with maintenance funds? As I've said before, some of these signs have been up for more than 6 months and its obvious that those who did place them are not interested in correcting their mistakes.
I am in full agreement with your statements. MassDOT is responsible for ALL state route signing, including signage that is on roads that are not state maintained. By choosing to shrug their shoulders and allow this many erroneous arrows/banners to not be corrected (especially in Boston, you know, the state capital), they are basically shirking their responsibility-which is prescribed to them by state law. They should instead be looking at it as hey we got some free signs put up and all we have to do is unbolt and flip a few banners, and remove a couple on 2A that are beyond its terminus. Since their was no signs there to begin with (also a fault with their responsibility to sign state routes) it is more like a free gift instead of a PIA. I'm sure if the news did a story on this they would jump to instantly correct the problem since it would reflect badly on them even though they didn't install them. I know news orgs are quick to do any kind of story on state screw ups.
I also don't relieve the city of fault either since I highly doubt no one was aware of this or at least a dpw supervisor didn't drive by and notice. Also as I said before I'm sure there was a police detail or some kind of parking restriction in effect at the sign locations so the contractor could park his equipment while he is installing the signs in concrete sidewalks. These records would be on file with the police or parking departments.
I did send an e-mail to the Globe's Starts & Stops blogger (latest post (10/5) at http://boston.com/news/local/blogs/starts-and-stops (http://boston.com/news/local/blogs/starts-and-stops)) about the 2A signs a couple weeks ago, along with a few photos, but have not gotten any response back. Perhaps one of their other columnists would be interested. I was also thinking of sending an e-mail to the project engineer listed for the Boston sign rehab contract I noted earlier. Good idea or not?
One of the new West Route 30/20 signs on Comm Ave I saw had been hit by something and was leaning over the sidewalk. Wonder if at least that one will be fixed (or removed).
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 04, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
I am in full agreement with your statements. MassDOT is responsible for ALL state route signing, including signage that is on roads that are not state maintained. By choosing to shrug their shoulders and allow this many erroneous arrows/banners to not be corrected (especially in Boston, you know, the state capital), they are basically shirking their responsibility-which is prescribed to them by state law. They should instead be looking at it as hey we got some free signs put up and all we have to do is unbolt and flip a few banners, and remove a couple on 2A that are beyond its terminus. Since their was no signs there to begin with (also a fault with their responsibility to sign state routes) it is more like a free gift instead of a PIA. I'm sure if the news did a story on this they would jump to instantly correct the problem since it would reflect badly on them even though they didn't install them. I know news orgs are quick to do any kind of story on state screw ups.
I also don't relieve the city of fault either since I highly doubt no one was aware of this or at least a dpw supervisor didn't drive by and notice. Also as I said before I'm sure there was a police detail or some kind of parking restriction in effect at the sign locations so the contractor could park his equipment while he is installing the signs in concrete sidewalks. These records would be on file with the police or parking departments.
Not quite. Chapter 85, Section 2, of the Massachusetts General Laws states, in part "The department of highways, in this chapter called the department, shall erect and maintain on state highways and on ways leading thereto and therefrom, and on all main highways between cities and towns, such direction signs ....."
State highway refers to actual jurisdiction of the road, and not whether it carries a route number or not. All the streets and roads where the "mystery markers" have been appering are under City of Boston of jurisdiction, it is entirely possible that these signs were put in without MassDOT's knowledge or participation.
By numbering them as state routes, MassDOT has decided that they are "ways leading thereto and therefrom". They may have been installed without MassDOT oversight, but, now that they are there, they are MassDOT's responsibility.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2005502444Mass58_1499 may be marginally relevant; it is about the responsibility for an obstructed stop sign where a town-maintained numbered route intersects a state-maintained unnumbered road.
Quote from: roadman on October 07, 2013, 02:33:50 PM
Not quite. Chapter 85, Section 2, of the Massachusetts General Laws states, in part "The department of highways, in this chapter called the department, shall erect and maintain on state highways and on ways leading thereto and therefrom, and on all main highways between cities and towns, such direction signs ....."
State highway refers to actual jurisdiction of the road, and not whether it carries a route number or not. All the streets and roads where the "mystery markers" have been appering are under City of Boston of jurisdiction, it is entirely possible that these signs were put in without MassDOT's knowledge or participation.
If that is the case then why would any city or town take it upon themselves to maintain state route signage on their roadways? It serves them no purpose that a particular local route that is state numbered happens to traverse through their town. As a matter of fact, why not just get rid of all state routes that aren't state maintained? This is why it is incumbent upon the state to look at the road network from a regional perspective instead of a local one and maintain the state numbered signs.
The law you quoted also states "and on main highways between city and towns." It makes a distinction between "state highways" (state maintained), and "main highways." I can't think of any other "main highways" that the law would refer to that are different than "state highways" other than state numbered routes under local jurisdiction. MassDOT (or Mass DPW) way back when deemed certain roads "main highways" and therefore elected to give them a state numbered designation. By giving these roads such a designation the state can't then pass off the responsibility of signing such to the local cities and towns. Therefore, according to this law, MassDOT IS responsible for maintaining said signs.
While I agree with your statement that MassDOT probably had no knowledge of the signs installation, as stewards of the regional road network it is now incumbent upon them to correct the situation to ensure that motorists are accurately guided along state numbered routes. For them to look away and say "oh that's not our road" is fundamentally doing a disservice to motorists and taxpayers.
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2013, 02:44:32 PM
By numbering them as state routes, MassDOT has decided that they are "ways leading thereto and therefrom". They may have been installed without MassDOT oversight, but, now that they are there, they are MassDOT's responsibility.
You're misreading. The state has responsibility to maintain signs on "ways leading thereto and therefrom," but it does not say ALL ways, or else every street would have route shields. It is up to the state to decide which ways are signed by the state, and it does not explicitly forbid other agencies from maintaining their own trailblazing signs, which is what happened here.
Quote from: Steve on October 07, 2013, 08:23:25 PM
It is up to the state to decide which ways are signed by the state
Which apparently includes Boston, normally:
Quote from: roadman on September 10, 2013, 04:39:03 PM
I inquired about the new MA route signs in the City of Boston and got this response from MassDOT District 6:
This is in response to your e-mail regarding Route Number signage:
MassDOT is in general responsible for the installation and maintenance of Route Number signs. However, recently an unknown organization has started to install route number signs all over the City of Boston. I have had discussions with the City sign shop and they were unaware of who is installing the signs. MassDOT is not installing these signs, and will not maintain these signs.
Quote from: Steve on October 07, 2013, 08:23:25 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2013, 02:44:32 PM
By numbering them as state routes, MassDOT has decided that they are "ways leading thereto and therefrom". They may have been installed without MassDOT oversight, but, now that they are there, they are MassDOT's responsibility.
You're misreading. The state has responsibility to maintain signs on "ways leading thereto and therefrom," but it does not say ALL ways, or else every street would have route shields. It is up to the state to decide which ways are signed by the state, and it does not explicitly forbid other agencies from maintaining their own trailblazing signs, which is what happened here.
I think this actually falls under the category of "main highways" within the language of the law rather than a way "leading thereto and therefrom". The state at some point identified certain Boston city streets as large and important enough to contain state designations 2, 2A, 28, etc. By identifying these streets as "main highways" and numbering them as such, they undertake responsibility for maintaining the route signage. This law specifically identifies MassDOT alone as responsible for signage. There are no other corollaries or other chapters saying that each local jurisdiction is responsible for signing state routes. Therefore there is no legal charge or responsibility for localities to do so.
However, I think this question can be settled based on the MassDOT response to roadman's email where they admit they indeed are responsible for route number signs.
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 07, 2013, 11:23:22 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 07, 2013, 08:23:25 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2013, 02:44:32 PM
By numbering them as state routes, MassDOT has decided that they are "ways leading thereto and therefrom". They may have been installed without MassDOT oversight, but, now that they are there, they are MassDOT's responsibility.
You're misreading. The state has responsibility to maintain signs on "ways leading thereto and therefrom," but it does not say ALL ways, or else every street would have route shields. It is up to the state to decide which ways are signed by the state, and it does not explicitly forbid other agencies from maintaining their own trailblazing signs, which is what happened here.
I think this actually falls under the category of "main highways" within the language of the law rather than a way "leading thereto and therefrom". The state at some point identified certain Boston city streets as large and important enough to contain state designations 2, 2A, 28, etc. By identifying these streets as "main highways" and numbering them as such, they undertake responsibility for maintaining the route signage. This law specifically identifies MassDOT alone as responsible for signage. There are no other corollaries or other chapters saying that each local jurisdiction is responsible for signing state routes. Therefore there is no legal charge or responsibility for localities to do so.
However, I think this question can be settled based on the MassDOT response to roadman's email where they admit they indeed are responsible for route number signs.
If these are not on the "main road" or on the designated route, then MassDOT is not responsible. Plain and simple. You're all missing that point.
Eh? Some of the errors are incorrect directional plates on otherwise correct assemblies, on numbered routes.
Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2013, 12:55:38 AM
Eh? Some of the errors are incorrect directional plates on otherwise correct assemblies, on numbered routes.
So you're saying that there are 2A shields not just on Mass Ave, but on intersecting state routes? In that case yes, the state is responsible for those, and should be taking them down. But not the ones on Mass Ave and not on any non-state highway.
These numbered routes are not state (maintained) highways. The question is whether MassDOT is still responsible.
Quote from: Steve on October 08, 2013, 12:58:09 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2013, 12:55:38 AM
Eh? Some of the errors are incorrect directional plates on otherwise correct assemblies, on numbered routes.
So you're saying that there are 2A shields not just on Mass Ave, but on intersecting state routes? In that case yes, the state is responsible for those, and should be taking them down. But not the ones on Mass Ave and not on any non-state highway.
There are incorrect arrows/banners on state numbered routes such as 28, 9, 30, 2, and 2A. The actual thread was started because there are also 2A signs on portions of Mass Ave which aren't 2A. Not only are the signs there in error, but the directionals/arrows are also incorrect. In this case I would still think MassDOT would want to remove those signs to prevent misinformation to motorists, particularly those who may actually be looking for 2A or even 2.
Took a quick trip into Boston today and found more recently posted MA 2A shields, this time approaching Mass Ave from the ramp from I-93. This time labeled North. Both a junction sign and a trailblazer indicating this is where the route starts, as seen here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-cUnOCOEcDUk%2FUpfNQZz6uYI%2FAAAAAAAABMs%2F5PY94dwmoVI%2Fs1600%2Ftdaysigns02.jpg&hash=c1a9bcfa91fc5b4c87166d70130594b067df86be)
Further images of other MA 2A on Mass Ave. and other new route signs I saw during a Thanksgiving morning drive can be found in the following blog entry: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-thanksgiving-boston-sign-feast.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-thanksgiving-boston-sign-feast.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on November 28, 2013, 11:45:10 PM
Took a quick trip into Boston today and found more recently posted MA 2A shields, this time approaching Mass Ave from the ramp from I-93. This time labeled North. Both a junction sign and a trailblazer indicating this is where the route starts, as seen here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-cUnOCOEcDUk%2FUpfNQZz6uYI%2FAAAAAAAABMs%2F5PY94dwmoVI%2Fs1600%2Ftdaysigns02.jpg&hash=c1a9bcfa91fc5b4c87166d70130594b067df86be)
Further images of other MA 2A on Mass Ave. and other new route signs I saw during a Thanksgiving morning drive can be found in the following blog entry: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-thanksgiving-boston-sign-feast.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-thanksgiving-boston-sign-feast.html)
I have no problem at all with 2A starting on Melnea Cass. Even if MassHighway's own definition has 2A ending at 2, when you're on the street, that seems like a completely arbitrary point, because you barely even notice MA 2/Comm Ave passing underneath. Not a lot of traffic uses those ramps - most stays on Mass Ave. Just change the N/S to W/E (respectively) and I'll accept it.
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2013, 04:48:00 PMI have no problem at all with 2A starting on Melnea Cass. Even if MassHighway's own definition has 2A ending at 2, when you're on the street, that seems like a completely arbitrary point, because you barely even notice MA 2/Comm Ave passing underneath. Not a lot of traffic uses those ramps - most stays on Mass Ave. Just change the N/S to W/E (respectively) and I'll accept it.
Historical note: prior to 1971, MA 2A along Mass Ave. between Memorial Drive and Commonwealth Ave. was originally MA 2. Not sure whether Commonwealth Ave. east of Mass Ave. was also part of MA 2 back then or not. If it was, that turning point (to/from Mass Ave.) isn't a arbitrary as one would think.
As far as designating Mass Ave. below Commonwealth Ave. as an extension of 2A is concerned; my suggestion would be (yes, Fictional Territory here) redesignate Mass Ave. below Memorial Drive as MA 2 and extend the designation to Melnea Cass/I-93. Commonwealth Ave. in that area can be either an extension of US 20 or MA 30 (should AASHTO get its panties in a wad over the former). Or even, dare I say, re-route MA 3 along Mass Ave. and have it join I-93 (& US 1) at the Mass Ave. interchange (Exit 18). In this scenario, MA 2 would be truncated in Cambridge and run along the current MA 2A/Mass Ave. corridor up to MA 16. It would multiplex w/MA 16 for a short distance to Alewife and resume onto its highway alignment.
Back to the topic at hand; the incorrect signs
should be removed or corrected depending on the situation if, for nothing else, eliminate a conflict between what's out in the field vs. what's shown on maps and GPS data.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 03, 2013, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2013, 04:48:00 PMI have no problem at all with 2A starting on Melnea Cass. Even if MassHighway's own definition has 2A ending at 2, when you're on the street, that seems like a completely arbitrary point, because you barely even notice MA 2/Comm Ave passing underneath. Not a lot of traffic uses those ramps - most stays on Mass Ave. Just change the N/S to W/E (respectively) and I'll accept it.
Historical note: prior to 1971, MA 2A along Mass Ave. between Memorial Drive and Commonwealth Ave. was originally MA 2. Not sure whether Commonwealth Ave. east of Mass Ave. was also part of MA 2 back then or not. If it was, that turning point (to/from Mass Ave.) isn't a arbitrary as one would think.
It's not arbitrary because 2 runs along Commonwealth, and of course 2A should end at 2.
PS: Comm was US 20 there (and eastbound C-1): http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~212217~5500293:Downtown-Boston--Sightseeing-Guide-
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 03, 2013, 10:46:16 AM
Back to the topic at hand; the incorrect signs should be removed or corrected depending on the situation if, for nothing else, eliminate a conflict between what's out in the field vs. what's shown on maps and GPS data.
That's an argument for never creating any new routes ever. Routes on so-called "GPS data" are often only as up-to-date as the most recent USGS topo, converted into TIGER and slurped by the map data provider. Almost nobody's going to get confused because a route that's not on the map has signs, but they might get confused if they expect to be on one route and see reassurance for another.
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2013, 10:58:44 AMPS: Comm was US 20 there (and eastbound C-1): http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~212217~5500293:Downtown-Boston--Sightseeing-Guide-
Thanks, good to know. Although I have to wonder why US 20 was later truncated to Kenmore Square (assuming circa 1971)? IMHO, the DPW should've left the US 20 & MA 2 alignments at their pre-1971 locations.
Side bar: that 1956 Shell map scan shows a
Wenham label along US 44 at the left side of the Cape Cod & Vicinity enlargement. I'm assuming that's an erroneous listing; the only Wenham, MA I'm aware of is in Essex County (North Shore area).
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2013, 10:58:44 AMThat's an argument for never creating any new routes ever.
Who said anything about creating new routes? It's almost to be expected that regions will either create, reroute or truncate routes from time to time. Such changes was one selling point for map companies (AAA, Rand McNally, etc.) to encourage people to purchase their newly updated maps. Today, similar could be said for marketing/selling updated GPS data. In Greater Philly/Southeastern PA, within the last two years, a new 8 mile parkway opened (US 202) plus additional interchanges along I-76 & 276. Long story short, updates & changes
still happen. Today's latest data becomes obsolete tomorrow, nothing new here.
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2013, 10:58:44 AM
Routes on so-called "GPS data" are often only as up-to-date as the most recent USGS topo, converted into TIGER and slurped by the map data provider.
Some USGS quad sheets haven't been updated since the late 1960s/early 1970s. If a route change utilizing the existing roadways occurs (example: the re-route of MA 129 and the creation of MA 129A in Lynn, MA that occured during the 90s); will that change get picked up if the latest USGS quad sheet for that area is from 1969-1970?
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2013, 10:58:44 AMAlmost nobody's going to get confused because a route that's not on the map has signs, but they might get confused if they expect to be on one route and see reassurance for another.
Some of that may depend on how one is directed or told. If one says that they're located where MA 2A ends (at Commonwealth Ave.) and one inadvertenly misses that interchange and still sees MA 2A assurance signs south of Commonwealth Ave.; they may still continue along looking for some type of logical end point like a T-intersection or even an
END 2A sign.
All of which brings up another question; is there even an
END 2A sign (or traces of one) posted at the Commonwealth Ave. intersection? Since the 80s, MA has posted
END XX signs for its routes. Granted, in locations where XA routes rejoin their parent route for a period are exceptions; but in this case, the 2/2A (Commonwealth Ave./Mass Ave.) interchange is the eastern-most location where 2A meets/ends its parent route. An
END 2A sign is certainly warranted for this case IMHO.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 03, 2013, 12:12:45 PM
QuoteSide bar: that 1956 Shell map scan shows a Wenham label along US 44 at the left side of the Cape Cod & Vicinity enlargement. I'm assuming that's an erroneous listing; the only Wenham, MA I'm aware of is in Essex County (North Shore area).
That map viewer doesn't work on my phone, but perhaps you're misreading Wareham or Wrentham? Both are similar names that are down around there (Wareham is at 495/195, Wrentham near 495/95).
Two things:
1. Trust me, the word on that scanned map is clearly spelled out as
W e n h a m and shown along US 44. Besides, the map's limits do not extend as far west as Wrentham.
2. With all due respect, if you can't fully read the image in question on your phone; then IMHO you shouldn't be commenting on something that you haven't seen nor verified yourself.
I would suggest, you click on the link from a PC (or a device that supports a map viewer) and you'll plainly see why I commented as such.
Side note: For some reason, I'm now getting a
Service Temporarily Unavailable message when clicking on NE2's link. I was able to open it earlier. I'll try again later.
Update: the link is now working again.
Unfortunately, printing even a piece of the map image (& then scanning it to a readable pdf) is not possible. The site does allow for the link to be shared via Facebook (not sure if you're on there). I could post it on the Boston Roads page and comment about it and see how others react/respond.
Well excuse the hell out of me for attempting to answer a question. I guess I learned my lesson!
Since its oh so unhelpful, your majesty, I have redacted my post.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 03, 2013, 12:41:29 PM
Unfortunately, printing even a piece of the map image (& then scanning it to a readable pdf) is not possible. The site does allow for the link to be shared via Facebook (not sure if you're on there). I could post it on the Boston Roads page and comment about it and see how others react/respond.
You can download as SID in the lower left corner ("Download 1: Full Image Download...") Or take a screenshot...
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 03, 2013, 11:38:19 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2013, 10:58:44 AMThat's an argument for never creating any new routes ever.
Who said anything about creating new routes? It's almost to be expected that regions will either create, reroute or truncate routes from time to time.
And why can't they extend 2A? What makes this case so different that the signs can't go against what the "GPS data" says?
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2013, 02:39:41 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 03, 2013, 12:41:29 PM
Unfortunately, printing even a piece of the map image (& then scanning it to a readable pdf) is not possible. The site does allow for the link to be shared via Facebook (not sure if you're on there). I could post it on the Boston Roads page and comment about it and see how others react/respond.
You can download as SID in the lower left corner ("Download 1: Full Image Download...") Or take a screenshot...
I tried the print a screen shot, and all I got was a big black square and the computer I'm on at work does not recognize SID files. The Raster Image saves (created from the Export function on the upper-right part of the page) creates an image that is completely unreadable.
The only other option is to pony up $24.95 for a readable PDF and I'm certainly not doing that. I don't need it that badly.
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2013, 02:39:41 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 03, 2013, 11:38:19 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2013, 10:58:44 AMThat's an argument for never creating any new routes ever.
Who said anything about creating new routes? It's almost to be expected that regions will either create, reroute or truncate routes from time to time.
And why can't they extend 2A?
That's MassDOT's decision to make. Their reasoning for not doing such is because (
guess on my part) they (the state) want the termini of XA highways ending with their respective parents as much as possible. In this case, the Commonwealth Ave./Mass Ave. interchange is the easternmost point where 2A meets its parent. Roadman can confirm the reasoning.
Additionally, a sizable chunk of Mass Ave. between St. Botolph St. and Harrison Ave. is residential (and appears to be a ritzy neighborhood at that). Designating that street as part of a state highway might cause those residents to go in a tizzy over the
perception of additional traffic that road would bring if it were designated as such. Unlike the upcoming re-route of US 1 onto the last 2 miles of I-95 in Miami; the residences along Mass Ave. were there first not the route.
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2013, 02:39:41 PMWhat makes this case so different that the signs can't go against what the "GPS data" says?
Personally, I don't give a hoot in Hades what GPS' says that area is. I don't own one nor plan to get one.
However, to my dismay, there seems to be a growing mindset out there that treat GPS info. as gospel rather than a guide that might contain a small error. These individuals will go as far as even ignoring
any posted signs and blindly follow their GPS. I can not tell you the number of times that I've heard people comment
"That's not what the GPS says." when they encounter something different out in the field. What's even sadder that many that make such a comment are my age and older and have been driving for at least 30+ years. Part of me wants to smack them behind the head and say
"How did you handle this 5 or 10 years ago?"Such was a reason why this particular sign was created; sadly there aren't any in this country... yet.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimghumour.com%2Fassets%2FUploads%2FIgnore-GPS.jpg&hash=b2a7e203c5d70560ab8da391eb56d3a5f743a266)
However, the erroneous 2A signs south of Commonwealth Ave. would be one case where
in principle the GPS (and the maps) would be correct but the signs aren't. Will these erroneous signs cause a vehicle to go into a ditch or a truck/bus to hit a low-clearance overpass? No, but it's the principle of the matter here.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 03, 2013, 11:38:19 AM
All of which brings up another question; is there even an END 2A sign (or traces of one) posted at the Commonwealth Ave. intersection? Since the 80s, MA has posted END XX signs for its routes. Granted, in locations where XA routes rejoin their parent route for a period are exceptions; but in this case, the 2/2A (Commonwealth Ave./Mass Ave.) interchange is the eastern-most location where 2A meets/ends its parent route. An END 2A sign is certainly warranted for this case IMHO.
From my two visits to the Commonwealth/Mass Ave intersection I can say there is no End signage for MA 2A heading towards Comm Ave from Cambridge. There are some new trailblazers for MA 2 to go with the pre-existing paddle signs. Both paddle signs for 2A on Comm Ave heading east and the ramp to Mass Ave are new. The one on Comm Ave has new text saying 'Mass Ave'. The previous sign at this location had 'Cambridge' under the 2A shield.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 03, 2013, 12:46:12 PM
Well excuse the hell out of me for attempting to answer a question. I guess I learned my lesson!
Since its oh so unhelpful, your majesty, I have redacted my post.
I've noticed some on this site get very defensive when one even slightly disagrees or questions their post. I didn't think your post was out of line in the least. Maybe its a geek thing. I am active in computer geek forums and I see the same thing. Gotta love us road...err computer...err everything geeks! :spin:
Quote from: mass_citizen on December 04, 2013, 05:16:27 PMI've noticed some on this site get very defensive when one even slightly disagrees or questions their post. I didn't think your post was out of line in the least. Maybe its a geek thing. I am active in computer geek forums and I see the same thing. Gotta love us road...err computer...err everything geeks! :spin:
Since this subject has been brought up again and it's directed towards a reactive comment I posted earlier; allow me to chime in here (i.e. state my defense).
1. Deathtopumpkins' (DTP, for short) smartphone (per his deleted post, I'm assuming that's the device he used) either did not have a map-reader nor it was it functioning properly; had he just he simply stated such and
stopped there, either NE2 (who provided the web-link to the Shell Map scan) or I would've at least
attempted to provide some type of alternate means to give DTP a readable file if he wanted such.
Worth noting: unlike other web-sites; that particular web-site-link that NE2 provided (mind you, through no fault of his own), unfortunately, does not allow for a simple
copy-and-paste of a
readable scan of the map in question to be shared or e-mailed via a PM... at least not without downloading a particular software program that not every PC nor laptop has. Since many of us, myself included, are posting via a computer at either work, a library or internet cafe; we aren't at complete liberty to simply download every single software program that's out there in order to read certain files.
For the record & later that day, I did try but had no success on printing the map directly from the website in question. Had I been successful in doing such, I would have scanned it again and given DTP (via a PM e-mail) a pdf of the file so he could see that I was not mistaken in seeing that erroneous
Wenham label.
2. While I do realize that not every user here is able to attend the various & sundry meets (to see other AARoad users in person and get a better sense of who they are & their personalities). As a result, outside of this forum; not everybody knows everybody here, I get that. However, DTP and I have chimed in on other MA-related road topic threads over the past year or so; and I thought that by now that he would known a little bit about me and my background (Massachusetts native and long-time road/map geek/enthusiast).
That said, the
wording of his
"perhaps you're misreading Wareham or Wrentham? Both are similar names that are down around there (Wareham is at 495/195, Wrentham near 495/95)." comment was what came off (at least to me anyways) as an
off-the-cuff insult (though unintentionally). Had he worded his post a tad differently (IMHO, the
"perhaps you're misreading..." portion of the post was where DTP went over the top IMHO); I would have not replied in the manner I did. I may wear glasses but I'm not blind.
Additionally, if he indeed saw the map in readable form, he certainly wouldn't have commented as such; or, if I was in error on something, he would have had a stronger basis to back up his point.
Mind you, I'm not saying that everything I post or observation I have is 100% correct (far from it). 9 times out of 10, if I'm not 100% sure about something; I'll usually state such. If someone proves that a statement/observation I made was in error and
they show me the source (photo/web-link/CAD-file); I simply either thank them for the info. or state that I stand corrected and move on.
Nonetheless, DTP, if your earlier comment wasn't
intended to be an insult towards me; then I apologize for the tone of my subsequent reply.
FWIW, here's an image scan of the map in question (pardon the non-readable quality, but that was the only
quick-and-dirty way I could get the image posted). The erroneous
Wenham label is located at lower-left corner D1 of the Cape Cod map grid above the
Carver label.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Frumsey%2FSize4%2FD5005%2F5840116.jpg%3Fuserid%3D15%26amp%3Busername%3Dlunaadmin%26amp%3Bresolution%3D4%26amp%3Bservertype%3DJVA%26amp%3Bcid%3D8%26amp%3Biid%3DRUMSEY%26amp%3Bvcid%3DNA%26amp%3Busergroup%3DRumsey3x%26amp%3Bprofileid%3D13&hash=93ec9ee901901daad1fbb2f0763b31d2a6123544)
As one can at least
glimpse, this map obviously predates the existence of I-195 (though part of it might be labeled as a segment of US 6 on this map), I-495 & the MA 25 freeway (the pre-freeway MA 25 was the current MA 225).
tl;dr fullofbs doubts that there can be two places with the same name
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=41.91421,-70.76220&z=15&t=T
also:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frumseysid.lunaimaging.com%2Fmrsid%2Fbin%2Fimage_jpeg.pl%3Fclient%3DRumsey%26amp%3Bimage%3DSIDS%2FD5005%2F5840116.sid%26amp%3Bx%3D6775%26amp%3By%3D2525%26amp%3Bwidth%3D750%26amp%3Bheight%3D750%26amp%3Blevel%3D0&hash=b3cb327928351b711a7b0ac58ec0ad79f999a14c)
Two communities with the same name - perhaps. Two communities with the same name in the same state - highly unlikely. Maybe in Alanland perhaps. But in Massachusetts - no.
http://www.wenhamma.gov/wenham_history.php
Quote from: roadman on December 04, 2013, 08:49:30 PM
Two communities with the same name - perhaps. Two communities with the same name in the same state - highly unlikely.
c.f. Franklin and Washington, NJ
Sorry phlbos, wasn't meant as an attack on you. Just a friendly observation of forums in general (I've been guilty myself). I have indeed noticed your knowledge of MA roads and I enjoy your historical perspective. Although I must say, BOSPHL would look better on paper :-D
Quote from: mass_citizen on December 04, 2013, 10:12:39 PM
Sorry phlbos, wasn't meant as an attack on you. Just a friendly observation of forums in general (I've been guilty myself). I have indeed noticed your knowledge of MA roads and I enjoy your historical perspective. Although I must say, BOSPHL would look better on paper :-D
Except that PHLBOS currently lives in Philadelphia, and used to live outside of Boston. So BOSPHL would be far less accurate a moniker.
Quote from: roadman on December 05, 2013, 04:45:06 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on December 04, 2013, 10:12:39 PM
Sorry phlbos, wasn't meant as an attack on you. Just a friendly observation of forums in general (I've been guilty myself). I have indeed noticed your knowledge of MA roads and I enjoy your historical perspective. Although I must say, BOSPHL would look better on paper :-D
Except that PHLBOS currently lives in Philadelphia, and used to live outside of Boston. So BOSPHL would be far less accurate a moniker.
but boston should always come before philly. at least in sports!
Quote from: mass_citizen on December 05, 2013, 04:55:30 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 05, 2013, 04:45:06 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on December 04, 2013, 10:12:39 PM
Sorry phlbos, wasn't meant as an attack on you. Just a friendly observation of forums in general (I've been guilty myself). I have indeed noticed your knowledge of MA roads and I enjoy your historical perspective. Although I must say, BOSPHL would look better on paper :-D
Except that PHLBOS currently lives in Philadelphia, and used to live outside of Boston. So BOSPHL would be far less accurate a moniker.
but boston should always come before philly. at least in sports!
Actually, they should both come at the end.
According to Wiki, the community of Wenham labelled on that map in the Town of Carver is now called East Carver. The pond and the road that runs along side of it (US-44 on the old map) are the only remnants of the former name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver,_Massachusetts
Quote from: roadman on December 04, 2013, 08:49:30 PM
Two communities with the same name - perhaps. Two communities with the same name in the same state - highly unlikely. Maybe in Alanland perhaps. But in Massachusetts - no.
One thing I had to get used to when I moved to the Philly area was seeing two townships having the same name but located in different counties. Examples: there's a Springfield, Delaware County as well as in Montgomery County. There's a Tinicum Township in Delaware County (which is near me) as well as Bucks County.
IIRC, even in New Jersey, there's two Smithvilles but in different counties; one of them's just off the AC Expressway in Atlantic County, the other's located in Burlington County east of Mt. Holly (granted the latter is a village and part of Eastampton Twp).
Quote from: mass_citizen on December 04, 2013, 10:12:39 PM
Sorry phlbos, wasn't meant as an attack on you. Just a friendly observation of forums in general (I've been guilty myself). I have indeed noticed your knowledge of MA roads and I enjoy your historical perspective. Although I must say, BOSPHL would look better on paper :-D
Thank you very much for your kind words and support.
Quote from: roadman on December 05, 2013, 04:45:06 PM
Except that PHLBOS currently lives in Philadelphia, and used to live outside of Boston. So BOSPHL would be far less accurate a moniker.
Truth be told, my using the PHLBOS moniker dates back to when I first started posting in aviation-themed forums (Airliners.net & PHLAirline.com) over 8 years ago. It's actually the combination of the two respective 3-letter airport codes (PHL for Philadlephia International Airport (current home base) and BOS for Logan International Airport (previous home base)). Place a hyphen between the two and one has an airline route PHL-BOS. When I first used the name I was doing a made a fair amount of day-trips between the two airports when AirTran flew the route and the r/t fares were about $100; so the route combo sans the hyphen made sense for a username at the time.
Quote from: NE2 on December 04, 2013, 07:55:48 PM
Thank you very much for posting that piece. One picture's worth 1000 words.
Which one of you tipped off Fox 25?
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/24833885/wrong-way-street-signs-send-hub-drivers-on-roads-to-nowhere (http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/24833885/wrong-way-street-signs-send-hub-drivers-on-roads-to-nowhere)
Quote from: spooky on February 27, 2014, 08:23:31 AM
Which one of you tipped off Fox 25?
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/24833885/wrong-way-street-signs-send-hub-drivers-on-roads-to-nowhere (http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/24833885/wrong-way-street-signs-send-hub-drivers-on-roads-to-nowhere)
Thanks for the post. The tipper wasn't me, though I did contact some folks the Globe about it, never heard back. Interesting how the blame has been shifted to the contractor, not the BTD folks who should have been overseeing the project and approving the plans in the first place. What does it say that some of these signs have been up since last spring and nobody at BTD noticed they were wrong? They should be embarrassed. Wonder what the mayor is saying in private?
At least we know who the 'unknown organization' is now. I guess I need to start following up to see if the mistakes are being corrected next time I'm in Boston.
The blame gets shifted to the consultant because shit flows downhill.
LOL. it had to obviously be someone from here. normally I don't like a singular error or old sign to be removed but in this case with so many it had to be done. And I like how they said "no one at the local or state level knew about this until contacted by FOX" which is a complete lie if you look at the email from a few posts above between one of our users and MassDOT where they and the city deny all knowledge. to quote F troop "I KNOW NOTHING!!"
hope they don't knee jerk and just take all the signs down. They should correct and not remove them.
Quote from: mass_citizen on February 27, 2014, 11:06:43 PM
LOL. it had to obviously be someone from here. normally I don't like a singular error or old sign to be removed but in this case with so many it had to be done. And I like how they said "no one at the local or state level knew about this until contacted by FOX" which is a complete lie if you look at the email from a few posts above between one of our users and MassDOT where they and the city deny all knowledge. to quote F troop "I KNOW NOTHING!!"
hope they don't knee jerk and just take all the signs down. They should correct and not remove them.
No one knew that they were wrong. The previous post from roadman only mentioned inquiring about their presence, not about errors. No one at the local level would ever notice they were wrong, because no local is navigating Boston by route marker signs.
I hear that they are being corrected. Most if not all of the errors noted in the news report can be easily fixed by flipping an arrow or changing a cardinal direction plaque.
Based on the Fox25 news story, it appears that the errors were traced back to the signing design plans from the engineering firm and nobody along the pipeline (the the project manager, the PE that signed the drawings (if applicable), contractor, officials, etc.) caught the errors during the whole process.
That being the case the cost to correct/change the signs should be picked up by the design firm; fortunately, these signs were only trailblazer/assurance markers and not BGS' or LGS'. The wrong-way arrow signs can be simply flipped around 180 to be correct.
The news story does not mention anything regarding the erroneous MA 2A signs posted along Mass Ave. south of Commonwealth Ave./MA 2; although someone from here (not me) mentioned such in the article's Comment section.
While they're at it, can they run up to Somerville and take down all the "38 South" signs south of the southern end of 38?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 12:15:28 PM
While they're at it, can they run up to Somerville and take down all the "38 South" signs south of the southern end of 38?
South of I-93, are there any such signs?
Supposedly, MA 38 was indeed extended south (according to MassDOT) to meet up w/MA 99, which is also a ghost in Charlestown.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 28, 2014, 12:32:11 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 12:15:28 PM
While they're at it, can they run up to Somerville and take down all the "38 South" signs south of the southern end of 38?
South of I-93, are there any such signs? Supposedly, MA 38 was indeed extended south (according to MassDOT) to meet up w/MA 99, which is also a ghost in Charlestown.
MP 0.0 is at the intersection with 28 (McGrath Highway) next to the Stop & Shop. Amusingly, there's a "38 South" paddle sign about 18 inches before the 0.0 marker. There are several more south of there, including on one or more BGSes.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 12:44:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 28, 2014, 12:32:11 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 12:15:28 PM
While they're at it, can they run up to Somerville and take down all the "38 South" signs south of the southern end of 38?
South of I-93, are there any such signs? Supposedly, MA 38 was indeed extended south (according to MassDOT) to meet up w/MA 99, which is also a ghost in Charlestown.
MP 0.0 is at the intersection with 28 (McGrath Highway) next to the Stop & Shop. Amusingly, there's a "38 South" paddle sign about 18 inches before the 0.0 marker. There are several more south of there, including on one or more BGSes.
The above was discussed in another thread and Roadman can confirm.
Supposedly, MassDOT extended MA 38 south of MA 28
on paper but never
fully added sufficient signs nor revised the mile markers to reflect such.
That said, I'm aware of a few LGS' (some here refer to them as paddle signs) and trailblazer signs existing south of MA 28 near/at I-93. What I was previously asking above was has MassDOT installed more signs and/or LGS' reflecting such an extension since GSV photos were taken?
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 28, 2014, 04:25:28 PM
The above was discussed in another thread and Roadman can confirm. Supposedly, MassDOT extended MA 38 south of MA 28 on paper but never fully added sufficient signs nor revised the mile markers to reflect such.
That said, I'm aware of a few LGS' (some here refer to them as paddle signs) and trailblazer signs existing south of MA 28 near/at I-93. What I was previously asking above was has MassDOT installed more signs and/or LGS' reflecting such an extension since GSV photos were taken?
The route changes mentioned in the other thread (extension of MA 38 from McGrath Highway into City Square and truncation of MA 99 at Sullivan Square) actually occurred at some point in the late MassDPW days during the CANA (Central Artery North Area - first phase of the Big Dig) project. Best I can tell, what actually happened regarding the lack of "follow-through" was that the District was notified of the changes, but the official route logs and road inventory file were never updated. Throw in the district re-organization that happened with the branding change to MassHighway (District 8, which included most of the Greater Boston Area much like today's District 6, was eliminated and those roads/communities were transferred to an enlarged District 4), and it's not too hard to see why signs were never updated. Also, IIRC, MA 99 was never signed south of Sullivan Square anyway (except for the NB BGS entering the 'tunnel' under Sullivan Square).
At one point, I had a copy of the original MassDPW Board of Commissioner's "Miscellaneous Item" approving the MA 38/MA 99 route changes in my personal files. I'll have to see if I can find it.
Quote from: roadman on March 03, 2014, 06:06:33 PM
Also, IIRC, MA 99 was never signed south of Sullivan Square anyway (except for the NB BGS entering the 'tunnel' under Sullivan Square).
If my notes ca. 2000 are complete, there was only a "Rutherford Ave TO 99" overhead approaching the left turn for US 1 north, but by SEPTEMBER 11 2001 NEVER FORGET it was covered by 93 NORTH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvzrMvKI.jpg&hash=aec83a5b71f90aba0dd43ee2d5cf2dfefc49a559)
The Goog shows that it's been replaced by an actual NORTH 99 TO NORTH 93, meaning 99 is signed better now than it was then.
Quote from: NE2 on March 03, 2014, 09:02:11 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 03, 2014, 06:06:33 PM
Also, IIRC, MA 99 was never signed south of Sullivan Square anyway (except for the NB BGS entering the 'tunnel' under Sullivan Square).
If my notes ca. 2000 are complete, there was only a "Rutherford Ave TO 99" overhead approaching the left turn for US 1 north, but by SEPTEMBER 11 2001 NEVER FORGET it was covered by 93 NORTH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvzrMvKI.jpg&hash=aec83a5b71f90aba0dd43ee2d5cf2dfefc49a559)
The Goog shows that it's been replaced by an actual NORTH 99 TO NORTH 93, meaning 99 is signed better now than it was then.
Not by much, especially for 99 Southbound.
For reference: Current GSV of fore-mentioned gantry along northbound Rutherford Ave./MA 99 North (note: all the BGS on the gantry were since changed compared to the above-photo) (http://goo.gl/maps/BHQ1B)
Southbound view of the same gantry w/no mention of 99 South on BGS' nor supplemental trailblazer signs (http://goo.gl/maps/Xo7Gw)
99 South still
disappears signwise once one crosses into Charlestown.
Southernmost sign for MA 99 South per Goog (http://goo.gl/maps/6XIa8)
Had forgotten about that northbound assembly - thanks.
Back to Route 2A. There's been an interesting addition to the MA 2A Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_2A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_2A). I noticed about a month ago that someone had edited the page to make Melnea Cass Blvd the new eastern terminus due to the new signs along Mass Ave. I edited that portion to include a statement that the signs are probably in error since it doesn't appear that the route has been extended officially by MassDOT, and besides, the directional banners are all wrong. Several days ago a new entry appeared stating 'the directional banners on the sign assemblies have been corrected to indicate Route 2A continues westbound toward Melnea Cass Boulevard.'
Huh? How should this be interpreted? That the author mistakenly put westward when they meant eastward and the banners have been fixed, but the route signs remain, that the north/south banners in the vicinity of Melnea Cass have been changed to east/west but are reversed like the other signs, or they mistakenly thought the existing banners were now correct. I hopefully will find the time over the next week to drive through the area to figure out what the truth is. It would be interesting, to say the least, if the banners were changed but the 2A shields remain.
^^Just goes to show, that one can't completely trust Wikipedia for info.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 05, 2014, 09:04:08 AM
^^Just goes to show, that one can't completely trust Wikipedia for info.
For the record, Melnea Cass Boulevard is NOT the new terminus of MA 2A. The signs put up by the City of Boston's contractor are in error and are expected to be removed shortly. 2A still ends/begins on Mass Ave at Commonwealth Avenue.
Quote from: roadman on March 05, 2014, 09:14:25 AMFor the record, Melnea Cass Boulevard is NOT the new terminus of MA 2A.
...
2A still ends/begins on Mass Ave at Commonwealth Avenue.
Agree 100%
The Wikipedia page has also been wrong for a while with the ultimate secret section of MA 2A in Evring. Old State Rd, an almost 2 mile long older routing of MA 2 itself, has 3 separate mile markers (a whole number, 2 tenths) that correspond to the 2A distance starting at I-91/MA 2 in Greenfield. There is no street view of it, and I realized it on a bicycle ride out there. I have no idea what is really correct, 2A is just supposed to be a silent concurrency from Greenfield to Erving east of this stretch, but the mile markers are there and new since they correspond to the distance after removing the Shelburne Falls section.
Quote from: Cjzani on March 10, 2014, 07:02:16 PM
The Wikipedia page has also been wrong for a while with the ultimate secret section of MA 2A in Evring. Old State Rd, an almost 2 mile long older routing of MA 2 itself, has 3 separate mile markers (a whole number, 2 tenths) that correspond to the 2A distance starting at I-91/MA 2 in Greenfield. There is no street view of it, and I realized it on a bicycle ride out there. I have no idea what is really correct, 2A is just supposed to be a silent concurrency from Greenfield to Erving east of this stretch, but the mile markers are there and new since they correspond to the distance after removing the Shelburne Falls section.
How new? I was never aware of this being state-maintained, let alone part of 2A.
EDIT: Checked http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TrafficTravelResources/OfficialTransportationMap.aspx - no trace as of 2012.
Quote from: Alps on March 11, 2014, 07:01:37 PM
Quote from: Cjzani on March 10, 2014, 07:02:16 PM
The Wikipedia page has also been wrong for a while with the ultimate secret section of MA 2A in Evring. Old State Rd, an almost 2 mile long older routing of MA 2 itself, has 3 separate mile markers (a whole number, 2 tenths) that correspond to the 2A distance starting at I-91/MA 2 in Greenfield. There is no street view of it, and I realized it on a bicycle ride out there. I have no idea what is really correct, 2A is just supposed to be a silent concurrency from Greenfield to Erving east of this stretch, but the mile markers are there and new since they correspond to the distance after removing the Shelburne Falls section.
How new? I was never aware of this being state-maintained, let alone part of 2A.
EDIT: Checked http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TrafficTravelResources/OfficialTransportationMap.aspx - no trace as of 2012.
I know this road only from the two points it meets Route 2, but it looks like one of countless "Old Route X" bits, most of which today serve as glorified service roads for residential driveways. If it looks like a town street, and it smells like a town street...
I've lived in central Mass since 2006, and I realized it on a bike ride in late 2007 which is the apparent year the route was truncated to start in Greenfield. If I can get out there again soon I'll take some pix to show it. I would not be surprised if the markers aren't supposed to be on there, but I would imagine if anyone did it the state did as that route is a very lightly traveled town road in a very small town.
Not sure about it being part of 2A, but according to MassDOT's roadway jurisdiction map for Region 2, Old State Road in Erving is a state maintained highway.
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/MapCatalog/Maps/Jurisdiction-District2.pdf
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 11, 2014, 11:53:34 PM
Not sure about it being part of 2A, but according to MassDOT's roadway jurisdiction map for Region 2, Old State Road in Erving is a state maintained highway.
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/MapCatalog/Maps/Jurisdiction-District2.pdf
I never knew about these jurisdiction maps. Confirms that there's surprisingly little correlation between state maintenance and signed highways.
Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2014, 12:12:00 AM
I never knew about these jurisdiction maps. Confirms that there's surprisingly little correlation between state maintenance and signed highways.
Mass and RI are the only two states that have this level of noncorrelation AFAIK. Though most through state-maintained highways in Mass are state-numbered, one major exception being Putnam Hill/Singletary in Sutton. A 1937 map at the MassHighway HQ has "M" RTE 178 handwritten along this route, but I know not what this means.
I believe the "M" routes are non-numbered Municipal roads that are state maintained. Middlesex rd in Tyngsboro is one that comes to mind. It used to be 3A I believe until 3A was re-routed across the river but the state continued to maintain it while the town of Tyngsboro maintains the "new" 3A across the bridge to NH.
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 12, 2014, 12:34:25 AM
I believe the "M" routes are non-numbered Municipal roads that are state maintained.
According to the MassDOT road inventory, Middlesex Road is "NMR067", but most of the "NMR" routes are locally maintained, and all are in Lowell or nearby towns. Putnam Hill/Singletary has a null RouteNumbe [sic] field.
The Lowell Connector, by the way, is N087 northbound and N482 southbound.
I took a detour through the Back Bay and South End to avoid any I-90 tunnel congestion trouble this evening returning from NH. It appears all the MA 2A signs on Mass Ave south of Huntington Ave to Melnea Cass Blvd have been removed. The one remaining 2A sign I saw between Huntington and Boylston St had its wrong-way East banner changed to a 'To'. The infamous pairing of a West MA 2A trailblazer pointing opposite to the arrow on the MA 2A paddle sign at Mass Ave and Comm Ave has been fixed by having the West banner on the trailblazer switched to a 'Jct' and the arrow at the bottom removed. It was evening so I didn't get any decent photos, perhaps next time.
Quote from: bob7374 on March 22, 2014, 11:21:37 PM
I took a detour through the Back Bay and South End to avoid any I-90 tunnel congestion trouble this evening returning from NH. It appears all the MA 2A signs on Mass Ave south of Huntington Ave to Melnea Cass Blvd have been removed. The one remaining 2A sign I saw between Huntington and Boylston St had its wrong-way East banner changed to a 'To'. The infamous pairing of a West MA 2A trailblazer pointing opposite to the arrow on the MA 2A paddle sign at Mass Ave and Comm Ave has been fixed by having the West banner on the trailblazer switched to a 'Jct' and the arrow at the bottom removed. It was evening so I didn't get any decent photos, perhaps next time.
Fox 25 had a follow-up report last night noting that even after signs were fixed, there were still signs wrong. They were talking about the MA 2A signs on Mass Ave and on the streets intersecting Mass Ave south of Comm Ave. The report suggested that signs were first "fixed" and then taken down once MassDOT told the city that MA 2A ends at Comm Ave.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/25149131/city-demands-action-from-jacobs-engineering-over-sign-snafu
Quote from: spooky on April 03, 2014, 06:44:25 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 22, 2014, 11:21:37 PM
I took a detour through the Back Bay and South End to avoid any I-90 tunnel congestion trouble this evening returning from NH. It appears all the MA 2A signs on Mass Ave south of Huntington Ave to Melnea Cass Blvd have been removed. The one remaining 2A sign I saw between Huntington and Boylston St had its wrong-way East banner changed to a 'To'. The infamous pairing of a West MA 2A trailblazer pointing opposite to the arrow on the MA 2A paddle sign at Mass Ave and Comm Ave has been fixed by having the West banner on the trailblazer switched to a 'Jct' and the arrow at the bottom removed. It was evening so I didn't get any decent photos, perhaps next time.
Fox 25 had a follow-up report last night noting that even after signs were fixed, there were still signs wrong. They were talking about the MA 2A signs on Mass Ave and on the streets intersecting Mass Ave south of Comm Ave. The report suggested that signs were first "fixed" and then taken down once MassDOT told the city that MA 2A ends at Comm Ave.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/25149131/city-demands-action-from-jacobs-engineering-over-sign-snafu
Thanks for the post. I think the city is still deciding what to do about Jacobs since they had a role in the 'snafu' by approving the wrong plans and not inspecting the work after it was done. Several people dropped the ball in this project, and it will be interesting if anyone at BTD is deemed partly responsible.
curious massdot waits until the city supposedly fixes the 2A signs on mass ave. to tell them 2A doesn't exist on that stretch. especially when a user on this board emailed them months ago about this situation.
Quote from: mass_citizen on April 03, 2014, 02:23:48 PM
curious massdot waits until the city supposedly fixes the 2A signs on mass ave. to tell them 2A doesn't exist on that stretch. especially when a user on this board emailed them months ago about this situation.
From what I recall, the user emailed them and asked who was putting up the signs, but didn't necessarily point out that they were in error. massDOT reacted to the bad publicity, same reason why BTD had already "fixed" the signs.
One lesson from the engineering industry: It is never good when the general public knows your company's name. We're never remembered for the good things.
Took a drive up and down Mass Ave from Melnea Cass to Comm Ave yesterday. I can confirm all the MA 2A signs have been removed after Comm Ave, with the exception of the following:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fma2amassavefix2.jpg&hash=aae9ea28b54721ec4d9a34030ceacbdaa166727c)
As you can see, the directional banner has been changed (I guess twice, according to the TV report), to a 'To' banner for the sign that still stands just to the west of Symphony Hall by the Christian Science Plaza. You can see the original sign, plus several other photos of correct and still incorrect signage on my Mass Sign Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html) (at the bottom).
The signs indicating an 'extension' of MA 30 to Kenmore Square still are up. Maybe if they were featured in either TV report, they too would have been fixed by this time. :-/