http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20160223/plan-to-renumber-route-6-exit-signs-hits-speed-bump?rssfeed=true
Question. What is so "unique" or "historic" about the Mid-Cape Highway to preclude the installation of overhead signs?
Quote from: roadman on February 24, 2016, 04:54:35 PM
http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20160223/plan-to-renumber-route-6-exit-signs-hits-speed-bump?rssfeed=true
Question. What is so "unique" or "historic" about the Mid-Cape Highway to preclude the installation of overhead signs?
Apparently, hard to read ground-based signage is part of the unique Cape Cod experience along with traffic jams, high priced seafood, and crowded beaches. Loved this quote about the planned overhead signs: "They are not a Cape Cod kind of thing. Makes me think of Route 80 going through Pennsylvania."
I'm going to quote what someone said in another thread:
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 22, 2016, 12:32:21 PMThe backlash that happens here is "The government did something and my personal problem is not solved by it, so I am going to list what is wrong with the government," followed by arguments about Donald Trump and Tom Brady and college kids.
People go online and say things like "The MBTA is terrible and my street doesn't get plowed, but they're going to change the exit numbers we all know?" And the local news, which mostly reports on whatever gets twittered the most, fans the flames further.
I'd keep my head down, too.
There are indeed guidelines in a lot of towns, probably prevalent on the Cape and Islands, that regulate signs to protect local character. There are McDonald's restaurants with ground-mounted wooden signs, for example, as required by local code. I am sure it is this mentality (which I do believe has at least some merit) that people are misapplying to highway engineering.
But Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania? That's the least visually intrusive route I can think of. People rail on about how they wish something, anything, would break up the scenery.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 24, 2016, 05:51:57 PM
There are indeed guidelines in a lot of towns, probably prevalent on the Cape and Islands, that regulate signs to protect local character. There are McDonald's restaurants with ground-mounted wooden signs, for example, as required by local code. I am sure it is this mentality (which I do believe has at least some merit) that people are misapplying to highway engineering.
The problem I have with this is when a local governmental organization - in this case, the Cape Cod Commission, attempts to assert such arbitrary and subjective standards (to protect local character) into situations where they are not applicable and the local organization should have no authority to usurp the agency that owns and maintains the facility - especially when said agency is bound by Federal standards and guidelines. And of course, a large part of the problem is that the "burden of proof" in this case lies with MassDOT to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that overhead signs are necessary, instead on the opposition to prove that the "scenic and historical character" of the Mid-Cape Highway (which, BTW, is a freeway) will be forever and irreparably harmed by providing improved signs - which BTW the tourists rely heavily on to get to those local "historic" towns and overpriced seafood restaurants and the like.
QuoteBut Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania? That's the least visually intrusive route I can think of. People rail on about how they wish something, anything, would break up the scenery.
Plus it's a poor example if you're discussing overhead signs. Last time I drove it (2014), apart from a few major junctions and other areas, the majority of the signs were ground-mounted, not overhead. Unless PennDOT magically replaced all the signs with new structures since then, I doubt things have changed much.
Overhead signs aren't necessary on four-lane highways. You're talking about a wealthy vacation area where the rich people who don't live there want to believe in the faraway aspect of Cape Cod. That's why it's impossible to improve access. That's why it's impossible to improve safety. Everything has to remain exactly as the rich people want it even if the local residents want differently.
Quote from: Alps on February 24, 2016, 09:20:00 PM
Overhead signs aren't necessary on four-lane highways. You're talking about a wealthy vacation area where the rich people who don't live there want to believe in the faraway aspect of Cape Cod. That's why it's impossible to improve access. That's why it's impossible to improve safety. Everything has to remain exactly as the rich people want it even if the local residents want differently.
Sounds just like the obstructionists who wont let ConnDOT do a damn thing to fix the issues on the Merritt Parkway.
From the article:
QuoteHunt and Peake say they're worried about the expense to Cape business owners of changing the directions they give to clients, and about confusing locals, senior citizens and summer visitors.
We all know that there have been massive groups of locals, senior citizens, and tourists lost on the interstate system, and people unable to find businesses, in Florida ever since the mileage-based exit renumbering there. Who would want the same to happen on Cape Cod?
Here's a bit of an anecdote.
My experience in Cape Cod was a little side trip last October as a friend and I went to Boston for a few days. We ate dinner at a pizza place by the shore. The waitress, who was a perfectly nice lady, took our order and when the pizza came out it had onions in it when I asked for no onions. I kind of dealt with it, and when she came back, I brought it up that there was a mistake but it wasn't a big deal. The lady immediately entered panic mode, as if I was about to unleash holy hell on her hahaha. Lucky she was dealing with a couple laid-back Midwesterners. I was just thinking, "why is this woman afraid for her life? Are the people here so ornery and rigid that they would have gone apeshit if they found the wrong topping on their pizza?" So that's my idea of Cape Cod people now: people who think they're such special snowflakes that they can live and hate on anything without considering how it affects anyone else. Did you look at the comments section in the OP's link? Holy christballs. Is this why they're called Massholes?
Thus concludes story time with Paul ^_^
P.S. MILEAGE-BASED EXIT NUMBERS FO LYFE
The problem with using only ground mounted signs at the MA 134 interchange is that it is a cloverleaf. The MUTCD explicitly requires overhead signage at cloverleaf interchanges on freeways and expressways (section 2E.45):
QuoteAn overhead guide sign shall be placed at the theoretical gore of the first exit ramp, with a diagonally upward-pointing directional arrow on the Exit Direction sign for that exit and the message XX MILES, or EXIT XX MILES if interchange numbering is not used, on the Advance Guide sign for the second exit, as shown in Figure 2E-35. The second exit shall be indicated by an overhead Exit Direction sign over the auxiliary lane. An Exit Gore sign shall also be used at each gore (see Section 2E.37).
(emphasis mine)
Like with the mile based exit numbers, the people of Cape Cod need to take this up with FHWA, not the state DOT.
As I alluded to earlier, a regional set of guidelines for restraint makes sense on the Cape. Development, land use, utility and water management, and more are all particularly important issues in a landform that is simultaneously very desirable and environmentally fragile.
This is why there is a Cape Cod Commission.
Exit numbers and sign mounting styles are not.
I hope MassDOT has someone of conviction who can come in and quickly put to rest the idea that these issues harm the Cape unduly compared to the rest of the Commonwealth. The rest of us don't have a regional oversight commission, but I'd like to think if we did, it would do its job instead of playing with minutiae of highway management.
I'm not sure if many people are aware, but Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket actually have similar organizations. They have successfully lobbied MassDOT/MassHighway for more than 40 years to allow unique signs on the islands that reflect the "character" of the islands. As a result, every single paddle sign on both islands is black on white, with a green crown containing a fish on Nantucket and a bunch of grapes on Martha's Vineyard. However, Cape Cod is much larger and it is also one thing to ask about paddle signs, but highway guide signs are another story.
However I will say that the signs on US 6 absolutely need replacement, they are almost impossible to read at night. The signs are definitely going to be replaced. The only questions are whether the overhead signs will be used and whether the exit numbers will be mileage-based. I would guess that they may concede ground mounted signs, but not on the exit numbers (which, aside from one politician in Orleans, not many people care as much about it seems).
Quote from: Duke87 on February 24, 2016, 11:14:04 PM
The problem with using only ground mounted signs at the MA 134 interchange is that it is a cloverleaf. The MUTCD explicitly requires overhead signage at cloverleaf interchanges on freeways and expressways (section 2E.45):
QuoteAn overhead guide sign shall be placed at the theoretical gore of the first exit ramp, with a diagonally upward-pointing directional arrow on the Exit Direction sign for that exit and the message XX MILES, or EXIT XX MILES if interchange numbering is not used, on the Advance Guide sign for the second exit, as shown in Figure 2E-35. The second exit shall be indicated by an overhead Exit Direction sign over the auxiliary lane. An Exit Gore sign shall also be used at each gore (see Section 2E.37).
(emphasis mine)
Like with the mile based exit numbers, the people of Cape Cod need to take this up with FHWA, not the state DOT.
theres quite a few interchanges on the parkways on Long Island with only ground mounted signs
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2016, 12:14:25 AM
The rest of us don't have a regional oversight commission, but I'd like to think if we did, it would do its job instead of playing with minutiae of highway management.
Actually, every region of the state has a regional planning commission http://www.apa-ma.org/resources/massachusetts-regional-planning-agencies. However, most of them are not as narrow-minded and nit-picky when it comes to roadway improvements as the Cape Cod Commission is.
Quote from: roadman on February 25, 2016, 10:23:18 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2016, 12:14:25 AM
The rest of us don't have a regional oversight commission, but I'd like to think if we did, it would do its job instead of playing with minutiae of highway management.
Actually, every region of the state has a regional planning commission. However, most of them are not as narrow-minded and nit-picky when it comes to roadway improvements as the Cape Cod Commission is.
You mean MPOs? I thought the CCC had comparatively extraordinary powers.
CCC is an MPO is a regional planning commission. :D
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 10:57:04 PM
Here's a bit of an anecdote.
My experience in Cape Cod was a little side trip last October as a friend and I went to Boston for a few days. We ate dinner at a pizza place by the shore. The waitress, who was a perfectly nice lady, took our order and when the pizza came out it had onions in it when I asked for no onions. I kind of dealt with it, and when she came back, I brought it up that there was a mistake but it wasn't a big deal. The lady immediately entered panic mode, as if I was about to unleash holy hell on her hahaha. Lucky she was dealing with a couple laid-back Midwesterners. I was just thinking, "why is this woman afraid for her life? Are the people here so ornery and rigid that they would have gone apeshit if they found the wrong topping on their pizza?" So that's my idea of Cape Cod people now: people who think they're such special snowflakes that they can live and hate on anything without considering how it affects anyone else. Did you look at the comments section in the OP's link? Holy christballs. Is this why they're called Massholes?
Thus concludes story time with Paul ^_^
P.S. MILEAGE-BASED EXIT NUMBERS FO LYFE
The term "Masshole" is generally used to refer to a person who exhibits excessively agressive or arrogant driving, cycling, or walking behavior.
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2016, 10:35:22 AM
CCC is an MPO is a regional planning commission. :D
I thought the CCC had broader oversight than that. I don't know why I thought that, but I did.
Quote from: roadman on February 25, 2016, 11:00:08 AMThe term "Masshole" is generally used to refer to a person who exhibits excessively agressive or arrogant driving, cycling, or walking behavior.
And countless other acts involving some combination of beer, the Red Sox, or being in New Hampshire, where they think we're all Massholes. I learned the term in depth before I ever knew it had application in how people get around.
IMHO, the only place along US 6/Mid-Cape Highway that might be overkill in terms of using overhead sign structures would be the Super-2 section east of Exit 9A-B (MA 134/Future Exit 77A-B).
One compromise could be to just use ground-mounted BGS' along the Super-2 stretch and overheads along the 4-lane stretch.
As far as the exit number changes are concerned; IMHO, some of the reasons behind the complaints are a bit overblown.
There was probably similar complaints when the area code changed from 617 to 508 back in 1988 and when 10-digit dialing became mandatory several years later when the 774 overlay area code was introduced.
The above-changes happened and it was not the end of the world for the Cape.
I've been traveling to the Cape for the past 20 years or so and have watched those signs slowly loose their reflectivity. At night, the route shield on eastbound sign for exit 2 is unreadable until you're 5' in front of it, for example. The signs clearly need to be replaced. Replaced with overhead gantries where the MUTCD requires it? Probably not. Its not like we're dealing with an Interstate that relies on federal funding for maintenance.
I honestly don't have a preference over either milage-based or sequential exits. But I could see where a motorist would get confused seeing an Exit 70 at the BEGINNING of a highway when they're used to seeing exit 1 (I doubt many tourists are aware that US 6 continues past the Bourne rotary.) Most of the opposition is probably just people being crotchety and not being open to change. It would be like all of a sudden changing the colors of the T lines, people are used to things being a certain way, especially in a NIMBY-centric region such as the Cape.
Forgive me if this post comes across as noob-ish, this is my first post.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2016, 02:51:40 PM
I've been traveling to the Cape for the past 20 years or so and have watched those signs slowly loose their reflectivity. At night, the route shield on eastbound sign for exit 2 is unreadable until you're 5' in front of it, for example. The signs clearly need to be replaced. Replaced with overhead gantries where the MUTCD requires it? Probably not. Its not like we're dealing with an Interstate that relies on federal funding for maintenance.
I honestly don't have a preference over either milage-based or sequential exits. But I could see where a motorist would get confused seeing an Exit 70 at the BEGINNING of a highway when they're used to seeing exit 1 (I doubt many tourists are aware that US 6 continues past the Bourne rotary.) Most of the opposition is probably just people being crotchety and not being open to change. It would be like all of a sudden changing the colors of the T lines, people are used to things being a certain way, especially in a NIMBY-centric region such as the Cape.
Forgive me if this post comes across as noob-ish, this is my first post.
Welcome to the forum. Not a noob-ish post at all, so no apologies necessary. Note that, although Interstate Maintenance is a specific Federal funding category, federal maintenance funds are not limited to work on the Interstate system. Because Route 6 is part of the National Highway System, maintenance work can be funded through one of several funding categories. A common category for sign replacements is through HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program), which is a 90%/10% split.
Maybe they should put up new signs, and give the old signs to the whiny, rich NIMBYs.
I thought the point of putting the 'old exit' tab for two years above the new exit number was to assist in the transition. This state, just like with getting rid of 128 from Canton to Peabody, amazes me with how forward thinking it can be in so many ways but throw temper tantrums over stuff like this.
Quote from: roadman on February 25, 2016, 03:12:42 PM
Welcome to the forum. Not a noob-ish post at all, so no apologies necessary. Note that, although Interstate Maintenance is a specific Federal funding category, federal maintenance funds are not limited to work on the Interstate system. Because Route 6 is part of the National Highway System, maintenance work can be funded through one of several funding categories. A common category for sign replacements is through HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program), which is a 90%/10% split.
I'll say this again:
New Interstate Maintenance (IM) funds haven't existed since SAFETA-LU expired. Essentially, such funding was rolled into the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) with MAP-21 (along with a good chunk of states' HBRR funds -- the remaining HBRR portion essentially was absorbed by the Surface Transportation Program, which is now, under FAST, called the Surface Transportation Block Grant, for some idiotic reason).
NHPP is now the main category for funding construction projects on the NHS. There is no longer as much of a variety of
core federal fund sources as there once was and with MAP-21, the federal funding mix has focused more of states' federal funds towards the NHS (i.e., NHPP has taken up a larger portion of distributed funds and it is eligible only for the NHS...with a few exceptions).
That all said, I'm still incredulous at the fact that MassDOT is being allowed by their FHWA Division to use HSIP for exit numbering changes. That'd never fly with the FHWA Division in NY.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2016, 02:38:58 PM
IMHO, the only place along US 6/Mid-Cape Highway that might be overkill in terms of using overhead sign structures would be the Super-2 section east of Exit 9A-B (MA 134/Future Exit 77A-B).
One compromise could be to just use ground-mounted BGS' along the Super-2 stretch and overheads along the 4-lane stretch.
Okay, I think I misread the initial description. I thought the overhead signs were only proposed at exit 9 (where the MUTCD, as I mentioned above, requires them). Apparently they are proposed at every interchange - that IS unnecessary. If the people of Cape Cod don't want overhead signs all over, I see no reason to force them upon them when ground mounted signs would be cheaper. Might as well save the money.
For the sake of MUTCD compliance, however, there does need to be one overhead sign structure in each direction at (current) exit 9. Two, if MassDOT does not want to mount the gore sign for the second exit on the overpass.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 25, 2016, 02:50:56 AM
theres quite a few interchanges on the parkways on Long Island with only ground mounted signs
The overhead sign requirement applies to cloverleaf interchanges specifically (logically one would also follow the same standard at a parclo with two exits). Any interchange where there is only one exit in each direction can be signed entirely with ground mounted signs.
That said, yes, there *are* cloverleaf interchanges on NY parkways that lack overhead signage (e.g. exits 35S-N on the Northern State). This is, however, a violation of the MUTCD, or at least the 2003 and 2009 versions of it. I'm not sure whether this requirement was in the 2000 version or how far back it goes, but it's certainly possible depending on how old those signs are that they were not in violation of any standard at the time they were installed.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2016, 02:51:40 PM
I've been traveling to the Cape for the past 20 years or so and have watched those signs slowly loose their reflectivity. At night, the route shield on eastbound sign for exit 2 is unreadable until you're 5' in front of it, for example. The signs clearly need to be replaced. Replaced with overhead gantries where the MUTCD requires it? Probably not. Its not like we're dealing with an Interstate that relies on federal funding for maintenance.
I honestly don't have a preference over either milage-based or sequential exits. But I could see where a motorist would get confused seeing an Exit 70 at the BEGINNING of a highway when they're used to seeing exit 1 (I doubt many tourists are aware that US 6 continues past the Bourne rotary.) Most of the opposition is probably just people being crotchety and not being open to change. It would be like all of a sudden changing the colors of the T lines, people are used to things being a certain way, especially in a NIMBY-centric region such as the Cape.
Forgive me if this post comes across as noob-ish, this is my first post.
Based on your first post, I hope to see many more, because I completely agree with it.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 25, 2016, 09:11:59 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 25, 2016, 02:50:56 AM
theres quite a few interchanges on the parkways on Long Island with only ground mounted signs
The overhead sign requirement applies to cloverleaf interchanges specifically (logically one would also follow the same standard at a parclo with two exits). Any interchange where there is only one exit in each direction can be signed entirely with ground mounted signs.
That said, yes, there *are* cloverleaf interchanges on NY parkways that lack overhead signage (e.g. exits 35S-N on the Northern State). This is, however, a violation of the MUTCD, or at least the 2003 and 2009 versions of it. I'm not sure whether this requirement was in the 2000 version or how far back it goes, but it's certainly possible depending on how old those signs are that they were not in violation of any standard at the time they were installed.
The entire Northern State Parkway got a sign replacement around 2013-14 with signs supposedly meeting the new NYSDOT standards, im guessing they were supposed to make those overhead signs? That whole interchange is horrible with the lack of merging room on the loop ramps.
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit?
RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state. The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit?
RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state. The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.
What if they compromised and used a mileage-based system starting where the current numbering starts from, in Bourne?
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 26, 2016, 01:10:13 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit?
RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state. The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.
What if they compromised and used a mileage-based system starting where the current numbering starts from, in Bourne?
I could see that being very confusing for construction workers and emergency vehicles, having mile-based exits that don't match the actual MPs.
You COULD, say, have US 6 end at the Sagamore flyover and either give the entire mid-Cape a new SR number or continue MA 3 onto it. Both of those are, in my view, quite impractical because you'd have to fund not only a sign replacement but a MP replacement. Though signing MA 3 through to Provincetown would make sense given the flyover is constructed to give Boston-bound traffic priority flow and most most people probably who commute off-cape do so to there.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 26, 2016, 09:32:39 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 26, 2016, 01:10:13 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit?
RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state. The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.
What if they compromised and used a mileage-based system starting where the current numbering starts from, in Bourne?
I could see that being very confusing for construction workers and emergency vehicles, having mile-based exits that don't match the actual MPs.
You COULD, say, have US 6 end at the Sagamore flyover and either give the entire mid-Cape a new SR number or continue MA 3 onto it. Both of those are, in my view, quite impractical because you'd have to fund not only a sign replacement but a MP replacement. Though signing MA 3 through to Provincetown would make sense given the flyover is constructed to give Boston-bound traffic priority flow and most most people probably who commute off-cape do so to there.
There are definitely many roadblocks, probably better in the end to just use the current system. MA-3 wouldn't work because the mileposts and new exit numbers would have to be redone for over 150 miles of road (because the current 0 is in Bourne).
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 26, 2016, 09:32:39 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 26, 2016, 01:10:13 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit?
RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state. The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.
What if they compromised and used a mileage-based system starting where the current numbering starts from, in Bourne?
I could see that being very confusing for construction workers and emergency vehicles, having mile-based exits that don't match the actual MPs.
You COULD, say, have US 6 end at the Sagamore flyover and either give the entire mid-Cape a new SR number or continue MA 3 onto it. Both of those are, in my view, quite impractical because you'd have to fund not only a sign replacement but a MP replacement. Though signing MA 3 through to Provincetown would make sense given the flyover is constructed to give Boston-bound traffic priority flow and most most people probably who commute off-cape do so to there.
Agree on the compromise on the signing using a design similar to MA 3. As for exit renumbering, I agree all the states's freeways should have a consistent numbering system. A poll on the Cape Cod Times website asks readers whether the exit numbers should be changed, yes or no. I bet you can guess what answer is getting 80% of the vote. As for providing different milepost based numbers to make it more compatible for Cape residents, I have 2 ideas, one less, the other more radical. The less radical is similar to what is suggested above. The commissioning of a new route, say 328, that would be co-routed along US 6 from MA 3 to MA 28 with the exits based on that highway's mileage. Therefore MA 3 would be Exit 0, MA 6A on the other side would have the same number, 1, and the mileage would increase from there. The more radical suggestion is to re-route US 6 along MA 28's current alignment south/east of the Bourne Bridge to Orleans. Extend MA 6A to fill in the gap between the Bourne and Sagamore bridges, and create a new route to run along the Mid Cape Highway. This would solve the re-numbering 'crisis' by providing numbers not starting in the 50s and end the confusion regarding North and South MA 28 running east-west from Falmouth to Orleans. Of course, this probably wouldn't pass AASHTO muster, not to mention businesses on the effected routes.
How about adopting a Back to the Early 70s mode and use the MILE XX - EXIT YY tabs that one saw along I-93 in MA and I-295 in RI. The old exit numbers can stay but the mile marker number would be more visible & prominent. If the goal is to have the nearest mile marker number listed on the exit tabs; the above is one way to do such while maintaining sequential interchange numbering.
Either that or just have the Cape secede from the Commonwealth, that way MM 0 for US 6 along the Cape is at Bourne rather than Seekonk. :sombrero:
Quote from: bob7374 on February 26, 2016, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 26, 2016, 09:32:39 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 26, 2016, 01:10:13 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit?
RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state. The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.
What if they compromised and used a mileage-based system starting where the current numbering starts from, in Bourne?
I could see that being very confusing for construction workers and emergency vehicles, having mile-based exits that don't match the actual MPs.
You COULD, say, have US 6 end at the Sagamore flyover and either give the entire mid-Cape a new SR number or continue MA 3 onto it. Both of those are, in my view, quite impractical because you'd have to fund not only a sign replacement but a MP replacement. Though signing MA 3 through to Provincetown would make sense given the flyover is constructed to give Boston-bound traffic priority flow and most most people probably who commute off-cape do so to there.
Agree on the compromise on the signing using a design similar to MA 3. As for exit renumbering, I agree all the states's freeways should have a consistent numbering system. A poll on the Cape Cod Times website asks readers whether the exit numbers should be changed, yes or no. I bet you can guess what answer is getting 80% of the vote. As for providing different milepost based numbers to make it more compatible for Cape residents, I have 2 ideas, one less, the other more radical. The less radical is similar to what is suggested above. The commissioning of a new route, say 328, that would be co-routed along US 6 from MA 3 to MA 28 with the exits based on that highway's mileage. Therefore MA 3 would be Exit 0, MA 6A on the other side would have the same number, 1, and the mileage would increase from there. The more radical suggestion is to re-route US 6 along MA 28's current alignment south/east of the Bourne Bridge to Orleans. Extend MA 6A to fill in the gap between the Bourne and Sagamore bridges, and create a new route to run along the Mid Cape Highway. This would solve the re-numbering 'crisis' by providing numbers not starting in the 50s and end the confusion regarding North and South MA 28 running east-west from Falmouth to Orleans. Of course, this probably wouldn't pass AASHTO muster, not to mention businesses on the effected routes.
They could also just un-number it and sign it as the Mid-Cape Highway and put US 6 on its original alignment from Bourne-Orleans. There'd could be a NYSDOT-style shield and everything.
Update on the reaction to the planned US 6 signing project. I found a link to another Cape newspaper article from late Feb. about the reaction to the plan:
http://www.capenews.net/sandwich/news/state-gets-earful-on-highway-sign-plan/article_7271a850-a838-5e99-b487-62b8da011ef1.html (http://www.capenews.net/sandwich/news/state-gets-earful-on-highway-sign-plan/article_7271a850-a838-5e99-b487-62b8da011ef1.html)
This article features more comments from state highway administrator Thomas J. Tinlin than the other article. If you believe his quotes in the article then you would think MassDOT is only considering milepost based exits at this time, not that they have already awarded contracts to change numbers on the MassPike and statewide.
Quote from: bob7374 on March 11, 2016, 11:25:04 AM
Update on the reaction to the planned US 6 signing project. I found a link to another Cape newspaper article from late Feb. about the reaction to the plan:
http://www.capenews.net/sandwich/news/state-gets-earful-on-highway-sign-plan/article_7271a850-a838-5e99-b487-62b8da011ef1.html (http://www.capenews.net/sandwich/news/state-gets-earful-on-highway-sign-plan/article_7271a850-a838-5e99-b487-62b8da011ef1.html)
This article features more comments from state highway administrator Thomas J. Tinlin than the other article. If you believe his quotes in the article then you would think MassDOT is only considering milepost based exits at this time, not that they have already awarded contracts to change numbers on the MassPike and statewide.
On purpose I'm sure. I'm sure they wanted the numbers to go up before anyone found out, but it didn't happen, so now they are pretending that it's only a proposal. Then when the numbers go up, they'll tell everyone "oh yeah we decided already". To be honest it's the only way to change the way anything is done in Mass, is just to do it without asking and deal with the backlash later.
This same principle is fairly commonplace in a whole cornucopia of circumstances. As the saying goes, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission".
People often automatically oppose change as a kneejerk reaction, but then once it is forced upon them they get used to it and find that it really isn't nearly as big of a deal as they initially perceived it being.
Some people can't handle change. To them, change is bad. Everything must remain the same!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 17, 2016, 06:19:29 PM
Some people can't handle change. To them, change is bad. Everything must remain the same!
I shall call them CHACWIMBYs. Can't Handle Any Change Whatsoever In My Back Yard. A bit wordy but it works I think :hmm:
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit?
Advance signs on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth were intentionally ground-mounted because of the potential for a widening project in this area.
Quote from: roadman on March 18, 2016, 10:56:24 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit?
Advance signs on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth were intentionally ground-mounted because of the potential for a widening project in this area.
That widening proposal has been discussed for more than 30 years. Wonder if there will be another sign replacement before the project ever comes to fruition. I am curious though about one of the ground-mounted signs. During the last sign replacement they removed the 1 Mile advance cantilever overhead for the Derby Street exit southbound and replaced it with a ground-mounted sign. This area is already widened to 3 lanes. Are they thinking of four lanes in this area?
Quote from: bob7374 on March 18, 2016, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 18, 2016, 10:56:24 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit?
Advance signs on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth were intentionally ground-mounted because of the potential for a widening project in this area.
That widening proposal has been discussed for more than 30 years. Wonder if there will be another sign replacement before the project ever comes to fruition. I am curious though about one of the ground-mounted signs. During the last sign replacement they removed the 1 Mile advance cantilever overhead for the Derby Street exit southbound and replaced it with a ground-mounted sign. This area is already widened to 3 lanes. Are they thinking of four lanes in this area?
At the time the Braintree to Plymouth sign project was under design, it appeared that the widening project was going to move forward. As for the Derby Street advance sign, there were discussions about a separate project to improve the merge at Derby Street, which would have included grading for an eventual fourth lane to Derby Street.
If you haven't read it, this is the editorial the Cape Cod Times wrote about the US 6 Sign Project 'Boondoggle' on March 5:
http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160305/OPINION/160309806/2013/OPINION (http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160305/OPINION/160309806/2013/OPINION)
Quote from: bob7374 on March 22, 2016, 11:11:18 AM
If you haven't read it, this is the editorial the Cape Cod Times wrote about the US 6 Sign Project 'Boondoggle' on March 5:
http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160305/OPINION/160309806/2013/OPINION (http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160305/OPINION/160309806/2013/OPINION)
To be fair, the Times did not rip on the exit number change as much as the overhead sign supports. The only thing about the numbers that most people have ripped on is the fact that they would measure to the state line. They seem much more offended by the supports, which I believe stems from a program to cut down a large number of trees in the US 6 median last year that did not go over well with locals. I think you'll likely see a compromise to change the numbers, but keep ground-mounted guide signage.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on March 22, 2016, 12:09:11 PMThey seem much more offended by the supports, which I believe stems from a program to cut down a large number of trees in the US 6 median last year that did not go over well with locals. I think you'll likely see a compromise to change the numbers, but keep ground-mounted guide signage.
IMHO, a modest compromise would be to stay with ground-mounted signs along the Super-2 stretch (east of Exit 9/MA 134) but go with overheads/cantilevered along the 4-lane divided stretch. The reason being if there's a steady stream of trucks moving along in the right lane; those traveling along in the left lane will not be able to see the ground-mounted signs due to such being obstructed by the trucks.
While every sign can't be mounted overhead (and nobody's proposing such); at least the major interchange signs
should be overhead along 4-lane divided stretch for visibility reasons.
As bob7374 posted on the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering Contract thread, MassDOT is holding a public meeting to discuss the Route 6 sign replacement project on Monday, July 18th in Hyannis. Details are at http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/route-6-sign-replacement-public-meeting-scheduled/
This appears to be a first for any state DOT - holding a public meeting for a highway sign replacement project.
I expect there will be a lot of bitching and whining at that public meeting. Miserable NIMBYS!
Very interesting. I'm a college student and have always had this road hobby on the side since I was a kid, so I have developed a good knowledge base in the subject, but have never done anything with it except join this forum a while back. However I've followed the exit number conversion and Route 6 replacement projects closely, plus I am currently working on the Cape as a broadcaster (my actual career path) and this meeting is 5 minutes from where I am staying. I am considering going, but I don't know if it would be worth it. I imagine if I went I would probably just watch but I don't really know.
Quote from: roadman on July 05, 2016, 04:22:26 PM
As bob7374 posted on the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering Contract thread, MassDOT is holding a public meeting to discuss the Route 6 sign replacement project on Monday, July 18th in Hyannis. Details are at http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/route-6-sign-replacement-public-meeting-scheduled/
This appears to be a first for any state DOT - holding a public meeting for a highway sign replacement project.
MassDOT has now provided a link to the press release on their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf)
I commented about whether the poster knew whether this was the first time MassDOT held a public meeting regarding a sign replacement project. So far, no response. At least the comment has not been deleted, unlike the one stating how all of this was a waste of money that was there when I added my comment. I am thinking of attending this meeting, if just to see who turns up.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 07, 2016, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 05, 2016, 04:22:26 PM
As bob7374 posted on the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering Contract thread, MassDOT is holding a public meeting to discuss the Route 6 sign replacement project on Monday, July 18th in Hyannis. Details are at http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/route-6-sign-replacement-public-meeting-scheduled/
This appears to be a first for any state DOT - holding a public meeting for a highway sign replacement project.
MassDOT has now provided a link to the press release on their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf)
I commented about whether the poster knew whether this was the first time MassDOT held a public meeting regarding a sign replacement project. So far, no response. At least the comment has not been deleted, unlike the one stating how all of this was a waste of money that was there when I added my comment. I am thinking of attending this meeting, if just to see who turns up.
As of now, there are no comments, so apparently yours got deleted, too.
Quote from: SectorZ on July 07, 2016, 01:37:52 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 07, 2016, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 05, 2016, 04:22:26 PM
As bob7374 posted on the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering Contract thread, MassDOT is holding a public meeting to discuss the Route 6 sign replacement project on Monday, July 18th in Hyannis. Details are at http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/route-6-sign-replacement-public-meeting-scheduled/
This appears to be a first for any state DOT - holding a public meeting for a highway sign replacement project.
MassDOT has now provided a link to the press release on their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf)
I commented about whether the poster knew whether this was the first time MassDOT held a public meeting regarding a sign replacement project. So far, no response. At least the comment has not been deleted, unlike the one stating how all of this was a waste of money that was there when I added my comment. I am thinking of attending this meeting, if just to see who turns up.
As of now, there are no comments, so apparently yours got deleted, too.
Shows up on my feed, still with no response. Perhaps only comments appear to those who 'like' the page.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 08, 2016, 11:34:09 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 07, 2016, 01:37:52 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 07, 2016, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 05, 2016, 04:22:26 PM
As bob7374 posted on the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering Contract thread, MassDOT is holding a public meeting to discuss the Route 6 sign replacement project on Monday, July 18th in Hyannis. Details are at http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/route-6-sign-replacement-public-meeting-scheduled/
This appears to be a first for any state DOT - holding a public meeting for a highway sign replacement project.
MassDOT has now provided a link to the press release on their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf)
I commented about whether the poster knew whether this was the first time MassDOT held a public meeting regarding a sign replacement project. So far, no response. At least the comment has not been deleted, unlike the one stating how all of this was a waste of money that was there when I added my comment. I am thinking of attending this meeting, if just to see who turns up.
As of now, there are no comments, so apparently yours got deleted, too.
Shows up on my feed, still with no response. Perhaps only comments appear to those who 'like' the page.
That is the wonkiness that is Facebook. I actually do like the MassDOT page and yeah, no comments as of a moment ago. Go figure.
I attended tonight's MassDOT public meeting about the upcoming US 6 signing project in Hyannis. Not a large crowd but there was one Cape Cod politician, aides to a couple state legislators, and, based on how the MassDOT personnel responded to her, one of the high-ranking members of the Cape Cod Commission.
She should be happy, the Commission that got most of what it wanted with the re-designed signing project. There will be no overhead signs, all the new signs will be the same size as the current ones, most mounted on the existing support posts. The exit numbers will stay the same, however, like the guidance given the contractors for the current I-90 and I-495 projects, the exit tabs will be wide enough to incorporate a change to milepost-based numbers later on. If any number change is contemplated in the future, however, it will only occur after 'a robust public information campaign.' (The officials stuck to MassDOT's current line that they are still deciding whether to change numbers on a state-wide basis.) The schedule for the project, still funded by FY 2016 dollars, is that it will be advertised in September, awarded by the end of the year, with work starting in the summer of 2017 and to be finished in 2018.
Some audience members were skeptical about MassDOT's insistence that the new US 6 plans were an effort to take public opinion fully into account when designing the project, especially since while the new plans have the old numbers, the signs are designed so they could have new ones. When pressed about how likely that US 6 or other highways will get new exit numbers, the official indicated it has been the Lt. Governor who has been campaigning against the use of milepost based numbers and that she has been putting pressure on MassDOT highway personnel not to push for any number changing projects. He stated, however, that MasDOT has been unsuccessful in getting the FHWA to reconsider a waiver, and so a change is still likely.
After being pressed by an audience member, the meeting's PowerPoint presentation may be put online. If so, I'll post a link.
Thank you for the report, couldn't go due to (ironically enough) car issues. Ground mounted signs are fine for the Cape, and it's good to hear that mileage based exits are still likely. Seems like MA-28 (and 57 but that's not on Cape) getting numbers is contingent on mileage based exits, doesn't sound like they want to put up sequential for them. Also it doesn't seem like the Cape will be given an exception to the numbering change when it does happen, which MassDOT sounded at first like it was going to give them. Seems like the Feds said no to that.
The meeting also included a presentation about the upcoming District 5 Retroflective Sign Upgrading project. I'll leave it to Roadman to explain the details, since he's the project manager. Hopefully when this project is complete, I'll be able to say goodbye to all the 1980s (or earlier) route markers around my hometown.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 19, 2016, 06:23:49 PM
The meeting also included a presentation about the upcoming District 5 Retroflective Sign Upgrading project. I'll leave it to Roadman to explain the details, since he's the project manager. Hopefully when this project is complete, I'll be able to say goodbye to all the 1980s (or earlier) route markers around my hometown.
For about the past two years, MassDOT has been conducting a condition survey of all guide, route marker, regulatory, and warning signs on all secondary state highways (both numbered and unnumbered), as well as on all municipal-owned portions of state numbered routes, within Massachusetts. Signs have been evaluated in both daytime and nighttime conditions, with individual panels being ranked as good, fair, poor, or non-standard (i.e. doesn't meet 2009 MUTCD requirements). The purpose of this contract, as well as a similar project being developed in District 4, will be to replace all the signs ranked as poor or non-standard with new signs (and new posts where required).
Both the District 5 and District 4 projects are at the final design stage, and are scheduled to be advertised for bids by mid-September of 2016. Like the Route 6 sign replacement project, these projects are to be constructed using Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds.
Similar District-wide Sign Retroreflectivity Upgrade projects are being developed for Districts 1, 2, 3, and 6 as well. These projects are currently programmed for HSIP funding in FFY 2017, and should be advertised for bids by September of 2017.
Cape Cod Times article on Monday night's Route 6 public meeting: http://www.capecod.com/newscenter/state-promises-flexible-work-schedule-for-route-6-sign-update-project/
Nice positive spin on the project.
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2016, 09:17:07 AM
Cape Cod Times article on Monday night's Route 6 public meeting: http://www.capecod.com/newscenter/state-promises-flexible-work-schedule-for-route-6-sign-update-project/
Nice positive spin on the project.
Definitely positive, though they left out the details about the exit numbering. Readers thus may get the impression that the numbers are never changing, which may not be the case.
US 6's exit numbers should be changed to mileage-based along with the rest of the state. Enough said!
A week and 1/2 after the public meeting, the Cape Cod Times is finally reporting on the plans for keeping, for now, the current exit numbers on US 6/Mid-Cape Highway:
http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160729/NEWS/160729414 (http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160729/NEWS/160729414)
Article also quotes MassDOT spokesman as the adopting of milepost numbers is still under evaluation as they are "many questions which still need to be answered concerning how Massachusetts would transition to distance-based numbering and what the potential impacts could be on the communities we serve." Apparently, if there are new numbers put up there will be at least a year of public outreach before any changes are made.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 29, 2016, 11:48:43 AM
A week and 1/2 after the public meeting, the Cape Cod Times is finally reporting on the plans ...
Now that the RNC and DNC junkets are over, the media has no good excuses to not focus on local news.
Quote from: roadman on July 29, 2016, 11:54:25 AMNow that the RNC and DNC junkets are over, the media has no good excuses to not focus on local news.
You're kidding, right? The media has the two best excuses in the world.
The two presidential candidates.
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 29, 2016, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 29, 2016, 11:54:25 AMNow that the RNC and DNC junkets are over, the media has no good excuses to not focus on local news.
You're kidding, right? The media has the two best excuses in the world.
The two presidential candidates.
Touche'
Although my mother recently told me to vote for Clinton, I don't really trust Clinton and certainly not Trump.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 29, 2016, 03:50:12 PM
Although my mother recently told me to vote for Clinton, I don't really trust Clinton and certainly not Trump.
Let's not open those wars here plz
To the last poster, I'm pretty sure political discussion is not permitted on this forum (excluding discussion of traffic related issues that may have stemmed from the conventions.)
Anyway, milepost exit numbers. I think it's a matter of not if but when, and I also think that the next MUTCD will set a deadline for milepost exit conversions. It seems obvious the FHWA isn't going to grant a waiver either, so MassDOT should, I feel, just bite the bullet assemble a big public outreach effort now (which good on them for finally saying they will do that) and actually begin the campaign around Labor Day. Route 6 specifically, I feel, is just a bunch of complaining. Maybe MassDOT could provide some small grants to help pay for modifications to promotional materials, etc., but the complainers just need to know that it is inevitable and maybe as such MassDOT could do Route 6's renumbering last. The only reason their argument is on solid ground is because the freeway section starts at mile 58, which can be confusing. But to the complaining end, Maine has a ton of tourism along the coast, and particularly in the southwest Maine area which happens to be served by 95 and 295, not to mention inland attractions in Maine along 95. All of them had to change materials, and maybe there were some complaints, but most presumably got used to it, including the people who are visiting, so I don't see why Cape Cod can't do that.
Potential impacts on communities? The states that started sequential and switched to milepost can give a guidelines.
In short, it's time to bite the bullet. Route 6 can be debated further but a PR campaign should be started soon for the other roads.
MassDOT has now (9/17) advertised the contract to replace the exit signage on US 6 on Cape Cod, notice the description emphasizes the use ground-mounted signage:
"Fabrication and Installation of Ground Mounted Guide and Traffic Signs along a Section of Route 6 (Mid-Cape Highway)"
The winning bidder is to be announced on 1/24/2017.
All the current advertised project bids can be found at: https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/webapps/const/statusReport.asp (https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/webapps/const/statusReport.asp)
Cross-posted from another thread.
Bids are scheduled to be opened on the US 6 sign replacement on Tuesday, January 24th. As it is only a panels replacement project (no support work), new BGSes and route markers should be in by the end of this year.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2016, 02:51:40 PM
I've been traveling to the Cape for the past 20 years or so and have watched those signs slowly loose their reflectivity. At night, the route shield on eastbound sign for exit 2 is unreadable until you're 5' in front of it, for example. The signs clearly need to be replaced. Replaced with overhead gantries where the MUTCD requires it? Probably not. Its not like we're dealing with an Interstate that relies on federal funding for maintenance.
I honestly don't have a preference over either milage-based or sequential exits. But I could see where a motorist would get confused seeing an Exit 70 at the BEGINNING of a highway when they're used to seeing exit 1 (I doubt many tourists are aware that US 6 continues past the Bourne rotary.) Most of the opposition is probably just people being crotchety and not being open to change. It would be like all of a sudden changing the colors of the T lines, people are used to things being a certain way, especially in a NIMBY-centric region such as the Cape.
Forgive me if this post comes across as noob-ish, this is my first post.
I've noticed that too, but change is coming.
Quote from: roadman on January 17, 2017, 08:38:29 PM
Cross-posted from another thread.
Bids are scheduled to be opened on the US 6 sign replacement on Tuesday, January 24th. As it is only a panels replacement project (no support work), new BGSes and route markers should be in by the end of this year.
Looks like the bid announcement has now been delayed until Feb. 7.
Bids for the US 6 sign replacement project were opened today (Tuesday, February 7th). Liddell Brothers of Halifax, MA is the apparent low bidder.
According to the MassDOT project listing, the Notice to Proceed was given today (April 7) for the US 6 sign replacement project. The page did not list a completion date. Still anticipated by the end of the year?
Quote from: bob7374 on April 07, 2017, 11:25:52 AM
According to the MassDOT project listing, the Notice to Proceed was given today (April 7) for the US 6 sign replacement project. The page did not list a completion date. Still anticipated by the end of the year?
Unlikely. Per the bid documents, the project duration is 540 days from the NTP date. Additionally, the project has work restrictions during the summer months (Memorial Day to Labor Day) - this is SOP for ALL work on Cape Cod.
Got a chance to drive to Cape Cod to check out any progress on the US 6/Mid-Cape Highway Sign Replacement project. There has been completed, perhaps almost 2/3 finished. There are new signs from Exit 2 in Sandwich:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fus6signs118d.JPG&hash=dc0ce28f5d1069c827a741ed86646181e2336d0f)
To Exit 9 in Dennis:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fus6signs118tt.JPG&hash=fa782b00fec5173aaa41135e39845fa51d25156c)
Since I didn't have a webpage to post all the photos, I created one. Visit the New US 6 in Mass. Photo Gallery to see all I've posted up to now:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/us6photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/us6photos.html)
Amazing that two lane section still hasn't been double barrelled. Remember it in the seventies, last on the cape in 1990. Yes a playground for rich "nimby's". Excellent pictures, thanks for sharing.
Quote from: DJStephens on February 03, 2018, 07:50:56 PM
Amazing that two lane section still hasn't been double barrelled. Remember it in the seventies, last on the cape in 1990. Yes a playground for rich "nimby's". Excellent pictures, thanks for sharing.
How can they tolerate all the noise from summer stop-and-go traffic? That, IMO is worse.
Got a chance to take a quick roadtrip to the Cape before the Memorial Day weekend to check out progress on the replacement of the US 6 sign. Some more progress since I was out there in January. New signs are up to the last exit at the eastern end of the Mid-Cape Highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fus6signs518t.JPG&hash=bdb467bbd6a97feeeb22c0d8d3efb9152edd9549)
One curious thing I noted that on the Super 2 portion new reflector signs (sorry I don't know the the official title) have been placed at the gore in front of the gore sign. While I've noticed similar signs have gone up elsewhere, these are much bigger and often obscure the gore signs behind them, here's an example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fus6signs518i.JPG&hash=3042b7b3fafc85d7af9882b05085a196dbdf47ea)
The only BGSs still not replaced are several at the MA 134 exits and the 1-mile advance for MA 132 westbound. The highway west of Dennis still lacks new reassurance markers and most of the entrance ramp guide signs have still not been replaced east of Sandwich. So perhaps 85% of the work is done, but may now not be completed until after the Cape vacation season. All the new signage can be found on the US 6 Photo Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/us6photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/us6photos.html)
Current MassDOT practice for controlled-access highways is to use 3' X 3' reflectors at exit ramp gores. The fact the new reflector is obscuring the E5-1a sign tells me the E5-1a sign hasn't yet been replaced. New E5-1a gore signs are to be mounted at a clearance of 9 feet from top of road to bottom of sign. This allows the use of the larger reflector panel without obscuring the sign.
Update: Had a conservation with the project resident engineer last week to discuss some issues on the Route 6 project. He confirmed that none of the E5-1a gore signs within the project area have yet been replaced. When the new signs and posts are installed sometime after Labor Day (the project is in "summer exclusion" period, which is common for most work on Cape Cod), the warning cluster panels will no longer block visibility of the gore signs.
Here's an example of the gore reflector signs seen on interstates, in this case the Mass Pike in Weston. These signs are much smaller and do not block the existing gore signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90signs618j.JPG&hash=206c3b4c3dcba346318b2ca27391d4ffa1e6f435)
Quote from: bob7374 on June 03, 2018, 06:09:37 PM
Here's an example of the gore reflector signs seen on interstates, in this case the Mass Pike in Weston. These signs are much smaller and do not block the existing gore signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90signs618j.JPG&hash=206c3b4c3dcba346318b2ca27391d4ffa1e6f435)
Although it is placed in an exit gore, that is actually a W12-1 double arrow sign, not a gore reflector sign. MassDOT has been phasing in the use of larger (3'X3') gore reflector signs for Interstate and freeway exit gores over the past few years. As I noted in my post above, the height of the E5-1 gore sign is supposed to be adjusted higher (typically 9 feet from top of road to bottom of sign) to account for the larger gore reflector signs.
Took a trip down to the Cape on Sept. 22 and was able to take photos of most of the new signs put up since my last trip down about a year earlier. This mostly includes gore signs, reassurance markers, signs marking rivers and town boundaries, and most of the MA 134 signage in Dennis. While the project officially wrapped up last spring, I noticed one sign, the 1-mile advance for MA 132 westbound, had not been replaced. As with MassDOT's recent practice, all the new reassurance markers are smaller in size than their predecessors. Here's a couple signs for MA 134 eastbound (the left was there before, the right new to me):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fus6signs919r.JPG&hash=9f91a2a6a68f3831dccfec0c7ace53a8688930f8)
Here's one of the new reassurance markers:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fus6signs919mm.JPG&hash=0783ddf311dc38329f1a8005cf3af7056c3ef6a6)
The entire set of photos taken during the length of the project can be found at my US 6 in Mass. Photo Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/us6photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/us6photos.html)
I still remember when the exit 12 sign said "[6A] Shore Road", like many of the [6A]-featured BGSs in Truro. :-D That's why 6A in N Truro was called "Shore Rd" when E911 was brought to the area, and they had to name a lot of previously unnamed roads.