Interstate 95 signing work

[KEVIN_224]

Center-aligned exit tabs...maybe those signs are RIDOT installations, despite being in Massachusetts by a few feet?

[PHLBOS]

Center-aligned exit tabs...maybe those signs are RIDOT installations, despite being in Massachusetts by a few feet?

Trust me when I say this: Those are indeed MassDPW installations!   I'm old enough to remember when those particular BGS' were brand, spanking new (while riding with (mostly) my father back then). 

Given that those BGS' are from from the 70s (circa 1977); center-aligned exit tabs were still the standard.  Left/right-aligned exit tabs didn't start showing up on MA highway BGS' en masse until the mid-80s (the button-copy BGS' along the Southeast Expressway portion of I-93 (now all replaced) being one of if not the first set of signs to feature such).

Additionally (& ironically), RIDOT BGS' of that same era located just south of there mostly featured full-width (& overheight) exit tabs (with the exit text & number(s) aligned to the right or left depending on which side the exit ramp was located).

[roadman]

I can verify PHLBOS's comments that a) the BGS panels on I-95 southbound at the RI line are indeed MassDPW installations, not RIDOT, and that b) the button copy signs installed as part of the 1984-1985 Southeast Expressway reconstruction project were the first BGSes on Massachusetts to have right/left justified exit tabs.

However, I have no clue as to why those BGSes on I-95 south were not replaced as part of the 2000 Attleboro to Canton sign replacement project.

[PHLBOS]

Update: (Memorial Day weekend observation) a supplemental NORTH 128 w/up-arrow trailblazer sign featuring a large MA 128 shield has since been erected just prior to the gantry along the left side of the ramp/c-d road.

[bob7374]

Update: (Memorial Day weekend observation) a supplemental NORTH 128 w/up-arrow trailblazer sign featuring a large MA 128 shield has since been erected just prior to the gantry along the left side of the ramp/c-d road.

Here's an updated photo:


That has been accompanied by a couple other trailblazers on the ramp from I-95 North:


Several other photos of recently installed I-95/MA 128 shields are on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Page (more to come):
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html

[roadman]

As always, excellent photos Bob.  Drove through the project northbound last night, and noted the same lack of foliage clearing that you indicated in your comments.  Tree trimming, as MassDOT calls the pay item in sign replacement contracts, is usually one of the last items to be completed.  However, now that all the ground-mounted guide signs have been installed, I'll put a call into the project R/E to see if they can expedite the trimming.

[PHLBOS]

Looks like a spec/contractor/fabricator change that took place during this overall project within the last few months with regards to the Interstate shields.  The I-shields on the newer installments seem to sport shorter-height numerals (more blue space); a change that I, personally, don't agree with because such:

1.  Tend to be less visible from a distance (vs. the previous taller numerals).  Such is more of an issue when there's more than one Interstate route involved on signage.

2.  Such opens the door for improper placement (too low, high, scrunched or spread-out) of said-numerals.

If one travels southbound along I-95 approaching I-90/Mass Pike; one can see the varying differences with the I-90 shields on the approaching interchange BGS'.

The more recently-erected I-95 trailblazer/reassurance markers shown in the above-pic look like the numbers are spaced closer (but not scrunched) together than on previous installations.

At least the 9s on the newer shields aren't kerning downwards (in a lazy fashion) per several (but not all) of the earlier installations; such is a plus IMHO.

[bob7374]

I've posted the rest of the photos I took Sunday of the new reassurance marker signage, including this one with a 'subservient' (smaller) MA 128 shield:

For the others, go to: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html

[bob7374]

The MassDOT project listing for the I-95 signing project between Newton and Lexington indicates that the project is complete as of 7/27/15 (with the exception of a couple punch list items, I assume these are the two overhead signs to go on the MA 2 bridge currently under construction). Meanwhile the Peabody to Georgetown project is 89% complete.

[roadman]

The MassDOT project listing for the I-95 signing project between Newton and Lexington indicates that the project is complete as of 7/27/15 (with the exception of a couple punch list items, I assume these are the two overhead signs to go on the MA 2 bridge currently under construction). Meanwhile the Peabody to Georgetown project is 89% complete.

Had business in Newburyport earlier today, so I drove through the Peabody to Georgetown section of I-95.  All new signs and structures/supports are in place, and all the old signs and structures/supports have been removed.  My understanding is that the remaining work on this project mostly consists of acceptance testing and remote connection work for the overhead message boards.  Only immediate errors I noted were that the signs for the State Police barracks at Route 62 northbound and US 1 southbound were green background, not blue background, and that the post-interchange distance signs seem to use larger legend than MUTCD and MassDOT standards call for.  Not sure if these were design or fabrication errors.

Unfortunately, I was unable to get pictures, as I was driving through downpours most of the distance both northbound and southbound.

[shadyjay]

So I'm assuming that means the "top hat" I-95 SB pullthrough at Exit 46 is gone.  What was it replaced with?  A standard pullthrough?  And I guess there's no more mention of 128 on it. 

[PHLBOS]

So I'm assuming that means the "top hat" I-95 SB pullthrough at Exit 46 is gone.  What was it replaced with?  A standard pullthrough?  And I guess there's no more mention of 128 on it.

The recent approach signs for that interchange still contain TO 128 references in them, so I would assume that the new pull-through BGS would include such as well sans the top-hat design.

Side bar: the original 1988-vintage pull-through BGS was indeed a standard panel with no TO 128 reference.  The top-hat pull-through BGS is from the early 1990s.

[roadman]

So I'm assuming that means the "top hat" I-95 SB pullthrough at Exit 46 is gone.  What was it replaced with?  A standard pullthrough?  And I guess there's no more mention of 128 on it. 

Yes, the "Top Hat" sign is gone.  But the replacement pull thru sign still states "TO 128."  The 'TO 128" legend was added to the previous signs in the mid-1990s at the request of Peabody, in an attempt to reduce congestion on US 1 southbound.

The "Top Hat" design was used when the previous pull thru sign was modified due to constraints with the existing structure, which was also replaced as part of the Peabody to Georgetown project.

[PHLBOS]

The "Top Hat" design was used when the previous pull thru sign was modified due to constraints with the existing structure, which was also replaced as part of the Peabody to Georgetown project.

So the whole structure gantry was replaced as well?  BTW, I remember the original standard pull-though quite well; IMHO, there was room enough on the original panel to mask the old 95 SOUTH legend with a horizontally-laid out 95 SOUTH TO 128 legend.  Such would avoided the cost and design of the top-hat panel.

Does the new 1-mile notice BGS for the MA 114 interchange finally have exit numbers (EXIT 47A-B) on it and has the destinations listed in the correct order?  Original 1988-era BGS.

[roadman]

New signs and a full gantry were put in at the "Top Hat" location.  And yes, the new 1 mile BGS for 114 has exit numbers and the correct order for destinations.

[bob7374]

I got to travel I-95 as far north as Georgetown on Thursday and, sometimes between rain showers, got to take photos of most of the new signs north of MA 128 in Peabody. Given that these have been mentioned in recent posts, here's the new MA 133 1 Mile overhead on I-95 North replacing the sign without exit numbers and the wrong order for destinations:


And here's the replacement for the "Top Hat" sign at the interchange with US 1 South:


The rest of the photos can be found on my I-95 Mass. Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html

There are a couple new photos from the now completed Lexington to Newton project below the Peabody to Georgetown photos.

[KEVIN_224]

I see they've gotten rid of the "top hat" sign in your second picture!

If all goes as planned, I'm supposed to be in Maine tomorrow and Tuesday. I could see how far north they've gotten with the signs. Mind you I'd be on a bus and likely couldn't take any pictures. We will see.

[shadyjay]

I-95 now has new signage from the Peabody split on 128 all the way up to the NH state line, with the exception of some signage around Exit 58.  Those north of ~ Exit 55, north were replaced about 2 years ago IIRC.  I know they were there last July.  Only "old" signage remaining is from I-93 to Peabody on the 128 section, and the section from the RI state line up to 128. 

[PHLBOS]

Some critiques regarding the new signage (not the photos):

1.  The new reassurance markers along this stretch do a much better job with numeral placement (for the I-95 shield) compared to other installations that use smaller numerals.  Kudos.  Now if such can be applied to the shields on BGS'.  Many of the shields sporting smaller 95 numerals are either placed too high or too close together.  I still prefer the larger numerals that the new signs erected a year or two ago had.

2.  I do not agree with the sign-spreading approach displayed at the MA 62/Exit 49 interchange with the first notice of US 1/Exit 50.  Even though the BGS messages are clear; placing an advance BGS for the next interchange just prior to the approaching interchange ramp is IMHO opening the door for confusion and asking for trouble.

The previous applications of the first BGS for US 1/Exit 50 being placed next to the exit BGS for MA 62/Exit 49 on either an overhead gantry (as previously and similar to the one used for Exit 47A-B) or a larger 2-sign cantilever structure (similar to what was done for the US 3 South/MA 3A interchange) should've been carried over.

3.  For the southbound pull-through BGS at Exit 50; I would've at least had Boston listed on the sign.  My personal preference would've included both Peabody & Boston on the sign.

Possible arrangements:
2-line:

95 SOUTH TO 128
Peabody - Boston

3-line:

   SOUTH 
95  TO  128
  Peabody
  Boston

Note: the SOUTH and TO texts would be placed between the I-95 & MA 128 shields in a vertical fashion. 

4.  For the southbound pull-through BGS at Exit 46; given the width of the sign, I would've done a 2-line arrangement (plus the 3 down-arrows):

95 SOUTH TO 128
      Waltham

[roadman]

I got to travel I-95 as far north as Georgetown on Thursday and, sometimes between rain showers, got to take photos of most of the new signs north of MA 128 in Peabody. Given that these have been mentioned in recent posts, here's the new MA 133 1 Mile overhead on I-95 North replacing the sign without exit numbers and the wrong order for destinations:


And here's the replacement for the "Top Hat" sign at the interchange with US 1 South:


The rest of the photos can be found on my I-95 Mass. Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html

There are a couple new photos from the now completed Lexington to Newton project below the Peabody to Georgetown photos.

As always, excellent photos Bob.  One point - the illuminated weigh station signs were installed about 2000 as part of a project requested by the State Police to gate off the stations - which were being used by drivers as rest areas.

[SignBridge]

Where do they get a small place like Waltham as a control-city on a major Interstate like I-95? I thought "control-cities" would be major cities. At this decision point where Boston is one choice, maybe Providence, R.I. should be the other choice. Remember, as per the MUTCD philosophy, the BGS's are mainly for drivers not familiar with the region.

[PHLBOS]

Where do they get a small place like Waltham as a control-city on a major Interstate like I-95? I thought "control-cities" would be major cities. At this decision point where Boston is one choice, maybe Providence, R.I. should be the other choice. Remember, as per the MUTCD philosophy, the BGS's are mainly for drivers not familiar with the region.

Waltham's not exactly a small place but rather a large town with a fair amount of businesses and coincidentally located mid-way along the 128/YDH portion of I-95.  Do keep in mind that it's not just the locals that still refer to the latter-mentioned stretch of I-95 as just 128 despite the multiplex' 40-year existence.  Not listing key areas on signs is just asking for trouble IMHO (example: my 78-year old mother missing a northbound entrance ramp off US 20 in Waltham because the sign contained not only no 128 reference but not MA city or town as well (it only listed Portsmouth, NH)).  Had the BGS listed Peabody along with Portsmouth, NH; such probably wouldn't have been an issue.

Additionally, just because MUTCD says so; doesn't necessarily makes a particular approach right and/or logical.  The surrounding conditions, demographics and even common sense need to be taken into account.  As I stated multiple times on this thread (several pages back) and on others; given the population and demographics of the region, the previously-accepted practice of listing 2 control destinations on a pull-through sign for certain scenarios should be maintained.  Personally, I have never heard of any accident happening because of one reading an additional destination or two on major signs.

That said, this particular stretch of I-95 southbound IMHO hasn't always been signed consistently (especially the stretch between Exits 46 through 50 due to its proximity with the parallel US 1).  When the first modern 70s era signage was erected; the southbound signage north of Exit 50 (US 1) listed Danvers & Boston as destinations.  At US 1/Exit 50 (the first southbound exit to actually list Danvers (along with Middleton back then)), the first pull-through BGS and entrance ramps for I-95 south listed the originally-planned Lynn/Boston combination.  These BGS' lasted unchanged into the mid-1990s even though I-95 never touched Lynn.  South of Exit 50, the original BGS' for the entrance ramps (at MA 62 & Centre St.) for I-95 South only listed Boston.  The southbound entrance ramp from MA 114 wasn't present until the late 1990s.  The original plan was for Exit 46 to contain the opposite entrance/exit ramp arrangement.  Access to I-95 South from 114 was to have been done by using US 1 South to a planned left-lane slip exit ramp to I-95 south just south of the Lowell St. interchange.

Although such wasn't signed, I-95 southbounders seeking Peabody (especially prior to the opening of its extension to MA 128 circa 1988) simply took Exit 50 and were greeted (just after merging w/US 1 South) with a through-BGS that originally read 1 SOUTH TO 114 Peabody.

When the signs were all changed in the 1990s; in addition to most pull-through I-95 BGS' being removed and not replaced, the southbound destination combinations changed.  North of Exit 50, Peabody replaced Danvers as the immediate/more local control destiantion for the southbound signs and the old Lynn/Boston southbound pull-through at Exit 50 was replaced with the SOUTH 95 TO 128 Boston that was just recently replaced.

Interestingly, the 90s-era replacement entrance ramp BGS' for I-95 South from MA 62 (Exit 49) included Peabody along with Boston.  In this case, the use of single-destinations would've made more sense since the entrance ramp for nearby US 1 South also lists Peabody.

The I-95 southbound entrance ramp from Centre St. (Exit 48) is the most northerly-listing for Waltham (which is listed along with Boston).  I'm assuming that such is still the case.

IMHO, there should be a supplemental BGS north of Exit 50 that reads Peabody USE EXITS 50 & 45 (or even West Peabody USE EXIT 50/Downtown Peabody USE EXIT 45) and the US 1/Exit 50 BGS should list Danvers & Peabody (or even W. Peabody) en lieu of Topsfield & Danvers (one needs to keep in mind that southbounders were greeted with Topsfield for the previous 3 interchanges) and the pull-through BGS at Exit 50 should either list Waltham/Boston or even Boston/Providence, RI along with the 95 SOUTH TO 128 listing.

The entrance ramp signage from MA 62 (northbound Exit 49), Centre St. (48) and MA 114 (northbound Exits 47A-B) could listed either just Boston or Waltham/Boston or Boston/Providence, RI as destination listings.

If the practice of 2-destinations per route direction was still practiced; then the destination listings for Exit 46 could include Saugus along with Boston and the pull-through destination listings would be Waltham/Providence, RI for I-95 South.

A 2-destination listing for Exit 45 (MA 128 North) would include Peabody along with Gloucester and Salem would replace Peabody for the new supplemental BGS directing those looking for Peabody & Beverly to follow 128 North/Exit 45.

Side bar: had Exit 46 not existed; I-95 south could have been signed for Boston as far south as Exit 45 with the first listed exit for Boston being Exit 44.

[Pete from Boston]

Waltham's a fairly significant business hub (many, many office buildings clustered along 95/128 there) but also takes up nearly all the space between the Mass Pike and Route 2, both very major interchanges.  It's much more significant a locale than Weston, where the actual Mass Pike exit is, certainly the most prominent of the western arc of 128.

[SignBridge]

Interesting; I didn't realize that Waltham had become a business hub. PHLBOS, I think I've also said previously that I agree with you that 2 posted destinations might be reasonable in many cases. At that Route-1 exit that we originally were discussing, showing both Waltham and Providence together for I-95 would be fine.

There is a lot of controversy re: destinations on these boards. I too am troubled by the lack of consistency along many routes in the Northeast.

And I absolutely approve of co-signing I-95 and Ma.128. I for one also still think of it as 128, which is what it was back in the 1960's when I travelled it with my parents and apparently is still favored by the locals. Amen to that. 

[Pete from Boston]

Interesting; I didn't realize that Waltham had become a business hub. PHLBOS, I think I've also said previously that I agree with you that 2 posted destinations might be reasonable in many cases. At that Route-1 exit that we originally were discussing, showing both Waltham and Providence together for I-95 would be fine.

There is a lot of controversy re: destinations on these boards. I too am troubled by the lack of consistency along many routes in the Northeast.

And I absolutely approve of co-signing I-95 and Ma.128. I for one also still think of it as 128, which is what it was back in the 1960's when I travelled it with my parents and apparently is still favored by the locals. Amen to that.

Until I read your last paragraph, I was going to say Waltham's been a business hub since at least the 1980s!  But I see your perspective is, shall we say, broader.