Interstate 93 Signing Work

[roadman]

Probably has to do with the old sign (picture from Steve's site) being for 3 lanes as things used to be striped.  The #3 lane used to split into one more lane for Route 3; now it doesn't.  They probably changed the plans after the specs for the sign were cut and the manufacturer isn't responsible for that, nor is the state going to pony up.

Correct.  The revised lane configuration for MA 3 south at the Braintree split was recently changed (it was a District 6 project).  By that time, the new signs and support at this location had already been approved and were in fabrication.

[Alps]

What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps?  Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.

MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.

Wait, huh? Making the third lane an option lane vs. exit-only to I-93 (I'm counting 3 as the through route here) has absolutely no effect on how far people have to cut over from the HOV.

[PurdueBill]

What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps?  Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.

MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.

Wait, huh? Making the third lane an option lane vs. exit-only to I-93 (I'm counting 3 as the through route here) has absolutely no effect on how far people have to cut over from the HOV.

That was my reaction as well although having grown up around there I learned to not bother asking questions like that because no one knows the answer! 

Indeed, doesn't funneling Route 3 traffic into the #1 and #2 lanes just make for more people in those lanes that one has to merge into and cut over through than if some of them were in the #3 lane as well?  It doesn't make sense to me but I'm not an expert....

[Alps]

What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps?  Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.

MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.

Wait, huh? Making the third lane an option lane vs. exit-only to I-93 (I'm counting 3 as the through route here) has absolutely no effect on how far people have to cut over from the HOV.

That was my reaction as well although having grown up around there I learned to not bother asking questions like that because no one knows the answer! 

Indeed, doesn't funneling Route 3 traffic into the #1 and #2 lanes just make for more people in those lanes that one has to merge into and cut over through than if some of them were in the #3 lane as well?  It doesn't make sense to me but I'm not an expert....

It doesn't make sense to me either, and I am! (:

[PurdueBill]

The solution is clear. Restripe the way it used to be and put the old signs back up, at least the left-hand one. Presto!

[spooky]

What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps?  Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.

MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.

Wait, huh? Making the third lane an option lane vs. exit-only to I-93 (I'm counting 3 as the through route here) has absolutely no effect on how far people have to cut over from the HOV.

My recollection is that the third lane wasn't an option lane - the highway widened to 5 lanes before the zipper lane exit.

[Alps]

What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps?  Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.

MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.

Wait, huh? Making the third lane an option lane vs. exit-only to I-93 (I'm counting 3 as the through route here) has absolutely no effect on how far people have to cut over from the HOV.

My recollection is that the third lane wasn't an option lane - the highway widened to 5 lanes before the zipper lane exit.

Google Maps still has the old config. The third lane becomes wide, but it never separates into two lanes (with striping) before the gore. That said, the best compromise may have been to adjust the striping into more of a taper.

[mass_citizen]

My recollection is that the third lane wasn't an option lane - the highway widened to 5 lanes before the zipper lane exit.

you are correct. it was reduced to 4 lanes with no option lane. 

[southshore720]

New sign bridges are up for Exit 4 SB and for Exit 7 NB...they look good!

[bob7374]

New sign bridges are up for Exit 4 SB and for Exit 7 NB...they look good!

Here's the new overheads at the MA 24 ramps southbound:


And, the final new overheads at the MA 3 exit heading north:


Another new northbound photo can be found on the I-93 photo page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html

[bob7374]

Had a job interview in Cambridge today, and being Friday afternoon I decided to avoid the traffic and take the Red Line. The T line does parallel the SE Expressway/I-93 in places and so I took the opportunity to note anything new. No changes BGS wise such as no new poles put up on any of the existing foundations, however, there has been some action regarding ground-level signage. These include a new blue 'Attractions Next Exit' sign NB before the Columbia Rd exit (the sign is currently blank) and a new white HOV lane sign southbound beyond Columbia Rd, probably replacing the one on bolted to the Savin Hill Ave bridge. There were also two new green signs southbound, a 'Next Exit 12' prior to the Freeport St on-ramp and a 'Marina Bay Exit 12' sign 1/2 mile before that off-ramp.

If I get this job, I will be driving into Cambridge 3 days a week via I-93 between Exits 7 and 20, so I'll be able to keep up with signage changes on a more frequent basis. According to the MassDOT project listing, the contract is now 36% complete and still has a completion date of this summer.

[mass_citizen]

thanks for the update. perhaps there are no attractions at that exit hence why the sign is blank?

[roadman]

thanks for the update. perhaps there are no attractions at that exit hence why the sign is blank?

LOGO panels for the individual attractions at Columbia Road should be added to the signs sometime this week.

[southshore720]

Are they going to direct people to use Exit 15 going NB for the JFK Library/U MASS now instead of Exit 14 (Morrissey Blvd)?  I'm assuming "JFK Library" is going to be deleted from the BGS panels as it wouldn't be MUTCD compliant.

[roadman]

Are they going to direct people to use Exit 15 going NB for the JFK Library/U MASS now instead of Exit 14 (Morrissey Blvd)?  I'm assuming "JFK Library" is going to be deleted from the BGS panels as it wouldn't be MUTCD compliant.

Correct on both counts.  This decision was made during the original project design in 2007.  Apart from MUTCD legend restrictions, this is principally due to the bus and truck restriction at Exit 14 - which will be prominently displayed on a black on white banner incorporated into the new Exit 14 BGSes.

[southshore720]

^^ Very informative!  Thank you!

[Pete from Boston]

I just used the Columbia Road exit southbound, and what a mess of new signs are up.  Is it a separate contract to remove old signs from the one to put in the new ones?  It is a mess of distraction there now with old and new every few feet.

[bob7374]

I just used the Columbia Road exit southbound, and what a mess of new signs are up.  Is it a separate contract to remove old signs from the one to put in the new ones?  It is a mess of distraction there now with old and new every few feet.

The contract stipulates that no old signs can be removed until a replacement is put in place. Perhaps there's only one truck doing this and they do not want to mix up the old and new ones... Could you provide details as to what the new signs are?

[roadman]

I just used the Columbia Road exit southbound, and what a mess of new signs are up.  Is it a separate contract to remove old signs from the one to put in the new ones?  It is a mess of distraction there now with old and new every few feet.

Current MassDOT practice is that removing and discarding the old signs and supports that have been replaced is included in sign replacement contracts, and there are separate pay items for the work (as opposed to the work bring incidental to providing the new installations).  To give the contractor additional incentive to do the work in a timely manner, the old signs and supports become the Contractor's property, who then sells them for the scrap value of the materials.

Despite these provisions, however, MassDOT still occasionally has problems on such projects where old signs are not removed in a timely manner (i.e. several days or weeks) after the new ones have been installed - this is normally more of an issue with the regulatory and warning signs than it is for the overhead panels and structures.  In this case, I will get in touch with my contact on the I-93 Randolph to Boston project and inform them of the situation so they can get the superfluous signs removed in a timely manner.

Bob raises a good point as well about the Contractor's crew not wanting to inadvertently remove newly installed signs - I will inquire about how long the new signs have been in place as well.

[Pete from Boston]

I would probably not think much of it if it weren't common practice in the area to a) leave duplicate signs up, one right in front of the other, for long periods, and b) to cram so many signs into a given stretch of road -- often blocking one another -- that reading them all varies between dangerous and impossible.

[mass_citizen]

I used that exit earlier this evening and didn't notice any duplicate signs, although I did notice there is a lot of different signs leading to information overload.

[bob7374]

I used that exit earlier this evening and didn't notice any duplicate signs, although I did notice there is a lot of different signs leading to information overload.

This is one of the new signs approaching Columbia Road, though not for the Columbia Rd exit, but for I-90--


This is to be paired with a new overhead with a 1 1/2 mile Exit 20 advance sign and a Columbia Rd 1/2 mile advance sign further south. It appeared that most of the old signage had been removed prior to the exit and on the exit ramp. I did notice there are some duplicate speed limit signs, but since many of the older signs were put on the current overhead sign support posts, they should come down when the new overheads go up.  No posts up yet for any new overheads along the Expressway though.

I have a few more photos of auxiliary and entrance ramp signs installed the past week, along with a better Exit 7 SB photo, now posted on my I-93 photo page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html

[southshore720]

The new brown auxiliary sign for Adams Nat'l Park looks so much better SB than its NB counterpart.  Why did they use a weird font for the NB sign?

I also noticed that they used the same weird font for a brown auxiliary sign on I-95 SB in RI for the Downtown Pawtucket Historic district (Exit 29).  Is this a new standard for brown auxiliary signs?

[PHLBOS]

The new brown auxiliary sign for Adams Nat'l Park looks so much better SB than its NB counterpart.  Why did they use a weird font for the NB sign?

I also noticed that they used the same weird font for a brown auxiliary sign on I-95 SB in RI for the Downtown Pawtucket Historic district (Exit 29).  Is this a new standard for brown auxiliary signs?

Google Earth shows the fore-mentioned BBS along I-95 South in standard FHWA font.

Is the Adams Nat'l Park BBS containing the 'weird' font along I-93 northbound or MA 3 northbound?

Most BBS' usually feature a Roman-style font.

[southshore720]

It's on I-93 NB before Exit 6.  It may be a thinner FHWA font...but I don't understand why they didn't use the standard font that they used for the I-93 SB counterpart.  It just doesn't look visually appealing to me.