Interstate 93 Signing Work

[PHLBOS]

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.

If it's this BBS (assuming that it wasn't recently replaced since GSV - it's actually closer to Exit 5B BTW), that is indeed the Roman font I was referring to; though the Adams National Historical Park text appears to be a larger than normal size (compared to other-like BBS').  In restropect, a larger signboard or slightly smaller text should've been used.

[spooky]

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.

If it's this BBS (assuming that it wasn't recently replaced since GSV - it's actually closer to Exit 5B BTW), that is indeed the Roman font I was referring to; though the Adams National Historical Park text appears to be a larger than normal size (compared to other-like BBS').  In restropect, a larger signboard or slightly smaller text should've been used.

That sign is gone and was replaced by the weird font sign being discussed, which is closer to Exit 6.

[southshore720]

I would've been fine with the Roman font as that font is commonly used for historical sites (especially in the D.C. area).  But I just don't like the font choice for this particular sign.

[PHLBOS]

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.

Might've been a fabricator error.

[mass_citizen]

the NB sign has been up for sometime now. I never noticed that it might be an off font at 65 mph, perhaps someone who lives that way can get a photo? if not I will try to get one late next week.

[bob7374]

The contractor this past week has been putting up new route shields along both the mainline and, at least at, one interchange. Here's the first of the 3 shield stack reassurance markers to go up along the SE Expressway:

There are also new I-93/US 1 sign assemblies along the '128' portion as well. Trailblazer signage for MA 3 north has been put up on 2 of the 3 left-side support poles for the Exit 7 overheads, here's the final one:

To see other examples of new signage, check out the top of the I-93 Photo Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html

[spooky]

the NB sign has been up for sometime now. I never noticed that it might be an off font at 65 mph, perhaps someone who lives that way can get a photo? if not I will try to get one late next week.

Traffic was slow enough last night that I was able to snap a pic.

[PHLBOS]

Traffic was slow enough last night that I was able to snap a pic.

It looks like the main font is Series D rather than E or E(M).  Either somebody misjudged the signboard size or went one text height size too large.

[Zeffy]

I think the Series D looks fine in that usage. E / EM would've needed a bigger sign panel.

[Alps]

I think the Series D looks fine in that usage. E / EM would've needed a bigger sign panel.

Improper kerning, letters too close together.

[PurdueBill]

I think the Series D looks fine in that usage. E / EM would've needed a bigger sign panel.

Improper kerning, letters too close together.

Still beats "properly done" Clearview imo though!

[MassRoadFan95]

The sign looks good! There's nothing wrong with it.

I think the Series D looks fine in that usage. E / EM would've needed a bigger sign panel.

Improper kerning, letters too close together.

[mass_citizen]

The bottom letters are series C actually while I agree that the top two rows are D

[PHLBOS]

The bottom letters are series C actually while I agree that the top two rows are D

I don't believe that anybody's even commenting on the bottom letters at all (which are indeed Series C and are fine as they are). 

The key words in my original comment were main font which implies (or at least should imply) that I was only referring to the larger-sized text.

[southshore720]

Spooky, thanks for snapping that pic.  I still think it's UGLY...

In other on-topic news, I noticed on my train ride in the other morning that they finally posted the "attractions" on the Exit 15 Attractions signs.  Interesting how they used brown panels on the blue background.  Prior practice in MA was blue panels on blue background.

[mass_citizen]

The bottom letters are series C actually while I agree that the top two rows are D

I don't believe that anybody's even commenting on the bottom letters at all (which are indeed Series C and are fine as they are). 

The key words in my original comment were main font which implies (or at least should imply) that I was only referring to the larger-sized text.

I wasn't referring to yours or anyone else's previous comment for that matter. Which is why I didn't use the "quote" feature. I was just simply making my own comment intended to add content to the conversation...no need to defend your original point-I am in full agreement.

[roadman]

Spooky, thanks for snapping that pic.  I still think it's UGLY...

In other on-topic news, I noticed on my train ride in the other morning that they finally posted the "attractions" on the Exit 15 Attractions signs.  Interesting how they used brown panels on the blue background.  Prior practice in MA was blue panels on blue background.

Blue backgrounds were specified for all generic (text) LOGOs on the signs installed under MassHighway's statewide Attractions signing program completed in 2000 and 2001.  Since that time, MassHighway/MassDOT has allowed brown panels for certain Attractions, as you noted on the new signs at Columbia Road.

[bob7374]

Spooky, thanks for snapping that pic.  I still think it's UGLY...

In other on-topic news, I noticed on my train ride in the other morning that they finally posted the "attractions" on the Exit 15 Attractions signs.  Interesting how they used brown panels on the blue background.  Prior practice in MA was blue panels on blue background.

Blue backgrounds were specified for all generic (text) LOGOs on the signs installed under MassHighway's statewide Attractions signing program completed in 2000 and 2001.  Since that time, MassHighway/MassDOT has allowed brown panels for certain Attractions, as you noted on the new signs at Columbia Road.

I snapped a photo of that sign today (best I could anyway, there is a light pole practically right in front of it). I will post it, along with other sign photos I took today (and hopefully tomorrow), mostly along I-95, by Sunday. The attractions now posted are the State Archives Center, JFK Library, and the Commonwealth Museum (the Archives and the Museum are in the same building-should that make them 1 attraction?).

[roadman]

The attractions now posted are the State Archives Center, JFK Library, and the Commonwealth Museum (the Archives and the Museum are in the same building-should that make them 1 attraction?).

All that information wouldn't fit on one LOGO, hense the reason they are listed as two attractions.  BTW, I forwarded your photo to my MassDOT project contact to see if they can get that utility pole moved so it's not blocking the sign.

[bob7374]

The attractions now posted are the State Archives Center, JFK Library, and the Commonwealth Museum (the Archives and the Museum are in the same building-should that make them 1 attraction?).

All that information wouldn't fit on one LOGO, hense the reason they are listed as two attractions.  BTW, I forwarded your photo to my MassDOT project contact to see if they can get that utility pole moved so it's not blocking the sign.

Great, hopefully the pole can be moved. If you think anyone else at MassDOT would like to have any other of my road photos, feel free to forward them. They can use them as long as proper credit is given.

[PHLBOS]

The attractions now posted are the State Archives Center, JFK Library, and the Commonwealth Museum (the Archives and the Museum are in the same building-should that make them 1 attraction?).

All that information wouldn't fit on one LOGO, hense the reason they are listed as two attractions.  BTW, I forwarded your photo to my MassDOT project contact to see if they can get that utility pole moved so it's not blocking the sign.

Great, hopefully the pole can be moved. If you think anyone else at MassDOT would like to have any other of my road photos, feel free to forward them. They can use them as long as proper credit is given.

I hate to say this but; wouldn't it have made better sense to place that sign in front of that existing light pole?  Light poles are traditionally placed at assigned distance intervals to distribute the light more evenly. 

The Lesson Learned here is that when preparing a sign layout plan; check the existing site conditions (features and utilities) prior to finalizing the sign location(s).  IMHO, this oversight could've been easily avoided.

[mass_citizen]

once again nice photos Bob. I would point out that the obstruction isn't as bad as it seems. you can see the exit number and read the attraction clearly from just a bit further back (say 50 feet, my best guess at 60 mph). it only is an issue if you try to read it at the last second and are in the far right lane.

[Pete from Boston]

It was the first time I've seen the Archives and Museum referred to independently.  I was wondering about that.

Is the last spot reserved for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate?

Finally, I hope MassDOT can someday take to heart that U-Mass, U Mass, U.Mass, Umass, and UMASS are all stylistic deviations from "correct."  The University's shortened form is UMass, as seen all over the place at umass.edu, uml.edu, umb.edu, etc.  Are style guidelines of this kind promulgated agency-wide, or is it left to individual offices to use their creative interpretation?  It varies from sign to sign statewide.

[NE2]

I hope they write it UM ass to fuck with the anals.

[Pete from Boston]

Please, don't tempt them with retroactive excuses, or they'll say "olny" is a dialectical choice.