Interstate 93 Signing Work

[roadman]

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

Please, don't confuse MassDOT with DCR.

[Pete from Boston]

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

Please, don't confuse MassDOT with DCR.

Fair enough.  But it's a pretty low bar for someone with a job in public communication to be able to handle spelling, grammar, and style, and for someone in the organization to own the editing, fact-checking, and proofreading.  These are not really optional skills. 

[bob7374]

Saw today that the MassDOT listing for the I-93 signing project has the completion percentage up to 40%. Must be for actions of a few weeks ago. A trip up and back the SE Expressway this afternoon and evening revealed nothing new as far as preparation to install new overhead signs or more new shield markers along the roadway in the past couple weeks. There was, curiously, a couple new ground-mounted yellow Next Exit signs northbound after Columbia Rd. Curious to me anyway, because the one's they've installed southbound are green.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

I am just now getting around to following up with this.  Here's the off-ramp to Columbia Rd from 93 SB:



Admittedly, there's some foreshortening involved, so it's not like they're touching.  But this just seems like too much clutter for me, even if they're 20 feet apart.

This is particularly egregious to me:



(The reverse-facing sign explains that pedestrians, bicycles, and horses should not enter 93 up this off-ramp.)

[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.

I am just now getting around to following up with this.  Here's the off-ramp to Columbia Rd from 93 SB:



Admittedly, there's some foreshortening involved, so it's not like they're touching.  But this just seems like too much clutter for me, even if they're 20 feet apart.

This is particularly egregious to me:



(The reverse-facing sign explains that pedestrians, bicycles, and horses should not enter 93 up this off-ramp.)

I am going to be driving into Boston at least 3 times a week using I-93/SE Expressway for the foreseeable future. I can check the Columbia Rd SB off-ramp to see if the clutter still exists. Hopefully, there will be progress to report on new signage at Exit 15 and southward from my trips, nothing much has happened in the past month with the exception of a new I-93 shield replacing the badly faded one on the existing BGS on MA 203 East heading into Neponset Circle. Of course, this BGS is due to be replaced under the current signing project, so hopefully the new replacement shield can be reused elsewhere.

[mass_citizen]

fortunately the stop light at the end of this ramp allows time to read everything 

[bob7374]

The only progress to report new signage wise on the SE Expressway portion of I-93 the past couple weeks has been the addition of two yellow 'No Exit 17' signs northbound between Columbia Rd and Mass Ave. Here's one of them:

This is the second after the Exit 16 on-ramp. I've posted a photo of the first one and one of an earlier installed green 'Next Exit' sign on my I-93 Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html

A question that comes up is why there being no Exit 17 is important enough to mandate 2 signs and in a yellow background? Plus, if the exit numbers are to change to mile-based numbers in a few years, this is one part of I-93 that there will be several consecutive numbers under the new system where there currently are many skipped numbers. Why put up these (and the 'Next Exit' signs) when they will soon be outdated?

[PurdueBill]

I have always found it amazing and cool how long some of the old lighting has remained around there.  The light poles visible in the background there are really, really old and even have their original light fixtures.  Similar lighting on the old Central Artery bit the dust way before the road itself did; the total redo of the Southeast Expressway did away with most such light poles in the early-to-mid 80s.  Somehow those in the background escaped and have survived.  Long may they live....

It is strange how NO EXIT 17 requires yellow.  It looks like a Louisiana LEFT EXIT tab all in yellow or something.  Try again! 

[Alps]

I have always found it amazing and cool how long some of the old lighting has remained around there.  The light poles visible in the background there are really, really old and even have their original light fixtures.  Similar lighting on the old Central Artery bit the dust way before the road itself did; the total redo of the Southeast Expressway did away with most such light poles in the early-to-mid 80s.  Somehow those in the background escaped and have survived.  Long may they live....

It is strange how NO EXIT 17 requires yellow.  It looks like a Louisiana LEFT EXIT tab all in yellow or something.  Try again! 

Hm... it's informational... so it probably should be green like the old signs were.

[mass_citizen]

to play devils advocate, I would differentiate between a "NO Exit XX" sign and a "NEXT Exit  XX". You could say that the former is more of a warning while the latter is more informational.

[Zeffy]

Hm... it's informational... so it probably should be green like the old signs were.

But at the same time, it's almost like a warning telling you "hey, there's no Exit 17 you know."

[mass_citizen]

Since in a sequential based exit system the driver expects the next exit to be 17, this sign could fall under the MUTCD definition of warning sign: giving notice of a situation that might not be readily apparent.

[Alps]

Hm... it's informational... so it probably should be green like the old signs were.

But at the same time, it's almost like a warning telling you "hey, there's no Exit 17 you know."

It's not a warning. Warnings inform you of roadway conditions. This isn't a roadway condition, it's just a fact related to guidance. Guidance = green. We have NCUTCD members on the forum who can weigh in.

[Zeffy]

It's not a warning. Warnings inform you of roadway conditions. This isn't a roadway condition, it's just a fact related to guidance. Guidance = green. We have NCUTCD members on the forum who can weigh in.

True, since there being no Exit XX isn't related to anything on the road itself, then, yes, it should be white on green. I tend to forget that warnings imply the entire roadway - whether it be the right lane ending or the risk of cows falling on your car. Wait. Was that last one real?

[mass_citizen]

Hm... it's informational... so it probably should be green like the old signs were.

But at the same time, it's almost like a warning telling you "hey, there's no Exit 17 you know."

It's not a warning. Warnings inform you of roadway conditions. This isn't a roadway condition, it's just a fact related to guidance. Guidance = green. We have NCUTCD members on the forum who can weigh in.

While you make a good point I would not confine warning signs only to physical roadway conditions. What about Runaway Truck Ramp 1 Mile (W7-4) which also has a yellow background? Or A W16-8AP (intersection plaque)? These also provide some kind of guidance information. "Last Exit Before Toll" is also a fact related to guidance yet it is yellow.

MUTCD states the function of warning signs is: "Warning signs call attention to unexpected conditions on or adjacent to a highway, street, or private roads open to public travel and to situations that might not be readily apparent to road users. Warning signs alert road users to conditions that might call for a reduction of speed or an action in the interest of safety and efficient traffic operations." 

The definition includes not only road conditions but also "situations" not readily apparent to drivers. I think the point I made earlier regarding driver expectations with sequential numbering systems stands. If a driver passes exit 16 and his desired exit is 18, he may not be inclined to slow down or change lanes if he is assuming the next exit is 17. This same analogy applies to yellow "Left" exit plaques. Since drivers have an expectation of right exits, a left exit is a "situation" (not necessarily a physical road condition) that merits warning.

Now my point here is not to say that one is right and one is wrong, but just to say that MassDOT is not totally out of line in using a yellow background. I think either choice would suffice here.

[bob7374]

Hm... it's informational... so it probably should be green like the old signs were.

But at the same time, it's almost like a warning telling you "hey, there's no Exit 17 you know."

It's not a warning. Warnings inform you of roadway conditions. This isn't a roadway condition, it's just a fact related to guidance. Guidance = green. We have NCUTCD members on the forum who can weigh in.

While you make a good point I would not confine warning signs only to physical roadway conditions. What about Runaway Truck Ramp 1 Mile (W7-4) which also has a yellow background? Or A W16-8AP (intersection plaque)? These also provide some kind of guidance information. "Last Exit Before Toll" is also a fact related to guidance yet it is yellow.

MUTCD states the function of warning signs is: "Warning signs call attention to unexpected conditions on or adjacent to a highway, street, or private roads open to public travel and to situations that might not be readily apparent to road users. Warning signs alert road users to conditions that might call for a reduction of speed or an action in the interest of safety and efficient traffic operations." 

The definition includes not only road conditions but also "situations" not readily apparent to drivers. I think the point I made earlier regarding driver expectations with sequential numbering systems stands. If a driver passes exit 16 and his desired exit is 18, he may not be inclined to slow down or change lanes if he is assuming the next exit is 17. This same analogy applies to yellow "Left" exit plaques. Since drivers have an expectation of right exits, a left exit is a "situation" (not necessarily a physical road condition) that merits warning.

Now my point here is not to say that one is right and one is wrong, but just to say that MassDOT is not totally out of line in using a yellow background. I think either choice would suffice here.

Agreed, but this 'situation' is readily mitigated by the overhead sign, not shown in the photo, for Exit 18 Mass Ave just a few feet past the No Exit sign which the driver should see at the same time, which is preceded by another Exit 18 sign 1/2 mile earlier. Unless someone is specifically looking for an 'Exit 17' that doesn't exist, I don't see the necessity of having one No Exit warning sign, let alone 2.

[PHLBOS]

A question that comes up is why there being no Exit 17 is important enough to mandate 2 signs and in a yellow background? Plus, if the exit numbers are to change to mile-based numbers in a few years, this is one part of I-93 that there will be several consecutive numbers under the new system where there currently are many skipped numbers. Why put up these (and the 'Next Exit' signs) when they will soon be outdated?

If memory serves, Exit 17 used to exist as a right-hand exit to the northbound frontage road when the old Mass Ave. (Exit 18) exit ramp was a left-lane exit (the original Mass Ave. interchange was designed as the I-95/Southwest Expressway branch-off).

It's worth noting that prior to the last I-93 exit number changes that took place during the mid-80s; the ramp to the frontage road had no exit number; Mass Ave. was originally Exit 15 and the exit for Southhampton St. was & still is Exit 16.  The DPW decided to assign that northbound ramp a number back then.

When the Mass Ave. interchange was redesigned to its current layout; it was consolidated into one exit (& number) with the frontage road exit ramp.

FWIW, here's how the area looked circa 1978.

While one could argue the necessity of those NO EXIT 17 BYS' for the current sequential exit numbering; once I-93 converts to mile-marker-based exit numbering, such signs would no longer be needed.

IMHO, I-93 should've switched over to mile-marker-based exit numbering right after the Big Dig was completed due to the current gaps of exit numbering along the new O'Neill Tunnel vs. the old Central Artery.  It would've served as a test-case for such in MA.

[Alps]

IMHO, I-93 should've switched over to mile-marker-based exit numbering right after the Big Dig was completed due to the current gaps of exit numbering along the new O'Neill Tunnel vs. the old Central Artery.  It would've served as a test-case for such in MA.

I like your thinking. Isn't the Masspike going to be the first to convert, now?

[PHLBOS]

IMHO, I-93 should've switched over to mile-marker-based exit numbering right after the Big Dig was completed due to the current gaps of exit numbering along the new O'Neill Tunnel vs. the old Central Artery.  It would've served as a test-case for such in MA.

I like your thinking. Isn't the Masspike going to be the first to convert, now?

According to Roadman, shorter-distance highways (Interstate & non-Interstate) w/exit numbers will change over first.

[hotdogPi]

IMHO, I-93 should've switched over to mile-marker-based exit numbering right after the Big Dig was completed due to the current gaps of exit numbering along the new O'Neill Tunnel vs. the old Central Artery.  It would've served as a test-case for such in MA.

I like your thinking. Isn't the Masspike going to be the first to convert, now?

According to Roadman, shorter-distance highways (Interstate & non-Interstate) w/exit numbers will change over first.

I-290 would be interesting. Many exits in the first few miles, then very spaced out for the rest of it. And it currently doesn't begin at 0 or 1.

[PHLBOS]

I-290 would be interesting. Many exits in the first few miles, then very spaced out for the rest of it. And it currently doesn't begin at 0 or 1.

I-290's current exit numbers are basically a continuation of the I-395 exit numbers.  The irony here is that the I-290 segment was built years if not decades before the I-395 (originally MA 52) segment.

Nonetheless, the mile markers do indeed reset to 0 near/at the I-90/Mass Pike interchange.

[Pete from Boston]

Has the Commonwealth given any consideration to a single 395 number for 290/395, or will this mislead the few people who would expect a long 395 to connect to 95 somewhere other than at Long Island Sound?

[PHLBOS]

Has the Commonwealth given any consideration to a single 395 number for 290/395, or will this mislead the few people who would expect a long 395 to connect to 95 somewhere other than at Long Island Sound?

Personally, I'm not aware of such; Roadman would likely have a more definitive answer regarding such.  I remember one 80s-vintage Arrow map that showed I-395 listed as I-190.

[roadman]

Has the Commonwealth given any consideration to a single 395 number for 290/395, or will this mislead the few people who would expect a long 395 to connect to 95 somewhere other than at Long Island Sound?

I can say with 99.9999999 percent certainty that this suggestion has never come up among MassDPW, MassHighway, or MassDOT folks.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

I am just now getting around to following up with this.  Here's the off-ramp to Columbia Rd from 93 SB:



Admittedly, there's some foreshortening involved, so it's not like they're touching.  But this just seems like too much clutter for me, even if they're 20 feet apart.

This is particularly egregious to me:



(The reverse-facing sign explains that pedestrians, bicycles, and horses should not enter 93 up this off-ramp.)

I am going to be driving into Boston at least 3 times a week using I-93/SE Expressway for the foreseeable future. I can check the Columbia Rd SB off-ramp to see if the clutter still exists./quote]

I didn't get a photo today, but the reverse-facing horse/bike/ped sign has been moved to the reverse of the furthest sign in the background, and I believe the JFK Library/Expo Center sign has been removed. 

It's a better situation, but it just occurred to me – hasn't the expo center been closed for years?  I recall it shutting down several years ago (all the shows go to the three other big exhibit halls in town) and the parking lot has been empty every time I've been by for a long time.  Its website has been dead since 2010 or 11.  Another case of contractors just replacing what's there?