AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Massachusetts  (Read 204401 times)

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: August 02, 2019, 01:08:07 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #925 on: July 03, 2018, 04:08:25 PM »

I selfishly want them to keep the old shields. I find them nostalgia. Wish they could've kept the old BGSs too. I have a thing for rustic signage.
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6604
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: August 02, 2019, 11:27:13 AM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #926 on: July 03, 2018, 04:42:25 PM »

Wish they could've kept the old BGSs too. I have a thing for rustic signage.
:confused:  If you're referring to the ones along US 6/Mid-Cape Highway, those were from the 1990s.  Hardly considered rustic IMHO.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3831
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 10:38:25 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #927 on: July 03, 2018, 08:48:16 PM »

I don’t get why MassDOT, which has been doing the oversized reassurance shields for years now, hasn’t come up with a matching set of oversized banners. The banners on the side like that look like crap
MassDOT isn't the only agency that's placed banners to the side (rather than centered).
Here's an example along NJ 24.  Even more odd is that the route shield isn't oversized with respect to the direction cardinal banner.

It's just laziness. They probably have a pile of 12"x24" banners laying around ready to use, and because that size won't reach both posts, they just mount it to one. They probably don't want to have to fabricate any 18"x36" banners, or perhaps even larger depending on what size that shield is. (Looks 36" but it might be a custom, non-standard size yet larger, I can't tell from the picture.)
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: August 02, 2019, 01:08:07 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #928 on: July 04, 2018, 02:46:46 PM »

Wish they could've kept the old BGSs too. I have a thing for rustic signage.
:confused:  If you're referring to the ones along US 6/Mid-Cape Highway, those were from the 1990s.  Hardly considered rustic IMHO.
Honestly it was just a guess.
Logged

5foot14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 30
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middlesex County, MA, USA
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 02:44:43 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #929 on: July 06, 2018, 09:35:56 AM »

I drove down I-190 on my way to Foxwoods last weekend and I noticed there are a few sections that are rather oversized, having massive inside and outside paved medians. Looks as though it could accommodate 3-4 lanes, except at the bridges where it narrows down. What's the purpose of this?

The northern stretch, in the vicinity of route 62...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Worcester,+MA/@42.4352554,-71.7758179,235m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e406585a2a8b0d:0x9e137dd87fca4d6d!8m2!3d42.2625932!4d-71.8022934

The southern stretch, just north of exit 4...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Worcester,+MA/@42.3510972,-71.8089188,617m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e406585a2a8b0d:0x9e137dd87fca4d6d!8m2!3d42.2625932!4d-71.8022934
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6604
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: August 02, 2019, 11:27:13 AM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #930 on: July 06, 2018, 09:43:53 AM »

I drove down I-190 on my way to Foxwoods last weekend and I noticed there are a few sections that are rather oversized, having massive inside and outside paved medians. Looks as though it could accommodate 3-4 lanes, except at the bridges where it narrows down.
During that highway's earlier years, those large paved medians were originally painted green.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

5foot14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 30
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middlesex County, MA, USA
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 02:44:43 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #931 on: July 06, 2018, 10:38:18 AM »

I drove down I-190 on my way to Foxwoods last weekend and I noticed there are a few sections that are rather oversized, having massive inside and outside paved medians. Looks as though it could accommodate 3-4 lanes, except at the bridges where it narrows down.
During that highway's earlier years, those large paved medians were originally painted green.

Did the area ever serve any functional purpose though, or was it just for aesthetics? Seems odd they would pave almost twice the area they needed to just to paint it green.
Logged

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1481
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 09:34:31 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #932 on: July 06, 2018, 11:27:46 AM »

I drove down I-190 on my way to Foxwoods last weekend and I noticed there are a few sections that are rather oversized, having massive inside and outside paved medians. Looks as though it could accommodate 3-4 lanes, except at the bridges where it narrows down.
During that highway's earlier years, those large paved medians were originally painted green.

In the street view linked there, the inner shoulder is still visibly green. I don't know when the last time was they repainted it, though.
Logged
[thing you don't like] is better than [thing you like]

Beeper1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 381
  • Location: Western MA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:57 AM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #933 on: July 06, 2018, 11:40:42 AM »

Those large paved shoulders are for controlling stormwater runoff.  That section of highway passes near the Wachusett Reservoir, which is a major part of the water supply for the Boston area.  When the highway was being built in the late 70s, there was concern about salt and oil runoff from the highway causing issues with water quality in the reservoir, so those stretches had large paved shoulders to funnel all the stormwater into the proper drains to keep it off the surrounding watershed.
Logged

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4125
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 03:19:17 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #934 on: July 06, 2018, 03:15:03 PM »

Those large paved shoulders are for controlling stormwater runoff.  That section of highway passes near the Wachusett Reservoir, which is a major part of the water supply for the Boston area.  When the highway was being built in the late 70s, there was concern about salt and oil runoff from the highway causing issues with water quality in the reservoir, so those stretches had large paved shoulders to funnel all the stormwater into the proper drains to keep it off the surrounding watershed.

But was the greenness part of its functionality? I have a vague recollection that it was, somehow.
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 592
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Dona Ana NM/Tucson AZ
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 10:40:07 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #935 on: July 08, 2018, 12:25:16 PM »

Might have been an attempt to keep pull off traffic from parking on it (and potentially leaking oil).  The green appearance would subtly signal to a motorist that it is not a parking pulloff..   The Boston area is well gifted with an excellent source of clean water - from both the Quabbin and Wachusett reservoirs.   An example of excellent advance thinking in that regard.   
Logged

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4125
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 03:19:17 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #936 on: July 10, 2018, 10:59:22 PM »

In other news, I saw today that the well-known highest elevation signage on the Turnpike has been replaced, with new verbiage. Instead of the confusing "next highest elevation" wording, it now says something like "You are at 1724 feet above sea level, the highest elevation on I-90 east of South Dakota."
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4818
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 07:54:45 AM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #937 on: July 11, 2018, 12:44:27 AM »

In other news, I saw today that the well-known highest elevation signage on the Turnpike has been replaced, with new verbiage. Instead of the confusing "next highest elevation" wording, it now says something like "You are at 1724 feet above sea level, the highest elevation on I-90 east of South Dakota."
Crap.  I didn't notice the sign change last week.  I will be back through there on Thursday and will check it out.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

roadman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3700
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Boston, MA
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 03:36:54 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #938 on: July 11, 2018, 09:15:05 AM »

In other news, I saw today that the well-known highest elevation signage on the Turnpike has been replaced, with new verbiage. Instead of the confusing "next highest elevation" wording, it now says something like "You are at 1724 feet above sea level, the highest elevation on I-90 east of South Dakota."

The new sign legend reads:

You Are At 1724 Feet
Highest Elevation on I-90
East of South Dakota

The previous sign legend read:

Highest Turnpike
Elevation 1724 Feet
____________________

Last Highest Elevation
On I-90
Oacoma, South Dakota
1729 Feet

Oddly enough, both the eastbound and westbound signs read "Last", where one would think the westbound sign should have read "Next".  And while the sign legends were changed principally for brevity and simplicity, there had also been some debate about the accuracy of the "last" location and elevation that was displayed on the previous signs.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 09:29:30 AM by roadman »
Logged
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4099
  • Check out http://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 10:26:50 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #939 on: July 11, 2018, 09:33:19 AM »

For those who haven't seen it and are interested, here's one view of the old EB sign:



Taken August 30, 2007.

I have three EB pictures, but it looks like I never took a WB picture.

I always wondered about that South Dakota elevation number.  I have driven I-90 in South Dakota a few times and never noticed that 5'+ cliff that prevents any part of I-90 there from having elevations between 1724 and 1729.
Logged
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: http://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, weather, sports)

bob7374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: 55
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 04:22:02 PM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #940 on: July 11, 2018, 11:41:48 AM »

In other news, I saw today that the well-known highest elevation signage on the Turnpike has been replaced, with new verbiage. Instead of the confusing "next highest elevation" wording, it now says something like "You are at 1724 feet above sea level, the highest elevation on I-90 east of South Dakota."
The new sign legend reads:

You Are At 1724 Feet
Highest Elevation on I-90
East of South Dakota

The previous sign legend read:

Highest Turnpike
Elevation 1724 Feet
____________________

Last Highest Elevation
On I-90
Oacoma, South Dakota
1729 Feet

Oddly enough, both the eastbound and westbound signs read "Last", where one would think the westbound sign should have read "Next".  And while the sign legends were changed principally for brevity and simplicity, there had also been some debate about the accuracy of the "last" location and elevation that was displayed on the previous signs.
Here's the MassDOT sign plan with the text indicated by Roadman:

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4099
  • Check out http://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 10:26:50 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #941 on: July 11, 2018, 11:50:32 AM »

To me, it's just a little sad that Mass Pike travelers will no longer become familiar with Oacoma.  Maybe it's just me and a handful of other people who frequent this forum, but there was something exciting about seeing the actual Oacoma for the first time after knowing about it from the Mass Pike signage.
Logged
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: http://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, weather, sports)

bob7374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: 55
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 04:22:02 PM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #942 on: July 13, 2018, 11:22:55 PM »

MassDOT has announced both spans of the Whittier Bridge over the Merrimack River are open as of tonight and four lanes are open now in both directions north and south of the bridge on I-95:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/

WR of USA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 37
  • Age: 17
  • Location: Yarmouth, MA
  • Last Login: August 15, 2019, 08:01:03 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #943 on: July 14, 2018, 08:34:02 AM »

Glad the bridge has finally been widened to four lanes. Now NH needs to make their Hampton AET four lanes wide to serve the heavy tourist traffic bound for the Maine coast.
Logged
Traffic? No problem, enjoy the scenery!

Long live the lovely Sagamore and Bourne bridges and their welcoming traffic bottlenecks for the tourists!

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 592
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Dona Ana NM/Tucson AZ
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 10:40:07 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #944 on: July 14, 2018, 02:49:05 PM »

MassDOT has announced both spans of the Whittier Bridge over the Merrimack River are open as of tonight and four lanes are open now in both directions north and south of the bridge on I-95:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/

Years if not decades overdue, it is good to see that slight capacity improvements are being made to the Boston metro area's highway network.  Others being the US 3 reconstruction, the Route 128 add a lane (forty to forty five years in the making) and this Merrimack River crossing.  A Route 128 / I-93 fully directional stack sure would be nice to see, but that might be too much to hope for.   
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6604
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: August 02, 2019, 11:27:13 AM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #945 on: July 16, 2018, 08:18:57 AM »

MassDOT has announced both spans of the Whittier Bridge over the Merrimack River are open as of tonight and four lanes are open now in both directions north and south of the bridge on I-95:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/

Years if not decades overdue, it is good to see that slight capacity improvements are being made to the Boston metro area's highway network.  Others being the US 3 reconstruction, the Route 128 add a lane (forty to forty five years in the making) and this Merrimack River crossing.  A Route 128 / I-93 fully directional stack sure would be nice to see, but that might be too much to hope for.   
A northern Add-A-Lane along I-95/MA 128 would be nice as well.  Heck, from the MA 28 to the Walnut St. interchanges, most if not all of the overpasses/underpasses were originally constructed to accommodate a future 7th & 8th lane. 

Why such wasn't done when that stretch was overhauled in 1982 (128 had already received the I-95 designation at the time) boggles the mind.  Yes, the northern I-95/MA 128 interchange was still year away at the time but that widening would move the Woburn/Reading bottleneck away from MA 28 & I-93 and would have been able to handle the additional traffic spurned by development that has taken place along the corridor since then.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

5foot14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 30
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middlesex County, MA, USA
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 02:44:43 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #946 on: July 16, 2018, 02:39:13 PM »

Speaking of the I-93/I-95 interchange in Woburn, has that project been canned for the time being? It used to have its own project website, but the domain has since expired and the website is no longer available. It also was removed from the MassDOT highlighted projects page, though the project info page is still up.

SM-G900P

Logged

spooky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 696
  • Last Login: August 15, 2019, 01:18:33 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #947 on: July 16, 2018, 02:58:47 PM »

Speaking of the I-93/I-95 interchange in Woburn, has that project been canned for the time being? It used to have its own project website, but the domain has since expired and the website is no longer available. It also was removed from the MassDOT highlighted projects page, though the project info page is still up.

I believe the cost and the NIMBYism put that project on infinite hold. 
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: August 02, 2019, 01:08:07 PM
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #948 on: July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM »

Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7124
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 10:14:44 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Massachusetts
« Reply #949 on: July 18, 2018, 07:51:14 AM »

Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?

I don't see why we would have to listen to NIMBYs. The DOT is not part of the state legislature, so there's no risk of being voted out of office.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚12⒎14⒈159
NH 27,38,111A(E),128; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.