Massachusetts Paddle Signs: Logic?

[southshore720]

Is there any logic or specified standard for how the MA paddle signs are designed?  I know the larger paddle usually favors situations where there are more than two route shields (either concurrent routes or "Rte xxx to Rte xxx" situations), but I haven't found much consistency.  How do they decide what goes on the large paddle and what goes on the pole-mounted sign?

[roadman]

The official standard for these directional signs from the MassDPW days is that the D6 (top-mounted or 'paddle') sign is for the right turn at the intersection, and that the D8 (pole-mounted) sign is for the left turn at the intersection.

However, since 1995, when MassHighway's secondary guide signs were modified to require the use of route shields in all but limited cases (this was at the urging of FHWA), this standard has often been breached to insure proper sign legibility.  For example, if a left turn involves trailblazing to an interstate route, that information will be placed on the top sign to insure sufficient space for the sign legend.

Remember that MassDOT's secondary guide signs are fabricated from sheet aluminum, not extruded panels.  As such, the basic premise in preparing D6/D8 sign layouts is to enable these signs to be fit on one of a number of standard sized blanks.  This is the principal reason you see sign placement that doesn't necessarily conform to the preferred placement requirements.

The current MassDOT Guide Sign Policy for Secondary State Highways, which covers D6 and D8 guide signs, can be found at http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/traffic/guide_signs&sid=about  It is expected to be superceded sometime in 2015 with a more comprehensive document covering all MassDOT guide sign policies and practices, including those for Interstate and freeway BGSes.

[PHLBOS]

Roadman, Your eyes are going to roll on this one.

I just noticed on the D8 cut-sheet that the bottom detail for the TO 213 LGS w/the right-arrow lists the shield font as Series D (9D call-out) but the numerals in the shield detail itself are actually Series C.

D8 Typical Layout Sheet E

Similar inconsistency also appears on the D6 cut-sheet for the EAST 286 BEACHES SALISBURY sign detail and the 129 WEST TO 95 1 LYNNFIELD NEXT LEFT sign detail for state route shields.  Add-on edit.

D6 Typical Layout Sheet E

I've encountered many RFIs over the years where contractors remark of a detail showing one thing but the specs/call-outs state another.  Though the specs. govern in these situations; it's a scenario all engineers should avoid as much as possible. 

IMHO, any 3-digit route not containing a 1 should be in Series C and ones containing such should be Series D.  Most of the 3d I shields I've seen in the Bay State are in Series C (though there are some are in Series B, way too narrow IMHO).  Most of the 3d US and SR shields not containing a 1 in them, I've seen are in both Series C or D; the newer ones are in D.

[roadman]

Good catch PHLBOS - I'll keep an eye out for that when the updated drawings for the new Policy are prepared.  And your observations regarding proper shield number fonts are noted and appreciated.

And yes, over the years I too have had to deal with numerous contractor RFIs dealing with inconsistencies between the contract documents and established specifications, so I apprecate where you're coming from.

[southshore720]

Thank you for the clarification! 

I notice that the paddles that pre-dated the recent standard seem to be "contractor's choice."  There are a few good examples along Route 18 in Abington MA of some ugly paddles with BAD font choices.  There are even a few paddles that have a thick white-border outline.

[PHLBOS]

Driving through central and even parts of western Massachusetts recently, I've seen some paddle LGS' that completely bastardize the standard and look absolutely hideous.  The ones with thick white borders (as you mentioned) and/or ones with distorted shields/numerals top my list for the worst interpretations of MassHighway/DOT sign standards.

[roadman]

Thank you for the clarification! 

I notice that the paddles that pre-dated the recent standard seem to be "contractor's choice."  There are a few good examples along Route 18 in Abington MA of some ugly paddles with BAD font choices.  There are even a few paddles that have a thick white-border outline.

Borders on D6/D8 signs are supposed to be 3/4 inches thick, with a 3 inch radius and no inset - this is a standard that has existed since the days of the MassDPW black on white "cut corner" sign panels.  But you're absolutely correct about some older signs being "contractor's choice" - especially when the signs were installed as part of private developer work.

[SectorZ]

Is it also contractor's choice to confuse US and MA routes? They did a bang up job with US 202 in Templeton and the redesigned intersection with MA 2A from a few years back, as in all of the signs refer to 202 as a state route.

[PHLBOS]

Here's one paddle LGS that's definitely a private installation in Dedham.  It might've been done by the same contractor that installed the ones in Wakefield.

Not only is there a MA 128 shield on the panel (a no-no in current MassDOT specs) but there's no US 1 shield on it (the Boston-Providence Turnpike at this location hasn't been US 1 in about 25 years).

Nonetheless, the signage in this area (*excluding most of the I-95/US 1/MA 128 interchange BGS') needs some work.  It's extremely disjointed.

*I would've used Boston rather than Canton for the SOUTH 95 NORTH 1 signage and used Waltham instead of Peabody for the 95 NORTH signage.

[DrSmith]

Is there any specification for the use of outlines around the shields in the paddle signs?  These have been appearing in Western Mass at least in the past year.  It occurs for both state and US shields on the signs

[southshore720]

Here's one example of a horrible font choice:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.129022,-70.950013,3a,75y,356.76h,86.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sTSC4pkIlKMfQB8h3g1eubg!2e0

Here's a white-border paddle with non-standard font:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.10626,-70.948752,3a,75y,180h,69.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sASwcxXdWsQIcbzsFZX0pzQ!2e0

[PHLBOS]

Here's one example of a horrible font choice:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.129022,-70.950013,3a,75y,356.76h,86.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sTSC4pkIlKMfQB8h3g1eubg!2e0

IMHO, while the MA 139 numerals should be Series D rather than C; the only other issue with that assembly is the letter spacing for the cardinals & destinations and not necessarily the font itself.

Here's a white-border paddle with non-standard font:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.10626,-70.948752,3a,75y,180h,69.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sASwcxXdWsQIcbzsFZX0pzQ!2e0

Actually, the fonts on that sign are fine; it's the application of the white border and odd-looking arrow that make it look awful.

[roadman]

Is there any specification for the use of outlines around the shields in the paddle signs?  These have been appearing in Western Mass at least in the past year.  It occurs for both state and US shields on the signs

State shields on D6/D8 signs are supposed to have inset borders, US shields are not.  Yes, MassDOT is aware of the recent increase in the use of inset borders on US shields on these signs.  Most of these signs have apparently been installed either as part of private development projects (i.e. new signal for a Wal-Mart. etc. on state highway) or as part of the District-wide sign maintenance contracts.  In theory, all projects involving guide signing on Massachusetts state highway are supposed to adhere to the same quality control procedures - see  http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/engineeringDirectives/2008/e-08-002.pdf

Unfortunately, that is often not the case for signs installed under private development projects, which are not supervised by a MassDOT resident engineer.

[roadman]

Is it also contractor's choice to confuse US and MA routes? They did a bang up job with US 202 in Templeton and the redesigned intersection with MA 2A from a few years back, as in all of the signs refer to 202 as a state route.

That type of error falls on the sign designer, and I've seen such errors in more than one place.  I'll shoot a quick e-mail to my contacts in District 2 to have it corrected (it it hasn't already been).

[doogie1303]

Does anyone know if any wooden D6/D8 paddle signs still exist, or have they all been replaced?

[Pete from Boston]

Is it also contractor's choice to confuse US and MA routes? They did a bang up job with US 202 in Templeton and the redesigned intersection with MA 2A from a few years back, as in all of the signs refer to 202 as a state route.

That type of error falls on the sign designer, and I've seen such errors in more than one place.  I'll shoot a quick e-mail to my contacts in District 2 to have it corrected (it it hasn't already been).

Mass. 20 and NJ 2 are among the popular instances of this (though I suspect the Crosby's Corner construction has ended NJ's brief domain over this stretch).

[southshore720]

Does anyone know if any wooden D6/D8 paddle signs still exist, or have they all been replaced?

I'm sure there are MANY still out there...paddle signs usually aren't replaced unless an intersection receives a revamp (added lane, new traffic signal, etc) or unless they are near a highway and the highway is undergoing a sign replacement project. 

I hate the old paddle signs that don't have the MA shield on them!