Interstate 95 signing work

[NE2]

why apply the EASTs only on one sign for the unnumbered roads and not at the applicable exits & ramps?

Probably anality over the fact that you're in Waltham, so there shouldn't be a sign pointing to Waltham.

[roadman]

It appears that the E-s for all the EAST listings are the same height as the other texts and it's the AST-s that are smaller in height.

I guess that's one way of doing the taller 1st-letter direction cardinal per MUTCD.

With the above in mind, since Trapelo & Totten Pond Road listings feature EAST listings for the Waltham mileage BGS'; are any of the new exit or ramp BGS' or LGS' that will feature similar?  Traditional MassDPW/Highway/DOT practice has usually been not to do so for unnumbered streets.

Traditional MUTCD practice mandates that the first letter be 15" Series E while the rest is 12" Series E. This looks more like 16" first letter and 12" rest of the word. I think it would be easier for the Trapelo Rd / Totten Pond Rd legends to just stick an 'E' after the 'Rd' in the same Series EM font used for the legend itself. The US 20 could stay like that, I guess. But I'm unfamiliar with MassDOT signing practices.

I'll have to check my copy of the approved sign face drawing for this panel to verify, but IIRC, the legends on the signs are 13.33 inch/10 inch mixed case, and the US 20 shield is 24 inches by 24 inches.  As such, per the MUTCD the cardinal direction legends would be 8 inch high with a 12 inch high initial letter.

As regards PHLBOS's query about why the cardinal directions are included with the Totten Pond Road and Trapelo Road legends in the first place, my recollection is that this was requested by staff at the MassHighway/MassDOT District 4 office in Arlington during their preliminary review of the project design in 2008.  Personally, I felt the legends on the older sign (without the cardinal directions) were perfectly fine.  However, as they are technically not an MUTCD violation and do no harm, apparently the District was allowed to prevail in this case.  And of course, they are still better than the sign put up in the 1970s with the banner that read "Waltham Interchanges".  Perhaps the designer of that project had seen "Yogi's Ark Lark" (thinking of the "Take the Pismo Beach Interchange" line relayed through the ship) before laying out the panel.

[Zeffy]

It appears that the E-s for all the EAST listings are the same height as the other texts and it's the AST-s that are smaller in height.

I guess that's one way of doing the taller 1st-letter direction cardinal per MUTCD.

With the above in mind, since Trapelo & Totten Pond Road listings feature EAST listings for the Waltham mileage BGS'; are any of the new exit or ramp BGS' or LGS' that will feature similar?  Traditional MassDPW/Highway/DOT practice has usually been not to do so for unnumbered streets.

Traditional MUTCD practice mandates that the first letter be 15" Series E while the rest is 12" Series E. This looks more like 16" first letter and 12" rest of the word. I think it would be easier for the Trapelo Rd / Totten Pond Rd legends to just stick an 'E' after the 'Rd' in the same Series EM font used for the legend itself. The US 20 could stay like that, I guess. But I'm unfamiliar with MassDOT signing practices.

I'll have to check my copy of the approved sign face drawing for this panel to verify, but IIRC, the legends on the signs are 13.33 inch/10 inch mixed case, and the US 20 shield is 24 inches by 24 inches.  As such, per the MUTCD the cardinal direction legends would be 8 inch high with a 12 inch high initial letter.

You're right - I'm used to Overhead specs which vary slightly from ground-mounted signs. 

[roadman]

You're right - I'm used to Overhead specs which vary slightly from ground-mounted signs. 

Not a problem at all.  Happens to the best of us.

[PHLBOS]

As regards PHLBOS's query about why the cardinal directions are included with the Totten Pond Road and Trapelo Road legends in the first place, my recollection is that this was requested by staff at the MassHighway/MassDOT District 4 office in Arlington during their preliminary review of the project design in 2008.  Personally, I felt the legends on the older sign (without the cardinal directions) were perfectly fine.  However, as they are technically not an MUTCD violation and do no harm, apparently the District was allowed to prevail in this case.

Well that certainly explains it; but it's a bit overkill for this particular case IMHO. 

And of course, they are still better than the sign put up in the 1970s with the banner that read "Waltham Interchanges".  Perhaps the designer of that project had seen "Yogi's Ark Lark" (thinking of the "Take the Pismo Beach Interchange" line relayed through the ship) before laying out the panel.

Do you have pic of that sign?  That's one sign I don't not recall seeing back then; mainly because I didn't venture that far south on 128 back then (while riding w/my father).

[PurdueBill]

I loved the old signs that said "Interchanges"--there were a couple each direction and used that wording because of A-B (or previously E-W) interchanges that they didn't include cardinal directions in the exit list.  Mass DPW was not alone in specifying that wording; there are still specimens in Indiana of the same thing (Next X interchanges) where an A-B would throw off the literal count of exits.

It does seem like overkill on the new sign.  Even US 20 is a single exit, right?  Can't control cities on signage at the exit take care of specifying EAST?

[PHLBOS]

It does seem like overkill on the new sign.  Even US 20 is a single exit, right?  Can't control cities on signage at the exit take care of specifying EAST?

Yes, US 20 is a single exit but it later branches off into East & West directions and are marked as such on the BGS' at the split-ramps; that's the primary difference between that road and Trapelo & Totten Pond Rds. in terms of overall signage.

Again, per Roadman's comment, the extra EASTs on that southbound interchange mileage BGS were a District 4 add-on.  I could see maybe adding such for Trapelo Road (and signing the ramp split as such) but not for Totten Pond Road due to that road, west of the interchange continues under a different name... Winter St.

[Zeffy]

Yes, US 20 is a single exit but it later branches off into East & West directions and are marked as such on the BGS' at the split-ramps; that's the primary difference between that road and Trapelo & Totten Pond Rds. in terms of overall signage.

Is something terribly off with that MA 117 shield or is it just me?

[PHLBOS]

Is something terribly off with that MA 117 shield or is it just me?

Other than it being oversized with respect to the TO and the arrow signs (the latter 2 signs should be bigger to better match the shield); there's nothing wrong w/that MA 117 shield.

[MassRoadFan95]

Saw 2 new overhead structures on I-95 by the MA-2A interchange in Lexington. They were pretty nice. I'll see if I can get some pictures of them

[PHLBOS]

Saw 2 new overhead structures on I-95 by the MA-2A interchange in Lexington. They were pretty nice. I'll see if I can get some pictures of them

I drove out there this past weekend to visit family for Easter and noticed the following (no photos yet posted of such):

1.  The 1-mile approach BGS for MA 2 (Exits 29B-A) along I-95 Southbound now lists Boston for the MA 2 eastbound control city. 

While technically correct, given the fact that MA 2 between Arlington/Cambridge & Boston is not a major highway; I would've used Arlington instead (Cambridge is listed on a newly-erected supplemental ground-mounted BGS).  IMHO listing Boston on the primary exit signs for MA 2 East might cause more motorists unfamiliar with the area to clog the Alewife area; especially given the relative close proximity of this interchange to where the expressway ends (approx. 5 to 6 miles); and no, not all of them are going to jump on the Red Line to head into the city. 

The current BGS' for MA 2 East (Exit 29A) list both Arlington & Cambridge on the same panel.

2.  The newly-erected overhead BGS' along the northbound collector-distributor road along I-95 Northbound at the MA 30 exit (Exit 24); particularly the pull-through BGS for I-95 North.  The previous overhead BGS' for reference.  In addition to only listing one destination (Portsmouth, NH); it sports a longish (similar to an APL BGS') upward arrow located towards the upper-left corner of the panel and above the destination.  While looking somewhat unique; such an application IMHO would be better suited for a ground-mounted BGS vs. an overhead.  The more traditional downward-arrow at the lower-center of the panel would've sufficed. 

Heck, the old Waltham-Portmouth, NH listings should've been kept as well IMHO; especially given the densly-populated area and the fact that the new I-95 exit-BGS off I-90 (westbound for Exit 15) still lists Waltham for the I-95 North destination.  Apparently, the contractor that erected the new exit BGS for I-95 (Exit 15) off I-90 West didn't get the memo that all the other ramp BGS' for I-95 North in this area list Portsmouth, NH rather than Waltham.

[bob7374]

I drove out there this past weekend to visit family for Easter and noticed the following (no photos yet posted of such):

1.  The 1-mile approach BGS for MA 2 (Exits 29B-A) along I-95 Southbound now lists Boston for the MA 2 eastbound control city. 

While technically correct, given the fact that MA 2 between Arlington/Cambridge & Boston is not a major highway; I would've used Arlington instead (Cambridge is listed on a newly-erected supplemental ground-mounted BGS).  IMHO listing Boston on the primary exit signs for MA 2 East might cause more motorists unfamiliar with the area to clog the Alewife area; especially given the relative close proximity of this interchange to where the expressway ends (approx. 5 to 6 miles); and no, not all of them are going to jump on the Red Line to head into the city. 

The current BGS' for MA 2 East (Exit 29A) list both Arlington & Cambridge on the same panel.

2.  The newly-erected overhead BGS' along the northbound collector-distributor road along I-95 Northbound at the MA 30 exit (Exit 24); particularly the pull-through BGS for I-95 North.  The previous overhead BGS' for reference.  In addition to only listing one destination (Portsmouth, NH); it sports a longish (similar to an APL BGS') upward arrow located towards the upper-left corner of the panel and above the destination.  While looking somewhat unique; such an application IMHO would be better suited for a ground-mounted BGS vs. an overhead.  The more traditional downward-arrow at the lower-center of the panel would've sufficed. 

Heck, the old Waltham-Portmouth, NH listings should've been kept as well IMHO; especially given the densly-populated area and the fact that the new I-95 exit-BGS off I-90 (westbound for Exit 15) still lists Waltham for the I-95 North destination.  Apparently, the contractor that erected the new exit BGS for I-95 (Exit 15) off I-90 West didn't get the memo that all the other ramp BGS' for I-95 North in this area list Portsmouth, NH rather than Waltham.

From coverage of the Boston Marathon I noticed they had installed a new I-95 South Providence, RI (only) BGS along MA 30 West at the on-ramp, and I assume at the other eastbound ramps as well. I agree that they should have stuck with the 2 destinations. The route may be an interstate, but there's a lot of local traffic as well, and not everyone using those ramps may be familiar with the area. Besides, being from Mass., are out-of state destination that important?

[PHLBOS]

From coverage of the Boston Marathon I noticed they had installed a new I-95 South Providence, RI (only) BGS along MA 30 West at the on-ramp, and I assume at the other eastbound ramps as well. I agree that they should have stuck with the 2 destinations.

If you're referring to the coverage along the Marathon route itself; the route's along MA 16 in that vicinity.  The route doesn't go onto MA 30 until Auburndale, east of I-95 but below the Pike (I-90).

The route may be an interstate, but there's a lot of local traffic as well, and not everyone using those ramps may be familiar with the area. Besides, being from Mass., are out-of state destination that important?

While my 77-year old mother has gotten used to I-95 and MA 128 being the same road for a considerable distance; she still freaks out when seeing only those out-of-state destinations listed on signs in the Waltham/Weston area and had missed the exit (for I-95 North) at least twice because of such.

[southshore720]

I have no problem with the Portsmouth NH / Providence RI control cities.  I do question why "Attleboro" is a control city for I-95 S on Route 2 and why "Waltham / Peabody" was retained for the 93/95 cloverleaf in Woburn.  A little consistency would have been nice... 

[PHLBOS]

I have no problem with the Portsmouth NH / Providence RI control cities.  I do question why "Attleboro" is a control city for I-95 S on Route 2 and why "Waltham / Peabody" was retained for the 93/95 cloverleaf in Woburn.  A little consistency would have been nice... 

I may have mentioned this before a few pages back but here's how I would handle the I-95 exit signs at the following highway interchanges:

I-93 Woburn: List Portsmouth, NH & Waltham for the primary BGS off I-93 North (Peabody & Providence, RI would be on supplemental BGS') and vice-versa for the exits along I-93 South.

US 3 North: leave Peabody for I-95 North & use Waltham for I-95 South w/an optional supplemental BGS for Providence, RI.

MA 2: leave Peabody for I-95 North (w/an optional supplemental BGS for Portsmouth, NH) and use either Waltham or Providence, RI for I-95 South w/an optional supplemental BGS for the other destinations.  Recommend using Providence, RI as the primary I-95 South destination off MA 2 West & Waltham for the primary I-95 South destination off MA 2 East since there's already an exit (Waltham St. - Exit 54A) for Waltham off MA 2 West prior to the I-95 interchange.

I-90/Mass Pike: Portsmouth, NH & Providence RI for eastbound exit signage, Waltham & Dedham for westbound exit signage w/supplemental BGS carrying the unused destinations.  The ramp splits beyond the toll booths would contain both local & distant destinations per sign.

I-93 Canton: leave as is but maybe add supplemental BGS for Braintree (for the I-93 North exit) and a mileage BGS that includes Dedham along I-95 North prior to the I-93 exit. 

Note: Do not add US 1 shields to the northbound I-95 BGS' when the current ones w/the button-copy shields are replaced (the ones along I-95 North at the interchange weren't replaced as of yet IIRC); only use US 1 trailblazer signs for supplements (per present signage).  The reason: since US 1 through-traffic runs along I-95 South/I-93 North (aka 128) at this interchange; there's no need to place US 1 shields IMHO on the major BGS' along I-95 North.

[PHLBOS]

No photos but an update regarding news BGS' along I-95 between Lexington & Weston as of this past Memorial Day weekend.

Along I-95 (MA 128) Southbound, most if not all of the new BGS' have been erected for the MA 4/225 & 2A interchanges (Exits 30A-B & 31A-B) but the older BGS' have not yet been taken down.

There are now new BGS' for the I-90/Mass Pike and MA 30 interchanges (Exits 25 & 24) along southbound I-95 as well.  Note: the new BGS for I-90 now sports a Mass Pike shield as well as Boston & Albany, NY for listed destinations not unlike the earlier-erected northbound signage.

Along northbound I-95, most of the US 20 (Exit 26) BGS' have since been replaced (one older BGS still remains).  And most of the new MA 2A signage is erected but the old, delapitatated I-95 North pull-through BGS still has not yet been put out of its misery.

Further up I-95 into Seabrook, NH; I noticed some relatively new overhead BGS' (for MA 286/Exit 60 & I-495/Exit 59) along I-95 South that look like they're MassDOT spec'd but are located about 1/2 mile inside NH.  Those might've been there a year ago when I last used that stretch (returning from last year's Portsmouth meet).  Just before the southbound exit ramp for NH 107 (Exit 1), there is a NHDOT spec'd BGS for MA 286 that includes an EAST cardinal as well.

All of the remaining 90s-era button copy (I-shields only) BGS' for the I-95/495 South split (Exit 59) that were present a year ago have since been replaced.

[roadman]

Further up I-95 into Seabrook, NH; I noticed some relatively new overhead BGS' (for MA 286/Exit 60 & I-495/Exit 59) along I-95 South that look like they're MassDOT spec'd but are located about 1/2 mile inside NH.  Those might've been there a year ago when I last used that stretch (returning from last year's Portsmouth meet).

Those signs are MassDOT spec for a good reason - they were installed by MassDOT's contractor as part of the I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury sign replacement project.  The panels and structure were installed prior to last year's Portsmouth meet, but just barely.

Just before the southbound exit ramp for NH 107 (Exit 1), there is a NHDOT spec'd BGS for MA 286 that includes an EAST cardinal as well.

That sign was originally planned to be replaced by MassDOT's contractor (and to MassDOT specs) as part of the Georgetown to Salisbury project as well.  NHDOT (actually Bureau of Turnpikes) had other ideas, and replaced it themselves as part of the Route 107 bridge reconstruction project.

[PHLBOS]

Those signs are MassDOT spec for a good reason - they were installed by MassDOT's contractor as part of the I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury sign replacement project.

While I figured as such; usually (but not always), state DOTs can get a bit territorial, if you will, regarding signs that are done in an adjacent state's spec. but installed in their state.  Previous signage for the approaching MA interchanges inside NH were traditionally done in NH's (DOT or Bureau of Turnpikes) spec's.  Since the project was Georgetown to Salisbury and not Georgetown to Seabrook, NH; I'd like to know such was pulled off. 

I'm not saying MassDOT's encroaching into NH territory w/their signs are necessarily wrong; but it did strike me as a bit odd since such practice hasn't been done along other MA highways going into adjacent states that I'm aware of.

Conversely, This northbound BGS gantry for NH 107/Exit 1 is clearly MassDOT spec'd.  It's located about 1/4 mile south of the NH border.

[Zeffy]

Those signs are MassDOT spec for a good reason - they were installed by MassDOT's contractor as part of the I-95 Georgetown to Salisbury sign replacement project.

While I figured as such; usually (but not always), state DOTs can get a bit territorial, if you will, regarding signs that are done in an adjacent state's spec. but installed in their state.  Previous signage for the approaching MA interchanges inside NH were traditionally done in NH's (DOT or Bureau of Turnpikes) spec's. 

The best is when another state mixes their practices with another state's, such as Pennsylvania referencing NJ 90 on this exit sign on I-95 in Philadelphia. Notice how the sign is most definitely PennDOT with their rounded exit tabs, however the NJ 90 includes the black background behind the shield as that's the New Jersey standard.

EDIT: As usual, GMaps likes to be wonky when I post a link, so hopefully that one isn't as zoomed in.

[PHLBOS]

The best is when another state mixes their practices with another state's, such as Pennsylvania referencing NJ 90 on this exit sign on I-95 in Philadelphia. Notice how the sign is most definitely PennDOT with their rounded exit tabs, however the NJ 90 includes the black background behind the shield as that's the New Jersey standard.

I'm well aware of that BGS given where I work.  However, aside from the NJ 90 shield; the rest of that BGS (and its gantry) is PennDOT spec'd as you mentioned.

A better example of BGS that's completely in an adjacent DOT's spec in the Delaware Valley would be further north in Yardley, Bucks County, PA.  This Exit 2 BGS for CR 579 is clearly in NJDOT specs whereas the adjacent Exit 1 BGS for NJ 29 is PennDOT spec'd.  The Exit 2 BGS was erected later as a means to direct those to Trenton-Mercer Airport (TTN).  Nonetheless, that gantry is still PennDOT spec'd.

I was clearly commenting on BGS' and gantries located in one state (Seabrook, NH) but being done/designed in another state DOT's specs (MassDOT) not just the route shields.

[southshore720]

A state spec snafu can be found on I-95 on the CT/RI border.  RIDOT installed an advance BGS sign for Exit 93 (CT 184/CT 216) using RI shields for CT 184/CT 216 instead of the black border CT shields.  (However, it is mixed practice in CT to use the generic white box for their shields.  But these shields clearly have the R.I. initials on them!)

[PHLBOS]

A state spec snafu can be found on I-95 on the CT/RI border.  RIDOT installed an advance BGS sign for Exit 93 (CT 184/CT 216) using RI shields for CT 184/CT 216 instead of the black border CT shields.  (However, it is mixed practice in CT to use the generic white box for their shields.  But these shields clearly have the R.I. initials on them!)

BGS in question.

That's definitely an Oops! on RIDOT's part.

[J N Winkler]

I'm not saying MassDOT's encroaching into NH territory w/their signs are necessarily wrong; but it did strike me as a bit odd since such practice hasn't been done along other MA highways going into adjacent states that I'm aware of.

In the examples of this I am familiar with, the sign is installed extraterritorially by agreement with the host state DOT and certain parameters are up for grabs while others are not.  Sign layout, sheeting, and substrate usually follow the guest state DOT's specs because that DOT's money is actually used to erect the sign, which is usually for the benefit of a city or community on that DOT's side of the border.  However, posts often match the host DOT's standards since the sign is located in its jurisdiction and maintenance responsibility falls on it by default.

Two examples:

I-8 in California approaching Yuma, Arizona

I-10 Ehrenberg/Parker (Arizona) one-mile advance guide sign just inside California

In both cases the sign panel layouts are done to the Arizona DOT standards prevailing at the time of installation (layout, sheeting, substrate), but the assembly is mounted on Caltrans-standard redwood posts that are not used in Arizona.  (Arizona prefers breakaway metal posts.)

From the standpoint of the host state DOT, this division of responsibility makes sense.  In contracting for signs it is not uncommon to separate the structural element (installation of posts and foundations) from furnishing and installation of sign panels.  Moreover, if you allow another state DOT to come in and dig holes for sign foundations beside your road, then you are trusting it to tell you truthfully where the holes were dug, how deep they are, and what is in them, and you may still run into problems and added expense if you later have to widen or reconstruct the road and the foundations the guest state DOT typically installs are not ones your contractors are prepared to handle.

[Zeffy]

Two examples:

I-8 in California approaching Yuma, Arizona

I-10 Ehrenberg/Parker (Arizona) one-mile advance guide sign just inside California

You can just tell which sign is made where, just because Caltrans refuses to use Clearview and Arizona uses it almost everywhere!

[PHLBOS]

From the standpoint of the host state DOT, this division of responsibility makes sense.  In contracting for signs it is not uncommon to separate the structural element (installation of posts and foundations) from furnishing and installation of sign panels.

In the original I-95 example in NH that triggered this thread tangent, both the signs and overhead gantries are MassDOT Spec'd.  No division of responsiblity exists in that particular installation that I'm aware of.  Roadman can confirm/correct.