Interstate 93 Signing Work

[PHLBOS]

Here's a photo of the newly replaced MA 24 1 Mile Advance sign:

The only critique I have regarding the arrangement of that diagramatic BGS is with the lop-sided green-space.

I would've either moved the entire SOUTH 93 1 TO 95 legend down to a point where the SOUTH legend aligns with the top of the vertical arrow-head or arranged the SOUTH 24 part of the legend vertically similar to the SOUTH 93  1 arrangement.  Such practice was used on the original late-80s vintage I-95/MA 128 interchange diagramatic BGS'.

Doing the suggested-former would've reduced the overall BGS panel height.

Another way to address that large green-space, contentwise, would've been to add a 2nd MA 24 South control destination (Brockton perhaps?) to the main panel.  Yes I'm aware that such practice is now not normal cookie-cutter MUTCD; but adding Brockton to the main panel still keeps the gantry well below the maximum 4-control destinations-per-gantry standard that supposedly exists.

Maybe one of our BGS artists in the Road-related Illustrations threads can play around with this panel and see what they come up with.

[Zeffy]

Maybe one of our BGS artists in the Road-related Illustrations threads can play around with this panel and see what they come up with.

Here's what I've devised:



The MA 24, I-93 / US 1 shields are all aligned so that the left legend isn't so far down on the left side of the sign. I myself would add a control city to the right side of the sign, since I don't like guessing where you may end up, but I'm not familiar with the area. I did see Providence RI as a possibility. If anyone wants to throw in some suggestions, I'll revise my sign based on your input.

Also sorry if the scaling is off - diagrammatic signs are done with Inkscape, and sometimes I goof on the scale of the diagram. This throws off my other things, so I attempted to adjust accordingly, but I may have messed some things up.

[PHLBOS]

Here's what I've devised:



The MA 24, I-93 / US 1 shields are all aligned so that the left legend isn't so far down on the left side of the sign. I myself would add a control city to the right side of the sign, since I don't like guessing where you may end up, but I'm not familiar with the area. I did see Providence RI as a possibility. If anyone wants to throw in some suggestions, I'll revise my sign based on your input.

Nice job.  FYI, Providence, RI would not be a MA 24 destination but rather a I-93/95 destination.

Personally, I would move the US 1 shield to a post-mounted trailblazer (due to US 1 multiplexing w/I-93 for roughly 18-19 miles) and add either Canton of or Dedham for a I-93/95 destination.  Such an addition would not cause the BGS to be wider.

Personally, I'm a bit more old-school and would have 2 destinations for both directions featured.  For I-93 South to I-95; I would list Dedham (or Canton) & Providence, RI.

Also sorry if the scaling is off - diagrammatic signs are done with Inkscape, and sometimes I goof on the scale of the diagram. This throws off my other things, so I attempted to adjust accordingly, but I may have messed some things up.

No worries, it's a good start.  My only critique would be that the route shields need to be slightly larger.

[Zeffy]

Here's two more versions of the sign:





The first sign still contains the I-93/US 1 multiplex. However, in order to be able to accommodate the 'Providence RI' legend, I had to expand the sign's width - but this presented an excellent opportunity to re-align the TO I-95 legend to the same line as the rest of the shields, making the sign look more uniform.

The second sign removes the US 1 shield from the sign entirely, and the I-95 shield is once again able to be brought up from it's location to make it look better. The small destination legend means the sign is roughly the same size as the sign without the destinations.

Also, I used the SVG versions of both the US and Interstate shields rather than my raster versions (normally used in PowerPoint), which results in a much crisper image. These signs are comprised entirely of vector elements. The quality speaks for itself.

[PHLBOS]

Here's two more versions of the sign:

Not bad.

For I-93 South destinations, one either uses Dedham or Canton not both.  Even if both were used on the same I-93 South BGS panel, Canton would be before Dedham.  Note: Canton is I-93's southern-most destination whereas Dedham is an I-95 (North)/US 1 destination a few miles north of I-93's end.  Dedham was included in past signage because it was originally a MA 128 destination as well as a post-1974 I-95 North destination.

The first sign still contains the I-93/US 1 multiplex. However, in order to be able to accommodate the 'Providence RI' legend, I had to expand the sign's width - but this presented an excellent opportunity to re-align the TO I-95 legend to the same line as the rest of the shields, making the sign look more uniform.

Widening the BGS board to include Providence, RI was an automatic given.

The second sign removes the US 1 shield from the sign entirely, and the I-95 shield is once again able to be brought up from it's location to make it look better. The small destination legend means the sign is roughly the same size as the sign without the destinations.

See earlier comment regarding the use of Canton or Dedham and not both.

[Zeffy]

Bleh. Your original post said 'Canton of Dedham' - my brain didn't process that as 'or' like it should've been.

However, because ZeffyDOT can not keep wasting material to replace the sign, a piece of greenout shall be used to remove Dedham from the sign. 



All in all, I probably would prefer the Providence RI version, but that's me.

[spooky]

Brockton should be listed before Fall River.

[PHLBOS]

Bleh. Your original post said 'Canton of Dedham' - my brain didn't process that as 'or' like it should've been.

Clearly a typo on my part.  I indeed intended to use or.

All in all, I probably would prefer the Providence RI version, but that's me.

Same here.

BTW, when I chimed in regarding modifications to the BGS in question; I was implying that such would be done in the Road-Related Illustrations thread rather than here.  It wasn't my intention to hijack Bob7374's sign installation update thread into BGS design exercise.

Brockton should be listed before Fall River.

Wow, I must've been either tired or overworked to completely miss that one in my previous comments.  You're right; Brockton should be placed above/before Fall River.

[Zeffy]

BTW, when I chimed in regarding modifications to the BGS in question; I was implying that such would be done in the Road-Related Illustrations thread rather than here.  It wasn't my intention to hijack Bob7374's sign installation update thread into BGS design exercise.

Brockton should be listed before Fall River.

Wow, I must've been either tired or overworked to completely miss that one in my previous comments.  You're right; Brockton should be placed above/before Fall River.

Oops. Sorry about that Bob7374 - I'll probably go make a Redesign This! entry and see what others can come up with.

[mass_citizen]

I observed another new BGS Southbound at the Braintree split

[roadman]

There's some interesting background history about the diagrammatic signs on I-93 southbound at Route 24.  When the original signs were installed in 1992, they only had a "Brockton" destination for Route 24 south, and no destinations for I-93 south (not even "TO 95" under the I-93 and US 1 shields).

Shortly after the signs were put in, MassHighway was approached by the state legislative delegation representing New Bedford and Fall River.  Apparently, there is a Massachusetts legislative act passed sometime in the 1960s that directed MassDPW to place Brockton, Fall River, and New Bedford on the destination signing on Route 128 (now I-93) southbound at Route 24.  At one point back in the old plywood panel/monotube support days, all three destinations actually appeared on a single sign panel.

As a result of this issue, MassHighway petitioned FHWA to add "Fall River" to the diagrammatic signs.  Their rationale was that, as there were no destinations posted for I-93 south, adding a second destination for Route 24 south (which could easily be accommodated within the panel dimensions), although a violation of MUTCD standards regarding "no more than one destination per route on a diagrammatic sign", did not violate the rule of "no more than two destinations total on a diagrammatic sign".

However, despite support from the local legislators, as well as the area Congressman and Senator, FHWA refused MassHighway's request.   This is why supplemental signs were installed at the time, and were recently replaced under both the I-93 Randolph to Boston sign project and the Randolph to Westwood segment of the I-93/I-95 "add-a-lane" project.  The only difference is that the original supplemental signs stated "Fall River New Bedford" whereas the new signs state "Brockton New Bedford", "Fall River" having replaced "Brockton" on the overheads.

So, in summary, while I like the alternative designs presented here, it is highly unlikely that FHWA would agree to any of them.

[PHLBOS]

So, in summary, while I like the alternative designs presented here, it is highly unlikely that FHWA would agree to any of them.

Fair enough, but that still doesn't completely explain why the panel height of the new I-93/MA 24 diagramatic BGS' are abnormally large.

As I mentioned earlier; one could've just slid the entire SOUTH 93 1 TO 95 legend down a bit and the overall panel wouldn't need to be as tall.  Such would still have kept the BGS MUTCD compliant.

[roadman]

So, in summary, while I like the alternative designs presented here, it is highly unlikely that FHWA would agree to any of them.

Fair enough, but that still doesn't completely explain why the panel height of the new I-93/MA 24 diagramatic BGS' are abnormally large.

As I mentioned earlier; one could've just slid the entire SOUTH 93 1 TO 95 legend down a bit and the overall panel wouldn't need to be as tall.  Such would still have kept the BGS MUTCD compliant.

Actually, the proper way to reduce the sign height and remain MUTCD compliant would have been to put "SOUTH" to the right of the I-93 and US 1 shields, instead of above.  This change would maintain the "route shield lined with arrowhead" requirement.  As for your question about why the sign was designed the way it was, I do not have an answer for you.

[PHLBOS]

Actually, the proper way to reduce the sign height and remain MUTCD compliant would have been to put "SOUTH" to the right of the I-93 and US 1 shields, instead of above.  This change would maintain the "route shield lined with arrowhead" requirement.

The reasoning for placing SOUTH above the I-93 & US 1 shields are obvious in terms of keeping the overall width of the BGS at bay.

Such practice was done with both the present and previous BGS' along I-95 in Burlington for the diagramatic I-95/US 3 North/Middlesex Tpk. interchange (Exits 32A-B).  For the I-95 North/US 3 South diagramatic; one could've very easily either stacked the NORTH 95 SOUTH 3 legend vertically in either a 4-line or 2-line fashion.

4-line:

NORTH
   95
SOUTH
   3

2-line:

NORTH 95
SOUTH 3

vs. Current I-95/US 3 diagramatic BGS in Burlington, MA

[roadman]

I think you missed my point PHLBOS.  On the new Route 24 signs, placing "TO 95" to the right of the "SOUTH 93 1" information does not save you panel height unless you align the cardinal direction with the arrowhead and lower the shields to the arrow shaft.  That contradicts MUTCD requirements.

As for the diagrammatics in Burlington at US 3, as I-95 and US 3 are two different directions, placing the direction above each shield is the most efficient use of space, both from a sign design perspective and a visual perspective for drivers.  Granted, the shields aren't quite in line with the arrowhead, as required by the MUTCD, but as the saying goes "close enough for government work".

[PHLBOS]

On the new Route 24 signs, placing "TO 95" to the right of the "SOUTH 93 1" information does not save you panel height unless you align the cardinal direction with the arrowhead and lower the shields to the arrow shaft.  That contradicts MUTCD requirements.

I never said anything about moving the TO 95 text to the right of the SOUTH 93 1 legend whatsoever.  I was simply saying slide the entire legend in its current arrangement downward enough so that the SOUTH aligns with the top of the arrow head.  There looks to be about 3 to 4 feet of blank green-space above that upright arrowhead.

As for the diagrammatics in Burlington at US 3, as I-95 and US 3 are two different directions, placing the direction above each shield is the most efficient use of space, both from a sign design perspective and a visual perspective for drivers.

See this Exit 153B BGS along the Northbound Garden State Parkway in Clifton for the general stacked horizontal layout of two routes and their respective cardinals (WEST 3 TO WEST 46).

Arranging the NORTH 95 SOUTH 3 legend in a similar fashion doesn't change the current BGS width one iota.  One actually might save about a foot width.  Nonetheless, it's 6 on one hand; half-dozen on the other.   

Granted, the shields aren't quite in line with the arrowhead, as required by the MUTCD, but as the saying goes "close enough for government work".

I'm not sure you're aware of this but you just completely trashed & contradicted the whole MUTCD criteria argument regarding shield placement w/the shields with respect to arrowheads with the above-post.  Why was it okay to do such with the I-95/US 3 diagramatic BGS (where there was plenty of room to do such & was also a fairly recent installation) but not okay for the I-93/US 1/MA 24 BGS (where the through-traffic legend is 3-lines high)?

Such begs the question regarding how strict MUTCD really is regarding certain criteria.

[bob7374]

I observed another new BGS Southbound at the Braintree split

Here's a photo (sorry for the glare, I hope to get a better shot when time and a better sun angle permit):


They also put up this week one overhead for Exit 7 Northbound at the MA 37 exit:


I also have a photo of the NB overheads put up last week at the MA 28 exit on my I-93 photo page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html

[southshore720]

How hard would it have been to make a new sign for only two arrows-per-lane for the 93 SB Exit 7 overhead?  This new sign looks ridiculous.  This contractor is awful...can't even roll with the last-minute punches!

[mass_citizen]

How hard would it have been to make a new sign for only two arrows-per-lane for the 93 SB Exit 7 overhead?  This new sign looks ridiculous.  This contractor is awful...can't even roll with the last-minute punches!

most likely the sign was already fabricated. someone would have had to pay to fab a new sign either massdot or the contractor and obviously neither of them volunteered the money.

[PurdueBill]

Probably has to do with the old sign (picture from Steve's site) being for 3 lanes as things used to be striped.  The #3 lane used to split into one more lane for Route 3; now it doesn't.  They probably changed the plans after the specs for the sign were cut and the manufacturer isn't responsible for that, nor is the state going to pony up.

[Pete from Boston]

The new signs on 93 South in Somerville have a bold yellow stripe indicating "Tobin Bridge Truck Detour" for Exit 28 (added because trucks have been banned from the Chelsea exits of the Tobin since the previous signs were erected).

This puzzles me because there are no other mentions of the Tobin going south.  In other words, there is an alternate route posted without a primary route.

I understand that money, geography, and politics made a direct ramp impractical, but I still don't get why it's not useful to inform motorists that Exit 28 to Sullivan Square and 99 South is a relatively quick and easy route to the Tobin Bridge.  I use that route all the time.

[southshore720]

How hard would it have been to make a new sign for only two arrows-per-lane for the 93 SB Exit 7 overhead?  This new sign looks ridiculous.  This contractor is awful...can't even roll with the last-minute punches!

most likely the sign was already fabricated. someone would have had to pay to fab a new sign either massdot or the contractor and obviously neither of them volunteered the money.

I'll try to make lemonade out of this lemon...if they wanted to create a third lane again, they could easily tack on the down arrow instead of make the new sign.  I'll look at it as "insurance" for the future.   

[PHLBOS]

I observed another new BGS Southbound at the Braintree split

Here's a photo (sorry for the glare, I hope to get a better shot when time and a better sun angle permit):

What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps?  Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.

[bob7374]

What was the reasoning behind the drop from 3 lanes to 2 for the MA 3 South ramps?  Obviously such a change was made after the BGS was fabricated.

MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.

[PHLBOS]

MassDOT changed the lane configuration a couple months ago citing continued safety concerns for people exiting from the HOV lane needing to cross 2 lanes of traffic in a short distance to get to the I-93 South lanes. By reducing the number of lanes for MA 3 to 2, traffic only has to cross one lane of traffic. Of course, this has been the case since the zipper lanes were constructed in the 1980s, why the concern prompted action now and not 30 years ago is a good question.

IIRC, those zipper lanes didn't make the scene until the 1990s.  I used that stretch of I-93 (both the Expressway & YDH/128 portions) during my college years (1984-1988) as well as at least once a week during the early part of 1990 and the Expressway was still in its original 6-lane configuration back then.

IIRC, the zipper-lane retro fit occurred after the Tappan Zee Bridge in NY adopted such in the early-to-mid 1990s.  The TZ Bridge was the first location I personally saw such.

Personally, not only the Southeast Expressway should've been widened to 8-lanes (with shoulders) when it was completely reconstructed in the mid-1980s and the HOV lanes termini should've been laid out the same way the ones along I-84 in East Hartford, CT are set up; the HOV lane(s) having their own interchange ramps that blend into the main interchange.  Granted, all the above would've meant widening the Expressway's Right-Of-Way and triggered some additional land-takings; but tough.  The highway's been there since the 1950s and quickly became an over-crowded parking lot in short order due to the absence of the Southwest Expressway (the original I-95).  IMHO, the improvements would outweigh the land/home-takings.