Massachusetts

[Beeper1]

It is owned by MassDOT.   It is listed as an official service area on all MassDOT documents I've seen, and was last rebuilt in the 80s in conjunction with the rebuilding of the areas on Route 24 in Bridgewater and on 128 in Beverly.  These were all rebuilt at the same time in the 80s. 

[RobbieL2415]

Good news. A MassDOT former Twitter post tonight indicates lanes will be closed overnight starting this week on US 3 between Burlington and Tyngsboro for sign replacement work.

The bad news is that the text says the work should last through the summer. Not a record breaking pace, to say the least.

On the way back from UMass Lowell last night, I noticed that new APL signs for the I-95 / MA 128 interchange were installed on US 3 south. Only the 2 and 1 mile signs were up and the rest downstream was waiting for the foundations and signs to be installed.

Also semi-unrelated to this, but the LEFT exit tabs on the Lowell Connector also have returned as well, not sure if the other LEFT exit tabs were reinstated in the places they were taken off from in mid 2023.

I will forever miss the "file folder" style of MassHighway/MassDOT BGSs. They're nostalgic to me.

[SectorZ]

Regarding the new signage on US 3, S/B there is now a 2 mile warning for I-495. Surprisingly, it is the same as all the other ones, the diagrammatic, which I thought wasn't even allowed anymore. It's really a carbon copy of the other existing S/B ones (that have yet to be replaced), except the lane lines on US 3 are thicker.

The one mile sign for comparison, https://maps.app.goo.gl/nAn8ksCWt6WJCBSv9

[fwydriver405]

Regarding the new signage on US 3, S/B there is now a 2 mile warning for I-495. Surprisingly, it is the same as all the other ones, the diagrammatic, which I thought wasn't even allowed anymore. It's really a carbon copy of the other existing S/B ones (that have yet to be replaced), except the lane lines on US 3 are thicker.

I was under the impression that those were still permitted in the national MUTCD, however, the newer version doesn't depict the number of lanes are added or dropped:

Support:
01 The Diagrammatic Advance guide sign (see Figure 2E-41) is a guide sign that shows a simplified graphic view of the exit departure arrangement in relationship to the main highway at an interchange. Its purpose is to provide advance notice of complex or unexpected road geometry or ramp departures at an interchange and/or depict successive decision points where additional context might be helpful to interpreting the subsequent primary Interchange Advance guide signs. Unlike Diagrammatic signs that were included in previous editions of this Manual, the Diagrammatic Advance guide sign does not depict which or the number of specific lanes that serve a particular destination or depict lanes added or reduced.

Standard:
03 G. Arrow shafts shall not contain lane lines.
06 Diagrammatic Advance guide signs located on the main roadway shall not be used to depict a downstream split of an exit ramp.

See MUTCD 11th edition - Section 2E.41 Design of Freeway and Expressway Diagrammatic Advance Guide Signs and Figure 2E-41: Examples of Diagrammatic Advance Guide Signs for more info... nevertheless, I'm not sure if a Massachusetts Amendments to the latest 2023 MUTCD is in the works currently addressing these new changes in the latest version.

[kramie13]

Overhead signs on I-295 in both directions have been recently replaced.  The new signs have the same control cities as their predecessors.  They even replaced an overhead "left lane ends 1/2 mile" sign going north just before exit 2B (US 1 North).

Side note - why does I-295 reduce to 2 lanes about 1 and a half miles before meeting I-95, with an extra wide left median?  It seems so weird to me.

[Alps]

Overhead signs on I-295 in both directions have been recently replaced.  The new signs have the same control cities as their predecessors.  They even replaced an overhead "left lane ends 1/2 mile" sign going north just before exit 2B (US 1 North).

Side note - why does I-295 reduce to 2 lanes about 1 and a half miles before meeting I-95, with an extra wide left median?  It seems so weird to me.

Safer to reduce beforehand than right at the exit.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Overhead signs on I-295 in both directions have been recently replaced.  The new signs have the same control cities as their predecessors.  They even replaced an overhead "left lane ends 1/2 mile" sign going north just before exit 2B (US 1 North).

Side note - why does I-295 reduce to 2 lanes about 1 and a half miles before meeting I-95, with an extra wide left median?  It seems so weird to me.

To get traffic to merge and slow down before the exit.

[kramie13]

These are all good answers.  However, who in the right mind decided that I-295 north to I-95 north traffic would traverse a single lane 270 degree loop?  AND then have to weave with traffic exiting I-95?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense logically to have a 2-lane ramp from I-295 north to I-95 north, curving to the left?

[Rothman]

These are all good answers.  However, who in the right mind decided that I-295 north to I-95 north traffic would traverse a single lane 270 degree loop?  AND then have to weave with traffic exiting I-95?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense logically to have a 2-lane ramp from I-295 north to I-95 north, curving to the left?

Let me know when you find an engineer that's still alive when that interchange was designed.  Also, see the stubs...

[The Ghostbuster]

The stubs at the northern Interstate 95/Interstate 295 were to have continued as Interstate 895. It would have looped southward, then westward along existing RI 37 to terminate at Exit 3AB on Interstate 295. There was another 895 proposed, some of it would have utilized existing RI 138 between US 1 and RI 238. However, both 895s were cancelled due to local opposition.

[pderocco]

These are all good answers.  However, who in the right mind decided that I-295 north to I-95 north traffic would traverse a single lane 270 degree loop?  AND then have to weave with traffic exiting I-95?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense logically to have a 2-lane ramp from I-295 north to I-95 north, curving to the left?

Sure. It's a logical place for a trumpet, and it looks like there might even be room for one without too much fuss.

[jmacswimmer]

These are all good answers.  However, who in the right mind decided that I-295 north to I-95 north traffic would traverse a single lane 270 degree loop?  AND then have to weave with traffic exiting I-95?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense logically to have a 2-lane ramp from I-295 north to I-95 north, curving to the left?

Sure. It's a logical place for a trumpet, and it looks like there might even be room for one without too much fuss.

The development behind the NB-to-SB loop ramp could pose a problem IMHO depending on the design speed for a new outside-of-the-trumpet, 2-lane ramp for NB-to-NB.

But MassDOT did redo the SB-to-SB ramp to provide 2 lanes and a gentler curve not that long ago, so I do wonder if they would revisit the interchange again for this NB-to-NB ramp.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Historic aerials from the late 60s/early 70s show the outlines of a cloverleaf interchange between I-95 and what would have been I-895 on the Attleboros.

The loop ramps need to be replaced, especially from I-295N to I-95N. As mentioned already, the development nearby makes that a bit more complicated.  And TBH, the state has higher priority improvements, like fixing both I-93/I-95 interchanges.

[shadyjay]

How 'bout this...
... make the NB to NB ramp a flyover, coming into I-95 NB on the left.  This forms the southern terminus of an 8-lane I-95 up to 128.
Take the existing 295NB to 95NB loop ramp and convert it to the new 95SB to 295SB ramp.  That way, you get rid of the [the worst of the] loop.   Ok... probably too fictional.  And there are more pressing matters on MassDOT's plate. 

But seriously, has there ever been any talk of widening I-95 South (meaning the southern section of I-95 in Mass, south of 128)?  The median is wide and variable and could (with relative ease) be widened.  You wouldn't even have to mess with any interchanges.  I thought it was happening years ago.  Every time I travel this section, there seems to be more than enough traffic to warrant it. 

[Pete from Boston]

I keep seeing these covered-up detour signs around 93 in Assembly/Sullivan Squares and Medford Square. What work is about to happen?

[Pete from Boston]

It is owned by MassDOT.   It is listed as an official service area on all MassDOT documents I've seen, and was last rebuilt in the 80s in conjunction with the rebuilding of the areas on Route 24 in Bridgewater and on 128 in Beverly.  These were all rebuilt at the same time in the 80s.

And Plymouth, perhaps? They're all pretty similar.

[fwydriver405]

I keep seeing these covered-up detour signs around 93 in Assembly/Sullivan Squares and Medford Square. What work is about to happen?

If I had to guess, they're detour routes because of the Sumner Tunnel closures, which is slated to ramp up again this year.

[Ted$8roadFan]

With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.

[Rothman]

With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.

That's becoming true in a lot of places, due to intentional disinvestment in rest areas since they're not as necessary as they once were, private businesses consider them competition and transportation funding is limited.

But, the flip side of that is sometimes you get a governor that wants to throw friends/contractors/donors a bone, so the state actually builds Taj Mahal-ish welcome centers and the like in a spurt of construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[kramie13]

The stubs at the northern Interstate 95/Interstate 295 were to have continued as Interstate 895. It would have looped southward, then westward along existing RI 37 to terminate at Exit 3AB on Interstate 295. There was another 895 proposed, some of it would have utilized existing RI 138 between US 1 and RI 238. However, both 895s were cancelled due to local opposition.

I know there was a proposed I-895.  But it's been 50 years since it was cancelled.

FIFTY years.

The interchange could have been reconstructed back in the 1970s when it became obvious that 895 was never going to happen.

[shadyjay]

With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.

The fact that they have let the former welcome center in Mansfield on I-95 NB fall into the condition it has been is an embarrasement.   And the Chelmsford rest area on I-495 NB was rebuilt and open for a few years, then the building was shuttered (something had to been going on here, as Chelmsford-SB's building is still open directly across the highway).  There's also the closed (completely) area in Swansea on I-195 EB.  And no more tourist information centers at any of the 'pike's service plazas.  Charlton-EB even has an old-looking house that used to house the info center but its closed.   And then there's I-84 EB just over the CT line... old MassHighway maps show this area as having a welcome center at one point.

CT briefly tried the single shift at its rest areas, which used to be open 24/7.  That didn't last long, and Lamont reinstated 24/7 operation and even restored funding for the welcome centers at several locations statewide.  Its a small improvement that gives travelers a better impression of the state. 

Honestly, in Mass, they'd be better off completely closing off the rest areas with buildings closed, and leveling the sites/returning to nature.  That'd be better than what travelers see now... Welcome to Mass.  Here's an abandoned building and a weed-encrusted parking lot with a couple of portolets that haven't been cleaned in god-knows-when!  Unless there's eventual plans to reopen them.  Mansfield-NB would probably require a complete tear-down/replacement at this point.

[Pete from Boston]

I keep seeing these covered-up detour signs around 93 in Assembly/Sullivan Squares and Medford Square. What work is about to happen?

If I had to guess, they're detour routes because of the Sumner Tunnel closures, which is slated to ramp up again this year.

Among all these there's a "road work ends" sign coming off the elevated part of Route 16 near Medford Square. Seems pretty far afield for the Sumner.

[Ted$8roadFan]

With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.

That's becoming true in a lot of places, due to intentional disinvestment in rest areas since they're not as necessary as they once were, private businesses consider them competition and transportation funding is limited.

But, the flip side of that is sometimes you get a governor that wants to throw friends/contractors/donors a bone, so the state actually builds Taj Mahal-ish welcome centers and the like in a spurt of construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Perhaps service areas with staffed travel kiosks and hotel reservations, etc. might no longer be needed in the digital era. But I do think rest areas with actual facilities are important, as well as more parking areas for the increasing multitude of trucks on our roads and that can be seen parked in the shoulders and in the main travel lane at rest areas. It need not be super-elaborate.

As for off-highway businesses, I recall a news story a while back about a Dunkin Donuts located in Salisbury off of 95 being surprised at all the extra traffic they were getting to use their restroom after the state closed the rest area and pointed them to that Dunkin Donuts. I'm not sure every highway-adjacent business wants to welcome the masses to use their facilities (some of which are no better than the rest areas). If the state wanted to eliminate rest areas altogether, they should at least coordinate with businesses at or near the exits to let them know that people will be coming their way.

[DrSmith]

With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.

That's becoming true in a lot of places, due to intentional disinvestment in rest areas since they're not as necessary as they once were, private businesses consider them competition and transportation funding is limited.

But, the flip side of that is sometimes you get a governor that wants to throw friends/contractors/donors a bone, so the state actually builds Taj Mahal-ish welcome centers and the like in a spurt of construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Perhaps service areas with staffed travel kiosks and hotel reservations, etc. might no longer be needed in the digital era. But I do think rest areas with actual facilities are important, as well as more parking areas for the increasing multitude of trucks on our roads and that can be seen parked in the shoulders and in the main travel lane at rest areas. It need not be super-elaborate.

As for off-highway businesses, I recall a news story a while back about a Dunkin Donuts located in Salisbury off of 95 being surprised at all the extra traffic they were getting to use their restroom after the state closed the rest area and pointed them to that Dunkin Donuts. I'm not sure every highway-adjacent business wants to welcome the masses to use their facilities (some of which are no better than the rest areas). If the state wanted to eliminate rest areas altogether, they should at least coordinate with businesses at or near the exits to let them know that people will be coming their way.

Mass could do something like Utah did with private-public rest areas. These were a gas station and convenience stores off an exit. To qualify they had to have sufficient sized bathrooms, not require a purchase, picnic tables, and sufficient parking. I think there were cleanliness and 24/7 operation requirements too. The up side was a gas station advertised as a rest stop.  it would be a compromise and provide facilities while distributing the costs.

[Rothman]

With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.

That's becoming true in a lot of places, due to intentional disinvestment in rest areas since they're not as necessary as they once were, private businesses consider them competition and transportation funding is limited.

But, the flip side of that is sometimes you get a governor that wants to throw friends/contractors/donors a bone, so the state actually builds Taj Mahal-ish welcome centers and the like in a spurt of construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Perhaps service areas with staffed travel kiosks and hotel reservations, etc. might no longer be needed in the digital era. But I do think rest areas with actual facilities are important, as well as more parking areas for the increasing multitude of trucks on our roads and that can be seen parked in the shoulders and in the main travel lane at rest areas. It need not be super-elaborate.

As for off-highway businesses, I recall a news story a while back about a Dunkin Donuts located in Salisbury off of 95 being surprised at all the extra traffic they were getting to use their restroom after the state closed the rest area and pointed them to that Dunkin Donuts. I'm not sure every highway-adjacent business wants to welcome the masses to use their facilities (some of which are no better than the rest areas). If the state wanted to eliminate rest areas altogether, they should at least coordinate with businesses at or near the exits to let them know that people will be coming their way.

Mass could do something like Utah did with private-public rest areas. These were a gas station and convenience stores off an exit. To qualify they had to have sufficient sized bathrooms, not require a purchase, picnic tables, and sufficient parking. I think there were cleanliness and 24/7 operation requirements too. The up side was a gas station advertised as a rest stop.  it would be a compromise and provide facilities while distributing the costs.

I doubt this would fly in NY.  Blue signs for advertising businesses is one thing, where they pay for slots.  Declaring private businesses a rest area would be something NYSDOT would shy away from after the Taste of NY business.