Interstate 95 signing work

[PHLBOS]

What does NHDOT have against using Portland as a control rather than the MUTCD no-no in using a control state?  Personally, I'd even use Portland as a secondary control coming off of 495 North in MA.

Portland & even Kittery appears on I-95 northbound ramp signage as far south as the MA 110 interchange (Exit 58) in Salisbury/Amesbury.

With regards to that new thru-BGS listing just Maine: sure, Portland could have been used; but I believe the intent for this BGS at this location is that I-95 serves all Maine points not just the major cities like Portland & Augusta.  Personally, I'm surprised it wasn't worded as All Maine Points.  Such would be consistent with the BGS' south of the NH 4 interchange are (which include Portsmouth (NH) listed above said-listing).

[billpa]

I noticed that the Exit 32 sign in Biddeford changed. It now says "ME 111 to US 1". Also, the Exit 42 sign in Scarborough now also references Gorham.

Other changes I've noticed:

1. The exit sign arrows are losing their 'flared' tails.
2. Portsmouth and Boston for control cities versus New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
3. 'Last Exit in Maine' goes from green background to yellow and will be the entire width of the sign it sits under.
4. "The Yorks" becomes just 'York.'
5. Brown signs will say 'Exit XX' versus 'Next Exit.'
6. Dropping km distances on mileage signs allows for space for three cities instead of just two.
7. Exit 19; dropping Sanford in favor of Ogunquit.

[KEVIN_224]

I noticed that the Exit 32 sign in Biddeford changed. It now says "ME 111 to US 1". Also, the Exit 42 sign in Scarborough now also references Gorham.

Other changes I've noticed:

1. The exit sign arrows are losing their 'flared' tails.
2. Portsmouth and Boston for control cities versus New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
3. 'Last Exit in Maine' goes from green background to yellow and will be the entire width of the sign it sits under.
4. "The Yorks" becomes just 'York.'
5. Brown signs will say 'Exit XX' versus 'Next Exit.'
6. Dropping km distances on mileage signs allows for space for three cities instead of just two.
7. Exit 19; dropping Sanford in favor of Ogunquit.

I-95 South at Exit 2 in Kittery still said "New Hampshire | Massachusetts" today.
The southbound signs before Exit 2 still had the separate rectangle reading "Last Exit In Maine".
The Exit 19 signs still read "9/109 | Wells/Sanford". However, Sanford is also now mentioned at Exit 32 (ME Route 111) in Biddeford. An extra sign states "Sanford Region - Exits 19 & 32".

[shadyjay]

The Exit 2-19 project has not yet started... just the contract has been announced, so the "Changes I've noted" hasn't even been constructed yet.  It'll most likely start in the spring and be completed in the fall.  Its a relatively small project and the largest signs are mostly all overlays. 

I'd assume Exit 19 - NB will remain Wells/Sanford, and southbound is being changed because of it now being signed at Exit 32. 

[billpa]

I noticed that the Exit 32 sign in Biddeford changed. It now says "ME 111 to US 1". Also, the Exit 42 sign in Scarborough now also references Gorham.

Other changes I've noticed:

1. The exit sign arrows are losing their 'flared' tails.
2. Portsmouth and Boston for control cities versus New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
3. 'Last Exit in Maine' goes from green background to yellow and will be the entire width of the sign it sits under.
4. "The Yorks" becomes just 'York.'
5. Brown signs will say 'Exit XX' versus 'Next Exit.'
6. Dropping km distances on mileage signs allows for space for three cities instead of just two.
7. Exit 19; dropping Sanford in favor of Ogunquit.

I-95 South at Exit 2 in Kittery still said "New Hampshire | Massachusetts" today.
The southbound signs before Exit 2 still had the separate rectangle reading "Last Exit In Maine".
The Exit 19 signs still read "9/109 | Wells/Sanford". However, Sanford is also now mentioned at Exit 32 (ME Route 111) in Biddeford. An extra sign states "Sanford Region - Exits 19 & 32".

I was referring to the plans posted above- I should've been clearer. These will be changes made when the signage work is done.

[OracleUsr]

Did Maine go or is going Clearview?  Some of the early signing plans between Falmouth and Gardiner had mixed Clearview signage plans.

[PHLBOS]

Steering this thread back to MA for a moment:
Apparently an errant beer truck knocked over a fairly new cantilevered sign gantry along I-95 (MA 128) northbound by Exit 23 22, the Grove St. exit in Newton.
Beer Truck Crashes, Takes Out Highway Exit Sign On I-95 In Newton

[bob7374]

Steering this thread back to MA for a moment:
Apparently an errant beer truck knocked over a fairly new cantilevered sign gantry along I-95 (MA 128) northbound by Exit 23, the Grove St. exit in Newton.
Beer Truck Crashes, Takes Out Highway Exit Sign On I-95 In Newton

Here's a photo of the sign at the Grove Street ramp in better days, it was put up in 2013 as part of the Newton to Lexington sign replacement project:

[Roadwarriors79]

Did Maine go or is going Clearview?  Some of the early signing plans between Falmouth and Gardiner had mixed Clearview signage plans.

I would say no. I don't remember ever seeing any Clearview on any MaineDOT freeway or on the Maine Turnpike. I have seen a few newer signs along I-95 recently. Every single one is in FHWA.

There is one newer pull-through going SB just before the bridge to cross into New Hampshire. The sign says "95 South, Portsmouth, Boston". An older one on the C/D road still has "95 South, New Hampshire, Massachusetts".

[bob7374]

MassDOT gave the notice to proceed on May 1 for the contract to replace I-95 signage between the RI border and Norwood. Though no completion date was provided, assuming the standard 2-year period for similar contracts, the work schedule probably has a finishing date of Spring 2021.

[roadman]

MassDOT gave the notice to proceed on May 1 for the contract to replace I-95 signage between the RI border and Norwood. Though no completion date was provided, assuming the standard 2-year period for similar contracts, the work schedule probably has a finishing date of Spring 2021.

Duration for the Attleboro to Norwood project is 900 calendar days (2 1/2 years) from notice to proceed.  The additional time is because, besides signing, the project also involves VMS and camera installations.

[bob7374]

Thanks to Charlene White at MassDOT I have obtained the plans for the I-95 Attleboro to Norwood Sign Replacement Project. Not a lot of major changes, the I-495 North control city has changed from Worcester to Marlboro:


The Coney Street exit will have an additional destination:


The project will finally get around to updating the Rhode Island exit signs on I-95 South that are in Massachusetts:


And signs at the on-ramps on secondary roadways will have traditional exit gore signs swapped for these:


The most interesting item I came across was this note printed on all the sign detail plan pages:


Is MassDOT reconsidering exit number conversion?

Examples of plans for each exit can be found on my I-95 in Mass. Gallery Site:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html

[storm2k]

Thanks to Charlene White at MassDOT I have obtained the plans for the I-95 Attleboro to Norwood Sign Replacement Project. Not a lot of major changes, the I-495 North control city has changed from Worcester to Marlboro:


The Coney Street exit will have an additional destination:


The project will finally get around to updating the Rhode Island exit signs on I-95 South that are in Massachusetts:


And signs at the on-ramps on secondary roadways will have traditional exit gore signs swapped for these:


The most interesting item I came across was this note printed on all the sign detail plan pages:


Is MassDOT reconsidering exit number conversion?

Examples of plans for each exit can be found on my I-95 in Mass. Gallery Site:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html

I would imagine it's a standard CYA so plans don't have to be redrawn in case of a change to mileage based numbers. but unless the feds threaten to withhold money from the states to force this, i doubt it happens.

[jp the roadgeek]

Obviously, the signs for the RI exits will have to be numbered accordingly when RIDOT changes over I-95 (Exits 43 and 42)

[PHLBOS]

It's interesting that Newport Ave. is being re-added for the 1A southbound ramp signs but not the northbound ones.  The 1977-era BGS' for this interchange listed Newport Ave. along with control cities for both 1A directions.

I didn't realize that most of the I-495 northbound ramp signs at other interchanges south of the Mass Pike (I-90) have since dropped Worcester as a control city.  The I-95/Mansfield and MA 24 interchanges are presently the only interchanges that still use Worcester.  This change will make the MA 24 the last one standing in terms of signing I-495 northbound for Worcester.  Looking along the northern stretch of I-495; Worcester is only used for a southbound I-495 control city where it starts off I-95 in Salisbury.

Even more interesting is that, unlike the recent I-495 interchange signs along I-90, Cape Cod is still used as a primary I-495 southbound destination rather than Taunton (which was on the original 1982 ramp signage), Middleboro, Wareham or even Bourne.  Gotta love the consistency *sarcasm*.

That said, I support the continuation of using Cape Cod as a primary control destination/point for ramp/through signage.  MUTCD and I part ways on this item.

I also like the use of MD-style gore signage.

[Ben114]

It's interesting that Newport Ave. is being re-added for the 1A southbound ramp signs but not the northbound ones.  The 1977-era BGS' for this interchange listed Newport Ave. along with control cities for both 1A directions.

I didn't realize that most of the I-495 northbound ramp signs at other interchanges south of the Mass Pike (I-90) have since dropped Worcester as a control city.  The I-95/Mansfield and MA 24 interchanges are presently the only interchanges that still use Worcester.  This change will make the MA 24 the last one standing in terms of signing I-495 northbound for Worcester.  Looking along the northern stretch of I-495; Worcester is only used for a southbound I-495 control city where it starts off I-95 in Salisbury.

Even more interesting is that, unlike the recent I-495 interchange signs along I-90, Cape Cod is still used as a primary I-495 southbound destination rather than Taunton (which was on the original 1982 ramp signage), Middleboro, Wareham or even Bourne.  Gotta love the consistency *sarcasm*.

That said, I support the continuation of using Cape Cod as a primary control destination/point for ramp/through signage.  MUTCD and I part ways on this item.

I also like the use of MD-style gore signage.

I'm not much of a fan of them switching to Marlboro for the I-495 signs, but I do see why since Marlboro is right along I-495 (exits 23C-24), meanwhile Worcester is a much more known city, as well as the Worcester County seat and namesake.

[shadyjay]

Drove on I-95 South yesterday, from Canton down to Exit 4/Attleboro.  No new signs to report (way to early in the project for that), but I did notice the little orange tags put up where a new overhead sign foundation will be located.  These don't reach all the way to Canton, SB.  I think I recall seeing them further south, closer to I-495. 

Also drove I-95 from the Mass Pike down to Canton.  Funny how most of the I-95/128 reassurance shields have the 128 shield either propped up at the bottom after falling off, or missing completely.  Yet, local traffic reporters (including NECN) continue to solely say "Route 128", even for the I-93 section. 

Click the link in my sig below to see my I-90 shots as far east as Exit 14/I-95 (including the offramp signs), plus I-93 and other roads I captured 8/3.

[SignBridge]

PHLBOS, I agree with your earlier post about using Cape Cod as an effective destination that is easily recognized. I too believe that the MUTCD is too narrow in its requirement of using city names as destinations. As we've discussed in other threads, there are areas where a regional destination or a state name can be more effective.

[bob7374]

Drove on I-95 South yesterday, from Canton down to Exit 4/Attleboro.  No new signs to report (way to early in the project for that), but I did notice the little orange tags put up where a new overhead sign foundation will be located.  These don't reach all the way to Canton, SB.  I think I recall seeing them further south, closer to I-495. 

Here's one of the new tags for the future 1-mile advance for Neponset Street on I-95 South in Norwood:

[SignBridge]

Good to see that Massachusetts DOT doesn't subscribe to that idiotic suggestion in the MUTCD about not using a city name and street name on the same sign. They go perfectly well together as New York and Mass. prove in their installations.

[jp the roadgeek]

I always thought it was ok with MUTCD to have a street name and a city/cities on a BGS as long as it was the only exit for that municipality.  What isn't MUTCD compliant is having a route shield, a street name, and a city/town name. The Neponset St sign is fine.  But let's say you had one for Exit 5 on the Mass Pike that said MA 33/Memorial Dr/Chicopee.  That one wouldn't fly with MUTCD.  For some reason, when CTDOT did a recent sign replacement, the signage for CT 372 is inconsistent.  The eastbound signage says "CT 372 Crooked St" and eliminated the reference to Plainville.  Meanwhile westbound, the exit signage says "CT 372/New Britain Ave/Plainville".  Technically, the westbound exit is an exit on CT 72, but is included in westbound signage for the CT 72 West exit itself because it is almost immediately after the 84/72 split.

[roadman]

Yet, local traffic reporters (including NECN) continue to solely say "Route 128", even for the I-93 section. 

I've recently noticed that the reporters on WBZ now refer to Canton to Braintree as I-93 instead of 128.  Yay!!!!!!

I always thought it was ok with MUTCD to have a street name and a city/cities on a BGS as long as it was the only exit for that municipality.  What isn't MUTCD compliant is having a route shield, a street name, and a city/town name. The Neponset St sign is fine.  But let's say you had one for Exit 5 on the Mass Pike that said MA 33/Memorial Dr/Chicopee.  That one wouldn't fly with MUTCD.   

From the 2009 MUTCD: 

Section 2E.10 Amount of Legend on Guide Signs
Guidance:
01 No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit
Direction sign. A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided (emphasis added). Where two or three signs are
placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign, or to a total of three in the
display. Sign legends should not exceed three lines of copy, exclusive of the exit number and action or distance
information.

The highlighted statement, which first appeared in the 1971 MUTCD, has often been interpreted by FHWA and others to mean that street and city names on the same sign are generally not permitted.  This is not true, especially as this is now a guidance statement.  Note that Massachusetts' position on this issue, since it first came up in the late 1980s, has been that a street name with a city name is no different than a route shield with a city name in terms of information presentation.  A route shield with a street name and one city name on a sign would also be acceptable, as this would be three lines of copy.

[jeffandnicole]

I always thought it was ok with MUTCD to have a street name and a city/cities on a BGS as long as it was the only exit for that municipality.  What isn't MUTCD compliant is having a route shield, a street name, and a city/town name.

I would think the opposite would be more important - if there's numerous exits for a town, having a street name narrows down where one should exit.  For most municipalities this isn't terribly important.  In cities, where there is often a dozen or more exits, it's much more necessary.  You can only sign "Philadelphia" in so many ways along the numerous exits in a city, for example. 

[SignBridge]

I think roadman pretty much nailed it down. I first saw that in the 1971 Manual that he mentioned. Now almost fifty years later I still don't know the reason for the FWHA's position on the issue of showing a street name and place name on the same sign. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't now. And I completely agree with Mass DOT's position that roadman cited, that a street name is no different than a route shield in that context. 

[kramie13]

Drove on I-95 South yesterday, from Canton down to Exit 4/Attleboro.  No new signs to report (way to early in the project for that), but I did notice the little orange tags put up where a new overhead sign foundation will be located.

These orange tags are also along I-495 between exits 28 and 37, another section of interstate highway in MA that's due for sign replacement.