Interstate 95 signing work

[J N Winkler]

With regards to using a diagrammatic sign despite no available option lane; such is allowed (i.e. grandfathered) if supporting and/or predecessor interchange signage contained similar.  The original 1988-era signage featured such as well.

MUTCD § 2E.20 bans the use of either type of diagrammatic (OAPL or stippled-arrow), without qualification, when option lanes are not present:

Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane.

At locations that do have option lanes, stippled-arrow diagrammatics are grandfathered in because § 2E.21 requires OAPL only on new or reconstructed freeways:

Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall be used on all new or reconstructed freeways and expressways as described in Section 2E.20.

[PHLBOS]

With regards to using a diagrammatic sign despite no available option lane; such is allowed (i.e. grandfathered) if supporting and/or predecessor interchange signage contained similar.  The original 1988-era signage featured such as well.

MUTCD § 2E.20 bans the use of either type of diagrammatic (OAPL or stippled-arrow), without qualification, when option lanes are not present:

Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane.

At locations that do have option lanes, stippled-arrow diagrammatics are grandfathered in because § 2E.21 requires OAPL only on new or reconstructed freeways:

Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall be used on all new or reconstructed freeways and expressways as described in Section 2E.20.

With all due respect, and Roadman can confirm/clarify, MassDOT/Mass Highway has used diagrammatic signs in split situations without option lanes prior to the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD being published.

Even MUTCD somewhat acknowledges that such was used in the past (bold & underline emphasis added):

Design of Freeway and Expressway Diagrammatic Guide Signs for Option Lanes
Support:

01 Diagrammatic guide signs (see Figure 2E-7) are guide signs that show a simplified graphic view of the exit
arrangement in relationship to the main highway. While the use of such guide signs might be helpful for the
purpose of conveying relative direction of each movement, Diagrammatic guide signs have been shown to be less
effective than conventional or Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs at conveying the destination or direction(s)
that each approach lane serves, regardless of whether dedicated or option lanes are present.

Such indirectly admits that the practice of using diagrammatic signs for interchanges without option lanes have been done in the past.

That said, such wouldn't be the first time a state DOT agency told MUTCD to pound sand on certain criteria items.

As previously stated, other diagrammatic signs with no option lane for the I-95/MA 128 interchange do presently exist in the field.

3/4 - mile advance diagrammatic sign

1/3 - mile advance diagrammatic sign

The signs at the I-95/MA 128 Split for the actual lane configuration.

The proposed 2-mile sign is just matching its mates in kind, MUTCD standard or no MUTCD standard.

As previously mentioned and regardless of the above-MUTCD's commentary on its limited effectiveness, the current & previous-original 1988-vintage diagrammatic signs for this interchange do indeed work.  I've passed through this interchange ever since it was first built in the late 80s.

Apparently, MassDOT agrees since brand new diagrammatic signage w/no option lane for the westbound I-90/84 split in Sturbridge has since been recently erected.

1 - mile advance sign for I-90/84

I asked Roadman regarding such and he stated that MassDOT thought the diagrammatic design would better assist motorists despite having no option lane.  Having used this interchange many times for 30+ years; I have seen several times, vehicles criss-crossing at the last moment.  Time will tell whether or not the new advance diagrammatic signs will reduce the number of last-second criss-crosses and related-accidents.

[SignBridge]

I don't think those last minute criss-crossers will be influenced one way or the other no matter what type of signing is used. There will always be that percentage of drivers who aren't paying attention and react at the last minute.

[J N Winkler]

Such indirectly admits that the practice of using diagrammatic signs for interchanges without option lanes have been done in the past.

Yes--stippled-arrow diagrammatics for interchanges without option lanes were kosher until the 2009 MUTCD came into effect, and in fact I think one of the examples in Standard Highway Signs is for a split with no option lane.

That said, such wouldn't be the first time a state DOT agency told MUTCD to pound sand on certain criteria items.

Yes.  I wondered if that might be going on here, which was my initial motivation for asking.  Looking at the StreetView links, I see that besides the consideration of compatibility with existing signing that is not being replaced (important for continuity), there is stuff going on that the diagrammatics don't quite capture, such as the no. 4 lane being gained at an interchange and the no. 5 lane opening just south of the I-95/SR 128 split.

[Alps]

Such indirectly admits that the practice of using diagrammatic signs for interchanges without option lanes have been done in the past.

Yes--stippled-arrow diagrammatics for interchanges without option lanes were kosher until the 2009 MUTCD came into effect, and in fact I think one of the examples in Standard Highway Signs is for a split with no option lane.

That said, such wouldn't be the first time a state DOT agency told MUTCD to pound sand on certain criteria items.

Yes.  I wondered if that might be going on here, which was my initial motivation for asking.  Looking at the StreetView links, I see that besides the consideration of compatibility with existing signing that is not being replaced (important for continuity), there is stuff going on that the diagrammatics don't quite capture, such as the no. 4 lane being gained at an interchange and the no. 5 lane opening just south of the I-95/SR 128 split.

For the record, I concur with Mr. Winkler: The MUTCD has not allowed non-option lane diagrammatics since 2009.

[PHLBOS]

For the record, I concur with Mr. Winkler: The MUTCD has not allowed non-option lane diagrammatics since 2009.

As stated earlier, Roadman can likely shed some light as towards the whats & whys behind MassDOT's continued use of diagrammatics w/no option lane even though such was no longer allowed since 2009.

[jemacedo9]

For the record, I concur with Mr. Winkler: The MUTCD has not allowed non-option lane diagrammatics since 2009.

As stated earlier, Roadman can likely shed some light as towards the whats & whys behind MassDOT's continued use of diagrammatics w/no option lane even though such was no longer allowed since 2009.

Is the MA 128/I-95 sign there in an attempt to emphasize the main (or "main") road (I-95) is the route that does not go straight?

Are there any remaining diagrammatics for right-hand exits, vs left-hand ones?

[PurdueBill]

Such indirectly admits that the practice of using diagrammatic signs for interchanges without option lanes have been done in the past.

Yes--stippled-arrow diagrammatics for interchanges without option lanes were kosher until the 2009 MUTCD came into effect, and in fact I think one of the examples in Standard Highway Signs is for a split with no option lane.

That said, such wouldn't be the first time a state DOT agency told MUTCD to pound sand on certain criteria items.

Yes.  I wondered if that might be going on here, which was my initial motivation for asking.  Looking at the StreetView links, I see that besides the consideration of compatibility with existing signing that is not being replaced (important for continuity), there is stuff going on that the diagrammatics don't quite capture, such as the no. 4 lane being gained at an interchange and the no. 5 lane opening just south of the I-95/SR 128 split.

That is an issue that the diagrammatics have that an arrow-per-lane wouldn't help with either far enough out, and maybe why the 2-mile advance for 128 was left as-was for so long--the number of lanes doesn't match the diagrammatic.  The 2-mile sign shows 5 lanes and there aren't that many there at that point.  Same with the new 1-mile advance sign on the Mass Pike for I-84; it shows a 2-2 split but there are 3 lanes.  The only advantage of it over an APL if you want to apply very strict logic is that the diagrammatic says literally that what is shown is what will happen in that distance, i.e., in 2 miles, the split shown occurs--never mind what lanes exist right now under the gantry.   

[J N Winkler]

That is an issue that the diagrammatics have that an arrow-per-lane wouldn't help with either far enough out, and maybe why the 2-mile advance for 128 was left as-was for so long--the number of lanes doesn't match the diagrammatic.  The 2-mile sign shows 5 lanes and there aren't that many there at that point.  Same with the new 1-mile advance sign on the Mass Pike for I-84; it shows a 2-2 split but there are 3 lanes.  The only advantage of it over an APL if you want to apply very strict logic is that the diagrammatic says literally that what is shown is what will happen in that distance, i.e., in 2 miles, the split shown occurs--never mind what lanes exist right now under the gantry.   

It is a tricky situation.  I've been toying with a redesign of the diagrammatic that would show the no. 4 lane gained at the last interchange before the split (as a sort of "tail" at the bottom of the arrow) and the no. 5 lane that opens up on the right (as a sort of "bulge" off the shaft just above the "tail").  But this introduces complexity to the design that I suspect driver comprehension testing would show is counterproductive.

[Alps]

That is an issue that the diagrammatics have that an arrow-per-lane wouldn't help with either far enough out, and maybe why the 2-mile advance for 128 was left as-was for so long--the number of lanes doesn't match the diagrammatic.  The 2-mile sign shows 5 lanes and there aren't that many there at that point.  Same with the new 1-mile advance sign on the Mass Pike for I-84; it shows a 2-2 split but there are 3 lanes.  The only advantage of it over an APL if you want to apply very strict logic is that the diagrammatic says literally that what is shown is what will happen in that distance, i.e., in 2 miles, the split shown occurs--never mind what lanes exist right now under the gantry.   

It is a tricky situation.  I've been toying with a redesign of the diagrammatic that would show the no. 4 lane gained at the last interchange before the split (as a sort of "tail" at the bottom of the arrow) and the no. 5 lane that opens up on the right (as a sort of "bulge" off the shaft just above the "tail").  But this introduces complexity to the design that I suspect driver comprehension testing would show is counterproductive.

I've seen arrows that introduce a lane prior to the split, but no tail.

[PHLBOS]

Is the MA 128/I-95 sign there in an attempt to emphasize the main (or "main") road (I-95) is the route that does not go straight?

Such is known as a TOTSO (Turn Off To Stay On) scenario.

Are there any remaining diagrammatics for right-hand exits, vs left-hand ones?

Absolutely.

Southbound companion to the I-95/MA 128 interchange in Peabody  Note: there is a shared lane here.

I've seen arrows that introduce a lane prior to the split, but no tail.

No current available photo, but this diagrammatic sign along I-95/PA Turnpike approaching I-276 (another right-lane TOTSO scenario as most of us know) and its companions had the lower portion of its right tail snipped several months ago to more accurately show the actual 2-lane condition.  The unaltered signs per the GSV showed the mainline as 3-lanes.

[SignBridge]

For the record, I concur with Mr. Winkler: The MUTCD has not allowed non-option lane diagrammatics since 2009.

As stated earlier, Roadman can likely shed some light as towards the whats & whys behind MassDOT's continued use of diagrammatics w/no option lane even though such was no longer allowed since 2009.

Let's remember that MassDOT has a long history of doing things their own way even when in conflict with the MUTCD. Take for instance their long-stemmed down arrows at multi-lane exits with a curve after the split. Not MUTCD compliant but they've defended that practice as being a safer way to emphasize the curvature of a multi-lane exit in their opinion. Funny thing is New York DOT does the same thing using long-stemmed upward pointed arrows. And California does it using upward short-stemmed arrows.

[PHLBOS]

Let's remember that MassDOT has a long history of doing things their own way even when in conflict with the MUTCD. Take for instance their long-stemmed down arrows at multi-lane exits with a curve after the split. Not MUTCD compliant but they've defended that practice as being a safer way to emphasize the curvature of a multi-lane exit in their opinion. Funny thing is New York DOT does the same thing using long-stemmed upward pointed arrows. And California does it using upward short-stemmed arrows.

Other agencies/DOTs (including NJDOT) have deviated from MUTCD at times as well.

[bob7374]

I took some photos this past weekend, on my way back from documenting the new exit numbers on I-195, chronicling the progress in placing new VMSs and ground mounted signage along I-95 as part of the sign replacement project between Attleboro and Westwood. Photos are in the second section of my I-95 in Mass. Gallery:
http://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html

[southshore720]

*POST BUMP*  Noticed new "Entering [TOWN]" signs on the Attleboro-Canton stretch of I-95.  It's a good sign that they are finally moving on this project!

[bob7374]

*POST BUMP*  Noticed new "Entering [TOWN]" signs on the Attleboro-Canton stretch of I-95.  It's a good sign that they are finally moving on this project!

No recent update to the I-95 Sign Replacement Attleboro to Westwood project MassDOT page, now retitled as ProjectInfo, however the listing for the Reading to Lynnfield has an update from July 13 that "Contractor continues to install route and regulatory signs."

[roadman]

*POST BUMP*  Noticed new "Entering [TOWN]" signs on the Attleboro-Canton stretch of I-95.  It's a good sign that they are finally moving on this project!

No recent update to the I-95 Sign Replacement Attleboro to Westwood project MassDOT page, now retitled as ProjectInfo, however the listing for the Reading to Lynnfield has an update from July 13 that "Contractor continues to install route and regulatory signs."

Drove through the I-95 Attleboro to Norwood project both ways yesterday.  The contractor has begin installing the ground mounted supplemental guide signs on the mainline.  All three VMS panels are in, but none are activated yet.

[kramie13]

On I-95 south at the I-495 interchange, new exit gore signs have been installed, wide enough to accommodate the new mile-based exit numbers.  They look so much better than having a tacked on "exit 12B" or "exit 12A".

[bob7374]

On I-95 south at the I-495 interchange, new exit gore signs have been installed, wide enough to accommodate the new mile-based exit numbers.  They look so much better than having a tacked on "exit 12B" or "exit 12A".

Here's one of the new gore signs, for I-495 South:


Photos of some of the other new signs I spotted between Westwood and Mansfield are at:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood

[bob7374]

Despite MassDOT's listing of the Attleboro to Westwood sign replacement project as complete on its ProjectInfo site, overhead gantries and signs await in the NB Mansfield Rest Area to be put up. Ground mounted sign placement has continued in the fall, both southbound:


and northbound:


Feel free to flock over to my I-95 in MA Gallery for the remainder of the new sign photos taken last weekend:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood

[southshore720]

Despite MassDOT's listing of the Attleboro to Westwood sign replacement project as complete on its ProjectInfo site, overhead gantries and signs await in the NB Mansfield Rest Area to be put up. Ground mounted sign placement has continued in the fall, both southbound:


and northbound:


Feel free to flock over to my I-95 in MA Gallery for the remainder of the new sign photos taken last weekend:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood

The aux sign for "Norton" on I-95 South is incorrect.  Exit 4A heads to Norton, not Exit 4B.

[bob7374]

There hasn't been much progress on sign replacement between Attleboro and Westwood since my last posting in November. I did stop by the Mansfield Rest Area on I-95 North in mid-March to check out the staging area for the project. Here's one of the ground mounted signs that was being stored there:


There were no overhead signs there at the time, only what they will be placed on.
You can check out some of my other photos taken there at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood

[southshore720]

Have they fixed that auxiliary sign error on I-95 SB that puts Norton at Exit 4B instead of Exit 4A?

[bob7374]

Have they fixed that auxiliary sign error on I-95 SB that puts Norton at Exit 4B instead of Exit 4A?

I only got as far south as the I-295 exit, so don't know. Saw no progress in sign replacement on my latest trips along I-95 North and South between Canton and I-295 yesterday.

[kramie13]

Have they fixed that auxiliary sign error on I-95 SB that puts Norton at Exit 4B instead of Exit 4A?

I was on this stretch of highway on Saturday.  The sign now reads, "Norton, Exit 4A".  Although it's easier to get to Norton by taking exit 12A for I-495 south.