I-90 / Mass Pike Signing Work

[shadyjay]

At the exit in question, however, it doesn't make sense for Portsmouth NH to be signed.  Any entrances to the 'pike east of here would primarily be in Boston or its immediate suburbs.  So there'd be less long distance traffic heading west looking to head north to that part of New Hampshire.

Then there's the case of Exit 9 on I-90 East, which scrapped the local control city of "Sturbridge" in favor of "NY City".  IIRC, the reasoning behind having NYC posted on an eastbound sign was to keep the two directions in sync, with the same destinations East and West.  Sturbridge should've been kept.

So why wasn't the same logic applied to Exit 15-WB?  Perhaps because at the time, access to MA 30 and I-95 left I-90 WB at the same spot (with the ramp to I-95 being relocated later).  Perhaps they got away with it because its not the same exit # as eastbound (15 vs 14).  Or perhaps, shear logic intervened ("Why would someone heading west for Boston want to go back east to the coast?"  "Oh wait, we have that U-turn ramp for that"). 

[mrsman]

At the exit in question, however, it doesn't make sense for Portsmouth NH to be signed.  Any entrances to the 'pike east of here would primarily be in Boston or its immediate suburbs.  So there'd be less long distance traffic heading west looking to head north to that part of New Hampshire.

Then there's the case of Exit 9 on I-90 East, which scrapped the local control city of "Sturbridge" in favor of "NY City".  IIRC, the reasoning behind having NYC posted on an eastbound sign was to keep the two directions in sync, with the same destinations East and West.  Sturbridge should've been kept.

So why wasn't the same logic applied to Exit 15-WB?  Perhaps because at the time, access to MA 30 and I-95 left I-90 WB at the same spot (with the ramp to I-95 being relocated later).  Perhaps they got away with it because its not the same exit # as eastbound (15 vs 14).  Or perhaps, shear logic intervened ("Why would someone heading west for Boston want to go back east to the coast?"  "Oh wait, we have that U-turn ramp for that").

I agree with your assessment of I-90/I-84.  There is no automatic need for the exact same controls to be used in both directions.  There is no good reason why I-90 eastbound traffic would need to see New York City.  Sturbridge should be the local control and Hartford the long distance control, the way the signs have always been.  Westbound would ordinarily also use Sturbridge (local) and Hartford (long distance).  Of course, as MassDot desires to direct BOS-NYC traffic away from the Coast by using 90-84, the NYC control will be used as a super-long-distance control.  (Akin to signs that once existed in Virginia to guide traffic at the 95-85 split toward Miami).  Since there is only room for two controls, Sturbridge loses.  [NYC is not 84's normal control, it is only used at key junctions to guide traffic to NYC.  Hartford is the normal control.]

As far as I-90/I-95, i still don't agree with your conclusion.  While it is true that the most direct way from Downtown Boston to get to Portsmouth and Maine is to take I-93 to US 1 (or I-93 to I-95), the fact remains that this is still an interchange of two nationally important routes.  And even if primarily local traffic take the I-90WB to I-95NB ramp, it is still helpful to the long distance motorists to sign for the nationally important control.  I can say that with regards to reaching Providence from Downtown Boston, most would probably take I-93 to I-95, and not take I-90 to I-95 - yet the control for the I-90 WB to I-95 SB ramp is Providence.

Also, we can't assume that everyone on the Pike is coming from Downtown Boston.  For traffic coming from the nearby suburbs like Newton, it's ceratainly possible that a Newton-Portsmouth trip would in fact be using the 90/95 interchange and not heading into Boston to then reach Portsmouth.

Obviously, the use of the national controls is largely due to having I-95 along the Route 128 ROW.   If I-95 were built through Boston, 128 would likely maintain local control cities, and I-95 would have the national controls Providence-Boston-Portsmouth.

In my area (DC) I-95 was similarly prevented from being built through the city center.  I-95 was thus routed along the eastern half of the Capital Beltway (495). Yet, at every interchange, even at freeways coming from the city center (like US 50), I-95's controls are Baltimore and Richmond, despite the fact that no one would take US 50 from DC to the Beltway in New Carrolton, MD to reach Richmond, when it is much shorter to take I-395 to I-95 to Richmond.  Yet, the national controls are used at the US 50 / I-95 interchange.

[PHLBOS]

Also, we can't assume that everyone on the Pike is coming from Downtown Boston.  For traffic coming from the nearby suburbs like Newton, it's certainly possible that a Newton-Portsmouth trip would in fact be using the 90/95 interchange and not heading into Boston to then reach Portsmouth.

Given that the road (I-90) is a tolled facility; barring an accident or construction-related blockage on the Pike, most Portsmouth/NH-bound traffic coming from Newton, per your listed example, wouldn't even get on the Pike just to go that short distance to exit off for I-95 northbound (they'll get on I-95 at one of the other more numerous interchanges).  It's a reasonable conclusion that most traffic entering I-90 westbound at either Exit 17 (Newton/Watertown) or Exit 16 (MA 16/W. Newton) are staying on I-90 beyond Weston.

That said, the use of more local control cities along I-95 (MA 128) like Waltham, Dedham & so forth makes more sense for the traffic heading out of the Downtown Boston area.  One needs to keep in mind that those destinations aren't exactly hick-towns per se.  Given the history of this particular I-95 corridor (many locals still refer to it as just Route 128 even after all these now-decades); maintaining the listing of the more local control cities on I-95 signage at key/certain locations or in areas where signboard width is restricted is a way of meeting the locals half-way as it were.

Several years ago, my mother (back when she was still alive & driving) missed the I-95 northbound entrance ramp at the US 20 interchange in Waltham because all she saw was 95 NORTH Portsmouth, NH (note: there was a supplemental NORTH 128 trailblazer sign next to the main sign gantry).  Had the sign used a Peabody listing in addition to or instead of Portsmouth; she would've likely not missed the ramp... she intended to ultimately exit off MA 128 at MA 114 adjacent to the North Shore Mall.

Obviously, the use of the national controls is largely due to having I-95 along the Route 128 ROW.   If I-95 were built through Boston, 128 would likely maintain local control cities, and I-95 would have the national controls Providence-Boston-Portsmouth.

Under current practices/standards, had the corridor still been just 128; Gloucester & Braintree would've been likely used as distant control cities.

[KEVIN_224]

While New York City gets mentioned on I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike...

Boston gets used as a control city on I-84/US 6 as soon as the Exit 45 (Flatbush Avenue) area in Hartford, near the West Hartford town line. Of course I-84 ends in Sturbridge, a good hour or so west of Boston. I wonder if Worcester would've been a better control city to use there? Otherwise, what would the eastbound pullthrough say? Manchester?

[hotdogPi]

While New York City gets mentioned on I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike...

Boston gets used as a control city on I-84/US 6 as soon as the Exit 45 (Flatbush Avenue) area in Hartford, near the West Hartford town line. Of course I-84 ends in Sturbridge, a good hour or so west of Boston. I wonder if Worcester would've been a better control city to use there? Otherwise, what would the eastbound pullthrough say? Manchester?

Boston is fine. Even though you're switching routes, you're taking almost a straight line from Hartford to Boston.

[KEVIN_224]

I wonder what it would say if a certain highway had been fully completed between Bolton, CT to Rhode Island? Maybe it would say "PROVIDENCE" instead?

[jp the roadgeek]

It makes sense for Boston to be used once you cross the Hartford city line because you are in Hartford.  The official farthest west use is the BGS at the entrance from Prospect Ave, which straddles the Hartford/West Hartford city line.  Park Rd and Trout Brook Dr entrances still use Hartford. 

84 also doesn't go to Worcester (unless you consider my fictional extension that would parallel MA 49 then bend around to meet the east-west portion of I-290).  Plus, you have to switch highways twice to get there (Mass Pike and I-290).  Most people's destination on 84 East isn't Sturbridge, unless they're going to Old Sturbridge Village or a meeting at Sturbridge Host.

The only places I've seen NYC as a control on I-90 in MA are the westbound entrance near Hynes Convention Center, and as a second control for Exit 9 (though it irritates me to no end by its use eastbound).  The next time you see it on I-84 is at Exit 57 (CT 15 TO I-91 SOUTH) in CT, then you don't see it again till I-684 (NY Exit 68) in Brewster.

[PHLBOS]

I wonder what it would say if a certain highway had been fully completed between Bolton, CT to Rhode Island? Maybe it would say "PROVIDENCE" instead?

IMHO, such would likely used a Boston/Providence combo until the (current I-84/384) split.

[shadyjay]

The next time you see it on I-84 is at Exit 57 (CT 15 TO I-91 SOUTH) in CT, then you don't see it again till I-684 (NY Exit 68) in Brewster.

Well, things are going to get interesting in a couple years.  With sign replacements as part of the I-91 Exit 29/Charter Oak Bridge (CT) construction, some (but not all) signs are being replaced on CT 15, and the ones for the ramp from 15S->91S are losing "NY City" as a control point, switching to just "91 SOUTH/NEW HAVEN".  And one has to wonder, at some point, the signs through East Hartford (Exit 57) will be replaced (god willing) and they'll most likely say just "New Haven". 

So what's a NY City-bound motorist to do at that point (providing there are still any at that point who rely solely on signs and not GPS)...
Maybe ConnDOT will put up a sign saying "NY CITY - USE 15 SOUTH TO 91 SOUTH" to compensate for the loss of a control city. 

[SignBridge]

I've driven from Boston to Long Island many times using that Charter Oak Bridge route and I always thought New Haven would have been the correct control city to use for I-91 South in that area.

Similarly, on I-90 westbound at the I-84 interchange, I always thought Hartford should have been used as it's the state capital and the next control city on the route. Using New York City as a secondary destination at those points would have been okay too, but maybe it should not have been the only destination displayed.

[mrsman]

I've driven from Boston to Long Island many times using that Charter Oak Bridge route and I always thought New Haven would have been the correct control city to use for I-91 South in that area.

Similarly, on I-90 westbound at the I-84 interchange, I always thought Hartford should have been used as it's the state capital and the next control city on the route. Using New York City as a secondary destination at those points would have been okay too, but maybe it should not have been the only destination displayed.

There are very good arguments to be made for having two control cities to be displayed as much as practical.  Unfortunately, sometimes the signs are too small and we have to pick one.

[RobbieL2415]

The control cities at Exit 9 should be Hartford, then Waterbury, with a supplemental sign, "New Haven, New York City follow I-84 to I-91"  I-90's control cities at that point are correct IMO.

At Hartford, past I-91, I-84 WB should be Waterbury, then Newburgh, eastbound should be Worcester, then Boston.

[jp the roadgeek]

Hartford is the primary control for Exit 9 on the Mass Pike.  NYC is listed second.  It should remain that way westbound.  I'd be fine with just Hartford or the older version with Hartford/Sturbridge eastbound.

Why no love for Danbury? Even NYSDOT uses Danbury from the Thruway eastward, except that NYTA shows more love for Scranton on Exit 17 signage and relegates Danbury to supplemental signage.  I've often thought NYSDOT should use Hartford as a secondary control exiting from the Taconic and especially I-684.     

I wish they would remove the Charter Oak Bridge reference for Exit 57 and just have it listed as:

SOUTH       SOUTH
   15    TO     91

     New Haven
   New York City

The bridge is not a true destination.  You would think it's a landmark as important as the GW or the Mario Cuomo Tappan Zee.

And Worcester will not get recognition on I-84, just as RIDOT will never show love for New London on I-95 South.  Where it should get recognition is in Providence on the I-95 North exit to RI 146.  It really should be Woonsocket/Worcester instead of Lincoln/Woonsocket, especially since MassDOT is replacing Worcester with Marlboro for I-495 North signage on I-95 in Mansfield.

[PHLBOS]

...on I-90 westbound at the I-84 interchange, I always thought Hartford should have been used as it's the state capital and the next control city on the route. Using New York City as a secondary destination at those points would have been okay too, but maybe it should not have been the only destination displayed.

At present, the only sign that still lists New York for I-90 westbound, be it the city or state, is this old 90s-vintage sign at MA 9 near Copley Square.  All other/newer signs for westbound I-90 invariably list Albany, NY as its most-distant control city.

Depending on location, Worcester and/or Springfield are used as well.

I wish they would remove the Charter Oak Bridge reference for Exit 57 and just have it listed as:

SOUTH       SOUTH
   15    TO     91

     New Haven
   New York City

The bridge is not a true destination.

Those signs are fairly old & will likely be replaced sometime down the road.  Given the stricter adherence to listing actual cities/municipalities on primary signs; your above-legend may very well be what's placed on successor signage with optional supplemental exit signage listing the Charter Oak Bridge.  Given that the bridge hasn't been a tolled facility for quite some time and there's nothing visually significant structure-wise that one sees while approaching & driving on it; does it really need advance/supplemental signage at all?

[RobbieL2415]

Hartford is the primary control for Exit 9 on the Mass Pike.  NYC is listed second.  It should remain that way westbound.  I'd be fine with just Hartford or the older version with Hartford/Sturbridge eastbound.

Why no love for Danbury? Even NYSDOT uses Danbury from the Thruway eastward, except that NYTA shows more love for Scranton on Exit 17 signage and relegates Danbury to supplemental signage.  I've often thought NYSDOT should use Hartford as a secondary control exiting from the Taconic and especially I-684.     

I wish they would remove the Charter Oak Bridge reference for Exit 57 and just have it listed as:

SOUTH       SOUTH
   15    TO     91

     New Haven
   New York City

The bridge is not a true destination.  You would think it's a landmark as important as the GW or the Mario Cuomo Tappan Zee.

And Worcester will not get recognition on I-84, just as RIDOT will never show love for New London on I-95 South.  Where it should get recognition is in Providence on the I-95 North exit to RI 146.  It really should be Woonsocket/Worcester instead of Lincoln/Woonsocket, especially since MassDOT is replacing Worcester with Marlboro for I-495 North signage on I-95 in Mansfield.

The Exit 57 sign, I'm gonna guess, dates from when the GHBA managed the Charter Oak Bridge and when it was still tolled.  People probably used it as a destination because it was an important crossing.  ConnDOT doesn't really prominate bridge names anymore.

The furthest New York should be a control city should be Sturbridge and Providence.

[southshore720]

And Worcester will not get recognition on I-84, just as RIDOT will never show love for New London on I-95 South.  Where it should get recognition is in Providence on the I-95 North exit to RI 146.  It really should be Woonsocket/Worcester instead of Lincoln/Woonsocket, especially since MassDOT is replacing Worcester with Marlboro for I-495 North signage on I-95 in Mansfield.

A large chunk of RI 146 is in Lincoln and the casino is in Lincoln, so I don't see Worcester being favored over Lincoln on I-95 NB.  That supplemental signage is also older and if replaced, it will probably go full MUTCD and only have "Woonsocket" as the control city.

[hotdogPi]

And Worcester will not get recognition on I-84, just as RIDOT will never show love for New London on I-95 South.  Where it should get recognition is in Providence on the I-95 North exit to RI 146.  It really should be Woonsocket/Worcester instead of Lincoln/Woonsocket, especially since MassDOT is replacing Worcester with Marlboro for I-495 North signage on I-95 in Mansfield.

A large chunk of RI 146 is in Lincoln and the casino is in Lincoln, so I don't see Worcester being favored over Lincoln on I-95 NB.  That supplemental signage is also older and if replaced, it will probably go full MUTCD and only have "Woonsocket" as the control city.

A casino is not a reason to favor one control city over another unless there are no good choices at all. It's like A00234826 wanting Gillette Stadium (or one of its various misspellings) on a whole bunch of signs.

[roadman]

And Worcester will not get recognition on I-84, just as RIDOT will never show love for New London on I-95 South.  Where it should get recognition is in Providence on the I-95 North exit to RI 146.  It really should be Woonsocket/Worcester instead of Lincoln/Woonsocket, especially since MassDOT is replacing Worcester with Marlboro for I-495 North signage on I-95 in Mansfield.

A large chunk of RI 146 is in Lincoln and the casino is in Lincoln, so I don't see Worcester being favored over Lincoln on I-95 NB.  That supplemental signage is also older and if replaced, it will probably go full MUTCD and only have "Woonsocket" as the control city.

A casino is not a reason to favor one control city over another unless there are no good choices at all. It's like A00234826 wanting Gillette Stadium (or one of its various misspellings) on a whole bunch of signs.

Lincoln was used as a control city for 146 long before the casino opened.

[shadyjay]

Just out of curiosity... does this sign still exist?  (on the ramp from MA 30 at Exit 13)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3108973,-71.3860026,3a,15y,25.37h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slBa7cNtC3aNDz3LJCrvf-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[bob7374]

Just out of curiosity... does this sign still exist?  (on the ramp from MA 30 at Exit 13)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3108973,-71.3860026,3a,15y,25.37h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slBa7cNtC3aNDz3LJCrvf-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

No, it was replaced as of June 2018:

[SectorZ]

Just out of curiosity... does this sign still exist?  (on the ramp from MA 30 at Exit 13)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3108973,-71.3860026,3a,15y,25.37h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slBa7cNtC3aNDz3LJCrvf-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

No, it was replaced as of June 2018:

Never fail do they replace signs exactly as they were despite the lanes changing over time.

[DrSmith]

That's not as bad as the sign for 290 that shows two exit only lanes when there is only one lane now (still exit only)-and still does for maybe a year now

[southshore720]

And Worcester will not get recognition on I-84, just as RIDOT will never show love for New London on I-95 South.  Where it should get recognition is in Providence on the I-95 North exit to RI 146.  It really should be Woonsocket/Worcester instead of Lincoln/Woonsocket, especially since MassDOT is replacing Worcester with Marlboro for I-495 North signage on I-95 in Mansfield.

A large chunk of RI 146 is in Lincoln and the casino is in Lincoln, so I don't see Worcester being favored over Lincoln on I-95 NB.  That supplemental signage is also older and if replaced, it will probably go full MUTCD and only have "Woonsocket" as the control city.

A casino is not a reason to favor one control city over another unless there are no good choices at all. It's like A00234826 wanting Gillette Stadium (or one of its various misspellings) on a whole bunch of signs.

Thank you Roadman for your backup.  "1," it's not like that at all, so don't be fresh. I merely mentioned the casino as an added justification on top of the amount of mileage RI 146 has in Lincoln.  Lincoln is a control for RI 146 SB on I-295 as well.

[seicer]

That's not as bad as the sign for 290 that shows two exit only lanes when there is only one lane now (still exit only)-and still does for maybe a year now

But the sign isn't incorrect. The center lane ends for westbound traffic as does the right lane for eastbound traffic.

[Beeper1]

Drove the Pike through the Springfield area today.   The button copy assembly at Exit 6 WB is still there.  I really thought it would have been long gone by now.