Massachusetts

[roadman65]

Also regions have been told not to use by MUTCD for more specific places. Yes, The Islands is like New Jersey and Delaware using Shore Points for all beach destinations or NYC using Eastern LI instead of Riverhead.

I'm not against using regions nor bridges as I grew up with them as control places. Just that guide signs are for tourists not familiar with the area.

Oh yes, MA 28 should be mentioned on guides at eastern end of MA 25. Having Bourne Bridge signed without route number or US 6 signed solo without MA 28 West is bad. I agree with Shadyjay on that one.

[Rothman]

Also regions have been told not to use by MUTCD for more specific places. Yes, The Islands is like New Jersey and Delaware using Shore Points for all beach destinations or NYC using Eastern LI instead of Riverhead.

I'm not against using regions nor bridges as I grew up with them as control places. Just that guide signs are for tourists not familiar with the area.

Oh yes, MA 28 should be mentioned on guides at eastern end of MA 25. Having Bourne Bridge signed without route number or US 6 signed solo without MA 28 West is bad. I agree with Shadyjay on that one.

A big chunk of those tourists will be headed to The Islands, anyway, and will know what the sign means.

[roadman65]

Just drop it. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Massachusetts has the final say anyway and they own the signs and they'll keep whatever they want on it.

[Rothman]

Just drop it. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Massachusetts has the final say anyway and they own the signs and they'll keep whatever they want on it.

Telling me to drop it when you don't have to respond to my comments yourself is a one-sided take.  This is a forum.  We have rules for moderation and for inappropriate responses, but telling someone they shouldn't respond to a post in a forum like this doesn't seem right, either. 

[RobbieL2415]

Also regions have been told not to use by MUTCD for more specific places. Yes, The Islands is like New Jersey and Delaware using Shore Points for all beach destinations or NYC using Eastern LI instead of Riverhead.

I'm not against using regions nor bridges as I grew up with them as control places. Just that guide signs are for tourists not familiar with the area.

Oh yes, MA 28 should be mentioned on guides at eastern end of MA 25. Having Bourne Bridge signed without route number or US 6 signed solo without MA 28 West is bad. I agree with Shadyjay on that one.

I have been going to the cape for 27 years. I guarantee you no tourist is going to be intently looking for where MA 28 pops up. The Bourne Bridge is an obvious landmark and and easy choice to direct folks headed on-Cape.

[shadyjay]

A few years ago when the signs on the MassPike were replaced, they took "CAPE COD" off the primary for (former Exit 11-A) and replaced it with Taunton.  This was the only case where this happened, as signs on I-95 that were replaced after those on I-90 retained "Cape Cod".  So I'm not 100% buying they're trying to make it easier for tourists.  The MUTCD wants actual cities/towns as control cities, but it should be on a case-by-case basis. 

Elsewhere in the region, "Eastern Long Island" makes more sense than Riverhead.  I see nothing wrong with Shore Points on the Garden State Parkway south of the New Jersey Turnpike.  And "To All Maine Points" or just simply "Maine" makes perfect sense on I-95 in Portsmouth, as its the only interstate to Maine. 

[seicer]

This is why most (?) states have supplemental MUTCD's.

[pderocco]

I have a vague memory of seeing POINTS NORTH on some BGS in Massachusetts when I was young, probably in Boston.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I have a vague memory of seeing POINTS NORTH on some BGS in Massachusetts when I was young, probably in Boston.

I do as well. There also used to be POINTS WEST signs on entrances to the Mass. Pike.

[shadyjay]

Having control cities on a beltway is kind of tricky.  The signs from the Mass Pike to I-95/128 in Newton did used to say "POINTS NORTH" and "SOUTH SHORE".  Honestly, it made sense.  I-95/128 controls have been Braintree, Dedham, Waltham, Peabody, Gloucester.  Braintree was mostly phased out in favor of Boston, which may make sense from an interstate standpoint, but that's not necessarily where everyone's going.  "Mass Pike Points West" signs didn't even have I-90 shields way back when, so that was more of your directional.

Then there's the signs modified for a sense of consistency between directions.  Like the ones heading east on the pike for I-84 that say "Hartford/NY City".  Noone in their right mind would be going east and looking for NY City.  But because the westbound signs say that, they were changed.  Same goes for heading west on the pike and getting off at I-495, where "Portsmouth NH" is used.  Would'nt Lowell make more sense?

Heck, we could discuss control city follies until the cows come home, but, heck, that would just be "udder"ly ridiculous. 
    

[SectorZ]

Having control cities on a beltway is kind of tricky.  The signs from the Mass Pike to I-95/128 in Newton did used to say "POINTS NORTH" and "SOUTH SHORE".  Honestly, it made sense.  I-95/128 controls have been Braintree, Dedham, Waltham, Peabody, Gloucester.  Braintree was mostly phased out in favor of Boston, which may make sense from an interstate standpoint, but that's not necessarily where everyone's going.  "Mass Pike Points West" signs didn't even have I-90 shields way back when, so that was more of your directional.

Then there's the signs modified for a sense of consistency between directions.  Like the ones heading east on the pike for I-84 that say "Hartford/NY City".  Noone in their right mind would be going east and looking for NY City.  But because the westbound signs say that, they were changed.  Same goes for heading west on the pike and getting off at I-495, where "Portsmouth NH" is used.  Would'nt Lowell make more sense?

Heck, we could discuss control city follies until the cows come home, but, heck, that would just be "udder"ly ridiculous. 
    

The same control city in each direction that MassDOT has now enabled has even more ridiculous control cities that the NYC example on the Pike. Going northbound on 495 in Amesbury, the MA 150 exit suggests Seabrook NH as a control city. As illogical as that is, the southbound side also having it when you likely just left Seabrook is a tad misdirected.

[Rothman]

Having control cities on a beltway is kind of tricky.  The signs from the Mass Pike to I-95/128 in Newton did used to say "POINTS NORTH" and "SOUTH SHORE".  Honestly, it made sense.  I-95/128 controls have been Braintree, Dedham, Waltham, Peabody, Gloucester.  Braintree was mostly phased out in favor of Boston, which may make sense from an interstate standpoint, but that's not necessarily where everyone's going.  "Mass Pike Points West" signs didn't even have I-90 shields way back when, so that was more of your directional.

Then there's the signs modified for a sense of consistency between directions.  Like the ones heading east on the pike for I-84 that say "Hartford/NY City".  Noone in their right mind would be going east and looking for NY City.  But because the westbound signs say that, they were changed.  Same goes for heading west on the pike and getting off at I-495, where "Portsmouth NH" is used.  Would'nt Lowell make more sense?

Heck, we could discuss control city follies until the cows come home, but, heck, that would just be "udder"ly ridiculous. 
    

The same control city in each direction that MassDOT has now enabled has even more ridiculous control cities that the NYC example on the Pike. Going northbound on 495 in Amesbury, the MA 150 exit suggests Seabrook NH as a control city. As illogical as that is, the southbound side also having it when you likely just left Seabrook is a tad misdirected.

Although I shrug at NYC being a control city for I-84 coming from I-90 EB, the MA 150 example may be the very first control city criticism on this entire forum that I agree with.

[RobbieL2415]

Having control cities on a beltway is kind of tricky.  The signs from the Mass Pike to I-95/128 in Newton did used to say "POINTS NORTH" and "SOUTH SHORE".  Honestly, it made sense.  I-95/128 controls have been Braintree, Dedham, Waltham, Peabody, Gloucester.  Braintree was mostly phased out in favor of Boston, which may make sense from an interstate standpoint, but that's not necessarily where everyone's going.  "Mass Pike Points West" signs didn't even have I-90 shields way back when, so that was more of your directional.

Then there's the signs modified for a sense of consistency between directions.  Like the ones heading east on the pike for I-84 that say "Hartford/NY City".  Noone in their right mind would be going east and looking for NY City.  But because the westbound signs say that, they were changed.  Same goes for heading west on the pike and getting off at I-495, where "Portsmouth NH" is used.  Would'nt Lowell make more sense?

Heck, we could discuss control city follies until the cows come home, but, heck, that would just be "udder"ly ridiculous. 
    

If I get on the Pike from MA 32 in Palmer, that's right in between I-91 and I-84. If I decide to use I-84 to head back west on I-84 to reach my destination, what should the control cities be? My answer would be Hartford at the very least.

[Rothman]

Having control cities on a beltway is kind of tricky.  The signs from the Mass Pike to I-95/128 in Newton did used to say "POINTS NORTH" and "SOUTH SHORE".  Honestly, it made sense.  I-95/128 controls have been Braintree, Dedham, Waltham, Peabody, Gloucester.  Braintree was mostly phased out in favor of Boston, which may make sense from an interstate standpoint, but that's not necessarily where everyone's going.  "Mass Pike Points West" signs didn't even have I-90 shields way back when, so that was more of your directional.

Then there's the signs modified for a sense of consistency between directions.  Like the ones heading east on the pike for I-84 that say "Hartford/NY City".  Noone in their right mind would be going east and looking for NY City.  But because the westbound signs say that, they were changed.  Same goes for heading west on the pike and getting off at I-495, where "Portsmouth NH" is used.  Would'nt Lowell make more sense?

Heck, we could discuss control city follies until the cows come home, but, heck, that would just be "udder"ly ridiculous. 
    

If I get on the Pike from MA 32 in Palmer, that's right in between I-91 and I-84. If I decide to use I-84 to head back west on I-84 to reach my destination, what should the control cities be? My answer would be Hartford at the very least.

And locals would think you're silly for taking the long way 'round.

[kramie13]

Looking at Google Street View, I've noticed multiple sign changes along I-195 East in Fall River in a short amount of (recent) time.

In July 2021, the sign for 24 North from 195 East is an "old-style" sign with a "1/2" exit tab and no white horizontal line below "exit 14B".

In October 2022, a new sign was installed replacing the old one, and includes a yellow "LEFT" tab.

In October 2023, the "LEFT" tab has been removed, and exposes the fact that the sign was fabricated with its old sequential number (8B), despite being installed AFTER the exit numbers were switched over to mileage-based ones!  Who dropped the ball here?  This has the exit sign presentation looking really ugly.

[bob7374]

Looking at Google Street View, I've noticed multiple sign changes along I-195 East in Fall River in a short amount of (recent) time.

In July 2021, the sign for 24 North from 195 East is an "old-style" sign with a "1/2" exit tab and no white horizontal line below "exit 14B".

In October 2022, a new sign was installed replacing the old one, and includes a yellow "LEFT" tab.

In October 2023, the "LEFT" tab has been removed, and exposes the fact that the sign was fabricated with its old sequential number (8B), despite being installed AFTER the exit numbers were switched over to mileage-based ones!  Who dropped the ball here?  This has the exit sign presentation looking really ugly.

Guess they had the same potential problem with the exit tab bracket that caused MassDOT to remove them from signs on I-93, I-95 and elsewhere. New ones have only gone up in a few places, but I haven't seen them south of Boston yet. The overhead signs were designed prior to the exit renumbering in 2017 but were not put up until 2022 since they discovered problems with the soil around the MA 24/I-195 interchange during the initial sign contract that was to install them in 2019-2020.

[RobbieL2415]

As an aside, that weave to continue on MA 24 is brutal. MassDOT really should look into moving the ramp and adding an aux lane.

[bob7374]

MassDOT announces shorter Sumner Tunnel closure this summer:
https://www.mass.gov/news/planned-closure-of-sumner-tunnel-this-summer-reduced-to-one-month

[bob7374]

I took a trip last weekend to check out progress on the US 3 expressway sign replacement project between Burlington and Tyngsboro. Most of the signs have been replaced north of I-495, there were no changes I could see to those to the south. A couple exits now have all their overhead signs up, including MA 4, or now MA 4/Drum Hill Road:


All the new images are here: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html

[kramie13]

I took a trip last weekend to check out progress on the US 3 expressway sign replacement project between Burlington and Tyngsboro. Most of the signs have been replaced north of I-495, there were no changes I could see to those to the south. A couple exits now have all their overhead signs up, including MA 4, or now MA 4/Drum Hill Road:


All the new images are here: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html

Do you really need THREE control destinations for the MA 4/Drum Hill exit off US 3?  And why is MassDOT obsessed with really tall green signs with horizontal lines separating text?

[bob7374]

MassDOT is holding a public meeting on May 15 about improvements to I-95 (128) North in Reading. Unfortunately, it is not about improving the I-93 interchange but adding 2 lanes from I-93 to MA 28 and one lane from MA 28 to North Avenue:
https://www.mass.gov/event/readingstonehamwakefield-proposed-i-95-nb-improvements-2024-05-15t183000-0400-2024-05-15t193000-0400

[Ted$8roadFan]

MassDOT is holding a public meeting on May 15 about improvements to I-95 (128) North in Reading. Unfortunately, it is not about improving the I-93 interchange but adding 2 lanes from I-93 to MA 28 and one lane from MA 28 to North Avenue:
https://www.mass.gov/event/readingstonehamwakefield-proposed-i-95-nb-improvements-2024-05-15t183000-0400-2024-05-15t193000-0400

About time.

[dantheman]

I drove through the I-90/I-495 junction in daylight today for the first time in a while. There's been some pretty good progress... things are going slower than they might for a new build, but considering MassDOT's promise that all ramps will remain open throughout the project, it's moving along reasonably well.

There is a presentation here (warning - 50 MB PDF) showing some photos of the progress. Other things I noticed that aren't covered in the presentation:
- The new ramp WN (the slip ramp from WB 90 to NB 495 near the railroad) has a bunch of decking in place. I think it's just temporary stuff over the wetland to enable the construction of the permanent ramp, but still cool to see progress.
- A bridge support for ramp EN (EB 90 to NB 495) has been installed in the median of 495. This seems premature since that ramp isn't getting built for another year or two, but my guess is that they did it now before traffic is shifted onto the new lanes of 495, which run down the median (making median access to build that bridge support much harder)
- The bridge abutment for ramp WS (replacing the 90 EB loop offramp) just north of the 90 EB mainline is in place, and the wire frame for a support on the south side of the 90 mainlines is also up. No concrete on that bridge support yet.
- Most of the earthwork for ramp ES is done, which makes sense since that's the first new ramp to open (this fall, according to the presentation)

[pderocco]

Some aerial imagery from 4/9 showed up last week on Google Earth.

[shadyjay]

Looks like MassDOT is tweaking the ramp from I-295 North to I-95 South in Attleboro:
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/about-the-i-295-ramp-i-95-southbound-over-ten-mile-river-project

Surprised still there's been no push to improve the I-295 North to I-95 North ramp.  It would be fine, more or less, if you didn't have the conflict of the ramp from I-95 North to I-295 South occuring right as traffic from I-295 North is trying to merge on.  I wonder if there's enough room to sneak in a ramp from I-295 North, going left to parallel the existing I-95N->I-295S ramp, essentially making the interchange a trumpet. 

The ideal solution would be a flyover that enters I-95 North on the left and sets you up pretty good to "add a lane" up to Route 128 in Canton/Dedham.  Maybe that's what they're waiting for.  But in the interim, you could just add a lane up a mile or so to improve the merge until funding comes to widen the whole distance.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9554684,-71.3015809,513m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

Maybe its on the list.... after I-90/I-495, after Allston/I-90, after the Cape Cod bridges, after  ______.