News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

I-90 / Mass Pike Signing Work

Started by bob7374, August 14, 2015, 06:53:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cl94

Quote from: PHLBOS on October 12, 2015, 05:19:41 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 11, 2015, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 08, 2015, 11:41:16 AM
Diagrammatic signage is best kept to option lanes per MUTCD. In this case, however, I'd make an exception. People unfamiliar with the area might be expecting such a major departure to be on the left. Traffic here does split pretty evenly. I don't know why it wasn't done elsewhere, but it is certainly a good location for distinctive signage.

True, but wouldn't the same thing be accomplished with an APL?
I don't believe that MassDOT has adopted APL as of yet.  Additionally, while one can let diagrammatics for non-shared lanes slide; I don't believe the same can be said for APLs.

Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 11, 2015, 11:02:18 AM
Currently at the I-84 interchange they simply list a two-lane exit only. I don't see what is confusing about that, and why that needs to be improved upon in this situation.
Keep in mind, what's been posted thus far is only handful of signs.  I'm assuming that there will be a further-advance diagrammatic BGS' for this interchange along I-90 westbound.  As far as improvement is concerned; given the fact that this stretch backs up for miles; the diagrammatics gives one unfamiliar with the area an advance visual.

I agree. There is a specific prohibition against using APLs without option lanes. At one point, using diagrammatics without option lanes was accepted. If anything has a chance at helping the atrocious traffic here, it is worth a try.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)


vdeane

Converting the MassPike to AET will probably do more to alleviate the backups than anything else.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

The Nature Boy

Quote from: PHLBOS on October 08, 2015, 10:08:13 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 07, 2015, 06:33:34 PM
It's interesting that MassDOT went with a diagrammatic BGS for this interchange despite not having a shared-lane.  I was under the impression that such was now an MUTCD no-no (for the record, I do not agree with MUTCD's current take on this subject).

If the reasoning for doing such was due to traffic volume (based on personal experience with this interchange); why wasn't similar done for the Briantree Split and/or the MA 24 interchange alont  I-93?

Corrected due to brain-freeze.

I find it interesting that "NY City" is used there but "New York" is used here:



Could this be the State of New York as a control city? If so, it's weird that they wouldn't just sign Albany NY here unless they just didn't feel like choosing between Albany and NYC as potential control cities and just said "screw it, we'll use the state."

Rothman

Quote from: vdeane on October 12, 2015, 07:31:14 PM
Converting the MassPike to AET will probably do more to alleviate the backups than anything else.

Oh, gosh, this.  The configuration of the I-84 plaza is horrible and causes a lot of the backups on its own.  The last time I was through there, there was neither rhyme nor reason to where the E-ZPass lanes were.

Pike has other plaza issues, as well, such as with I-91, where the plaza is far too close to the end of the ramps leading to it.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Jim

Quote from: Rothman on October 13, 2015, 12:24:36 PM
Pike has other plaza issues, as well, such as with I-91, where the plaza is far too close to the end of the ramps leading to it.

As someone who had that interchange as part of my commute for a few years, I can say the ramps are too narrow and tight, leading to a toll plaza that has far too few lanes in an inconvenient location.  Seems to me that mess could be improved a lot with a few key direct E-ZPass-only I-90/I-91 ramps.  They also badly need a climbing lane for WB trucks entering the Mass Pike from Exit 4.  It takes them forever to get up to speed up that grade.  I am sure all of this is complicated by the crazy set of ramps already in place and development near the I-90/I-91 crossing point.  And money obviously.
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, skiing, weather, sports)

Pete from Boston

Quote from: vdeane on October 12, 2015, 07:31:14 PM
Converting the MassPike to AET will probably do more to alleviate the backups than anything else.

This is true, because E-ZPass alone only went so far.  Rothman's point above about lane arrangement is a major factor, in part because the Mass Pike was late to the game the Thruway worked out 20 years ago with advance toll lane instructions (only attempting it after Gov. Patrick was legendarily inconvenienced) and never quite got it right.

E-ZPass has helped–the truly miserable holiday stoppages at Exit 9 are now more prosaic slowdowns, but they can still reach back to Exit 10.  Were AET not coming, an interchange redesign might be in order, but let's see how it goes.

PHLBOS

Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 12, 2015, 11:44:41 PMI find it interesting that "NY City" is used there but "New York" is used here:

A couple things regarding that particular BGS:

1.  It dates back to when the Pike was under control of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority which had their own standards; today, the entity is part of MassDOT.

2.  The MUTCD prohibition for using state names as destinations was either in its infancy stage in terms of implementation at the time or did not take full effect just yet.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Rothman

Quote from: Jim on October 13, 2015, 05:25:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 13, 2015, 12:24:36 PM
Pike has other plaza issues, as well, such as with I-91, where the plaza is far too close to the end of the ramps leading to it.

As someone who had that interchange as part of my commute for a few years, I can say the ramps are too narrow and tight, leading to a toll plaza that has far too few lanes in an inconvenient location.  Seems to me that mess could be improved a lot with a few key direct E-ZPass-only I-90/I-91 ramps.  They also badly need a climbing lane for WB trucks entering the Mass Pike from Exit 4.  It takes them forever to get up to speed up that grade.  I am sure all of this is complicated by the crazy set of ramps already in place and development near the I-90/I-91 crossing point.  And money obviously.

Sing it, brother.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

southshore720

Quote from: PHLBOS on October 13, 2015, 05:40:11 PM
A couple things regarding that particular BGS:

1.  It dates back to when the Pike was under control of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority which had their own standards; today, the entity is part of MassDOT.

2.  The MUTCD prohibition for using state names as destinations was either in its infancy stage in terms of implementation at the time or did not take full effect just yet.

Yet Rhode Island continues to use "New York" as a control city on all of its new signage!

The Nature Boy

And NHDOT and MassDOT continue to use "Maine" or "Maine Points."

jp the roadgeek

CONNDot only uses state references on the last exits in the state (and on I-84 and I-91 use "Mass" instead of MA, with the 84 sign being relatively new Phase IV).  Control cities eliminate the state, even if it's 60 miles away.  For New York City,  they often use the USPS noncompliant N.Y. City (periods in NY).  But I think we can all agree that in most cases, when New York is used as a control by a state DOT or turnpike/thruway authority (oftentimes too liberally), it's assumed the city.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

lordsutch

"New York" is also a city name; "New York City" is just a disambiguation thereof. So it should be fine per MUTCD.

PHLBOS

Quote from: lordsutch on October 14, 2015, 05:13:50 PM
"New York" is also a city name; "New York City" is just a disambiguation thereof. So it should be fine per MUTCD.
Exactly.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 14, 2015, 04:04:19 PM
And NHDOT and MassDOT continue to use "Maine" or "Maine Points."
MassDOT (or its predecessor, MassHighway) hasn't used Maine on its signage (as part of the old-school NH-Maine listing) for years.  There are a handful of I-95 northbound ramp signage that use Kittery, ME or Portland, ME and that's about it in terms of listing Maine destinations while in MA.

The remaining NH-Maine listings on interchange signage along I-90 (for I-495 & I-95) will be dropped when the current 90s-vintage BGS' are replaced.

As far as NHDOT is concerned; I believe most BGS use the All Maine Points moniker for norhtbound I-95 signage.  There is at least one ramp sign that lists both Maine and Massachusetts for both directions of I-95.

Given that I-95 in NH is a toll road (part of the NH Turnpike system) and is more independently funded; such signs may have not been reviewed by FHWA.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Pete from Boston


Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 14, 2015, 04:04:19 PM
And NHDOT and MassDOT continue to use "Maine" or "Maine Points."

Perhaps this is a sign that some within MassDOT feel the Missouri Compromise was forced, and do not recognize the secession of Maine from its Mother Commonwealth, making its use on the sign free from the MUTCD proscription. 

shadyjay

It'll be strange to see "NH-Maine" gone from MassPike signage for I-495 (and for I-95/128, EB).  But life will go on... just like when "NH-Maine" become "Portsmouth NH" on I-95.  What will replace NH-Maine on the I-495 signage?  Lowell?  And I'm assuming the I-95 exit will become Waltham/Providence RI like its WB replaced counterpart? 

NHDOT still uses "Maine" and "Vermont" for two recent (within the past 5 years) overheads, on I-95 in Portsmouth and I-89 in Lebanon, respectively.  A slightly newer sign also uses "HAMPTON NH/MASSACHUSETTS" that once said "HAMPTON/BOSTON" in Portsmouth, but that is the Exit 5 onramp on I-95, in turnpike jurisdiction.

Alps

I think it's silly that state names are now proscribed. If you're going anywhere in Maine from Boston, you use I-95 at least until NH 16. If you're on I-95 SB in New York City, you use the GWB to New Jersey. If you're in NJ, you use the Turnpike south to Delaware.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: shadyjay on October 14, 2015, 09:32:13 PM
It'll be strange to see "NH-Maine" gone from MassPike signage for I-495 (and for I-95/128, EB).  But life will go on... just like when "NH-Maine" become "Portsmouth NH" on I-95.  What will replace NH-Maine on the I-495 signage?  Lowell?

Losing the NH/Maine signage eastbound isn't that big a deal, since many drivers use Exit 10 anyway.  The control cities on the BGS's for I-495 should be Lowell NB and Foxborough SB (since a lot of people use it to get to Gillette anyway).  An LGS EB could list Portsmouth NH and Cape Cod.

On I-95 north of I-495, there should only be 4 control cities used: Portsmouth, Portland, Bangor, and Houlton.  Going south of Portland, there should only be Portsmouth and Boston.   
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

The Nature Boy

Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 14, 2015, 08:40:32 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 14, 2015, 04:04:19 PM
And NHDOT and MassDOT continue to use "Maine" or "Maine Points."

Perhaps this is a sign that some within MassDOT feel the Missouri Compromise was forced, and do not recognize the secession of Maine from its Mother Commonwealth, making its use on the sign free from the MUTCD proscription.

Given our current state government, I (and many people I know) would welcome rejoining Massachusetts.  I'd like to keep my Maine license plate though, the chickadee design is more aesthetically pleasing than the "Spirit of America" plate.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 15, 2015, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 14, 2015, 09:32:13 PM
It'll be strange to see "NH-Maine" gone from MassPike signage for I-495 (and for I-95/128, EB).  But life will go on... just like when "NH-Maine" become "Portsmouth NH" on I-95.  What will replace NH-Maine on the I-495 signage?  Lowell?

Losing the NH/Maine signage eastbound isn't that big a deal, since many drivers use Exit 10 anyway.  The control cities on the BGS's for I-495 should be Lowell NB and Foxborough SB (since a lot of people use it to get to Gillette anyway).  An LGS EB could list Portsmouth NH and Cape Cod.

On I-95 north of I-495, there should only be 4 control cities used: Portsmouth, Portland, Bangor, and Houlton.  Going south of Portland, there should only be Portsmouth and Boston.   

I can agree with this. Kittery, ME is a pretty useless control city and where it is used in Maine, it should just be replaced with Portsmouth, NH.

I almost disagree with Houlton but I can't think of anything to sign north of Bangor other than Houlton.

PHLBOS

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 15, 2015, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 14, 2015, 09:32:13 PM
It'll be strange to see "NH-Maine" gone from MassPike signage for I-495 (and for I-95/128, EB).  But life will go on... just like when "NH-Maine" become "Portsmouth NH" on I-95.  What will replace NH-Maine on the I-495 signage?  Lowell?

Losing the NH/Maine signage eastbound isn't that big a deal, since many drivers use Exit 10 anyway.  The control cities on the BGS's for I-495 should be Lowell NB and Foxborough SB (since a lot of people use it to get to Gillette anyway).  An LGS EB could list Portsmouth NH and Cape Cod.
It should be noted that the original I-495 interchange signage off the Pike listed Marlborough/Milford for control cities.  In the 80s (after I-495 was extended southeast of I-95), the eastbound interchange signage was changed to the current NH-Maine/Cape Cod destination listings for both Pike directions.  The current signage, erected in the 90s, carried over the latter listings.  The split-ramp signage list Marlborough/NH-Maine for I-495 North and Milford/Cape Cod for I-495 South.

I could easily see MassDOT using Portsmouth, NH to replace NH-Maine (like it did for I-95 signage) and, if FWHA/MUTCD gets too anal over the use of Cape Cod as a listing, use either Wareham or Bourne en lieu of the Cape.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 15, 2015, 11:03:44 PMKittery, ME is a pretty useless control city and where it is used in Maine, it should just be replaced with Portsmouth, NH.
MassDOT only recently started placing Kittery, ME on distance signage and I-95 North on-ramp signage in (Salisbury) MA.  The reasoning for that is due to Maine Outlet traffic.

In Maine itself, the use of Kittery on I-95 southbound signage pre-Outlet was probably due to it being the last town prior to the NH border.  Similar to why Salisbury and Attleboro are used on several I-95 ramp signage in MA.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

noelbotevera

South of Portland, the control city could be Boston rather than Kittery or Portsmouth. What's the point of Portsmouth anyways?

North of Bangor, my recommendation could be Toronto. Just go a couple miles west.

cl94

Quote from: noelbotevera on October 16, 2015, 07:57:13 PM
South of Portland, the control city could be Boston rather than Kittery or Portsmouth. What's the point of Portsmouth anyways?

North of Bangor, my recommendation could be Toronto. Just go a couple miles west.

I hope that's meant as a joke. Toronto is a good 12 hours from Houlton. If anything, have Fredericton as the control.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

The Nature Boy

Quote from: cl94 on October 16, 2015, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 16, 2015, 07:57:13 PM
South of Portland, the control city could be Boston rather than Kittery or Portsmouth. What's the point of Portsmouth anyways?

North of Bangor, my recommendation could be Toronto. Just go a couple miles west.

I hope that's meant as a joke. Toronto is a good 12 hours from Houlton. If anything, have Fredericton as the control.

North of Bangor, Fredericton makes sense. It's only a 3 hour drive from Bangor so it's not terribly far away.

cl94

Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 16, 2015, 11:25:43 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 16, 2015, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 16, 2015, 07:57:13 PM
South of Portland, the control city could be Boston rather than Kittery or Portsmouth. What's the point of Portsmouth anyways?

North of Bangor, my recommendation could be Toronto. Just go a couple miles west.

I hope that's meant as a joke. Toronto is a good 12 hours from Houlton. If anything, have Fredericton as the control.

North of Bangor, Fredericton makes sense. It's only a 3 hour drive from Bangor so it's not terribly far away.

Given the AADTs, I wouldn't be shocked if that's where half of the people are going. Really no different from NYSDOT using Montreal as a control.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

JakeFromNewEngland

Quote from: noelbotevera on October 16, 2015, 07:57:13 PM
South of Portland, the control city could be Boston rather than Kittery or Portsmouth. What's the point of Portsmouth anyways?

North of Bangor, my recommendation could be Toronto. Just go a couple miles west.

I doubt that anyone in Maine would actually be driving to Toronto or anywhere in Ontario for that matter via I-95 NB. Going all the way through Atlantic Canada to go back west again is a ridiculous idea.

The Nature Boy

Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on October 17, 2015, 12:19:03 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 16, 2015, 07:57:13 PM
South of Portland, the control city could be Boston rather than Kittery or Portsmouth. What's the point of Portsmouth anyways?

North of Bangor, my recommendation could be Toronto. Just go a couple miles west.

I doubt that anyone in Maine would actually be driving to Toronto or anywhere in Ontario for that matter via I-95 NB. Going all the way through Atlantic Canada to go back west again is a ridiculous idea.

Driving from Portland, ME to Toronto involves going SOUTH to the Mass Pike.

Driving from Bangor, ME to Toronto involves US 201 North.

The only way that I-95 ever factors into a drive from Maine to Toronto is if you drive south.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.