AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstate 95 signing work  (Read 161013 times)

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7246
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 08:49:48 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #475 on: August 06, 2020, 12:04:56 PM »

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:

Quote from: § 2E.20
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:

Quote from: § 2E.21
Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall be used on all new or reconstructed freeways and expressways as described in Section 2E.20.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7344
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 15, 2021, 07:59:25 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #476 on: August 06, 2020, 04:48:40 PM »

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:

Quote from: § 2E.20
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:

Quote from: § 2E.21
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):

Quote from: § 2E.22
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.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2020, 04:50:54 PM by PHLBOS »
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1733
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 08:41:41 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #477 on: August 06, 2020, 05:19:28 PM »

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.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7246
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 08:49:48 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #478 on: August 06, 2020, 05:47:45 PM »

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.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14630
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:08:18 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #479 on: August 07, 2020, 01:12:14 AM »

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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7344
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 15, 2021, 07:59:25 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #480 on: August 07, 2020, 12:29:52 PM »

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.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jemacedo9

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 753
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Phoenixville PA / Rochester NY
  • Last Login: Today at 06:19:55 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #481 on: August 07, 2020, 12:51:39 PM »

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?
Logged

PurdueBill

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1327
  • Last Login: November 26, 2021, 03:07:33 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #482 on: August 07, 2020, 01:24:17 PM »

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.  :P 
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7246
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 08:49:48 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #483 on: August 07, 2020, 03:05:41 PM »

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.  :P 

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.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14630
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:08:18 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #484 on: August 07, 2020, 05:01:02 PM »

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.  :P 

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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7344
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 15, 2021, 07:59:25 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #485 on: August 07, 2020, 07:40:22 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2020, 07:48:29 PM by PHLBOS »
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1733
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 08:41:41 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #486 on: August 07, 2020, 08:52:57 PM »

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.
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7344
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 15, 2021, 07:59:25 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #487 on: August 08, 2020, 11:22:30 AM »

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.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

bob7374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 57
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: November 25, 2021, 05:49:13 PM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #488 on: November 12, 2020, 11:21:42 PM »

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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 349
  • Age: 41
  • Location: South Shore, MA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:20:51 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #489 on: July 26, 2021, 05:20:25 PM »

*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!
Logged

bob7374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 57
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: November 25, 2021, 05:49:13 PM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #490 on: July 27, 2021, 12:00:08 AM »

*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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4208
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Boston, MA
  • Last Login: November 26, 2021, 09:41:12 AM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #491 on: August 09, 2021, 05:58:41 PM »

*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.
Logged
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

kramie13

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 58
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: November 23, 2021, 10:12:53 AM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #492 on: August 11, 2021, 01:21:32 PM »

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".
Logged

bob7374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 57
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: November 25, 2021, 05:49:13 PM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #493 on: August 17, 2021, 11:54:50 PM »

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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 57
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: November 25, 2021, 05:49:13 PM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #494 on: November 25, 2021, 05:48:11 PM »

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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 349
  • Age: 41
  • Location: South Shore, MA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:20:51 PM
Re: Interstate 95 signing work
« Reply #495 on: November 26, 2021, 02:05:54 PM »

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.
Logged

 


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.