Interstate 93 Signing Work

[Pete from Boston]

My point with saying "LEFT EXIT" is that it doesn't make sense in Canton, either.  Joe Traveler isn't going to consider that an exit, and the signs ought to reflect reality as it is commonly understood, not as makes sense in a logic puzzle.

I agree with you but only up to a point.  The LEFT EXIT over that I-95 North (& US 1 South) BGS in Canton, while it took me by surprise initially since the exit tab was erected well after the main signboard, is somewhat forgivable because one indeed merges with the through-I-95 North traffic just beyond that interchange... not 2 miles away like the I-95/495 North merge in Salisbury. 

Additionally, unlike the Canton interchange, which includes a direct exit ramp to I-95 South; there is no direct exit ramp that runs from I-495 North to I-95 South.  If such existed closer to the actual merge (to my knowledge, MassDOT has no plans for such since the traffic counts on MA 110 aren't large enough to warrant such), maybe LEFT EXIT signage for I-95 North there would be MUTCD-warranted.

To the mods,

I would suggest that posts #360 through 372 374 be moved to this thread due to the current discussion being primarily focused on I-95 signage rather than those along I-93.

My posts in this range are all directly or indirectly about the 93 signing where it meets 95, but appeal away if you like.

[bob7374]

I've posted my latest photos of the new signage along I-93 between Braintree and Boston put up the last couple weeks on my I-93 website, it includes the new diagrammatic for the MA 3 South Exit (with the old sign in the background):


Along with some new trailblazer photos and new overhead advisory signs. All are available at:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html

This may be my last photo post for a while since, with a few exceptions, the contractor has not created the foundations for the remaining signs yet to be installed. This includes most of the signage north of Morrissey Blvd (Exit 14). The good news is that more than 75% of the signs along the entire Randolph to Boston stretch are up.

[roadman]

As always, excellent photographs Bob.  Note that the arrows on the diagrammatic signs were originally fabricated according to the project plans (three lanes to MA 3 and two lanes to I-93 south).  These arrows were subsequently overlaid with the present two-and-two arrows to reflect District 6's recent change in lane configuration.  One of the ways you can tell is that the overlaid arrow falls lower on the panel than MUTCD specs call for (i.e. the left arrowhead should align with the MA 3 shield, and not the Cape Cod legend).

[Pete from Boston]

I've posted my latest photos of the new signage along I-93 between Braintree and Boston put up the last couple weeks on my I-93 website, it includes the new diagrammatic for the MA 3 South Exit (with the old sign in the background):


Along with some new trailblazer photos and new overhead advisory signs. All are available at:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html.

Now that is a left exit.

[southshore720]

I'm disappointed in this diagrammatic...I think the arrow assembly in the middle is too small, especially compared to some of the other diagrammatics from the "add-a-lane" project further down the highway.

[Zeffy]

Here's my version of that diagrammatic, done only because I was bored...



It makes the MA 3 legend more in line with the I-93/US 1 TO I-95 legend, instead of the MA 3 one slumping towards the bottom because of the oddly positioned arrow.

[PurdueBill]

Here's my version of that diagrammatic, done only because I was bored...



It makes the MA 3 legend more in line with the I-93/US 1 TO I-95 legend, instead of the MA 3 one slumping towards the bottom because of the oddly positioned arrow.

Only constructive comment I have is that the stem should start with 4 lanes.  (They started out with the #3 lane being able to go either way and restriped; now the diagrammatic isn't totally necessary because "regular" signs with downward arrows would work without two arrows pointing at one lane.)

I'm disappointed in this diagrammatic...I think the arrow assembly in the middle is too small, especially compared to some of the other diagrammatics from the "add-a-lane" project further down the highway.

I would bet that the arrows on this one are a last-minute fudge job to account for the change in striping at the exit.  I'd bet the sign was originally designed with the #3 lane splitting.  (Guessing, but based on the last-minute deletion of the arrow on the sign at the exit, it seems like all the signs were probably designed already before the striping change.)

[PHLBOS]

I'm disappointed in this diagrammatic...I think the arrow assembly in the middle is too small, especially compared to some of the other diagrammatics from the "add-a-lane" project further down the highway.

Granted, the diagrammatic arrow was a last-minute change per Roadman's explanation; but it could've at least been better positioned (higher).  That would've helped in making it look less like an afterthought.

Here's my version of that diagrammatic, done only because I was bored...



It makes the MA 3 legend more in line with the I-93/US 1 TO I-95 legend, instead of the MA 3 one slumping towards the bottom because of the oddly positioned arrow.

Not a bad layout.  However and per MUTCD standards, the route shields are supposed to be aligned with the respective arrowheads.  Obviously, the actual BGS doens't reflect such due to the reason earlier explained.

It's worth noting that there are other diagrammatic BGS' around that don't always follow the MUTCD shields being aligned next to the arrowheads.

Side bar: I just noticed that the there's a slight change in MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design with this BGS.  The top part of the green tab no longer has a white border.  Many of the earlier LEFT EXIT tab installations featured at least a white border on top of the green tab; some even featured a black border along the bottom of the yellow part of the tab.

[roadman]

I would bet that the arrows on this one are a last-minute fudge job to account for the change in striping at the exit.  I'd bet the sign was originally designed with the #3 lane splitting.  (Guessing, but based on the last-minute deletion of the arrow on the sign at the exit, it seems like all the signs were probably designed already before the striping change.)

You are correct in that the arrows on these signs were revised after the panels were originally fabricated.  The original arrows showed five lanes at the bottom of the shaft, with three lanes going to MA 3 south and two lanes going to I-93 south.  Note that there never was an option lane at this split, even before the recent lane configuration change.

[PHLBOS]

Note that there never was an option lane at this split, even before the recent lance configuration change.

Lance?  Is Zorro now working for MassDOT lol? 

Sorry Roadman, I just had to do it. 

[A00234826]

I'm disappointed in this diagrammatic...I think the arrow assembly in the middle is too small, especially compared to some of the other diagrammatics from the "add-a-lane" project further down the highway.

Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium

[roadman]

Note that there never was an option lane at this split, even before the recent lance configuration change.

Lance?  Is Zorro now working for MassDOT lol? 

Sorry Roadman, I just had to do it. 

No problem.  BTW, I corrected my post.

[PurdueBill]

I'm disappointed in this diagrammatic...I think the arrow assembly in the middle is too small, especially compared to some of the other diagrammatics from the "add-a-lane" project further down the highway.

Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium

Doesn't MUTCD want only one control city per arrow on a diagrammatic though?

(As far as thinking there was an option lane, I think I was recalling common driving practice of moving over at the last minute vs. the actual striping.  I still don't get why they deleted a lane for route 3 or didn't make the #3 lane an option lane though.  Probably zipper-lane related, but still....)

[Zeffy]

Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium

Enough with the New York City crap... if there were to be another control city, it should be New Haven or Bridgeport (presumably with the CT suffix after the actual city).

[A00234826]

Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium

Enough with the New York City crap... if there were to be another control city, it should be New Haven or Bridgeport (presumably with the CT suffix after the actual city).

I agree I think New Haven Ct will next control city after Providence

HOWEVER I do suggest that Foxba]oro will be a good control point better then Attobaro becasue Foxboro is home to Gellett Stadiam where the New England Pats play and that makes an important control city.
I suggest that on SE expressway (I-93 south Cape Cod, Providence RI) or (I-93 south Quincy, Providence RI)so people coming from Boston will know how to get to Providence or Cape Cod.  after exit 7 (I-93 US-1 south to I-95 Foxboro Providence RI) and at Exit 1 (I-95 south Foxboro Providence RI)  I also suggest that for a Main idea for I-93 to I-95 idea like put (I-93 south to I-95 Canton, RI-CT-NY) I-95 and Rt-24 are the main  routes to get to RI.

Speeking of that I think Providence RI as a control city for I-93 south of Boston is a good idea like for example in Boston to exit 9 (I-93 south Cape Cod, Providence RI) or (I-93 south Quinzy Providence RI) and some for north of Boston as 2nd control city like between exits 33-28 (I-93 south Boston Providence RI)

Unrelated to that I know that many people from Maine or NH to get to Boston use I-95 to I-93. when I was in Lawerance I saw signs for (I-495 south to I-93 Lowell) for people heading to Boston from Lawerance. For people from Peabody and the east, I suggest that on I-95 Rt-128 sb between Exits 42-38 (I-95 south to I-93 Boston Waltham) the other way around on I-93 for those who are leaving for I-95 Rt-128 I suggest on I-93 nb between Exits 32-36 (I-93 north to I-95 Concord NH, Portsmouth NH)

Last of all on I-93 nb before I-95 jct in Woburn I suggest (Gloucester, Portsmouth NH use I-95 north exit 37A)

[PHLBOS]

Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium

Enough with the New York City crap... if there were to be another control city, it should be New Haven or Bridgeport (presumably with the CT suffix after the actual city).

For that particular location; if a 2nd I-93 destination were to be chosen, it would be either Dedham (see the older BGS in the background) or Canton... as per other I-93 South signage beyond this interchange.

At present & even at its southernmost interchange in MA (Exit 2A-B/MA 1A-Newport Ave.); Providence, RI is the furthest listed destination for I-95 south signage.

I think Providence RI as a control city for I-93 south of Boston is a good idea like for example in Boston

I've been stating such on other threads & even previous pages of this thread for some time.

Now that MassDOT has banished MA 3 shields (the only route on the Expressway that actually goes to the Cape) along the Southeast Expressway signage to just supplemental trailblazers (and made room for US 1 shields); they should have done the following for their destinations signs (both BGS' & LGS'):

1.  For single-destination southbound signage use either Quincy (north of Exit 12) or Braintree (from Exits 11B-A to 8).

2.  For 2-destination southbound listings, use the more distant Cape Cod and Providence, RI destinations in that order for signs from Boston down to Exit 8.

3.  From Exit 7 to Exits 2B-A; use Canton or Dedham along with Providence, RI as presently.  I personally would use Dedham over Canton due to the town being larger in size and the fact that it's where US 1 breaks off the YDH (I-95/MA 128) and continues south.

Side bar: not everybody along I-93 & 95 south is heading to Gillette Stadium in Foxboro for a Patriots game (which only accounts for the fall and winter months and once maybe twice-a-week at best) or a concert.  The existing supplemental signage along I-95 as shown here is sufficient enough.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

Well its looks small but It can have another control city on I-93. Note there an empty space in bottom right after Providence RI. I suggest ether (I-93 US-1 south to I-95, Providence RI, New York City) or (I-93 US-1 to I-95 Foxbaro, Providence RI) since many people take I-93 to I-95 to Gellet Stadium

Enough with the New York City crap... if there were to be another control city, it should be New Haven or Bridgeport (presumably with the CT suffix after the actual city).

I agree I think New Haven Ct will next control city after Providence

HOWEVER I do suggest that Foxba]oro will be a good control point better then Attobaro becasue Foxboro is home to Gellett Stadiam where the New England Pats play and that makes an important control city.
I suggest that on SE expressway (I-93 south Cape Cod, Providence RI) or (I-93 south Quincy, Providence RI)so people coming from Boston will know how to get to Providence or Cape Cod.  after exit 7 (I-93 US-1 south to I-95 Foxboro Providence RI) and at Exit 1 (I-95 south Foxboro Providence RI)  I also suggest that for a Main idea for I-93 to I-95 idea like put (I-93 south to I-95 Canton, RI-CT-NY) I-95 and Rt-24 are the main  routes to get to RI.

Speeking of that I think Providence RI as a control city for I-93 south of Boston is a good idea like for example in Boston to exit 9 (I-93 south Cape Cod, Providence RI) or (I-93 south Quinzy Providence RI) and some for north of Boston as 2nd control city like between exits 33-28 (I-93 south Boston Providence RI)

Unrelated to that I know that many people from Maine or NH to get to Boston use I-95 to I-93. when I was in Lawerance I saw signs for (I-495 south to I-93 Lowell) for people heading to Boston from Lawerance. For people from Peabody and the east, I suggest that on I-95 Rt-128 sb between Exits 42-38 (I-95 south to I-93 Boston Waltham) the other way around on I-93 for those who are leaving for I-95 Rt-128 I suggest on I-93 nb between Exits 32-36 (I-93 north to I-95 Concord NH, Portsmouth NH)

Last of all on I-93 nb before I-95 jct in Woburn I suggest (Gloucester, Portsmouth NH use I-95 north exit 37A)

Sure, Gillette Stadium/Foxboro is an important destination, but it doesn't need to be a control city. Providence is better because it's more of a long distance destination for people traveling south. Plus, Gillette Stadium is really only busy during the soccer and football seasons so it's not a really important destination for people.

[roadman]

Doesn't MUTCD want only one control city per arrow on a diagrammatic though?

Correct.  At least FHWA didn't insist on APL signing at this location, which may have been a possibility given that the project had to be re-advertised for bids after Massachusetts adopted the 2009 MUTCD.

(As far as thinking there was an option lane, I think I was recalling common driving practice of moving over at the last minute vs. the actual striping.  I still don't get why they deleted a lane for route 3 or didn't make the #3 lane an option lane though.  Probably zipper-lane related, but still....)

Again correct.  District 6's rationale for changing the lane configuration was to reduce the merging/weaving problems the end of the zipper lane and the MA 3/I-93 split.

[Zeffy]

HOWEVER I do suggest that Foxba]oro will be a good control point better then Attobaro becasue Foxboro is home to Gellett Stadiam where the New England Pats play and that makes an important control city.
I suggest that on SE expressway (I-93 south Cape Cod, Providence RI) or (I-93 south Quincy, Providence RI)so people coming from Boston will know how to get to Providence or Cape Cod.  after exit 7 (I-93 US-1 south to I-95 Foxboro Providence RI) and at Exit 1 (I-95 south Foxboro Providence RI)  I also suggest that for a Main idea for I-93 to I-95 idea like put (I-93 south to I-95 Canton, RI-CT-NY) I-95 and Rt-24 are the main  routes to get to RI.

Sure. I've made some renders of appropriate signs to send to MassDOT. I'll also throw in the nominal fee to rename the highway in your honor.

Correct.  At least FHWA didn't insist on APL signing at this location, which may have been a possibility given that the project had to be re-advertised for bids after Massachusetts adopted the 2009 MUTCD.

I actually like how MassDOT continues with the diagrammatic signs instead of jumping on the APL bandwagon (well, if you call it that).

[agentsteel53]

Foxba]oro
Attobaro
becasue
Gellett Stadiam
Speeking
Quinzy
Lawerance

we are forbidden by board rules to point out deficiencies in the spelling and grammar of posters, so I will just, out of the blue, for completely unrelated reasons, tell you to kindly go fuck yourself.

[Alex4897]

My rendition of A00420BLARGH approved signage:

(warning: big file, click at your own risk)

[PHLBOS]

I actually like how MassDOT continues with the diagrammatic signs instead of jumping on the APL bandwagon (well, if you call it that).

IIRC, MUTCD's APL design are only to be used if there's a middle lane that splits into two different directions.  Such middle-lane split does not currently exist with the Braintree Split interchange.  When it did (for I-93 & MA 3 South); the signage (mid-1980s vintage) obviously predated the MUTCD APL standard.

If one scrolls down the OP's I-93 signage page, or a previous page of this thread (scroll down); one sees that MassDOT used yellow LEFT or RIGHT 2 LANES banners instead of a diagrammatic.

[PurdueBill]

I actually like how MassDOT continues with the diagrammatic signs instead of jumping on the APL bandwagon (well, if you call it that).

IIRC, MUTCD's APL design are only to be used if there's a middle lane that splits into two different directions.  Such middle-lane split does not exist with the Braintree Split interchange.

Aha!    Google street view and aerial view seems to show what I thought I remembered--the #3 lane used to split at the exit but it now doesn't (after the aerial and street views were taken).  Had they left the option lane, APL could have been viable (and may have been required).  With the new striping, APL is inappropriate (thank goodness).

[Zeffy]

Aha!    Google street view and aerial view seems to show what I thought I remembered--the #3 lane used to split at the exit but it now doesn't (after the aerial and street views were taken).  Had they left the option lane, APL could have been viable (and may have been required).  With the new striping, APL is inappropriate (thank goodness)

Okay, so the #3 lane is NOT an option lane looking at the Google Maps aerial view. Yeah, that makes sense. Although, couldn't you just sign it as two separate signs instead of a diagrammatic at that point though?

Sidebar: Are lane stripings supposed to not line up with one another? I noticed it on the Google Maps view.

[agentsteel53]

My rendition of A00420BLARGH approved signage:

I don't think it would look anywhere near that good