US = Interstate, and other non-roadgeek mistakes

[bugo]

Too many chiefs, not enough Indians.

[Alps]

I wrote the censored post in question.  It's interesting to see it resurface.  The comment was indeed political but NOT a tangent.  It was spot-on relevant to the issue at hand.  I complained to the moderators but to no avail. 

My brief remark met the "civil and relevant" test put forth by the 19-year-old Moderator "deathtopumpkins".  (19-year-old moderator...is that a typo?) 

If this censored material still exists--it would be an interesting exercise to post my original version and let the group decide whether it was "civil and relevant" and advances the discussion.

I also complained (in jest) to the moderators about the use of "Bull----" in the headline of a thread.  I'm not offended, but some folks may be.  And yet it's perfectly acceptable.

Despite the quirks, this remains an interesting and valuable forum.     

The remark was deleted before I saw it. If it's relevant, it should remain posted. Give it another shot - maybe think about how you can word it to avoid sounding like you're attacking a political group.

[frank gifford]

I didn't save it, AARoads would have to provide it. 

[agentsteel53]

I didn't save it, AARoads would have to provide it.

it is not in our archived database of deleted posts, so it must have just been a partial deletion.  therefore, we do not have it.  could you please repost?  (if, for nothing else, curiosity's sake!)

[NE2]

I think he dissed Bush.

[deathtopumpkins]

I never saw the original post before it was edited either. It certainly wasn't me that cut it.

And no, Mr. Frank Gifford, my age is not a typo. And I find it insulting that you have an issue with my age. I've been with this site since it was first created, I've spent years obsessing over roads, I've clinched thousands of miles of highway, and I've discovered multiple previously undiscovered old signs. I'm also a Civil Engineering student who is currently employed by the Massachusetts DOT. Would you like to continue questioning my credentials?

[hbelkins]

I'm also a Civil Engineering student who is currently employed by the Massachusetts DOT. Would you like to continue questioning my credentials?

Scholarship program? We do that in Kentucky. We give scholarships to engineering students, they work summers for us, and when they get out of school they are promised jobs with us (in fact, they may be required to work for us for a certain period of time before seeking employment elsewhere).

[deathtopumpkins]

Just a summer internship. I was promised a job after graduation if I want it, though the state doesn't help pay for school at all.

[frank gifford]

I didn't (and didn't INTEND to) question "deathtopumpkins" road credentials.  Nor do I have an "issue" with his age, and I was unaware of his background.  Nor is any of that relevant. 

The issue is inconsistent moderating, and lack of posted standards about brief political mentions.  I sent e-mail about this to moderator Jake a couple hours ago. 

My on-topic posting apparently no longer exists in its original form.  But the little pro-Mitt Romney mention two posts back (which has nothing to do with roads) is apparently okay.  So is the word "Bull----" which leads off a topic, and directly violates one of your posted standards, but doesn't get censored.   
   

[NE2]

So is the word "Bull----" which leads off a topic, and directly violates one of your posted standards, but doesn't get censored.   

Bullying?

[agentsteel53]

I had assumed "bullfrog".  blatant species discrimination!

[deathtopumpkins]

I didn't (and didn't INTEND to) question "deathtopumpkins" road credentials.  Nor do I have an "issue" with his age, and I was unaware of his background.  Nor is any of that relevant. 

The issue is inconsistent moderating, and lack of posted standards about brief political mentions.  I sent e-mail about this to moderator Jake a couple hours ago. 

My on-topic posting apparently no longer exists in its original form.  But the little pro-Mitt Romney mention two posts back (which has nothing to do with roads) is apparently okay.  So is the word "Bull----" which leads off a topic, and directly violates one of your posted standards, but doesn't get censored.   

If you didn't intend to question my ability as a moderator, why did you question my age twice in the same post? What does my age have to do with it? You say my road-related credentials are irrelevant, yet you question my age. Age is just a number. Road knowledge, on the other hand, certainly is relevant.

Yes, there is a lack of posted standards about political discussions. This is because there is a lack of agreement on what exactly is appropriate and what is not. Thus we moderate these discussions on a case-by-case basis, which I feel is fairly consistent. There is never going to be 100% consistency because people (moderators included) think differently, but I think we try to do a fair job of it.

Finally, no, your post no longer exists in it's original form. The only person who can answer for it is the moderator who edited it, but if they removed the offending content, then it was obviously offensive in some way. I'm not sure which "pro-Mitt Romney" remark you're referring to though, since a quick little ctrl+F of the page doesn't turn up any other mention of the word "romney" apart from your post. So, no, it's not okay, because it's nonexistant.

As for the word "bullshit," if you'll re-read our forum guidelines (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0), the word "shit" is not prohibited. The only mention of inappropriate language is no pointless cursing. Not no cursing period. Just no pointless cursing. If you'll notice there are thousands of examples of various 'curse words' across the forums that are not censored. Because we're (mostly) all adults here and can handle someone saying "shit".

[NE2]

I'm not sure which "pro-Mitt Romney" remark you're referring to though, since a quick little ctrl+F of the page doesn't turn up any other mention of the word "romney" apart from your post. So, no, it's not okay, because it's nonexistant.

It's in Hibby's sig. I say keep it; it tells noobs to ignore his posts.

[Alps]

We made the decision to allow a little more latitude within users' signatures (such as NE2's), provided that they're not attacking anyone on this forum or being blatantly assholic.

[deathtopumpkins]

Ah, I tend to ignore signatures and so assumed he was talking about a post (which admittedly he did imply).

[frank gifford]

I have sent constructive criticism in an e-mail to the moderators.  It's all boring internal stuff which they can post if they want, I'm not going to.  The AARoads Forum is valuable, but this thread is a dead end.   

[Alps]

I have sent constructive criticism in an e-mail to the moderators.  It's all boring internal stuff which they can post if they want, I'm not going to.  The AARoads Forum is valuable, but this thread is a dead end.   

a) No, you didn't, you may have sent it to one or two of us.
b) Stop wanking yourself. Threads are what you make of them. There's plenty of "non-roadgeek mistakes" posts in this thread.

[roadman]

If NYC can start to wean itself off of freeway names (which are slowly disappearing as signs get replaced, at least on I-95 from what I saw with Google Street View), Boston can let go of MA 128.

Would that be the same NYC that has yet to wean itself off of Manhattan's Sixth Avenue or the 59th Street Bridge (the latter now on its second renaming)?  And who says NYC is letting go of its freeway names?  Just because signage changes doesn't mean that common usage does too.

I can't speak for any other set of urbanites, but the last thing a Bostonian is going to do is change what they call something just because there's a new sign with a different name on it.  The stretch of road that was formerly MA128, between the I95/I93 junction in Canton and the "Braintree Split" is still called 128 by the locals, even though that usage was officially dropped in 1997.  Even the author of 128's Wikipedia article admits that calling the entire Circumferential Highway 128 is "an established part of local culture."  Likewise with I93 through downtown Boston.  It's now officially the "Thomas P. O'Neill Tunnel," but to Bostonians it's either "the Artery" (excuse me, the "Ahtery") or "the Big Dig," even though construction has been done for years and the old Central Artery is long gone.

The MA 128 designation was removed from I-93 between Canton and Braintree in 1989, not 1997.  And it's one thing for "Joe Public" to continue to refer to a road by an old designation.  What's unacceptable is that professional traffic reporters continue to insist on using badly outdated designations to this day.  Remember that the I-95 and I-93 designations were added to the highway between Peabody and Braintree in 1974.  That's 38 years ago people - how many other outdated designations or corporate names are still in use 38 years after they've been changed?

Another post on this thread made reference to people referring to the Fleece - excuse me - FleetCenter as the "Garden", and calling the TD Garden the Fleet Center.  While members of the public may have made those inaccurate references over the past few years, I have never heard that type of "mistake" uttered by a sports reporter or other member of the media.

The bottom line is that the Route 128 designation south of Peabody is an unnecessary overlap that only creates the potential for confusion.  You can cite all sorts of reasons why people from the Boston area want to continue to use this outdated reference instead of the proper I-95 designation (in spite of the fact that the BGS panels, the exit numbers, and the mile markers ALL reference Interstate 95, not MA 128), but let's face the reality - it's just a route number folks.  I doubt the world will fall off its axis if professional traffic reporters did their job and refereend to highways by their proper designations.

[deathtopumpkins]

I take it you'd like traffic reporters nationwide to stop using deprecated freeway/bridge names too, right? Which means that here in Boston "the Expressway" has got to go, as do many of the named freeways and bridges in NYC and California and Chicagoland.

And I assume you'd also like traffic reporters to stop referring to interchanges by names that don't appear anywhere official or on maps, like Boston's "Braintree Split" (often just "the Split"), or various cities' spaghetti bowls or mixing bowls.

And finally I presume you'd like traffic reporters to stop abbreviating things. That certainly leads to motorist confusion. Like when someone in Boston hears that "the Expressway's jammed from the tunnel to Neponset" you would like them to specify that "93/3/1 southbound is backed up from the O'Neill Tunnel to the Neponset Valley Parkway", since non-locals wouldn't know what the expressway, the tunnel, or Neponset were.


In short, if you use a specific line of reasoning for one thing, you need to apply it universally.

[agentsteel53]

how many other outdated designations or corporate names are still in use 38 years after they've been changed?

the old surface street alignment of US-101 through the beach communities of northern San Diego County is still referred to as "the 101".  There was a freeway bypass by the mid-50s, which was signed as I-5/US-101 until 1966.  At that point, people figured the freeway could be "the 5" and the old road "the 101".  It is technically San Diego County route S21, but various forms of "historic 101" signage outnumber the pentagons by about a 3:1 ratio at least, due to city interest and county apathy.

[vdeane]

For your expressway example, 93 southbound would suffice.  And yes, traffic reporters should cater to more than just lifelong locals.  How is somebody who recently moved in supposed to know the local phrases?  Someone who didn't live in Rochester growing up would have no way of knowing what the "can of worms" is (especially since it technically referrers to an interchange configuration that hasn't existed for as long as I've been alive), though they might be able to figure out "590 split" from context.

[roadman]

I take it you'd like traffic reporters nationwide to stop using deprecated freeway/bridge names too, right? Which means that here in Boston "the Expressway" has got to go, as do many of the named freeways and bridges in NYC and California and Chicagoland.

And I assume you'd also like traffic reporters to stop referring to interchanges by names that don't appear anywhere official or on maps, like Boston's "Braintree Split" (often just "the Split"), or various cities' spaghetti bowls or mixing bowls.

And finally I presume you'd like traffic reporters to stop abbreviating things. That certainly leads to motorist confusion. Like when someone in Boston hears that "the Expressway's jammed from the tunnel to Neponset" you would like them to specify that "93/3/1 southbound is backed up from the O'Neill Tunnel to the Neponset Valley Parkway", since non-locals wouldn't know what the expressway, the tunnel, or Neponset were.


In short, if you use a specific line of reasoning for one thing, you need to apply it universally.

All excellent points, and well taken.  But, had the local businesses and politicians not interferred with MassDPW in the first place when they started re-shielding signs 38 years ago, we wouldn't even be having this conversation now.  And, unlike "Braintree spilt" or other local nicknames, referring to what are properly Interstate 93 and Interstate 95 as "Route 128", especially when that designation doesn't appear on any BGS or LGS panels (with the aforementioned exception of the recent Salem Street LGS errors in Wakefield), is a situation ripe for confusion.  And, I've been personally told of cases where individuals ended up north of Peabody because (for example) somebody told them "you go up 128 to Exit 22", but was referring to an exit on the I-95 section, not the 128 section.

The reality is that times change, and traditions change.  It happens in all aspects of life.  And I reiterate, there is no LEGITIMATE justification to keep an unnecessary route designation that has been outdated for almost 40 years.  As I stated in a previous post, the other 49 states don't seem to have any problems with changing US, state, and (ocassionally) Interstate designations for their roads - just look at the records of the AASHTO Special Committee On Route Numbering.  Only Massachusetts citizens seem to be obsessed with such "important" government matters as not permitting route numbers to be changed, or insuring that they have a shot at obtaining a low-numbered license plate from the RMV.

[deathtopumpkins]

While I understand your point, I still maintain that one single number on the length of Boston's beltway, rather than a mix of 93, 95, and 128 (with some 1 thrown in too), is a legitimate justification for keeping the number.

Remember when the states (mainly just Illinois I believe) wanted a single number for the Chicago-K.C. corridor? They created a state route number to overlay on the interstates.

Possibly an even better example would be the D.C. and Hampton Roads beltways. In D.C. just because I-95 was overlayed on half of it they didn't decommission I-495. And in Hampton Roads to try to eliminate motorist confusion VDOT added special beltway shields along the whole route, even though most of it is I-64 (though admittedly this was due more to issues with cardinal direction confusion).

Basically, the justification is that it is an accepted standard practice to try to give beltways one single number the whole way around, which should be even better of a reason for roads that don't have a NAME as a beltway (i.e. Atlanta's Perimeter, D.C.'s Capital Beltway, Ohio's Belts, N.C.'s Urban Loops), so that people have a unique name for that portion of the road. It's helpful to distinguish between the portions of I-95 and I-93 that aren't on the beltway and the portions that are. If you say "off 128" someone will instantly know it's off the beltway, rather than having to specify a more specific location, since it could then be anywhere in the eastern half of the state.

[roadman]

Basically, the justification is that it is an accepted standard practice to try to give beltways one single number the whole way around, which should be even better of a reason for roads that don't have a NAME as a beltway (i.e. Atlanta's Perimeter, D.C.'s Capital Beltway, Ohio's Belts, N.C.'s Urban Loops), so that people have a unique name for that portion of the road. It's helpful to distinguish between the portions of I-95 and I-93 that aren't on the beltway and the portions that are. If you say "off 128" someone will instantly know it's off the beltway, rather than having to specify a more specific location, since it could then be anywhere in the eastern half of the state.

Be reminded that MassDPW's removal of the Route 128 designation between Canton and Braintree was required by AASHTO as a condition of their approval of the 1989 US 1 Dedham to Charlestown relocation.  And MassHighway's subsequent removal of "128" from new BGS and LGS panels between Canton and Peabody starting in the early 1990s was required by FHWA as a condition of receiving Federal funding for the sign upgrading work.

So, if maintaining a single number for a beltway is indeed proper and right, I find it curious that both AASHTO and FHWA would issue route numbering mandates to a state DOT that are contrary to "accepted standard practice".

Now, if MassDOT were actually able to completely remove 128 south of Peabody, then how would the traffic reporters refer to the separate sections of I-95 and I-93?

That's easy.  "I-95 lower end (RI Line to Canton)"; "I-95 middle section (Canton to Peabody)", "I-95 upper end (Peabody to NH Line)".

As for I-93: "I-93 lower end (Canton to Boston)"; "I-93 upper end (Boston to NH Line)".

But perhaps that would be too logical.  Better to continue to use a reference that drivers won't see on any BGS or LGS signs, or even on the mile markers, right?!

[PHLBOS]

Possibly an even better example would be the D.C. and Hampton Roads beltways. In D.C. just because I-95 was overlayed on half of it they didn't decommission I-495. And in Hampton Roads to try to eliminate motorist confusion VDOT added special beltway shields along the whole route, even though most of it is I-64 (though admittedly this was due more to issues with cardinal direction confusion).

In the case of the Capital Beltway, the I-495 shields along the I-95 section were originally taken down when the eastern-half of the Beltway received the I-95 designation in the mid-70s; Road maps of the era reflected the change as well.  The I-495 shields reappeared on the eastern-half when VA adopted mileage-based exit numbering sometime during the late 80s/early 90s.  Note: the VA segment of the Beltway east of I-95/395/495 didn't receive its current 3-digit exit numbers (conforming to those along the rest of I-95 in VA) until a decade after that change took effect.  Prior to that, the mileage-based exit numbers along the VA section either started at the VA-MD border.

Nonetheless, since that road has commonly been referred to as The Beltway or Capital Beltway (aka its street name); it could either have 10 different route numbers or 10 changes to its route number but nobody besides the DOTs, engineers and roadgeeks would have noticed.

One does not have that situation along Greater Boston's Yankee Division Highway (aka Route 128).  Had Bay Staters used its steet name (or its initals "YDH" like New Yorkers refer to their expressways); the route number changes would've went largely un-noticed.  But due to several businesses (mostly car dealerships) naming their corporations and Amtrak/MBTA naming one train station after the highway route number (prior to most of the highway receiving its Interstate designations); it made shaking the 128 name a bit harder.  While companies do change names; the reasoning behind it are usually due to legalities and/or the change being the result of an aquisition or merger.  Changing a corporation name due to highway number change made by someone else (the state) does not have the legal urgency nor can the costs of those changes be written off.

The only exception to that would be area code changes; those changes forced companies to update their stationary letterhead and so forth.  However, there's no business I'm aware of that is named after an area code.

The completion of the Peabody I-95/MA 128 interchange taking nearly a decade-and-a-half following the redesignations certainly didn't help with the phasing out of the 128 designation south of Peabody either.  Only then, did the exit numbers along 128 undergo the change-over to the current sequential I-95 numbers.

It also didn't help when the DPW erected those blue 128 America's Technology Highway signs during the 1980s, when high-tech firms (like Raytheon) stated sprouting up near the highway.  These BBS' were erected well after most of MA 128 was redesigated as I-95 & 93.  The BBS' were later changed to read America's Technology Region but that was done in response to complaints made by the Yankee Division Association; the organization in which the highway was actually named after.  They thought the state took away their name from the highway (the DPW didn't).   

Now, if MassDOT were actually able to completely remove 128 south of Peabody, then how would the traffic reporters refer to the separate sections of I-95 and I-93?

That's easy.  "I-95 lower end (RI Line to Canton)"; "I-95 middle section (Canton to Peabody)", "I-95 upper end (Peabody to NH Line)".

As for I-93: "I-93 lower end (Canton to Boston)"; "I-93 upper end (Boston to NH Line)".

But perhaps that would be too logical.  Better to continue to use a reference that drivers won't see on any BGS or LGS signs, or even on the mile markers, right?!

You're right and I agree with you; but it's going to be a challenge to get your average Joe Greater Boston to regularly refer to the Interstate segments of 128 as I-95 or I-93 given the above-mentioned items.

It is worth noting that it did not take too long for many to associate the Southeast Expressway and the Central Artery (when it existed) as I-93 even though news and traffic reporters still use the street names for those roads; but again, that was because the name had more staying power than the route number(s).