US = Interstate, and other non-roadgeek mistakes

[Riverside Frwy]

On one map for a business I saw in Riverside, I noticed that they had SR 60 using the spade, yet they gave SR 91 an Interstate shield.

Using an Interstate shield for ALL routes types is quite common on business maps, but to sit there and give SR 91 an Interstate shield and then an inch away in the SAME map give SR 60 the correct spade shield is ludicrous.

[Scott5114]

In St Louis there were still a lot of people calling I-64 "Highway 40". I think I read people tend to call it 64 more often now that it has been redone, but I'm not exactly sure of that.

[PHLBOS]

I don't think MassDOT currently has any plans to truncate 128 anymore, based on what I hear around the office and what I've seen on new signs going up in Wakefield (signs that show 95 and 128 shields next to each other, rather than a 128 trailblazer mounted on the ground, as had become the norm).

Are we talking about new MassDOT-issued BGS' and LGS' here?  The BGS/LGS' at the I-95/Rte. 128 interchange ramps only have the I-95 shields on them.  The recently-erected BGS' at the Peabody split (Exit 45/29) only have I-95 shields on them for the southbound headings.  The original 1988 BGS' for that interchange had MA 128 shields next to the I-95 shields.

I do know that when newer LGS' were erected along MA 129 westbound in Wyoma Square Lynn during the late 90s/early 2000s; the signs only had MA 129, I-95 & US 1 shields but no MA 128 shields.  Most of these signs were replaced about a year later with MA 128 shields en lieu of I-95 shields.

[vdeane]

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.

Why is it that routes were renumbered all the time before the 80s without consequence but the idea is now taboo?

[deathtopumpkins]

I don't think MassDOT currently has any plans to truncate 128 anymore, based on what I hear around the office and what I've seen on new signs going up in Wakefield (signs that show 95 and 128 shields next to each other, rather than a 128 trailblazer mounted on the ground, as had become the norm).

Are we talking about new MassDOT-issued BGS' and LGS' here?  The BGS/LGS' at the I-95/Rte. 128 interchange ramps only have the I-95 shields on them.  The recently-erected BGS' at the Peabody split (Exit 45/29) only have I-95 shields on them for the southbound headings.  The original 1988 BGS' for that interchange had MA 128 shields next to the I-95 shields.

I do know that when newer LGS' were erected along MA 129 westbound in Wyoma Square Lynn during the late 90s/early 2000s; the signs only had MA 129, I-95 & US 1 shields but no MA 128 shields.  Most of these signs were replaced about a year later with MA 128 shields en lieu of I-95 shields.

Yes we are. Specifically the Salem St. exit in Wakefield. Brand-spanking new paddle signage with both shields.

[PHLBOS]

Specifically the Salem St. exit in Wakefield. Brand-spanking new paddle signage with both shields.

Next time I'm up that way (likely Labor Day weekend); that's something I'll check out.

That's a rather odd place to make that change since that particular interchange has not had a MA 128 shield on any paddle sign fabricated after 1976 until your mentioned-example.

My earlier-mentioned Wyoma Square examples (that changed from I-95 to MA 128) had some merit because the ramp from MA 129 at Goodwin's Circle is not too far away from the I-95/MA 128 split.

[deathtopumpkins]

That might be the same reason for these - the interchange is one of the last on the 95/128 multiplex. I'm 95% certain that the sign at the southbound onramp has a 128 shield too though.

[PHLBOS]

That might be the same reason for these - the interchange is one of the last on the 95/128 multiplex. I'm 95% certain that the sign at the southbound onramp has a 128 shield too though.

Back up a sec.  Is the MA 128 shield you saw indeed on the paddle sign itself or mounted on the same post but below the paddle (in a trailblazer layout)?  Given the history, (no 128 shields on ANY paddle signs in that area since the mid-70s); my guess would be that you likely saw the latter.

The below-photo from Google Earth (taken at the Salem St./Audubon Rd. intersection) proves otherwise... at least on approach to the I-95 South ramps:



The only case where I've seen either a MA 128 shield (or text) on a LGS paddle post-1977 along Salem St. was further east at the US 1/MA 129 interchange (for US 1 North paddle signage) near the S. Lynnfield/Saugus border.

While the Salem St. (Exit 42) is near the I-95/MA 128 split (Exit 45), there are still 2 interchanges between them.  I know that the paddle signs at Walnut St. have only I-95 on them (w/supplemental MA 128 trailblazers) and the BGS' at the US 1 interchange only has MA 128 shields on the BGS' for the northbound direction.

Why would MassDOT do the Salem St. interchange signs differently than the others nearby?

In contrast, the fore-mentioned Wyoma Square examples are located south (and slightly east) of the I-95/MA 128 split.

[empirestate]

NYNEX. Don't forget NYNEX. 

Verizon probably won't deposit or accept a check written to New England Telephone, NYNEX, or Bell Atlantic... 

Probably not, but they had no problem sending me a collection notice for a 12-year defunct NYNEX account I used to have. (It was my college dorm phone, and my roommate had reactivated and used the account after I left the school.)

I just told them I don't keep utility bills that old, and could they kindly produce a copy of the bill showing the debt they claimed? That ended that.

[CL]

The local media in Salt Lake City will incorrectly refer to U.S. highways as state routes around seventy-five percent of the time (when not simply referring to the route as "Highway #"). Which is lamentable, but whatever.

In fact, there was a story posted on The Salt Lake Tribune's website just last night with a perfect example.

[Rover_0]

The local media in Salt Lake City will incorrectly refer to U.S. highways as state routes around seventy-five percent of the time (when not simply referring to the route as "Highway #"). Which is lamentable, but whatever.

In fact, there was a story posted on The Salt Lake Tribune's website just last night with a perfect example.

I know all too much about that; the Kanab-based SUN (Southern Utah News) does this often when I'm down there. I actually recall a rare case when Utah SR-20 was referred to as "US-20!"

I'm tempted to write these papers to clarify the difference, but not one article involving a death.

[huskeroadgeek]

There was an Associated Press article in my local newspaper this morning about the recent release of extensive coverage on Google Street View of National Parks in California. The last paragraph of the article included this sentence:
"The project was part of a Street View "refresh" of California that involved a trip down U.S. 1 along the Big Sur coast."

[SidS1045]

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.

[deathtopumpkins]

That might be the same reason for these - the interchange is one of the last on the 95/128 multiplex. I'm 95% certain that the sign at the southbound onramp has a 128 shield too though.

Back up a sec.  Is the MA 128 shield you saw indeed on the paddle sign itself or mounted on the same post but below the paddle (in a trailblazer layout)?  Given the history, (no 128 shields on ANY paddle signs in that area since the mid-70s); my guess would be that you likely saw the latter.

The below-photo from Google Earth (taken at the Salem St./Audubon Rd. intersection) proves otherwise... at least on approach to the I-95 South ramps:

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/10723175.jpg

The only case where I've seen either a MA 128 shield (or text) on a LGS paddle post-1977 along Salem St. was further east at the US 1/MA 129 interchange (for US 1 North paddle signage) near the S. Lynnfield/Saugus border.

While the Salem St. (Exit 42) is near the I-95/MA 128 split (Exit 45), there are still 2 interchanges between them.  I know that the paddle signs at Walnut St. have only I-95 on them (w/supplemental MA 128 trailblazers) and the BGS' at the US 1 interchange only has MA 128 shields on the BGS' for the northbound direction.

Why would MassDOT do the Salem St. interchange signs differently than the others nearby?

In contrast, the fore-mentioned Wyoma Square examples are located south (and slightly east) of the I-95/MA 128 split.

Definitely on the paddle sign itself, not on the post below. Unless I'm going insane, which you're starting to make me think I might be...

The signage seen in Google Earth has been replaced. I don't know why they did the signage differently for this interchange. But this signage was just installed within the past few weeks, as they rebuilt the interchange this summer, so maybe there's been a change in policy.

I'll be driving through there again later this week so I'll take the exit and photograph the signs.

[roadman]

The signage seen in Google Earth has been replaced. I don't know why they did the signage differently for this interchange. But this signage was just installed within the past few weeks, as they rebuilt the interchange this summer, so maybe there's been a change in policy.

I'll be driving through there again later this week so I'll take the exit and photograph the signs.

AFAIK, MassDOT has no plans to re-introduce the use of 128 shields on either BGS or LGS panels within the Canton to Peabody corridor.  Note that the elimination of 128 shields from BGS and LGS signs along the I-95/MA 128 overlap section, which started in the early 1990s, was an FHWA mandate, and not a MassHighway internal policy decision.

It's my understanding that the recent Salem Street work in Wakefield at Pleasure Island Road and I-95(MA 128) was done by a private developer, which may explain the non-standard 128 shields on the new guide signs at this location.

[PHLBOS]

AFAIK, MassDOT has no plans to re-introduce the use of 128 shields on either BGS or LGS panels within the Canton to Peabody corridor.  Note that the elimination of 128 shields from BGS and LGS signs along the I-95/MA 128 overlap section, which started in the early 1990s, was an FHWA mandate, and not a MassHighway internal policy decision.

In truth, the elimination of 128 shields from BGS & LGS along I-95 Peabody to Canton actually started in 1976-1977 but it was done in a sporadic and inconsistent manner until the early 90s FHWA mandate that you mentioned.

Heck, one BGS for the  I-95 South ramp from the Goodwin's Circle connector (near US 1 & MA 129) was changed or altered FIVE TIMES

Original 1977 signage:

95 SOUTH
Burlington
TO Mass Pike

1978 modification:

95 128 SOUTH
Burlington
TO Mass Pike

1982 sign replacement (Jersey barrier median was placed along mainline I-95/MA 128 and featured the hideous-looking font on the I-shields):

95 SOUTH
Burlington

1988 sign replacement project (coincided with the I-95/MA 128 Peabody interchange being constructed, the "9"s were cocked/tilted on the I-shields)

95 128 SOUTH
Waltham

1990s sign replacement project (featuring button-copy I-shields):

95 SOUTH
Waltham

It's my understanding that the recent Salem Street work in Wakefield at Pleasure Island Road and I-95(MA 128) was done by a private developer, which may explain the non-standard 128 shields on the new guide signs at this location.

That indeed would explain it but I'm still a bit surprised that the ones at the actual ramps (as opposed to lead-in LGS') to I-95 were allowed to be done/replaced by a private developer.

[agentsteel53]

1988 sign replacement project (coincided with the I-95/MA 128 Peabody interchange being constructed, the "9"s were cocked/tilted on the I-shields)

95 128 SOUTH
Walthan

is this your typo or MassDOT's?

[roadman]

In truth, the elimination of 128 shields from BGS & LGS along I-95 Peabody to Canton actually started in 1976-1977 but it was done in a sporadic and inconsistent manner until the early 90s FHWA mandate that you mentioned.

When the I-95 and I-93 designations were added to Route 128 between Canton and Peabody in late 1974, MassDPW crews began re-shielding existing BGS panels (LGS panels on secondary roads - what PennDOTfan refers to as "paddle" signs - still used numerals instead of shields at this time), replacing '128' shields with '95' ones.  This work started at the Peabody end and was progressing south until the Legislature questioned the re-designation.  At that point, MassDPW stopped changing signs.  Once it was decreed that the 128 designation would remain, the crews went back to work.  Where signs had been changed to 95, they installed 128 entry markers; where signs still read 128, they installed I-95 markers.

The principal reason why the BGSes between Canton and Wellesley weren't updated until the "panels-only" sign replacement job in 1997 is because of the proposed "add-a-lane" project that is now under construction.  Once it was learned that project would be delayed, the sign panels were replaced under a separate project.

[PHLBOS]

1988 sign replacement project (coincided with the I-95/MA 128 Peabody interchange being constructed, the "9"s were cocked/tilted on the I-shields)

95 128 SOUTH
Walthan

is this your typo or MassDOT's?

Oops!  Mine, it should read Waltham (earlier post has since been corrected).

When the I-95 and I-93 designations were added to Route 128 between Canton and Peabody in late 1974, MassDPW crews began re-shielding existing BGS panels (LGS panels on secondary roads - what PennDOTfan refers to as "paddle" signs - still used numerals instead of shields at this time), replacing '128' shields with '95' ones.  This work started at the Peabody end and was progressing south until the Legislature questioned the re-designation.  At that point, MassDPW stopped changing signs.  Once it was decreed that the 128 designation would remain, the crews went back to work.  Where signs had been changed to 95, they installed 128 entry markers; where signs still read 128, they installed I-95 markers.

The first LGS' I saw that called the road 95 circa 1976 in that area used I-shields on the main 'paddle' but usually the lower 'paddle' used 95 in text.  Needless to say, this was after the DPW adopted the square/rectangular LGS over the older 6-sided style for its main 'paddle' signs.  I don't recall seeing any route number/shield modifications to existing (at the time) BGS/LGS' until 1979 or 1980.  Any BGS/LGS sporting I-95 (or I-93) shields were brand new signs. 

I first started seeing I-95 trailblazer signs along the highway around 1975 (while riding w/my father).

Most of the early-70s era BGS' that only had 128 shields were largely left alone until they were replaced with new signs in the 1990s and 2000s (the last SOUTH 128 pull-through sign in Burlington was only taken down within the last year or two).

[bugo]

A few years back, Time magazine had I-75 going through Dallas.  It's actually U.S. 75 A/K/A Central Expressway. 

Off the subject: I-69 is a radically scaled-down version of the defunct Trans-Texas Corridor, a 10-lane toll road (with separate car and truck lanes), six rail lines, pipelines, and high voltage lines.  One area would have been ground zero for an interchange with at least 14 traffic lanes. 

[Removed political tangent. -S.]
 

This forum is WAY too moderated.  I've been on many forums, but this one is by far the most moderated forum that I've ever been on.  Free speech is not acceptable here.  This has become the premier forum for road enthusiasts, and it has a certain responsibility.  Censoring posts for political views is silly.  It makes me long for the MTR days where you could say anything you want.

[Alps]

A few years back, Time magazine had I-75 going through Dallas.  It's actually U.S. 75 A/K/A Central Expressway. 

Off the subject: I-69 is a radically scaled-down version of the defunct Trans-Texas Corridor, a 10-lane toll road (with separate car and truck lanes), six rail lines, pipelines, and high voltage lines.  One area would have been ground zero for an interchange with at least 14 traffic lanes. 

[Removed political tangent. -S.]
 

This forum is WAY too moderated.  I've been on many forums, but this one is by far the most moderated forum that I've ever been on.  Free speech is not acceptable here.  This has become the premier forum for road enthusiasts, and it has a certain responsibility.  Censoring posts for political views is silly.  It makes me long for the MTR days where you could say anything you want.

You can still say anything you want on MTR. Look what happened to it.

[bugo]

I'm not saying to allow anarchy like on MTR.  It should be a happy medium.  Delete the obvious spam, but allow political discussions as long as they are civil.  Good moderators are barely noticed.  Bad moderators make a big deal out of everything no matter how small.

[deathtopumpkins]

We do allow political discussions that are civil and relevant. A thread about roads is not the place to complain about such-and-such candidate's view on such-and-such issue, unless that issue happens to be the road the thread is about.

For example, complaining about a politician you don't like cutting funding to an important road project on that road project's thread is fine. Complaining about a politician you don't like bashing a politician you do like on a road project's thread is not fine.

On a road forum political discussions are necessary due to the political nature of transportation policy. They just need be kept civil and objective and relevant.

[agentsteel53]

You can still say anything you want on MTR. Look what happened to it.

you don't want a thirty-inch p1n4s?

[frank gifford]

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.