Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[Brandon]

IMHO if the main reason to adopt milepost base numbering is to make it easier for drivers, especially unfamiliar ones, to judge distances when navigating a state's highways, then just changing numbers on interstates it seems would only lead to more confusion lessening any benefit the conversion might have. If the Cape people really want to keep their numbers, then have the legislation exempt US 6, but allow all other routes to be changed.

I recently drove up I-395 in CT the recently changed exit numbers and because I was unfamiliar with the mileage distance to my exit....it wasn't really that useful to me.  I knew the old exit number but not the exact mileage of my exit.

Looking at the closest milepost, knowing the exit number, do a little subtraction and voila! you know how far it is to the exit you're looking for.  Knowing you need to go "3 exits" or whatever could be 2 miles, 10 miles or 50 miles. Check your gas.

Distance-based exit numbering is very superior to sequential exit numbering.  If you want to know how far to your exit, look at the milepost on the side of the road and do the quick math.  If you're at MP30, and your exit is Exit 55, you have 25 miles to go.

[The Ghostbuster]

I also think mileage-based exits are better than sequential-based exit numbers. In states that are/were sequential at one time, changing to mileage-based exits would take some getting used to, but I'm sure people ultimately have no problems with the numbering. On that note, I hope this issue is resolved soon.

[PHLBOS]

In states that are/were sequential at one time, changing to mileage-based exits would take some getting used to, but I'm sure people ultimately have no problems with the numbering.

As previously stated in this thread a few pages back; many of the highways in Massachusetts w/sequential-numbered interchanges have changed at least once since the 1960s.  People got used to the changes then; they'll get used to the mile-marker-based conversions as well (should such happen).

[RobbieL2415]

Now here's an idea: what if MADOT just un-signs US 6 from Bourne to Orleans and instead signs it "Mid-Cape Highway"?  Could they possibly skirt the federal mandate of mile-based exits that way?  They could reroute US 6 to its pre-limited access alignment and adjust the mile markers accordingly.

[AMLNet49]

Now here's an idea: what if MADOT just un-signs US 6 from Bourne to Orleans and instead signs it "Mid-Cape Highway"?  Could they possibly skirt the federal mandate of mile-based exits that way?  They could reroute US 6 to its pre-limited access alignment and adjust the mile markers accordingly.

You're asking for another 128 right there

[Rothman]

Now here's an idea: what if MADOT just un-signs US 6 from Bourne to Orleans and instead signs it "Mid-Cape Highway"?  Could they possibly skirt the federal mandate of mile-based exits that way?  They could reroute US 6 to its pre-limited access alignment and adjust the mile markers accordingly.

It's definitely not mandated just because of the shield.  It is mandated because of the eligibility and use of federal funds on the facility. 

[noelbotevera]

Weren't there experiments with dual mile based and sequential exit numbers back in the 80's? Why not make those, so that when the sequential exit numbers come down, locals can associate the old sequential numbers with the mile based numbers, and eventually they adjust to them, and they know which exit is which.

[PHLBOS]

Weren't there experiments with dual mile based and sequential exit numbers back in the 80's? Why not make those, so that when the sequential exit numbers come down, locals can associate the old sequential numbers with the mile based numbers, and eventually they adjust to them, and they know which exit is which.

Such was done during the early 70s and only on three New England highways (I-93 in MA, I-295 in RI &, I believe, I-95 in ME south of the Maine Turnpike) that I'm aware of.  IIRC, it was done on an experimental basis but was shortly phased out.  The dual-tabbed signs lingered on until the 1980s when such were replaced with conventional single-tab signs. 

When I-93 changed its exit numbers to the current ones (that reflected the mid-70s southern extension to Canton via the Southeast Expressway & then-MA 128) circa 1987, the larger tabs remained but just had the exit number legends changed.  Such made for some large blank-green space and some ghosted lettering & numerals on the older, larger tabs.  These signs were all replaced during the early-to-mid 1990s.

Back to the present, should MA adopt mile-marker-based interchange numbers; they will, like other states that have done such, mount a side tab showing the old number for a short-term period (unlike PennDOT's/PTC's OLD EXIT XX signs).

[roadman]

Weren't there experiments with dual mile based and sequential exit numbers back in the 80's? Why not make those, so that when the sequential exit numbers come down, locals can associate the old sequential numbers with the mile based numbers, and eventually they adjust to them, and they know which exit is which.

Such was done during the early 70s and only on three New England highways (I-93 in MA, I-295 in RI &, I believe, I-95 in ME south of the Maine Turnpike) that I'm aware of.  IIRC, it was done on an experimental basis but was shortly phased out.  The dual-tabbed signs lingered on until the 1980s when such were replaced with conventional single-tab signs. 

When I-93 changed its exit numbers to the current ones (that reflected the mid-70s southern extension to Canton via the Southeast Expressway & then-MA 128) circa 1987, the larger tabs remained but just had the exit number legends changed.  Such made for some large blank-green space and some ghosted lettering & numerals on the older, larger tabs.  These signs were all replaced during the early-to-mid 1990s.

Back to the present, should MA adopt mile-marker-based interchange numbers; they will, like other states that have done such, mount a side tab showing the old number for a short-term period (unlike PennDOT's/PTC's OLD EXIT XX signs).

MassDOT's plan for this notification is to install separate signs indicating "Formerly Exit XX".  These signs are to be installed next to the first advance sign for the exit, and beneath the exit gore signs.  These signs will remain in place for a minimum of two years after the new exit numbers are posted.

[bob7374]

MassDOT's plan for this notification is to install separate signs indicating "Formerly Exit XX".  These signs are to be installed next to the first advance sign for the exit, and beneath the exit gore signs.  These signs will remain in place for a minimum of two years after the new exit numbers are posted.

From the Project 608024 sign plans:

[machias]

MassDOT's plan for this notification is to install separate signs indicating "Formerly Exit XX".  These signs are to be installed next to the first advance sign for the exit, and beneath the exit gore signs.  These signs will remain in place for a minimum of two years after the new exit numbers are posted.

From the Project 608024 sign plans:

I remember similar "Formerly Exit XX" (black on white) being posted only on the exit gore signs along MA 128 around 1988-1989.

[bob7374]

A poster to the FB BostonRoads Forum who works for a Boston TV station says that in conversations he has had with MassDOT officials there is a general agreement that conversion to milepost based numbering is years away, though they won't go on the record with that statement. IMO it was a mistake for MassDOT not to at least convert the MassPike during their current signs replacement contracts. They could have said it was part of the change to the AET system, that it wasn't costing any additional money, and that it was an experiment to see if drivers liked the new system. Later when people saw that the sky didn't fall and got used to it they could have rolled it out to the rest of the state after a well thought out public relations campaign. Now when the state eventually does adopt the milepost system, it will probably cost more money and create more backlash than if they had just gone ahead as originally planned.

[Beeper1]

So then what was the story behind the contract from two years ago that went all the way to being awarded and then was cancelled?  If they had no plans to do this in the foreseeable future, why spend the money and effort to do all the design work, and go through the contracting process work (not to mention waste the time and effort of all the firms that bid on the job)?

Did some department at MassDOT get ahead of themselves and get that far in the project process without authorization to carry it out?  That would seem hard to believe.  But the alternative is that they flushed a lot of work, time, and funds down the toilet because some year-rounders on Cape Cod got pissy.

[bob7374]

So then what was the story behind the contract from two years ago that went all the way to being awarded and then was cancelled?  If they had no plans to do this in the foreseeable future, why spend the money and effort to do all the design work, and go through the contracting process work (not to mention waste the time and effort of all the firms that bid on the job)?
Did some department at MassDOT get ahead of themselves and get that far in the project process without authorization to carry it out?  That would seem hard to believe.  But the alternative is that they flushed a lot of work, time, and funds down the toilet because some year-rounders on Cape Cod got pissy.

I think someone more familiar with the project, such as Roadman, may be able to better answer those questions. Part of the issue was the change in administrations. The exit numbering project was developed and approved under the previous governor's appointments. The new governor's appointees (and according to a MassDOT official at a public hearing about the US 6 sign project in 2016, the Lt. Gov) obviously weren't very enthusiastic about, or opposed, the project and when there was push back from the Cape it gave them an excuse to postpone it indefinitely. I think the money spent before the contract was pulled, and arrangements made in getting federal money for it, has led MassDOT to continually say that the project is under further study, and not officially canceled.

[kalvado]

IMHO if the main reason to adopt milepost base numbering is to make it easier for drivers, especially unfamiliar ones, to judge distances when navigating a state's highways, then just changing numbers on interstates it seems would only lead to more confusion lessening any benefit the conversion might have. If the Cape people really want to keep their numbers, then have the legislation exempt US 6, but allow all other routes to be changed.

I recently drove up I-395 in CT the recently changed exit numbers and because I was unfamiliar with the mileage distance to my exit....it wasn't really that useful to me.  I knew the old exit number but not the exact mileage of my exit.

Looking at the closest milepost, knowing the exit number, do a little subtraction and voila! you know how far it is to the exit you're looking for.  Knowing you need to go "3 exits" or whatever could be 2 miles, 10 miles or 50 miles. Check your gas.

Distance-based exit numbering is very superior to sequential exit numbering.  If you want to know how far to your exit, look at the milepost on the side of the road and do the quick math.  If you're at MP30, and your exit is Exit 55, you have 25 miles to go.

And if you're at MP 137 going to exit 79... Would you need a piece of paper or a calculator?

[hotdogPi]

IMHO if the main reason to adopt milepost base numbering is to make it easier for drivers, especially unfamiliar ones, to judge distances when navigating a state's highways, then just changing numbers on interstates it seems would only lead to more confusion lessening any benefit the conversion might have. If the Cape people really want to keep their numbers, then have the legislation exempt US 6, but allow all other routes to be changed.

I recently drove up I-395 in CT the recently changed exit numbers and because I was unfamiliar with the mileage distance to my exit....it wasn't really that useful to me.  I knew the old exit number but not the exact mileage of my exit.

Looking at the closest milepost, knowing the exit number, do a little subtraction and voila! you know how far it is to the exit you're looking for.  Knowing you need to go "3 exits" or whatever could be 2 miles, 10 miles or 50 miles. Check your gas.

Distance-based exit numbering is very superior to sequential exit numbering.  If you want to know how far to your exit, look at the milepost on the side of the road and do the quick math.  If you're at MP30, and your exit is Exit 55, you have 25 miles to go.

And if you're at MP 137 going to exit 79... Would you need a piece of paper or a calculator?

My immediate thought, without calculating, was "about 60". Even if I picked 50 or 70 as my number, I still know that it's not coming up moderately soon, and it won't take several hours.

[bob7374]

Found this from last week's news. Another Mass. legislator has introduced a bill to have MassDOT renumber its exits to those based on mileposts:
http://nepr.net/post/proposal-would-re-number-mass-highway-exits#stream/0

[roadman]

Found this from last week's news. Another Mass. legislator has introduced a bill to have MassDOT renumber its exits to those based on mileposts:
http://nepr.net/post/proposal-would-re-number-mass-highway-exits#stream/0

The bill in question was actually introduced in January of 2017, and the hearing on it was held almost two weeks ago. https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H1863

[bob7374]

Yes, the hearing by the Joint Committee on Transportation was held on July 25. No information about the outcome of the hearing however. This is the same legislator that has introduced two previous bills regarding milepost based numbering that died in committee. The bill text was apparently copied from a previous version and not edited since it asks that MassDOT complete the work by Jan. 1, 2017 (the bill was formally submitted on Jan. 13, 2017). Therefore, not getting the feeling that the fate of this bill will be any different.

The text of the bill can be found here: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H1863

[Brandon]

IMHO if the main reason to adopt milepost base numbering is to make it easier for drivers, especially unfamiliar ones, to judge distances when navigating a state's highways, then just changing numbers on interstates it seems would only lead to more confusion lessening any benefit the conversion might have. If the Cape people really want to keep their numbers, then have the legislation exempt US 6, but allow all other routes to be changed.

I recently drove up I-395 in CT the recently changed exit numbers and because I was unfamiliar with the mileage distance to my exit....it wasn't really that useful to me.  I knew the old exit number but not the exact mileage of my exit.

Looking at the closest milepost, knowing the exit number, do a little subtraction and voila! you know how far it is to the exit you're looking for.  Knowing you need to go "3 exits" or whatever could be 2 miles, 10 miles or 50 miles. Check your gas.

Distance-based exit numbering is very superior to sequential exit numbering.  If you want to know how far to your exit, look at the milepost on the side of the road and do the quick math.  If you're at MP30, and your exit is Exit 55, you have 25 miles to go.

And if you're at MP 137 going to exit 79... Would you need a piece of paper or a calculator?

Neither.  You estimate mp80 to mp140, or a little shy of 60 miles.  Should take about 50 minutes at typical freeway speeds.

[bob7374]

Don't know whether this means anything or not, but MassDOT has finally removed the exit numbering conversion project from its Under Design list under Structural Signing on its projects listing website. The last update to the page was nearly 2 years ago when it was noted the contract had been advertised for bids. The project bid page was still up, at last check, but I took the liberty of downloading all the sign plan, contract revision, and contractor bid information files, just in case.

[AMLNet49]

Basically it the Patrick holdovers tried to force the project down MassDOT's throat with no PR campaign or advance planning, before Baker's people could come in, knowing they were more old school and cautious. And hey they came pretty close, it would have been a PR nightmare but in a state like Mass sometimes the only way to make progress is to rip the bandaid off. People tend to not see the merits of things until theyre in practice, and even then many people stay in denial

[The Ghostbuster]

With the removal of the exit numbering conversion project from the MassDOT website, does that mean that the entire sequential-to-milepost exit conversion plan is dead?

[roadman]

With the removal of the exit numbering conversion project from the MassDOT website, does that mean that the entire sequential-to-milepost exit conversion plan is dead?

AFAIK, the proposal to convert exit numbers is not entirely dead.  However, a little bird has hinted that the project is undergoing some re-tweaking of the final numbering scheme, as well as establishing an actual timeline for public outreach.  These revisions are subject to approval by both FHWA and senior MassDOT and other Massachusetts officials before any actual work on revising or implementing the project can go forward.

[PHLBOS]

With the removal of the exit numbering conversion project from the MassDOT website, does that mean that the entire sequential-to-milepost exit conversion plan is dead?

AFAIK, the proposal to convert exit numbers is not entirely dead.  However, a little bird has hinted that the project is undergoing some re-tweaking of the final numbering scheme, as well as establishing an actual timeline for public outreach.  These revisions are subject to approval by both FHWA and senior MassDOT and other Massachusetts officials before any actual work on revising or implementing the project can go forward.

If memory serves, the original documents showing the proposed numbers were both inconsistent w/each other (some roads used Exit 0 whereas other roads used Exit 1 for exits between MM0 & MM1) and, in some instances, illogical (needless (over)use of suffixed exits where non-suffixed exits would suffice & be more appropriate).  Hopefully the fore-mentioned tweaks/revisions will address both of these issues.