Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[vdeane]

I don't get why reports don't call the roadway what everyone calls the roadway. Why the obsession with getting rid of the 128 moniker? Just call it 128, dual post it 95/128 and be done with it.

Why the obsession with KEEPING the 128 moniker?  It serves no useful purpose to retain it south of Peabody.

Everyone calls it 128. It makes sense to sign the road what it's called.

If we went with that logic, no route would be renumbered ever.

I don't get why reports don't call the roadway what everyone calls the roadway. Why the obsession with getting rid of the 128 moniker? Just call it 128, dual post it 95/128 and be done with it.

Why the obsession with KEEPING the 128 moniker?  It serves no useful purpose to retain it south of Peabody.

Everyone calls it 128. It makes sense to sign the road what it's called.

Yes! There's no harm in dual-posting the roadway I-95 and MA 128.  It isn't confusing, there's concurrently marked route numbers all over the place. They're two different color markers, and the cost is probably negligible in the grand scheme of things.  Serve the public. I could see dropping the 128 number decades ago before it was completely established into society.

IMO routes shouldn't end in concurrencies unless they are a higher tier than the route they are concurrent with (to prevent a situation where a US route hops onto an interstate requiring the interstate to be truncated or removed).  It's sloppy.

[Roadgeekteen]

I don't get why reports don't call the roadway what everyone calls the roadway. Why the obsession with getting rid of the 128 moniker? Just call it 128, dual post it 95/128 and be done with it.

Why the obsession with KEEPING the 128 moniker?  It serves no useful purpose to retain it south of Peabody.

Everyone calls it 128. It makes sense to sign the road what it's called.

If we went with that logic, no route would be renumbered ever.

I don't get why reports don't call the roadway what everyone calls the roadway. Why the obsession with getting rid of the 128 moniker? Just call it 128, dual post it 95/128 and be done with it.

Why the obsession with KEEPING the 128 moniker?  It serves no useful purpose to retain it south of Peabody.

Everyone calls it 128. It makes sense to sign the road what it's called.

Yes! There's no harm in dual-posting the roadway I-95 and MA 128.  It isn't confusing, there's concurrently marked route numbers all over the place. They're two different color markers, and the cost is probably negligible in the grand scheme of things.  Serve the public. I could see dropping the 128 number decades ago before it was completely established into society.

IMO routes shouldn't end in concurrencies unless they are a higher tier than the route they are concurrent with (to prevent a situation where a US route hops onto an interstate requiring the interstate to be truncated or removed).  It's sloppy.

Roads are numbered for the motoring public, not anal roadgeeks.

[vdeane]

And yet states used to renumber not just individual sections of road, but entire systems.

[Roadgeekteen]

And yet states used to renumber not just individual sections of road, but entire systems.

And they haven't since the 1960s.

[vdeane]

And yet states used to renumber not just individual sections of road, but entire systems.

And they haven't since the 1960s.

And yet the road system didn't stop evolving in the 60s.  Perhaps that's why numbers made a lot more sense back then than they do no.  Clearly MassDOT caved to public pressure to keep I-95 as MA 128 despite there being no logical reason to do so.  In NYC they renamed a bunch of bridges that are at least as well-known locally as MA 128 after politicians, so clearly the concept isn't dead.

[Roadgeekteen]

And yet states used to renumber not just individual sections of road, but entire systems.

And they haven't since the 1960s.

And yet the road system didn't stop evolving in the 60s.  Perhaps that's why numbers made a lot more sense back then than they do no.  Clearly MassDOT caved to public pressure to keep I-95 as MA 128 despite there being no logical reason to do so.  In NYC they renamed a bunch of bridges that are at least as well-known locally as MA 128 after politicians, so clearly the concept isn't dead.

I-95 isn't a politician. There is no political will to get rid of MA 128.

[bob7374]

And yet states used to renumber not just individual sections of road, but entire systems.

And they haven't since the 1960s.

And yet the road system didn't stop evolving in the 60s.  Perhaps that's why numbers made a lot more sense back then than they do no.  Clearly MassDOT caved to public pressure to keep I-95 as MA 128 despite there being no logical reason to do so.  In NYC they renamed a bunch of bridges that are at least as well-known locally as MA 128 after politicians, so clearly the concept isn't dead.

I-95 isn't a politician. There is no political will to get rid of MA 128.

Channel 5 had an updated story tonight and the graphic referred to the standoff as being on I-95 again, no mention of a route number by either the anchor or reporter.

[Roadgeekteen]

And yet states used to renumber not just individual sections of road, but entire systems.

And they haven't since the 1960s.

And yet the road system didn't stop evolving in the 60s.  Perhaps that's why numbers made a lot more sense back then than they do no.  Clearly MassDOT caved to public pressure to keep I-95 as MA 128 despite there being no logical reason to do so.  In NYC they renamed a bunch of bridges that are at least as well-known locally as MA 128 after politicians, so clearly the concept isn't dead.

I-95 isn't a politician. There is no political will to get rid of MA 128.

Channel 5 had an updated story tonight and the graphic referred to the standoff as being on I-95 again, no mention of a route number by either the anchor or reporter.

Either number is correct.

[amroad17]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

[Roadgeekteen]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

[vdeane]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

[Roadgeekteen]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

Is it in the long-term plan to decommission NY 17?

[GenExpwy]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

In Steuben County, at least, the NY 17 signs on connecting surface roads seem to have been actively removed in recent months, and the reassurance 17s (and 15s) on I-86 between I-390 and I-99 are getting pulled out under project D264444. This just leaves the Big Green Signs.

[vdeane]

Yep, the plan is to get rid of NY 17 when I-86 is completed.  I think it's just to truncate to Harriman, though personally I'd make the rest an extension of NY 32.

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

In Steuben County, at least, the NY 17 signs on connecting surface roads seem to have been actively removed in recent months, and the reassurance 17s (and 15s) on I-86 between I-390 and I-99 are getting pulled out under project D264444. This just leaves the Big Green Signs.

Many newer BGS installs already omit NY 17.

[paul02474]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

Is it in the long-term plan to decommission NY 17?

At the risk of further out-of-state thread drift, they should restore NY 17 to its pre-freeway alignment (including NY 394 and 417).
To steer the thread back into Massachusetts, we could do the same for Route 128.

[SectorZ]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

Is it in the long-term plan to decommission NY 17?

At the risk of further out-of-state thread drift, they should restore NY 17 to its pre-freeway alignment (including NY 394 and 417).
To steer the thread back into Massachusetts, we could do the same for Route 128.

I'd love old school 128, but I also understand that the fallout from doing so would cause massive issues with navigation.

Some parts of 128, like in Lexington and Woburn, are still state-maintained.

[Roadgeekteen]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

Is it in the long-term plan to decommission NY 17?

At the risk of further out-of-state thread drift, they should restore NY 17 to its pre-freeway alignment (including NY 394 and 417).
To steer the thread back into Massachusetts, we could do the same for Route 128.

I'd love old school 128, but I also understand that the fallout from doing so would cause massive issues with navigation.

Some parts of 128, like in Lexington and Woburn, are still state-maintained.

Maybe MA 128A. Moving 128 would screw up navigation, but it would be nice to have an all-surface Boston bypass.

[1]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

Is it in the long-term plan to decommission NY 17?

At the risk of further out-of-state thread drift, they should restore NY 17 to its pre-freeway alignment (including NY 394 and 417).
To steer the thread back into Massachusetts, we could do the same for Route 128.

I'd love old school 128, but I also understand that the fallout from doing so would cause massive issues with navigation.

Some parts of 128, like in Lexington and Woburn, are still state-maintained.

Maybe MA 128A. Moving 128 would screw up navigation, but it would be nice to have an all-surface Boston bypass.

That would be Route 27.

[Roadgeekteen]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

Is it in the long-term plan to decommission NY 17?

At the risk of further out-of-state thread drift, they should restore NY 17 to its pre-freeway alignment (including NY 394 and 417).
To steer the thread back into Massachusetts, we could do the same for Route 128.

I'd love old school 128, but I also understand that the fallout from doing so would cause massive issues with navigation.

Some parts of 128, like in Lexington and Woburn, are still state-maintained.

Maybe MA 128A. Moving 128 would screw up navigation, but it would be nice to have an all-surface Boston bypass.

That would be Route 27.

Route 27 is a bit further out.

[vdeane]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

Is it in the long-term plan to decommission NY 17?

At the risk of further out-of-state thread drift, they should restore NY 17 to its pre-freeway alignment (including NY 394 and 417).
To steer the thread back into Massachusetts, we could do the same for Route 128.

I'd love old school 128, but I also understand that the fallout from doing so would cause massive issues with navigation.

Some parts of 128, like in Lexington and Woburn, are still state-maintained.

Maybe MA 128A. Moving 128 would screw up navigation, but it would be nice to have an all-surface Boston bypass.

People have had 40 years to get used to I-95.

[Roadgeekteen]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

Is it in the long-term plan to decommission NY 17?

At the risk of further out-of-state thread drift, they should restore NY 17 to its pre-freeway alignment (including NY 394 and 417).
To steer the thread back into Massachusetts, we could do the same for Route 128.

I'd love old school 128, but I also understand that the fallout from doing so would cause massive issues with navigation.

Some parts of 128, like in Lexington and Woburn, are still state-maintained.

Maybe MA 128A. Moving 128 would screw up navigation, but it would be nice to have an all-surface Boston bypass.

People have had 40 years to get used to I-95.

Why do they have to? 128 has always been signed alongside it.

[shadyjay]

As long as I-95 is signed this way, this debate will endlessly seem to continue.  Or, my suggestion, have I-95 replace I-93 then complete the Northeast Expressway, and then MA 128 can become I-128.  Heck, there's a I-238!  Can't you just see the TV promos or billboards.... "Go Ahead... Call it 128 Again". 

(and if the feds say no, then secretly give it an I-X95 designation)

[ixnay]

^ I agree.  It was I-95/MA 128 for so long that it is ingrained into the minds of the citizens in that area (as well as for a few of us road enthusiasts  ).  I could see a similar situation with I-86/NY 17.  If both routes are posted, that's OK.  Call the highway by whichever number one is used to.

Is NY 17 still posted on I-86?

Depends on how the Regional Traffic Engineer feels when the sign is installed.  Some sign assemblies omit NY 17, others are replace in kind.

Is it in the long-term plan to decommission NY 17?

At the risk of further out-of-state thread drift, they should restore NY 17 to its pre-freeway alignment (including NY 394 and 417).
To steer the thread back into Massachusetts, we could do the same for Route 128.

I'd love old school 128, but I also understand that the fallout from doing so would cause massive issues with navigation.

Some parts of 128, like in Lexington and Woburn, are still state-maintained.

Maybe MA 128A. Moving 128 would screw up navigation, but it would be nice to have an all-surface Boston bypass.

People have had 40 years to get used to I-95.

Why do they have to? 128 has always been signed alongside it.

In at least one place, the 95 sign is invisible.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5168166,-70.9989772,3a,43.3y,283.61h,88.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s785cwFXzu6s4_V-3gVnpYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

ixnay

[PHLBOS]

Attleboro would be okay, if it was signed more consistently... but its not.  Just that one location, on MA 2 approaching 128.  I like the use of dual control points along the 128 portion of I-95... it shows that you're in a land of I-95 where its not all about Boston (like both north and south of 128 sections of I-95, where one direction is Boston, the other is RI or NH/ME).

FWIW, Attleboro is used on ramp and some smaller advance signs at interchanges w/I-95 south from Canton/Exit 23 (old Exit 11) Canton southward.

The 1977-era pull-through signage that existed along I-95 southbound, but were taken down & never replaced, also featured the Attleboro/Providence combo. 

West Stockbridge, in a perfect world, would be "The Berkshires".  I mean, really, is it any different than signing "Cape Cod"?  Which to me seems better than Taunton!  Though I've never been a fan of "Marlboro" on I-495, what else would you sign it?  There's Worcester, but that's not on I-495.  Perhaps Lowell?  Loop roads like I-495 are tough assigning a good control city to.

Worcester is still used as an I-495 southbound control city at its northernmost location.  Formerly, it was used as a southbound I-495 control city on signage all the way down to just before the I-290/MA 85 interchange. 

Such was used as a northbound I-495 control city on signage from I-195 up to just before the I-90 interchange.

[PHLBOS]

In at least one place, the 95 sign is invisible.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5168166,-70.9989772,3a,43.3y,283.61h,88.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s785cwFXzu6s4_V-3gVnpYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

ixnay

More like knocked down & never replaced.  Here's an older, Aug. 2011-vintage GSV for the same area.  The sign & assembly disappeared within the following year.

Personally, I was never a fan of the 3-di version of the I-95 shield that MassDOT was using for a while.