AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract  (Read 161604 times)

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10884
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Needham
  • Last Login: Today at 04:21:37 AM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract
« Reply #1300 on: August 02, 2021, 02:39:14 PM »

It would, but the government doesn't like renumbering. I hope that they at least renumber I-190.

What do you want I-190 renumbered to? If your problem is that it doesn't touch I-90, there's no number that will fix it.
Basically, if I-290 gets renumbered to I-395 (something MassDOT is actually considering), he'd like I-190 renumbered (no official proposal) because it would be orphaned if I-290 gets renumbered.

I'm pretty sure there's already been a long discussion on this thread speculating on potential fictional renumberings of I-190.
Yes, true. I doubt they would because normal people don't care about the rules, but they should.
If that were the case, I would have I-395 take over I-190, and re-designate the east-west section of I-290 between I-190 and I-495 as an I-x95. I think 695 and 895 are available for assignment.
I like the current system. I-395 is the spur from I-95 to Worcester, I-290 is a loop through Worcester and also a bypass for I-90E to I-495N traffic and vice versa, and I-190 is a spur from Worcester to Fitchburg.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14321
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:16 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract
« Reply #1301 on: August 02, 2021, 05:39:44 PM »

It would, but the government doesn't like renumbering. I hope that they at least renumber I-190.

What do you want I-190 renumbered to? If your problem is that it doesn't touch I-90, there's no number that will fix it.
Basically, if I-290 gets renumbered to I-395 (something MassDOT is actually considering), he'd like I-190 renumbered (no official proposal) because it would be orphaned if I-290 gets renumbered.

I'm pretty sure there's already been a long discussion on this thread speculating on potential fictional renumberings of I-190.
Yes, true. I doubt they would because normal people don't care about the rules, but they should.
If that were the case, I would have I-395 take over I-190, and re-designate the east-west section of I-290 between I-190 and I-495 as an I-x95. I think 695 and 895 are available for assignment.
Or keep I-290 as is and the beginning is concurrent with I-395.

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10884
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Needham
  • Last Login: Today at 04:21:37 AM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract
« Reply #1302 on: August 02, 2021, 06:50:46 PM »

It would, but the government doesn't like renumbering. I hope that they at least renumber I-190.

What do you want I-190 renumbered to? If your problem is that it doesn't touch I-90, there's no number that will fix it.
Basically, if I-290 gets renumbered to I-395 (something MassDOT is actually considering), he'd like I-190 renumbered (no official proposal) because it would be orphaned if I-290 gets renumbered.

I'm pretty sure there's already been a long discussion on this thread speculating on potential fictional renumberings of I-190.
Yes, true. I doubt they would because normal people don't care about the rules, but they should.
If that were the case, I would have I-395 take over I-190, and re-designate the east-west section of I-290 between I-190 and I-495 as an I-x95. I think 695 and 895 are available for assignment.
Or keep I-290 as is and the beginning is concurrent with I-395.
I dislike it when roads start with multiplexes so I would rather not.

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3826
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 02:14:46 AM
Re: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract
« Reply #1303 on: August 02, 2021, 08:22:00 PM »

I still say having 395 bend east on the CT Turnpike leg (SR 695) and having 290 start at the split in Danielson is the easiest for MassDOT.  Yes, CT would need to re-renumber the stretch north of there, but you eliminate the Mass confusion. 
Logged
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10884
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Needham
  • Last Login: Today at 04:21:37 AM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract
« Reply #1304 on: August 02, 2021, 09:14:37 PM »

I still say having 395 bend east on the CT Turnpike leg (SR 695) and having 290 start at the split in Danielson is the easiest for MassDOT.  Yes, CT would need to re-renumber the stretch north of there, but you eliminate the Mass confusion.
Connecticut won't do that.

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1484
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: August 04, 2021, 08:04:16 PM
Re: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract
« Reply #1305 on: August 02, 2021, 11:18:24 PM »

I still say having 395 bend east on the CT Turnpike leg (SR 695) and having 290 start at the split in Danielson is the easiest for MassDOT.  Yes, CT would need to re-renumber the stretch north of there, but you eliminate the Mass confusion.
Connecticut won't do that.

"Be a lot cooler if they did!"   
 :D :D :D

(I like that idea too)
Logged
My FLICKR page has gone PRO!  Road photos (and more) from throughout the Northeast...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/collections/72157657234163953/

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10884
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Needham
  • Last Login: Today at 04:21:37 AM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract
« Reply #1306 on: August 02, 2021, 11:49:30 PM »

I still say having 395 bend east on the CT Turnpike leg (SR 695) and having 290 start at the split in Danielson is the easiest for MassDOT.  Yes, CT would need to re-renumber the stretch north of there, but you eliminate the Mass confusion.
Connecticut won't do that.

"Be a lot cooler if they did!"   
 :D :D :D

(I like that idea too)
What's in this for them?

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14321
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:16 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract
« Reply #1307 on: August 03, 2021, 12:39:16 AM »

I still say having 395 bend east on the CT Turnpike leg (SR 695) and having 290 start at the split in Danielson is the easiest for MassDOT.  Yes, CT would need to re-renumber the stretch north of there, but you eliminate the Mass confusion.
Connecticut won't do that.

"Be a lot cooler if they did!"   
 :D :D :D

(I like that idea too)
What's in this for them?
They just mile-based I-395. Too late.

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 634
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: August 04, 2021, 02:57:35 PM
Re: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract
« Reply #1308 on: August 04, 2021, 02:57:35 PM »

I still say having 395 bend east on the CT Turnpike leg (SR 695) and having 290 start at the split in Danielson is the easiest for MassDOT.  Yes, CT would need to re-renumber the stretch north of there, but you eliminate the Mass confusion.
Connecticut won't do that.
Back in the '80s Connecticut and Massachusetts originally requested the I-290 designation be extended from the Mass Pike to Waterford along what is now I-395 (formerly Route 52). That request was rejected by AASHTO, and I-395 was approved instead. I don't know what the rationale was behind AASHTO rejecting the I-290 designation request. Maybe someone more familiar with the history of the I-395 designation could chime in.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10884
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Needham
  • Last Login: Today at 04:21:37 AM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract
« Reply #1309 on: August 04, 2021, 03:04:27 PM »

I still say having 395 bend east on the CT Turnpike leg (SR 695) and having 290 start at the split in Danielson is the easiest for MassDOT.  Yes, CT would need to re-renumber the stretch north of there, but you eliminate the Mass confusion.
Connecticut won't do that.
Back in the '80s Connecticut and Massachusetts originally requested the I-290 designation be extended from the Mass Pike to Waterford along what is now I-395 (formerly Route 52). That request was rejected by AASHTO, and I-395 was approved instead. I don't know what the rationale was behind AASHTO rejecting the I-290 designation request. Maybe someone more familiar with the history of the I-395 designation could chime in.
Maybe it was rejected because it didn't end at its parent?

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.