News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

Started by roadman, October 28, 2015, 05:28:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 02, 2021, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 02:32:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2021, 12:58:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 02, 2021, 06:01:54 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 01, 2021, 10:50:42 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.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5


Alps

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 02, 2021, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 02:32:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2021, 12:58:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 02, 2021, 06:01:54 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 01, 2021, 10:50:42 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

Quote from: Alps on August 02, 2021, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 02, 2021, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 02:32:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2021, 12:58:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 02, 2021, 06:01:54 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 01, 2021, 10:50:42 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.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

jp the roadgeek

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. 
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

Quote from: jp the roadgeek 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.
Connecticut won't do that.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

shadyjay

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek 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.
Connecticut won't do that.

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

(I like that idea too)

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: shadyjay on August 02, 2021, 11:18:24 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek 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.
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?
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

Alps

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 11:49:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 02, 2021, 11:18:24 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek 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.
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

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek 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.
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.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 04, 2021, 02:57:35 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek 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.
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?
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

bjcolby50

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 04, 2021, 02:57:35 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek 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.
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.

I'll go with roadgeekteen here - I-90 doesn't reach Connecticut , so I-290 would have been an anomaly.  A more logical replacement would have been I-93, but I-93 got split off from I-91 in Vermont; also, I-97 would have been a good replacement, but there's already a CT 97 and MA/NH 97, so those routes would have had to been changed.

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: bjcolby50 on August 06, 2021, 05:07:03 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 04, 2021, 02:57:35 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek 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.
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.

I'll go with roadgeekteen here - I-90 doesn't reach Connecticut , so I-290 would have been an anomaly.  A more logical replacement would have been I-93, but I-93 got split off from I-91 in Vermont; also, I-97 would have been a good replacement, but there's already a CT 97 and MA/NH 97, so those routes would have had to been changed.
I-97? That breaks the grid, but at least it's longer than the Maryland.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

bob7374

MassDOT posted to Twitter reminding everyone of the upcoming exit renumbering on I-395 and I-290:
"Upcoming statewide exit renumbering work on I-290 and I-395, between #Marlborough and #Webster. Sign installation begins 8/8 and will take place nightly from 8pm until 5am, for  approx. 2 weeks. This will be final corridor to be completed. https://newmassexits.com/#it-schedule"

If you click on the website link it will take you to the list of Interstates to be renumbered that has not been updated for weeks with no completion date for I-495 and I-395 and I-290 listed as TBD. If you're going to post the link, at least update the information on the other end.

bjcolby50

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 06, 2021, 05:11:09 PM
Quote from: bjcolby50 on August 06, 2021, 05:07:03 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 04, 2021, 02:57:35 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek 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.
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.

I'll go with roadgeekteen here - I-90 doesn't reach Connecticut , so I-290 would have been an anomaly.  A more logical replacement would have been I-93, but I-93 got split off from I-91 in Vermont; also, I-97 would have been a good replacement, but there's already a CT 97 and MA/NH 97, so those routes would have had to been changed.
I-97? That breaks the grid, but at least it's longer than the Maryland.

True.  In order to be "in the grid," I-97 would have to be east of I-95.

shadyjay

I-495 exit renumbering update:  the abomination exit gore signs in the Andover/Lawrence area have been modified with smaller letters to properly fit 3-digit numbers, or 4-digit numbers (3 + the A or B).  They look much better.  Didn't get any pics as I was traveling through at night.

JWF1959

Not sure if this has been discussed, but it looks like 395N is now concurrent with I-290 all the way from it's old end point (at I-290 and the Mass Pike) to I-495.

The mile markers now show the mileage points for both I-290 and I-395.

However, the signage still shows "End 395, Begin 290" at 290/MA Pike interchange.

vdeane

Quote from: JWF1959 on August 29, 2021, 02:12:22 PM
Not sure if this has been discussed, but it looks like 395N is now concurrent with I-290 all the way from it's old end point (at I-290 and the Mass Pike) to I-495.

The mile markers now show the mileage points for both I-290 and I-395.

However, the signage still shows "End 395, Begin 290" at 290/MA Pike interchange.
That's MA's dual milemarker plan.  They're not actually extending I-395 at this time.  It would have been simpler to just have I-290 itself continue I-395's milemarkers directly, but that option seems to have required too much imagination for MassDOT's bureaucrats.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

bob7374

Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2021, 03:41:35 PM
Quote from: JWF1959 on August 29, 2021, 02:12:22 PM
Not sure if this has been discussed, but it looks like 395N is now concurrent with I-290 all the way from it's old end point (at I-290 and the Mass Pike) to I-495.

The mile markers now show the mileage points for both I-290 and I-395.

However, the signage still shows "End 395, Begin 290" at 290/MA Pike interchange.
That's MA's dual milemarker plan.  They're not actually extending I-395 at this time.  It would have been simpler to just have I-290 itself continue I-395's milemarkers directly, but that option seems to have required too much imagination for MassDOT's bureaucrats.
Agreed. Given they wanted dual milemarkers, couldn't they have put up the new ones without the I-395 shields? Seems like they're going out of the way to confuse people, or they are seriously considering dropping I-290 for I-395 north of the Pike, which they said they would consider if it caused too much confusion (a self-fulfilling prophecy?). Why not simply post 'Exit Mile' or 'Total Mile' markers instead?

bob7374

Quote from: bob7374 on August 29, 2021, 09:40:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2021, 03:41:35 PM
Quote from: JWF1959 on August 29, 2021, 02:12:22 PM
Not sure if this has been discussed, but it looks like 395N is now concurrent with I-290 all the way from it's old end point (at I-290 and the Mass Pike) to I-495.

The mile markers now show the mileage points for both I-290 and I-395.

However, the signage still shows "End 395, Begin 290" at 290/MA Pike interchange.
That's MA's dual milemarker plan.  They're not actually extending I-395 at this time.  It would have been simpler to just have I-290 itself continue I-395's milemarkers directly, but that option seems to have required too much imagination for MassDOT's bureaucrats.
Agreed. Given they wanted dual milemarkers, couldn't they have put up the new ones without the I-395 shields? Seems like they're going out of the way to confuse people, or they are seriously considering dropping I-290 for I-395 north of the Pike, which they said they would consider if it caused too much confusion (a self-fulfilling prophecy?). Why not simply post 'Exit Mile' or 'Total Mile' markers instead?
Here's the first set of dual mile markers heading east on I-290:


In a few cases they put new I-395 mile markers up where the I-290 marker was not present, that isn't confusing, is it? Here's an example in Shrewsbury:

Alps

Quote from: bob7374 on August 31, 2021, 11:44:29 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 29, 2021, 09:40:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2021, 03:41:35 PM
Quote from: JWF1959 on August 29, 2021, 02:12:22 PM
Not sure if this has been discussed, but it looks like 395N is now concurrent with I-290 all the way from it's old end point (at I-290 and the Mass Pike) to I-495.

The mile markers now show the mileage points for both I-290 and I-395.

However, the signage still shows "End 395, Begin 290" at 290/MA Pike interchange.
That's MA's dual milemarker plan.  They're not actually extending I-395 at this time.  It would have been simpler to just have I-290 itself continue I-395's milemarkers directly, but that option seems to have required too much imagination for MassDOT's bureaucrats.
Agreed. Given they wanted dual milemarkers, couldn't they have put up the new ones without the I-395 shields? Seems like they're going out of the way to confuse people, or they are seriously considering dropping I-290 for I-395 north of the Pike, which they said they would consider if it caused too much confusion (a self-fulfilling prophecy?). Why not simply post 'Exit Mile' or 'Total Mile' markers instead?
Here's the first set of dual mile markers heading east on I-290:


In a few cases they put new I-395 mile markers up where the I-290 marker was not present, that isn't confusing, is it? Here's an example in Shrewsbury:

What's weird is I was just through there at the beginning of August, looked for these, and didn't see any.

bob7374

#1320
An example of exit renumbering along I-395 North:


I've posted photos taken of exit renumbering along I-395 last Monday at New England Exit Renumbering Central:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#photos

MassDOT's Exit Renumbering site now indicates work on all routes is complete.

74/171FAN

#1321
Bob, did you quote yourself??

(Whatever I saw earlier seems to have been fixed.)
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Ben114

Quote from: bob7374 on August 31, 2021, 11:44:29 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 29, 2021, 09:40:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2021, 03:41:35 PM
Quote from: JWF1959 on August 29, 2021, 02:12:22 PM
Not sure if this has been discussed, but it looks like 395N is now concurrent with I-290 all the way from it's old end point (at I-290 and the Mass Pike) to I-495.

The mile markers now show the mileage points for both I-290 and I-395.

However, the signage still shows "End 395, Begin 290" at 290/MA Pike interchange.
That's MA's dual milemarker plan.  They're not actually extending I-395 at this time.  It would have been simpler to just have I-290 itself continue I-395's milemarkers directly, but that option seems to have required too much imagination for MassDOT's bureaucrats.
Agreed. Given they wanted dual milemarkers, couldn't they have put up the new ones without the I-395 shields? Seems like they're going out of the way to confuse people, or they are seriously considering dropping I-290 for I-395 north of the Pike, which they said they would consider if it caused too much confusion (a self-fulfilling prophecy?). Why not simply post 'Exit Mile' or 'Total Mile' markers instead?
Here's the first set of dual mile markers heading east on I-290:


In a few cases they put new I-395 mile markers up where the I-290 marker was not present, that isn't confusing, is it? Here's an example in Shrewsbury:


That might bring some confusion. If they wanted to have the I-395 mileage continue, they should have just did what happened on I-17 in AZ where the I-17 mile markers start at 100-something.

SkyPesos

^ The dual I-290/I-395 mile markers reminds me of this example of redundancy in my home state...

rushfan01760

Quote from: Alps on August 31, 2021, 09:08:20 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 31, 2021, 11:44:29 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 29, 2021, 09:40:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2021, 03:41:35 PM
Quote from: JWF1959 on August 29, 2021, 02:12:22 PM
Not sure if this has been discussed, but it looks like 395N is now concurrent with I-290 all the way from it's old end point (at I-290 and the Mass Pike) to I-495.

The mile markers now show the mileage points for both I-290 and I-395.

However, the signage still shows "End 395, Begin 290" at 290/MA Pike interchange.
That's MA's dual milemarker plan.  They're not actually extending I-395 at this time.  It would have been simpler to just have I-290 itself continue I-395's milemarkers directly, but that option seems to have required too much imagination for MassDOT's bureaucrats.
Agreed. Given they wanted dual milemarkers, couldn't they have put up the new ones without the I-395 shields? Seems like they're going out of the way to confuse people, or they are seriously considering dropping I-290 for I-395 north of the Pike, which they said they would consider if it caused too much confusion (a self-fulfilling prophecy?). Why not simply post 'Exit Mile' or 'Total Mile' markers instead?
Here's the first set of dual mile markers heading east on I-290:


In a few cases they put new I-395 mile markers up where the I-290 marker was not present, that isn't confusing, is it? Here's an example in Shrewsbury:

What's weird is I was just through there at the beginning of August, looked for these, and didn't see any.

On top of this, there appears to be a gap at Exit 11B on I-395 North (at least as of this past Sunday).  The mile marker at the exit gore is for mile 11.6.  However, at the onramp merge immediately following (where I-290 mile marker 0 is) the next I-395 mile marker is for mile 12.  What happened to mile 11.8?  :hmmm:



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.