Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[CtrlAltDel]

With the Exit Renumbering Project completed, I've summarized my views on both the good and the not so good aspects of the project on the Gribblenation Blog Site:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/09/massachusetts-exit-renumbering-good-bad.html

They really half-assed that conversion, didn't they?

[SkyPesos]

With the Exit Renumbering Project completed, I've summarized my views on both the good and the not so good aspects of the project on the Gribblenation Blog Site:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/09/massachusetts-exit-renumbering-good-bad.html

They really half-assed that conversion, didn't they?

I think the tiny ass numbers are a bigger issue than the oversized ones, despite both not being aesthetically pleasing. Like even zooming into this image (from the linked blog post), I still can't make out what number it is:

[machias]

With the Exit Renumbering Project completed, I've summarized my views on both the good and the not so good aspects of the project on the Gribblenation Blog Site:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/09/massachusetts-exit-renumbering-good-bad.html

They really half-assed that conversion, didn't they?

From what I've seen in photos on forums and the like, 98 to 99% of the signs were converted to new exit numbers without an issue. There's some outliers here and there, and yes, these could have been addressed from the onset, but getting 98 to 99% of the project completed without an issue is not "half-assed".  The vast majority of the signs are legible without an issue, even if differences in numeral style or something makes it obvious it was an overlay. It works, and that's what's important.

Now, that other 1% of signs, like the attractions sign show above? Not only is the contractor off base on the installation, but did the inspector sign off on it?

[CtrlAltDel]

The vast majority of the signs are legible without an issue, even if differences in numeral style or something makes it obvious it was an overlay.

Fair enough, but that's pretty much what I mean by half-assed: it could be worse, but it could be better, too.

[vdeane]

With the Exit Renumbering Project completed, I've summarized my views on both the good and the not so good aspects of the project on the Gribblenation Blog Site:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/09/massachusetts-exit-renumbering-good-bad.html

They really half-assed that conversion, didn't they?

From what I've seen in photos on forums and the like, 98 to 99% of the signs were converted to new exit numbers without an issue. There's some outliers here and there, and yes, these could have been addressed from the onset, but getting 98 to 99% of the project completed without an issue is not "half-assed".  The vast majority of the signs are legible without an issue, even if differences in numeral style or something makes it obvious it was an overlay. It works, and that's what's important.

Now, that other 1% of signs, like the attractions sign show above? Not only is the contractor off base on the installation, but did the inspector sign off on it?

If the difference in numerals makes it obvious that it's an overlay, I'd call that half-assed, even if it works.  I can understand where using regular numerals would have required a sign replacement, but there are plenty of examples where the sign was specifically designed to accommodate a larger exit number in preparation for the conversion but narrow numerals were used anyways.  This is particularly prevalent on gore signs for the MassPike.

[kramie13]

With the Exit Renumbering Project completed, I've summarized my views on both the good and the not so good aspects of the project on the Gribblenation Blog Site:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/09/massachusetts-exit-renumbering-good-bad.html

I agree with some of the comments in this blog post.  Most notably, the I-95/MA 128 exit off Rte. 2 not being Exits 128 A-B, some of the exit numbers on "standalone" 128 in Beverly being off by 2 in some cases, the exit number font/sizes being inconsistent, and the dual-mileposts along I-290.

However, the "old exit" signs are temporary, so they don't need to be critiqued.

[mrsman]

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.

I wonder if this was done because of a (mis)interpretation of the FHWA regulations regarding mileage based exit numbers.

- The old system had sequential numbers where the numbering of 395 continued seamlessly onto the numbering of 290.
- The state wants to continue that pattern in the mileage based system, 395's numbering continuing onto 290
- The state also (at least for the present time) wants to keep 395 and 290 as two separate highways, as opposed to renumbering 290 as part of 395 or vice versa
- An interpreation of the FHWA regs would require exit numbers to start at zero at its southernmost or westernmost point within a state
- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder
-The above means that where 395 ends and 290 begins, the exit numbering must restart
- This could lead to some level of confusion, particularly in the US 20/MA-12/I-90 area where it all comes together.
- To avoid that, continue 395's exit numbering onto 290 and also continue 395's mileposts onto 290
- But 290 needs its own milepost numbers, hence the double milepost system that is now in place
- Whether there is now a (secret) multiplex of 395 onto 290 is an unresolved question


In my mind, the result is needlessly complicated.  It would have been far better for the driving public to have one set of mileposts and one set of exit numbers. Period. If it means that 290 starts at milepost 12, instead of milepost 0, so be it.

There are examples of interstates where the mileposts and/or exit numbers don't start at zero.  Most often, because of planned extensions to the west or south that never ended up being built.  Also, this tends to happen where the Interstate is concurrent with a longer state or US highway and the road follows the mileposts and exit numbers of the underlying state or US highway.

[vdeane]

- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder

Such interpretation is incorrect.  Strongly prefers, yes, requires, no.  See the actual text of Section 2H.05:

Guidance:
13 Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.

Should, not shall.  I would say that this area is a reasonable exception.  As such, the situation strikes me as similar to NCDOT assuming that the even/odd rule holds for 3dis and posting I-587 as north-south.

[yakra]

Sounds like a case of south state line to me.

[bob7374]

- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder

Such interpretation is incorrect.  Strongly prefers, yes, requires, no.  See the actual text of Section 2H.05:

Guidance:
13 Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.

Should, not shall.  I would say that this area is a reasonable exception.  As such, the situation strikes me as similar to NCDOT assuming that the even/odd rule holds for 3dis and posting I-587 as north-south.

For those who believe MassDOT was wrong in posting the dual mileposts because of a violation of federal guidance, remember that the FHWA signed off on MassDOT's plans so that they could get 90% federal funding for the project. They therefore did not apparently have a problem with the continuous exit numbering along I-395/I-290 or saw it as a violation of the MUTCD.

[vdeane]

- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder

Such interpretation is incorrect.  Strongly prefers, yes, requires, no.  See the actual text of Section 2H.05:

Guidance:
13 Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.

Should, not shall.  I would say that this area is a reasonable exception.  As such, the situation strikes me as similar to NCDOT assuming that the even/odd rule holds for 3dis and posting I-587 as north-south.

Remember that the FHWA signed off on MassDOT's plans so that they could get 90% federal funding for the project. They therefore did not apparently have a problem with the continuous exit numbering along I-395/I-290 or saw it as a violation of the MUTCD.

I did not say the MUTCD has a problem with I-290 continuing I-395's numbering.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

[mrsman]

- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder

Such interpretation is incorrect.  Strongly prefers, yes, requires, no.  See the actual text of Section 2H.05:

Guidance:
13 Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.

Should, not shall.  I would say that this area is a reasonable exception.  As such, the situation strikes me as similar to NCDOT assuming that the even/odd rule holds for 3dis and posting I-587 as north-south.

Remember that the FHWA signed off on MassDOT's plans so that they could get 90% federal funding for the project. They therefore did not apparently have a problem with the continuous exit numbering along I-395/I-290 or saw it as a violation of the MUTCD.

I did not say the MUTCD has a problem with I-290 continuing I-395's numbering.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

Correct.  The MUTCD recommends (with the word should) but does not require that the zero distance point start at the west terminus of I-290.  MassDOT misinterpreted this as a requirement, hence their perceived need to keep signing the I-395 mileposts north of Mass Pike.

[Alps]

- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder

Such interpretation is incorrect.  Strongly prefers, yes, requires, no.  See the actual text of Section 2H.05:

Guidance:
13 Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.

Should, not shall.  I would say that this area is a reasonable exception.  As such, the situation strikes me as similar to NCDOT assuming that the even/odd rule holds for 3dis and posting I-587 as north-south.

Remember that the FHWA signed off on MassDOT's plans so that they could get 90% federal funding for the project. They therefore did not apparently have a problem with the continuous exit numbering along I-395/I-290 or saw it as a violation of the MUTCD.

I did not say the MUTCD has a problem with I-290 continuing I-395's numbering.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

Correct.  The MUTCD recommends (with the word should) but does not require that the zero distance point start at the west terminus of I-290.  MassDOT misinterpreted this as a requirement, hence their perceived need to keep signing the I-395 mileposts north of Mass Pike.

NJDOT misinterpreted that they couldn't sign I-295 east-west north of Trenton because the exit numbers would be going backwards. We should have a "DOT misinterpretations of MUTCD" thread and see what else pops in.

[mrsman]

- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder

Such interpretation is incorrect.  Strongly prefers, yes, requires, no.  See the actual text of Section 2H.05:

Guidance:
13 Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.

Should, not shall.  I would say that this area is a reasonable exception.  As such, the situation strikes me as similar to NCDOT assuming that the even/odd rule holds for 3dis and posting I-587 as north-south.

Remember that the FHWA signed off on MassDOT's plans so that they could get 90% federal funding for the project. They therefore did not apparently have a problem with the continuous exit numbering along I-395/I-290 or saw it as a violation of the MUTCD.

I did not say the MUTCD has a problem with I-290 continuing I-395's numbering.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

Correct.  The MUTCD recommends (with the word should) but does not require that the zero distance point start at the west terminus of I-290.  MassDOT misinterpreted this as a requirement, hence their perceived need to keep signing the I-395 mileposts north of Mass Pike.

NJDOT misinterpreted that they couldn't sign I-295 east-west north of Trenton because the exit numbers would be going backwards. We should have a "DOT misinterpretations of MUTCD" thread and see what else pops in.

I am still upset that this was numbered as I-295 at all.  The roadway between Langhorne, PA and Lawrence Township, NJ was once I-95, a separate designation from I-295 and worked fine as a north-south.  I understand (and applaud) the move of I-95 onto the Penn Turnpike once the I-95/Penn Turnpike interchage was completed, but the old roadway should have maintained a new number* altogether to not be confused with I-295.  The roadway as a whole is pointed north-south and it is weird that the north-south roadway in Pennsylvania is signed as east-west and the east-west roadway in NJ is signed as south-north.

You are left with confusion like signs that say I-295 north to I-95 south to Philadelphia.  Thank god for control cities, otherwise we would all get lost!



* My preference would have been I-695 which is unused in PA and NJ and is only a very small insignificant road in the NY area.  In my mind the situation at US 1 - I-295 - I-695 north of Trenton is very similar to US 101- I-280 - I-680 in San Jose.  I-280 and I-680 are both north-south freeways on different sides of the SF Bay that happen to be coterminous at US 101.  The main roadway from I-280 SB flows into I-680 NB (and vice versa).  Given that it makes a bit of a hair-pinned curve at this point, it is appropriate that both roadways are north-south.  I see the situation in the Trenton area to be very similar and regret that any part of this roadway is east-west.

[PurdueBill]

Maybe they could extend 290 down to the state line along 395 and have them both mileposted starting at 0 there!  (Not gonna happen, but it's not any less silly than I-74 multiplexing with 77 in NC to end at the VA line, or how 69 disappears while running with 55, although that is "temporary".)  Then 395 could end where-ever they like leaving 290 to carry the numbers alone to its end.

[bob7374]

Maybe they could extend 290 down to the state line along 395 and have them both mileposted starting at 0 there!  (Not gonna happen, but it's not any less silly than I-74 multiplexing with 77 in NC to end at the VA line, or how 69 disappears while running with 55, although that is "temporary".)  Then 395 could end where-ever they like leaving 290 to carry the numbers alone to its end.

Agree that that is unlikely. As for the other examples you bring up, VA has authorization to sign I-74 along I-77 to I-81, but has no incentive to do so. Perhaps when I-74 is signed along US 52 and around Winston-Salem groups seeking to encourage drivers to use the route to get between VA and SC could pressure VADOT to do so.

[mrsman]

Maybe they could extend 290 down to the state line along 395 and have them both mileposted starting at 0 there!  (Not gonna happen, but it's not any less silly than I-74 multiplexing with 77 in NC to end at the VA line, or how 69 disappears while running with 55, although that is "temporary".)  Then 395 could end where-ever they like leaving 290 to carry the numbers alone to its end.

Agree that that is unlikely. As for the other examples you bring up, VA has authorization to sign I-74 along I-77 to I-81, but has no incentive to do so. Perhaps when I-74 is signed along US 52 and around Winston-Salem groups seeking to encourage drivers to use the route to get between VA and SC could pressure VADOT to do so.

PurdueBill's suggestion is not a bad one, and would seem to be better than what MASSDOT actually did.  I-290 and I-395 would both start at the state line, and both would have a zero milepost.  The roads continue north, and then I-395 terminates at I-90, while I-290 continues.  It is true that in both cases (this hypothetical and what MASSDOT did) we have a useless multiplex, but at least this hypothetical provides some simplicity since both roadways will have the same milepost numbers that will also match the exit numbers of the highway.

So looking at what MASSDOT actually did definitely fuels the speculation that they intend for I-395 to take over I-290.

[PurdueBill]

Maybe they could extend 290 down to the state line along 395 and have them both mileposted starting at 0 there!  (Not gonna happen, but it's not any less silly than I-74 multiplexing with 77 in NC to end at the VA line, or how 69 disappears while running with 55, although that is "temporary".)  Then 395 could end where-ever they like leaving 290 to carry the numbers alone to its end.

Agree that that is unlikely. As for the other examples you bring up, VA has authorization to sign I-74 along I-77 to I-81, but has no incentive to do so. Perhaps when I-74 is signed along US 52 and around Winston-Salem groups seeking to encourage drivers to use the route to get between VA and SC could pressure VADOT to do so.

PurdueBill's suggestion is not a bad one, and would seem to be better than what MASSDOT actually did.  I-290 and I-395 would both start at the state line, and both would have a zero milepost.  The roads continue north, and then I-395 terminates at I-90, while I-290 continues.  It is true that in both cases (this hypothetical and what MASSDOT did) we have a useless multiplex, but at least this hypothetical provides some simplicity since both roadways will have the same milepost numbers that will also match the exit numbers of the highway.

So looking at what MASSDOT actually did definitely fuels the speculation that they intend for I-395 to take over I-290.

I also hate the idea of 190 being orphaned if 290 disappeared, with it becoming a branch off 395.  If they wanted it to remain a legit x90 while eliminating 290, they could have extended it down to 90 (silently for now, then sign it when 290 goes away, with its 0 milepoint at 90, but numbers not showing independently until it leaves 395).  Useless multiplex? Yep. Violating principle of lower-numbered route having priority in mileage/numbering? Yep. But it would technically make it a legit x90 still.  Probably simpler to just orphan it (still hate that) or renumber to an x95 (needless confusion, first renumbering exits on 190, then changing 190's number--a double whammy).  Why didn't they just leave 395 and 290 as they were?  Would have avoided all this.

I remember driving on 52 before 74 was a thing all the way down from Mt. Airy to Winston-Salem, and it was clearly the best way according to maps, triptiks, etc. and would still be with GPS and stuff regardless of the number.  If VA isn't going to sign it, 74 might as well end at 77.  It isn't like it is ever going to get all the way to Cincinnati anyway.  (I actually have done mostly 52 for Albemarle, NC to Lafayette, IN before, using Interstates where sensible but it was amazing how much 52 was involved, including all along the Ohio River in Ohio.)

[jp the roadgeek]

Maybe they could extend 290 down to the state line along 395 and have them both mileposted starting at 0 there!  (Not gonna happen, but it's not any less silly than I-74 multiplexing with 77 in NC to end at the VA line, or how 69 disappears while running with 55, although that is "temporary".)  Then 395 could end where-ever they like leaving 290 to carry the numbers alone to its end.

Agree that that is unlikely. As for the other examples you bring up, VA has authorization to sign I-74 along I-77 to I-81, but has no incentive to do so. Perhaps when I-74 is signed along US 52 and around Winston-Salem groups seeking to encourage drivers to use the route to get between VA and SC could pressure VADOT to do so.

PurdueBill's suggestion is not a bad one, and would seem to be better than what MASSDOT actually did.  I-290 and I-395 would both start at the state line, and both would have a zero milepost.  The roads continue north, and then I-395 terminates at I-90, while I-290 continues.  It is true that in both cases (this hypothetical and what MASSDOT did) we have a useless multiplex, but at least this hypothetical provides some simplicity since both roadways will have the same milepost numbers that will also match the exit numbers of the highway.

So looking at what MASSDOT actually did definitely fuels the speculation that they intend for I-395 to take over I-290.

<cough> Extend I-290 to Plainfield, CT and have I-395 take over SR 695 <cough>

[abqtraveler]

Maybe they could extend 290 down to the state line along 395 and have them both mileposted starting at 0 there!  (Not gonna happen, but it's not any less silly than I-74 multiplexing with 77 in NC to end at the VA line, or how 69 disappears while running with 55, although that is "temporary".)  Then 395 could end where-ever they like leaving 290 to carry the numbers alone to its end.

Agree that that is unlikely. As for the other examples you bring up, VA has authorization to sign I-74 along I-77 to I-81, but has no incentive to do so. Perhaps when I-74 is signed along US 52 and around Winston-Salem groups seeking to encourage drivers to use the route to get between VA and SC could pressure VADOT to do so.

PurdueBill's suggestion is not a bad one, and would seem to be better than what MASSDOT actually did.  I-290 and I-395 would both start at the state line, and both would have a zero milepost.  The roads continue north, and then I-395 terminates at I-90, while I-290 continues.  It is true that in both cases (this hypothetical and what MASSDOT did) we have a useless multiplex, but at least this hypothetical provides some simplicity since both roadways will have the same milepost numbers that will also match the exit numbers of the highway.

So looking at what MASSDOT actually did definitely fuels the speculation that they intend for I-395 to take over I-290.

<cough> Extend I-290 to Plainfield, CT and have I-395 take over SR 695 <cough>

I would just go back to CT and MA's original idea and extend 290 over 395 all the way down to I-95 at Waterford. Why AASHTO rejected that proposal in the first place defies logic, as it makes sense in my mind.

[bob7374]

Maybe they could extend 290 down to the state line along 395 and have them both mileposted starting at 0 there!  (Not gonna happen, but it's not any less silly than I-74 multiplexing with 77 in NC to end at the VA line, or how 69 disappears while running with 55, although that is "temporary".)  Then 395 could end where-ever they like leaving 290 to carry the numbers alone to its end.

Agree that that is unlikely. As for the other examples you bring up, VA has authorization to sign I-74 along I-77 to I-81, but has no incentive to do so. Perhaps when I-74 is signed along US 52 and around Winston-Salem groups seeking to encourage drivers to use the route to get between VA and SC could pressure VADOT to do so.

PurdueBill's suggestion is not a bad one, and would seem to be better than what MASSDOT actually did.  I-290 and I-395 would both start at the state line, and both would have a zero milepost.  The roads continue north, and then I-395 terminates at I-90, while I-290 continues.  It is true that in both cases (this hypothetical and what MASSDOT did) we have a useless multiplex, but at least this hypothetical provides some simplicity since both roadways will have the same milepost numbers that will also match the exit numbers of the highway.

So looking at what MASSDOT actually did definitely fuels the speculation that they intend for I-395 to take over I-290.

<cough> Extend I-290 to Plainfield, CT and have I-395 take over SR 695 <cough>

I would just go back to CT and MA's original idea and extend 290 over 395 all the way down to I-95 at Waterford. Why AASHTO rejected that proposal in the first place defies logic, as it makes sense in my mind.

According to this letter sent to AASHTO by the Director of the Conn. Dept. of Transportation I found in the AASHTO online database (searching under CT) with the application for the I-395 designation dated May 5, 1983 it was Massachusetts who objected to the I-290 designation since they felt the even digit would be misleading to drivers since it only connected to I-90 once, unlike the state's other even 3dis. Massachusetts would have accepted a 2-digit interstate designation, the FHWA didn't like that idea, but the only one they would make available, I-99(!), was rejected by Conn. since they already has a Route 99 'of considerable length.' (Would roadgeeks have objected to a MA/CT I-99 as much as the PA one?). Mass. reluctantly accepted I-395 as being the best option available, though they didn't like an odd spur number for a route connecting 2 interstates. It would be interesting if almost 40 years later they end up changing all of I-290 to a number they originally didn't like:

[jp the roadgeek]

Maybe they could extend 290 down to the state line along 395 and have them both mileposted starting at 0 there!  (Not gonna happen, but it's not any less silly than I-74 multiplexing with 77 in NC to end at the VA line, or how 69 disappears while running with 55, although that is "temporary".)  Then 395 could end where-ever they like leaving 290 to carry the numbers alone to its end.

Agree that that is unlikely. As for the other examples you bring up, VA has authorization to sign I-74 along I-77 to I-81, but has no incentive to do so. Perhaps when I-74 is signed along US 52 and around Winston-Salem groups seeking to encourage drivers to use the route to get between VA and SC could pressure VADOT to do so.

PurdueBill's suggestion is not a bad one, and would seem to be better than what MASSDOT actually did.  I-290 and I-395 would both start at the state line, and both would have a zero milepost.  The roads continue north, and then I-395 terminates at I-90, while I-290 continues.  It is true that in both cases (this hypothetical and what MASSDOT did) we have a useless multiplex, but at least this hypothetical provides some simplicity since both roadways will have the same milepost numbers that will also match the exit numbers of the highway.

So looking at what MASSDOT actually did definitely fuels the speculation that they intend for I-395 to take over I-290.

<cough> Extend I-290 to Plainfield, CT and have I-395 take over SR 695 <cough>

I would just go back to CT and MA's original idea and extend 290 over 395 all the way down to I-95 at Waterford. Why AASHTO rejected that proposal in the first place defies logic, as it makes sense in my mind.

According to this letter sent to AASHTO by the Director of the Conn. Dept. of Transportation I found in the AASHTO online database (searching under CT) with the application for the I-395 designation dated May 5, 1983 it was Massachusetts who objected to the I-290 designation since they felt the even digit would be misleading to drivers since it only connected to I-90 once, unlike the state's other even 3dis. Massachusetts would have accepted a 2-digit interstate designation, the FHWA didn't like that idea, but the only one they would make available, I-99(!), was rejected by Conn. since they already has a Route 99 'of considerable length.' (Would roadgeeks have objected to a MA/CT I-99 as much as the PA one?). Mass. reluctantly accepted I-395 as being the best option available, though they didn't like an odd spur number for a route connecting 2 interstates. It would be interesting if almost 40 years later they end up changing all of I-290 to a number they originally didn't like:

CT 99 only traverses 3 towns, not 6: Cromwell, Rocky Hill, and Wethersfield.  It terminates at the Hartford city line, and does not quite reach the Middletown city line at the south end.  Plus it was only about 14 years old at the time, as it was an old routing of CT 9 prior to the expressway being completed to I-91 (and much later,  I-84)

[kramie13]

It just occurred to me that if Mass DOT can dual-milepost I-290, they could have dual-mileposted I-95 between Canton and Peabody with MA-128 mileposts.  That way, drivers going onto the "standalone" portion of Rte. 128 aren't startled to see the exit numbers begin at 38.

Also, I-95 between Canton (where 128 begins) and Needham currently doesn't have mile markers.  Similarly, there are no mile-markers on I-93 between I-95 in Canton and MA 24.  I'm not sure how Mass DOT is getting away with this...

[bob7374]

It just occurred to me that if Mass DOT can dual-milepost I-290, they could have dual-mileposted I-95 between Canton and Peabody with MA-128 mileposts.  That way, drivers going onto the "standalone" portion of Rte. 128 aren't startled to see the exit numbers begin at 38.

Also, I-95 between Canton (where 128 begins) and Needham currently doesn't have mile markers.  Similarly, there are no mile-markers on I-93 between I-95 in Canton and MA 24.  I'm not sure how Mass DOT is getting away with this...

Apparently putting in mile markers at the completion of widening was only included in the last contract for the I-95 Add-A-Lane project, did they forget the rest? Don't know why they couldn't have included that as part of the exit renumbering of I-93 and I-95, since it was included in the I-290 work.

[PHLBOS]

During all my years in New England (including 4 years of college in Worcester), I never thought twice about I-395 and I-290, and I never heard anyone else voice confusion or concern about the numbering change at the Mass. Pike. To me I-395 and I-290 have always functioned as separate routes. For example, coming westbound on I-290, the majority of traffic exits either at the Pike or US 20.

I don't see any value in placing dual mileposts on I-290. And I certainly don't see any value to renumbering I-290 as an extension of I-395 in the future. I think that move would cause significant confusion within and around Worcester -- to say nothing about the costs to businesses having to remarket themselves and educate customer bases.

And what happens to I-190? Does it keep the same number and serve as a disconnected orphan route (now confusingly) several miles from its parent route, or does it have to renumbered as well?

I think the current numbering convention works. I-395 is a spur from I-95 through eastern Connecticut up into central Massachusetts. I-290 is a loop through Worcester that parallels its parent route to the north. And I-190 is a spur off I-290 to the Fitchburg area.

MassDOT's ideas of placing dual mileposts and potentially renumbering I-290 appear to be "solutions" in search of a problem.

It's been a while since I chimed on this site & thread.

As far as I-290 sporting I-395 mile markers alongside eachother is concerned: Both my brother & his wife, who reside in central MA & use I-290 on many occasions, believe that such is indeed causing more confusion; the complete opposite of MassDOT's reasoning for continuing I-395's mile markers along I-290.

That's the boots on the ground report.