Today's Roads and Rails blog at Boston.com (the Boston Globe's free site) is partly a response to a comment I sent to the blogger and traffic reporter, Nicole Davis, last week regarding a previous post of her's commenting on the confusion the use of '128' by traffic reporters has for some drivers, especially when its applied to the stretch between Braintree and Canton, not officially part of 128 for more than 2 decades now. I suggested maybe there would be less confusion out there if traffic reporters and others referred to it as it is actually signed today, I-93 (or I-93/US 1). Her response was not unexpected:
http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/ (http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/)
:banghead: This seems like a losing battle. No wonder New York uses names for a good number of their expwys and pkwys...doesn't matter what you name it numerically, people will always refer to it by the correct name! In this day and age of GPS (which will refer to the correct route numbers), I think that the local traffic reporters/media do have a responsibility to stay consistent.
Good post Bob...glad you wrote into that blog!
and you wonder why the mainstream media is dying.
this person, and the one who wrote the op-ed piece that there is too much jargon in the transportation industry, should get stuck in an elevator together for several decades.
Retaining the 128 moniker is about as useful as referring to Interstate 476 as the Blue Route. You won't find it signed anywhere, but traffic reporters have always used the nomenclature when referring to the freeway. Losing battle indeed as southshore270 posted and I also agree with him on your comment.
Ah! Nichole Davis! Sounds familiar to me. So does Malcolm Alter. You hear both of them at times on WDRC-FM 102.9 in Hartford. I swear I heard Malcolm slip one time, in his distinct way of saying "Route 91" (I-91). He started to say "Route 93".
We're a number-happy area...except for CT Route 99 from the Hartford/Wethersfield line to Cromwell. For some reason, traffic reporters will insist on referring to that road only as the Silas Deane Highway.
As for 128, it really irritates me when it's used on its own between Peabody and Canton. In my own notes, I will mark it only as I-95/MA 128.
I-95 should use 91-15-84-90-495. Bring back 128.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 14, 2012, 09:36:14 PM
Ah! Nichole Davis! Sounds familiar to me. So does Malcolm Alter. You hear both of them at times on WDRC-FM 102.9 in Hartford. I swear I heard Malcolm slip one time, in his distinct way of saying "Route 91" (I-91). He started to say "Route 93".
We're a number-happy area...except for CT Route 99 from the Hartford/Wethersfield line to Cromwell. For some reason, traffic reporters will insist on referring to that road only as the Silas Deane Highway.
And they'll always refer to Routes 5 and 15 from Wethersfield to Meriden as The Berlin Turnpike, and the highway section to the north and the Charter Oak Bridge as
only Route 15. Route 5 does not exist for traffic report purposes between the end of North Broad St in Meriden and Main St. in East Hartford. Plus, Route 202 might as well not exist beyond Five Corners in Canton (always Route 44 or Route 10).
Well, it's an interesting article, if only for sentimental reasons. After all, I-95 was originally planned to go through Boston instead of around it, and everyone knows how that ended...unbuilt, thanks to vehement opposition to the many expressways in the area.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 14, 2012, 11:11:29 PM
Plus, Route 202 might as well not exist beyond Five Corners in Canton (always Route 44 or Route 10).
Is there really a Route 202 in CT? For that matter, it's not even state maintained in NJ north of 53. I'd truncate US 202 at US 5 in Springfield. You have 10 and 44 from there (and 7 and 6 later). In NY, revert it back to state routes. In NJ it would become 53. US 122 would then begin at US 22/206 as it used to. (It's not fictional, it's historical, so I get to have it.)
Quote from: southshore720 on September 14, 2012, 02:36:51 PM
:banghead: This seems like a losing battle. No wonder New York uses names for a good number of their expwys and pkwys...doesn't matter what you name it numerically, people will always refer to it by the correct name!
I assume you mean incorrect name...
I'd actually ask the opposite- if the role of the state government is to serve the people within the state, and the people of the state persist in calling it "128" even after all these years, then it's time for the state government to co-sign the road as 128 again from Braintree to Canton. Hell, give it top billing over I-93 and 95. You probably still want 93/95 shields for tourists, but demote those to second billing. Nowhere do the feds require that interstate designations take preference over other designations.
Quote from: corco on September 15, 2012, 05:28:04 PM
I'd actually ask the opposite- if the role of the state government is to serve the people within the state, and the people of the state persist in calling it "128" even after all these years, then it's time for the state government to co-sign the road as 128 again from Braintree to Canton. Hell, give it top billing over I-93 and 95. You probably still want 93/95 shields for tourists, but demote those to second billing. Nowhere do the feds require that interstate designations take preference over other designations.
Which is why CDOT will NEVER pursue an Interstate designation for either C-470 or E-470. The entire Denver metro area is too used to calling the free portion of the "470 beltway" C-470 and nearly all the tolled portion E-470.
It also explains why ADOT will likely never pursue changing Loops 101, 202, and 303 into some variants of x10 or x17.
Quote from: Alex on September 14, 2012, 02:59:05 PM
Retaining the 128 moniker is about as useful as referring to Interstate 476 as the Blue Route. You won't find it signed anywhere, but traffic reporters have always used the nomenclature when referring to the freeway. Losing battle indeed as southshore270 posted and I also agree with him on your comment.
In the case of I-476, it never was signed as the "Blue Route". It was commonly called that during planning in the 1970s. But it was not even a planning name, the planning name was Mid-County Expressway. As far as I know, the Mid-County Expressway name has never been posted on the highway or its connecting routes.
Is there any MA-128 designation on any part of the beltway?
Quote from: brad2971 on September 15, 2012, 07:21:28 PM
Which is why CDOT will NEVER pursue an Interstate designation for either C-470 or E-470. The entire Denver metro area is too used to calling the free portion of the "470 beltway" C-470 and nearly all the tolled portion E-470.
It could be I-470 Beltway, and that number would fit the Interstate numbering rules perfectly.
Quote from: southshore720 on September 14, 2012, 02:36:51 PM
No wonder New York uses names for a good number of their expwys and pkwys...doesn't matter what you name it numerically, people will always refer to it by the correct name!
This generally works within the five boroughs of the city but not so well on Long Island. They generally only post the numbers for state routes, but people know them primarily by name, at least in Nassau County. If someone tells you to get off the parkway at Sunrise Highway and you don't know that it's NY 27, you'll wind up at Jones Beach in the middle of the winter. You'll have similar problems if you're looking for Jericho Turnpike, Hempstead Turnpike, or the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway, which everyone calls by their names.
Oh, and don't get me started how currently half the signs for what's now the RFK Bridge still say "Triboro Bridge," even though the bridge was renamed four years ago. This can only confuse people who don't know the area.
I personally prefer signage that gives both names and numbers, as is usually the case in Connecticut. Whether someone tell you to get off at Boston Post Road or US 1, you'll find the exit either way.
Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2012, 08:20:42 PM
Is there any MA-128 designation on any part of the beltway?
Yes, it's dual-signed on all the roadside reassurance markers between Canton and Peabody. The BGS's that have been replaced on that same stretch over the past ten years or so only refer to I-95.
You gotta love the reporter's stellar piece of gibberish: 128 is "...the correct local designation..." for the road between Braintree and Peabody. Did she just make that up or is that some kind of quasi-official jargon we mere mortals know nothing about?
Prescriptive vs. descriptive linguistics ahoy.
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 15, 2012, 11:19:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2012, 08:20:42 PM
Is there any MA-128 designation on any part of the beltway?
Yes, it's dual-signed on all the roadside reassurance markers between Canton and Peabody. The BGS's that have been replaced on that same stretch over the past ten years or so only refer to I-95.
You gotta love the reporter's stellar piece of gibberish: 128 is "...the correct local designation..." for the road between Braintree and Peabody. Did she just make that up or is that some kind of quasi-official jargon we mere mortals know nothing about?
You have to remember that the reporter who wrote this piece works for the Boston Glob(e). They have always been the most prominent "cheerleader" for the "Keep 128 Forever" movement.
And, lest we lose perspective, be reminded that the reason 128 is no longer on the I-95 BGS panels between Canton and Peabody is because FHWA specifically requested it be removed from signs as they were replaced beginning in the early 1990s. So, if the good citizens of Massachusetts indeed feel that retaining an outdated designation is so important, it would be interesting to see if they would be willing to forfeit a bunch of Federal interstate funds to keep it in place.
Currently, exit signs on the Mass Pike (I-90) identify I-95 & MA-128 together (Exit 14 EB, Exit 15 WB). Do you think that they will also drop the MA-128 in the new round of signage replacement?
Quote from: southshore720 on September 17, 2012, 02:34:24 PM
Currently, exit signs on the Mass Pike (I-90) identify I-95 & MA-128 together (Exit 14 EB, Exit 15 WB). Do you think that they will also drop the MA-128 in the new round of signage replacement?
The next MassPike guide sign replacement projects are tenatively scheduled to be let for bids in early to mid 2015. As the MassPike is now part of MassDOT, and given that current MassDOT and FHWA policy is to omit 128 from BGS panels along I-95 (and intersecting roads) between Canton and Peabody, it's more than likely that the 128 shields will be dropped from the Exit 14 and 15 signs when they are replaced.
I was just in Manchester, NH last week, and I noticed on I-93 approaching I-95/MA128, they still introduce or sign them separately, but on the Mass Pike, they're signed together on introduction...It would be nice to see some consistancy...
Quote from: roadman on September 17, 2012, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 17, 2012, 02:34:24 PM
Currently, exit signs on the Mass Pike (I-90) identify I-95 & MA-128 together (Exit 14 EB, Exit 15 WB). Do you think that they will also drop the MA-128 in the new round of signage replacement?
The next MassPike guide sign replacement projects are tenatively scheduled to be let for bids in early to mid 2015. As the MassPike is now part of MassDOT, and given that current MassDOT and FHWA policy is to omit 128 from BGS panels along I-95 (and intersecting roads) between Canton and Peabody, it's more than likely that the 128 shields will be dropped from the Exit 14 and 15 signs when they are replaced.
I wonder if that will mean odd-ball control cities of "South Shore/N.H.-Maine" will also be changed to "Providence RI/Portsmouth NH," which are the current control cities at the I-93 terminus.
Quote from: southshore720 on September 17, 2012, 04:31:33 PM
I wonder if that will mean odd-ball control cities of "South Shore/N.H.-Maine" will also be changed to "Providence RI/Portsmouth NH," which are the current control cities at the I-93 terminus.
It's my understanding that the signs for I-95 on the MassPike will be changed to read Portsmouth NH and Providence RI (current control cities) when the panels are replaced.
In Tulsa, locals refer to the OK 51 freeway as "The BA" (short for Broken Arrow Expressway.) I rarely if ever hear anybody refer to it as anything else. Sadly, there are no BA route markers along the road.
The locals never liked the idea of changing Route 128 to I-95. Not only did it not 'sound right' to them, but it also doesn't do as good of a job of differentiating the 128-belt from other sections of highway in eastern MA. What I mean by that is that I-95 also runs from the RI border to former 128, then follows most (but not all) of 128 up to Peabody, then continues on a different roadway up to the NH border at Salisbury.
To make matters worse, I-95 SOUTH magically becomes I-93 NORTH in Canton, MA, while you're still (in reality) traveling southeast, then east. Very confusing to the average driver who always knew this roadway as "128". And, clearly, a solution that was a 'forced fit' which never actually fit.
Yes, I get it: the former proposal for I-95 to be constructed through Canton/Milton/Mattapan was never going to happen, so a section of MA 128 needed to be badged as I-95 to keep the roadway continuous. And the southern end should never have been badged as I-93, which is then marked with the opposite cardinal direction as the I-95 portion was. To the average commuter, that smacks of idiocy.
You all need to remember that Boston is a metropolitan area of steady habits. People there - despite their progressive political proclivities - are VERY resistant to change. In this case, I don't blame them. When you say '128', people know what you mean. Even weather reports refer to it (as in: snow outside of 128) and let's not forget the "128 technology corridor" that is even familiar to techies in Palo Alto and Austin. Face it, this is a much deeper concept than mere MassHighway badging. To this day, few in the area refer to the roadway as I-95, unless they just moved in from Atlanta. To the natives, it will always be 128. And that's why traffic reporters call it that. Because everyone knows what they mean.
And, it still makes a lot more sense than the damn "blue route" near Philly - which is truly meaningless.
Using "128" in greater Boston is one thing. Is it better than people in greater Philadelphia calling I-76/Schuylkill Expressway the Sure-kill Expressway? :o
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2012, 10:41:36 AM
Using "128" in greater Boston is one thing. Is it better than people in greater Philadelphia calling I-76/Schuylkill Expressway the Sure-kill Expressway? :o
What's wrong with calling it the Surekill Expressway? It's not an official name, just slang. PennDOT should have thought about it before giving it a name that sounds similar.
I don't care if they call roads by nicknames or old names, just get the damn traffic conditions right. If they say traffic is slow from Exit 10 - 15, and I'm sitting at a standstill at Exit 5, then the traffic report was no help to anyone.
Likewise, if traffic breezes thru Exit 10 - 15 when it was reported as slow, then the report was incorrect also, and people may have detoured to other routes unnecessarily.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 18, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
And, it still makes a lot more sense than the damn "blue route" near Philly - which is truly meaningless.
No, not pointless. The name came from the color-coded alternatives: red, green, and blue. Guess which one they chose.
It would help if the Boston-Metro area utilized their variable message boards (like CT and RI do) to their full extent to inform you of how long the backup is going to be or if there was an accident. There has been somewhat of an effort along I-93 in MA and southern NH by posting the miles per minute for designated exits on supplemental roadside variable message boards. However, telling me "Click It or Ticket" when I am stuck in inexplicable traffic for 25 minutes is not really that helpful!
QuoteTo this day, few in the area refer to the roadway as I-95, unless they just moved in from Atlanta. To the natives, it will always be 128. And that's why traffic reporters call it that. Because everyone knows what they mean.
And, it still makes a lot more sense than the damn "blue route" near Philly - which is truly meaningless.
Having moved to MA from Atlanta a year and a half ago, I just call it 128...It just keeps the locals from looking at you like you have two heads, even though I'd rather just call it 95...The only time you hear an interstate called what it is, when referring to 93 North and 495..Either it's the Mass Pike or (93 South) "The expressway". Every thing in MA is Route this or that, not US 1, what have you.
In Atlanta, it was what it was: 20 E-W, 75 N-S, 85 the exception, North, sometimes the Northeast Expy., and South, "The Airport connector".
Don't get me started on 285..."Top End", "West wall", etc...
I guess you could say comparble to the Central artery in Boston would be the"Downtown connector" in Atlanta..
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 18, 2012, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 18, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
And, it still makes a lot more sense than the damn "blue route" near Philly - which is truly meaningless.
No, not pointless. The name came from the color-coded alternatives: red, green, and blue. Guess which one they chose.
Irrelevant now that the highway has been entirely open since 1992.
In my opinion, I actually don't mind the use of "128" along I-95 around Boston, nor do I mind "Blue Route" for I-476 or "The Schuylkill" (or Sure-kill, as Kevin_224 and Beltway describes) for I-76.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 18, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
In my opinion, I actually don't mind the use of "128" along I-95 around Boston, nor do I mind "Blue Route" for I-476 or "The Schuylkill" (or Sure-kill, as Kevin_224 and Beltway describes) for I-76.
It looks better as one word ... Surekill
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2012, 05:38:37 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 18, 2012, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 18, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
And, it still makes a lot more sense than the damn "blue route" near Philly - which is truly meaningless.
No, not pointless. The name came from the color-coded alternatives: red, green, and blue. Guess which one they chose.
Irrelevant now that the highway has been entirely open since 1992.
On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to say than Mid-County Expressway. On the third hand, why can't it just be 476?
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2012, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 18, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
In my opinion, I actually don't mind the use of "128" along I-95 around Boston, nor do I mind "Blue Route" for I-476 or "The Schuylkill" (or Sure-kill, as Kevin_224 and Beltway describes) for I-76.
It looks better as one word ... Surekill
Either way, it's a silly name in my honest opinion. For the record, I've never even heard anyone call it the "Surekill" until I joined this forum...
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 18, 2012, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2012, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 18, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
In my opinion, I actually don't mind the use of "128" along I-95 around Boston, nor do I mind "Blue Route" for I-476 or "The Schuylkill" (or Sure-kill, as Kevin_224 and Beltway describes) for I-76.
It looks better as one word ... Surekill
Either way, it's a silly name in my honest opinion. For the record, I've never even heard anyone call it the "Surekill" until I joined this forum...
I lived in the area for 5 years in the 1970s ... I heard it frequently. I doubt that it has lost any popularity since then.
"Skoo-kill" sounds too much like "Surekill".
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2012, 09:32:00 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 18, 2012, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2012, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 18, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
In my opinion, I actually don't mind the use of "128" along I-95 around Boston, nor do I mind "Blue Route" for I-476 or "The Schuylkill" (or Sure-kill, as Kevin_224 and Beltway describes) for I-76.
It looks better as one word ... Surekill
Either way, it's a silly name in my honest opinion. For the record, I've never even heard anyone call it the "Surekill" until I joined this forum...
I lived in the area for 5 years in the 1970s ... I heard it frequently. I doubt that it has lost any popularity since then.
"Skoo-kill" sounds too much like "Surekill".
I do understand where you're coming from. Not sure why, but I've never heard anyone call it that. I guess I'll be paying more attention to see if it's still a Philadelphia custom to call it the Surekill...
Sounds even more like school kill. In this post-Columbine world we need to avoid such offensive phrases. Therefore the only valid name will be the "Skook".
Quote from: southshore720 on September 14, 2012, 02:36:51 PM
:banghead: This seems like a losing battle. No wonder New York uses names for a good number of their expwys and pkwys...doesn't matter what you name it numerically, people will always refer to it by the correct name! In this day and age of GPS (which will refer to the correct route numbers), I think that the local traffic reporters/media do have a responsibility to stay consistent.
Good post Bob...glad you wrote into that blog!
As New York goes (well, more so around downstate New York), there are a number of parkways which don't have a numerical designation beyond a reference route number.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 18, 2012, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 18, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
And, it still makes a lot more sense than the damn "blue route" near Philly - which is truly meaningless.
No, not pointless. The name came from the color-coded alternatives: red, green, and blue. Guess which one they chose.
Yeah, that makes "perfect" sense to the rest of us! At least "128" is still partially signed as such and you can find it on maps. And it was only known as MA 128 for 30-40 years. The "blue route" isn't called that on any map, nor is it signed in that way at all. The name comes from such an esoteric source (proposed routings?) that I can't even believe it.
Here's an idea: how about calling it 476?
On the other hand, I totally get the Schuylkill reference. That's the name of the expressway, like the 'Eisenhower' or 'Stevenson' in Chicago. I am cool with that.
Quote from: Steve on September 18, 2012, 08:35:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2012, 05:38:37 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 18, 2012, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 18, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
And, it still makes a lot more sense than the damn "blue route" near Philly - which is truly meaningless.
No, not pointless. The name came from the color-coded alternatives: red, green, and blue. Guess which one they chose.
Irrelevant now that the highway has been entirely open since 1992.
On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to say than Mid-County Expressway. On the third hand, why can't it just be 476?
It is both ... I-476 and Mid-County Expressway ... it's just not signed as Mid-County Expressway anywhere nor ever has it been.
It's just a nickname that never went away. It may make no sense, but it has to have made sense back then for it to develop like that.
In South Jersey, the 2 miles of I-76 is always referred to as Rt. 42...which I-76 connects to.
They will state I-676 however. A common report is to hear "42 slow from the base of the Walt Whitman to 55. 676 slows for a mile approaching 42".
99.99% of the people understand what this all means. The other 0.01% (yes, those percentages mean about 1 person in 10,000 on a normal weekday) probably wouldn't know what to do if the traffic reports used the exact roadways and directions anyway, which would sound like this: "I-76 Eastbound is slow from the base of the Walt Whitman Bridge Eastbound, which is also I-76 Eastbound, to Rt. 42 Southbound, where it continues slow to Rt. 55 Southbound. I-676 Southbound is also slow for 1 mile approaching I-76 Eastbound".
Another thing to remember is timing - the entire traffic report for an entire region only has about 30 seconds (give or take) to be reported. Whatever rolls off the tongue faster is better as well.
I found an email I got from my university's housing office this morning kinda funny and extremely relevant to this thread - it informed me that I am not required to live on campus if I will be on co-op "outside of Route 128". This is an email going out to college students at a school with a high percentage of international students, and students from all 50 US states. Yet the 128 designation is ubiquitous enough that there is no confusion using it in an official email to students.
Quote from: southshore720 on September 18, 2012, 03:53:52 PM
It would help if the Boston-Metro area utilized their variable message boards (like CT and RI do) to their full extent to inform you of how long the backup is going to be or if there was an accident. There has been somewhat of an effort along I-93 in MA and southern NH by posting the miles per minute for designated exits on supplemental roadside variable message boards. However, telling me "Click It or Ticket" when I am stuck in inexplicable traffic for 25 minutes is not really that helpful!
MassDOT is heading in this direction in the near future. The current travel time program on I-93 is part of a pilot program utilizing a new system that, if it proves successful (which it seems to be so far) will be expanded to other roads in Greater Boston. When fully implemented the system should, if I understand correctly, integrate with the permanently-mounted overhead message boards. The reason it does not currently is because it is computerized whereas the permanent message boards operate on an older system that needs to be manually programmed, and the pilot program did not include an upgrade to the existing message boards.
Route 3 between Braintree and the Cape also has a similar system in place over the summer based on the success of the I-93 pilot, though the Route 3 system operates based on State Police observations and manual VMS programming rather than a computerized system like I-93's.
[disclaimer: I know the above from working for MassDOT, but I do not guarantee the above information's accuracy as I did not work directly with Highway Operations]
Quote from: Alex on September 14, 2012, 02:59:05 PM
Retaining the 128 moniker is about as useful as referring to Interstate 476 as the Blue Route. You won't find it signed anywhere, but traffic reporters have always used the nomenclature when referring to the freeway.
Apples & oranges comparison. When the Yankee Divison Highway was originally constructed during the 1950s; it was signed as (and ultmately called/referred)
Route 128. Additionally, the pre-highway alignments of MA 128 (except for the segment now known as MA 228) were quickly stripped off the old roads when the highway was completed.
In the case of I-476/the Blue Route: while the initial plans for the highway date back to the 1920s; once the Interstate Highway Act became law in 1956, the road was designated to be a 3-di (initally as I-480, then later changed to I-476) decades before it was ultimately built and opened to traffic on Dec. 1991. The
Blue Route name originated from a color-schemed (assigned to each alignment) plan for the then-future highway. The Blue corridor was the one that was ultimately chosen. Due to the highway being delayed by just over 15 years (it was originally planned to be fully-built and opened by 1976); the Blue Route name ultimately stuck among Delaware Valley locals.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2012, 10:41:36 AM
Using "128" in greater Boston is one thing. Is it better than people in greater Philadelphia calling I-76/Schuylkill Expressway the Sure-kill Expressway? :o
Actually I-76 is to the Schuylkill Expressway in Philly is what I-93 south of Boston is to the Southeast Expressway.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on September 18, 2012, 05:03:54 PMI guess you could say comparble to the Central artery in Boston would be the"Downtown connector" in Atlanta..
The Central Artery's long gone. Its replacement (still part of I-93) is now referred to as the O'Neill Tunnel (named after former US House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill).
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 18, 2012, 10:37:12 AMYes, I get it: the former proposal for I-95 to be constructed through Canton/Milton/Mattapan was never going to happen, so a section of MA 128 needed to be badged as I-95 to keep the roadway continuous. And the southern end should never have been badged as I-93, which is then marked with the opposite cardinal direction as the I-95 portion was. To the average commuter, that smacks of idiocy.
Actually, it was then-Gov. Sargent's canning of the I-95/Northeast Expressway alignment through Saugus & Lynn (one can still see traces of the would-be road near the US 1/MA 60 interchange in Revere) that prompted the designating of the Peabody-Canton section of 128 as I-95.
Had only the Southwest Expressway been canned but the Northeast Expressway extension been built; I-95 south of Boston would've ran along the Southeast Expressway and the Braintree-Canton section of 128. From Canton to Peabody (and to Gloucester); 128 would have just remained as just 128.
As far as the extension of the I-93 designation south of Boston (O'Neill Tunnel (old Central Artery) / Southeast Expressway / Yankee Division Highway (old 128)) is concerned; the reasoning behind that due to the normal FHWA practice of having a mainline 2-di Interstate terminate at another
through Interstate where possible.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 18, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
You all need to remember that Boston is a metropolitan area of steady habits. People there - despite their progressive political proclivities - are VERY resistant to change. In this case, I don't blame them. When you say '128', people know what you mean. Even weather reports refer to it (as in: snow outside of 128) and let's not forget the "128 technology corridor" that is even familiar to techies in Palo Alto and Austin. Face it, this is a much deeper concept than mere MassHighway badging. To this day, few in the area refer to the roadway as I-95, unless they just moved in from Atlanta. To the natives, it will always be 128. And that's why traffic reporters call it that. Because everyone knows what they mean.
As one who witnessed the change from the get-go, as a child; I agree w/you up to a point.
When the I-95/93 designations first appeared circa 1975; the northern I-95 connection in Peabody (Exit 45/29) was still only on paper. Prior to 1982, BGS signage directing those to I-95 North via the US 1 interchange (then-Exit 30, now-Exit 44) and visa-versa was scant at best and didn't help the I-95 redesignation along 128 cause one iota.
IMHO, once that interchange was finally completed in 1988 (along with the revised exit numbers); the Commonwealth should've further encouraged/pushed the I-95 & I-93 designations more aggressively.
That said, they should at least cease and desist on calling the I-93 section from Canton to Braintree 128 since all signs (even trailblazers) were pulled decades ago and I-93 (& US 1) use opposite cardinals. Its worth noting that prior to the late-60s; MA 128 ran beyond Braintree via MA 3 until the MA 228 interchange; the latter was also known as MA 128 back then.
So 128 has been truncated before; it can be truncated again.
Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2012, 08:20:42 PMIs there any MA-128 designation on any part of the beltway?
The Peabody-to-Gloucester segment, east of I-95 is still designated and
signed as MA 128.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 20, 2012, 01:00:45 PM
I found an email I got from my university's housing office this morning kinda funny and extremely relevant to this thread - it informed me that I am not required to live on campus if I will be on co-op "outside of Route 128". This is an email going out to college students at a school with a high percentage of international students, and students from all 50 US states. Yet the 128 designation is ubiquitous enough that there is no confusion using it in an official email to students.
During her speech at the GOP Convention in Tampa last month; former-Secreatry of State Condoleezza Rice made a
Route 128 reference with regards to the high-tech firm build-up in Greater Boston area so it's not just a local reference.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 18, 2012, 09:40:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2012, 09:32:00 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 18, 2012, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2012, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 18, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
In my opinion, I actually don't mind the use of "128" along I-95 around Boston, nor do I mind "Blue Route" for I-476 or "The Schuylkill" (or Sure-kill, as Kevin_224 and Beltway describes) for I-76.
It looks better as one word ... Surekill
Either way, it's a silly name in my honest opinion. For the record, I've never even heard anyone call it the "Surekill" until I joined this forum...
I lived in the area for 5 years in the 1970s ... I heard it frequently. I doubt that it has lost any popularity since then.
I do understand where you're coming from. Not sure why, but I've never heard anyone call it that. I guess I'll be paying more attention to see if it's still a Philadelphia custom to call it the Surekill...
I've lived in Philly since 1989. "Surekill" is still a popular moniker. It's just a local slang, usually expressed after someone has completed a harrowing drive on it, made all the worse because it took three times longer than it should've because it's only
two furcockamamy lanes in each direction.The usage may go something like, "The surekill really gave me agita today!"
People have been using that term since the 1950s when it was built, but in reality the highway is much safer now than it used to be. When it was first built the lanes were only separated by a mountable curb, not a barrier. Head-on collisions were a real problem. (A W-beam center barrier was eventually constructed. Now, of course, it has a Jersey barrier up the center.)
When people want to be really perjorative, they say "Surekill Distressway" (in addition to all the curse words).
Quote from: qguy on September 20, 2012, 04:50:37 PM
I've lived in Philly since 1989. "Surekill" is still a popular moniker. It's just a local slang, usually expressed after someone has completed a harrowing drive on it, made all the worse because it took three times longer than it should've because it's only two furcockamamy lanes in each direction.
PennDOT would say it is 4 lanes each way! True for the section between City Avenue and Montgomery Drive ... :-)
Quote
The usage may go something like, "The surekill really gave me agita today!"
People have been using that term since the 1950s when it was built, but in reality the highway is much safer now than it used to be. When it was first built the lanes were only separated by a mountable curb, not a barrier. Head-on collisions were a real problem. (A W-beam center barrier was eventually constructed. Now, of course, it has a Jersey barrier up the center.)
The W-beam guardrail median barrier was there when I first drove it in 1972. The concrete barrier was built during the rebuild in the 1980s.
Quote
When people want to be really perjorative, they say "Surekill Distressway" (in addition to all the curse words).
Even more so, "Surekill Parkinglot"
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2012, 10:41:36 AM
Schuylkill
here I thought it was pronounced "Sky-kill". but that's because I'm analogizing it with senator Schuyler Colfax, who is definitely a "skyler".
Thanks for all the replies. Anyone send a comment/message to Ms. Davis?
Possibly some progress to report. In today's post under upcoming traffic closures she lists a ramp closing from MA 24 to '128 South/I-93 North' on Thursday. Not entirely correct, but getting closer.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 24, 2012, 09:30:34 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2012, 10:41:36 AM
Schuylkill
here I thought it was pronounced "Sky-kill". but that's because I'm analogizing it with senator Schuyler Colfax, who is definitely a "skyler".
They pronounce it "Skoo-kill"
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2012, 05:47:34 PM
PennDOT would say it is 4 lanes each way! True for the section between City Avenue and Montgomery Drive ... :-)
It's four lanes westbound from the Roosevelt Expressway to City Ave, and eastbound, it's only four lanes in a short stretch because of an understandably weird acceleration/deceleration lane setup.
It's only two in each direction through the Roosevelt Expy. interchange, though. It's eight down to Montgomery, and then six consistently down to 676.
Then it's six between University Ave. and 291, and then it's six from Penrose Ave. over to Broad St. (611) From there to 95 and the Whitman Bridge, it's inconsistent, and at the toll plaza, it gets to five lanes in each direction, westbound coming out of the toll plaza, and eastbound, the right two are just added on from the ramp from 95. Over the bridge it's normally four lanes at the most each direction.
Are we officially off-topic yet? :P
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 26, 2012, 08:09:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2012, 05:47:34 PM
PennDOT would say it is 4 lanes each way! True for the section between City Avenue and Montgomery Drive ... :-)
It's four lanes westbound from the Roosevelt Expressway to City Ave, and eastbound, it's only four lanes in a short stretch because of an understandably weird acceleration/deceleration lane setup.
It's only two in each direction through the Roosevelt Expy. interchange, though. It's eight down to Montgomery, and then six consistently down to 676.
Then it's six between University Ave. and 291, and then it's six from Penrose Ave. over to Broad St. (611) From there to 95 and the Whitman Bridge, it's inconsistent, and at the toll plaza, it gets to five lanes in each direction, westbound coming out of the toll plaza, and eastbound, the right two are just added on from the ramp from 95. Over the bridge it's normally four lanes at the most each direction.
The vast majority is 4 lanes (2 each way) -- between City Avenue and US-202, and several places south of I-676 (IOW, there are 2 thru lanes each way between I-676 and Broad Street).
I sent another question regarding '128' to the Globe blogger. She answered my new question in a new blog post dealing with the upcoming opening of the 4th lane on I-93 North between I-95 and MA 24:
http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/2012/11/extra_lane_enjoyment_on_128_and_saving_some_trees.html (http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/2012/11/extra_lane_enjoyment_on_128_and_saving_some_trees.html)
Is the (857) mentioned in the article a phone area code overlay I haven't heard about? Also, the traffic reporter is referring to I-93 between Canton and Braintree, correct? (I thought the MA 128 overlay ended at the junction of I-93 and I-95 in Canton?)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 12, 2012, 05:52:00 PM
Is the (857) mentioned in the article a phone area code overlay I haven't heard about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_codes_617_and_857
The 857 area code was overlaid onto the 617 in 2001.
And the part of 128 she is referring to is, as she said, between Route 24 and Route 109: http://goo.gl/maps/uCvfh only part of which is actually 128, which technically ends at the I-93/95 interchange.
Nichole Davis appears to have made the typical number of errors though. While not related to roads, the MBTA's new mobile ticketing debuted today on the
North Station, not South Station, lines (Newburyport/Rockport, Haverhill, Lowell, and Fitchburg), and it is NOT yet available on commuter ferries (don't know why she threw that in there).
And as always I can't comment on the article. Stupid boston.com.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 12, 2012, 05:52:00 PM
Is the (857) mentioned in the article a phone area code overlay I haven't heard about? Also, the traffic reporter is referring to I-93 between Canton and Braintree, correct? (I thought the MA 128 overlay ended at the junction of I-93 and I-95 in Canton?)
857 was overlaid on 617 about 10 years ago but most state phone numbers would have been old 617s; the change in numbers they describe for MassDOT agencies probably was only possible to be accommodated in 857.
128 used to run from 95 over to Route 3, in a wrong-way duplex with 93. That was eliminated in the late 80s iIrc but calling it 128 dies hard. That is the part of the road that people call "128" that really ought to quit that. Calling the overlap with 95 by the 128 name is less trouble because it's not a wrong-way overlap at least.
(The famous Blizzard of 1978 photos of traffic snowed into place on the road that were taken on now-93 were on then-128; exit 64N on 128 SB is now exit 2B on 93 NB.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-tLwzaCsTBO0%2FTzKFC_GzvGI%2FAAAAAAAAAl0%2Fv2GiOT29zYw%2Fs1600%2Fblizzard%2Bof%2B78.gif&hash=fd44de1fc94b2a2e42973b6e745676c608e949e2)
Quote from: Beltway on September 25, 2012, 05:03:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 24, 2012, 09:30:34 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2012, 10:41:36 AM
Schuylkill
here I thought it was pronounced "Sky-kill". but that's because I'm analogizing it with senator Schuyler Colfax, who is definitely a "skyler".
They pronounce it "Skoo-kill"
The second syllable is unstressed, so it ends up sounding like "skookle"
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 12, 2012, 08:21:33 PM128 used to run from 95 over to Route 3, in a wrong-way duplex with 93. That was eliminated in the late 80s iIrc but calling it 128 dies hard. That is the part of the road that people call "128" that really ought to quit that. Calling the overlap with 95 by the 128 name is less trouble because it's not a wrong-way overlap at least.
(The famous Blizzard of 1978 photos of traffic snowed into place on the road that were taken on now-93 were on then-128; exit 64N on 128 SB is now exit 2B on 93 NB.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-tLwzaCsTBO0%2FTzKFC_GzvGI%2FAAAAAAAAAl0%2Fv2GiOT29zYw%2Fs1600%2Fblizzard%2Bof%2B78.gif&hash=fd44de1fc94b2a2e42973b6e745676c608e949e2)
The 128 designation was pulled from the Canton to Braintree stretch at the same time that the US 1 designation was added (a mistake IMHO, but nonetheless) circa 1989.
I-93 signage started appearing along that strech of 128 around 1976-1977. As a matter of fact, some of the
Blizzard of '78 photos in that area show the backside of the long-since-replaced
95 NORTH Dedham NH-Maine pull-through BGS which was only about a year old at the time.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 13, 2012, 08:30:58 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 12, 2012, 08:21:33 PM128 used to run from 95 over to Route 3, in a wrong-way duplex with 93. That was eliminated in the late 80s iIrc but calling it 128 dies hard. That is the part of the road that people call "128" that really ought to quit that. Calling the overlap with 95 by the 128 name is less trouble because it's not a wrong-way overlap at least.
(The famous Blizzard of 1978 photos of traffic snowed into place on the road that were taken on now-93 were on then-128; exit 64N on 128 SB is now exit 2B on 93 NB.)
The 128 designation was pulled from the Canton to Braintree stretch at the same time that the US 1 designation was added (a mistake IMHO, but nonetheless) circa 1989.
I-93 signage started appearing along that strech of 128 around 1976-1977. As a matter of fact, some of the Blizzard of '78 photos in that area show the backside of the long-since-replaced 95 NORTH Dedham NH-Maine pull-through BGS which was only about a year old at the time.
Yep, for a good while there was the wrong-way duplex of 93 and 128 (albeit on a mainly E-W stretch of roadway) that I even remember Dick Flavin poking fun at in a commentary on WBZ-TV. (What ever happened to Dick Flavin?)
It's interesting that when they removed 128 east of 95 and routed US 1 over 128 and up the Southeast Expressway, the wrong-way duplex of 128 and 93 was eliminated but a wrong-way duplex of I-95 and US 1 was introduced on the other side of 95. Oy......
@ DEATHTOPUMPKINS: Thank you for the clarification! I don't think I've been on I-95/MA 128 from north of Exit 12 in Canton up to Exit 22 in Newton. I may have been on it once, but I don't recall it too well. Usually, when Peter Pan comes back up from Providence, RI, they follow I-95 North to Canton and then I-93/US 1 (also later MA 3) North to the bus-only ramp towards South Station.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on September 18, 2012, 05:03:54 PM
QuoteTo this day, few in the area refer to the roadway as I-95, unless they just moved in from Atlanta. To the natives, it will always be 128. And that's why traffic reporters call it that. Because everyone knows what they mean.
And, it still makes a lot more sense than the damn "blue route" near Philly - which is truly meaningless.
Having moved to MA from Atlanta a year and a half ago, I just call it 128...It just keeps the locals from looking at you like you have two heads, even though I'd rather just call it 95...The only time you hear an interstate called what it is, when referring to 93 North and 495..Either it's the Mass Pike or (93 South) "The expressway". Every thing in MA is Route this or that, not US 1, what have you.
In Atlanta, it was what it was: 20 E-W, 75 N-S, 85 the exception, North, sometimes the Northeast Expy., and South, "The Airport connector".
Don't get me started on 285..."Top End", "West wall", etc...
I guess you could say comparble to the Central artery in Boston would be the"Downtown connector" in Atlanta..
As a former LA resident, I have gotten used to calling the freeways there by their route numbers, such as "the 5" for I-5, "101 Freeway" for US 101, "110 Freeway" for the combined I-110/CA 110, etc. However, when referring to the expressways in my hometown, I call them by their names, like the Eisenhower, Dan Ryan, Stevenson and such. So for me, the pendulum swings both ways, as it were.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on November 12, 2012, 11:09:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 25, 2012, 05:03:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 24, 2012, 09:30:34 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2012, 10:41:36 AM
Schuylkill
here I thought it was pronounced "Sky-kill". but that's because I'm analogizing it with senator Schuyler Colfax, who is definitely a "skyler".
They pronounce it "Skoo-kill"
The second syllable is unstressed, so it ends up sounding like "skookle"
I have heard it pronounced both of those ways.
This reminds me of what happens with Ohio's State Route 562 here in the Cincinnati area...it's never called that by local traffic reporters.
No, it's called "The Norwood Lateral" or shortened, "The Lateral". Never SR 562. It isn't signed as the Norwood Lateral, nor does it appear on ODOT maps as such. But the name stuck, chiefly because it's a Lateral way across the city of Norwood (and for that matter, between the two major north/south arteries of I-75 and I-71).
As for 128, to bring this thread back on topic: I don't cringe at it as badly as some of you seem to. Do I wish it'd be called I-95 in the section where the two routes co-exist? Sure. But I realize it's probably never going to happen, so, seeing it from the outsider POV, I'm trying to adjust my thinking ahead of any potential visits.
QuoteSchuylkill...here I thought it was pronounced "Sky-kill". but that's because I'm analogizing it with senator Schuyler Colfax, who is definitely a "skyler"...They pronounce it "Skoo-kill"...The second syllable is unstressed, so it ends up sounding like "skookle"
...I have heard it pronounced both of those ways.
Funny, all I've ever heard it called was the "Sure-kill."
Thought those who had posted on this topic might be interested in the latest Roads & Rails blog entry. Of particular interest is the list of potential slowdowns due to construction on '128' toward the bottom. She apparently did not see any problem with listing the trouble spots by exit number. Does anyone else think the way the exit numbers are listed could be improved? The blog entry--
http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/2013/01/prepping_for_pesky_storms_on_the_rails.html (http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/2013/01/prepping_for_pesky_storms_on_the_rails.html)
If she insists on using 128, she could have easily typed 95/128 for the concurrent section. Also, I cringe when I-93 is referred to as 128...
Quote from: southshore720 on January 13, 2013, 06:04:17 PM
If she insists on using 128, she could have easily typed 95/128 for the concurrent section. Also, I cringe when I-93 is referred to as 128...
Yes, that is my pet peeve. Call it 128 if you want, but if you're going to use an I-95 exit number, doesn't it make sense, and isn't it simple enough, to add a '/I-95' to the sentence? Especially when you are listing a duplicate number later for a totally different exit?
Quote from: bob7374 on January 14, 2013, 11:06:48 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 13, 2013, 06:04:17 PM
If she insists on using 128, she could have easily typed 95/128 for the concurrent section. Also, I cringe when I-93 is referred to as 128...
Yes, that is my pet peeve. Call it 128 if you want, but if you're going to use an I-95 exit number, doesn't it make sense, and isn't it simple enough, to add a '/I-95' to the sentence? Especially when you are listing a duplicate number later for a totally different exit?
It sure will be interesting how MassDOT will treat the Peabody-to-Gloucester 128 stretch (Exits 9 through 29) when it comes time to convert to mile-marker based exit numbering. The first MA 128 mile marker at I-95 (Exit 45/29) currently starts at Mile 37.2 (assuming that this is measured from I-95/93 in Canton).
Logically, MA 128 Mile 0 should start at the I-95 interchange in Peabody and increase eastwards/northbound even if the MA 128 shields along the I-95 stretch of the YDH (Yankee Division Highway) still remain. Since I-93/95 in Canton is near/at I-95 Mile 26; there would be little or no overlap of exit numbers between I-95/YDH and MA 128/YDH.
At least the exit numbers along the I-93 stretch of the YDH currently don't overlap with any other 128 segments. Assuming that the mile-marker based exit numbers don't really change along I-93 (Exits 1 through 7 will likely
still be Exits 1 through 7), the above-recommended change for MA 128 would involve an overlap of numbers w/those along I-93 w/those from Peabody & Danvers.
On the drive into work this AM, was listening to WBZ traffic and heard a reference: accident on 95 at route 109. No mention of 128 what-so-ever..Maybe times are changing..
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on May 23, 2013, 08:50:14 AM
On drive into work this AM, was listening to WBZ traffic and heard a reference: accident on 95 at route 109. No mention of 128 what-so-ever..Maybe times are changing..
Must be a new reporter who's a recent transplant to the region... or, dare I say, one of us. :)
*cue in
Twilight Zone theme*
I dunno..Maybe there's hope yet! :)
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 23, 2013, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on May 23, 2013, 08:50:14 AM
On drive into work this AM, was listening to WBZ traffic and heard a reference: accident on 95 at route 109. No mention of 128 what-so-ever..Maybe times are changing..
Must be a new reporter who's a recent transplant to the region... or, dare I say, one of us. :)
*cue in Twilight Zone theme*
Even the blogger I posted about has now included in her most recent posts references to 'Route 128/I-95'. So maybe times are changing, if slowly.
Can't they just put 95 along 93 through downtown until it hits 128 again (making 93 end at 95/128) and be done with it?
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 24, 2013, 08:36:01 AM
Can't they just put 95 along 93 through downtown until it hits 128 again (making 93 end at 95/128) and be done with it?
For one thing, FHWA would never approve the routing change due to the discontinuity at the Woburn interchange. There's also the matter of changing the exit numbers, mile markers. Also, if Canton to Woburn were to revert to MA 128 only, there's a question about continued Federal funding for the highway - and a chance that MassDOT might have to return the funding that was recently (and is currently) being spent for the "Add-A-Lane" projects between Randolph and Wellesley.
Personally, I've always considered the whole debate about the "sacred" MA 128 designation to be right up there with the "controversy" about low numbered license plates. Both "issues" are among the biggest wastes of time and effort the people of Massachusetts have ever engaged themselves in. It's been Interstate 95 for almost forty years now - get a life, get used to it, and let's get on with more important matters.
People have been calling it 128 for almost forty years now - get a life, get used to it, and let's get on with more important matters.
:bigass:
This issue is the epitome of the timeless "engineers and bureacrats vs. the public" battle, and it really highlights the failure that is the placing systems over people.
It is called 128 because there is no other name in common use that communicates "the circumferential highway ten miles out from downtown Boston." Clearly, as the system-worshippers ignore, people have a need to have a way to refer to the circumferential highway ten miles out from downtown Boston.
It could be something else. It could be anything else. But if it's not 128, it has to be something else. Massachusetts already has too many signs made by folks who put their "expertise" over users' needs. The ongoing elimination of 128 while ignoring the reason people use it keeps true to that tradition.
Name it "128th Street Expressway," but keep it 95. :bigass:
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 25, 2013, 01:14:51 AM
This issue is the epitome of the timeless "engineers and bureacrats vs. the public" battle, and it really highlights the failure that is the placing systems over people.
It is called 128 because there is no other name in common use that communicates "the circumferential highway ten miles out from downtown Boston." Clearly, as the system-worshippers ignore, people have a need to have a way to refer to the circumferential highway ten miles out from downtown Boston.
It could be something else. It could be anything else. But if it's not 128, it has to be something else. Massachusetts already has too many signs made by folks who put their "expertise" over users' needs. The ongoing elimination of 128 while ignoring the reason people use it keeps true to that tradition.
Does it really need to be called anything uniform? In Rochester, we get by just fine with 390 and 590. We do it by pretending that the concept of beltways doesn't even exist.
"Outer Loop" seems like an obvious name for Rochester.
Give it a color based route name.
I476 south of 276 in philly is called the Blue Route even though it never offically carried that name, it goes back to the planning stages, north of 276 it is called the northeast extension. Keeps confusion down between the two different highways that share a route #
Call 128 the Red Route or Green Route or give it a cool name like Veterans Expressway, or something unique and local.
What's wrong with signing as a duplex, 128 all the way around and 93 or 95 where appropriate?
Pull a Nashville and call it the One Twenty-Eight Parkway.
Quote from: NE2 on May 25, 2013, 08:53:52 PM
"Outer Loop" seems like an obvious name for Rochester.
I've heard it called that once is a blue moon, but never as a common affair. It would be interesting to see what perceptions are of 390 vs. our perceptions of it.
Much of I-84 west of the Connecticut River, from the I-91 junction westward, is the Yankee Expressway. There is a sign indicating that by the east portal of the Hartford "tunnel". However, traffic reporters here will never call it that. There are other roadways in Connecticut named for Christopher Columbus, Chester Bowles and Taras Shevchenko, yet the names aren't in common use either. We also have a sign for the John Davis Lodge (Connecticut) Turnpike on I-95 north in Greenwich, heading north from New York.
Quote from: kkt on May 26, 2013, 10:21:54 AM
What's wrong with signing as a duplex, 128 all the way around and 93 or 95 where appropriate?
What is right with signing as a duplex? Why is it necessary to post 128 south of Peabody at all? I mean, will the world suddenly end if we teach people to call a highway Interstate 95? No, the highway will remain, and people will continue to use the highway. And people will find it easier to use a highway that has only one route number.
Keeping the '128' designation is an example of how the "customer service" mentality (i.e. "the customer is always right") can be so wrong when applied to government services. We do not need to retain a route number to satisfy some locals who object to change. And we should demand that traffic reporters learn to identify routes by their proper (and posted) designations.
Suppose Boston sports reporters decided they were going to refer to Gillette Stadium as Schafer Stadium because somebody convinced them that "local tradition" and "history" demands it? How long do you think they would keep their jobs? Yet, the traffic reporters keep on calling Interstate 95 (and Interstate 93) as Route 128, and they get away with it. Why? Because every time the state DOT tries to improve navigation for drivers, and also simplify the signing, by eliminating the 128 designation, the politicians and the media and the business community make a big stink about "oh poor me, we can't deal with a new route designation."
And, when the media writes editorials is support of keeping a route number (as the Globe and others have in the past), it's a truly sad day for journalism. Funny how they don't write similar editorials when airlines or banks to propose change their names as part of a pending merger, demanding that the regulators overseeing the merger require that the old names be kept.
Now I agree that there may have been some rationale for carrying a duplex between Peabody and Braintree for the first year or two after the revised I-95 and I-93 designations were introduced. But there is no logical justification whatsoever (and "tradition" or "because it's always been that way" doesn't count) for keeping an outdated designation thirty nine years later.
The BGS panels between Peabody and Canton indicate 95 only, the enhanced mile markers indicate 95 only. It's time for the "keep 128 forever" contingent in Massachusetts to get a real life and learn to accept change.
Quote from: roadman on May 27, 2013, 06:32:45 PM
Suppose Boston sports reporters decided they were going to refer to Gillette Stadium as Schafer Stadium because somebody convinced them that "local tradition" and "history" demands it?
Ever heard of the Garden? Hardly anyone calls it "TD Garden". I even still hear people call it both Boston Garden and the Fleet Center, though most shorten it to "the Garden".
Stadium names were perhaps a poor choice of comparison.
Government is not a business. End thread.
Quote from: roadman on May 27, 2013, 06:32:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 26, 2013, 10:21:54 AM
What's wrong with signing as a duplex, 128 all the way around and 93 or 95 where appropriate?
What is right with signing as a duplex? Why is it necessary to post 128 south of Peabody at all? I mean, will the world suddenly end if we teach people to call a highway Interstate 95? No, the highway will remain, and people will continue to use the highway. And people will find it easier to use a highway that has only one route number.
I think the professional road community often underestimates how disruptive it is to change route numbers. Many people carry memories of directions that are perfectly adequate for them to drive to their destination for decades, provided there aren't big changes to the route numbering. Putting them where they have a few seconds to guess if 93 is what they remember as 128 or something different invites confusion at best or dangerous maneuvers at worst.
Everyone recognizes that businesses can rename themselves or their facilities at whim. Highways are supposed to be a public good.
Government's only job is to meet the needs of the people that created it. In this case, there are multiple needs not served by a single simple solution. Bad government blindly imposes simple solutions that ignore public needs and desires. Our government wasn't created to be the most efficient. As they say, Mussolini made the trains run on time, but was it worth it?
What's interesting is that outside this forum and some bureacracy, there is probably no significant public demand to eliminate 128. I think if you had this discussion with most people, you'd either get blank stares or a desire to keep it.
Quote from: NE2 on May 24, 2013, 09:53:16 PM
People have been calling it 128 for almost forty over sixty years now
FTFY :sombrero:
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 25, 2013, 01:14:51 AMIt could be something else. It could be anything else. But if it's not 128, it has to be something else.
As stated earlier in this thread, had the street name of the the road (Yankee Divsion Highway or Circumferential Beltway) or equivalent (New Yorker-style
YDH)) took a greater hold at the highway's inception; most motorists and the like wouldn't care what route number(s) the corridor carries. Case in point: both the Baltimore & Capital Beltways (particularly the Capital Beltway).
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 27, 2013, 06:58:45 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 27, 2013, 06:32:45 PM
Suppose Boston sports reporters decided they were going to refer to Gillette Stadium as Schafer Stadium because somebody convinced them that "local tradition" and "history" demands it?
Ever heard of the Garden? Hardly anyone calls it "TD Garden". I even still hear people call it both Boston Garden and the Fleet Center, though most shorten it to "the Garden".
Stadium names were perhaps a poor choice of comparison.
Since
Garden is still part of the name, there's a bit of a bridge between the old & new.
In Philly, the stadium where the Flyers & 76ers have played at since 1992 has changed names
3 times due to various bank mergers/aquistiions: From CoreStates Center to First Union Center (aka the F.U. Center) to Wachovia Center to the present Wells Fargo Center.
Heck, the last subway stop at the southern end of SEPTA's Broad Street Line changed from the long-standing Pattison (for Pattison Ave.) to
AT&T even though there's no company facilities near the stop. SEPTA was recieving money from AT&T to have their name on the stop. While there are some that may still refer to the station as
Pattison; most will now say
AT&T because that's how it's signed.
Back to the Greater Boston area:
How many T (MBTA)-users still refer to the Downtown Crossing (Red & Orange Line stations), Government Center (Blue & Green Line stations) & Aquarium (Blue Line) Stations as Washington (for Washington St.), Scollay Square (in this case, the name was added in smaller print underneath most Government Center signs about a decade later) and Atlantic (for Atlantic Ave., prior to the New England Aquarium being built)?
Quote from: roadman on May 27, 2013, 06:32:45 PMWhy is it necessary to post 128 south of Peabody at all? I mean, will the world suddenly end if we teach people to call a highway Interstate 95? No, the highway will remain, and people will continue to use the highway.
Not to bring an auto tragedy into the subject, but one fatal car crash last week; both the news reporters (at least on NECN) and an article in the
Boston Herald referred to the accident location in Weston as the ramp from the eastbound Mass Pike to
Interstate 95 North. No mention of 128 whatsoever.
Quote from: roadman on May 27, 2013, 06:32:45 PMKeeping the '128' designation is an example of how the "customer service" mentality (i.e. "the customer is always right") can be so wrong when applied to government services. We do not need to retain a route number to satisfy some locals who object to change. And we should demand that traffic reporters learn to identify routes by their proper (and posted) designations.
...
Yet, the traffic reporters keep on calling Interstate 95 (and Interstate 93) as Route 128, and they get away with it. Why? Because every time the state DOT tries to improve navigation for drivers, and also simplify the signing, by eliminating the 128 designation, the politicians and the media and the business community make a big stink about "oh poor me, we can't deal with a new route designation."
And, when the media writes editorials is support of keeping a route number (as the Globe and others have in the past), it's a truly sad day for journalism. Funny how they don't write similar editorials when airlines or banks to propose change their names as part of a pending merger, demanding that the regulators overseeing the merger require that the old names be kept.
Now I agree that there may have been some rationale for carrying a duplex between Peabody and Braintree for the first year or two after the revised I-95 and I-93 designations were introduced. But there is no logical justification whatsoever (and "tradition" or "because it's always been that way" doesn't count) for keeping an outdated designation thirty nine years later.
The BGS panels between Peabody and Canton indicate 95 only, the enhanced mile markers indicate 95 only. It's time for the "keep 128 forever" contingent in Massachusetts to get a real life and learn to accept change.
As stated many posts back (pardon any redundancy), the reasons for why the 128 name stayed along its Interstate-occupied sections were due to:
1. The time lapse between the Interstate designations being established (1975) and when the I-95/MA 128 Peabody interchange (Exit 45/29) was completed (1988).
2. Several businesses (mainly car dealerships in Woburn) and the MBTA & Amtrak naming a station after the highway in Canton/Westwood. Many Bay State businesses, in year's past, already raised a stink when the area codes changed
twice in some locations (MA only had 2 area codes, 617 & 413, prior to 1988); they probably would try to sue the state if they were mandated to change their business name (read:
legal corporate identity) because the route number (that they named their business after) changed.
3. The DPW did itself no favors when it erected those BBS' in the early 80s (years after the 95 & 93 identities were assigned) reading
128 AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY HIGHWAY, the word
HIGHWAY was changed to
REGION about a year later due to the Yankee Division Association complaining that the BBS' gives the impression that the street name of the highway (named after them) was changed without their knowledge nor consent.
That said, the DPW/MassHighway should've been a bit more aggressive with the marketing of the redesignations once the Peabody interchange was fully opened 25 years ago. A few
NOTICE 128 IS NOW 95 and
NOTICE 128 IS NOW 93 BGS' should've been posted back where applicable back then.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 28, 2013, 07:25:09 AMWhat's interesting is that outside this forum and some bureacracy, there is probably no significant public demand to eliminate 128. I think if you had this discussion with most people, you'd either get blank stares or a desire to keep it.
No doubt, there's some truth to that. Although, as stated earlier and by many here, the designation issue is more acute along the Braintree to Canton (I-93) stretch because the cardinal directions (north-south) are now the reverse of the old 128 cardinals.
As I see it, the problem has not beenlack of aggressive marketing regarding the re-designation, but caving in to pressure every time the Legistature and the media have stepped in to block the removal of the 128 designation. Except for I-93 Canton to Braintree, where the 128 designation was offically removed in 1989 (and is no longer on any BGS panels), that's simply an issue of lazy traffic reporters. Yes, lazy. They've figured out that the Wincehster Highlands exit on I-93 is now Park Street, and have been referring to it as such in their reports. They could very easily do the same for I-93 and I-95 between Braintree and Peabody.
And, with respect to the "keep 128 forever" contingent, every "justification" for keeping the designation south of Peabody is a strawman argument.
Quote from: roadman on May 28, 2013, 11:22:59 AM
All true, to an extent. But, my fore-mentioned 80s-vintage BBS item is clearly a classic case of the DPW contradicting itself back then. Another example involved some BGS' erected in Waltham during the early-to-mid 1980s that
only had 128 shields on them. These were replaced about a decade later with the current ones w/button-copy I-95 shields. One of those older BGS even used the more 128-oriented
Gloucester as its northbound control destination (vs.
NH-Maine for 95).
Trust me, having been raised and resided in Massachusetts until 1990; I lived through most of the initial transformation of 128 into 95/93 and I can tell you that the effort by the DPW back then was somewhat lackluster from a layman's perspective.
The fore-mentioned
NOTICE signs should've been erected at the same time the exit numbers changed.
Side bar: BTW, the DPW messed up a tad when they renumbered the exits for MA 30 & I-90 back in the late 80s. The old 50 (for I-90) and 51 (for MA 30) should've been 24 and 25 respectively; not the other way around (25 for I-90, 24 for MA 30).
The reason: in both directions, the ramp for I-90 comes
before the ramp for MA 30. The old numbering followed the southbound sequence; the current numbering should follow the northbound sequence in terms of which ramp comes first.
Hopefully, when the mile-marker based exit numbering takes place; MassDOT will correct this oversight (possibly 39A of I-90, 39B for MA 30 or 39 for I-90, 40 for MA 30); especially since I-90 crosses I-95
south of where MA 30 crosses it.
Quote from: roadman on May 28, 2013, 11:22:59 AM
As I see it, the problem has not beenlack of aggressive marketing regarding the re-designation, but caving in to pressure every time the Legistature and the media have stepped in to block the removal of the 128 designation. Except for I-93 Canton to Braintree, where the 128 designation was offically removed in 1989 (and is no longer on any BGS panels), that's simply an issue of lazy traffic reporters. Yes, lazy. They've figured out that the Wincehster Highlands exit on I-93 is now Park Street, and have been referring to it as such in their reports. They could very easily do the same for I-93 and I-95 between Braintree and Peabody.
And, with respect to the "keep 128 forever" contingent, every "justification" for keeping the designation south of Peabody is a strawman argument.
The reporters are using the route number their audience identifies with that road. If they don't, they won't be pleasing the public. Unlike road professionals, failure to please their public means they could be out of a job.
Quote from: PHLBOSHow many T (MBTA)-users still refer to the Downtown Crossing (Red & Orange Line stations), Government Center (Blue & Green Line stations) & Aquarium (Blue Line) Stations as Washington (for Washington St.), Scollay Square (in this case, the name was added in smaller print underneath most Government Center signs about a decade later) and Atlantic (for Atlantic Ave., prior to the New England Aquarium being built)?
Zero. No one I know even knows those stations used to be called by those names, unless I point it out as random trivia.
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2013, 11:57:25 AMThe reporters are using the route number their audience identifies with that road. If they don't, they won't be pleasing the public. Unlike road professionals, failure to please their public means they could be out of a job.
Exactly! Traffic reporters shouldn't be trying to push the public away from a route number by not using it, they should be calling a route by whatever number the public uses, since the point of them is to aid the public.
And yes, you could argue that non-locals might not know what 128 is (even though it's still signed), but ALL cities have names traffic reporters use that aren't signed anywhere and don't appear on any maps (e.g. freeway and interchange names).
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
Exactly! Traffic reporters shouldn't be trying to push the public away from a route number by not using it, they should be calling a route by whatever number the public uses, since the point of them is to aid the public.
And yes, you could argue that non-locals might not know what 128 is (even though it's still signed), but ALL cities have names traffic reporters use that aren't signed anywhere and don't appear on any maps (e.g. freeway and interchange names).
When I lived in the area years ago I asked a couple of different people why they still called it 128 and both of them said it had to be 128 because it went around the city. I was impressed that they knew the concept of a 3-do, even though the concept didn't apply here.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 28, 2013, 12:20:45 PM
When I lived in the area years ago I asked a couple of different people why they still called it 128 and both of them said it had to be 128 because it went around the city. I was impressed that they knew the concept of a 3-do, even though the concept didn't apply here.
you mean to say it's a bypass of MA-28???
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOSHow many T (MBTA)-users still refer to the Downtown Crossing (Red & Orange Line stations), Government Center (Blue & Green Line stations) & Aquarium (Blue Line) Stations as Washington (for Washington St.), Scollay Square (in this case, the name was added in smaller print underneath most Government Center signs about a decade later) and Atlantic (for Atlantic Ave., prior to the New England Aquarium being built)?
Zero. No one I know even knows those stations used to be called by those names, unless I point it out as random trivia.
if you're looking for trivia, go to Government Center and gaze upon the old tiled "Scollay Under" sign. (there's also one at Broadway, which has not been renamed.)
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
And yes, you could argue that non-locals might not know what 128 is (even though it's still signed), but ALL cities have names traffic reporters use that aren't signed anywhere and don't appear on any maps (e.g. freeway and interchange names).
I can vouch that applies to Pittsburgh. Very frequent use of "Parkway [East, West, North]" in traffic reports, while no signs use the terms, and the closest I've ever seen anything, other than route #, labeled on a map is "Penn-Lincoln Parkway" (Parkway East/West).
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOSHow many T (MBTA)-users still refer to the Downtown Crossing (Red & Orange Line stations), Government Center (Blue & Green Line stations) & Aquarium (Blue Line) Stations as Washington (for Washington St.), Scollay Square (in this case, the name was added in smaller print underneath most Government Center signs about a decade later) and Atlantic (for Atlantic Ave., prior to the New England Aquarium being built)?
Zero. No one I know even knows those stations used to be called by those names, unless I point it out as random trivia.
To a degree, you just proved my point regarding people getting accustomed to name or route number change to a transportation facility (i.e. it can be done).
How many people (and I'm aware we have a separate thread on the subject) still refer to the stretch of I-84 between I-384 and I-90 in MA & CT as I-86 or even Route 15? Or better yet, how many people out west refer to I-84 through OR & ID as I-80N?
The point that I (and Roadman) are trying to make that had the Route 128 name not been
immortalized by the local culture and the like; the number change south of Peabody would have either:
a. Not been noticed.
and/or
b. People would've gotten accustomed/used to the new designation over time.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2013, 12:05:37 PMQuote from: kkt on May 28, 2013, 11:57:25 AMThe reporters are using the route number their audience identifies with that road. If they don't, they won't be pleasing the public. Unlike road professionals, failure to please their public means they could be out of a job.
Exactly! Traffic reporters shouldn't be trying to push the public away from a route number by not using it, they should be calling a route by whatever number the public uses, since the point of them is to aid the public.
And yes, you could argue that non-locals might not know what 128 is (even though it's still signed), but ALL cities have names traffic reporters use that aren't signed anywhere and don't appear on any maps (e.g. freeway and interchange names).
Once upon a time in Philadelphia, there was a road called East River Drive that was renamed Kelly Drive (after the late actress and Princess of Monaco) many decades ago.
Every traffic reporter in the Delaware Valley refers to that road as
Kelly Drive and not the original
East River Drive name.
More recently,
West River Drive (also in Philadelphia) was renamed to
Martin Luther King Drive a few years ago. Almost overnight, the traffic reporters referred to the road by its new name.
Both of the above-mentioned roads are arterials that run mostly parallel I-76 (Schuylkill Expressway) and are used by locals and commuters alike as an alternate route.
So never say never regarding traffic reporters adapting to using a new name for a particular road.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 28, 2013, 12:20:45 PMWhen I lived in the area years ago I asked a couple of different people why they still called it 128 and both of them said it had to be 128 because it went around the city. I was impressed that they knew the concept of a 3-do, even though the concept didn't apply here.
Truth be told, there has been a Route 128 of sorts ringing around the City of Boston 2 to 3 decades before the expressway version was fully built in the 1950s. It consisted of a network of local streets that ran inside and parallel to the highway corridor more or less; most of which still exist today but un-numbered. MA 228 in the South Shore is the southernmost leg of the original pre-highway MA 128. So the number has been around for quite a while to say the least.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2013, 12:50:45 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOSHow many T (MBTA)-users still refer to the Downtown Crossing (Red & Orange Line stations), Government Center (Blue & Green Line stations) & Aquarium (Blue Line) Stations as Washington (for Washington St.), Scollay Square (in this case, the name was added in smaller print underneath most Government Center signs about a decade later) and Atlantic (for Atlantic Ave., prior to the New England Aquarium being built)?
Zero. No one I know even knows those stations used to be called by those names, unless I point it out as random trivia.
if you're looking for trivia, go to Government Center and gaze upon the old tiled "Scollay Under" sign. (there's also one at Broadway, which has not been renamed.)
Oh there's plenty of old tile signs that still remain. After renovating Arlington on the Green Line a few years ago they left a window in the modern tile showing the original tile behind it, and during various construction projects and station changes, old signs have been uncovered at DTX, Chinatown (formerly Essex), and others.
are there any NO SPITTING signs left? I remember there being a ~100 year old porcelain one at North Station until about 2002.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2013, 07:18:35 PM
are there any NO SPITTING signs left? I remember there being a ~100 year old porcelain one at North Station until about 2002.
I don't recall any off the top of my head, though I know I've seen random ones around the city and didn't pay much attention to them.
The one in North Station is surely gone after the North Station Superstation construction. Completely different place.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2013, 04:41:17 PM
How many people (and I'm aware we have a separate thread on the subject) still refer to the stretch of I-84 between I-384 and I-90 in MA & CT as I-86 or even Route 15?
Businesses on the parallel service roads use "Route 15" as their address.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2013, 12:49:02 PMyou mean to say it's a bypass of MA-28???
Although MassDPW may not have intended it that way originally, the fact is that 28 goes through Boston and 128 bypasses it.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2013, 07:11:58 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2013, 12:50:45 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOSHow many T (MBTA)-users still refer to the Downtown Crossing (Red & Orange Line stations), Government Center (Blue & Green Line stations) & Aquarium (Blue Line) Stations as Washington (for Washington St.), Scollay Square (in this case, the name was added in smaller print underneath most Government Center signs about a decade later) and Atlantic (for Atlantic Ave., prior to the New England Aquarium being built)?
Zero. No one I know even knows those stations used to be called by those names, unless I point it out as random trivia.
if you're looking for trivia, go to Government Center and gaze upon the old tiled "Scollay Under" sign. (there's also one at Broadway, which has not been renamed.)
Oh there's plenty of old tile signs that still remain. After renovating Arlington on the Green Line a few years ago they left a window in the modern tile showing the original tile behind it, and during various construction projects and station changes, old signs have been uncovered at DTX, Chinatown (formerly Essex), and others.
Now if only they would re-install the original tile signs at Symphony - which were replaced with blank white tile in the early 1980s.
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 29, 2013, 10:07:07 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2013, 12:49:02 PMyou mean to say it's a bypass of MA-28???
Although MassDPW may not have intended it that way originally, the fact is that 28 goes through Boston and 128 bypasses it.
Side bar: Isn't MA 28 the longest state route mileagewise in Massachusetts?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 29, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2013, 04:41:17 PM
How many people (and I'm aware we have a separate thread on the subject) still refer to the stretch of I-84 between I-384 and I-90 in MA & CT as I-86 or even Route 15?
Businesses on the parallel service roads use "Route 15" as their address.
Are those businesses located in MA or CT ? In Sturbridge, I remember getting a receipt from a gas station several years back (I think it was the Mobil located near Exit 1) that listed Route 15 as the address.
Nonetheless, while such businesses list the old route number in their address; unlike the Woburn car dealerships and the Amtrak/MBTA train station; they (very wisely IMHO) don't include the route number in their actual corporate name.
So, this got me wondering. What would you name the Route 128 station instead then, if it were a poor choice of name?
On board, Amtrak conductors announce it as "Route 128 / University Park Station - Canton, Westwood, Dedham area!" but Canton-Westwood-Dedham sounds a bit too cumbersome.
And yes, MA 28 is the longest state route in Massachusetts, though IMHO it should be at least 2 different routes, as no one in their right mind would drive it all the way from the New Hampshire border to Eastham in one go (or even from Boston to Eastham).
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 01:36:33 PM
So, this got me wondering. What would you name the Route 128 station instead then, if it were a poor choice of name?
On board, Amtrak conductors announce it as "Route 128 / University Park Station - Canton, Westwood, Dedham area!" but Canton-Westwood-Dedham sounds a bit too cumbersome.
To a degree, you just answered your own question with the above-conductor quote. Why not just simply call it
University Park Station? Especially since the newer Exit 13 BGS' along I-95 have this as a destination listing IIRC.
If the conductors are already including it in their station announcements
anyway; they could simply say,
"University Park Station - Canton, Westwood, Dedham area!" without too much trouble.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 01:36:33 PM
So, this got me wondering. What would you name the Route 128 station instead then, if it were a poor choice of name?
On board, Amtrak conductors announce it as "Route 128 / University Park Station - Canton, Westwood, Dedham area!" but Canton-Westwood-Dedham sounds a bit too cumbersome.
A mixed-use development called University Station is going to be built right across the street.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 29, 2013, 01:50:30 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 01:36:33 PM
So, this got me wondering. What would you name the Route 128 station instead then, if it were a poor choice of name?
On board, Amtrak conductors announce it as "Route 128 / University Park Station - Canton, Westwood, Dedham area!" but Canton-Westwood-Dedham sounds a bit too cumbersome.
To a degree, you just answered your own question with the above-conductor quote. Why not just simply call it University Park Station? Especially since the newer Exit 13 BGS' along I-95 have this as a destination listing IIRC.
If the conductors are already including it in their station announcements anyway; they could simply say, "University Park Station - Canton, Westwood, Dedham area!" without too much trouble.
Because no one knows what the heck University Park is. Hell, even I don't, except that there's some kind of development.
Everyone in the Boston area knows what Route 128 is. No one (or maybe a few people) know what University Park is. Therefore it makes sense to call it Route 128, not University Park.
Also, the station signs I believe all just say "Route 128", and it appears in timetables as "Route 128". The only mention of University Park was on board by the conductor.
What university is in Dedham?
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 02:42:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 29, 2013, 01:50:30 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 01:36:33 PM
So, this got me wondering. What would you name the Route 128 station instead then, if it were a poor choice of name?
On board, Amtrak conductors announce it as "Route 128 / University Park Station - Canton, Westwood, Dedham area!" but Canton-Westwood-Dedham sounds a bit too cumbersome.
To a degree, you just answered your own question with the above-conductor quote. Why not just simply call it University Park Station? Especially since the newer Exit 13 BGS' along I-95 have this as a destination listing IIRC.
If the conductors are already including it in their station announcements anyway; they could simply say, "University Park Station - Canton, Westwood, Dedham area!" without too much trouble.
Because no one knows what the heck University Park is. Hell, even I don't, except that there's some kind of development.
Everyone in the Boston area knows what Route 128 is. No one (or maybe a few people) know what University Park is. Therefore it makes sense to call it Route 128, not University Park.
Also, the station signs I believe all just say "Route 128", and it appears in timetables as "Route 128". The only mention of University Park was on board by the conductor.
First of all and with all due respect, I only mentioned University Park as a suggestion because of your quote quoting what conductor stated; he must've stated it for a reason. The reason being that there's an industrial/office park in the vicinity named as such off of University Ave. If someone wants to rename it to something else, I personally don't care.
Second, I have given you (& others)
several examples of where transit stations and roads underwent a name change (for better/for worse) and the
masses ultimately adapted to the name change. Why would renaming the Route 128 Station (regardless of the reason) be any different?
If (& as a hypothetical example) former-Senator (& current Secretary of State) John Kerry threw down enough money towards Amtrak/MBTA to have the station named after him (the John Kerry Station); trust me, the signs and timetables would change rather quickly and people would adapt. Just like what happened with the previously- mentioned T-station name changes and SEPTA's renaming its Pattison Station to AT&T Station in South Philly. I only mention the latter because AT&T indeed threw SEPTA some major bucks to have it done.
Third, I am more than well aware that the signs on the station itself and the MBTA & Amtrak timetables all state
Route 128 as the station name. If one scrolls through the older posts in this thread, I was the one that originally brought up the fact that there's indeed a station bearing Route 128 in its name.
Fourth, after doing some checking, I stand corrected with regards to the Exit 13 BGS message. Its contents list University Ave. & MBTA/Amtrak Station. Interestingly, there's no mention of it being the
Route 128 station. Gee, I wonder why? :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_NxQg7HFJeE0%2FSmPO3nA5C7I%2FAAAAAAAAAS4%2FU1WQajZg7Gs%2Fs400%2Fi95ex13709a.jpg&hash=5357b78defc1d670d1fed508adf4167b713388da)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 29, 2013, 04:22:33 PM
What university is in Dedham?
See above, it's named after University Avenue. According to Bing Maps, the only institutions for learning located along University Ave. (in Westwood, not Dedham BTW) are the New England Sports Academy and the Peterson School.
Historical note - When Amtrak wanted MassHighway to change the BGSes at University Avenue in the mid-1990s to include a reference to the train station, MassHighway's original plan was to revise the then-brand new signs (installed in 1995 under the Canton to Wellesley panels-only project) to include Amtrak and MBTA logos.
The story goes (and I've heard this from more than one source) that the FHWA regional office in Cambridge rejected the proposal, claiming that the MUTCD forbade the placement of transit logos on overhead guide signs. The compromise was the current "Amtrak/MBTA Station" text on the current signs.
Apparently, the FHWA person in Cambridge has never traveled the Beltway outside of DC, where transit station logos on overhead BGSes are quite common - the New Carrollton exit for one comes to mind.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 29, 2013, 04:36:11 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 02:42:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 29, 2013, 01:50:30 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 01:36:33 PM
So, this got me wondering. What would you name the Route 128 station instead then, if it were a poor choice of name?
On board, Amtrak conductors announce it as "Route 128 / University Park Station - Canton, Westwood, Dedham area!" but Canton-Westwood-Dedham sounds a bit too cumbersome.
To a degree, you just answered your own question with the above-conductor quote. Why not just simply call it University Park Station? Especially since the newer Exit 13 BGS' along I-95 have this as a destination listing IIRC.
If the conductors are already including it in their station announcements anyway; they could simply say, "University Park Station - Canton, Westwood, Dedham area!" without too much trouble.
Because no one knows what the heck University Park is. Hell, even I don't, except that there's some kind of development.
Everyone in the Boston area knows what Route 128 is. No one (or maybe a few people) know what University Park is. Therefore it makes sense to call it Route 128, not University Park.
Also, the station signs I believe all just say "Route 128", and it appears in timetables as "Route 128". The only mention of University Park was on board by the conductor.
First of all and with all due respect, I only mentioned University Park as a suggestion because of your quote quoting what conductor stated; he must've stated it for a reason. The reason being that there's an industrial/office park in the vicinity named as such off of University Ave. If someone wants to rename it to something else, I personally don't care.
Second, I have given you (& others) several examples of where transit stations and roads underwent a name change (for better/for worse) and the masses ultimately adapted to the name change. Why would renaming the Route 128 Station (regardless of the reason) be any different?
I'm not saying people wouldn't adapt to the change eventually. Just that at this point in time Route 128 is the best name for the station, a point you seem to have contested previously.
QuoteIf (& as a hypothetical example) former-Senator (& current Secretary of State) John Kerry threw down enough money towards Amtrak/MBTA to have the station named after him (the John Kerry Station); trust me, the signs and timetables would change rather quickly and people would adapt. Just like what happened with the previously- mentioned T-station name changes and SEPTA's renaming its Pattison Station to AT&T Station in South Philly. I only mention the latter because AT&T indeed threw SEPTA some major bucks to have it done.
Oh of course they would. I don't think it would be that easy though, considering that Route 128 is FAR more ingrained in Boston culture than any of those other examples. It would take a long time for people to stop calling it Route 128 station.
QuoteThird, I am more than well aware that the signs on the station itself and the MBTA & Amtrak timetables all state Route 128 as the station name. If one scrolls through the older posts in this thread, I was the one that originally brought up the fact that there's indeed a station bearing Route 128 in its name.
Yes, I'm not disagreeing there. I was just stating that the signs don't say "Route 128 - University Park - Canton/Dedham/Westwood". Almost everything JUST says "Route 128".
QuoteFourth, after doing some checking, I stand corrected with regards to the Exit 13 BGS message. Its contents list University Ave. & MBTA/Amtrak Station. Interestingly, there's no mention of it being the Route 128 station. Gee, I wonder why? :)
Probably because it would be redundant for it to, considering you're ON Route 128.
Quote from: roadman on May 29, 2013, 06:23:26 PM
Historical note - When Amtrak wanted MassHighway to change the BGSes at University Avenue in the mid-1990s to include a reference to the train station, MassHighway's original plan was to revise the then-brand new signs (installed in 1995 under the Canton to Wellesley panels-only project) to include Amtrak and MBTA logos.
The story goes (and I've heard this from more than one source) that the FHWA regional office in Cambridge rejected the proposal, claiming that the MUTCD forbade the placement of transit logos on overhead guide signs. The compromise was the current "Amtrak/MBTA Station" text on the current signs.
Apparently, the FHWA person in Cambridge has never traveled the Beltway outside of DC, where transit station logos on overhead BGSes are quite common - the New Carrollton exit for one comes to mind.
Or any of the exits along 495, MA 2, I-93, etc. The Lowell and Lawrence commuter rail stations both have large blue signs up on 495 with the T logo and the name of the station. I-93 also has similar signs for the Anderson/Woburn station (these are even paired with a VMS that displays the next train departure), and MA 2 has them for several stations on the Fitchburg Line. Many of these logos are also, as a side note, horribly bad. One that I believe is on MA 2 westbound even has the T logo being white-on-black.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 06:39:09 PMQuote from: roadman on May 29, 2013, 06:23:26 PM
Historical note - When Amtrak wanted MassHighway to change the BGSes at University Avenue in the mid-1990s to include a reference to the train station, MassHighway's original plan was to revise the then-brand new signs (installed in 1995 under the Canton to Wellesley panels-only project) to include Amtrak and MBTA logos.
The story goes (and I've heard this from more than one source) that the FHWA regional office in Cambridge rejected the proposal, claiming that the MUTCD forbade the placement of transit logos on overhead guide signs. The compromise was the current "Amtrak/MBTA Station" text on the current signs.
Apparently, the FHWA person in Cambridge has never traveled the Beltway outside of DC, where transit station logos on overhead BGSes are quite common - the New Carrollton exit for one comes to mind.
Or any of the exits along 495, MA 2, I-93, etc. The Lowell and Lawrence commuter rail stations both have large blue signs up on 495 with the T logo and the name of the station. I-93 also has similar signs for the Anderson/Woburn station (these are even paired with a VMS that displays the next train departure), and MA 2 has them for several stations on the Fitchburg Line. Many of these logos are also, as a side note, horribly bad. One that I believe is on MA 2 westbound even has the T logo being white-on-black.
An example closer to the 128 station (& older), the BGS' along MA 3 (near I-93) in Braintree sport a T logo shield (for the Red Line's Quincy Adams Station) as well and these were erected in the 1980s.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fi-93%2Fnt.jpg&hash=b7671c626fa16de64ec2e00a48487db5de865269)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_3%2Fs19r.jpg&hash=e98979b84a08df99ebfdb3d150e7b55404209a79)
In Philly, near 30th St. Station; the overhead BGS's off I-76 & 676 sport both Amtrak and SEPTA logo shields but oddly no there are no PA 3 shields (either on the BGS' or separately) even though PA 3 runs right by 30th St. Station... but that's another topic for another thread.
FHWA's objections to MassHighway were regarding the use of transit logos on overhead signs, not ground-mounts. Every location deathtopumpkins mentions is a ground-mounted sign.
However, as PHILBOS's above post illustrates, the overhead signs originally installed on MA 3 in Braintree in the early 1980s for Burgin Parkway and the Quincy Adams MBTA station included the T logo. Most of these signs were replaced (with 'MBTA Station' instead of the T logo) as part of the 2006 MA 3 Braintree to Plymouth sign replacement contract, with the signs approaching the Quincy Adams station/garage having been replaced as part of the 2008 flyover construction project. The sole exception is the sign on I-93 NB at the Braintree split to MA 3, which is scheduled to be replaced as part of the current I-93 Randolph to Boston sign replacement contract.
Braintree station also has some overhead signs with T logos: http://goo.gl/maps/TBQkn
You are correct though that the majority of signs with T logos are ground-mounted, rather than overhead, but IMHO there's not really a difference.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 07:57:54 PM
Braintree station also has some overhead signs with T logos: http://goo.gl/maps/TBQkn
You are correct though that the majority of signs with T logos are ground-mounted, rather than overhead, but IMHO there's not really a difference.
I fully agree. And, try as I might, I can't find anything in any recent (1978 or newer) MUTCD to back the FHWA claim about not allowing transit logos on overhead guide signs.
As for the signs at Braintree Station, I believe those signs were installed by the MBTA, and not MassHighway/MassDOT.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 07:57:54 PMYou are correct though that the majority of signs with T logos are ground-mounted, rather than overhead, but IMHO there's not really a difference.
Agreed. IMHO, the FHWA 'official' from Cambridge (why am I not surprised by this coming from Cambridge?) is all wet about prohibition of General Information (MUTCD) shields for transit facilities on overhead BGS'. All overhead BGS' leading to Logan Airport from MA 1A, I-90 & I-93 all feature the I-5 (MUTCD, not the Interstate) shields next ot the route shields.
Quote from: roadman on May 29, 2013, 08:26:30 PM
As for the signs at Braintree Station, I believe those signs were installed by the MBTA, and not MassHighway/MassDOT.
I would also assume those signs date back to the 1980s when the station opened, based on their current condition.
Post Merge: May 30, 2013, 01:26:32 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 29, 2013, 06:57:53 PM
FHWA's objections to MassHighway were regarding the use of transit logos on overhead signs, not ground-mounts. Every location deathtopumpkins mentions is a ground-mounted sign.
However, as PHILBOS's above post illustrates, the overhead signs originally installed on MA 3 in Braintree in the early 1980s for Burgin Parkway and the Quincy Adams MBTA station included the T logo. Most of these signs were replaced (with 'MBTA Station' instead of the T logo) as part of the 2006 MA 3 Braintree to Plymouth sign replacement contract, with the signs approaching the Quincy Adams station/garage having been replaced as part of the 2008 flyover construction project. The sole exception is the sign on I-93 NB at the Braintree split to MA 3, which is scheduled to be replaced as part of the current I-93 Randolph to Boston sign replacement contract.
The newer signs also provide a horizontal line between Quincy Center and MBTA Station. The old signs may be potentially confusing since there is also a Quincy Center T station, but the signs are intending to direct you to the Quincy Adams station. To be fair, if you somehow miss Quincy Adams, you'll find Quincy Center just a little ways up the Burgin Parkway.
Post Merge: May 30, 2013, 01:26:28 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 06:39:09 PM
I'm not saying people wouldn't adapt to the change eventually. Just that at this point in time Route 128 is the best name for the station, a point you seem to have contested previously.
Not to jump in someone else's debate, but I disagree that Route 128 is the best name for the station.
Route 128 as an identifier only tells you that it is somewhere between Gloucester and Canton (or Braintree, if you use the local belief system). University Park is not much better as a name, since there is nothing identifying the nearby industrial park as 'University Park'. I do believe the platform signs say both 'Route 128 Station' and 'University Park Station', which indicates to me that someone was thinking about what else to call this station.
What about 'Westwood/Dedham' as a station name? Too much potential confusion with the 'Dedham Corporate Center' station on the Franklin line?
Quote from: spooky on May 30, 2013, 07:45:35 AM
What about 'Westwood/Dedham' as a station name? Too much potential confusion with the 'Dedham Corporate Center' station on the Franklin line?
I'm not 100% sure on this (I'm using a remote computer so I can't jump from website-to-website too quickly due to speed issues) but isn't there either a Dedham and/or Westwood station already along the MBTA Commuter Rail System one or two stops away?
That would be one reason not to use either of those town names for that station unless the station name either has a prefix or suffix (TBD) attached to the name of the town.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 30, 2013, 10:28:27 AM
Quote from: spooky on May 30, 2013, 07:45:35 AM
What about 'Westwood/Dedham' as a station name? Too much potential confusion with the 'Dedham Corporate Center' station on the Franklin line?
I'm not 100% sure on this (I'm using a remote computer so I can't jump from website-to-website too quickly due to speed issues) but isn't there either a Dedham and/or Westwood station already along the MBTA Commuter Rail System one or two stops away?
That would be one reason not to use either of those town names for that station unless the station name either has a prefix or suffix (TBD) attached to the name of the town.
Other stops in Dedham and Westwood are on the Franklin line - Endicott and Dedham Corporate Center in Dedham, Islington in Readville.
Route 128 is on the Providence/Stoughton line (and Amtrak's Northeast Corridor). It goes through but does not stop at Readville to the north, which is in Boston but on the Dedham line. The next station to the south is Canton Junction in Canton.
There's a Dedham Corporate Center, a Canton Junction, and a Canton Center station. No Westwood though.
I don't think a town name would be appropriate though since the station's not really IN any of these towns. It's pretty much just tucked into a random corner at the back of an industrial park with its own exit from Route 128.
Quote from: roadman on May 29, 2013, 08:26:30 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 07:57:54 PM
Braintree station also has some overhead signs with T logos: http://goo.gl/maps/TBQkn
You are correct though that the majority of signs with T logos are ground-mounted, rather than overhead, but IMHO there's not really a difference.
I fully agree. And, try as I might, I can't find anything in any recent (1978 or newer) MUTCD to back the FHWA claim about not allowing transit logos on overhead guide signs.
As for the signs at Braintree Station, I believe those signs were installed by the MBTA, and not MassHighway/MassDOT.
That is a bogus claim. The transit logo would be considered a "Pictograph", which is a symbol that represents a government sponsored agency or destination. MBTA is under public ownership, last I checked. Now if they wanted the Patriots logo at the Foxboro exit off of I-95, that would be different (and FHWA made Maryland and DC remove all of the "curly W" Washington Nationals logos from their signs.
Quote from: mtantillo on May 30, 2013, 04:30:40 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 29, 2013, 08:26:30 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 07:57:54 PM
Braintree station also has some overhead signs with T logos: http://goo.gl/maps/TBQkn
You are correct though that the majority of signs with T logos are ground-mounted, rather than overhead, but IMHO there's not really a difference.
I fully agree. And, try as I might, I can't find anything in any recent (1978 or newer) MUTCD to back the FHWA claim about not allowing transit logos on overhead guide signs.
As for the signs at Braintree Station, I believe those signs were installed by the MBTA, and not MassHighway/MassDOT.
That is a bogus claim. The transit logo would be considered a "Pictograph", which is a symbol that represents a government sponsored agency or destination. MBTA is under public ownership, last I checked. Now if they wanted the Patriots logo at the Foxboro exit off of I-95, that would be different (and FHWA made Maryland and DC remove all of the "curly W" Washington Nationals logos from their signs.
Did they actually though? Last I saw they were still there.
Quote from: mtantillo on May 30, 2013, 04:30:40 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 29, 2013, 08:26:30 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 07:57:54 PM
Braintree station also has some overhead signs with T logos: http://goo.gl/maps/TBQkn
You are correct though that the majority of signs with T logos are ground-mounted, rather than overhead, but IMHO there's not really a difference.
I fully agree. And, try as I might, I can't find anything in any recent (1978 or newer) MUTCD to back the FHWA claim about not allowing transit logos on overhead guide signs.
As for the signs at Braintree Station, I believe those signs were installed by the MBTA, and not MassHighway/MassDOT.
That is a bogus claim. The transit logo would be considered a "Pictograph", which is a symbol that represents a government sponsored agency or destination. MBTA is under public ownership, last I checked. Now if they wanted the Patriots logo at the Foxboro exit off of I-95, that would be different (and FHWA made Maryland and DC remove all of the "curly W" Washington Nationals logos from their signs.
As I recall the story, FHWA was adamant about their claim regarding not using transit logos on overhead BGSes. And, while I personally agree that their claim is totally bogus, I suspect MassHighway decided at the time it was easier to given in to the regional office than spend a couple of years fighting them with HQ in Washington. As it turns out, going with text instead of logos made modifying the existing signs easier.
Quote from: roadman on May 31, 2013, 10:12:19 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on May 30, 2013, 04:30:40 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 29, 2013, 08:26:30 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 29, 2013, 07:57:54 PM
Braintree station also has some overhead signs with T logos: http://goo.gl/maps/TBQkn
You are correct though that the majority of signs with T logos are ground-mounted, rather than overhead, but IMHO there's not really a difference.
I fully agree. And, try as I might, I can't find anything in any recent (1978 or newer) MUTCD to back the FHWA claim about not allowing transit logos on overhead guide signs.
As for the signs at Braintree Station, I believe those signs were installed by the MBTA, and not MassHighway/MassDOT.
That is a bogus claim. The transit logo would be considered a "Pictograph", which is a symbol that represents a government sponsored agency or destination. MBTA is under public ownership, last I checked. Now if they wanted the Patriots logo at the Foxboro exit off of I-95, that would be different (and FHWA made Maryland and DC remove all of the "curly W" Washington Nationals logos from their signs.
As I recall the story, FHWA was adamant about their claim regarding not using transit logos on overhead BGSes. And, while I personally agree that their claim is totally bogus, I suspect MassHighway decided at the time it was easier to given in to the regional office than spend a couple of years fighting them with HQ in Washington. As it turns out, going with text instead of logos made modifying the existing signs easier.
Well I'll investigate further with my contacts at FHWA to see what I can find out. I'm very curious as to the reason for this.
FWIW, here's another blog/article regarding the Route 128 saga:
http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/massmarkets/2012/08/13/despite-federal-and-state-agencies-efforts-a-road-by-any-other-name-is-still-route-128/#axzz2VOFYgwXr (http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/massmarkets/2012/08/13/despite-federal-and-state-agencies-efforts-a-road-by-any-other-name-is-still-route-128/#axzz2VOFYgwXr)
At least this writer mentions the reasons for the re-routings (of I-95 & later US 1) along with the conditions (i.e. no 128 shields on BGS') the feds placed regarding eligibility to receive federal funding.
One line from that article stuck out to me:
QuoteI-95 is a generic highway that spans the East Coast. Route 128 is a place we can call our own.
That's part of the reason why I say keep 128.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 05, 2013, 11:55:28 PM
One line from that article stuck out to me:
QuoteI-95 is a generic highway that spans the East Coast. Route 128 is a place we can call our own.
That's part of the reason why I say keep 128.
There are good reasons that are far less sentimental.
My apologies if I have posted this before -- I didn't see it when glancing back -- but imagine a map of only the major highways in Eastern Mass., unlabeled. I would wager that most people who know nothing about the nomenclature would say that's one road from Braintree to Peabody/Gloucester. Similarly, would not appear to logically be a part of the road from Salisbury to Attleboro.
Government-issue nomenclature is fine and good, but should it defy human instinct? On the contrary, it should cater to it. It's one road (not 3 or 5). Though there are lots of roads borrowing it as part of their through routing, it is still a discrete thing that it doesn't benefit anyone to name as if it isn't.
Another issue not raised here is not specific to the number's worth as a road designation, but certainly attests to its broader cultural significance, and that is its use as a demarcation line between the dense inner suburbs and the further-afield outer belt. "Inside 128" functions well as shorthand for Boston and the adjoining urban core. I'm not sure what would replace that -- "inside 93/1/95/128" stumbles a little awkwardly off the tongue.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 06, 2013, 12:56:16 PMAnother issue not raised here is not specific to the number's worth as a road designation, but certainly attests to its broader cultural significance, and that is its use as a demarcation line between the dense inner suburbs and the further-afield outer belt. "Inside 128" functions well as shorthand for Boston and the adjoining urban core. I'm not sure what would replace that -- "inside 93/1/95/128" stumbles a little awkwardly off the tongue.
As I stated many posts back, had the street name of the highway (Yankee Division Highway) or a nickname equivalent (New Yorker-style
YDH or
YDE for Yankee Divsion Expressway) stuck better with the public than its orginal route number; most wouldn't have cared whether the entire road only had one route number along it or ten different numbers along the way because they would just call it by its street name and be done with it.
Proof of that in other areas include the PA Turnpike (I-76/276/Future 95) and the Capital Beltway (I-95/495); conicidentally, portions of both of those above-examples have become or will become de-facto segents of I-95 due to its originally-planned alignments not being built.
Back to 128:
Had MA 128 ran along the entire Pilgrims Highway (MA 3) to Sagamore instead of stopping at Braintree (at one time, it did multiplex w/MA 3 and turned northward towards Nantasket (via current MA 228)); maybe the push to completely eliminate MA 128 south of Peabody wouldn't have happened outside of the BGS'.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 06, 2013, 01:44:43 PM
Proof of that in other areas include the PA Turnpike (I-76/276/Future 95) and the Capital Beltway (I-95/495); conicidentally, portions of both of those above-examples have become or will become de-facto segents of I-95 due to its originally-planned alignments not being built.
also, proof of that right there in Mass: everyone calls the local east-west toll road "the Pike". not "90".
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 06, 2013, 01:44:43 PM
As I stated many posts back, had the street name of the highway (Yankee Division Highway) or a nickname equivalent (New Yorker-style YDH or YDE for Yankee Divsion Expressway) stuck better with the public than its orginal route number; most wouldn't have cared whether the entire road only had one route number along it or ten different numbers along the way because they would just call it by its street name and be done with it.
Back in the 1960s the FHWA demanded that NYC remove expressway names from new signs. This was quickly determined to be a bad idea and reversed.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 01:48:44 PMalso, proof of that right there in Mass: everyone calls the local east-west toll road "the Pike". not "90".
I'm well aware about the Mass Pike (I'm a Bay State native afterall). The only reason why I didn't mention it in my previous post was because I was
purposely and diliberately posting examples of named highways that change route numbers throughout its entire length.
Since the entire length of the Mass Pike is I-90; I intentionally did not include it.
I also could've mentioned the NY Thruway (with its I-87/90 changing hands west of Albany) or the Ohio Turnpike (I-76/80/90) as other examples.
Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2013, 01:55:36 PMBack in the 1960s the FHWA demanded that NYC remove expressway names from new signs. This was quickly determined to be a bad idea and reversed.
Did the FHWA demand similar from CalTrans at the time as well?
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 06, 2013, 02:00:25 PM
I'm well aware about the Mass Pike (I'm a Bay State native afterall). The only reason why I didn't mention it in my previous post was because I was purposely and diliberately posting examples of named highways that change route numbers throughout its entire length.
Since the entire length of the Mass Pike is I-90; I intentionally did not include it.
I wonder if the Pike got its name stuck the same way 128 did: it predates the number by a very short time. (1957 vs. 1959, IIRC)
(I believe that a preliminary interstate plan had I-90 going along the MA-2 corridor... am I correct or did I imagine that?)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 04:03:12 PMI wonder if the Pike got its name stuck the same way 128 did: it predates the number by a very short time. (1957 vs. 1959, IIRC)
(I believe that a preliminary interstate plan had I-90 going along the MA-2 corridor... am I correct or did I imagine that?)
Other than the listed account in Wikipedia, I couldn't seem to find any other references to confirm. The Wiki account stated that such a northerly alignment was rejected on the grounds of excessive cost.
While there were very early plans of a free east-west expressway; it's general location, more or less, was to be close to or adjacent to the US 20 corridor.
In case you don't already know, Steve Anderson's BostonRoads has a fairly comprehensive historical overvoew of the Mass Pike:
http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/mass-pike/ (http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/mass-pike/)
Excerpt:
DESIGN AND INITIAL CONSTRUCTION: The proposed Massachusetts Turnpike was to incorporate not only the original Western Expressway route, but also another expressway route - the Springfield Bypass - that was to provide a bypass of the existing US 20 through the Springfield area. In accordance with the 1944 Federal Highway Act, the authority drew a tentative line connecting the cities of Boston, Worcester and Springfield.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 06, 2013, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2013, 01:55:36 PMBack in the 1960s the FHWA demanded that NYC remove expressway names from new signs. This was quickly determined to be a bad idea and reversed.
Did the FHWA demand similar from CalTrans at the time as well?
I have no idea, since I read about it in contemporary New York Times articles.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 06, 2013, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 05, 2013, 11:55:28 PM
One line from that article stuck out to me:
QuoteI-95 is a generic highway that spans the East Coast. Route 128 is a place we can call our own.
That's part of the reason why I say keep 128.
There are good reasons that are far less sentimental.
My apologies if I have posted this before -- I didn't see it when glancing back -- but imagine a map of only the major highways in Eastern Mass., unlabeled. I would wager that most people who know nothing about the nomenclature would say that's one road from Braintree to Peabody/Gloucester. Similarly, would not appear to logically be a part of the road from Salisbury to Attleboro.
Government-issue nomenclature is fine and good, but should it defy human instinct? On the contrary, it should cater to it. It's one road (not 3 or 5). Though there are lots of roads borrowing it as part of their through routing, it is still a discrete thing that it doesn't benefit anyone to name as if it isn't.
By that logic, TOTSOs should be outlawed.
Quote
Another issue not raised here is not specific to the number's worth as a road designation, but certainly attests to its broader cultural significance, and that is its use as a demarcation line between the dense inner suburbs and the further-afield outer belt. "Inside 128" functions well as shorthand for Boston and the adjoining urban core. I'm not sure what would replace that -- "inside 93/1/95/128" stumbles a little awkwardly off the tongue.
How about "Boston's inner suburbs"? :bigass:
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 06, 2013, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 06, 2013, 12:56:16 PMAnother issue not raised here is not specific to the number's worth as a road designation, but certainly attests to its broader cultural significance, and that is its use as a demarcation line between the dense inner suburbs and the further-afield outer belt. "Inside 128" functions well as shorthand for Boston and the adjoining urban core. I'm not sure what would replace that -- "inside 93/1/95/128" stumbles a little awkwardly off the tongue.
As I stated many posts back, had the street name of the highway (Yankee Division Highway) or a nickname equivalent (New Yorker-style YDH or YDE for Yankee Divsion Expressway) stuck better with the public than its orginal route number; most wouldn't have cared whether the entire road only had one route number along it or ten different numbers along the way because they would just call it by its street name and be done with it.
Back to 128:
Had MA 128 ran along the entire Pilgrims Highway (MA 3) to Sagamore instead of stopping at Braintree (at one time, it did multiplex w/MA 3 and turned northward towards Nantasket (via current MA 228)); maybe the push to completely eliminate MA 128 south of Peabody wouldn't have happened outside of the BGS'.
What is interesting (to me anyway) is that the MA 3 designation wasn't applied to the Pilgrims Highway until that road was complete. When it just extended as far south as Hingham from about 1959 to 1963 it was just signed as 128. From looking at newspapers at the time people saw the route as an extension of the SE Expressway and referred to it as such. No one seemed to call the route as 128 then, or now. The only reference I saw was an ad for a local car dealer who's address info included 'at Route 128 Exit 29' (as it was originally numbered, now Exit 15). They continued using the 128 exit reference up through 1969, 3 years after 128 had been truncated back to Braintree and 6 years after MA 3 was moved onto its current route, apparently this mistake wasn't bad for business. I remember this dealer also advertising it was located on the SE Expressway up through the early 1980's. I think they stopped this when I-93 exit numbers went up and there was now another Exit 15 along the real SE Expressway in Boston.
Quote from: bob7374 on June 06, 2013, 11:03:26 PMWhat is interesting (to me anyway) is that the MA 3 designation wasn't applied to the Pilgrims Highway until that road was complete. When it just extended as far south as Hingham from about 1959 to 1963 it was just signed as 128. From looking at newspapers at the time people saw the route as an extension of the SE Expressway and referred to it as such. No one seemed to call the route as 128 then, or now. The only reference I saw was an ad for a local car dealer who's address info included 'at Route 128 Exit 29' (as it was originally numbered, now Exit 15). They continued using the 128 exit reference up through 1969, 3 years after 128 had been truncated back to Braintree and 6 years after MA 3 was moved onto its current route, apparently this mistake wasn't bad for business. I remember this dealer also advertising it was located on the SE Expressway up through the early 1980's. I think they stopped this when I-93 exit numbers went up and there was now another Exit 15 along the real SE Expressway in Boston.
Actually, there always was an Exit 15 along the SE Expressway: it just changed locations. The original Exit 15 off the SE Expressway was the Mass Ave. (would-be I-95 South) interchange (current Exit 18); then in 1986-87, it was moved to its current interchange (Columbia Road - old Exit 17). Note: there presently is no Exit 17 along I-93... at the moment.
Businesses making references to old route numbers (at least in eastern MA) is not uncommon. When the Revere Showcase Cinema opened in the early 1980s (at the site of the old Drive-In at Cutler Circle), for at least 10 years, they still referred to their location as being off Route C1 (a designation that was at least 10 years obsolete
then) rather than the correct/current (US) Route 1.
OTOH, one car dealership in Braintree (Dave Dinger Ford, not sure if they're still around) actually did the opposite. When the exit numbers along I-93/MA 128 changed in the 80s; their ads were already stating their location as
Exit 6 off I-93 as opposed to
Exit 68 off Route 128.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 07, 2013, 08:40:58 AM
Businesses making references to old route numbers (at least in eastern MA) is not uncommon. When the Revere Showcase Cinema opened in the early 1980s (at the site of the old Drive-In at Cutler Circle), for at least 10 years, they still referred to their location as being off Route C1 (a designation that was at least 10 years obsolete then) rather than the correct/current (US) Route 1.
Must be a thing with movie theaters and Route 1. If you see a movie at Legacy Place in Dedham, an on-screen map incorrectly shows that Route 1 follows Providence Highway north of I-95/Route 128.
This is not an uncommon problem in this area, but it's especially disappointing to see a movie theater opened in 2009 reference a roadway alignment that hasn't existed since the late 1980s!
Quote from: spooky on June 07, 2013, 09:40:24 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 07, 2013, 08:40:58 AM
Businesses making references to old route numbers (at least in eastern MA) is not uncommon. When the Revere Showcase Cinema opened in the early 1980s (at the site of the old Drive-In at Cutler Circle), for at least 10 years, they still referred to their location as being off Route C1 (a designation that was at least 10 years obsolete then) rather than the correct/current (US) Route 1.
Must be a thing with movie theaters and Route 1. If you see a movie at Legacy Place in Dedham, an on-screen map incorrectly shows that Route 1 follows Providence Highway north of I-95/Route 128.
This is not an uncommon problem in this area, but it's especially disappointing to see a movie theater opened in 2009 reference a roadway alignment that hasn't existed since the late 1980s!
Similar has been done (or still being done) with some of the auto dealerships along the Providence Highway. The so-called Auto-Mile stretch in advertisements had shown dealerships in Dedham (north of I-95 & MA 1A) still referring to their location as US 1.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 06, 2013, 05:21:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 04:03:12 PMI wonder if the Pike got its name stuck the same way 128 did: it predates the number by a very short time. (1957 vs. 1959, IIRC)
(I believe that a preliminary interstate plan had I-90 going along the MA-2 corridor... am I correct or did I imagine that?)
Other than the listed account in Wikipedia, I couldn't seem to find any other references to confirm. The Wiki account stated that such a northerly alignment was rejected on the grounds of excessive cost.
I'd always been of the belief that it was rejected on the grounds of being next to a toll road that wanted all the traffic to itself, since the Mass Pike was well on its way by the time the Interstate system was being finalized in 1956-7. At the same time, why build a new route when the one under construction could be included as-is?
Quote from: Steve on June 09, 2013, 04:26:26 PMI'd always been of the belief that it was rejected on the grounds of being next to a toll road that wanted all the traffic to itself, since the Mass Pike was well on its way by the time the Interstate system was being finalized in 1956-7. At the same time, why build a new route when the one under construction could be included as-is?
I wouldn't necessarily consider nor call Route 2 and the Mass Pike as being "
next to each other"; one route connects the Bay State's three major cities/regions (Boston-Worcester-Springfield) whereas the other runs along the northern/upper part of the state.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 09, 2013, 04:38:34 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 09, 2013, 04:26:26 PMI'd always been of the belief that it was rejected on the grounds of being next to a toll road that wanted all the traffic to itself, since the Mass Pike was well on its way by the time the Interstate system was being finalized in 1956-7. At the same time, why build a new route when the one under construction could be included as-is?
I wouldn't necessarily consider nor call Route 2 and the Mass Pike as being "next to each other"; one route connects the Bay State's three major cities/regions (Boston-Worcester-Springfield) whereas the other runs along the northern/upper part of the state.
More in terms of parallel vs. next to, yes. I'm thinking Albany-Boston as the major corridor in play.
Plans going back to the 1930s had the interregional highway going through Springfield.
I'm reviving this thread due to the contents of today's (Sunday 7/19) Starts & Stops column in the Globe (available online by subscription only). The new (since mid-2014) columnist posted an e-mail she got from a reader asking why the media keeps referring to the section of I-93/US 1 between Canton and Braintree as Route 128 when it hasn't been signed that for years. Her response was to get someone at MassDOT to confirm that the reader was right that the section hasn't been 128 since 1989 and to post a photo of the overhead signage at the MA 138 South on-ramp to South I-93/US 1. Her final comment is that it will take more than the truth though to convince 'the old-timers' to call it by any other name than 128. At least she seems to be open to that possibility though.
Quote from: NE2 on September 14, 2012, 10:00:44 PM
I-95 should use 91-15-84-90-495. Bring back 128.
Don't know if this has been addressed on this recently revived (after 2 years) thread, but NE2, how would you renumber the New Haven to Amesbury portion of 95? Think.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on July 19, 2015, 06:02:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 14, 2012, 10:00:44 PM
I-95 should use 91-15-84-90-495. Bring back 128.
Don't know if this has been addressed on this recently revived (after 2 years) thread, but NE2, how would you renumber the New Haven to Amesbury portion of 95? Think.
ixnay
New Haven to New London: I-395
New London to Canton: I-93
Peabody to Amesbury/Salisbury: MA 17?
I agree with NE2's idea, but I imagine that Rhode Island might be pissed if Providence were taken off of the Interstate system.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 19, 2015, 02:38:53 PM
I'm reviving this thread due to the contents of today's (Sunday 7/19) Starts & Stops column in the Globe (available online by subscription only). The new (since mid-2014) columnist posted an e-mail she got from a reader asking why the media keeps referring to the section of I-93/US 1 between Canton and Braintree as Route 128 when it hasn't been signed that for years. Her response was to get someone at MassDOT to confirm that the reader was right that the section hasn't been 128 since 1989 and to post a photo of the overhead signage at the MA 138 South on-ramp to South I-93/US 1. Her final comment is that it will take more than the truth though to convince 'the old-timers' to call it by any other name than 128. At least she seems to be open to that possibility though.
As previously mentioned, the issue with the I-93 stretch of
old 128 is that not only did the number change but the direction cardinal changed as well (to the complete opposite). So when one mentions of an accident along the southbound lane of I-93 at the Route 138 interchange; many (mostly old-timers) will still likely think that it's the southbound lanes of 128 (now I-93 northbound). IMHO, the 128 designation along the Braintree-to-Canton stretch of the YDH should've been dropped a decade earlier than it was (US 1 rerouting or no US 1 rerouting) when the I-93 designation was still fairly new.
At least with the I-95 section of 128; the northbound/southbound cardinals for both routes are the same. If Amtrak/MBTA renamed its
Route 128 railroad station to something else or after a political or famous figure; MassDOT
might be able to get away with truncating 128 to the US 1/MA 1A intechange (Exits 15A-B) in Dedham without too much of an issue.
Looks like the Globe's defense of the Route 128 designation is beginning to crack in places: See the second item in the most recent Starts and Stops article:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/17/umass-boston-opens-new-section-harborwalk/NIo8AKMlZntPXwl00Ww2xK/story.html
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2015, 01:03:48 PM
Looks like the Globe's defense of the Route 128 designation is beginning to crack in places: See the second item in the most recent Starts and Stops article:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/17/umass-boston-opens-new-section-harborwalk/NIo8AKMlZntPXwl00Ww2xK/story.html
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7654.msg2079779#msg2079779
The "Starts & Stops" column has been a revolving door over the years, often seemingly a dumping ground for ladder-climbing reporters on their way elsewhere who often are not well versed in local transportation. Hasn't been very sharp since Tom Palmer left (Mac Daniel was not bad, but seemed to be preemptively starting his paid-spokesman career a little soon at times).
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 20, 2015, 04:33:31 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2015, 01:03:48 PM
Looks like the Globe's defense of the Route 128 designation is beginning to crack in places: See the second item in the most recent Starts and Stops article:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/17/umass-boston-opens-new-section-harborwalk/NIo8AKMlZntPXwl00Ww2xK/story.html
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7654.msg2079779#msg2079779
My bad for not checking this thread more thoroughly before posting the Starts and Stops item.
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2015, 06:43:48 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 20, 2015, 04:33:31 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2015, 01:03:48 PM
Looks like the Globe's defense of the Route 128 designation is beginning to crack in places: See the second item in the most recent Starts and Stops article:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/17/umass-boston-opens-new-section-harborwalk/NIo8AKMlZntPXwl00Ww2xK/story.html
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7654.msg2079779#msg2079779
My bad for not checking this thread more thoroughly before posting the Starts and Stops item.
Not a problem. Thanks for posting the link. The Starts & Stop column has largely been about the T and not roads since the present columnist started, with the exception of the occasional bicycle column. The low point for my opinion of the columnist was the Fourth of July weekend when the column concluded with two sentences about potential traffic problems for the holiday traveler and a link to the MassDOT Travel Resources site. Lazy journalism IMO. Though in the two weeks since there have been highway stories (in the previous Sunday there was a story of MassDOT replacing a faded sign due to the complaints of a motorist), perhaps someone called her on that.
Quotein the previous Sunday there was a story of MassDOT replacing a faded sign due to the complaints of a motorist
Does somebody have a link to this one - I can't seen to find the story among the few Starts and Stops columns the Globe has online.
The biggest issue is that out of towners are likely to be confused by Rt. 128 being used instead of I-95. Boston is a town that attracts a ton of out of towners for college. If you include kids who go to schools in the rest of Mass, New Hampshire and Southern Maine then you have a ton of kids and families from out of state who are trying to navigate the Boston area road system. The point of traffic reports is to be informative, not to reinforce whatever cultural biases the locals have.
Out of towners will be even more confused if locals tell them to take 128 and they can't find it.
I don't think FHA's bias against dual signing makes sense in this situation.
Quote from: kkt on July 21, 2015, 11:09:20 AM
Out of towners will be even more confused if locals tell them to take 128 and they can't find it.
I don't think FHA's bias against dual signing makes sense in this situation.
Problem is, this isn't just a matter of signing. The 128 designation was officially removed long ago from that stretch of I-93/US-1 between the I-95 junction in Canton and the MA-3 junction in Braintree (the "Braintree split"). Coming toward the Canton junction on I-95 south and continuing straight onto I-93, you will see the signs
END 128, and
BEGIN 128 going the other way.
It's a matter of archaic usage that has stuck pretty much indelibly. Long before there were interstates and long before US-1 was rerouted to circumvent downtown Boston, that stretch of road was part of 128. That endured for long enough that it seems most Bostonians won't give up the old numbering.
Historical note: If you go back far enough, the original 128 expressway didn't even end at the Braintree split, but ran southeast concurrent with MA-3 to Rockland (currently Exit 14, originally Exit 30), then turned north, ending at the Hull/Cohasset line. The stretch from MA-3 Exit 14 to Hull was renumbered MA-228 in 1967, and simultaneously MA-128 was loped off at the Braintree split, ending the concurrency with MA-3. I don't recall that anyone (including traffic reporters) had any trouble adjusting to those re-designations.
And yes, we get a lot of out-of-towners, both students and tourists, but IMO it's not anymore difficult to know the area where "128 isn't 128" than it is to find one's way around the Boston area anyhow. There's very little that's logical about it, except possibly for the alphabetical street grid in the Back Bay. You have to memorize a lot.
Quote from: kkt on July 21, 2015, 11:09:20 AM
Out of towners will be even more confused if locals tell them to take 128 and they can't find it.
I don't think FHA's bias against dual signing makes sense in this situation.
This just further reinforces that it's logical from a traveler-friendly point of view to have a name–any name–for the big "C" that runs from Braintree to Peabody (and beyond). "128" is currently the best there is. Folks who think a hodgepodge of numbers along this route fills this need don't understand how people perceive geography in this area.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 21, 2015, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 21, 2015, 11:09:20 AM
Out of towners will be even more confused if locals tell them to take 128 and they can't find it.
I don't think FHA's bias against dual signing makes sense in this situation.
This just further reinforces that it's logical from a traveler-friendly point of view to have a name–any name–for the big "C" that runs from Braintree to Peabody (and beyond). "128" is currently the best there is. Folks who think a hodgepodge of numbers along this route fills this need don't understand how people perceive geography in this area.
It's obvious that the hodgepodge of numbers for what people refer to at Rt. 128 is problematic. I don't disagree with that. It was a massive screw up by MassDOT. But how do you fix it? The locals didn't take to the "Yankee Division Highway" name so giving it a non-number name won't work.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 21, 2015, 12:57:20 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 21, 2015, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 21, 2015, 11:09:20 AM
Out of towners will be even more confused if locals tell them to take 128 and they can't find it.
I don't think FHA's bias against dual signing makes sense in this situation.
This just further reinforces that it's logical from a traveler-friendly point of view to have a name—any name—for the big "C" that runs from Braintree to Peabody (and beyond). "128" is currently the best there is. Folks who think a hodgepodge of numbers along this route fills this need don't understand how people perceive geography in this area.
It's obvious that the hodgepodge of numbers for what people refer to at Rt. 128 is problematic. I don't disagree with that. It was a massive screw up by MassDOT. But how do you fix it? The locals didn't take to the "Yankee Division Highway" name so giving it a non-number name won't work.
With due respect, the first screw up occurred in 1975, when MassDPW stopped changing out 128 shields for I-95 and I-93 ones and allowed 128 to remain on BGSes for years. The second screw up occurred in the early 1990s, when the FHWA didn't mandate total removal of the 128 designation from the highway south of Peabody.
Had either of those things happened, we wouldn't be having this conservation. And the world wouldn't have fallen off its axis, with dogs and cats living together, etc., either.
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 21, 2015, 11:55:18 AMHistorical note: If you go back far enough, the original 128 expressway didn't even end at the Braintree split, but ran southeast concurrent with MA-3 to Rockland (currently Exit 14, originally Exit 30), then turned north, ending at the Hull/Cohasset line. The stretch from MA-3 Exit 14 to Hull was renumbered MA-228 in 1967, and simultaneously MA-128 was loped off at the Braintree split, ending the concurrency with MA-3. I don't recall that anyone (including traffic reporters) had any trouble adjusting to those re-designations.
I had to look back at the previous pages of this thread to avoid any redundant regurgitation of info.
Since I was a bit young (roughly 2 years old) when the MA 3/128 concurrency along the Pilgrim's Highway last existed; was that stretch indeed referred to as
Route 128 or
Route 3 or both? One has to wonder if the reasoning behind the 1967 trucation to Braintree along with the renumbering of the remaining non-highway 128 as MA 228 might have coincided with direction cardinals appearing on signs... be it BGS' or D6/D8 LGS assemblies? The latter largely adopted such when the color scheme changed from white w/black lettering to the current green w/white lettering a year earlier (1966). Previous generation signage just displayed the route number and that was it. It was a bonus if a sign listed
POINTS NORTH/SOUTH/EAST/WEST as part of the control destination.
Had 228 remained as the southern portion of 128; one would've really had a much more trouble with
south is north/north is south concept with respect to LGS' and trailblazer signs (the latter would adopt direction cardinals by the late 70s/early 80s) moreso than the current I-93 stretch of the YDH (which actually runs east-west in this vicinity).
In hindsight, what MassDPW could've done circa 1967, in addition to the new 228 designation for the old pre-highway 128, was run 128 all the way down to Sagamore and forgo the MA 3 designation. As previously stated; such would've been a better justification for keeping the 128 designation south of Peabody (though I would've kept such only on trailblazer signage for the I-93/95-occupied sections). Side bar: most people treat US 3 from Burlington northward and MA 3 from Braintree south as two separate roads even though they both connect via other roads and highways; so similar could've been the case for a
Cape Ann to Cape Cod 128.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 21, 2015, 02:48:01 PM
Since I was a bit young (roughly 2 years old) when the MA 3/128 concurrency along the Pilgrim's Highway last existed; was that stretch indeed referred to as Route 128 or Route 3 or both?
In 1967 I was 16, so I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to traffic reports for the South Shore while growing up on the North Shore. However, what little I do remember suggests that stretch was referred to only as "Route 3," as in "Route 3, coming up from the Cape..." or "Route 3 leaving town..." much as it's done now. (The moniker "Pilgrims' Highway" seems to have stuck about as well as "Yankee Division Highway.") As I recall the 128 concurrency was largely ignored.
Quote from: roadman on July 21, 2015, 02:28:13 PMAnd the world wouldn't have fallen off its axis, with dogs and cats living together, etc., either.
As they have not anyway.
20/20 hindsight aside, they can do all of those things now. It will still amount to government opting to attempt change how people think rather than accommodate how they do now. The latter would be slightly less of a waste of time.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 21, 2015, 04:36:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 21, 2015, 02:28:13 PMAnd the world wouldn't have fallen off its axis, with dogs and cats living together, etc., either.
As they have not anyway.
20/20 hindsight aside, they can do all of those things now. It will still amount to government opting to attempt change how people think rather than accommodate how they do now. The latter would be slightly less of a waste of time.
The keys to making the change work are a) to
just go ahead and do it (i.e. remove the 128 markers); and b) insist that the traffic reporters and the media accept it. # 1 is easy, #2 not so much. However, it turns out that traffic reporters are not totally inflexible. When the (long since inaccurate) name of the old Winchester Highlands exit was changed to the more correct Park Street as part of the last I-93 sign update, it only took about a week for MetroTraffic, etc., to start referring to the exit by the new name.
Here in greater Hartford, only two roads seem to have the name have priority over the numbered shield:
1- Berlin Turnpike, part of US 5/CT 15 from Meriden to Wethersfield
2- Silas Deane Highway, CT 99 from the Hartford/Wethersfield town line to Cromwell
Most, if not all, of I-84 between the Connecticut River to the New York state line, is the Yankee Division Highway, yet nobody ever calls it that.
When I'm on I-93 between Boston to Braintree, do I call it the Southeast Expressway? No. When I'm in I-90 from Boston to (usually) Sturbridge, do I call it the Massachusetts Turnpike? Yes. Probably because of the Turnpike being a toll road.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 22, 2015, 09:30:47 PM
Here in greater Hartford, only two roads seem to have the name have priority over the numbered shield:
1- Berlin Turnpike, part of US 5/CT 15 from Meriden to Wethersfield
2- Silas Deane Highway, CT 99 from the Hartford/Wethersfield town line to Cromwell
Most, if not all, of I-84 between the Connecticut River to the New York state line, is the Yankee Division Highway, yet nobody ever calls it that.
When I'm on I-93 between Boston to Braintree, do I call it the Southeast Expressway? No. When I'm in I-90 from Boston to (usually) Sturbridge, do I call it the Massachusetts Turnpike? Yes. Probably because of the Turnpike being a toll road.
Is there a toll road where the numbered interstate takes precedence over the name? I haven't lived in Maine long enough to know if "Maine Turnpike" is used instead of I-95 but that might be a contender.
When I lived in Maine in the mid-1980s and on visits today, the Maine Turnpike name seemed/seems to get priority more.
As for Connecticut, get back to me on that. We haven't had a toll road or bridge since 1989. :)
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 21, 2015, 03:20:57 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 21, 2015, 02:48:01 PM
Since I was a bit young (roughly 2 years old) when the MA 3/128 concurrency along the Pilgrim's Highway last existed; was that stretch indeed referred to as Route 128 or Route 3 or both?
In 1967 I was 16, so I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to traffic reports for the South Shore while growing up on the North Shore. However, what little I do remember suggests that stretch was referred to only as "Route 3," as in "Route 3, coming up from the Cape..." or "Route 3 leaving town..." much as it's done now. (The moniker "Pilgrims' Highway" seems to have stuck about as well as "Yankee Division Highway.") As I recall the 128 concurrency was largely ignored.
Through my work I have access to archived South Shore newspapers from the 1960s. It appears that most reporters and advertisers referred to what today is MA 3/Pilgrims Highway south of Braintree as a continuation of the Southeast Expressway, especially in Hingham where the route opened around the same time as what today is considered the Expressway from Braintree north in 1959. One local car dealer though referred to there location as being off Exit 29 of Route 128 (today's Exit 15) after the Expressway was extended to Rockland in 1961. This continued even after 128 was truncated up through 1969. They still referred to being located off the SE Expressway on into the 1980s.
I recall seeing a couple of Massachusetts state highway maps from the early 1970s that had the "Southeast Expressway" notation on Route 3 south of Briantree as well.
Quote from: roadman on July 23, 2015, 10:03:49 AM
I recall seeing a couple of Massachusetts state highway maps from the early 1970s that had the "Southeast Expressway" notation on Route 3 south of Briantree as well.
I saw a tourist map in Plymouth last year that had Rte. 3 listed as the Southeast Expressway as well. Was it always that? I guess so.
For those not in the Boston area, I-93 from Braintree to Boston is universally and without exception referred to as the Southeast Expressway (or more commonly, simply "the Expressway". In recent times (since 128 was removed), the remainder of I-93 to its end in Canton is occasionally referred to as the Southeast Expressway as well, but not as frequently.
Also, on a different but related note, the town of Canton has recently posted small trailblazers pointing towards I-93, which originally read "To Route 93", but then the signs were edited to say "To Rt. 128"
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2015, 09:41:28 PM
Is there a toll road where the numbered interstate takes precedence over the name? I haven't lived in Maine long enough to know if "Maine Turnpike" is used instead of I-95 but that might be a contender.
I'm pretty sure the Delaware Turnpike is usually known by its numbers (95/295). If you want to go into bridges, I don't think the I-80 bridge over the Delaware River even has a name (though Wikipedia claims it's the "Delaware Water Gap Toll Bridge"). The I-95 (Millard E. Tydings Memorial Bridge) and US 40 (Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge) crossings of the Susquehanna River are mostly known by route number as well if I'm not mistaken.
Here in southern New Jersey, one never hears the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Highway referred to by it's name; it's always called "Route 70".
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2015, 09:41:28 PMIs there a toll road where the numbered interstate takes precedence over the name? I haven't lived in Maine long enough to know if "Maine Turnpike" is used instead of I-95 but that might be a contender.
I find increasing use among people not originally from this region of "90," or worse, "the 90." "Mass Pike" is still far and away the dominant name, but with the way those words are being relegated to small print in a corner of a guide sign, that may not always remain the case.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2015, 03:33:53 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2015, 09:41:28 PMIs there a toll road where the numbered interstate takes precedence over the name? I haven't lived in Maine long enough to know if "Maine Turnpike" is used instead of I-95 but that might be a contender.
I find increasing use among people not originally from this region of "90," or worse, "the 90." "Mass Pike" is still far and away the dominant name, but with the way those words are being relegated to small print in a corner of a guide sign, that may not always remain the case.
I've found that older Bostonians refer to it as "the Turnpike".
Quote from: spooky on July 23, 2015, 04:08:22 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2015, 03:33:53 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2015, 09:41:28 PMIs there a toll road where the numbered interstate takes precedence over the name? I haven't lived in Maine long enough to know if "Maine Turnpike" is used instead of I-95 but that might be a contender.
I find increasing use among people not originally from this region of "90," or worse, "the 90." "Mass Pike" is still far and away the dominant name, but with the way those words are being relegated to small print in a corner of a guide sign, that may not always remain the case.
I've found that older Bostonians refer to it as "the Turnpike".
My father, who sneaked on to drive it before it opened, nearly always referred to it as "the Massachusetts Turnpike" in casual conversation.
People also refer to the Massachusetts Turnpike Extension as well in MA.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 23, 2015, 03:14:41 PM
Here in southern New Jersey, one never hears the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Highway referred to by it's name; it's always called "Route 70".
70 is not a toll road. Also where I live it's signed "Marlton Pike" (I guess it was a toll road once upon a time), but nobody uses that name either. In fact, it only started popping up when my area started putting up the shield + road name signs at every traffic light.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 23, 2015, 05:23:45 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 23, 2015, 03:14:41 PM
Here in southern New Jersey, one never hears the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Highway referred to by it's name; it's always called "Route 70".
70 is not a toll road. Also where I live it's signed "Marlton Pike" (I guess it was a toll road once upon a time), but nobody uses that name either. In fact, it only started popping up when my area started putting up the shield + road name signs at every traffic light.
My dad grew up in part in Haddonfield, and "Marlton Pike" is one of the handful of roads he's referred to by name.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 23, 2015, 05:23:45 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 23, 2015, 03:14:41 PM
Here in southern New Jersey, one never hears the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Highway referred to by it's name; it's always called "Route 70".
70 is not a toll road. Also where I live it's signed "Marlton Pike" (I guess it was a toll road once upon a time), but nobody uses that name either. In fact, it only started popping up when my area started putting up the shield + road name signs at every traffic light.
I doubt if Route 70 was ever a toll road as the "Pikes" were.
The Burlington County sector west of Medford was mostly built along the old railroad right-of-way. The remainder was probably a WPA project.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 23, 2015, 03:14:41 PM
Here in southern New Jersey, one never hears the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Highway referred to by it's name; it's always called "Route 70".
What was the "original" Rockefeller's connection to the NJ Pine Barrens, through which 70 runs? I've always wondered.
ixnay
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 22, 2015, 09:30:47 PMMost, if not all, of I-84 between the Connecticut River to the New York state line, is the Yankee Division Highway, yet nobody ever calls it that.
Actually the street name for that stretch of I-84 is
Yankee Expressway. IIRC, there are one or two ground-mounted BGS' along I-84 that read such.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 22, 2015, 09:30:47 PM
When I'm on I-93 between Boston to Braintree, do I call it the Southeast Expressway? No.
Many Bay State drivers/commuters/reporters/etc. would disagree with you. The Southeast Expressway
(it's actually part of the John F. Fitzgerald Expressway network) name dates back to when the highway was first built in the late 50s; and for the first 12 years of its existence, the northern portion of it (north of MA 3A and now-MA 203/old MA 3)
had no route number associated with it. All of it became MA 3 in 1971 and it was later
planned (but not yet signed) in 1972-73 to be part of the defacto-I-95 when the Southwest Expressway was canned. It instead became an extension of I-93 in 1975 when I-95 was rerouted onto most of MA 128 when the Northeast Expressway extension was cancelled. The often-ignored rerouted US 1 designation was added in 1989-90.
So there you have it. Unlike Route 128; the Southeast Expressway is an example of a highway that went through several route number changes but most people wouldn't care what route number(s) it carried; they just called the highway by its name rather than the number(s).
Quote from: roadman on July 23, 2015, 10:03:49 AM
I recall seeing a couple of Massachusetts state highway maps from the early 1970s that had the "Southeast Expressway" notation on Route 3 south of Briantree as well.
The
Universal Street Map Atlas for Eastern Massachusetts is one place where one can see the various pages of South Shore towns that MA 3 pass through and one will see
SOUTHEAST EXPRESSWAY labels (in Leroy-drafted font) as well. Typically, these maps were actually drafted years if not decades ago and only receive minor updates if a road or two are added.
Those of us Bay State
old timers probably remember the old
King's Castle Land (in Whitman, it closed circa 1994) commericals from the early 70s. At the end of the TV ad. (I could not find it on YouTube); the narrator would say,
"Take the Southeast Expressway to Route 3 to Route 18 and welcome to King's Castle Land. We're open everyday in Whitman.".
Another version of the commercial had
dubbed directions that read,
"Take Route 128 South to Route 3 South. Then take Route 3 South to Route 18 South."Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 23, 2015, 12:09:37 PM
For those not in the Boston area, I-93 from Braintree to Boston is universally and without exception referred to as the Southeast Expressway (or more commonly, simply "the Expressway". In recent times (since 128 was removed), the remainder of I-93 to its end in Canton is occasionally referred to as the Southeast Expressway as well, but not as frequently.
Really? I have
never heard that stretch (Braintree to Canton) referred to as the Southeast Expressway. It's completely incorrect (the road runs east-west with a
very slight NE/SW orientation). Whoever stated such must be a newbie.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 23, 2015, 12:09:37 PMAlso, on a different but related note, the town of Canton has recently posted small trailblazers pointing towards I-93, which originally read "To Route 93", but then the signs were edited to say "To Rt. 128"
Where abouts in Canton was this sign? If it was located along MA 138; using
TO RTE. 128 might be justified only because it's official terminus (at the I-95/93 interchange) is only located about a mile away from the I-93/MA 138 interchange.
QuoteThe Southeast Expressway (it's actually part of the John F. Fitzgerald Expressway network)
Not quite. The Fitzgerald Expressway designation ran from the old Mass Ave interchange (Exit 18) to the Charles River Crossing (Exit 26), and it was a single roadway - not a network. The only portion of the Southeast Expressway that overlapped with the Fitzgerald was between Mass Ave and the south portal of the Dewey Square Tunnel. The individual bridges on the Expressway south of Mass Ave have their own named designations, but there has never been a single named designation (other than S.E. Expressway) given to the entire highway between Boston and Braintree.
Quote from: roadman on July 24, 2015, 12:44:41 PMThe only portion of the Southeast Expressway that overlapped with the Fitzgerald was between Mass Ave and the south portal of the Dewey Square Tunnel.
Some maps and (IIRC) there was an small old white sign (now long gone) that called that stretch the Pulaski Skyway. While many have called that stretch the Southeast Expressway, it really wasn't; such would've been evident especially had the Southwest Expressway been built.
BTW, I made the needed corrections to my earlier post. I was previously under the impression that the J.F. Fitzgerald Expressway ran from Braintree to Revere and consisted of the Southeast Expressway, Pulaski Skyway, Dewey Square/South Station Tunnel, the Central Artery, the Mystic/Tobin Bridge and the Northeast Expressway. Old school ramp and through signage, at least from the Central Artery south, used the generic
EXPRESSWAY NORTH/SOUTH notations.
Yes, the viaduct between Mass Ave and the Dewey Square tunnel was officially called the Pulaski Skyway (for many years, consistently rated as the worst bridge - in terms of overall condition - in the state). But traffic reporters of the era (Joe Greene, Bill Connell) never used that name, and always referred to the highway south of the Dewey Square tunnel as the Southeast Expressway.
And I also remember those "Expressway North/South" signs as well (1962 vintage button copy on painted plywood).
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2015, 03:33:53 PMwith the way those words are being relegated to small print in a corner of a guide sign, that may not always remain the case.
ISTR that when those signs went up, there was an idea being floated to eliminate the Massachusetts Turnpike name. I also recall the idea dying rather quickly. Wondering if roadman can confirm or deny that?
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 23, 2015, 07:25:23 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 23, 2015, 12:09:37 PMAlso, on a different but related note, the town of Canton has recently posted small trailblazers pointing towards I-93, which originally read "To Route 93", but then the signs were edited to say "To Rt. 128"
Where abouts in Canton was this sign? If it was located along MA 138; using TO RTE. 128 might be justified only because it's official terminus (at the I-95/93 interchange) is only located about a mile away from the I-93/MA 138 interchange.
The signs are near Exits 2, 3, and 5 on I-93. Exit 2 is the only one that can be somewhat justified given that 128 is nearby, but clearly the signs are referring to I-93.
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 24, 2015, 08:47:24 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2015, 03:33:53 PMwith the way those words are being relegated to small print in a corner of a guide sign, that may not always remain the case.
ISTR that when those signs went up, there was an idea being floated to eliminate the Massachusetts Turnpike name. I also recall the idea dying rather quickly. Wondering if roadman can confirm or deny that?
This is correct. When the Turnpike Authority was eliminated, MassDot thought about eliminating the Mass Turnpike name in favor of simply I-90. Though they decided against it, they installed Mass Pike shields on new signs instead of plain "Mass Pike" text so that it would be easy to remove them in case they do decide to eliminate the name in the future.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 26, 2015, 02:12:46 PMThe signs are near Exits 2, 3, and 5 on I-93. Exit 2 is the only one that can be somewhat justified given that 128 is nearby, but clearly the signs are referring to I-93.
If those signs, particularly the ones near Exits 3 & 5, are on a state road (I'm aware that Exit 3 is an unnumbered road); MassDOT might have something to say about those signs. I'm assuming these are local-fabricated installations.
Here's a link to what I could find on StreetView. Has both I-93 and MA 128 shields. This is on MA 138 South about 1/2 mile north of the I-93/US 1 interchange, taken last August. Looks newer than 1989 when this would have been correct.
https://goo.gl/maps/dQS58 (https://goo.gl/maps/dQS58)
Quote from: bob7374 on July 27, 2015, 03:50:15 PM
Here's a link to what I could find on StreetView. Has both I-93 and MA 128 shields. This is on MA 138 South about 1/2 mile north of the I-93/US 1 interchange, taken last August. Looks newer than 1989 when this would have been correct.
https://goo.gl/maps/dQS58 (https://goo.gl/maps/dQS58)
Judging by that odd, expirmental
128 font (popular during the early-to-mid 80s); it's either a few years older than 1989 or a local fabrication/installation if newer.
If they got rid of the Mass Pike name, it'd just create another "Route 128" situation.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 27, 2015, 07:53:19 PM
If they got rid of the Mass Pike name, it'd just create another "Route 128" situation.
Hardly, because (and I've state this
multiple times already in this thread)
Mass Pike (more specifically the Massachusetts Turnpike) will continue to be the
street name for the highway (at least as long as tolls are being collected, that's another story) even though it may not be fully signed.
128, OTOH, is a route number that can be (and has been) on more than one particular stretch of road/street/highway. Prior to the construction of the Yankee Division Highway, 128 was on a network of local roads and streets. Prior to the late 60s, the expressway portions of 128 were on the Yankee Division Highway
as well as the northern portion of the Pilgrim's Highway (current MA 3).
So what Mass. needs to do is rename it the Route One Hundred Twenty Eight Beltway and they could sign it (along with I-95/I-93) and FHA would get off their case?
Quote from: kkt on July 28, 2015, 12:24:21 PM
So what Mass. needs to do is rename it the Route One Hundred Twenty Eight Beltway and they could sign it (along with I-95/I-93) and FHA would get off their case?
Given the stink that the Yankee Division Association raised during the mid-1980s when then-MassDPW erected some BBS' reading
128 AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY HIGHWAY (the signs were later modified to read
128 AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY REGION); such will not go over well with MA's National Guard's Yankee Division, the Yankee Division Association, after whom the highway was officially named circa 1948. The blue signs in question were taken down during the mid-90s.
Wiki Account of the 26th Infantry Division (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26th_Infantry_Division_(United_States))
QuoteThe beltway around the city of Boston, Massachusetts Route 128, is nicknamed the "Yankee Division Highway" in honor of the 26th Infantry Division.
Personally, I would refer to highways by their route number instead of their road name. The only exception is when the roads appear on a map without a route designation.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 28, 2015, 07:08:57 PM
Personally, I would refer to highways by their route number instead of their road name. The only exception is when the roads appear on a map without a route designation.
You should approach New York with great caution, then.
Thread Bump:
Apparently; even local, Boston area news reporters are now referring to the road as "I-95" in the report covering the recent (July 3, 2021) standoff along I-95 (MA 128) in Wakefield that resulted in the highway being shutdown & 11 people being arrested.
11 arrested as standoff involving group of armed men on I-95 in Massachusetts comes to end (https://www.wcvb.com/article/standoff-closes-part-of-i-95-wakefield-reading-asked-to-shelter-in-place/36918863?fbclid=IwAR0vfNnorAtHoT4-DGIDmU-ZBF4KCTT-YhfCydH0qjA-Fr1HHSEC_sRRDec)
Note @ 0:24-0:25 in the above-WCVB video-link; one of the perps mentions the interchange as "Exit 57.4". I wasn't aware of any decimal interchange numbers either here or elsewhere. :rofl:
I guess the recent conversion to mile-marker-based interchange numbering finally broke the long-old habit of, at least among reporters & law enforcement, still referring to the highway as "Route 128". :sombrero:
For those that may not know (many here do); Exit 57 is the North Ave. interchange.
Such was formerly Exit 39 (1987-2021), formerly Exit 35 (1962-1987), & formerly Exit 26 (up to 1962).
My guess is because they were going to Maine. If they weren't continuing on I-95 north of where they split, it still would have been called 128.
Quote from: 1 on July 06, 2021, 08:29:07 PM
My guess is because they were going to Maine. If they weren't continuing on I-95 north of where they split, it still would have been called 128.
Indeed...when I lived in Peabody, I would take 128 to Burlington or Dedham. I would take 95 to Providence.
The Wakefield PD Twitter feed still referred to the road as "Route 128" , so old habits still die hard.
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.
Quote from: machias on July 08, 2021, 07:20:09 PM
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.
The answer to your question can be summed up in the previous pages of this thread that originally started nearly 9 years ago.
See Reply 45, mid-way down (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7654.25) for my initial explanation for the
whats &
whys.
I have a soft spot for 128 but I'm fine with either as long as they don't refer to the Braintree-Canton I-93 as 128.
Unfortunately, as the story's gotten older, older habits are creeping back into the reporting. Channel 5 now has a graphic referring to the incident as the "Standoff on Route 128." and on another channel, I think 25, the reporter referred to the 'event that closed Route 128 for several hours." Well, it was good while it lasted.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 08, 2021, 11:20:49 PM
Unfortunately, as the story's gotten older, older habits are creeping back into the reporting. Channel 5 now has a graphic referring to the incident as the "Standoff on Route 128." and on another channel, I think 25, the reporter referred to the 'event that closed Route 128 for several hours." Well, it was good while it lasted.
The road is Route 128 so I don't see the problem.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 08, 2021, 11:20:49 PM
Unfortunately, as the story's gotten older, older habits are creeping back into the reporting. Channel 5 now has a graphic referring to the incident as the "Standoff on Route 128." and on another channel, I think 25, the reporter referred to the 'event that closed Route 128 for several hours." Well, it was good while it lasted.
This morning, the Boston 25 traffic reporter was reporting on a crash on I-95 at Vernon Street in Wakefield. The graphic said Vernon Street, Exit 41. She said something like "a crash to tell you about on I-95 at Vernon Street, I should say Route 128, and let you know that's former Exit 41"
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2021, 06:52:28 PMApparently; even local, Boston area news reporters are now referring to the road as "I-95" in the report covering the recent (July 3, 2021) standoff along I-95 (MA 128) in Wakefield that resulted in the highway being shutdown & 11 people being arrested...
I guess the recent conversion to mile-marker-based interchange numbering finally broke the long-old habit of, at least among reporters & law enforcement, still referring to the highway as "Route 128". :sombrero:
They ought to teach their counterparts at ABC News the correct designation. ABC got the route number correct in the text of the stories posted online...and proceeded to caption the accompanying photos as "Interstate 97."
Someone should inform them that Interstate 97 is in Maryland, not Massachusetts (although MA 3 could theory theoretically be Interstate 97, among other possible numbers). Has MA 128 ever accidently been referred to as Interstate 128? Now that would be a screw-up!
I-95? Route 128? It depends.
As a regional descriptor, 128 has a role. Geographically, it makes sense to describe a collection of municipalities as "inside 128," just as you would describe a greater number of cities and towns as "Inside 495."
Giving directions? Take the Mass Pike to Exit 123, then get on I-95 north and get off at Exit 45.
MassDOT doesn't make descriptive geography very easy, and it's getting worse. The copywriters for the sign replacement on I-495 are using Marlboro and Taunton as control cities on their southbound signs around Lowell. Marlboro makes some sense. How many folks in Lowell have a solid mental image of Taunton? Does Taunton add any value? Some signs are removing the more descriptive Cape Cod in favor of Taunton.
Even worse, as you are cruising along Route 2 in Lexington, you encounter Attleboro as the control city for I-95 South. Again, using the mental geography standard, how many folks driving along Route 2 in Lexington have a solid mental image of Attleboro? Most signs in the region point to Providence RI, again a destination that presents a solid mental image of the destination. Want something closer? Dedham would work. Attleboro is solidly on my top five list of awful Massachusetts control cities.
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma2signsps321u.jpg)
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 08, 2021, 11:48:30 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 08, 2021, 11:20:49 PM
Unfortunately, as the story's gotten older, older habits are creeping back into the reporting. Channel 5 now has a graphic referring to the incident as the "Standoff on Route 128." and on another channel, I think 25, the reporter referred to the 'event that closed Route 128 for several hours." Well, it was good while it lasted.
The road is Route 128 so I don't see the problem.
It's I-95. MA 128 only exists on vestigial ground-mount signs that feel like a footnote because people refuse to stop calling it that, and MA gave in to the pressure. IMO it should be truncated to Peabody with the mileage and exit numbers starting at 0 with the I-95 junction. When the state changed the exit numbers would have been a good time to finally pull the plug. It's a pointless overlap, because MA 128 doesn't exist independently south of that point. It doesn't even follow a different path from I-95, it just ends randomly at the I-93 junction.
It IS useful as a regional descriptor, as mentioned above, but I'm pretty sure that descriptor also includes I-93 from I-95 to MA 3, so MA 128's continued existence on I-95 is not a pre-requisite for that descriptor.
Quote from: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 12:59:10 PMAttleboro is solidly on my top five list of awful Massachusetts control cities.
To me, "Attleboro" basically means "Rhode Island state line".
Quote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:18:42 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 08, 2021, 11:48:30 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 08, 2021, 11:20:49 PM
Unfortunately, as the story's gotten older, older habits are creeping back into the reporting. Channel 5 now has a graphic referring to the incident as the "Standoff on Route 128." and on another channel, I think 25, the reporter referred to the 'event that closed Route 128 for several hours." Well, it was good while it lasted.
The road is Route 128 so I don't see the problem.
It's I-95. MA 128 only exists on vestigial ground-mount signs that feel like a footnote because people refuse to stop calling it that, and MA gave in to the pressure. IMO it should be truncated to Peabody with the mileage and exit numbers starting at 0 with the I-95 junction. When the state changed the exit numbers would have been a good time to finally pull the plug. It's a pointless overlap, because MA 128 doesn't exist independently south of that point. It doesn't even follow a different path from I-95, it just ends randomly at the I-93 junction.
It IS useful as a regional descriptor, as mentioned above, but I'm pretty sure that descriptor also includes I-93 from I-95 to MA 3, so MA 128's continued existence on I-95 is not a pre-requisite for that descriptor.
The road is still called MA 128 and I-95 and is still signed that way. It doesn't matter what you think, the road exists until it doesn't exist. Get over it.
Quote from: 1 on July 09, 2021, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 12:59:10 PMAttleboro is solidly on my top five list of awful Massachusetts control cities.
To me, "Attleboro" basically means "Rhode Island state line".
So, we should be parochial to the point of using the last town in Massachusetts as the control city? We should get rid of Albany NY on I-90 (Mass Pike) westbound and replace it with West Stockbridge? The control city on I-91 northbound should be Bernardston?
Quote from: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 01:44:01 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 09, 2021, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 12:59:10 PMAttleboro is solidly on my top five list of awful Massachusetts control cities.
To me, "Attleboro" basically means "Rhode Island state line".
So, we should be parochial to the point of using the last town in Massachusetts as the control city? We should get rid of Albany NY on I-90 (Mass Pike) westbound and replace it with West Stockbridge? The control city on I-91 northbound should be Bernardston?
Attleboro is a bit bigger than both West Stockbridge and Bernardston but it's still a trash control city.
Quote from: spooky on July 23, 2015, 04:08:22 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2015, 03:33:53 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2015, 09:41:28 PMIs there a toll road where the numbered interstate takes precedence over the name? I haven't lived in Maine long enough to know if "Maine Turnpike" is used instead of I-95 but that might be a contender.
I find increasing use among people not originally from this region of "90," or worse, "the 90." "Mass Pike" is still far and away the dominant name, but with the way those words are being relegated to small print in a corner of a guide sign, that may not always remain the case.
I've found that older Bostonians refer to it as "the Turnpike".
Seems like MassDOT has weighed in on the topic.
(https://schlichtman.org/mahighways/I90Pike.png)
Quote from: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: spooky on July 23, 2015, 04:08:22 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2015, 03:33:53 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 22, 2015, 09:41:28 PMIs there a toll road where the numbered interstate takes precedence over the name? I haven't lived in Maine long enough to know if "Maine Turnpike" is used instead of I-95 but that might be a contender.
I find increasing use among people not originally from this region of "90," or worse, "the 90." "Mass Pike" is still far and away the dominant name, but with the way those words are being relegated to small print in a corner of a guide sign, that may not always remain the case.
I've found that older Bostonians refer to it as "the Turnpike".
Seems like MassDOT has weighed in on the topic.
(https://schlichtman.org/mahighways/I90Pike.png)
Looks like they put both.
Quote from: machias on July 08, 2021, 07:20:09 PM
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.
Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2021, 09:24:15 AM
Quote from: machias on July 08, 2021, 07:20:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 12, 2021, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2021, 09:24:15 AM
Quote from: machias on July 08, 2021, 07:20:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 09, 2021, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 01:44:01 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 09, 2021, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 12:59:10 PMAttleboro is solidly on my top five list of awful Massachusetts control cities.
To me, "Attleboro" basically means "Rhode Island state line".
So, we should be parochial to the point of using the last town in Massachusetts as the control city? We should get rid of Albany NY on I-90 (Mass Pike) westbound and replace it with West Stockbridge? The control city on I-91 northbound should be Bernardston?
Attleboro is a bit bigger than both West Stockbridge and Bernardston but it's still a trash control city.
https://goo.gl/maps/ZWMvCx9R7csZBM7QA
W Stockbridge is signed in places on the Pike (although along with Albany)
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).
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.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 12, 2021, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2021, 09:24:15 AM
Quote from: machias on July 08, 2021, 07:20:09 PM
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.
Quote from: machias on July 12, 2021, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 12, 2021, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2021, 09:24:15 AM
Quote from: machias on July 08, 2021, 07:20:09 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2021, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 12, 2021, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2021, 09:24:15 AM
Quote from: machias on July 08, 2021, 07:20:09 PM
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.
Quote from: machias on July 12, 2021, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 12, 2021, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2021, 09:24:15 AM
Quote from: machias on July 08, 2021, 07:20:09 PM
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.
And yet states used to renumber not just individual sections of road, but entire systems.
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2021, 09:40:09 PM
And yet states used to renumber not just individual sections of road, but entire systems.
And they haven't since the 1960s.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 12, 2021, 10:44:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2021, 09:40:09 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on July 13, 2021, 01:08:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 12, 2021, 10:44:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2021, 09:40:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 13, 2021, 01:13:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 13, 2021, 01:08:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 12, 2021, 10:44:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2021, 09:40:09 PM
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.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 13, 2021, 11:50:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 13, 2021, 01:13:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 13, 2021, 01:08:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 12, 2021, 10:44:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2021, 09:40:09 PM
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.
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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?
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
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.
Quote from: GenExpwy on July 15, 2021, 05:13:42 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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 (https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i86&state=NY&file=101_4531.JPG) omit NY 17 (https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i86&state=NY&file=100_5302.JPG).
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Quote from: 1 on July 15, 2021, 06:27:07 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2021, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
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)
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2021, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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
Quote from: shadyjay on July 12, 2021, 07:05:58 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.17268,-71.1735939,3a,75y,126.29h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgFk_PbmutQuO5PHCJkNV3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) 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.
Quote from: shadyjay on July 12, 2021, 07:05:58 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8608399,-70.8945154,3a,75y,199.13h,84.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7Xu9NsDEHHdjJKcFGc3PJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). 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.
Quote from: ixnay on July 15, 2021, 09:33:48 PMIn 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5168443,-70.9989853,3a,75y,294.91h,74.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3YmOP0K3HSdja8d095kz8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) 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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 16, 2021, 07:56:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 12, 2021, 07:05:58 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.17268,-71.1735939,3a,75y,126.29h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgFk_PbmutQuO5PHCJkNV3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) 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.
Quote from: shadyjay on July 12, 2021, 07:05:58 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8608399,-70.8945154,3a,75y,199.13h,84.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7Xu9NsDEHHdjJKcFGc3PJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). 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.
Attleboro/Providence is fine.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2021, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Only to appease the people who refuse to call it anything else. IIRC, MA actually tried to remove MA 128 and people vehemently complained.
Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2021, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2021, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Only to appease the people who refuse to call it anything else. IIRC, MA actually tried to remove MA 128 and people vehemently complained.
Roads are to serve the people.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 16, 2021, 09:21:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2021, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2021, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Only to appease the people who refuse to call it anything else. IIRC, MA actually tried to remove MA 128 and people vehemently complained.
Roads are to serve the people.
So what's the endpoint? Should there have been no interstate numbers, just US route numbers and state route numbers and maybe a smaller symbol meaning "this road meets interstate standards"? Should there be interstate numbers but always signed with the previous US or state route number?
Quote from: kkt on July 16, 2021, 09:55:13 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 16, 2021, 09:21:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2021, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2021, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Only to appease the people who refuse to call it anything else. IIRC, MA actually tried to remove MA 128 and people vehemently complained.
Roads are to serve the people.
So what's the endpoint? Should there have been no interstate numbers, just US route numbers and state route numbers and maybe a smaller symbol meaning "this road meets interstate standards"? Should there be interstate numbers but always signed with the previous US or state route number?
Are there other interstates that are mostly known by the other numbers?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 16, 2021, 11:12:49 PMAre there other interstates that are mostly known by the other numbers?
In this area, NJ 495 (formerly I-495) is still Route 3 to the tunnel, but that's highly unofficial. I still call it I-95 around Trenton, I'm not sure how locals are dealing. I-64 into St. Louis is still Highway 40 to many.
The NY 7 freeway is known as "Alternate Route 7". It has never once been signed that, and as far as I'm aware, people aren't still calling NY 2 "Route 7" either.
Old habits die hard.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 16, 2021, 08:37:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 16, 2021, 07:56:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 12, 2021, 07:05:58 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.17268,-71.1735939,3a,75y,126.29h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgFk_PbmutQuO5PHCJkNV3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) 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.
Quote from: shadyjay on July 12, 2021, 07:05:58 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8608399,-70.8945154,3a,75y,199.13h,84.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7Xu9NsDEHHdjJKcFGc3PJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). 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.
Attleboro/Providence is fine.
From Route 2 in Lexington, Attleboro is never fine.
I-95 Southbound between Lexington and Peabody is signed with a combination of Waltham and Providence. Route 2 is less than a mile north of the Waltham city line, so it makes no sense here. Dedham - Providence works. Canton - Providence works. Providence works. Attleboro needs to be replaced.
Quote from: paul02474 on July 17, 2021, 09:40:10 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 16, 2021, 08:37:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 16, 2021, 07:56:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 12, 2021, 07:05:58 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.17268,-71.1735939,3a,75y,126.29h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgFk_PbmutQuO5PHCJkNV3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) 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.
Quote from: shadyjay on July 12, 2021, 07:05:58 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8608399,-70.8945154,3a,75y,199.13h,84.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7Xu9NsDEHHdjJKcFGc3PJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). 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.
Attleboro/Providence is fine.
From Route 2 in Lexington, Attleboro is never fine.
I-95 Southbound between Lexington and Peabody is signed with a combination of Waltham and Providence. Route 2 is less than a mile north of the Waltham city line, so it makes no sense here. Dedham - Providence works. Canton - Providence works. Providence works. Attleboro needs to be replaced.
It's fine for the portion south of MA 128.
How many people call the stretch of Interstate 93 segment of the Southeast Expressway Highway 3? Is the name as prevalent as calling the Yankee Division Highway as Highway 128, even though it has also been part of Interstate 93 and 95 since the mid-1970's?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:24:30 PM
How many people call the stretch of Interstate 93 segment of the Southeast Expressway Highway 3? Is the name as prevalent as calling the Yankee Division Highway as Highway 128, even though it has also been part of Interstate 93 and 95 since the mid-1970's?
I think that most people call it I-93.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 19, 2021, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:24:30 PM
How many people call the stretch of Interstate 93 segment of the Southeast Expressway Highway 3? Is the name as prevalent as calling the Yankee Division Highway as Highway 128, even though it has also been part of Interstate 93 and 95 since the mid-1970's?
I think that most people call it I-93.
The Boston highway system to a local:
93: anything from Braintree north into and through Boston
95: Anything south of Canton and north of Peabody
Route 3: Anything southeast of Braintree toward the Cape or north of Burlington toward Lowell and Nashua
128: anything along the 10 mile belt between Braintree and Peabody
And no one
evah calls them "Highway x"
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 19, 2021, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 19, 2021, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:24:30 PM
How many people call the stretch of Interstate 93 segment of the Southeast Expressway Highway 3? Is the name as prevalent as calling the Yankee Division Highway as Highway 128, even though it has also been part of Interstate 93 and 95 since the mid-1970's?
I think that most people call it I-93.
The Boston highway system to a local:
93: anything from Braintree north into and through Boston
95: Anything south of Canton and north of Peabody
Route 3: Anything southeast of Braintree toward the Cape or north of Burlington toward Lowell and Nashua
128: anything along the 10 mile belt between Braintree and Peabody
And no one evah calls them "Highway x"
How about US 3 from Burlington north?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on July 19, 2021, 06:01:06 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 19, 2021, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 19, 2021, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:24:30 PM
How many people call the stretch of Interstate 93 segment of the Southeast Expressway Highway 3? Is the name as prevalent as calling the Yankee Division Highway as Highway 128, even though it has also been part of Interstate 93 and 95 since the mid-1970's?
I think that most people call it I-93.
The Boston highway system to a local:
93: anything from Braintree north into and through Boston
95: Anything south of Canton and north of Peabody
Route 3: Anything southeast of Braintree toward the Cape or north of Burlington toward Lowell and Nashua
128: anything along the 10 mile belt between Braintree and Peabody
And no one evah calls them "Highway x"
How about US 3 from Burlington north?
ixnay
Route 3.
What I want to know is whether they append "route" to 7, 10, and/or 12, which are the numbers that would determine whether it's one digit or one syllable.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 16, 2021, 11:12:49 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 16, 2021, 09:55:13 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 16, 2021, 09:21:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2021, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2021, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod: ). 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.
Only to appease the people who refuse to call it anything else. IIRC, MA actually tried to remove MA 128 and people vehemently complained.
Roads are to serve the people.
So what's the endpoint? Should there have been no interstate numbers, just US route numbers and state route numbers and maybe a smaller symbol meaning "this road meets interstate standards"? Should there be interstate numbers but always signed with the previous US or state route number?
Are there other interstates that are mostly known by the other numbers?
Sacramento I-305 is mainly known as the western terminus of US-50 from the I-80 interchange to the CA-51/CA-99 interchange.
Quote from: bing101 on July 19, 2021, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 16, 2021, 11:12:49 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 16, 2021, 09:55:13 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 16, 2021, 09:21:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2021, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2021, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 15, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod: ). 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.
Only to appease the people who refuse to call it anything else. IIRC, MA actually tried to remove MA 128 and people vehemently complained.
Roads are to serve the people.
So what's the endpoint? Should there have been no interstate numbers, just US route numbers and state route numbers and maybe a smaller symbol meaning "this road meets interstate standards"? Should there be interstate numbers but always signed with the previous US or state route number?
Are there other interstates that are mostly known by the other numbers?
Sacramento I-305 is mainly known as the western terminus of US-50 from the I-80 interchange to the CA-51/CA-99 interchange.
It's unsigned, I was more looking for signed interstates.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 19, 2021, 06:43:28 PM
Quote from: ixnay on July 19, 2021, 06:01:06 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 19, 2021, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 19, 2021, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:24:30 PM
How many people call the stretch of Interstate 93 segment of the Southeast Expressway Highway 3? Is the name as prevalent as calling the Yankee Division Highway as Highway 128, even though it has also been part of Interstate 93 and 95 since the mid-1970's?
I think that most people call it I-93.
The Boston highway system to a local:
93: anything from Braintree north into and through Boston
95: Anything south of Canton and north of Peabody
Route 3: Anything southeast of Braintree toward the Cape or north of Burlington toward Lowell and Nashua
128: anything along the 10 mile belt between Braintree and Peabody
And no one evah calls them "Highway x"
How about US 3 from Burlington north?
ixnay
Route 3.
Isn't 93 mostly used to refer to the section from Boston/Sommerville and north?
It seems like South of the O'Neill Tunnel to Braintree is frequently just called the Expressway.
Quote from: DrSmith on July 19, 2021, 11:50:44 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 19, 2021, 06:43:28 PM
Quote from: ixnay on July 19, 2021, 06:01:06 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 19, 2021, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 19, 2021, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:24:30 PM
How many people call the stretch of Interstate 93 segment of the Southeast Expressway Highway 3? Is the name as prevalent as calling the Yankee Division Highway as Highway 128, even though it has also been part of Interstate 93 and 95 since the mid-1970's?
I think that most people call it I-93.
The Boston highway system to a local:
93: anything from Braintree north into and through Boston
95: Anything south of Canton and north of Peabody
Route 3: Anything southeast of Braintree toward the Cape or north of Burlington toward Lowell and Nashua
128: anything along the 10 mile belt between Braintree and Peabody
And no one evah calls them "Highway x"
How about US 3 from Burlington north?
ixnay
Route 3.
Isn't 93 mostly used to refer to the section from Boston/Sommerville and north?
It seems like South of the O'Neill Tunnel to Braintree is frequently just called the Expressway.
I know that my family calls all of I-93 "I-93" with 128 starting in Canton.
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 15, 2021, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 14, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 14, 2021, 04:03:10 AM
^ 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 :nod:). 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.
Most of the pre-YDH 128 is from about Needham (near MA 135) to Peabody (intersection of Washington & Main Sts.) is still present. Most of the old stretches of
old 128 below Needham was obliterated when the highway version (MassDPW called it
The New Rte. 128 in its roadmaps) was constructed in the mid-1950s.
Idea for a Greater Boston area Road Meet Tour perhaps? :hmmm:
FWIW & according to Wikipedia (based on some old 1951 USGS quad sheets) , there was a very short-lived MA 128A designation for the Woburn to Wakefield stretch that paralleled the then-brand new highway.
As far as placing/re-establishing MA 128 along its pre-highway stretches that are still around is concerned: the navigation issues have more to do with the potential of increased thru-truck traffic along those roads more than anything else. Some stretches
may have had thru-truck restrictions/prohibitions placed well after the MA 128 designations were dropped. Re-establishing
any route number for such stretches would mean that the road would have to be able to/receive thru-truck traffic. Many of the residents along the road may not be too happy with such.
That said, I would be in favor of either re-establishing the pre-highway MA 128 from Needham to Wakefield/S. Lynnfield or at least have the stretch marked with ceremonial brown
HISTORIC 128 markers similar to what brown historic US route markers.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 19, 2021, 11:55:52 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on July 19, 2021, 11:50:44 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 19, 2021, 06:43:28 PM
Quote from: ixnay on July 19, 2021, 06:01:06 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 19, 2021, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 19, 2021, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:24:30 PM
How many people call the stretch of Interstate 93 segment of the Southeast Expressway Highway 3? Is the name as prevalent as calling the Yankee Division Highway as Highway 128, even though it has also been part of Interstate 93 and 95 since the mid-1970's?
I think that most people call it I-93.
The Boston highway system to a local:
93: anything from Braintree north into and through Boston
95: Anything south of Canton and north of Peabody
Route 3: Anything southeast of Braintree toward the Cape or north of Burlington toward Lowell and Nashua
128: anything along the 10 mile belt between Braintree and Peabody
And no one evah calls them "Highway x"
How about US 3 from Burlington north?
ixnay
Route 3.
Isn't 93 mostly used to refer to the section from Boston/Sommerville and north?
It seems like South of the O'Neill Tunnel to Braintree is frequently just called the Expressway.
I know that my family calls all of I-93 "I-93" with 128 starting in Canton.
I believe this was brought up several pages back. That stretch of I-93 was originally
just the Southeast Expressway & had no route number along it. The stretch south of Neponset Circle/Granite Ave. (MA 3A & 203 respectively) received the MA 3 designation circa 1962. The stretch north of there received it circa 1971; MA 203 was part of MA 3 pre-1971.
When the Southwest Expressway plan for I-95 was cancelled; the initial de-facto plan was to run I-95 along the Southeast Expressway. Rand McNally even jumped the gun and showed I-95 shield labels along the Southeast Expressway in one or two of their Metropolitan Boston road maps even though no I-95 signs were erected along the Expressway at the time. That plan was changed to the current one, with I-93 running along the Southeast Expressway, when the decision not to build I-95 through Saugus & Lynn was made roughly 2 years later.
Unlike the 128 situation; the Southeast Expressway scenario reinforces what
I mentioned earlier & multiple times. A highway commonly identified/associated by its name as opposed to a number can change its route numbers and/or have many route numbers along it and very few would notice.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 21, 2021, 11:17:33 PM
A highway commonly identified/associated by its name as opposed to a number can change its route numbers and/or have many route numbers along it and very few would notice.
Like Black Horse Pike in South Jersey, which is (depending on the section) NJ 168, NJ 42, US 322, or US 40/322.
ixnay