Regional Boards > Northeast

Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

<< < (273/275) > >>

vdeane:

--- Quote from: bob7374 on October 21, 2021, 03:57:11 PM ---
--- Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2021, 09:57:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2021, 11:57:44 AM ---- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder

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


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

--- End quote ---

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

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

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

mrsman:

--- Quote from: vdeane on October 21, 2021, 08:20:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: bob7374 on October 21, 2021, 03:57:11 PM ---
--- Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2021, 09:57:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2021, 11:57:44 AM ---- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder

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


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

--- End quote ---

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

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

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

--- End quote ---

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

Alps:

--- Quote from: mrsman on October 22, 2021, 05:13:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: vdeane on October 21, 2021, 08:20:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: bob7374 on October 21, 2021, 03:57:11 PM ---
--- Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2021, 09:57:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2021, 11:57:44 AM ---- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder

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


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

--- End quote ---

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

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

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

--- End quote ---

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



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

mrsman:

--- Quote from: Alps on October 23, 2021, 12:08:12 AM ---
--- Quote from: mrsman on October 22, 2021, 05:13:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: vdeane on October 21, 2021, 08:20:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: bob7374 on October 21, 2021, 03:57:11 PM ---
--- Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2021, 09:57:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2021, 11:57:44 AM ---- An interpretation of the FHWA regs would also require that the exit numbers match the milepost numbers that are posted along the shoulder

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


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

--- End quote ---

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

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

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

--- End quote ---

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



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

--- End quote ---

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

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



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

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version