Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[Duke87]

Seriously, MassDoT should just come in, say "Route 6 is unsafe as it is, so we're making these changes, and you don't get a say".

Except... we don't live in a dictatorship and that's not how things work.

The law requires community input on projects. Were MassDOT to attempt to bypass this requirement, they'd be stopped in court. Were MassDOT to solicit community input and then summarily ignore it, people would start complaining to their elected officials and the folks in charge at MassDOT would be told to listen to the community input or lose their jobs.

I'm sure some folks at the DOT would love in numerous instances to just push improvements through without having to care about or deal with what the locals think... if it were possible to just ignore the complaints and tell the locals tough shit, it would happen. There's a reason it doesn't.

[SectorZ]

Seriously, MassDoT should just come in, say "Route 6 is unsafe as it is, so we're making these changes, and you don't get a say".

Except... we don't live in a dictatorship and that's not how things work.

The law requires community input on projects. Were MassDOT to attempt to bypass this requirement, they'd be stopped in court. Were MassDOT to solicit community input and then summarily ignore it, people would start complaining to their elected officials and the folks in charge at MassDOT would be told to listen to the community input or lose their jobs.

I'm sure some folks at the DOT would love in numerous instances to just push improvements through without having to care about or deal with what the locals think... if it were possible to just ignore the complaints and tell the locals tough shit, it would happen. There's a reason it doesn't.

Safety should never be diminished due to public whining.

[DJ Particle]

Seriously, MassDoT should just come in, say "Route 6 is unsafe as it is, so we're making these changes, and you don't get a say".

Except... we don't live in a dictatorship and that's not how things work.

The law requires community input on projects. Were MassDOT to attempt to bypass this requirement, they'd be stopped in court. Were MassDOT to solicit community input and then summarily ignore it, people would start complaining to their elected officials and the folks in charge at MassDOT would be told to listen to the community input or lose their jobs.

I'm sure some folks at the DOT would love in numerous instances to just push improvements through without having to care about or deal with what the locals think... if it were possible to just ignore the complaints and tell the locals tough shit, it would happen. There's a reason it doesn't.

Except...it's effectively what the USACE is telling locals about the bridge rebuilding, so there is precedent.

Also, as stated above, public safety should never take a back seat to locals whining about aesthetics.  "Suicide Alley", for example, is notorious for head-on collisions and has been since it was finished (to its current state) in 1958.  The restructuring of the stretch in 1989 (and subsequent widening in 1992) alleviated the issue somewhat, but there are still far too many head-ons there, and it's all because locals won't approve expanding it to a proper freeway.

How much more blood needs to be on Codders' hands before they finally give up?

[Duke87]

Except...it's effectively what the USACE is telling locals about the bridge rebuilding, so there is precedent.

USACE has the benefit of being a military entity and under the purview of the federal, rather than state, government. This insulates them from local interference to a much greater degree.

If the locals don't like what MassDOT wants to do, they can start calling up their state reps/state senators who may have the clout to move legislation to stop MassDOT, and failing that the folks on Cape Cod can make enough of a stink that the governor might step in because it's important to keep their votes.

If the locals don't like what USACE wants to do, well they can call their reps or senators in Washington but they've probably got bigger fish to fry than this and, if nothing else, would have a tough time getting enough support to pass legislation stopping USACE considering that most of the support would have to come from people representing other states who aren't impacted by this. And the president isn't going to step in because this is not a sufficiently significant matter to be worth his concern.

Also, as stated above, public safety should never take a back seat to locals whining about aesthetics.

I don't disagree, but the locals whining about aesthetics are entitled to their say. And it's an oversimplification to paint this as a simple matter of aesthetics vs. safety - there are numerous other issues at play: cost, environmental impacts, impact on traffic on other roadways, etc.

[DJ Particle]

Also, as stated above, public safety should never take a back seat to locals whining about aesthetics.

I don't disagree, but the locals whining about aesthetics are entitled to their say. And it's an oversimplification to paint this as a simple matter of aesthetics vs. safety - there are numerous other issues at play: cost, environmental impacts, impact on traffic on other roadways, etc.

And if those were the reasons they were giving, that would mean something.  As it stands, the only time one of those reasons were given was in the debate on whether to improve up to Exit 85 or 89, and it's because of wetlands in between those 2 exits.  Fine.  But otherwise, all their arguments tend to be "the Cape's character will be forever ruined!"

Sorry if I'm so emotional about this, but I almost lost a great-uncle to a Suicide Alley head-on back in the 1980s, so forgive me if I find it a bit personal.  😔

[roadman]

vdeane:  Are you saying we have had OSS total failures detected through the inspection cycle (things changed a couple of years ago when the funding was centralized in the MO and the need for Regional PINs was greatly reduced)? OSSes get red flags all the time through inspections, but I wasn't aware of any that had to be taken down and totally replaced due to an inspection (which isn't saying much since I was only half out of the loop until more recently)  -- I'm thinking they were because of incidents?

A few years ago I-790 and NY 5 in the Utica area were shut down overnight because overhead signs had to come down within 48 hours of an inspection. There were four or five installations that came down from that inspection alone.

Question.  How old were those structures?

[machias]

vdeane:  Are you saying we have had OSS total failures detected through the inspection cycle (things changed a couple of years ago when the funding was centralized in the MO and the need for Regional PINs was greatly reduced)? OSSes get red flags all the time through inspections, but I wasn't aware of any that had to be taken down and totally replaced due to an inspection (which isn't saying much since I was only half out of the loop until more recently)  -- I'm thinking they were because of incidents?

A few years ago I-790 and NY 5 in the Utica area were shut down overnight because overhead signs had to come down within 48 hours of an inspection. There were four or five installations that came down from that inspection alone.

Question.  How old were those structures?

All installed in 1989.

[roadman]

vdeane:  Are you saying we have had OSS total failures detected through the inspection cycle (things changed a couple of years ago when the funding was centralized in the MO and the need for Regional PINs was greatly reduced)? OSSes get red flags all the time through inspections, but I wasn't aware of any that had to be taken down and totally replaced due to an inspection (which isn't saying much since I was only half out of the loop until more recently)  -- I'm thinking they were because of incidents?

A few years ago I-790 and NY 5 in the Utica area were shut down overnight because overhead signs had to come down within 48 hours of an inspection. There were four or five installations that came down from that inspection alone.

Question.  How old were those structures?

All installed in 1989.

Less than 30 years old, and all in the same area.  Assuming all the structures were fabricated and installed under the same project, methinks there may have been a flaw in the fabricator's original design that went unnoticed during review and didn't fully manifest itself until years later.

[bob7374]

Media report related to last night's first MassDOT public meeting about exit renumbering in Springfield. Notice the completion date mentioned is 2022, not 2021 (Notice also that they say I-91 will change first, but use the map of I-90 exit numbers):
https://www.wwlp.com/news/local-news/hampden-county/i-91-highway-exit-numbers-to-be-the-first-to-change-in-2020-project/

[AMLNet49]

However, between Neponset and Somerville (including the O'Neill Tunnel), the interchanges are closer together enough to warrant suffixed interchange numbers along the way.  As a result, I-93's mile-marker-based interchange numbers north of Neponset would numerically decrease from their current sequential ones.  Examples: the current Exits 37A-B (I-95/MA 128) interchange in Reading/Woburn would likely become Exits 28A-B.  The northernmost interchange in MA, Exit 48 (MA 213) would likely become Exit 46.

The fact that I-93 in Massachusetts has "more" exit numbers than miles makes absolutely no sense!  And why did MassDOT assign "Exit 1B" for traffic going from Canton to Dedham?  Yes, they're going from 93 south to 95/128 north, but they don't exit the highway, they just travel in a straight line!

Sorry to bump this but it is an exit because it is technically a ramp while the 95 loop is the mainline. It’s simply a very wide and straight ramp. I gave massdot a standing ovation when they numbered that, I am a huge advocate of this practice. Mainlines should never be labeled as exits, and any change of road number where there is a choice present (hell even if the split off to the right was to a local road instead of 95 south) should have each choice, including the “mainline” be labeled as an exit.

Massdot got it right in a similar fashion at US6/3 in Bourne where the “mainline” is labeled an exit for 3 north and a loop ramp for 6 is labeled as the mainline.

However they still have yet to apply this to MA 25 North or I-495 South where they converge with I-195, and if it was up to me it would apply at 290/395, where not only should the numbers reset at the MassPike, but for example on 290 south, both 90 and the “mainline” continuation of 395 should be given exit numbers

Signing of exits/routes should be strictly de jure

If you couldn’t tell I’m not a big fan of unsigned interstates, although the one fudging I do like are “faux” interstates where the state can’t get funding for full interstate conversion but slap an interstat number on anyway, I like that because it promotes continuity of the network, and I’d be down to see more like Rhode Island used to do with their fake white “RI”-195 shields way back when, but other than that it should be strictly de jure

[MikeTheActuary]

Why doesn't all of New England just adopt mile based exit numbering? 40+ states have done this, why are the other ten or so still behind?

1.  Do you want to pay for the change (both signage and business advertising)?
2.  In portions of New England, sequentially-numbered exits are already almost 1 mile apart.  My exit off of I-91 is exit 40; I don't know that changing it to Exit 48 conveys materially useful new information.

[PHLBOS]

However, between Neponset and Somerville (including the O'Neill Tunnel), the interchanges are closer together enough to warrant suffixed interchange numbers along the way.  As a result, I-93's mile-marker-based interchange numbers north of Neponset would numerically decrease from their current sequential ones.  Examples: the current Exits 37A-B (I-95/MA 128) interchange in Reading/Woburn would likely become Exits 28A-B.  The northernmost interchange in MA, Exit 48 (MA 213) would likely become Exit 46.

The fact that I-93 in Massachusetts has "more" exit numbers than miles makes absolutely no sense!  And why did MassDOT assign "Exit 1B" for traffic going from Canton to Dedham?  Yes, they're going from 93 south to 95/128 north, but they don't exit the highway, they just travel in a straight line!

Sorry to bump this but it is an exit because it is technically a ramp while the 95 loop is the mainline. It's simply a very wide and straight ramp. I gave massdot a standing ovation when they numbered that, I am a huge advocate of this practice. Mainlines should never be labeled as exits, and any change of road number where there is a choice present (hell even if the split off to the right was to a local road instead of 95 south) should have each choice, including the "mainline"  be labeled as an exit. Massdot got it right in a similar fashion at US6/3 in Bourne where the "mainline"  is labeled an exit for 3 north and a loop ramp for 6 is labeled as the mainline. However they still have yet to apply this to MA 25 North or I-495 South where they converge with I-195

I hate to bust your bubble here but had you scrolled down a tad when your found that old post; you would found my detailed, 2-part reply to kramie13's post some 3 days later that mentioned MassDOT's reasoning for adding that left EXIT tab (reposted below, note the 2nd-to-last paragraph, bold emphasis added):

However, between Neponset and Somerville (including the O'Neill Tunnel), the interchanges are closer together enough to warrant suffixed interchange numbers along the way.  As a result, I-93's mile-marker-based interchange numbers north of Neponset would numerically decrease from their current sequential ones.  Examples: the current Exits 37A-B (I-95/MA 128) interchange in Reading/Woburn would likely become Exits 28A-B.  The northernmost interchange in MA, Exit 48 (MA 213) would likely become Exit 46.

The fact that I-93 in Massachusetts has "more" exit numbers than miles makes absolutely no sense!

One needs to remember that those sequential numbers were set back when the Central Artery was still around & fully operational (circa 1987).  Here's what the numbers were pre-Big-Dig between Mass Ave. (Exit 18) to US 1 North (Exit 27):

Exit 19: Albany St.- southbound exit only (leaves I-93 southbound mainline with Exit 20 ramp)
Exit 20: I-90 West/Mass Pike (access to South Station/Kneeland St. from northbound exit ramp)
Exit 21: Kneeland St./Chinatown - southbound exit only
Exit 22: Atlantic Ave./Northern Ave. (northbound)/South Station (southbound)
Exit 23: High St./Congress St. - southbound exit only
Exit 24: MA 1A North/Callahan Tunnel/Logan Airport
Exit 25: Causeway St./North End (northbound)/Haymarket Square (southbound)
Exit 26: MA 3 North to MA 28/North Station/Storrow Drive

Another thing to keep in mind that when the Central Artery/South Station Tunnel originally opened; there were additional ramps present (& open) as well.  Most of them were closed off/removed during the 1970s.

Since MA traditionally only uses suffixed numbers for either multiple ramps at one interchange or for a new interchange built between two existing ones; the sequential exit numbers can increase very quickly when several interchanges are located close together.

And why did MassDOT assign "Exit 1B" for traffic going from Canton to Dedham?  Yes, they're going from 93 south to 95/128 north, but they don't exit the highway, they just travel in a straight line!

Those EXIT 1B tabs were recent add-ons.  The signs were up for just over a year(?) prior to such being added.  MassDOT's rationale, despite this particular interchange's history (such was once through-128), for adding such was indeed due to the change in primary (Interstate) route number at this location. 

Had 128 been fully truncated to the I-95/MA 128 interchange in Peabody; a similar left exit tabs would've been placed on the through 95 SOUTH Waltham signs.

Suggestion & from personal experience: when replying to an older, months-old in this case, post; it's good practice to scroll further down to see whether or not someone else already answered/addressed such.  When I see an older post that nobody recently answered/commented on; I typically scroll down to see if such was indeed already answered/addressed earlier.  If I have nothing to further add or expand upon; I'll just not bother replying.

Why doesn't all of New England just adopt mile based exit numbering? 40+ states have done this, why are the other ten or so still behind?

1.  Do you want to pay for the change (both signage and business advertising)?
2.  In portions of New England, sequentially-numbered exits are already almost 1 mile apart.  My exit off of I-91 is exit 40; I don't know that changing it to Exit 48 conveys materially useful new information.

No offense but are you aware that you're replying to a 4+ year-old post?  See the above-suggestion.

[jp the roadgeek]

However, between Neponset and Somerville (including the O'Neill Tunnel), the interchanges are closer together enough to warrant suffixed interchange numbers along the way.  As a result, I-93's mile-marker-based interchange numbers north of Neponset would numerically decrease from their current sequential ones.  Examples: the current Exits 37A-B (I-95/MA 128) interchange in Reading/Woburn would likely become Exits 28A-B.  The northernmost interchange in MA, Exit 48 (MA 213) would likely become Exit 46.

The fact that I-93 in Massachusetts has "more" exit numbers than miles makes absolutely no sense!  And why did MassDOT assign "Exit 1B" for traffic going from Canton to Dedham?  Yes, they're going from 93 south to 95/128 north, but they don't exit the highway, they just travel in a straight line!

Sorry to bump this but it is an exit because it is technically a ramp while the 95 loop is the mainline. It's simply a very wide and straight ramp. I gave massdot a standing ovation when they numbered that, I am a huge advocate of this practice. Mainlines should never be labeled as exits, and any change of road number where there is a choice present (hell even if the split off to the right was to a local road instead of 95 south) should have each choice, including the "mainline"  be labeled as an exit.

Massdot got it right in a similar fashion at US6/3 in Bourne where the "mainline"  is labeled an exit for 3 north and a loop ramp for 6 is labeled as the mainline.

However they still have yet to apply this to MA 25 North or I-495 South where they converge with I-195, and if it was up to me it would apply at 290/395, where not only should the numbers reset at the MassPike, but for example on 290 south, both 90 and the "mainline"  continuation of 395 should be given exit numbers

Signing of exits/routes should be strictly de jure

If you couldn't tell I'm not a big fan of unsigned interstates, although the one fudging I do like are "faux"  interstates where the state can't get funding for full interstate conversion but slap an interstat number on anyway, I like that because it promotes continuity of the network, and I'd be down to see more like Rhode Island used to do with their fake white "RI" -195 shields way back when, but other than that it should be strictly de jure

Technically, the 95/93 Canton exits are at the end of the mainline, and MassDOT is pretty inconsistent as to whether or not the end of mainline ramps are numbered.  I-190 is a strange example where the north end ramps to MA 2 are numbered, but the south end ramps to I-290 are not.  The ramps at the south ends of I-291 and I-391, the east ends of I-195 and I-290, and the north end of I-295 are numbered, but the ramps to the Mass Pike from I-84 are not.  The ones that really drive me crazy to no end that should not be numbered are the MA 3 ramp to 93 North and the US 3 ramp to I-95/MA 128 North, as each carries mainline Route 3.  CTDOT seems to be moving away from numbering endpoints where they are numbered (most are not); the north end of CT 9 at I-84 will no longer be numbered in a signing project next year. RIDOT typically does not number endpoint ramps.  The I-195 ramps to I-95 are not numbered (the NB ramp carries mainline US 6), nor is the west end of RI 403 at RI 4 or the west end of the TF Green Connector at I-95.  However, the east end of RI 37 at US 1 is. 

[DJ Particle]

Massdot got it right in a similar fashion at US6/3 in Bourne where the "mainline"  is labeled an exit for 3 north and a loop ramp for 6 is labeled as the mainline.

Not anymore.  According to mile markers, MA-3 now starts just barely south of that interchange, making MA-3 the mainline at that exit.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7792915,-70.5430228,3a,50.7y,10.15h,89.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb72YR7Idk3-4dK81YcG3rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[MikeTheActuary]

No offense but are you aware that you're replying to a 4+ year-old post?  See the above-suggestion.

Actually, I missed that.   The challenge of the "new posts" function in a forum where very-long running threads are bumped up from time to time....

Mea culpa.

[PHLBOS]

Technically, the 95/93 Canton exits are at the end of the mainline.

Even though the Add-A-Lane project is completed; those stretches of I-95 & I-93 that were widened don't have any mile markers (re)erected yet... at least as of 2018 through Westwood/Canton/Randolph.  Nonetheless, it's a reasonable assumption that I-93's southern terminus (aka MM 0.0) is located where I-95 southbound leaves the Yankee Division Highway corridor in this vicinity, which is probably MA 128's official southern terminus is as well.

At present, the only mile marker that's out there is along I-95 northbound (MM 26.0) just past the I-93 northbound exit.

Observation while looking at this area via GSV: I-95 shield on this northbound pull-through sign was replaced sometime in 2018 but its neighboring I-93 shield on the neighboring sign was not even though it's completely faded/washed out.

[southshore720]

The faded I-93 button copy shield has finally been replaced at Exit 12.  They've even started replacing the faded button-copy shields on the diagrammatic advance BGS's, but did not complete the job.  There is one BGS that has a new I-95 and an old I-93 button copy...I want to say at the 1 mile sign.

[bob7374]

Technically, the 95/93 Canton exits are at the end of the mainline.

Even though the Add-A-Lane project is completed; those stretches of I-95 & I-93 that were widened don't have any mile markers (re)erected yet... at least as of 2018 through Westwood/Canton/Randolph.  Nonetheless, it's a reasonable assumption that I-93's southern terminus (aka MM 0.0) is located where I-95 southbound leaves the Yankee Division Highway corridor in this vicinity, which is probably MA 128's official southern terminus is as well.

At present, the only mile marker that's out there is along I-95 northbound (MM 26.0) just past the I-93 northbound exit.

Observation while looking at this area via GSV: I-95 shield on this northbound pull-through sign was replaced sometime in 2018 but its neighboring I-93 shield on the neighboring sign was not even though it's completely faded/washed out.

There are still no mile markers between Randolph and Westwood as of last month. Perhaps the exit renumbering project will encourage those to be put up finally. They did put ones up in the Needham area when the last part of the Add-A-Lane project was completed. I'll plan to checkout the new shields in the Canton area the next time through.

[DJ Particle]

Nonetheless, it's a reasonable assumption that I-93's southern terminus (aka MM 0.0) is located where I-95 southbound leaves the Yankee Division Highway corridor in this vicinity, which is probably MA 128's official southern terminus is as well.

The "END [128]" sign is here.  Dunno how much it means though...

[PHLBOS]

The "END [128]" sign is here.  Dunno how much it means though...

In general, END XXX signs aren't always placed at the actual route's terminus; so, no that sign is [/I]not[/I] at 128's official end point... which would probably be at the gore just beyond.

Many states tend to be fast-and-loose on this... especially at non-highway termini.  Here's a more blatant example not too far from where I reside vs. PA 420's actual terminus at PA 320 some roughly 800 feet beyond the END 420 sign.

[PHLBOS]

I received some feedback from MassDOT regarding whether the ramps from I-84 eastbound to I-90 will be signed as Exits 7 A/B; here's the reply.

Thank you for your comment. Your suggestion is noted. When the projects to convert the Massachusetts Turnpike/I-90 to all electronic tolling and demolish the existing toll plazas were in design, it was decided at that time to not add exit numbers for the entrance ramps from I-84 to the Turnpike. At this point, adding exit number panels to the current signs, which were recently replaced with new panels on new support structures, may not be feasible if the structures cannot safely accommodate the additional loading that would result from new exit panels.

Here is my follow-up reply:

Thank you for getting back to me on this matter.  While I certainly can understand not assigning exit numbers to the I-84 ramps to I-90 per se prior to the exit number conversion when the signs were first erected; however, the "new sign structures not being able to support the exit tabs" argument falls flat IMHO because there are plenty of other sign gantries throughout the Bay State that feature large panels (although signs are diagrammatic vs. arrow-per-lane (APL)) as well as accompanying exit tabs.  If the particular APL gantries along I-84 indeed weren't designed to have a couple of comparatively small (with respect to the overall main sign panel size) exit tabs; than those gantries weren't properly designed to begin with.  It's also worth noting that the sign panels above the split-gore itself are still the older 90s vintage ones.  Will such be replaced in the foreseeable future?

A basically polite way of saying that the sign gantry structure design being the reason for not adding exit tabs is a lame excuse.

[bob7374]

I received some feedback from MassDOT regarding whether the ramps from I-84 eastbound to I-90 will be signed as Exits 7 A/B; here's the reply.

Thank you for your comment. Your suggestion is noted. When the projects to convert the Massachusetts Turnpike/I-90 to all electronic tolling and demolish the existing toll plazas were in design, it was decided at that time to not add exit numbers for the entrance ramps from I-84 to the Turnpike. At this point, adding exit number panels to the current signs, which were recently replaced with new panels on new support structures, may not be feasible if the structures cannot safely accommodate the additional loading that would result from new exit panels.

Here is my follow-up reply:

Thank you for getting back to me on this matter.  While I certainly can understand not assigning exit numbers to the I-84 ramps to I-90 per se prior to the exit number conversion when the signs were first erected; however, the "new sign structures not being able to support the exit tabs" argument falls flat IMHO because there are plenty of other sign gantries throughout the Bay State that feature large panels (although signs are diagrammatic vs. arrow-per-lane (APL)) as well as accompanying exit tabs.  If the particular APL gantries along I-84 indeed weren't designed to have a couple of comparatively small (with respect to the overall main sign panel size) exit tabs; than those gantries weren't properly designed to begin with.  It's also worth noting that the sign panels above the split-gore itself are still the older 90s vintage ones.  Will such be replaced in the foreseeable future?

A basically polite way of saying that the sign gantry structure design being the reason for not adding exit tabs is a lame excuse.

Agree that the excuse is quite flimsy. If the sign structure would truly not tolerate adding an exit tab on top, you could put it on the support posts, you could still make new gore signs with the number, and, as you indicated, the last sign structure prior to the ramp split still has not been replaced under the I-90 sign replacement project, so those signs could be installed with exit tabs. Meanwhile, they have not updated the I-95 exit list with the reversal they said they would do with the I-90 and MA 30 exit letters but did correct the I-93 one so that its now US 1 that is Exit 27. They still refer to the Mass Ave. exit as Frontage Road, though.

The last of their December public meetings is set for tonight in Worcester. The next one is Jan. 23 in Lowell, hopefully they will have one in or to the south of Boston too in Feb or later.

[SectorZ]

I received some feedback from MassDOT regarding whether the ramps from I-84 eastbound to I-90 will be signed as Exits 7 A/B; here's the reply.

Thank you for your comment. Your suggestion is noted. When the projects to convert the Massachusetts Turnpike/I-90 to all electronic tolling and demolish the existing toll plazas were in design, it was decided at that time to not add exit numbers for the entrance ramps from I-84 to the Turnpike. At this point, adding exit number panels to the current signs, which were recently replaced with new panels on new support structures, may not be feasible if the structures cannot safely accommodate the additional loading that would result from new exit panels.

Here is my follow-up reply:

Thank you for getting back to me on this matter.  While I certainly can understand not assigning exit numbers to the I-84 ramps to I-90 per se prior to the exit number conversion when the signs were first erected; however, the "new sign structures not being able to support the exit tabs" argument falls flat IMHO because there are plenty of other sign gantries throughout the Bay State that feature large panels (although signs are diagrammatic vs. arrow-per-lane (APL)) as well as accompanying exit tabs.  If the particular APL gantries along I-84 indeed weren't designed to have a couple of comparatively small (with respect to the overall main sign panel size) exit tabs; than those gantries weren't properly designed to begin with.  It's also worth noting that the sign panels above the split-gore itself are still the older 90s vintage ones.  Will such be replaced in the foreseeable future?

A basically polite way of saying that the sign gantry structure design being the reason for not adding exit tabs is a lame excuse.

I feel that every response on rather simple fixes/requests has been met with rather strange excuses. I imagine they're just sick of any questions about it because of what the Cape residents are like.

[Duke87]

So I ended up submitting my own comment to MassDOT on another... inconsistency in their plans:

I am curious as to why exits 1A and 1B on Route 6 are not proposed to be changed. Based on route 6 mileage, shouldn't these be renumbered to 54B and 54A? Otherwise there is an awkward jump from 55 to 1 in only a mile.

Let's see if they have an answer for that!

Got an answer and it's... predictable:

Thank you for your comment. At the Sagamore Bridge, New Exits 1A and 1B are based on the Route 3 mileposts. Because MassDOT is not adopting the Exit 0 designation for exits, these exit numbers will stay the same as present. New Exits 55 is based on the Route 6 mileposts, which begin at the Rhode Island border in Seekonk and ascend from west to east to the end of Route 6 in Provincetown.

This is dumb since both exits 1A and 1B in the westbound direction are exits from Route 6 - not from route 3. But I'm not going to be a pest about it.

I received some feedback from MassDOT regarding whether the ramps from I-84 eastbound to I-90 will be signed as Exits 7 A/B; here's the reply.

Thank you for your comment. Your suggestion is noted. When the projects to convert the Massachusetts Turnpike/I-90 to all electronic tolling and demolish the existing toll plazas were in design, it was decided at that time to not add exit numbers for the entrance ramps from I-84 to the Turnpike. At this point, adding exit number panels to the current signs, which were recently replaced with new panels on new support structures, may not be feasible if the structures cannot safely accommodate the additional loading that would result from new exit panels.

The bit about loading is a bit excusey - this just means no one has or wants to do the work to look into whether the gantry could support the extra weight.

On the other hand I agree in principle with not having exit numbers here - terminal interchanges do not need exit numbers for the terminating route.

[Ben114]

I asked about the fudging on I-290 through Worcester (especially with proposed exits 18, 19, and 20 all being within one mile).

On the topic of I-290, why are proposed exits 18 and 20 (currently 14 and 16) not going to be exits 18A and 18C, respectively, with Shrewsbury Street (currently exit 15) being exit 18B, since all three exits are within one mile?

They got back to me.

To minimize possible driver confusion, the proposed exit numbering on all highways under this project will use the A/B/C scheme only to denote exits that serve both directions of a route or street from separate ramps on the highway (such as I-495 at Route 9 in Marlborough); to denote multiple exits accessed by a collector-distributor road off the highway (such as the exit from I-495 to US 3 and the Lowell Connector in Chelmsford; or to denote separate exits that are so closely spaced apart that assigning separate numbers is impractical (such as Southampton Street and Frontage Road on I-93 northbound in Boston).

To consistently apply this standard statewide, it is necessary on some routes, such as I-290 through Worcester, to adjust the proposed numbers in certain areas from the normal rounding conventions. These deviations have been minimized so that the overall numbering will "catch up"  to the mile markers in a short distance.

Any thoughts? Looks to me that they want to try to get out of the true mile-based system with these sequential segments.