Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[vdeane]

I'd just keep the renumbering on US 6.  As far as I've read, the main complaint was with the overhead signs; the exit numbers were practically a footnote, at least until the media started blowing up this issue.  I don't want to see MA become another PA (with mile-based numbers on the interstates but retaining sequential everywhere else).

[PHLBOS]

As far as I've read, the main complaint was with the overhead signs; the exit numbers were practically a footnote, at least until the media started blowing up this issue.

With regards to the signs; as a compromise, I would say maintain the ground-mounted signs along the undivided super-2 stretch but go with overheads along the divided stretch.

[AMLNet49]

In an ideal world exit number changes should be redone to anchor point 0 at MA 3. But that's not logistically possible given that the mile markers corresponding to Seekonk are already standing. Any mileage based exits would have to come from an anchor point in Seekonk, which makes the numbers very random. It'll be interesting to see how this exit number thing plays out, it looks more and more like some kind of process is going to play out.

The part of the project I think I like the most is the fact that the plan is to put exit numbers on several routes that don't have them currently. If non-Interstates do not end up getting their numbers changed, would numbers still be added? Most likely not I would think.

[shadyjay]

The part of the project I think I like the most is the fact that the plan is to put exit numbers on several routes that don't have them currently. If non-Interstates do not end up getting their numbers changed, would numbers still be added? Most likely not I would think.

I still can't believe US 1 isn't getting exit numbers, especially the stretch from Boston up to 128/95.

[vdeane]

As far as I've read, the main complaint was with the overhead signs; the exit numbers were practically a footnote, at least until the media started blowing up this issue.

With regards to the signs; as a compromise, I would say maintain the ground-mounted signs along the undivided super-2 stretch but go with overheads along the divided stretch.

Honestly, I do have to agree with the NIMBYs one one thing: the overhead signs ARE excessive.  It DOES destroy the rural character of the freeway (overhead signs mean urban/suburban).

[cl94]

The number of overhead signs in Massachusetts is excessive. Plenty of cases where a ground-mounted sign would suffice. Granted, I think the NYSDOT/NYSTA approach (use overhead only if ROW is limited) is a bit extreme in the other direction.

[Alps]

The part of the project I think I like the most is the fact that the plan is to put exit numbers on several routes that don't have them currently. If non-Interstates do not end up getting their numbers changed, would numbers still be added? Most likely not I would think.

I still can't believe US 1 isn't getting exit numbers, especially the stretch from Boston up to 128/95.

The only freeway-grade section of 1 goes to the MA 60 circle, though it's extremely substandard. I think it's less confusing to keep the signs as is for the several closely spaced exits there. Some states go to the extreme of posting every number that is an exit, even if the road isn't a freeway. To me, that's a misinterpretation of the MUTCD.

[shadyjay]

The number of overhead signs in Massachusetts is excessive. Plenty of cases where a ground-mounted sign would suffice.

Yup, like all of I-90 west of 128, I-84, and I-395.  And the new overheads on I-91 from the VT line south to Northampton just look strange to me.  I understand it improves visibility of the sign and eliminates having to cut growth around the signs, but it seems like more to maintain (the structure itself).  CT is going the other way, moving signs to ground level, and not just in rural areas either. 

[Duke87]

Honestly, I do have to agree with the NIMBYs one one thing: the overhead signs ARE excessive.  It DOES destroy the rural character of the freeway (overhead signs mean urban/suburban).

Or cloverleaf. The MUTCD requires overhead signage from a freeway at a cloverleaf, so current exit 9 HAS to have overhead signs installed or it is not compliant.

Of course it's also not compliant if the numbers are sequential. Let's see if that stops them from defying the standard.

I don't understand all this butthurt over no public notice about the exit number changes. I don't see why a great deal of public notice would be required anyway. I'm sure the signage contracts were advertised the way MassDOT normally advertises a project.

Lack of public notice isn't the actual complaint, if there were public notice people would complain just as hard. The issue is that people in New England really really don't like change, and renumbering every exit in the state is the sort of thing that is going to cause people to flip out no matter how you break the news to them.

[PHLBOS]

CT is going the other way, moving signs to ground level, and not just in rural areas either.

Given the number of trucks that use many of those highways; the probability of ground-mounted signs being blocked by such traffic, especially if the highway in question has 3 or more lanes in one direction, is greater.  Ground-mounted signs on 4-laners, though not completely ideal, is one thing; ground-mounted signs (primary ones for exits) along 6+ lane highways, not a good idea from a visibility standpoint.

The issue is that people in New England really really don't like change, and renumbering every exit in the state is the sort of thing that is going to cause people to flip out no matter how you break the news to them.

Having grown up in New England and remember the I-93 & 95 renumbering (which also included the Southeast Expressway, Central Artery & the Interstate-occupied portions of MA 128) that took place in the late 80s very well; I do not recall any ruckus from the Boston media (newspapers articles & TV reports) whatsoever regarding that change.  There was actually more ruckus over the 508 carving into the 617 area code (which coincidentally occurred around the same time) than the I-93/95 exit renumberings.

[AMLNet49]

The part of the project I think I like the most is the fact that the plan is to put exit numbers on several routes that don't have them currently. If non-Interstates do not end up getting their numbers changed, would numbers still be added? Most likely not I would think.

I still can't believe US 1 isn't getting exit numbers, especially the stretch from Boston up to 128/95.

The only freeway-grade section of 1 goes to the MA 60 circle, though it's extremely substandard. I think it's less confusing to keep the signs as is for the several closely spaced exits there. Some states go to the extreme of posting every number that is an exit, even if the road isn't a freeway. To me, that's a misinterpretation of the MUTCD.

And it looks like mileage or sequential, US 1 isn't getting numbers anyway. The expressway parts of MA 28 and 57 are the candidates to have numbers added. Not sure what the future of the idea is though.

[PHLBOS]

The part of the project I think I like the most is the fact that the plan is to put exit numbers on several routes that don't have them currently. If non-Interstates do not end up getting their numbers changed, would numbers still be added? Most likely not I would think.

I still can't believe US 1 isn't getting exit numbers, especially the stretch from Boston up to 128/95.

The only freeway-grade section of 1 goes to the MA 60 circle, though it's extremely substandard. I think it's less confusing to keep the signs as is for the several closely spaced exits there. Some states go to the extreme of posting every number that is an exit, even if the road isn't a freeway. To me, that's a misinterpretation of the MUTCD.

And it looks like mileage or sequential, US 1 isn't getting numbers anyway. The expressway parts of MA 28 and 57 are the candidates to have numbers added. Not sure what the future of the idea is though.

Conversely, the numbered intersections along MA 128 in Gloucester will just have their numbers (Exits 9, 10 & 11) dropped completely (9 & 10 should have been never numbered in the first place IMHO) right when the rest of 128's interchanges are renumbered.

[roadman]

Or cloverleaf. The MUTCD requires overhead signage from a freeway at a cloverleaf, so current exit 9 HAS to have overhead signs installed or it is not compliant.

When current Exit 9 eastbound was changed from a single exit interchange to a double exit interchange several years back, MassHighway originally proposed overhead mounting for the signs at the first exit ramp.  As with the current Route 6 proposal, the Cape Cod Commission shot them down.

[vdeane]

Being opposed to having every sign be overhead in understandable (given MassDOT's stance... will we see overhead tenth mile markers soon? ).  Being opposed to overhead cloverleaf signs is excessive.

I think the reason I tend to associate them with urban/suburban areas is because the situations where NYSDOT installs them (exits with multiple ramps, major freeway/freeway junctions, exit only lanes, and closely spaced exits) tend not to happen in rural areas often, especially since we have the Thruway, even some of the major freeway/freeway junctions are only ground mounted (for double trumpets).

[AMLNet49]

The part of the project I think I like the most is the fact that the plan is to put exit numbers on several routes that don't have them currently. If non-Interstates do not end up getting their numbers changed, would numbers still be added? Most likely not I would think.

I still can't believe US 1 isn't getting exit numbers, especially the stretch from Boston up to 128/95.

The only freeway-grade section of 1 goes to the MA 60 circle, though it's extremely substandard. I think it's less confusing to keep the signs as is for the several closely spaced exits there. Some states go to the extreme of posting every number that is an exit, even if the road isn't a freeway. To me, that's a misinterpretation of the MUTCD.

And it looks like mileage or sequential, US 1 isn't getting numbers anyway. The expressway parts of MA 28 and 57 are the candidates to have numbers added. Not sure what the future of the idea is though.

Conversely, the numbered intersections along MA 128 in Gloucester will just have their numbers (Exits 9, 10 & 11) dropped completely (9 & 10 should have been never numbered in the first place IMHO) right when the rest of 128's interchanges are renumbered.

Those numbers are on paper only anyway. All of them use paddle signs with no numbers. And I'm still not sure why it starts with 9.

[PHLBOS]

Those numbers are on paper only anyway. All of them use paddle signs with no numbers.

This BGS gives hint of those numbers (except 14, which is an actual interchange w/MA 133).  It's slated to be taken down once 128's exit numbers change.

Stand-alone LGS for Exit 11 (MA 127/Grant Circle)  To my knowledge, this sign is still there.

There was a similar LGS for "Exit 10" (MA 127/Eastern Ave.) intersection and a D6 Paddle LGS for Exit 9 that read: 128 EXIT 9 placed just prior to the MA 127A/Main St./Bass Ave. intersection; but those have since bit the dust.  Way back when (early 80s and earlier), there was a button-copy freeway grade (aluminum, extruded panel) sign that read EXIT 9 LAST EXIT.  It was about the size of a gore exit sign and was probably mid-to-late 60s vintage.

And I'm still not sure why it starts with 9.

Such dates back to an ill-fated (& ill-advised IMHO) proposal to extend 128 further east and into Rockport.  128's original exit numbers started with 1 being Grant Circle and increased in the southerly direction.  The numbers changed to their current ones circa 1961-1962 (according to official state maps), no doubt, with this extension in mind.  The current numbers, by and large, increased by 10 (cloverleaf interchanges further south used to have separate numbers for each direction prior to the change) which lead to the 127 & 127A intersections east of Grant Circle to be Exits 10 & 9 respectively; the unnumbered Blackburn Circle was added later on.

[bob7374]

Those numbers are on paper only anyway. All of them use paddle signs with no numbers.

This BGS gives hint of those numbers (except 14, which is an actual interchange w/MA 133).  It's slated to be taken down once 128's exit numbers change.

Stand-alone LGS for Exit 11 (MA 128).

They both were there on my trip up to Gloucester on Tuesday night (4/26).

I agree that it's okay if US 1/NE Expressway does not get new numbers, the expressway portion is less than 4 miles long. Though if length is a factor, why does the Lowell Connector have exit numbers? It's not even 3 miles in length.

[AMLNet49]

Those numbers are on paper only anyway. All of them use paddle signs with no numbers.

This BGS gives hint of those numbers (except 14, which is an actual interchange w/MA 133).  It's slated to be taken down once 128's exit numbers change.

Stand-alone LGS for Exit 11 (MA 128).

They both were there on my trip up to Gloucester on Tuesday night (4/26).

I agree that it's okay if US 1/NE Expressway does not get new numbers, the expressway portion is less than 4 miles long. Though if length is a factor, why does the Lowell Connector have exit numbers? It's not even 3 miles in length.

Wow I've driven that road a few times and never noticed those and I was looking for indications of exit numbers too, but mainly on guide signage.

[bob7374]

I've summarized what's been happening (or, perhaps better described as what's not been happening) with MassDOT's Milepost Exit Conversion Project in the second half of this blog post:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/05/new-massachusetts-exit-signage-and.html

[PHLBOS]

I've summarized what's been happening (or, perhaps better described as what's not been happening) with MassDOT's Milepost Exit Conversion Project in the second half of this blog post:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/05/new-massachusetts-exit-signage-and.html

Interesting.  However, the FHWA may have something to say regarding such (at least for the Interstates).

IMHO & as previously suggested; it would be best that MassDOT select one road to do the conversion, gauge the overall reaction and then change the rest accordingly but at a more gradual rate.  Given the backlash regarding the proposed exit numbers along the Mid-Cape Highway portion of US 6; I would save that road for last should FHWA pressure MassDOT to have mile-marker-based interchange numbers for all freeways w/numbered interchanges in the state and not just Interstates.

[The Ghostbuster]

Let the rest of us know when the first highways to receive new numbers get them.

[ctrabs74]

When PA converted its exit numbers, the original plan was to have I-476's Exit 31 (NE Extension Lansdale interchange) become Exit 30 and I-95's Exits 1 though 3 were planned to be renumbered 0 through 2; but those particular changes did not happen.

Part of the rationale at the time the new exit numbers were proposed for the Pennsylvania Turnpike, as I recall, was because the Northeast Extension of the Turnpike was signed as PA 9; the I-476 signing ended at the Mainline Turnpike (I-276). Once the Northeast Extension was rebuilt to Interstate standards, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission re-signed the highway to 476.

[Alps]

When PA converted its exit numbers, the original plan was to have I-476's Exit 31 (NE Extension Lansdale interchange) become Exit 30 and I-95's Exits 1 though 3 were planned to be renumbered 0 through 2; but those particular changes did not happen.

Part of the rationale at the time the new exit numbers were proposed for the Pennsylvania Turnpike, as I recall, was because the Northeast Extension of the Turnpike was signed as PA 9; the I-476 signing ended at the Mainline Turnpike (I-276). Once the Northeast Extension was rebuilt to Interstate standards, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission re-signed the highway to 476.

False. No rebuilding.

[PHLBOS]

When PA converted its exit numbers, the original plan was to have I-476's Exit 31 (NE Extension Lansdale interchange) become Exit 30 and I-95's Exits 1 though 3 were planned to be renumbered 0 through 2; but those particular changes did not happen.

Part of the rationale at the time the new exit numbers were proposed for the Pennsylvania Turnpike, as I recall, was because the Northeast Extension of the Turnpike was signed as PA 9; the I-476 signing ended at the Mainline Turnpike (I-276). Once the Northeast Extension was rebuilt to Interstate standards, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission re-signed the highway to 476.

False. No rebuilding.

He might be referring to the current and ongoing widening project between Mid-County (I-276) and Lansdale (PA 63).  At the time of the I-476 redesignation and/or the exit renumbering; this particular project, at best, only existed on paper, presentation boards and/or a CAD file.

Ctrabs74, PA's exit renumbering (not just along the Turnpike) occurred several years after the Northeast Extension was redesignated as an extension of I-476.

[bob7374]

Based on her comments yesterday on Channel 5 during the quiz portion of On the Record, it appears that MassDOT Secretary Pollock would prefer that the state have milepost-based exits:
http://www.wcvb.com/politics/on-the-record-stephanie-pollack-segment-2/39979180