Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[cl94]

Fingers crossed that the state finally kills off 128 from Canton to Peabody so we don't have exits starting in the 30's in Peabody.

I could see them keeping the signs up but officially killing the route south of Peabody. Far too many traffic reporters and locals still call the thing 128 for it to not be signed. Don't want to confuse non-locals.

[PHLBOS]

Fingers crossed that the state finally kills off 128 from Canton to Peabody so we don't have exits starting in the 30's in Peabody.

I could see them keeping the signs up but officially killing the route south of Peabody. Far too many traffic reporters and locals still call the thing 128 for it to not be signed. Don't want to confuse non-locals.

It's worth noting that there are still some surviving mid-1980s vintage overpass/underpass mile markers (to the 3rd decimal place) along 128 that were based on Mile Marker 0 being at the US 1 interchange (Exit 44).

MM 3.71 along MA 128 at the MA 114 interchange in Peabody

Current MA 128-specific mile markers start at MM 37.2 at the Peabody I-95 interchange.  If such were to be rest to MM 0 at I-95; one would need to subtract 37.2 from the current mile markers to get the 128-only mileage & exit numbers.

[The Ghostbuster]

When it comes to Highway 128, it is very unlikely the number will be decomissioned along Interstate 95. Maybe 128 could be de-signed along 95. What is the likelihood of that?

[PHLBOS]

When it comes to Highway 128, it is very unlikely the number will be decomissioned along Interstate 95. Maybe 128 could be de-signed along 95. What is the likelihood of that?

At present, and such has been mentioned many times in other threads & probably including this one, MassDOT's current policy only allows MA 128 shields on supplemental trailblazer & reassurance marker signage along the section where it's concurrent w/I-95.  All BGS' and enhanced mile markers do not include MA 128 shields.  IMHO, as long as the Amtrak/MBTA rail station at Exit 13 in Westwood is still officially called/named the Route 128 station; the concurrency's not going anywhere.

One possible compromise would be replacing the MA 128 shields along the I-95 concurrency with Brown Historic 128 shields.  Such would clear the way to reset the mile markers for MA 128 east of I-95 to MM 0 in Peabody rather than Canton.

The below is copied from an old post I made in the Fictional Exit Numbers thread.

Had MA 128's interchange numbers been reset to not include the I-95 (Canton to Peabody) portion; such would be (Exit 0 is not used): 

Current / New Mile-Marker* / (Route or street(s))
* subtract 37 (36 for I-95 jct.) from current 128 mile markers

29 / 1A-B (I-95; 1A for I-95 North, 1B for I-95 South (current through-128 South))

28 / 2A (Forest St.)

26 / 2B (Lowell St.)

25A-B / 3A-B (MA 114)

24 / 3C (Endicott St.)

23 / 4A (MA 35)

22 / 4B (MA 62)

21 / 5 (Trask Ln./Conant St.)

20B-A / 6A-B (MA 1A)

19 / 7 (Sohier Rd./Brimbal Ave.)

18 / 8 (MA 22)

17 / 10 (Grapevine Ave.)

16 / 12 (Pine St.)

15 / 13 (School St.)

14 / 16 (MA 133)

13 / 17 (Concord St.)

12 / 18 (Crafts Rd.)

Current exit designations (11, 10** & 9**) for at-grade intersections would be deleted.

**No known exit number signage near/at these intersections are present.

[cl94]

When it comes to Highway 128, it is very unlikely the number will be decomissioned along Interstate 95. Maybe 128 could be de-signed along 95. What is the likelihood of that?

They're not going to remove signage for 128 along the I-95 concurrency. MassDPW tried that and it failed, which is part of why the current compromise policy of only having supplemental shields exists. Public opposition to that would be even stronger than what we saw regarding the exit numbers when MA pulled a mulligan a few years ago.

IMHO, as long as the Amtrak/MBTA rail station at Exit 13 in Westwood is still officially called/named the Route 128 station; the concurrency's not going anywhere.

One possible compromise would be replacing the MA 128 shields along the I-95 concurrency with Brown Historic 128 shields.  Such would clear the way to reset the mile markers for MA 128 east of I-95 to MM 0 in Peabody rather than Canton.

This times a million. As long as you have public facilities named "Route 128", the name will remain down there. And good luck getting that changed.

[Alps]

15  If a circumferential, loop, or spur route crosses State boundaries, the numbering
sequence shall be coordinated by the States to provide continuous interchange numbering.

I-395 is none of those. It's a medium-distance connector similar to I-155 in Illinois and I-135 in Kansas.

It's still a spur of I-95 though.  However, despite the current MUTCD standard, the mileposts should reset to zero at the MA border.

In this case, I disagree, but only because you would be resetting numbers twice in a short distance along the continuous 395-290 freeway. I think it would be more intuitive to motorists to have exit numbers only reset once in that stretch.

[shadyjay]

When it comes to Highway 128, it is very unlikely the number will be decomissioned along Interstate 95. Maybe 128 could be de-signed along 95. What is the likelihood of that?

At present, and such has been mentioned many times in other threads & probably including this one, MassDOT's current policy only allows MA 128 shields on supplemental trailblazer & reassurance marker signage along the section where it's concurrent w/I-95.  All BGS' and enhanced mile markers do not include MA 128 shields.  IMHO, as long as the Amtrak/MBTA rail station at Exit 13 in Westwood is still officially called/named the Route 128 station; the concurrency's not going anywhere.

One possible compromise would be replacing the MA 128 shields along the I-95 concurrency with Brown Historic 128 shields.  Such would clear the way to reset the mile markers for MA 128 east of I-95 to MM 0 in Peabody rather than Canton.

Well, one thing that needs to end is the dual exit numbers on 128.  Listen/watch traffic reports and they'll refer to, for example, an accident at  Route 128 Exit 20.  They're not referring to Exit 20 in Beverly, but instead Exit 20 down in Newton, for Route 9.  How do I know this?  The footage being shown is clearly the I-95 Exit 20, since Route 128 out in Beverly is not an 8 lane highway. 

Option 1:
So, lets say Route 128 takes its mileage assuming Mile 0.0 is down at I-95/I-93 in Canton.  That would put the first exit on solo 128 as roughly Exit 38.  And that would still result in duplicate Route 128 exit numbers, or at least a duplicate "range"... whether the precise exit numbers would be duplicated is math I don't feel like calculating at this hour.  If you still end up with this "two-sets-of-exit-numbers-for-one-road" complex, then you still have confusion.

Option 2:
Have Route 128 MM 0 be at I-95 in Peabody and your first exit on 128 be 1.  Reset the mile markers on "solo 128" to reflect this.  Your highest exit number would be (roughly) 20 under this approach, maybe a little less.  And since the southern point of 128 is at I-95 MM 26 in Canton, you wouldn't risk the duplicate exit number scenario.  Take the suggestion from above to put up "Historic 128" signs, replacing existing 128 shields.

Option 3:
Have Route 128 continue I-95's exit numbers, based on mileage 0.0 being at the RI/MA border.  The first exit on 128 in Peabody would then become 65 (or 66).  Now you have the issue of the mile markers/exit numbers not truly reflecting the southern terminus of the route.  Unless you extend 128 signage onto I-95 south of Canton to RI. 


What actually will happen remains to be seen, until MassDOT puts out the map showing the new numbers.   Such a case is similar, but not identical by any means, of what will happen in New York when the Thruway goes mile-based.  I-87 has 3 sets of exit numbers on 3 significantly different roadways and in 3 jurisdictions.  I'm sure it will make somewhat sense in the end... can't be any worse than the old addage of "Exit 25 is Route 128" that was used in an exit numbering sequence long ago (and still existant for US 3).

[jp the roadgeek]

Here is some signage I created for what MA 128 would look like, assuming MP 0 is in Canton

[bob7374]

Some good ideas for solving the 128 exit problem. For the I-95 exits, I just hope some of the proposed numbers are changed. For example, the numbers proposed in 2015 for the I-93 exit in Reading were 55B/C, with the Washington St exit 55A. Since there is no proposed Exit 54, why not fudge a little and give that to Washington St and I-93 simply be 55A/B?

Other questions I have thought of regarding the renumbering:
1. The MA 24 sign replacement project is almost to the point where new support posts and signs could be installed. Is the project going to be delayed until later in 2020 and have signs go up with new numbers or will the signs go up with the current numbers and the exit tabs/gore signs be changed later?
2. Both the I-95 RI border to Westwood and I-495 Harvard to Lowell projects have started with plans using the current numbers. Is it safe to assume the plans will be updated with the new numbers? (By the way, the winning bid for the US 1 sign replacement contract from Chelsea to Danvers was supposed to be announced today, fortunately, no exit number issues.)
3. When will the exit renumbering contract be advertised/let? (Will Liddell Bros. bid again after 'winning' the contract last time?)
4. What route will be the last to be renumbered? (The Boston Globe reported today (11/19) that I-91 will be the first.)

[PHLBOS]

Interesting graphics.  Minor nitpick: the exit for MA 128 off I-95 in Peabody should be Exit 65 not 64.  The reason being that I-95's MM 65 falls within the interchange.

For the I-95 exits, I just hope some of the proposed numbers are changed.

Agreed and hopefully such & other suggestions will be taken into consideration... *hint-hint* Roadman.  Another issue, not just w/I-95, is should Exit 0 be used at all?  The previous plans were inconsistent regarding such.  My suggestion would be not to use Exit 0; mainly due to the path-of-least-resistance... i.e. less number changes would need to be made.

What route will be the last to be renumbered? (The Boston Globe reported today (11/19) that I-91 will be the first.)

If I were a betting man and given the recent history regarding how all this went over the last time; I would say that US 6 along the Mid-Cape Highway would be the last route to have its interchanges renumbered.

[roadman]

For the I-95 exits, I just hope some of the proposed numbers are changed.

Agreed and hopefully such & other suggestions will be taken into consideration... *hint-hint* Roadman.  Another issue, not just w/I-95, is should Exit 0 be used at all?  The previous plans were inconsistent regarding such.  My suggestion would be not not to use Exit 0; mainly due to the path-of-least-resistance... i.e. less number changes would need to be made.

Exit 0 will not be used at any location.

[Henry]

According to the WBZ story:

The move is part of a federal mandate; New Hampshire and Delaware are the only other states who have yet to implement the change. The Bay State risks losing federal funds if it doesn't comply.

AFAIK, I haven't seen any news from CT or VT making any changes yet. NY has done it, but only on I-84, so I guess that is on a route-by-route basis, as will happen in MA.

[PHLBOS]

According to the WBZ story:

The move is part of a federal mandate; New Hampshire and Delaware are the only other states who have yet to implement the change. The Bay State risks losing federal funds if it doesn't comply.

AFAIK, I haven't seen any news from CT or VT making any changes yet. NY has done it, but only on I-84, so I guess that is on a route-by-route basis, as will happen in MA.

CT has already started.  At the time of this posting; I-395 in CT has already been converted.  See the Connecticut News thread regarding such.  CT indeed has a plan to ultimately convert all its highways to mile-marker-based numbering; but such will be done over a decade (not a typo) long period.

Can't speak/answer for VT.

[jp the roadgeek]

CT is also doing it on a route by route basis.  I-395 and CT 2A were done first.  CT 349 was next.  CT 184 had a number added.  CT 72 will convert next year as part of a project that replaces signage on it and CT 9 north of Middletown (the exit on the Willow Brook Connector will also get a number).  There was a list in the CT thread with a provisional schedule; some may take till 2030 to convert.  CT has a way of dragging its feet with things.  They were the last state in the Northeast to raise the speed limit to 65. 

NY has done I-84, plus I-99, I-781, and the Taconic.  I-95 in NYC is sort of done. I hear The Hutch may be next, while I-684 and I-88 seem like easy choices.

VT has no plans either.  Only VT 289 is compliant. 

[roadman]

According to the WBZ story:

The move is part of a federal mandate; New Hampshire and Delaware are the only other states who have yet to implement the change. The Bay State risks losing federal funds if it doesn’t comply.

AFAIK, I haven't seen any news from CT or VT making any changes yet. NY has done it, but only on I-84, so I guess that is on a route-by-route basis, as will happen in MA.

CT has already started.  At the time of this posting; I-395 in CT has already been converted.  See the Connecticut News thread regarding such.  CT indeed has a plan to ultimately convert all its highways to mile-marker-based numbering; but such will be done over a decade (not a typo) long period.

Can't speak/answer for VT.

VT apparently has a plan for conversion, but I haven't seen any details on it.

[PHLBOS]

15  If a circumferential, loop, or spur route crosses State boundaries, the numbering
sequence shall be coordinated by the States to provide continuous interchange numbering.

I-395 is none of those. It's a medium-distance connector similar to I-155 in Illinois and I-135 in Kansas.

It's still a spur of I-95 though.  However, despite the current MUTCD standard, the mileposts should reset to zero at the MA border.

In this case, I disagree, but only because you would be resetting numbers twice in a short distance along the continuous 395-290 freeway. I think it would be more intuitive to motorists to have exit numbers only reset once in that stretch.

The existing mile markers along I-395/290 in CT/MA already reset twice.  The highest I-395 mile marker in MA is MM 11.6 (within the US 20 interchange in Auburn) before I-290's mile markers start.  That said, the one location where such should change is indeed at the I-290/395 handoff location in Auburn.  While it could be argued about whether having another reset at the state line is necessary; I-395 in MA is long enough where such a change wouldn't cause too much confusion.  If anything, its the current sequential numbers in MA that can be confusing to one unfamiliar with the area.  IMHO, I-290's sequential numbers should've been reset in Auburn when or even before MA 52 (later I-395) was completed circa 1977.

Personally, the only MA highway that could ditch the mile-marker reset at the state line is I-295; given its short length in the Bay State (highest mile marker is 3.8).  IIRC, when that road was first built in the late 1960s; its original exit numbers in MA were a continuation of RI's then-sequential numbers.  The likely reasoning for not resetting at the state line then was due to the fact that the long-since-aborted extension east of I-95 was to be a different route (I-895).  I-295's interchange numbers in MA were changed to the current ones sometime during the 1970s.

[vdeane]

Now you have the issue of the mile markers/exit numbers not truly reflecting the southern terminus of the route.  Unless you extend 128 signage onto I-95 south of Canton to RI. 

While it's good practice, it's not required.  See: I-276, I-17

[The Ghostbuster]

Wikipedia hasn't been updated to reflect that Massachusetts's milepost exit numbering conversion is back in business. I suppose it will take some time before it is updated.

[PHLBOS]

Wikipedia hasn't been updated to reflect that Massachusetts's milepost exit numbering conversion is back in business. I suppose it will take some time before it is updated.

Personally, you're more likely to get more current information on this subject on this thread rather than Wiki. 

[The Ghostbuster]

I know Wikipedia can be unreliable, but it was via Wikipedia that I discovered Bob7374's (whom I assume's real name is Robert H. Malme) website about Massachusetts's mileage-based exit renumbering plan.

[PHLBOS]

I'm sure I-84 could be done in a day! Exits 1, 2 and 3 A/B become Exits 3, 5 and 7 6 A/B. The challenge in western Massachusetts will be in greater Springfield.

FTFY.  Reason being that the I-90/Mass Pike termini ramps may finally get assigned numbers 7 A/B.  Since I-84 has no MM 8 & the fact that MM 6.5 is roughly midway inside the I-84/US 20 interchange; assigning its terminus w/I-90 Exit 7 A/B is the most logical choice.  Why blank exit tabs weren't placed on top of those 1-to-2-year-old I-90 APLs along I-84 eastbound is unknown.

While such has been mentioned on Facebook, I don't believe that such has been mentioned here as of yet; but several short-distance highways that have several interchanges clumped together will not have their interchange numbers changed: MA 213, I-291, I-391 & the Lowell Connector.  Converting those would've created some serious alphabet soup (suffixed) exit numbers; especially since the practice of using Exit 0 for termini and/or at state lines won't be happening at all.

[bob7374]

For those who may not have seen the Boston Globe article, and because it's behind a paywall, here's the text:

By 2022, highways, routes across Massachusetts will have new exit numbers, MassDOT says:
Your hometown exit number will likely change in the coming years.

By Christopher Gavin 11/19/19 10:32 AM

Over the next two years, exit numbers along Massachusetts' highways and routes will change under a federal mandate, MassDOT officials said Monday.

Exits, which currently use sequential numbering, will shift to mileage-based numbering, according to Neil Boudreau, the department's assistant administrator for traffic and safety.

The switch comes as the commonwealth adopts federal policies that spell out required uniform traffic features, he said. So far, all but three states have begun to put those changes in place: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Delaware, Boudreau said at a MassDOT board meeting.

The state could lose federal funding if it does not comply.

State officials are focusing on getting the word out through next spring to give residents and business owners notice before construction begins by late summer 2020, according to Boudreau.

Crews are planning on starting with Interstate 91 and working on a route-by-route basis, he said.

"We don't want to confuse the public when we're out there,"  he said. "We intend to move from west to east."

MassDOT anticipates traffic impacts from the project will be minimal.

To ensure the public adapts to the shift, Boudreau said MassDOT will leave signs up indicating each exit's old number for at least two years.

The department won't be in a rush to take them down, either.

"We are not planning to go out and remove them at two years and one day,"  he said. "The thought process was as we have a new project in that area, we would take them down."

Route 213, Interstate 291, Interstate 391, and the Lowell Connector will be exempt from the shift, however, due to their length and the spacing of the exits, Boudreau said.

"There are some routes that because they are such a short nature in length that it didn't make sense to change them ... because you weren't going to see much of a difference,"  he said.

Routes 28, 57, and 79 do not currently have exit numbers and therefore will not receive new ones, he said.

While officials acknowledged that the new numbers will be an adjustment for motorists, Boudreau said the signs will ultimately help drivers determine mileage and distance more easily and quickly, and can also help improve reporting of emergency incidents on roadways.

Other pros include the uniformity the signs will have with systems in other states as well as the future, potential cost savings, since sign numbers will no longer need to change if new interchanges are added on a highway, according to Boudreau.

The department says it will inform the public about new exit numbers through electronic billboards, social media, and an interactive, online map.

MassDOT hopes to have all the changes completed by late spring 2021, Boudreau said.

[cl94]

That answers another question I had: no numbers for currently-unnumbered routes.

[Ben114]

MassDOT hopes to have all the changes completed by late spring 2021, Boudreau said.

They are not going to get all that done in ~6 months.

[SidS1045]

The web site is up:  http://newmassexits.com