Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[kefkafloyd]

Got a chuckle yesterday when exiting US 3 northbound on exit "76" when the mile marker is right on the ramp saying 77.

Still, it's progress. I'll take it.

[Brandon]

Got a chuckle yesterday when exiting US 3 northbound on exit "76" when the mile marker is right on the ramp saying 77.

Still, it's progress. I'll take it.

If the exit is between MM76 and MM77, there's no reason why it cannot, nor should not be Exit 76.

[ran4sh]

What matters is the location of the crossing road, which, if a mile marker 77 was next to a northbound exit ramp, it would mean that the road is between markers 77 and 78. (but very close to 77)

[The Ghostbuster]

If Massachusetts did not consider US 3 and MA 3 one route, the Northwest Expressway's exit sequence (by mileage-based numbering) would probably have been numbered from 15 (Interstate 95) to 36 (Middlesex Road). Ironically, the last exit number would be the same as the former sequential exit number.

[abqtraveler]

What matters is the location of the crossing road, which, if a mile marker 77 was next to a northbound exit ramp, it would mean that the road is between markers 77 and 78. (but very close to 77)

It also depends on how a state determines the location where the exit number is determined. It looks like Massachusetts is numbering its exits based on where the southern/western-most offramp leaves the highway (gore point), which might explain why the exit number is 76 even though the 77 mile marker is adjacent to the northbound exit ramp.

Most other states base the exit number from the milepoint where the intersecting road crosses over or under the freeway. Point in fact, out here in New Mexico, the interchange for NM-14 on I-40 in Tijeras is Exit 175, even though the (very long) eastbound Exit 175 exit ramp leaves I-40 before the 174 milepoint (around milepoint 173.90) while the westbound exit ramp departs I-40 around milepoint 177.40, but NM-14 crosses under I-40 between milepoints 175 and 176. So based on where NM-14 crosses I-40, it ends up being Exit 175.

[kefkafloyd]

If the exit is between MM76 and MM77, there's no reason why it cannot, nor should not be Exit 76.

Nine-tenths of the interchange lies past MM77 which is posted right where the deceleration lane on US 3 north becomes the ramp and splits to form the gore. After passing the mile marker on the right, you then see the "EXIT 76" sign on the left. That's the chuckleworthy bit.

IMO, it should be exit 77, but as I said, I'll take the good over the perfect overall.

[ran4sh]

It also depends on how a state determines the location where the exit number is determined. It looks like Massachusetts is numbering its exits based on where the southern/western-most offramp leaves the highway (gore point), which might explain why the exit number is 76 even though the 77 mile marker is adjacent to the northbound exit ramp.

Most other states base the exit number from the milepoint where the intersecting road crosses over or under the freeway. Point in fact, out here in New Mexico, the interchange for NM-14 on I-40 in Tijeras is Exit 175, even though the (very long) eastbound Exit 175 exit ramp leaves I-40 before the 174 milepoint (around milepoint 173.90) while the westbound exit ramp departs I-40 around milepoint 177.40, but NM-14 crosses under I-40 between milepoints 175 and 176. So based on where NM-14 crosses I-40, it ends up being Exit 175.

But only one of those methods is compliant under the MUTCD.

[jp the roadgeek]

In NY, it would be Exit 76, even if the midpoint of the over/underpass is at MP 76.99; they always round down.   CT was going to do this on CT 9 for the CT 175 exit and make it 37, although MP 38 is at the north end of the overpass and 2 of the 4 ramps for the interchange are between MP 38 and MP 39.  Fortunately, revised plans corrected it to 38.

[Alps]

In NY, it would be Exit 76, even if the midpoint of the over/underpass is at MP 76.99; they always round down.   CT was going to do this on CT 9 for the CT 175 exit and make it 37, although MP 38 is at the north end of the overpass and 2 of the 4 ramps for the interchange are between MP 38 and MP 39.  Fortunately, revised plans corrected it to 38.

If MP 38 is at the north side of the overpass, it should be 37, but either way is okay ultimately. I'm not that concerned with off by 1 errors - the idea is you know the distance to your next exit, and there are enough signs that you'll know when it's there.

[jp the roadgeek]

In NY, it would be Exit 76, even if the midpoint of the over/underpass is at MP 76.99; they always round down.   CT was going to do this on CT 9 for the CT 175 exit and make it 37, although MP 38 is at the north end of the overpass and 2 of the 4 ramps for the interchange are between MP 38 and MP 39.  Fortunately, revised plans corrected it to 38.

If MP 38 is at the north side of the overpass, it should be 37, but either way is okay ultimately. I'm not that concerned with off by 1 errors - the idea is you know the distance to your next exit, and there are enough signs that you'll know when it's there.

Seems CT, like MA, has gone to the "round to the nearest milepost"  convention (as evidenced in the latest CTDOT plans) rather than round down within the mile.  But my thought is if a milepost is within the extent of the interchange (before the northern/easternmost extent of the ramps, it's  a viable and/or the most viable option.

[abqtraveler]

In NY, it would be Exit 76, even if the midpoint of the over/underpass is at MP 76.99; they always round down.   CT was going to do this on CT 9 for the CT 175 exit and make it 37, although MP 38 is at the north end of the overpass and 2 of the 4 ramps for the interchange are between MP 38 and MP 39.  Fortunately, revised plans corrected it to 38.

They probably did a re-survey of the overpass before adjusting the exit number from 37 to 38.

[roadman]

In NY, it would be Exit 76, even if the midpoint of the over/underpass is at MP 76.99; they always round down.   CT was going to do this on CT 9 for the CT 175 exit and make it 37, although MP 38 is at the north end of the overpass and 2 of the 4 ramps for the interchange are between MP 38 and MP 39.  Fortunately, revised plans corrected it to 38.

If MP 38 is at the north side of the overpass, it should be 37, but either way is okay ultimately. I'm not that concerned with off by 1 errors - the idea is you know the distance to your next exit, and there are enough signs that you'll know when it's there.

Seems CT, like MA, has gone to the "round to the nearest milepost"  convention (as evidenced in the latest CTDOT plans) rather than round down within the mile.  But my thought is if a milepost is within the extent of the interchange (before the northern/easternmost extent of the ramps, it's  a viable and/or the most viable option.

In general, Massachusetts bases the new exit number on the milepost where the two roadways cross, and uses the commonly accepted rounding convention (i.e., 0.4 mile or less, round down; 0.5 mile or greater, round up) in determing the new exit numbers.  Note that, at present, there is no requirement in the MUTCD to always round the number down to match the lower of the two mileposts.

[abqtraveler]

In NY, it would be Exit 76, even if the midpoint of the over/underpass is at MP 76.99; they always round down.   CT was going to do this on CT 9 for the CT 175 exit and make it 37, although MP 38 is at the north end of the overpass and 2 of the 4 ramps for the interchange are between MP 38 and MP 39.  Fortunately, revised plans corrected it to 38.

If MP 38 is at the north side of the overpass, it should be 37, but either way is okay ultimately. I'm not that concerned with off by 1 errors - the idea is you know the distance to your next exit, and there are enough signs that you'll know when it's there.

Seems CT, like MA, has gone to the "round to the nearest milepost"  convention (as evidenced in the latest CTDOT plans) rather than round down within the mile.  But my thought is if a milepost is within the extent of the interchange (before the northern/easternmost extent of the ramps, it's  a viable and/or the most viable option.

In general, Massachusetts bases the new exit number on the milepost where the two roadways cross, and uses the commonly accepted rounding convention (i.e., 0.4 mile or less, round down; 0.5 mile or greater, round up) in determing the new exit numbers.  Note that, at present, there is no requirement in the MUTCD to always round the number down to match the lower of the two mileposts.

That leaves only two logical conclusions as to why the numbered the interchange 76, even though milepost 77 is adjacent to the northbound exit ramp (which implies the intersecting road crosses US-3 between MPs 77 and 78): either 1) they screwed up and they **might** go back and fix it later, or 2) they're planning to re-survey the highway's mileage (to account for recent construction, realignments, etc.), which might lead to adjustments to where each milepost is located.

[SectorZ]

In NY, it would be Exit 76, even if the midpoint of the over/underpass is at MP 76.99; they always round down.   CT was going to do this on CT 9 for the CT 175 exit and make it 37, although MP 38 is at the north end of the overpass and 2 of the 4 ramps for the interchange are between MP 38 and MP 39.  Fortunately, revised plans corrected it to 38.

If MP 38 is at the north side of the overpass, it should be 37, but either way is okay ultimately. I'm not that concerned with off by 1 errors - the idea is you know the distance to your next exit, and there are enough signs that you'll know when it's there.

Seems CT, like MA, has gone to the "round to the nearest milepost"  convention (as evidenced in the latest CTDOT plans) rather than round down within the mile.  But my thought is if a milepost is within the extent of the interchange (before the northern/easternmost extent of the ramps, it's  a viable and/or the most viable option.

In general, Massachusetts bases the new exit number on the milepost where the two roadways cross, and uses the commonly accepted rounding convention (i.e., 0.4 mile or less, round down; 0.5 mile or greater, round up) in determing the new exit numbers.  Note that, at present, there is no requirement in the MUTCD to always round the number down to match the lower of the two mileposts.

That leaves only two logical conclusions as to why the numbered the interchange 76, even though milepost 77 is adjacent to the northbound exit ramp (which implies the intersecting road crosses US-3 between MPs 77 and 78): either 1) they screwed up and they **might** go back and fix it later, or 2) they're planning to re-survey the highway's mileage (to account for recent construction, realignments, etc.), which might lead to adjustments to where each milepost is located.

See some of the prior posts, the mile markers posted are not correct, almost a mile above what they should be.

[paul02474]

Update from MassDOT:

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is in the process of converting all exit numbers on freeways to a milepost-based numbering system, per Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements. Construction began in the Fall of 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by Summer 2021. Exit renumbering conversion is compete on the following corridors:
Route 140 - between Taunton and New Bedford
Interstate 195 - between Wareham and Seekonk
State Route 25 - between Wareham and Bourne
State Route 3 - between Braintree and Bourne
US Route 6 - between Orleans and Bourne
Interstate 90 - between Boston and West Stockbridge
Interstate 295 - between North Attleboro and Attleboro
State Route 24 - between Randolph and Fall River
US Route 3 - between Tyngsborough and Burlington

The remaining corridors, with the known anticipated start dates and locations, are as follows:   

State Route 128 
Start date: Feb 10
Location: Gloucester to Peabody 

Interstate 95 
Start date: Feb 21
I-95 will be broken up into four segments 
Between the NH Border and Route 128
Between the Route 1 Interchange and Route 20
Between the I-90 Interchange and Westwood/Canton
Between Neponset Street and and the RI Border

Interstate 84 
Start date: Feb 28
Location: I-90 interchange in Sturbridge to the Connecticut border 

Interstate 93 
Location: Based on their locations along the existing mile markers, existing Exits 1 (Canton) through 12 (Boston/Neponset) will not be renumbered. Exit renumbering will begin at existing Exit 13 (Boston/Dorchester) and continue to existing Exit 48 (Methuen).

Interstate 91 
State Route 146 
Interstate 190 
State Route 2 
Interstate 495
Interstate 395 
Interstate 295   

Please be advised I-495 (between Harvard and Lowell) and I-290 (between Auburn and Shrewsbury) currently have on-going sign replacement contracts being completed. Due to funding, scheduling and constructability reasons, it was not practical for MassDOT to fully complete these projects before the exit renumbering project was started. However, be aware that the new signs on both projects have been designed to accommodate the updated exit numbers, so only overlay panels will be required to update the exit numbers on these panels.

Construction start dates and locations on the remaining corridors listed above will be announced as they are finalized. Work takes place on each corridor in the east to west or north to south direction. Work typically is completed during the overnight hours and the contractors are required to complete the full interchange before moving along to the next exit. Please note that all work is weather dependent and construction dates may be adjusted accordingly.   

To learn more about the project, sign up for project updates, and submit project inquiries, please visit the project website: newmassexits.com.   

[hotdogPi]

Exit renumbering conversion is compete [sic] on the following corridors:

Is that their typo or yours?

[bob7374]

Exit renumbering conversion is compete [sic] on the following corridors:

Is that their typo or yours?

It's their typo, along with listing I-295 in the to-do exit renumbering list instead of I-290 and Route 120 instead of 128 in the section describing the I-95 work. Do they not have editors?

I was somewhat surprised that I-93 instead of I-95 was chosen as the last route to be renumbered under the eastern contract, but I guess it is, the southern part anyway, the most eastern interstate route. Also surprised I-495 was not the last chosen for the other contract (I assume they'll break that up in sections like I-95, my guess: I-95 to US 3, US 3 to I-90, I-90 to I-95, I-95  to I-195/MA 25). Guess I-395 and I-290 were chosen because that work is more complicated by the need to install the new dual mile markers, that somewhat makes the point of wouldn't providing separate exit numbers for each route based on their mileage have been easier? They also jumped the gun saying US 3 is complete. It was to be completed tonight, but, so far, no work crews have appeared to renumber the northernmost exits according to Waze. This also means a delay in the start of Route 128, or is that 120.

[bob7374]

The same information (I mean the same, with typos and all) has now been posted on the MassDOT blog:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/exit-renumbering-operations-have-been-completed-on-nine-statewide-corridors/

Noticed this wording about I-84: "Interstate 84 renumbering operations will begin on Sunday, February 28, and will take place from the I-90 interchange in Sturbridge to the Connecticut border." Does this mean they are giving a number to the I-90 exit, or should they have said US 20 in Sturbridge to the Connecticut border?

[hotdogPi]

The same information (I mean the same, with typos and all) has now been posted on the MassDOT blog:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/exit-renumbering-operations-have-been-completed-on-nine-statewide-corridors/

Noticed this wording about I-84: "Interstate 84 renumbering operations will begin on Sunday, February 28, and will take place from the I-90 interchange in Sturbridge to the Connecticut border." Does this mean they are giving a number to the I-90 exit, or should they have said US 20 in Sturbridge to the Connecticut border?

They might be referring to the advance signs for US 20 east of US 20.

[PHLBOS]

The same information (I mean the same, with typos and all) has now been posted on the MassDOT blog:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/exit-renumbering-operations-have-been-completed-on-nine-statewide-corridors/

Noticed this wording about I-84: "Interstate 84 renumbering operations will begin on Sunday, February 28, and will take place from the I-90 interchange in Sturbridge to the Connecticut border." Does this mean they are giving a number to the I-90 exit, or should they have said US 20 in Sturbridge to the Connecticut border?

Maybe MassDOT is doing a random act of consistency & decided to add Exit 7 A/B tabs for the I-90 interchange signs along I-84 eastbound. 

[SectorZ]

The same information (I mean the same, with typos and all) has now been posted on the MassDOT blog:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/exit-renumbering-operations-have-been-completed-on-nine-statewide-corridors/

Noticed this wording about I-84: "Interstate 84 renumbering operations will begin on Sunday, February 28, and will take place from the I-90 interchange in Sturbridge to the Connecticut border." Does this mean they are giving a number to the I-90 exit, or should they have said US 20 in Sturbridge to the Connecticut border?

Maybe MassDOT is doing a random act of consistency & decided to add Exit 7 A/B tabs for the I-90 interchange signs along I-84 eastbound. 

For a state whose unofficial motto is that quote by Emerson, that would be nice for a change.

[Dougtone]

I've decided to throw my hat into the ring on the exit numbering conversion in Massachusetts on my latest podcast episode on the Gribblenation Roadcast. It's more of a general overview of the project from information I've culled. I'm from Upstate New York, so I'm not sure if I pronounced every town name correctly. I tried my best.

https://anchor.fm/gribblenation/episodes/Fresh-Drives---Massachusetts-Exit-Renumbering-eq83pm

[roadman]

It also depends on how a state determines the location where the exit number is determined. It looks like Massachusetts is numbering its exits based on where the southern/western-most offramp leaves the highway (gore point), which might explain why the exit number is 76 even though the 77 mile marker is adjacent to the northbound exit ramp.

Most other states base the exit number from the milepoint where the intersecting road crosses over or under the freeway. Point in fact, out here in New Mexico, the interchange for NM-14 on I-40 in Tijeras is Exit 175, even though the (very long) eastbound Exit 175 exit ramp leaves I-40 before the 174 milepoint (around milepoint 173.90) while the westbound exit ramp departs I-40 around milepoint 177.40, but NM-14 crosses under I-40 between milepoints 175 and 176. So based on where NM-14 crosses I-40, it ends up being Exit 175.

But only one of those methods is compliant under the MUTCD.

No.  There are currently no statements in the MUTCD that either mandate or recommend that the lower of the two mileposts be used for the exit number.  While this is implied in some of the figures, they are only examples and not a "shall" or "should" condition.

[ran4sh]

It also depends on how a state determines the location where the exit number is determined. It looks like Massachusetts is numbering its exits based on where the southern/western-most offramp leaves the highway (gore point), which might explain why the exit number is 76 even though the 77 mile marker is adjacent to the northbound exit ramp.

Most other states base the exit number from the milepoint where the intersecting road crosses over or under the freeway. Point in fact, out here in New Mexico, the interchange for NM-14 on I-40 in Tijeras is Exit 175, even though the (very long) eastbound Exit 175 exit ramp leaves I-40 before the 174 milepoint (around milepoint 173.90) while the westbound exit ramp departs I-40 around milepoint 177.40, but NM-14 crosses under I-40 between milepoints 175 and 176. So based on where NM-14 crosses I-40, it ends up being Exit 175.

But only one of those methods is compliant under the MUTCD.

No.  There is currently nothing in the MUTCD that mandates that the lower of the two milepoints be used for the exit number.  While this is implied in some of the figures, they are only examples.

I am referring to using a ramp location versus using the crossroad location. Nothing in the MUTCD endorses the practice of using the ramp, of either direction, as the location that determines the exit number.

[Alps]

It also depends on how a state determines the location where the exit number is determined. It looks like Massachusetts is numbering its exits based on where the southern/western-most offramp leaves the highway (gore point), which might explain why the exit number is 76 even though the 77 mile marker is adjacent to the northbound exit ramp.

Most other states base the exit number from the milepoint where the intersecting road crosses over or under the freeway. Point in fact, out here in New Mexico, the interchange for NM-14 on I-40 in Tijeras is Exit 175, even though the (very long) eastbound Exit 175 exit ramp leaves I-40 before the 174 milepoint (around milepoint 173.90) while the westbound exit ramp departs I-40 around milepoint 177.40, but NM-14 crosses under I-40 between milepoints 175 and 176. So based on where NM-14 crosses I-40, it ends up being Exit 175.

But only one of those methods is compliant under the MUTCD.

No.  There is currently nothing in the MUTCD that mandates that the lower of the two milepoints be used for the exit number.  While this is implied in some of the figures, they are only examples.

I am referring to using a ramp location versus using the crossroad location. Nothing in the MUTCD endorses the practice of using the ramp, of either direction, as the location that determines the exit number.

You are correct. The MUTCD provides for the milepost of the cross street at the interchange. Of course, most old freeways have a few strange interchanges where you can't pick out a cross milepost.