Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[Roadgeekteen]

Fictional crud needs to be separated out of here.

Calm down

[machias]

Fictional crud needs to be separated out of here.

Agreed

[Roadgeekteen]

Fictional crud needs to be separated out of here.

Agreed

Someone should start a fictional thread about this.

[SkyPesos]

Fictional crud needs to be separated out of here.

Agreed

Someone should start a fictional thread about this.

It already exists, called "Single ideas that are not enough for their own thread" .

[Roadgeekteen]

Fictional crud needs to be separated out of here.

Agreed

Someone should start a fictional thread about this.

It already exists, called "Single ideas that are not enough for their own thread" .

Someone can post this stuff there then.

[fwydriver405]

I wonder if anyone can confirm this but on 2021-06-13, I drove I-495 South from I-95 Exit 89 to I-93 and they had the exit numbers changed up to old exit 54 (now 118). However, not all of the auxiliary signs or some of the exit gore signs (old exit 46 comes to mind) have their new numbers yet. Wonder if the signs that were missed my last run were corrected this week...

[hotdogPi]

I wonder if anyone can confirm this but on 2021-06-13, I drove I-495 South from I-95 Exit 89 to I-93 and they had the exit numbers changed up to old exit 54 (now 118). However, not all of the auxiliary signs or some of the exit gore signs (old exit 46 comes to mind) have their new numbers yet. Wonder if the signs that were missed my last run were corrected this week...

46 was definitely corrected.

[fwydriver405]

Should also mention that even though they built wide exit gore signs from the last sign replacement in anticipation for this project... the font they used is very small and skinny (looks like Series B or C they used?). Not sure what was going on when the patches were fabricated.

[bob7374]

Should also mention that even though they built wide exit gore signs from the last sign replacement in anticipation for this project... the font they used is very small and skinny (looks like Series B or C they used?). Not sure what was going on when the patches were fabricated.

An example:


Some other gore signs are better, such as:


I've now posted all the photos taken a week ago on my Exit Renumbering Central website:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#i495photos2

[vdeane]

Fictional crud needs to be separated out of here.

Agreed

Someone should start a fictional thread about this.

It already exists, called "Single ideas that are not enough for their own thread" .

It's worth noting that the idea of renumbering I-290 as an extension of I-395 is an actual MassDOT proposal that I could have sworn was mentioned earlier in this thread (along with the dual mileposts), but search hasn't turned anything up.

[SkyPesos]

Fictional crud needs to be separated out of here.

Agreed

Someone should start a fictional thread about this.

It already exists, called "Single ideas that are not enough for their own thread" .

It's worth noting that the idea of renumbering I-290 as an extension of I-395 is an actual MassDOT proposal that I could have sworn was mentioned earlier in this thread (along with the dual mileposts), but search hasn't turned anything up.

I mentioned it just before the fictional renumbering conversation began.

[paul02474]

It's worth noting that the idea of renumbering I-290 as an extension of I-395 is an actual MassDOT proposal that I could have sworn was mentioned earlier in this thread (along with the dual mileposts), but search hasn't turned anything up.

Is there a reference to this actual proposal?

[vdeane]

Fictional crud needs to be separated out of here.

Agreed

Someone should start a fictional thread about this.

It already exists, called "Single ideas that are not enough for their own thread" .

It's worth noting that the idea of renumbering I-290 as an extension of I-395 is an actual MassDOT proposal that I could have sworn was mentioned earlier in this thread (along with the dual mileposts), but search hasn't turned anything up.

I mentioned it just before the fictional renumbering conversation began.

I was thinking of an earlier, more comprehensive mention.  If I remember right, there were quotes from a news article and/or emails from MassDOT.

[bob7374]

It's worth noting that the idea of renumbering I-290 as an extension of I-395 is an actual MassDOT proposal that I could have sworn was mentioned earlier in this thread (along with the dual mileposts), but search hasn't turned anything up.

Is there a reference to this actual proposal?

I received an email from MassDOT in response to a comment I made to them regarding the continuation of I-395's numbers on  I-290, this is posted on my I-290 exit list page:
"To minimize potential driver confusion, we are continuing the I-395 numbering along I-290 to replicate the present exit numbering, which is continuous from Webster to Marlborough.   As part of this project, the existing mileposts on I-290 will be replaced with "˜dual' mile markers showing mileage for both I-395 and I-290.

MassDOT may consider re-designating I-290 as an extension of I-395 at a later date based on driver response to the new exit numbering and the "˜dual' mile markers.  However, any such re-designation would have to be reviewed by AASHTO and approved by FHWA before it could actually be implemented."

[Roadgeekteen]

It's worth noting that the idea of renumbering I-290 as an extension of I-395 is an actual MassDOT proposal that I could have sworn was mentioned earlier in this thread (along with the dual mileposts), but search hasn't turned anything up.

Is there a reference to this actual proposal?

I received an email from MassDOT in response to a comment I made to them regarding the continuation of I-395's numbers on  I-290, this is posted on my I-290 exit list page:
"To minimize potential driver confusion, we are continuing the I-395 numbering along I-290 to replicate the present exit numbering, which is continuous from Webster to Marlborough.   As part of this project, the existing mileposts on I-290 will be replaced with "˜dual' mile markers showing mileage for both I-395 and I-290.

MassDOT may consider re-designating I-290 as an extension of I-395 at a later date based on driver response to the new exit numbering and the "˜dual' mile markers.  However, any such re-designation would have to be reviewed by AASHTO and approved by FHWA before it could actually be implemented."

Why would it be confusing to number the highways differently?

[SectorZ]

It's worth noting that the idea of renumbering I-290 as an extension of I-395 is an actual MassDOT proposal that I could have sworn was mentioned earlier in this thread (along with the dual mileposts), but search hasn't turned anything up.

Is there a reference to this actual proposal?

I received an email from MassDOT in response to a comment I made to them regarding the continuation of I-395's numbers on  I-290, this is posted on my I-290 exit list page:
"To minimize potential driver confusion, we are continuing the I-395 numbering along I-290 to replicate the present exit numbering, which is continuous from Webster to Marlborough.   As part of this project, the existing mileposts on I-290 will be replaced with "˜dual' mile markers showing mileage for both I-395 and I-290.

MassDOT may consider re-designating I-290 as an extension of I-395 at a later date based on driver response to the new exit numbering and the "˜dual' mile markers.  However, any such re-designation would have to be reviewed by AASHTO and approved by FHWA before it could actually be implemented."

Why would it be confusing to number the highways differently?

It's not, it's just a lame excuse to continue the incorrect system already in place.

[Roadgeekteen]

It's worth noting that the idea of renumbering I-290 as an extension of I-395 is an actual MassDOT proposal that I could have sworn was mentioned earlier in this thread (along with the dual mileposts), but search hasn't turned anything up.

Is there a reference to this actual proposal?

I received an email from MassDOT in response to a comment I made to them regarding the continuation of I-395's numbers on  I-290, this is posted on my I-290 exit list page:
"To minimize potential driver confusion, we are continuing the I-395 numbering along I-290 to replicate the present exit numbering, which is continuous from Webster to Marlborough.   As part of this project, the existing mileposts on I-290 will be replaced with "˜dual' mile markers showing mileage for both I-395 and I-290.

MassDOT may consider re-designating I-290 as an extension of I-395 at a later date based on driver response to the new exit numbering and the "˜dual' mile markers.  However, any such re-designation would have to be reviewed by AASHTO and approved by FHWA before it could actually be implemented."

Why would it be confusing to number the highways differently?

It's not, it's just a lame excuse to continue the incorrect system already in place.

If they want to renumber it go ahead, just they better not orphan I-190 or I'm going to cry.

[SkyPesos]

Orphaning 3di isn't a new thing. See: x78s.

[Roadgeekteen]

Orphaning 3di isn't a new thing. See: x78s.

Connecting the x78s would require new construction. I-190 can just be renumbered I-595 without much trouble.

[jp the roadgeek]

Orphaning 3di isn't a new thing. See: x78s.

Connecting the x78s would require new construction. I-190 can just be renumbered I-595 without much trouble.

Except this orphan would be about 72 miles from a connection via a 3di to its parent (yes, it would be only 27 or on MA 2)

[Roadgeekteen]

Orphaning 3di isn't a new thing. See: x78s.

Connecting the x78s would require new construction. I-190 can just be renumbered I-595 without much trouble.

Except this orphan would be about 72 miles from a connection via a 3di to its parent (yes, it would be only 27 or on MA 2)

It still follows numbering rules. 3dis connected to their parent via another interstate follow rules. Keeping it at I-190 would violate the rules.

[paul02474]

If they want to renumber it go ahead, just they better not orphan I-190 or I'm going to cry.

Put away your Kleenex. They could run I-190 concurrently through Worcester to the Mass Pike.

[Roadgeekteen]

If they want to renumber it go ahead, just they better not orphan I-190 or I'm going to cry.

Put away your Kleenex. They could run I-190 concurrently through Worcester to the Mass Pike.

They could I guess but I'm wouldn't be a big fan of that either. Better than orphaning it.

[vdeane]

It's worth noting that the idea of renumbering I-290 as an extension of I-395 is an actual MassDOT proposal that I could have sworn was mentioned earlier in this thread (along with the dual mileposts), but search hasn't turned anything up.

Is there a reference to this actual proposal?

I received an email from MassDOT in response to a comment I made to them regarding the continuation of I-395's numbers on  I-290, this is posted on my I-290 exit list page:
"To minimize potential driver confusion, we are continuing the I-395 numbering along I-290 to replicate the present exit numbering, which is continuous from Webster to Marlborough.   As part of this project, the existing mileposts on I-290 will be replaced with "˜dual' mile markers showing mileage for both I-395 and I-290.

MassDOT may consider re-designating I-290 as an extension of I-395 at a later date based on driver response to the new exit numbering and the "˜dual' mile markers.  However, any such re-designation would have to be reviewed by AASHTO and approved by FHWA before it could actually be implemented."

Why would it be confusing to number the highways differently?

It's not, it's just a lame excuse to continue the incorrect system already in place.

I can see how it could be seen as confusing.  While us roadgeeks are more number oriented than most and would think of I-395 and I-290 as separate roads, the traveling public probably sees it as one road that happens to change numbers for unknown (to them) reasons.

Heck, around here there are people that refer to the at-grade divided highway NY 787 as "interstate 787" because it extends I-787 to the south (and that's good by the standards of upstate NY; around Rochester, people don't even know what interstates even are, everything is "route X", and I-590 and NY 590 are considered the same road).  Never underestimate how much something that's obvious to use is not obvious to Joe Public who couldn't care less about the history of the roads or that CT didn't want a x90 route back when I-395 was designated.

If they want to renumber it go ahead, just they better not orphan I-190 or I'm going to cry.

Put away your Kleenex. They could run I-190 concurrently through Worcester to the Mass Pike.

Ending a route on an overlap is really inelegant, though.  Plus then they'd have to renumber the exits again.

[SkyPesos]

...who couldn't care less about the history of the roads or that CT didn't want a x90 route back when I-395 was designated.

I thought it was AASHTO that rejected it, or at least that's what the "Connecticut Turnpike" Wikipedia article states. Yes, the AASHTO we all know with their double standards.

Initially, Connecticut and Massachusetts requested that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) extend the I-290 designation southward along free Route 52 and the Connecticut Turnpike to I-95 in Waterford. AASHTO rejected the I-290 request and instead approved the I-395 designation in 1983.