Regional Boards > Northeast

Boston Traffic Reporter/Blogger Defends Use of '128' moniker

<< < (3/55) > >>

corco:
I'd actually ask the opposite- if the role of the state government is to serve the people within the state, and the people of the state persist in calling it "128" even after all these years, then it's time for the state government to co-sign the road as 128 again from Braintree to Canton. Hell, give it top billing over I-93 and 95. You probably still want 93/95 shields for tourists, but demote those to second billing. Nowhere do the feds require that interstate designations take preference over other designations. 

brad2971:

--- Quote from: corco on September 15, 2012, 05:28:04 PM ---I'd actually ask the opposite- if the role of the state government is to serve the people within the state, and the people of the state persist in calling it "128" even after all these years, then it's time for the state government to co-sign the road as 128 again from Braintree to Canton. Hell, give it top billing over I-93 and 95. You probably still want 93/95 shields for tourists, but demote those to second billing. Nowhere do the feds require that interstate designations take preference over other designations. 

--- End quote ---

Which is why CDOT will NEVER pursue an Interstate designation for either C-470 or E-470. The entire Denver metro area is too used to calling the free portion of the "470 beltway" C-470 and nearly all the tolled portion E-470.

It also explains why ADOT will likely never pursue changing Loops 101, 202, and 303 into some variants of x10 or x17.

Beltway:

--- Quote from: Alex on September 14, 2012, 02:59:05 PM ---Retaining the 128 moniker is about as useful as referring to Interstate 476 as the Blue Route. You won't find it signed anywhere, but traffic reporters have always used the nomenclature when referring to the freeway. Losing battle indeed as southshore270 posted and I also agree with him on your comment.

--- End quote ---

In the case of I-476, it never was signed as the "Blue Route".  It was commonly called that during planning in the 1970s.  But it was not even a planning name, the planning name was Mid-County Expressway.  As far as I know, the Mid-County Expressway name has never been posted on the highway or its connecting routes.

Is there any MA-128 designation on any part of the beltway?

Beltway:

--- Quote from: brad2971 on September 15, 2012, 07:21:28 PM ---Which is why CDOT will NEVER pursue an Interstate designation for either C-470 or E-470. The entire Denver metro area is too used to calling the free portion of the "470 beltway" C-470 and nearly all the tolled portion E-470.

--- End quote ---

It could be I-470 Beltway, and that number would fit the Interstate numbering rules perfectly.

dgolub:

--- Quote from: southshore720 on September 14, 2012, 02:36:51 PM ---No wonder New York uses names for a good number of their expwys and pkwys...doesn't matter what you name it numerically, people will always refer to it by the correct name!

--- End quote ---

This generally works within the five boroughs of the city but not so well on Long Island.  They generally only post the numbers for state routes, but people know them primarily by name, at least in Nassau County.  If someone tells you to get off the parkway at Sunrise Highway and you don't know that it's NY 27, you'll wind up at Jones Beach in the middle of the winter.  You'll have similar problems if you're looking for Jericho Turnpike, Hempstead Turnpike, or the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway, which everyone calls by their names.

Oh, and don't get me started how currently half the signs for what's now the RFK Bridge still say "Triboro Bridge," even though the bridge was renamed four years ago.  This can only confuse people who don't know the area.

I personally prefer signage that gives both names and numbers, as is usually the case in Connecticut.  Whether someone tell you to get off at Boston Post Road or US 1, you'll find the exit either way.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version