I-95/MA-128 concurrency ending?

[SidS1045]

Back from an out-of-state vacation on Friday, and I noticed that a number of 95/128 shields have been replaced with I-95 only.  Is the concurrency breathing its last?

[Dough4872]

Back from an out-of-state vacation on Friday, and I noticed that a number of 95/128 shields have been replaced with I-95 only.  Is the concurrency breathing its last?

Probably be a good idea to remove Route 128 from I-95, no need for the sign clutter for a state route to run concurrent with an Interstate for most of its length. Route 128 can remain for the road between Peabody and Gloucester.

[SidS1045]

When the MassPike interchange 123 was rebuilt to eliminate the toll booths, that's where I first saw references to 128 being eliminated.  None of the new signage on the Pike or the ramps mention 128, and that's already a few years ago.

[The Ghostbuster]

I'm sure the people of Massachusetts will continue to refer to the Yankee Division Highway as Route 128 for all time, even if it isn't signed along the Interstate 95 segment. If they were going to get rid of the portion of 128 along Interstate 95, old Exit 29 should have been renumbered as Exit 1, not as Exit 37.

[bob7374]

When the MassPike interchange 123 was rebuilt to eliminate the toll booths, that's where I first saw references to 128 being eliminated.  None of the new signage on the Pike or the ramps mention 128, and that's already a few years ago.

When the signage along I-95 North in Canton was revised late last year, to account for a new fourth lane being extended for the I-93 North exit, the Route 128 trailblazers that were on the sign supports disappeared and have not returned:

[rover]

Is the traffic flow from Mass Pike to 95/128 better with the new interchange?

[kramie13]

Back from an out-of-state vacation on Friday, and I noticed that a number of 95/128 shields have been replaced with I-95 only.  Is the concurrency breathing its last?

Were these on-ramp signs on roads intersecting the highway, or reassurance shields along the route(s)?

I was on this highway last week traveling south between both I-93 interchanges (Exit 55 to Exit 26).  There was a "JCT 128" ground-mounted sign on I-93 south about 1 mile before the interchange with 95/128.  Reassurance shields after on-ramps displayed both route numbers - 95 with the interstate shield and 128 in the bland "state route" rectangle.

But in my opinion, long-duration concurrencies should be eliminated to avoid confusion.  Not just 95/128 but also 4/225!

[MATraveler128]

Back from an out-of-state vacation on Friday, and I noticed that a number of 95/128 shields have been replaced with I-95 only.  Is the concurrency breathing its last?

Were these on-ramp signs on roads intersecting the highway, or reassurance shields along the route(s)?

I was on this highway last week traveling south between both I-93 interchanges (Exit 55 to Exit 26).  There was a "JCT 128" ground-mounted sign on I-93 south about 1 mile before the interchange with 95/128.  Reassurance shields after on-ramps displayed both route numbers - 95 with the interstate shield and 128 in the bland "state route" rectangle.

But in my opinion, long-duration concurrencies should be eliminated to avoid confusion.  Not just 95/128 but also 4/225!

I've never understood why MA 225 overlaps MA 4 through Lexington as is. Really MA 225 should just end at the point where it meets MA 4 in Bedford.

[SectorZ]

Back from an out-of-state vacation on Friday, and I noticed that a number of 95/128 shields have been replaced with I-95 only.  Is the concurrency breathing its last?

Were these on-ramp signs on roads intersecting the highway, or reassurance shields along the route(s)?

I was on this highway last week traveling south between both I-93 interchanges (Exit 55 to Exit 26).  There was a "JCT 128" ground-mounted sign on I-93 south about 1 mile before the interchange with 95/128.  Reassurance shields after on-ramps displayed both route numbers - 95 with the interstate shield and 128 in the bland "state route" rectangle.

But in my opinion, long-duration concurrencies should be eliminated to avoid confusion.  Not just 95/128 but also 4/225!

I've never understood why MA 225 overlaps MA 4 through Lexington as is. Really MA 225 should just end at the point where it meets MA 4 in Bedford.

With that ridiculous overlap, I was always hoping that some day they would re-route 4 (or 225, which one doesn't matter) to stay on Mass Ave southeast out of Lexington and follow it to Arlington center, at least giving a purpose to it.

[Rothman]

Pfft.  MA 4/225 forever!

[shadyjay]

Is the traffic flow from Mass Pike to 95/128 better with the new interchange?

The only thing that got added at that interchange in recent years is the shifting of the ramp from the 'Pike WB to I-95/128 to the west.  You still have crossing traffic, but there's slightly more room now.  Its not perfect, as the rest of the interchange is still the original 1950s ramp structure for the most part, so especially the ramp from the pike to 95/128 NB is still a trumpet that is "sort of" 2 lanes, but then becomes one lane without much warning.  They also, in recent years, restriped mainline 95/128 so that there's no need to merge onto the mainline (they reduced the 4 thru lanes to 3 between the off and on ramps to/from the pike.

[SidS1045]

Were these on-ramp signs on roads intersecting the highway, or reassurance shields along the route(s)?

The latter, although I haven't been paying as much attention to the signage on intersecting roads.

[bob7374]

Recent sign replacement work between Reading and Peabody suggests the continuation of the concurrency, rather than its ending. Recently new reassurance markers have been placed with both I-95 and MA 128 shields (they all have gaps between the 2 route shields):


Signage at the ramps, such as here at Walnut Street, includes a separate MA 128 trailblazer as has been the standard MassDOT practice:


Other recent photos of new signage can be found in the Reading to Lynnfield Sign Replacement section of:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html

[PHLBOS]

Recent sign replacement work between Reading and Peabody suggests the continuation of the concurrency, rather than its ending. Recently new reassurance markers have been placed with both I-95 and MA 128 shields (they all have gaps between the 2 route shields):

I guess the standard black-on-white direction cardinal banner signs weren't available when these reassurance signs were erected.

That said, given that these two concurrent routes are going in the same direction; IMHO, there's no need for the extra direction banner.  Such used to be standard practice for concurrent routes going in the same direction.

Personally & if this concurrency has to remain, I would've opted to use the smaller MA 128 shields for these reassurance markers similar to what one sees at most interchange ramps per the below-photo.

Signage at the ramps, such as here at Walnut Street, includes a separate MA 128 trailblazer as has been the standard MassDOT practice:


Other recent photos of new signage can be found in the Reading to Lynnfield Sign Replacement section of:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html

[DJStephens]

When the MassPike interchange 123 was rebuilt to eliminate the toll booths, that's where I first saw references to 128 being eliminated.  None of the new signage on the Pike or the ramps mention 128, and that's already a few years ago.

When the signage along I-95 North in Canton was revised late last year, to account for a new fourth lane being extended for the I-93 North exit, the Route 128 trailblazers that were on the sign supports disappeared and have not returned:

When is this interchange going to be replaced with a T directional?  Ever?   

[The Ghostbuster]

I have no idea, but if I had to guess, I'd say probably not. If the southern Interstate 93/Interstate 95 interchange were proposed to be reconstructed into a semi-directional T-interchange, would it face as much opposition as the proposed reconstruction of the northern Interstate 93/Interstate 95 interchange did?

[SectorZ]

I have no idea, but if I had to guess, I'd say probably not. If the southern Interstate 93/Interstate 95 interchange were proposed to be reconstructed into a semi-directional T-interchange, would it face as much opposition as the proposed reconstruction of the northern Interstate 93/Interstate 95 interchange did?

There are no homes around at all, only part of a business park to the east that may be a bit in the way. It can likely be avoided completely in most reasonable plans.

[kramie13]

When the signage along I-95 North in Canton was revised late last year, to account for a new fourth lane being extended for the I-93 North exit, the Route 128 trailblazers that were on the sign supports disappeared and have not returned:

I don't think there has ever been any MA 128 signs (even ground-mounted ones) at this interchange.  Similarly, there are no signs for US 1 here either, although it makes no sense for it to be concurrent with I-93 for 19 miles when it once had its own alignment (the VFW Parkway)!

Bringing this thread back to its original topic - I travelled on 95/128 south today between both I-93 interchanges.  Most 95 reassurance shields included 128 shields as well.

[SidS1045]

If you take the loop to stay on I-95, on the last part of the ramp there is a ground-mounted "Begin 128" sign, facing both the main highway and the ramp.


Canton, Massachusetts - Google Maps

[pderocco]

How about putting up some brown signs saying HISTORIC 128? There aren't many state routes worthy of that, but I think 128 is. Of course, they could also do that on a lot of surface roads that were 128 before the freeway was built. But it wasn't really a famous road until it became a freeway that tied all the high-tech areas around Boston together.

[kphoger]

Unless I'm missing something, the only "evidence" that the concurrency is ending is some missing shields.  Right?  That seems to me like some awfully thin evidence.

[PHLBOS]

Unless I'm missing something, the only "evidence" that the concurrency is ending is some missing shields.  Right?  That seems to me like some awfully thin evidence.

Your assessment is correct; the concurrency is not ending.  I drove along the stretch between the Peabody I-95/MA 128 split to I-90 this past Friday (Nov. 24) and most of the reassurance markers I saw had MA 128 shields mounted below the I-95 shields.

[Ted$8roadFan]

It will always be 128 to many locals, regardless if it is no longer signed as such.

[SectorZ]

Unless I'm missing something, the only "evidence" that the concurrency is ending is some missing shields.  Right?  That seems to me like some awfully thin evidence.

Your assessment is correct; the concurrency is not ending.  I drove along the stretch between the Peabody I-95/MA 128 split to I-90 this past Friday (Nov. 24) and most of the reassurance markers I saw had MA 128 shields mounted below the I-95 shields.

Concur, all the new signage I am seeing shows both shields.