Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[PHLBOS]

Regarding 128s exit numbers, how about this...

Sever the existing 128 into 2 "routes". Both routes would still be 128, however they would logged separately and have separate mileage. Canton to Peabody could be logged internally as 128L and Peabody to Gloucester could be logged as 128U (Lower and Upper). Signs in the field would however only use "128" for both routes. That way exit numbers in Peabody can start at 1 and 128 can still exist down to Canton. There's even somewhat of a precedent for this with the two different route 8As in Western MA logged as 8AU and 8AL.

If you haven't already done so, submit the above-comment to MassDOT and await their response.

[5foot14]

Regarding 128s exit numbers, how about this...

Sever the existing 128 into 2 "routes". Both routes would still be 128, however they would logged separately and have separate mileage. Canton to Peabody could be logged internally as 128L and Peabody to Gloucester could be logged as 128U (Lower and Upper). Signs in the field would however only use "128" for both routes. That way exit numbers in Peabody can start at 1 and 128 can still exist down to Canton. There's even somewhat of a precedent for this with the two different route 8As in Western MA logged as 8AU and 8AL.

SM-G900P

Exactly.  They can do the same for US 6 to get the mile markers on the Mid-Cape Highway to start at Sagamore rather than RI.  I'm not really a fan of the "exit X mile Y" exit tab idea or of moving route numbers around.

Would that fly with the AASHTO being that it's a US Route? Or do they not care about state highway logs as much? This seems like a easy compromise to keep most people happy (especially Cape Codders) if the feds and MassDOT would agree to it.

I submitted my idea to MassDOT for Route 128 and vdeane's regarding US 6. When I get a reply I'll report back

[vdeane]

I would think they wouldn't car too much about internal documentation, just what the actual US route is.  NYSDOT inventories its portion of US 2 as "2U" to avoid duplication with NY 2 (similarly, the interstates have I suffixes for that reason - I-87 is route 87I).

[Alps]

I don't think they'll accept a "6W / 6E" type argument. However, there is nothing that mandates a route start at mile 0, only that mileposts generally increase from the south or west. So just have US 6 enter Massachusetts at MILE -54.

[DJ Particle]

Exactly.  They can do the same for US 6 to get the mile markers on the Mid-Cape Highway to start at Sagamore rather than RI.  I'm not really a fan of the "exit X mile Y" exit tab idea or of moving route numbers around.

Would that fly with the AASHTO being that it's a US Route? Or do they not care about state highway logs as much? This seems like a easy compromise to keep most people happy (especially Cape Codders) if the feds and MassDOT would agree to it.

It would still involve renumbering exits (except 1C), therefore it wouldn't fly with Cape Codders.

You don't know the level of disconnect they have.  they don't even consider the Mid-Cape a freeway because (and someone actually told me this) "a freeway is a city thing".

They're the reason that freeway is the unsafe mess it currently is.  The Super-2 portion is nicknamed "Suicide Alley" (by LOCALS!) because of all the head-on collisions, the forest it cuts through in many areas often blocks ground-level signage, about 80% of it doesn't have adequate shoulders...  any proposed project that could fix any of those has been shot down time and time again by these ultra-NIMBYs because they're afraid it would ruin the ENTIRE Cape experience.  NO ONE COMES TO THE CAPE TO SEE THE PRETTY FREEWAY!!!  🤬

[5foot14]

I don't think they'll accept a "6W / 6E" type argument. However, there is nothing that mandates a route start at mile 0, only that mileposts generally increase from the south or west. So just have US 6 enter Massachusetts at MILE -54.

They wouldn't accept it even if they were just internal designations used by MassDOT? Seems like it shouldn't matter as long as both segments are signed in the field as US 6. It would just give them a way to start the Mid Cape Highway at exit 1

SM-G900P

[hotdogPi]

MA has very few differences between internal designations and signed designations compared to other states. US 6 should not be split into two routes.

However, the exit numbers can start at 1 at the canal, even if they don't match the mile markers.

[vdeane]

Exactly.  They can do the same for US 6 to get the mile markers on the Mid-Cape Highway to start at Sagamore rather than RI.  I'm not really a fan of the "exit X mile Y" exit tab idea or of moving route numbers around.

Would that fly with the AASHTO being that it's a US Route? Or do they not care about state highway logs as much? This seems like a easy compromise to keep most people happy (especially Cape Codders) if the feds and MassDOT would agree to it.

It would still involve renumbering exits (except 1C), therefore it wouldn't fly with Cape Codders.

You don't know the level of disconnect they have.  they don't even consider the Mid-Cape a freeway because (and someone actually told me this) "a freeway is a city thing".

They're the reason that freeway is the unsafe mess it currently is.  The Super-2 portion is nicknamed "Suicide Alley" (by LOCALS!) because of all the head-on collisions, the forest it cuts through in many areas often blocks ground-level signage, about 80% of it doesn't have adequate shoulders...  any proposed project that could fix any of those has been shot down time and time again by these ultra-NIMBYs because they're afraid it would ruin the ENTIRE Cape experience.  NO ONE COMES TO THE CAPE TO SEE THE PRETTY FREEWAY!!!  🤬

I think I get the impression of how obstinate they are.  I just don't care.  I'm willing to make REASONABLE compromise but not bend to their delusions.  If one of their complaints is that having the numbering start at RI isn't distinct enough for the Cape, fine, start it at Sagamore.  But don't keep it sequential or have something like "exit X mile Y" just because people on Cape Cod are entirely divorced from reality.  At some point someone needs to tell them what the actual definition of a freeway is and tell them that they're delusional if they continue to insist otherwise.

I actually agree with them that MassDOT's original plans to make every sign on the Mid-Cape overhead was way overkill and not becoming of the character of the area, though I think the ones at exit 9 at least should have become overhead because of the cloverleaf.  No other state makes every single guide sign overhead, and there's a reason for that.

MA has very few differences between internal designations and signed designations compared to other states. US 6 should not be split into two routes.

However, the exit numbers can start at 1 at the canal, even if they don't match the mile markers.

But they don't have none, and what's one more if it eases this situation?  I actually despise roads with distance-based exit numbers that don't match the miles (DE 1 is a case in point for numbers I loath).  The point of distance-based numbers is that you don't have to do a ton of calculations to figure out where the exit will be.

[DJ Particle]

I posted these images on Twitter...Codders still don't care.

And as you can see...there's a reason why the Mid-Cape needs overhead signage.  Along most of it, the trees are too thick.

[sturmde]

MA has very few differences between internal designations and signed designations compared to other states. US 6 should not be split into two routes.

However, the exit numbers can start at 1 at the canal, even if they don't match the mile markers.

How about having an unsigned MA 206 duplexed from the canal.  The exit numbers could follow *its* mileage.  After all, Massachusetts is known for having subordinate numbers more important than Interstates and US routes.  (Cough, cough, 128.)

[jp the roadgeek]

This whole US 6 discussion just reminded me of something else on US 6.  In PA, the Carbondale Bypass section of US 6 leading east from the I-81/I-84/I-380 junction is signed sequentially, even though it starts at MP 336.  PennDOT has a habit of not numbering exits on US and state routes, so it's strange that this stretch received numbers, and sequential to boot.  So here is a precedent the Codders could use to stop the change.

[DJ Particle]

This whole US 6 discussion just reminded me of something else on US 6.  In PA, the Carbondale Bypass section of US 6 leading east from the I-81/I-84/I-380 junction is signed sequentially, even though it starts at MP 336.  PennDOT has a habit of not numbering exits on US and state routes, so it's strange that this stretch received numbers, and sequential to boot.  So here is a precedent the Codders could use to stop the change.

How long is that stretch, and how close are the exits?  Remember that 4 freeways in MA got exceptions due to being short urban freeways with very close exit congestion.

[Roadsguy]

It's 15 miles, but the vast majority of US 6 isn't an expressway; the other expressway sections are short, disconnected town bypasses in the middle of nowhere or the concurrency with I-81 north of Scranton. It does have mile markers along its entire length, though–unique for a non-expressway in PA–because of the poorly-named PA Route 6 Alliance. This means mileage-based exits along the Casey/Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway wouldn't be too jarring, but the existing exit numbers are clearly meant to be for just the expressway, not US 6 as a whole.

Or just make it I-781 (PA 181, 381, and of course 581 are taken) and put US 6 back through Carbondale and it's a moot point.

Similarly, the North and South Cross Valley Expressways (PA 29 and 309, respectively) near Wilkes-Barre have sequential exit numbers starting from I-81. (In PA 29's case, it's the start of the northern half of the route.)

[roadman]

I posted these images on Twitter...Codders still don't care.

And as you can see...there's a reason why the Mid-Cape needs overhead signage.  Along most of it, the trees are too thick.

The foliage obscuring signs was one of the arguments MassDOT made for going to overhead signs along the Mid-Cape Highway.  They pointed out that, with overhead signs, foliage would not need to be periodically cleared and thinned to maintain sign visibility, which is an environmental benefit.  Fell on totally deaf ears.

[DJ Particle]

The foliage obscuring signs was one of the arguments MassDOT made for going to overhead signs along the Mid-Cape Highway.  They pointed out that, with overhead signs, foliage would not need to be periodically cleared and thinned to maintain sign visibility, which is an environmental benefit.  Fell on totally deaf ears.

Seriously, MassDoT should just come in, say "Route 6 is unsafe as it is, so we're making these changes, and you don't get a say".

And the kicker is...eventually, the residents will get used to it if it's forced on them.  They'll complain for a few years, but they'll adjust.

[vdeane]

Most states would rather clear the vegetation than make the sign overhead.  Overhead signs cost more and take longer to install, plus they need to be inspected and may have to be taken down suddenly if they fail inspection.  Plus, since most states don't use them pervasively like MA does, they do have a connotation of being in a more developed area or a freeway/freeway junction.

[roadman]

Most states would rather clear the vegetation than make the sign overhead.  Overhead signs cost more and take longer to install, plus they need to be inspected and may have to be taken down suddenly if they fail inspection.  Plus, since most states don't use them pervasively like MA does, they do have a connotation of being in a more developed area or a freeway/freeway junction.

In the past 35 years, Massachusetts has had less than a dozen overhead sign support failures that were not the result of vehicle impact (like an overheight trailer or a raised dump body).  All of the failures were the result of severe weather events (blizzard or tornado).  Likewise, the number of supports that were removed owing to problems found during inspection has been about six.  In that time, many more ground-mounted signs have been damaged or destroyed by errant vehicles.

Also consider that clearing and grubbing of vegetation blocking signs, by its nature (pardon the pun), is a frequently recurring activity.  Unless there is a failure, an overhead sign structure can last 40 to 50 years without major maintenance.  And, I don't know about New York, but in Massachusetts, nearly all vegetation work on highways requires a review and sign-off by the conservation commission in the communities the work is being done in beforehand - just one more thing to delay the work.

[vdeane]

Meanwhile in New York, a few have failed in the past decade and it can take months/years for replacement to happen, assuming it's not replaced with ground-mounted signage permanently (the Utica area in particular is moving away from overhead signs in many locations).  I want to say that we've had at least six fail inspection in the last decade alone.

New York also doesn't do corridor sign replacements of the type that are often seen in MA and CT all that often these days (outside of Regions 3 and 8, at least).  Most of our signage either dates to the 90s or the economic stimulus in the recession unless it's a newer spot replacement or done as part of a larger project.

[jp the roadgeek]

Look at how long CT is taking to replace signage.  CT won't be fully converted to mileage based exits until at least 2030.  There is still a ton of 1980's button copy signage that looks like 1960's highway signage that has totally lost its reflectivity and the buttons are so worn out you don't even know what route the exit is for.  And CT won't convert a highway until all signage on it has been replaced.  And by the time it's all replaced, much of the signage on longer highways will already be 20 years old and halfway through its useful life.  What is the big deal with putting overlays over existing signage and slapping a little OLD EXIT XX sign?

[vdeane]

Let's just say that overlays can be very noticeable when placed on old signs.

[bob7374]

MassDOT has started making changes to its future exit lists based on comments submitted by members of this forum (if not others). They've changed the US 3 exit number for I-95 from 70 A/B to 72 A/B and revised the MA 2 list so that Exits 25 and 30 future numbers are now 92 and 98. No changes to other lists yet.  Link to the revised US 3 exit list:
https://www.newmassexits.com/MassDOT_Documents/Project_Documents/US_3.pdf

[Rothman]

vdeane:  Are you saying we have had OSS total failures detected through the inspection cycle (things changed a couple of years ago when the funding was centralized in the MO and the need for Regional PINs was greatly reduced)? OSSes get red flags all the time through inspections, but I wasn't aware of any that had to be taken down and totally replaced due to an inspection (which isn't saying much since I was only half out of the loop until more recently)  -- I'm thinking they were because of incidents?

[machias]

vdeane:  Are you saying we have had OSS total failures detected through the inspection cycle (things changed a couple of years ago when the funding was centralized in the MO and the need for Regional PINs was greatly reduced)? OSSes get red flags all the time through inspections, but I wasn't aware of any that had to be taken down and totally replaced due to an inspection (which isn't saying much since I was only half out of the loop until more recently)  -- I'm thinking they were because of incidents?

A few years ago I-790 and NY 5 in the Utica area were shut down overnight because overhead signs had to come down within 48 hours of an inspection. There were four or five installations that came down from that inspection alone.

[vdeane]

vdeane:  Are you saying we have had OSS total failures detected through the inspection cycle (things changed a couple of years ago when the funding was centralized in the MO and the need for Regional PINs was greatly reduced)? OSSes get red flags all the time through inspections, but I wasn't aware of any that had to be taken down and totally replaced due to an inspection (which isn't saying much since I was only half out of the loop until more recently)  -- I'm thinking they were because of incidents?

A few years ago I-790 and NY 5 in the Utica area were shut down overnight because overhead signs had to come down within 48 hours of an inspection. There were four or five installations that came down from that inspection alone.

There was another case on I-390 in Henrietta.  I wouldn't be surprised if the same reason is why a couple of signs on I-590 were replaced with tiny ground-mounted signs filling in for a few months, the gantries on I-88 near Binghamton that were out for several years, or the one that just went missing on I-787 in Albany.  I think this was also the case with NY 590 near Blossom Road.

[storm2k]

vdeane:  Are you saying we have had OSS total failures detected through the inspection cycle (things changed a couple of years ago when the funding was centralized in the MO and the need for Regional PINs was greatly reduced)? OSSes get red flags all the time through inspections, but I wasn't aware of any that had to be taken down and totally replaced due to an inspection (which isn't saying much since I was only half out of the loop until more recently)  -- I'm thinking they were because of incidents?

A few years ago I-790 and NY 5 in the Utica area were shut down overnight because overhead signs had to come down within 48 hours of an inspection. There were four or five installations that came down from that inspection alone.

There was another case on I-390 in Henrietta.  I wouldn't be surprised if the same reason is why a couple of signs on I-590 were replaced with tiny ground-mounted signs filling in for a few months, the gantries on I-88 near Binghamton that were out for several years, or the one that just went missing on I-787 in Albany.  I think this was also the case with NY 590 near Blossom Road.

Or you can just be NJDOT and take down an overhead gantry and just never replace it with any signage. Like this, for example (here's the original gantry from 2008 GSV). Eventually, I'm assuming that NJDOT will replace the gantry or do what they also like to do, and put up poorly assembled ground mount signs (they did this in various places on 295, which had similarly aged gantries that needed to come down)