News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

Started by roadman, October 28, 2015, 05:28:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

Quote from: Duke87 on December 16, 2019, 07:16:08 PM
The bit about loading is a bit excusey - this just means no one has or wants to do the work to look into whether the gantry could support the extra weight.

On the other hand I agree in principle with not having exit numbers here - terminal interchanges do not need exit numbers for the terminating route.
I'm not exactly surprised, though - given how many numbering mistakes and oddities are being perpetuated into the mile-based scheme instead of corrected (honestly, we can probably count it as a minor miracle that Allston-Brighton will have one exit number instead of two), they probably didn't think of the potential for adding exit numbers during the Turnpike AET project.  Also, the wind loading excuse is the exact same one used by CalTrans to justify their in-sign exit "tabs".

Re: numbering terminal exits, I agree, though I can see logic for numbering the ending interchange as one likely doesn't have the length of the freeway memorized.  That said, starting interchanges IMO should never be numbered unless the mileage starts at something other than 0 - one can assume the freeway starts at 0 and be right most of the time, and numbering it just creates needless alphabet soup.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


DJ Particle

#551
Quote from: Duke87 on December 16, 2019, 07:16:08 PM
This is dumb since both exits 1A and 1B in the westbound direction are exits from Route 6 - not from route 3. But I'm not going to be a pest about it.

As I posted earlier, the Mile 0 post for MA-3 was re-calibrated to be just after the north end of the Sagamore Bridge, between exits 1B and 1C (55), so there is now a small concurrency (about 1/10th mile or so) of US-6 and MA-3

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7792915,-70.5430228,3a,50.7y,10.15h,89.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb72YR7Idk3-4dK81YcG3rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

PHLBOS

Quote from: Duke87 on December 16, 2019, 07:16:08 PMOn the other hand I agree in principle with not having exit numbers here - terminal interchanges do not need exit numbers for the terminating route.
The issue here is consistencyAll Most other highway termini in the Bay State w/numbered exits include numbering at their respective termini (I-190 being the only other known exception).  Had those tollbooths hypothetically never existed at that interchange; those I-90 ramps from I-84 would've likely had exit tabs, though sequential, from day one.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 17, 2019, 08:29:39 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 16, 2019, 07:16:08 PMOn the other hand I agree in principle with not having exit numbers here - terminal interchanges do not need exit numbers for the terminating route.
The issue here is consistency.  All other highway termini in the Bay State w/numbered exits include numbering at their respective termini.  Had those tollbooths hypothetically never existed at that interchange; those I-90 ramps from I-84 would've likely had exit tabs, though sequential, from day one.

The southern end of I-190 does not have numbered ramps for I-290.  That would be the only other exception.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

PHLBOS

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 17, 2019, 08:44:45 AMThe southern end of I-190 does not have numbered ramps for I-290.  That would be the only other exception.
Forgot about I-190 and the new plans don't call for the I-290 ramps to receive such either during the renumbering.  Given the proximity of the MA 12 interchange (Exit 1); this could've been one case for using Exit 0 for the termini.

I've since corrected my earlier post; edits in blue.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cl94

I got nearly identical responses for my points about I-91, Routes 3/6, and the end of I-84, so I'm not going to post them here.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

SectorZ

Quote from: Ben114 on December 16, 2019, 08:16:23 PM
I asked about the fudging on I-290 through Worcester (especially with proposed exits 18, 19, and 20 all being within one mile).
Quote from: my question to MassDOT
On the topic of I-290, why are proposed exits 18 and 20 (currently 14 and 16) not going to be exits 18A and 18C, respectively, with Shrewsbury Street (currently exit 15) being exit 18B, since all three exits are within one mile?
They got back to me.
Quote from: their response
To minimize possible driver confusion, the proposed exit numbering on all highways under this project will use the A/B/C scheme only to denote exits that serve both directions of a route or street from separate ramps on the highway (such as I-495 at Route 9 in Marlborough); to denote multiple exits accessed by a collector-distributor road off the highway (such as the exit from I-495 to US 3 and the Lowell Connector in Chelmsford; or to denote separate exits that are so closely spaced apart that assigning separate numbers is impractical (such as Southampton Street and Frontage Road on I-93 northbound in Boston).

To consistently apply this standard statewide, it is necessary on some routes, such as I-290 through Worcester, to adjust the proposed numbers in certain areas from the normal rounding conventions. These deviations have been minimized so that the overall numbering will "catch up"  to the mile markers in a short distance.
Any thoughts? Looks to me that they want to try to get out of the true mile-based system with these sequential segments.

Do they think 495 and 9 junction in Marlboro?

hotdogPi

I'm actually fine with the sequential segments.

Note that they did fix the typos when we pointed them out.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

vdeane

Quote from: DJ Particle on December 17, 2019, 01:04:47 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 16, 2019, 07:16:08 PM
This is dumb since both exits 1A and 1B in the westbound direction are exits from Route 6 - not from route 3. But I'm not going to be a pest about it.

As I posted earlier, the Mile 0 post for MA-3 was re-calibrated to be just after the north end of the Sagamore Bridge, between exits 1B and 1C (55), so there is now a small concurrency (about 1/10th mile or so) of US-6 and MA-3

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7792915,-70.5430228,3a,50.7y,10.15h,89.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb72YR7Idk3-4dK81YcG3rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Which begs the question - why did they do that?  MA 3 should end at US 6, not some random point just south of that interchange.  The only thing I can see is if that's where the rotary was and they just kept it there rather than truncate.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Ben114

Quote from: SectorZ on December 17, 2019, 09:46:59 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on December 16, 2019, 08:16:23 PM
I asked about the fudging on I-290 through Worcester (especially with proposed exits 18, 19, and 20 all being within one mile).
Quote from: my question to MassDOT
On the topic of I-290, why are proposed exits 18 and 20 (currently 14 and 16) not going to be exits 18A and 18C, respectively, with Shrewsbury Street (currently exit 15) being exit 18B, since all three exits are within one mile?
They got back to me.
Quote from: their response
To minimize possible driver confusion, the proposed exit numbering on all highways under this project will use the A/B/C scheme only to denote exits that serve both directions of a route or street from separate ramps on the highway (such as I-495 at Route 9 in Marlborough); to denote multiple exits accessed by a collector-distributor road off the highway (such as the exit from I-495 to US 3 and the Lowell Connector in Chelmsford; or to denote separate exits that are so closely spaced apart that assigning separate numbers is impractical (such as Southampton Street and Frontage Road on I-93 northbound in Boston).

To consistently apply this standard statewide, it is necessary on some routes, such as I-290 through Worcester, to adjust the proposed numbers in certain areas from the normal rounding conventions. These deviations have been minimized so that the overall numbering will "catch up"  to the mile markers in a short distance.
Any thoughts? Looks to me that they want to try to get out of the true mile-based system with these sequential segments.

Do they think 495 and 9 junction in Marlboro?

I did not see that one, should've read it more carefully.

Also:
Quote from: MassDOT reply
or to denote separate exits that are so closely spaced apart that assigning separate numbers is impractical
Isn't that the situation I brought up? Something seems odd......

jp the roadgeek

Just submitted my question about why the ramps from 3 North to 93 North and from 3 South to 95/128 north are numbered despite carrying mainline Route 3.  We'll see if I get a response.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Duke87

Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2019, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on December 17, 2019, 01:04:47 AM
As I posted earlier, the Mile 0 post for MA-3 was re-calibrated to be just after the north end of the Sagamore Bridge, between exits 1B and 1C (55), so there is now a small concurrency (about 1/10th mile or so) of US-6 and MA-3
Which begs the question - why did they do that?  MA 3 should end at US 6, not some random point just south of that interchange.  The only thing I can see is if that's where the rotary was and they just kept it there rather than truncate.

The center of the rotary was pretty much where the two roadways now cross. It looks like that mile 0 marker is located right about where the southern limit of the project to construct the interchange would have been, so its placement probably stems from that.

I wouldn't read this as there being a 3/6 concurrency though - just as an inventorying quirk. It's worth noting that eastbound, US 6 enters the freeway right near where that mile 0 marker is, i.e. right near where the logical southbound end of MA 3 is if we hyperanalyze interchange geometry. But in the other direction, traffic following US 6 westbound crosses the overpass and takes a loop ramp... resultingly, the logical northbound beginning of MA 3 is nearly 1/4 mile north of where the logical southbound end is. Since mile 0 for both directions needs to be in the same place, they had to pick a place to put it and they picked the southernmost logical spot.

Nonetheless, the traveling public doesn't care what a finite element of pavement is inventoried as. They care that when they are following a route things make consistent sense. Someone following US 6 westbound should see nothing but US 6 exit numbers. Someone going from US 6 westbound to MA 3 northbound should not see MA 3 exit numbers until they have passed the point where they have "exited" US 6.

Currently, MassDOT has (correctly!) signed the through movement onto 3 north as an exit while leaving the offramp which is the mainline path for US 6 unnumbered. This, I'd say, is the most damning argument against "well we're leaving 1A and 1B based on route 3 mileage". According to this logic, exit 1B from MA 3 north is for MA 3 north!
For MassDOT's position to be internally consistent they'd need to move the exit 1B tab over to the sign for US 6 west.




If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

DJ Particle

Quote from: Duke87 on December 17, 2019, 08:38:23 PM
For MassDOT's position to be internally consistent they'd need to move the exit 1B tab over to the sign for US 6 west.
According to the renumbering map, apparently that's exactly what's going to happen.  The graphic for the "Exit 1B" sign has the arrow pointing to the right.

And, the Mile 0 point being where it is actually makes sense when you figure that mileposts are always measured in northbound and eastbound directions, so that would make US-6's junction with MA-3 officially at about that post, since US-6 is measured via eastbound.

RobbieL2415

Good on MassDOT for considering dropping I-290 and signing it as I-395.  Been clamoring for that for years.

Quote from: DJ Particle on December 05, 2019, 11:20:58 PM
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.



IIRC the lanes are 12' from Exit 6 to Exit 9B, with full shoulders.  That section is newer than from Exit 1C to Edit 6.

I agree that a 30' clear-zone should be added, but residents will probably complain about it because trees will die.

I think an upgrade of Exits 1C to 6 should be considered.  12' lanes, full shoulder, and ramp extensions and over/underpass replacement.  I would also move the service plaza at exit 6 to the center median area to the east for better entrance access.

vdeane

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 06:57:17 PM
Good on MassDOT for considering dropping I-290 and signing it as I-395.  Been clamoring for that for years.
Meanwhile, I'm dead set against that because it would orphan I-190.  If they decide to pursue that, I can only hope that Worcester proves to be as resistant to change as Boston.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Alps

Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2019, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 06:57:17 PM
Good on MassDOT for considering dropping I-290 and signing it as I-395.  Been clamoring for that for years.
Meanwhile, I'm dead set against that because it would orphan I-190.  If they decide to pursue that, I can only hope that Worcester proves to be as resistant to change as Boston.
I-995?

DJ Particle

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 06:57:17 PM
IIRC the lanes are 12' from Exit 6 to Exit 9B, with full shoulders.  That section is newer than from Exit 1C to Edit 6.

Only eastbound Exits 6 (68) - 9 (78) and about half a mile westbound near Exit 8 (75) are up to modern standards.  Those are the parts that were built in the late 1960s. The reason why that short westbound stretch was done was to remove an at-grade railway crossing.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2019, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 06:57:17 PM
Good on MassDOT for considering dropping I-290 and signing it as I-395.  Been clamoring for that for years.
Meanwhile, I'm dead set against that because it would orphan I-190.  If they decide to pursue that, I can only hope that Worcester proves to be as resistant to change as Boston.

I still say the best solution would be for CT to get involved and route I-395 onto SR 695 and have I-290 begin at the 395/695 split.  Granted you'd have an I-287 in NJ situation where the parent never enters the state, but when CT/MA 52 was upgraded, the I-290 designation was considered.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

PHLBOS

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 06:57:17 PMGood on MassDOT for considering dropping I-290 and signing it as I-395.  Been clamoring for that for years.
The key word in your post is considering.  I don't believe that such is fully a done deal as of yet.  While the I-290 mile markers will change during the interchange numbering conversion; the route number may stay as is since the current sequential numbers were already a continuation of I-395's (originally MA 52) numbers.  IMHO, the time to redesignate I-290 as an extension of I-395 would've been when I-395 replaced MA/CT 52 circa 1983.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Rothman

Quote from: Alps on December 19, 2019, 12:23:55 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2019, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 06:57:17 PM
Good on MassDOT for considering dropping I-290 and signing it as I-395.  Been clamoring for that for years.
Meanwhile, I'm dead set against that because it would orphan I-190.  If they decide to pursue that, I can only hope that Worcester proves to be as resistant to change as Boston.
I-995?
Let's do I-502.

*ducks and runs*
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

SectorZ

Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2019, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 06:57:17 PM
Good on MassDOT for considering dropping I-290 and signing it as I-395.  Been clamoring for that for years.
Meanwhile, I'm dead set against that because it would orphan I-190.  If they decide to pursue that, I can only hope that Worcester proves to be as resistant to change as Boston.

Maybe extend 190 south to 146 and down to 90 via 146?

Also, where did I miss in the thread that this was being considered?

PHLBOS

Quote from: SectorZ on December 19, 2019, 11:17:47 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2019, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 06:57:17 PM
Good on MassDOT for considering dropping I-290 and signing it as I-395.  Been clamoring for that for years.
Meanwhile, I'm dead set against that because it would orphan I-190.  If they decide to pursue that, I can only hope that Worcester proves to be as resistant to change as Boston.

Maybe extend 190 south to 146 and down to 90 via 146?
Wouldn't such cause a similar change in exit numbers in a short distance as I-395/290 would?  Assuming that RI has plans to number its SR 146 interchanges (do they?, I know, OT); such would conceivably change at the state line then change again at I-90 to I-190's mileage.  I won't even go into the I-190/395 concurrency and I-395 (current I-290) segment east of Worcester.

Quote from: SectorZ on December 19, 2019, 11:17:47 AMAlso, where did I miss in the thread that this was being considered?
See Reply #474.  Such was an actual MassDOT consideration down the road (no pun intended).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

southshore720

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 19, 2019, 01:17:33 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 19, 2019, 11:17:47 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2019, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 06:57:17 PM
Good on MassDOT for considering dropping I-290 and signing it as I-395.  Been clamoring for that for years.
Meanwhile, I'm dead set against that because it would orphan I-190.  If they decide to pursue that, I can only hope that Worcester proves to be as resistant to change as Boston.

Maybe extend 190 south to 146 and down to 90 via 146?
Wouldn't such cause a similar change in exit numbers in a short distance as I-395/290 would?  Assuming that RI has plans to number its SR 146 interchanges (do they?, I know, OT); such would conceivably change at the state line then change again at I-90 to I-190's mileage.  I won't even go into the I-190/395 concurrency and I-395 (current I-290) segment east of Worcester.

Quote from: SectorZ on December 19, 2019, 11:17:47 AMAlso, where did I miss in the thread that this was being considered?
See Reply #474.  Such was an actual MassDOT consideration down the road (no pun intended).

RI 146 is currently undergoing sign-replacement with assignment of mile-based exit numbers.  The last exit (RI 146A to RI 5/102) is Exit 14.

AMLNet49

May email MassDOT regarding Route 2 exit 29, a former RIRO, however the offramps are now actual ramps and traffic no longer has to stop; only the on-ramps are a hard right turn. Since this intersections was rebuilt into this quasi-interchange, the advance signage has resembled that of any other exit, and most travelers who aren't paying attention would likely not understand why the signage is unnumbered. It's de facto exit 29 as it sits between 28 and 30, with other at-grade turnoffs in that stretch not having offramps and being signed with LGSs, as opposed to the normal exit signage for exit (29).

It should be designated exit 98.

Note that exit 50/future 125 is also amidst a field of at-grade turnoffs and traffic lights but is numbered

DRMan

Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 20, 2019, 12:08:59 PM
May email MassDOT regarding Route 2 exit 29, a former RIRO, however the offramps are now actual ramps and traffic no longer has to stop; only the on-ramps are a hard right turn. Since this intersections was rebuilt into this quasi-interchange, the advance signage has resembled that of any other exit, and most travelers who aren't paying attention would likely not understand why the signage is unnumbered. It's de facto exit 29 as it sits between 28 and 30, with other at-grade turnoffs in that stretch not having offramps and being signed with LGSs, as opposed to the normal exit signage for exit (29).

It should be designated exit 98.

Note that exit 50/future 125 is also amidst a field of at-grade turnoffs and traffic lights but is numbered
There is still a traffic signal here (Mt. Elam Road) for eastbound MA 2 traffic -- for that reason, I would leave it unnumbered.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.