Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[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

There is still a traffic signal here (Mt. Elam Road) for eastbound MA 2 traffic -- for that reason, I would leave it unnumbered.

There is a full offramp eastbound as well. I’m not sure that light ever changes color as the onramp is a RIRO just like the westbound side

[NE2]

For comparison, http://www.google.com/maps/@33.9346182,-117.0363326,17z was assigned a number.

[SectorZ]

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.

There is a full offramp eastbound as well. I'm not sure that light ever changes color as the onramp is a RIRO just like the westbound side

Westbound side never changes, eastbound side does. Mt. Elam Rd south of 2 is a dead end road, so given the residents have no option but to exit onto route 2, the light is operational. When I lived in Fitchburg I was curious what it looked like down there and drove down. Getting back to 2 I got a green as soon it could switch to red on 2.

I am also on board with it getting an exit number. There are much less deserving interchanges that have exit numbers.

[DJ Particle]

I am also on board with it getting an exit number. There are much less deserving interchanges that have exit numbers.

Also see:  MA-140 Exit 12 (20)

[jp the roadgeek]

Got a reply from MassDOT as to why the ramps from Route 3 are numbered:

Although the ramp from US 3 south to I-95/MA 128 North in Burlington is also the continuation of US 3 south, it is signed as an exit because I-95/MA 128 north is the principal destination for the ramp, and because US 3 south continues as a two-lane road instead of a freeway south of I-95/MA 128.  This has been the case since exit numbers were originally posted on this section of US 3 in the late 1950s.

The ramp from MA 3 north to I-93 north in Braintree, although a continuation of the MA 3 mainline, was given an exit number in the early 2000s for similar reasons.

It has been our experience that these current exit designations have not caused any undue problems for travelers.  Likewise, emergency responders have indicated to use that they have no issues with the current exit signing at either of

[bob7374]

Got a reply from MassDOT as to why the ramps from Route 3 are numbered:

Although the ramp from US 3 south to I-95/MA 128 North in Burlington is also the continuation of US 3 south, it is signed as an exit because I-95/MA 128 north is the principal destination for the ramp, and because US 3 south continues as a two-lane road instead of a freeway south of I-95/MA 128.  This has been the case since exit numbers were originally posted on this section of US 3 in the late 1950s.

The ramp from MA 3 north to I-93 north in Braintree, although a continuation of the MA 3 mainline, was given an exit number in the early 2000s for similar reasons.

It has been our experience that these current exit designations have not caused any undue problems for travelers.  Likewise, emergency responders have indicated to use that they have no issues with the current exit signing at either of

IMO it would be helpful to travelers to at least have MA 3, along with US 1 on the overhead signs on Route 3 North in Braintree, or at least as trailblazers on sign supports, like the other signs for I-93/US 1 North and South. They should also remove the 1 remaining MA 128 trailblazer on the ramp from Washington Street/Burgin Parkway ramp to I-93. 

[DJ Particle]

They should also remove the 1 remaining MA 128 trailblazer on the ramp from Washington Street/Burgin Parkway ramp to I-93.

Or at least add a "TO"

[bob7374]

They should also remove the 1 remaining MA 128 trailblazer on the ramp from Washington Street/Burgin Parkway ramp to I-93.

Or at least add a "TO"

Perhaps. Link to the Google Maps Street View image of the trailblazer, still there as of 12/15/19:
https://goo.gl/maps/1AkYhKgKk3XF38iA6

[Ben114]

I asked about the fudging on I-290 through Worcester (especially with proposed exits 18, 19, and 20 all being within one mile).

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.

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:

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......

I got another response from MassDOT about this spacing on I-290:

To clarify our previous response to you, A/B/C designations will be used to denote closely spaced separate exits where the adjacent exits are spaced approximately 1/8th mile apart or less. The majority of exits on I-290 have greater spacing than that, which is why we are using separate numbers for each of these exits.

1/8th mile for letters!

[bob7374]

In addition to the upcoming public meeting in Lowell on January 23, MassDOT has added 3 more about their Exit Renumbering Project: Boston, February 11, New Bedford, March 10, and Springfield March 24. As of now I plan to attend the meeting in Boston.

They have also added a short explanatory video to their website. A direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gG9-Pl-fUA&feature=youtu.be

[bob7374]

MassDOT has updated its Exit Renumbering Project page with a few more questions and answers. Sound familiar? (my comments in [ ] ):

WHY ARE THE EXIT NUMBERS CONTINUING FROM I-395 THROUGH I-290?
MassDOT is 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. [Nothing about the possibility of redesignating I-290 as I-395.]

WHY DO ROUTE 128 MILE MARKERS NOT BEGIN AT ZERO IN PEABODY?
While I-95 is the primary designation for the highway between Canton and Peabody, Route 128 continues to be carried as a secondary designation on this road. This is why the mileposts for Route 128 begin in Canton and not Peabody. Although removing the Route 128 designation south of Peabody would allow the "˜zero' milepost for 128 to be at I-95 in Peabody, such a change would require an outreach effort and changes to highway signs that is beyond the scope of the current exit renumbering project. [Don't like the last sentence. It seems to me that the exit renumbering project would be a great time/excuse to make other changes to improve the current system such as by eliminating redundant routes and creating or extending new ones.]

WHY ARE ROUTE 6'S NEW EXITS GOING FROM 1A, 1B TO 55?
At the Sagamore Bridge, New Exits 1A and 1B are based on the Route 3 mileposts. Because MassDOT is not adopting the Exit 0 designation for exits, these exit numbers will stay the same. New Exits 55 and 82 are based on the Route 6 mileposts, which begin at the Rhode Island border in Seekonk and ascend from west to east to the end of Route 6 in Provincetown. [Shouldn't it say that 'New Exits 1A and 1B WILL BE based on the Route 3 Numbers'? The current numbers are based on US 6 numbering since Route 3 North is Exit 1A and the US 6 exit has no number. Looks like MassDOT is going forward with the proposed US 6 numbers despite Cape Cod opposition.]

[DJ Particle]

[Looks like MassDOT is going forward with the proposed US 6 numbers despite Cape Cod opposition.]

Good....

[RobbieL2415]

MassDOT has updated its Exit Renumbering Project page with a few more questions and answers. Sound familiar? (my comments in [ ] ):

WHY ARE THE EXIT NUMBERS CONTINUING FROM I-395 THROUGH I-290?
MassDOT is 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. [Nothing about the possibility of redesignating I-290 as I-395.]

WHY DO ROUTE 128 MILE MARKERS NOT BEGIN AT ZERO IN PEABODY?
While I-95 is the primary designation for the highway between Canton and Peabody, Route 128 continues to be carried as a secondary designation on this road. This is why the mileposts for Route 128 begin in Canton and not Peabody. Although removing the Route 128 designation south of Peabody would allow the "˜zero' milepost for 128 to be at I-95 in Peabody, such a change would require an outreach effort and changes to highway signs that is beyond the scope of the current exit renumbering project. [Don't like the last sentence. It seems to me that the exit renumbering project would be a great time/excuse to make other changes to improve the current system such as by eliminating redundant routes and creating or extending new ones.]

WHY ARE ROUTE 6'S NEW EXITS GOING FROM 1A, 1B TO 55?
At the Sagamore Bridge, New Exits 1A and 1B are based on the Route 3 mileposts. Because MassDOT is not adopting the Exit 0 designation for exits, these exit numbers will stay the same. New Exits 55 and 82 are based on the Route 6 mileposts, which begin at the Rhode Island border in Seekonk and ascend from west to east to the end of Route 6 in Provincetown. [Shouldn't it say that 'New Exits 1A and 1B WILL BE based on the Route 3 Numbers'? The current numbers are based on US 6 numbering since Route 3 North is Exit 1A and the US 6 exit has no number. Looks like MassDOT is going forward with the proposed US 6 numbers despite Cape Cod opposition.]

US 6 and MA 3 are multiplexed for a few hundred feet going east and a few thousand feet going west. That's why you get the sudden change in numbers.

[DJ Particle]

MassDOT has updated its Exit Renumbering Project page with a few more questions and answers. Sound familiar? (my comments in [ ] ):

WHY ARE THE EXIT NUMBERS CONTINUING FROM I-395 THROUGH I-290?
MassDOT is 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. [Nothing about the possibility of redesignating I-290 as I-395.]

WHY DO ROUTE 128 MILE MARKERS NOT BEGIN AT ZERO IN PEABODY?
While I-95 is the primary designation for the highway between Canton and Peabody, Route 128 continues to be carried as a secondary designation on this road. This is why the mileposts for Route 128 begin in Canton and not Peabody. Although removing the Route 128 designation south of Peabody would allow the "˜zero' milepost for 128 to be at I-95 in Peabody, such a change would require an outreach effort and changes to highway signs that is beyond the scope of the current exit renumbering project. [Don't like the last sentence. It seems to me that the exit renumbering project would be a great time/excuse to make other changes to improve the current system such as by eliminating redundant routes and creating or extending new ones.]

WHY ARE ROUTE 6'S NEW EXITS GOING FROM 1A, 1B TO 55?
At the Sagamore Bridge, New Exits 1A and 1B are based on the Route 3 mileposts. Because MassDOT is not adopting the Exit 0 designation for exits, these exit numbers will stay the same. New Exits 55 and 82 are based on the Route 6 mileposts, which begin at the Rhode Island border in Seekonk and ascend from west to east to the end of Route 6 in Provincetown. [Shouldn't it say that 'New Exits 1A and 1B WILL BE based on the Route 3 Numbers'? The current numbers are based on US 6 numbering since Route 3 North is Exit 1A and the US 6 exit has no number. Looks like MassDOT is going forward with the proposed US 6 numbers despite Cape Cod opposition.]

US 6 and MA 3 are multiplexed for a few hundred feet going east and a few thousand feet going west. That's why you get the sudden change in numbers.

I just wish they were also numbering Exits 106 and 109 in Truro

[PHLBOS]

I just wish they were also numbering Exits 106 and 109 in Truro

US 6 through Truro is not a limited-access highway.  Interchange numbers in MA, both past/current sequential and new/future mile-marker-based ones, are only assigned for interchanges along limited-access highways.

[hotdogPi]

I just wish they were also numbering Exits 106 and 109 in Truro

US 6 through Truro is not a limited-access highway.  Interchange numbers in MA, both past/current sequential and new/future mile-marker-based ones, are only assigned for interchanges along limited-access highways.

Except 50 on MA 2.

[PHLBOS]

I just wish they were also numbering Exits 106 and 109 in Truro

US 6 through Truro is not a limited-access highway.  Interchange numbers in MA, both past/current sequential and new/future mile-marker-based ones, are only assigned for interchanges along limited-access highways.

Except 50 on MA 2.

That one's a fairly new created when that whole intersection was upgraded to an interchange a few years ago.  MassDOT's likely rationale for that one is due to that section of MA 2 from just east of the MA 126 intersection to just west of the Bedford Rd. intersection, the new Exit 50 interchange is located along said-stretch, was indeed upgraded to a limited-access highway.  Those openings along the shoulders have a sliding gate and are not intended for general public use.

[The Ghostbuster]

I wonder if new maps, such as the upcoming 2021 Rand McNally Road Atlas, will feature Massachusetts' exit numbers with the new mileage-based numbers?

[Alps]

I just wish they were also numbering Exits 106 and 109 in Truro

US 6 through Truro is not a limited-access highway.  Interchange numbers in MA, both past/current sequential and new/future mile-marker-based ones, are only assigned for interchanges along limited-access highways.

Except 50 on MA 2.

That one's a fairly new created when that whole intersection was upgraded to an interchange a few years ago.  MassDOT's likely rationale for that one is due to that section of MA 2 from just east of the MA 126 intersection to just west of the Bedford Rd. intersection, the new Exit 50 interchange is located along said-stretch, was indeed upgraded to a limited-access highway.  Those openings along the shoulders have a sliding gate and are not intended for general public use.

I also feel like 2's a special case in general because of how much of it (east of US 202) is a freeway already, such that the few bits that aren't can still harbor some strange occurrences. At one pont I thought a regular intersection had an exit number? 2A being 50 tells me that in the future there will be one more interchange to the east (likely at Bedford - heck, Wiki already lists it as such).

[DJ Particle]

I just wish they were also numbering Exits 106 and 109 in Truro

US 6 through Truro is not a limited-access highway.  Interchange numbers in MA, both past/current sequential and new/future mile-marker-based ones, are only assigned for interchanges along limited-access highways.

yeah, I know....but even as a kid, I hoped I'd see exit numbers on them someday  *heh*

[PHLBOS]

2A being 50 tells me that in the future there will be one more interchange to the east (likely at Bedford - heck, Wiki already lists it as such).

For those that haven't checked MassDOT's latest list yet; the newly-built Exit 50 for MA 2 will be renumbered as Exit 125. 

That Wiki listing for Exit 51, at-grade intersection w/Bedford Rd., does not appear to have a future renumbering (tabulation only shows a dash).  Having rechecked GSV in that area; there is absolutely no signage indicating that such is Exit 51.  I have to wonder if that Wiki listing was based (erroneously(?)) on a proposed plan to convert that intersection into an interchange that never came to fruition.  That said & as many here know, this is one of those times where one needs to take some Wiki listings with a grain of salt.

Speaking of MA 2; the exit renumbering with respect to the mile markers along the expressway portion from I-95/MA 128 (current Exit 52 A/B) to the Lake St. interchange (current Exit 60) deviate a bit due to MassDOT's insistence not to assign suffixes for different interchanges.  As a result, the anticipation of the I-95 being renumbered as Exit 128 A/B (coincidental to the Yankee Division Highway's original route number) will instead be renumbered as Exit 127 A/B despite MA 2's MM 128.0 is located well west of the interchange at the Lexington/Concord line.  I've sent a comment to MassDOT via their website but I'll probably receive a similar reply I got when I commented regarding MA 128's renumbering from Peabody through Beverly.  To be fair, MA 2's renumbering deviation isn't as blatant/severe as those further north/east along MA 128.

Here's how I would've done the MA 2 renumbering along that stretch; since I submitted the below to MassDOT, such is not necessarily fictional. 

Current / Proposed / Suggested revision (Route number(s) or Street name)

52 A-B / 127A-B / 128 A-B (I-95/MA 128)

53 / 128 / 129 (Spring St.)

54 / 129 / 130 (Waltham St.)

55 / 130 / 131 (Pleasant St.)

56 / 131 / 132 A (MA 4/225/Winter St.)

57 / 132 / 132 B (Dow Ave.)

58 / 133 / No revision (Park Ave.)

59 / 134 / 134 A (MA 60)

60 / 135 / 134 B (Lake St.)

[hotdogPi]

I'm here at the meeting in Lowell.

[kramie13]

I was just looking at the new exit number list - while Mass. DOT plans to continue the mile-based exits from I-395 along I-290, they plan to "reset" the mile-based exits along I-295.  Wouldn't it make more sense to renumber the exits on I-295 to 25 (US-1) and 27 (I-95) instead of 2 and 4?  I believe I-205 around Portland, Oregon continues the mile-based exits from Oregon after crossing the state line into Washington.

It also does NOT make sense to have "dual mile-posts" along I-290.  Those exit numbers should reset at the Mass. Pike (I-90).

[hotdogPi]

I was just looking at the new exit number list - while Mass. DOT plans to continue the mile-based exits from I-395 along I-290, they plan to "reset" the mile-based exits along I-295.  Wouldn't it make more sense to renumber the exits on I-295 to 25 (US-1) and 27 (I-95) instead of 2 and 4?

I asked this exact question in person. She said that it was so that it's clear that you're crossing a state line.

[vdeane]

I don't mind I-290 continuing I-395's numbers, but they really should just have I-290 continue I-395's mileage rather than their "dual milepost" idea.  Seems like they're going for the worst of both worlds with their plan.