AARoads Forum

Bids were opened today on the Route 24 Fall River to Randolph sign project.  RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. of Avon, MA is the apparent low bidder.

According to the MassDOT project listing, the notice to proceed was given on Wednesday, January 24. No completion date was listed.

Does it include conversion to milepost-based exits or no?

Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2018, 03:49:46 PMDoes it include conversion to milepost-based exits or no?

My guess would be 'no'.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 26, 2018, 03:56:53 PM

Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2018, 03:49:46 PMDoes it include conversion to milepost-based exits or no?

My guess would be 'no'.

The remembering south of I-195 isn't that difficult.  No changes southbound; the only change northbound is 2 becomes 2A and 3 becomes 2B. So if they did it as part of the project, doing the remainder isn't that difficult.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 27, 2018, 12:56:08 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 26, 2018, 03:56:53 PM

Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2018, 03:49:46 PMDoes it include conversion to milepost-based exits or no?

My guess would be 'no'.

The remembering south of I-195 isn't that difficult.  No changes southbound; the only change northbound is 2 becomes 2A and 3 becomes 2B. So if they did it as part of the project, doing the remainder isn't that difficult.

I mean eventually SR 24 will only be exits 1-3, once the rest of it is converted to an interstate

Quote from: AMLNet49 on January 27, 2018, 11:58:48 PM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 27, 2018, 12:56:08 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 26, 2018, 03:56:53 PM

Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2018, 03:49:46 PMDoes it include conversion to milepost-based exits or no?

My guess would be 'no'.

The remembering south of I-195 isn't that difficult.  No changes southbound; the only change northbound is 2 becomes 2A and 3 becomes 2B. So if they did it as part of the project, doing the remainder isn't that difficult.

I mean eventually SR 24 will only be exits 1-3, once the rest of it is converted to an interstate

This is not Fictional Roads.

^ It isn't, but I've also heard semi-serious rumblings from Mass' officials about converting MA 24 into an Interstate.

Quote from: froggie on January 28, 2018, 07:54:48 AM
^ It isn't, but I've also heard semi-serious rumblings from Mass' officials about converting MA 24 into an Interstate.

Doesn't sound like it's worth the cost just to upgrade interchanges in incremental ways for a shield. Anything southeast of the I-95/93 corridor isn't going to get that much more traffic or development from an Interstate designation to warrant the work. I'm of the opinion that an existing highway should be able to be designated an Interstate without meeting every exact standard. New highways, yes, since you have design control, but there are smarter ways to spend a billion dollars.

Quote from: froggie on January 28, 2018, 07:54:48 AM
^ It isn't, but I've also heard semi-serious rumblings from Mass' officials about converting MA 24 into an Interstate.

This has been officially discussed since the early 1990s.  However, until the roadway is widened south of Raynham, which is still several years away at best, any re-designation is not going to happen.

QuoteDoes it include conversion to milepost-based exits or no?

No.  The project is following the current MassDOT practice for sign update work of keeping the current sequential numbers, but designing exit tabs and gore signs to accommodate the future milepost-based numbers.

Quote from: Alps on January 28, 2018, 10:49:32 AM

Quote from: froggie on January 28, 2018, 07:54:48 AM
^ It isn't, but I've also heard semi-serious rumblings from Mass' officials about converting MA 24 into an Interstate.

Doesn't sound like it's worth the cost just to upgrade interchanges in incremental ways for a shield. Anything southeast of the I-95/93 corridor isn't going to get that much more traffic or development from an Interstate designation to warrant the work. I'm of the opinion that an existing highway should be able to be designated an Interstate without meeting every exact standard. New highways, yes, since you have design control, but there are smarter ways to spend a billion dollars.

2 comments. As I've stated before, I believe MA 3 from Braintree to Cape Cod is more worthy of an Interstate designation than MA 24, either as a re-routed I-93 of I-93 spur. I agree with the potential relaxing of some Interstate standards for existing routes especially since there are many current Interstates that were grandfathered into the system that didn't meet design standards at the time, not to mention now. My criteria would be that if a current route is a logical addition to the Interstate System, built prior to the system's creation or later, met limited access freeway standards for the time it was built and currently has no design deficiencies that would seriously compromise its serving as an Interstate route, and the state(s) promise to have project plans in place to fix any of these deficiencies under the same time period as used in designating Future Interstates (30 years), then the route could get an Interstate shield.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 27, 2018, 12:56:08 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 26, 2018, 03:56:53 PM

Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2018, 03:49:46 PMDoes it include conversion to milepost-based exits or no?

My guess would be 'no'.

The remembering south of I-195 isn't that difficult.  No changes southbound; the only change northbound is 2 becomes 2A and 3 becomes 2B. So if they did it as part of the project, doing the remainder isn't that difficult.

As mentioned in other MA-related threads; MassDOT's postponement of implementing mile-marker-based interchange numbers isn't due to difficulty (plans for such a conversion already exist on paper), but rather due to a combination of a change in administration (Gov. Patrick to Gov. Baker) and the related-PR-backlash received from Cape Cod residents when such was proposed for the Mid-Cape Highway portion of US 6.  Granted that outrage was more directed towards the replacement signs being overhead than the exit number conversions themselves but the latter turned out to be a convenient supplemental scapegoat.

Have obtained a copy of the MA 24 sign plans courtesy of Charlene White of MassDOT. Can confirm Roadman's comment on sequential exits. Here's the new 1-Mile advance sign for the I-93 exit at the northern terminus:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24plansexitsi93ab.jpg&hash=dfbe184ff1c63584bb6c2ef9123229c271f80367)

Question-Why wasn't US 1 included on the signs as has been done on new signs for other intersecting roadways?

Here's the 1-mile advance for the I-495 exit. Cape Cod is retained as a control city, but the northbound city has been changed from Worcester to Marlboro:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24plansexitsi495ab.jpg&hash=657dc9716bb8fe204ba7467b904fd2e66ce336ce)

I plan to put up a site with the more sign plans soon and will post when completed.

Quote from: bob7374 on January 30, 2018, 11:11:36 AM
Have obtained a copy of the MA 24 sign plans. Can confirm Roadman's comment on sequential exits. Here's the new 1-Mile advance sign for the I-93 exit at the northern terminus:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24plansexitsi93ab.jpg&hash=dfbe184ff1c63584bb6c2ef9123229c271f80367)

Question-Why wasn't US 1 included on the signs as has been done on new signs for other intersecting roadways?

IMHO, given the long concurrency w/I-93 & US 1 and the fact that US 1 does not change roadways nor concurrencies at this location, leaving it off the main interchange/ramps signs is appropriate.  However, I would've preferred to see a listed control city (either Canton or Dedham) for I-93 southbound.  The APL layout certainly allows room for such.

Quote from: bob7374 on January 30, 2018, 11:11:36 AMHere's the 1-mile advance for the I-495 exit. Cape Cod is retained as a control city, but the northbound city has been changed from Worcester to Marlboro:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24plansexitsi495ab.jpg&hash=657dc9716bb8fe204ba7467b904fd2e66ce336ce)

Okay, in the I-90/Mass Pike signage thread (& on Facebook) southbound I-495's listed control city on the newer major signs is Taunton; mainly due to somebody misguidedly (IMHO) bowing to the whim of MUTCD's purest definition of a control city.  But here, such has gone completely out the window (not that I'm complaining). 

Is MassDOT only implementing that restriction for ramp signage off Interstates but not for US nor state routes?

Nonetheless, I still would've retained the use of Worcester for the northbound I-495 interchange/ramp signage.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2018, 11:29:45 AM

Quote from: bob7374 on January 30, 2018, 11:11:36 AM
Have obtained a copy of the MA 24 sign plans. Can confirm Roadman's comment on sequential exits. Here's the new 1-Mile advance sign for the I-93 exit at the northern terminus:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24plansexitsi93ab.jpg&hash=dfbe184ff1c63584bb6c2ef9123229c271f80367)

Question-Why wasn't US 1 included on the signs as has been done on new signs for other intersecting roadways?

IMHO, given the long concurrency w/I-93 & US 1 and the fact that US 1 does not change roadways nor concurrencies at this location, leaving it off the main interchange/ramps signs is appropriate.  However, I would've preferred to see a listed control city (either Canton or Dedham) for I-93 southbound.  The APL layout certainly allows room for such.

Quote from: bob7374 on January 30, 2018, 11:11:36 AMHere's the 1-mile advance for the I-495 exit. Cape Cod is retained as a control city, but the northbound city has been changed from Worcester to Marlboro:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24plansexitsi495ab.jpg&hash=657dc9716bb8fe204ba7467b904fd2e66ce336ce)

Okay, in the I-90/Mass Pike signage thread (& on Facebook) southbound I-495's listed control city on the newer major signs is Taunton; mainly due to somebody misguidedly (IMHO) bowing to the whim of MUTCD's purest definition of a control city.  But here, such has gone completely out the window (not that I'm complaining). 

Is MassDOT only implementing that restriction for ramp signage off Interstates but not for US nor state routes?

Nonetheless, I still would've retained the use of Worcester for the northbound I-495 interchange/ramp signage.

My argument about the US 1 signage is just about consistency. All the pull throughs on I-93 refer to US 1, the secondary route interchange signage includes US 1. The MA 24 plans call for just 2 new US 1 shields, presumably replacing those at the ramp split at the end of MA 24 North. Meanwhile, the signs put up on MA 3 North approaching I-93 in Braintree also just have I-93 on the them, but there is no supplementary US 1 signage at all. I would at least recommend placing some US 1 shields on the support posts there if there are not going to be any mention of US 1 on the MA 24 signage (or on new I-95 signage when those are put up), again to be consistent.

^^I do agree with your point that the signage should be consistent throughout (I'm looking at you I-95 & US 1 in Peabody/Danvers).

However & IMHO, it would've been better to restrict the US 1 concurrency along I-93 to trailblazer signage (for interchange/entrance ramps), reassurance markers and maybe through-signage.

In the case of MA 24 or even MA 3 (since you mentioned such); one option to inform motorists of the US 1 concurrency w/I-93 would be to place ground-mounted supplemental BGS' that read:
     1 NORTH
USE 93 NORTH
(or use applicable exit number)

     1 SOUTH
USE 93 SOUTH
(or use applicable exit number)

I have created a MA 24 sign photo gallery page and have included examples of each exit's sign plans, including this APL "1/2 Miles" sign for the I-93 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24plansexitsi93halfmiles.jpg&hash=0b00ba86e182a6e08261a92c24428ffe0876832f)

All the plans can be found at http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Quote from: bob7374 on February 02, 2018, 09:53:02 PMAll the plans can be found at http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Nice.  Is it me or does the image for the 1-mile advance BGS for Exit 9/MA 79 North appear squatty?

The existing pull-through BGS for that interchange is missing the SOUTH cardinal (the actual BGS has it.  Personally, I prefer the older legends on the interchange signage than what's being proposed.

According to the MassDOT project listing, work along 24 has begun: "Test borings started 6/3/18 at overhead sign locations. Normal work hours are Monday thru Friday 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM. Scheduled hours are Sunday thru Saturday 8:00 PM to 4:30 AM." Typically, how long does this part of the project last?

Quote from: bob7374 on June 15, 2018, 12:06:28 PM
According to the MassDOT project listing, work along 24 has begun: "Test borings started 6/3/18 at overhead sign locations. Normal work hours are Monday thru Friday 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM. Scheduled hours are Sunday thru Saturday 8:00 PM to 4:30 AM." Typically, how long does this part of the project last?

Depending on the number of soil borings required, this phase of a project that includes sign structure replacement usually takes between two and four weeks.

I've added photos of some of the new exit gore signs put up over the past month as part of the first stage if the MA 24 sign replacement project, including a few with numbers a little bit left of center, such as this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs1218e.JPG&hash=465b26625cb01449379affd1feae55493c49f3eb)

New town line and other ground-mounted signs are going up as well. Rest of the images can be found in my MA 24 Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 09:30:43 AM
Is it me or does the image for the 1-mile advance BGS for Exit 9/MA 79 North appear squatty?

Not sure what happened in Robert's translation, but the image on the original plans (and the original sign calculations) does not have that squatty appearance.

The gore sign at 14 B southbound was changed quite a while ago.

Quote from: Ben114 on December 29, 2018, 09:10:22 PMThe gore sign at 14 B southbound was changed quite a while ago.

Such might have been due to the previous version being damaged in an accident.

Observation regarding the new gore signs currently erected along MA 24: is there a reason why MassDOT is using Series D for the numerals/lettering instead of the more standard Series E(M) or even Series E?

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 11:55:09 AM
Observation regarding the new gore signs currently erected along MA 24: is there a reason why MassDOT is using Series D for the numerals/lettering instead of the more standard Series E(M) or even Series E?

I believe this is so the signs can accommodate a more wider milepost-based exit number.

Quote from: Ben114 on January 02, 2019, 01:20:11 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 11:55:09 AM
Observation regarding the new gore signs currently erected along MA 24: is there a reason why MassDOT is using Series D for the numerals/lettering instead of the more standard Series E(M) or even Series E?

I believe this is so the signs can accommodate a more wider milepost-based exit number.

I could see such happening for the new interchange number not the current.  Even so, given that MA 24 is roughly 41 miles in length; such wouldn't/shouldn't be an across-the-board reason. 

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 01:31:15 PM

Quote from: Ben114 on January 02, 2019, 01:20:11 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 11:55:09 AM
Observation regarding the new gore signs currently erected along MA 24: is there a reason why MassDOT is using Series D for the numerals/lettering instead of the more standard Series E(M) or even Series E?

I believe this is so the signs can accommodate a more wider milepost-based exit number.

I could see such happening for the new interchange number not the current.  Even so, given that MA 24 is roughly 41 miles in length; such wouldn't/shouldn't be an across-the-board reason.

They've (MassDOT) been doing the same thing across all Mass. highways that have had replacement contracts so far.

Quote from: Ben114 on January 02, 2019, 01:42:51 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 01:31:15 PM

Quote from: Ben114 on January 02, 2019, 01:20:11 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 11:55:09 AM
Observation regarding the new gore signs currently erected along MA 24: is there a reason why MassDOT is using Series D for the numerals/lettering instead of the more standard Series E(M) or even Series E?

I believe this is so the signs can accommodate a more wider milepost-based exit number.

I could see such happening for the new interchange number not the current.  Even so, given that MA 24 is roughly 41 miles in length; such wouldn't/shouldn't be an across-the-board reason.

They've (MassDOT) been doing the same thing across all Mass. highways that have had replacement contracts so far.

Not necessarily or at least not consistently.  Two examples of this are along I-95/MA 128 in Lexington.  The gore signs for the MA 2 interchange (29A-B) use Series D but the gore signs at the MA 2A interchange (30A-B) use Series E.

Either way, the majority of freeways/expressways in MA (I-90, I-495 & MA 2 being the exceptions) that have numbered interchanges containing 2-digit numbers plus applicable lettered suffixes will also have 2-digits plus applicable lettered suffixes post-mile-marker-based interchange numbering conversion.

Example: Exit 19A-B off MA 24 will become, should MassDOT actually go ahead with converting its interchange numbers, Exit 36A-B.

Are they converting this road to I-93 anytime or not?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 02, 2019, 05:46:20 PM
Are they converting this road to I-93 anytime or not?

Doubt it.

Here's what I have for MA 24 mileage based exits, using the round down provision unless the MP is within the interchange.

Exit 1 A-B: MA 81
Exit 1C: Brayton Ave/Eastern Ave
Exit 2 (NB ONLY): I-195 West

I-195 CONCURRENCY.  MA 24 is Exit 14 A-B on I-195

Exit 3 (SB ONLY): I-195 East
Exit 5: US 6
Exit 7A (SB ONLY): Highland Ave
Exit 7B (SB ONLY): MA 79 South
Exit 8: Airport Rd/North Main St
Exit 9: Innovation Way
Exit 11: MA 79 North
Exit 12: North Main St
Exit 15: Padelford St
Exit 17 (A-B NB): MA 140
Exit 20 (A-B NB): US 44
Exit 23 A-B: I-495
Exit 24: MA 104
Exit 28 A-B: MA 106
Exit 31 A-B: MA 123
Exit 33 A-B: MA 27
Exit 35A: Harrison Blvd
Exit 35B: Central St
Exit 38 A-B: MA 139
Exit 41 A-B (NB ONLY): I-93/US 1

Not part of the signing project but exit 13A was closed southbound permanently last week, with a traffic light at the top of the exit 13B ramp. It's now just exit 13 southbound. Northbound is still two exits which is interesting considering exit 13B northbound is by far the tightest ramp in the interchange, you literally have to go less than 5mph on the beginning of it or you'll crash

^^While scanning through GSV; here are my observations that somewhat differ using the "> MM X.5/round-up" model for most instances/applications:

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 06:52:14 PM
Exit 7A (SB ONLY): Highland Ave
Exit 7B (SB ONLY): MA 79 South

Highland Ave. merges w/MA 24 just north of MM 7.6 & MA 79 merges w/MA 24 just north of MM 7.8; so both would likely become Exits 8A-B respectively.
Edited out after realizing that 79 South & Highland Ave are partial interchanges and that the Airport Rd. interchange is located just north of MM 8.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 06:52:14 PM
Exit 9: Innovation Way

The overpass is located between MM 9.6 & 9.8; so such would likely be Exit 10

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 06:52:14 PM
Exit 12: North Main St

The overpass is located just north of MM 12.6; so such would likely be Exit 13.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 06:52:14 PM
Exit 15: Padelford St

The overpass is located between MM 15.6 & 15.8; so such would likely be Exit 16.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 06:52:14 PM
Exit 35A: Harrison Blvd
Exit 35B: Central St

The overpass is located between MM 35.6 & 35.8; so such would likely be Exit 36A-B per my earlier post.

That model conflicts with the intended direction of the MUTCD, which is biased toward "if the interchanging road crosses between miles 7 and 8, number the interchange 7".

Quote from: Alps on January 03, 2019, 02:39:24 PM
That model conflicts with the intended direction of the MUTCD, which is biased toward "if the interchanging road crosses between miles 7 and 8, number the interchange 7".

If such indeed conflicts w/MUTCD's intended direction; then there's a lot of contradictions to that practice out there... including your home state of NJ.

Example: I-295 crossing over US 130 just north of MP 56.8 at Exit 57 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1348083,-74.7153806,3a,75y,2.98h,93.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUoDsf70Fh8TJ830pKIkByA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

Edited for a better example - Exit 45 off I-295 where CR 626 crosses just south of MM 44.8 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0099777,-74.8501992,3a,75y,68.46h,69.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLe9RSG_8HiTilnny4FICkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2019, 03:00:25 PM

Quote from: Alps on January 03, 2019, 02:39:24 PM
That model conflicts with the intended direction of the MUTCD, which is biased toward "if the interchanging road crosses between miles 7 and 8, number the interchange 7".

If such indeed conflicts w/MUTCD's intended direction; then there's a lot of contradictions to that practice out there... including your home state of NJ.

Example: I-295 crossing over US 130 just north of MP 56.8 at Exit 57 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1348083,-74.7153806,3a,75y,2.98h,93.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUoDsf70Fh8TJ830pKIkByA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

There's already an Exit 56; 56 and 57 make more sense than 56A and 56B when it's just .2 miles off.

Quote from: 1 on January 03, 2019, 03:05:00 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2019, 03:00:25 PM

Quote from: Alps on January 03, 2019, 02:39:24 PM
That model conflicts with the intended direction of the MUTCD, which is biased toward "if the interchanging road crosses between miles 7 and 8, number the interchange 7".

If such indeed conflicts w/MUTCD's intended direction; then there's a lot of contradictions to that practice out there... including your home state of NJ.

Example: I-295 crossing over US 130 just north of MP 56.8 at Exit 57 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1348083,-74.7153806,3a,75y,2.98h,93.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUoDsf70Fh8TJ830pKIkByA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

Edited for a better example - Exit 45 off I-295 where CR 626 crosses just south of MM 44.8 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0099777,-74.8501992,3a,75y,68.46h,69.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLe9RSG_8HiTilnny4FICkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

There's already an Exit 56; 56 and 57 make more sense than 56A and 56B when it's just .2 miles off.

If anything, that's where the use of suffixed exits makes more sense... provided IMHO that both interchanges are full-movement ones.  However in this case, Exit 56 here is a partial interchange & Exit 57 in the southbound direction has two ramps (for each direction of US 130); so the use of separate numbers is more appropriate.

Nonetheless, one can't use that argument here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0099777,-74.8501992,3a,75y,68.46h,69.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLe9RSG_8HiTilnny4FICkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (Exit 45 off I-295 where CR 626 crosses just south of MM 44.8).

Earlier post has since been edited.

MA 79 being Exit 7 SB makes sense to avoid an alphabet city at Exit 8.  Otherwise, you'd have Exit 8 A-B and an Exit 8C southbound.

As for the rest: I also looked at GSV to see where the next higher milepost was.  If it fell significantly inside the interchange, such as a few feet beyond the over/underpass, I rounded up to the next milepost and bucked the MUTCD round down provision.  If the next milepost fell somewhere such as on the exit gore of the northernmost ramps, I followed MUTCD.  Even so, numbers need to be fudged sometimes or an Exit 0 used to avoid a gigantic alphabet city and/or to keep consistency in the suffixes for the exits on both sides of the highway.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2019, 04:24:46 PM
MA 79 being Exit 7 SB makes sense to avoid an alphabet city at Exit 8.  Otherwise, you'd have Exit 8 A-B and an Exit 8C southbound.

I will give you that one (& edit my earlier post appropriately); I forgot about the Industrial Park Rd. (for the Airport Rd./N. Main St. interchange) overpass just north of MM 8.2... especially since MA 79 South & Highland Ave. are partial interchanges.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2019, 04:24:46 PMAs for the rest: I also looked at GSV to see where the next higher milepost was.  If it fell significantly inside the interchange, such as a few feet beyond the over/underpass, I rounded up to the next milepost and bucked the MUTCD round down provision.  If the next milepost fell somewhere such as on the exit gore of the northernmost ramps, I followed MUTCD.

IMHO & MUTCD or no MUTCD, if the intersection of the two corridor centerlines (in most instances, an over/underpass) at an interchange falls between MM X.5 and MM X+1; the interchange/exit number ideally should be X+1 for most instances. 

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2019, 04:24:46 PMEven so, numbers need to be fudged sometimes or an Exit 0 used to avoid a gigantic alphabet city and/or to keep consistency in the suffixes for the exits on both sides of the highway.

Oh I agree, which is why I would recommend only using Exit 0 for the Lowell Connector should such adopt mile-marker-based interchange numbering.  Otherwise, one would have Exits 1A through 1E for the US 3, I-495 & Industrial Ave. interchanges.  The use of Exit 0 for the Connector would mean Exits 0A-B for US 3 and Exits 1A through C for I-495 & Industrial Ave.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2019, 04:24:46 PMEven so, numbers need to be fudged sometimes or an Exit 0 used to avoid a gigantic alphabet city and/or to keep consistency in the suffixes for the exits on both sides of the highway.

Oh I agree, which is why I would recommend only using Exit 0 for the Lowell Connector should such adopt mile-marker-based interchange numbering.  Otherwise, one would have Exits 1A through 1E for the US 3, I-495 & Industrial Ave. interchanges.  The use of Exit 0 for the Connector would mean Exits 0A-B for US 3 and Exits 1A through C for I-495 & Industrial Ave.
[/quote]

I also use Exit 0 A-B at the south end of I-93, since the MA 138 interchange falls within the 1 mile interval and I-95 is SB only. 138 would remain as is (1 A-B).  Also use it for the south end of MA 140 at US 6.  Although it's an at-grade signalized intersection, it is Exit 1.  With the I-195 exits within the 1 mile interval, it makes sense.   I didn't use Exit 0 for the connector since there is only 1 exit NB within the 1 mile interval (Industrial Ave), so I have the US 3 South as 1A, I-495 North as 1B, I-495 South as 1C, and US 3 North as 1D. Industrial is 1 NB/1E SB

I'm adding to the list in [ ] what MassDOT intended to number the exits if the 2016 renumbering contract had gone forward from my MA 24 Exit List:

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 06:52:14 PM
Here's what I have for MA 24 mileage based exits, using the round down provision unless the MP is within the interchange.

Exit 1 A-B: MA 81                        [0 A-B]
Exit 1C: Brayton Ave/Eastern Ave [1A]
Exit 2 (NB ONLY): I-195 West       [1B]

I-195 CONCURRENCY.  MA 24 is Exit 14 A-B on I-195

Exit 3 (SB ONLY): I-195 East         [3]
Exit 5: US 6                                 [5]
Exit 7A (SB ONLY): Highland Ave   [7A]
Exit 7B (SB ONLY): MA 79 South   [7B]
Exit 8: Airport Rd/North Main St    [8]
Exit 9: Innovation Way                 [10]
Exit 11: MA 79 North                   [11]
Exit 12: North Main St                 [12]
Exit 15: Padelford St                   [15]
Exit 17 (A-B NB): MA 140            [17 (17 A-B NB)]
Exit 20 (A-B NB): US 44              [19 (19 A-B NB)]
Exit 23 A-B: I-495                       [22 A-B]
Exit 24: MA 104                          [24]
Exit 28 A-B: MA 106                    [27 A-B]
Exit 31 A-B: MA 123                    [31 A-B]
Exit 33 A-B: MA 27                      [33 A-B]
Exit 35A: Harrison Blvd                [35 A]
Exit 35B: Central St                     [35 B]
Exit 38 A-B: MA 139                    [38 A-B]
Exit 41 A-B (NB ONLY): I-93/US 1 [41 A-B]

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2019, 03:00:25 PM

Quote from: Alps on January 03, 2019, 02:39:24 PM
That model conflicts with the intended direction of the MUTCD, which is biased toward "if the interchanging road crosses between miles 7 and 8, number the interchange 7".

If such indeed conflicts w/MUTCD's intended direction; then there's a lot of contradictions to that practice out there... including your home state of NJ.

Example: I-295 crossing over US 130 just north of MP 56.8 at Exit 57 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1348083,-74.7153806,3a,75y,2.98h,93.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUoDsf70Fh8TJ830pKIkByA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

Edited for a better example - Exit 45 off I-295 where CR 626 crosses just south of MM 44.8 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0099777,-74.8501992,3a,75y,68.46h,69.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLe9RSG_8HiTilnny4FICkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Oh of course there are, and it's certainly not a standard, just a recommendation. "We don't want to renumber half our state by 1" is a valid reason not to follow.

Quote from: bob7374 on January 03, 2019, 11:27:51 PM

^^I guess the big question regarding MassDOT's planned numbering is whether or not they'll actually adopt using Exit 0 across-the-board or not.  Their 2016 listings were unnecessarily inconsistent on that matter... not to mention the fact that some roads featured some needless suffixed interchanges (the partial interchanges along I-95 through Danvers for example); but such is another topic for another thread.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2019, 11:19:36 PM
I also use Exit 0 A-B at the south end of I-93, since the MA 138 interchange falls within the 1 mile interval and I-95 is SB only. 138 would remain as is (1 A-B).  Also use it for the south end of MA 140 at US 6.  Although it’s an at-grade signalized intersection, it is Exit 1.  With the I-195 exits within the 1 mile interval, it makes sense.   I didn’t use Exit 0 for the connector since there is only 1 exit NB within the 1 mile interval (Industrial Ave), so I have the US 3 South as 1A, I-495 North as 1B, I-495 South as 1C, and US 3 North as 1D. Industrial is 1 NB/1E SB

138 is currently exits 2A-B.

1A-B is I-95

Why does this need to change?

Quote from: AMLNet49 on January 04, 2019, 12:32:55 PM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2019, 11:19:36 PMI also use Exit 0 A-B at the south end of I-93, since the MA 138 interchange falls within the 1 mile interval and I-95 is SB only. 138 would remain as is (1 A-B).  Also use it for the south end of MA 140 at US 6.  Although it's an at-grade signalized intersection, it is Exit 1.  With the I-195 exits within the 1 mile interval, it makes sense.   I didn't use Exit 0 for the connector since there is only 1 exit NB within the 1 mile interval (Industrial Ave), so I have the US 3 South as 1A, I-495 North as 1B, I-495 South as 1C, and US 3 North as 1D. Industrial is 1 NB/1E SB

138 is currently exits 2A-B.

1A-B is I-95

Why does this need to change?

Personally, I agree w/you & interestingly, a LEFT EXIT 1B tab was added onto the I-95 northbound (through-US 1 southbound) signage about a year after the sign was erected.  If the ultimate plan was indeed to mark I-93's southern terminus w/I-95 as Exits 0A-B; I personally would not have bothered erecting the 1B tab above the I-95 northbound sign (the I-95 southbound sign was initially marked as Exit 1, such became Exit 1A when the 1B tab was erected).

Should the use of Exit 0 be not unilaterally adopted in MA; I-93's current exit numbers from Canton (I-95) to Granite Ave. (current Exit 11 (NB)/11B-A (SB)) wouldn't have to change at all given that the locations fall within tolerance (read: fudge-factor) levels.  Although the location of the MA 3A underpass (current Exit 12) is far enough south of MM 11.4 that it could conceivably become Exit 11C... Such could go either way IMHO.

The sign replacement contractor has finished putting up the new exit gore signs and will spend the rest of the winter putting up other ground mounted signs including auxiliary signs, reassurance markers and town line signs, some of which started to appear in early February. I have posted photos of new signage spotted on Route 24 taken last weekend (2/10) from I-495 north to I-93 on my Route 24 Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 02, 2019, 05:46:20 PM
Are they converting this road to I-93 anytime or not?

Re-designation of Route 24 from I-195 northward as an extension of I-93 has been discussed by MassHighway/MassDOT internally since the early 1990s.  However, until the roadway south of Raynham is widened and otherwise brought up to current Interstate standards, it is unlikely to happen.  Although some preliminary conceptual work has been done on the proposed widening, implementation is unlikely at this time, especially given MassDOT's current focus on the South Coast Rail project.

Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2019, 08:41:58 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 02, 2019, 05:46:20 PM
Are they converting this road to I-93 anytime or not?

Re-designation of Route 24 from I-195 northward as an extension of I-93 has been discussed by MassHighway/MassDOT internally since the early 1990s.  However, until the roadway south of Raynham is widened and otherwise brought up to current Interstate standards, it is unlikely to happen.  Although some preliminary conceptual work has been done on the proposed widening, implementation is unlikely at this time, especially given MassDOT's current focus on the South Coast Rail project.

If MassDOT decides to place I-93 on Route 24, would they consider signing it north of I-495, where, at least, it's closer to interstate standards, before starting the work south of I-495? You could conceivably re-designate 24 between I-195 ad I-495 temporarily as MA 93 (such as CA does with CA 15 in San Diego), and then re-number the 'Route 93' exits north from Fall River at one time. As I've stated before, IMO Route 3 to Cape Cod better warrants an interstate designation, either I-93 or I-93 spur, than 24.

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
As I've stated before, IMO Route 3 to Cape Cod better warrants an interstate designation, either I-93 or I-393, than 24.

FTFY

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2019, 01:15:28 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
As I've stated before, IMO Route 3 to Cape Cod better warrants an interstate designation, either I-93 or I-393, than 24.

FTFY

Or I-193.  :D

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 11:21:24 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2019, 01:15:28 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
As I've stated before, IMO Route 3 to Cape Cod better warrants an interstate designation, either I-93 or I-393, than 24.

FTFY

Or I-193.  :D

Already a MA 193.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 20, 2019, 11:39:46 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 11:21:24 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2019, 01:15:28 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
As I've stated before, IMO Route 3 to Cape Cod better warrants an interstate designation, either I-93 or I-393, than 24.

FTFY

Or I-193.  :D

Already a MA 193.

Didn't stop them with 295. However, since this links to I-195, should it be an even number? 493?

Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2019, 11:41:48 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 20, 2019, 11:39:46 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 11:21:24 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2019, 01:15:28 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
As I've stated before, IMO Route 3 to Cape Cod better warrants an interstate designation, either I-93 or I-393, than 24.

FTFY

Or I-193.  :D

Already a MA 193.

Didn't stop them with 295. However, since this links to I-195, should it be an even number? 493?

You might want to reread the above-nested posts; such was in reference to MA 3 not MA 24.  If either Route 24 continued into Newport or if I-895 been built as planned, I always thought that I-293 would be more fitting for MA/RI 24.  Yes, I know that I-93 doesn't go into RI but such didn't stop NJ from using I-287.

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2019, 08:59:47 AM

Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2019, 11:41:48 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 20, 2019, 11:39:46 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 11:21:24 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2019, 01:15:28 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
As I've stated before, IMO Route 3 to Cape Cod better warrants an interstate designation, either I-93 or I-393, than 24.

FTFY

Or I-193.  :D

Already a MA 193.

Didn't stop them with 295. However, since this links to I-195, should it be an even number? 493?

You might want to reread the above-nested posts; such was in reference to MA 3 not MA 24.  If either Route 24 continued into Newport or if I-895 been built as planned, I always thought that I-293 would be more fitting for MA/RI 24.  Yes, I know that I-93 doesn't go into RI but such didn't stop NJ from using I-287.

I would rather use I-493, as 293 already exists in New Hampshire, and 493 exists nowhere.

Quote from: 1 on February 21, 2019, 09:02:01 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2019, 08:59:47 AM

Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2019, 11:41:48 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 20, 2019, 11:39:46 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 11:21:24 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2019, 01:15:28 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
As I've stated before, IMO Route 3 to Cape Cod better warrants an interstate designation, either I-93 or I-393, than 24.

FTFY

Or I-193.  :D

Already a MA 193.

Didn't stop them with 295. However, since this links to I-195, should it be an even number? 493?

You might want to reread the above-nested posts; such was in reference to MA 3 not MA 24.  If either Route 24 continued into Newport or if I-895 been built as planned, I always thought that I-293 would be more fitting for MA/RI 24.  Yes, I know that I-93 doesn't go into RI but such didn't stop NJ from using I-287.

I would rather use I-493, as 293 already exists in New Hampshire, and 493 exists nowhere.

First off, we're going into fictional territory here (I realize that I contributed towards such). 

Second, there's no rule I'm aware of says two non-connecting 3dis in neighboring states can't have the same prefix.  24 is far enough away from I-293 in NH that using that re-using that number for such would not cause any confusion with the existing I-293 in NH.  MA 24 is much further away from I-293 than either of the two I-291s in MA & CT.

Third, and yes this is fictional, I've always thought that I-493 could be applied to MA 213.

Quote from: PHLBOSSecond, there's no rule I'm aware of says two non-connecting 3dis in neighboring states can't have the same prefix.

There isn't.  Several examples of such.  And besides the I-291 MA & CT proximity, there are also I-395 and I-695 DC & MD that are closer to each other than I-293 NH and MA 24 are, and the PA/NJ and NY examples of I-295 and KS & MO examples of I-470 are almost as close.

This is some fictional roads-ass material here tbh.

Basically they are slowly gonna improve the interchanges along 24 and when they're all done in 20 or 25 years we can talk interstate and we can talk about I-93 exit 1-4 and what each of us wants it to be called.

But until then, the discussion is pointless.

MassDOT has spent the last 4 years rebuilding only the very first of the interchanges to get reconstructed (exit 13). They still have to do exit 12 (which is a massive project where a new ramp is going to be constructed), then all the little minor improvements on exits 4-10 south of there, which there are tons of things to do.

This project will take probably most of my adult life to complete

I've posted the latest batch of new MA 24 ground-mounted signage, mostly northbound between Fall River and I-495 (the contractor reports they are soon to start putting in foundation for the overhead signs), including some new reassurance markers:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs319h.JPG&hash=87fa43efc172e1f8d3b5ab40fab5a4cf162e39e3)

on my MA 24 Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Redesignation of Route 24 as either an extension of I-93 or another I-designation was first studied by MassHighway in the early 1990s, and it's a proposal that's been resurrected within the agency every so often.  So, even though it's unlikely to happen in the near future, mostly because of the substandard roadway south of Raynham, it's hardly "fictional" territory.

Regarding Route 213, it will never get an Interstate designation unless that cluster at 213 Exit 1/I-93 Exit 48 is rebuilt.  To quote Susie Derkins  And while I'm dreaming ... .

And yes, there is no "rule" preventing 3dis in adjacent states from having 3dis with the same number.  However, as I've noted elsewhere, AASHTO is adamant that any extensions of principal or loop Interstates end at another Interstate.  This, plus the substandard roadway south of Derby Street, rules out any extension of I-93 down Route 3 to Bourne.

Quote from: bob7374 on April 01, 2019, 06:11:10 PM
I've posted the latest batch of new MA 24 ground-mounted signage, mostly northbound between Fall River and I-495 (the contractor reports they are soon to start putting in foundation for the overhead signs), including some new reassurance markers:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs319h.JPG&hash=87fa43efc172e1f8d3b5ab40fab5a4cf162e39e3)

on my MA 24 Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Great photos as usual Bob.  One minor correction though.  The 'TRUCKER NOTICE' signs northbound and southbound were installed under the District 5 sign maintenance contractor in early 2016 in response to a joint request from the City of Fall River and the local State Senator, and predate the design of the Route 24 sign replacement.

Quote from: roadman on April 03, 2019, 09:26:12 AM
Redesignation of Route 24 as either an extension of I-93 or another I-designation was first studied by MassHighway in the early 1990s, and it's a proposal that's been resurrected within the agency every so often.  So, even though it's unlikely to happen in the near future, mostly because of the substandard roadway south of Raynham, it's hardly "fictional" territory.

Regarding Route 213, it will never get an Interstate designation unless that cluster at 213 Exit 1/I-93 Exit 48 is rebuilt.  To quote Susie Derkins  And while I'm dreaming ... .

And yes, there is no "rule" preventing 3dis in adjacent states from having 3dis with the same number.  However, as I've noted elsewhere, AASHTO is adamant that any extensions of principal or loop Interstates end at another Interstate.  This, plus the substandard roadway south of Derby Street, rules out any extension of I-93 down Route 3 to Bourne.

But what about a spur interstate such as I-193 or 393?

Quote from: bob7374 on April 07, 2019, 05:58:20 PM

Quote from: roadman on April 03, 2019, 09:26:12 AM
Redesignation of Route 24 as either an extension of I-93 or another I-designation was first studied by MassHighway in the early 1990s, and it's a proposal that's been resurrected within the agency every so often.  So, even though it's unlikely to happen in the near future, mostly because of the substandard roadway south of Raynham, it's hardly "fictional" territory.

Regarding Route 213, it will never get an Interstate designation unless that cluster at 213 Exit 1/I-93 Exit 48 is rebuilt.  To quote Susie Derkins  And while I'm dreaming ... .

And yes, there is no "rule" preventing 3dis in adjacent states from having 3dis with the same number.  However, as I've noted elsewhere, AASHTO is adamant that any extensions of principal or loop Interstates end at another Interstate.  This, plus the substandard roadway south of Derby Street, rules out any extension of I-93 down Route 3 to Bourne.

But what about a spur interstate such as I-193 or 393?

There would be no point. An Interstate designation doesn't really do anything for them. Anyway, I don't think roadman is correct. I-90 was extended to MA 1A. This is a seaboard extension so it can end at pretty much any NHS route, which US 6 is.

Quote from: roadman on April 03, 2019, 09:26:12 AM
Regarding Route 213, it will never get an Interstate designation unless that cluster at 213 Exit 1/I-93 Exit 48 is rebuilt.

Granted this is OT, but if the only issue preventing MA 213 from receiving an Interstate designation is indeed just the I-93 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Methuen,+MA+01844/@42.7325933,-71.205255,16.58z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e30762ba69c04d:0x34a0850e40715475!8m2!3d42.7262016!4d-71.1908924); the only alteration needed would be to separate the 213 West-to-I-93 South and I-93 South-to-213 East movements into separate flyover ramps.  However, there's no real demand/push to upgrade MA 213 into an Interstate from what I can tell.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 08, 2019, 08:45:06 AM

Quote from: roadman on April 03, 2019, 09:26:12 AM
Regarding Route 213, it will never get an Interstate designation unless that cluster at 213 Exit 1/I-93 Exit 48 is rebuilt.

Granted this is OT, but if the only issue preventing MA 213 from receiving an Interstate designation is indeed just the I-93 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Methuen,+MA+01844/@42.7325933,-71.205255,16.58z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e30762ba69c04d:0x34a0850e40715475!8m2!3d42.7262016!4d-71.1908924); the only alteration needed would be to separate the 213 West-to-I-93 South and I-93 South-to-213 East movements into separate flyover ramps.  However, there's no real demand/push to upgrade MA 213 into an Interstate from what I can tell.

I live extremely close to MA 213, and I am indifferent to an Interstate designation. Nobody in this area has been talking about an upgrade to Interstate. I do support an extension to Nashua (which is mostly my idea; nobody else has been talking about it), but that's a different issue.

Quote from: Alps on April 07, 2019, 11:18:41 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on April 07, 2019, 05:58:20 PM

Quote from: roadman on April 03, 2019, 09:26:12 AMAnd yes, there is no "rule" preventing 3dis in adjacent states from having 3dis with the same number.  However, as I've noted elsewhere, AASHTO is adamant that any extensions of principal or loop Interstates end at another Interstate.  This, plus the substandard roadway south of Derby Street, rules out any extension of I-93 down Route 3 to Bourne.

But what about a spur interstate such as I-193 or 393?

There would be no point. An Interstate designation doesn't really do anything for them. Anyway, I don't think roadman is correct. I-90 was extended to MA 1A. This is a seaboard extension so it can end at pretty much any NHS route, which US 6 is.

The decision to designate the then-Third Harbor Tunnel/current Ted Williams Tunnel and related link to the Mass Pike as an extension of I-90 dates back to when the 90-10 funding for Interstates was still in play... even though the tunnel would carry a toll.  AASHTO's insistence regarding principal and/or loop Interstates ending at other Interstates that Roadman is describing either likely came after or was more emphasized after the above-decision to extend I-90.

Additionally & historically, the planning of the Ted Williams Tunnel and connector roadway dates back to 1969; when such was initially proposed to be a portion of an overall plan to relocate I-95 through Boston from its original Northeast Expressway/Tobin Bridge/Central Artery routing.  North of Logan Airport, the highway was to extend to Saugus where it would've met US 1/MA 60 and the would-be I-95 embankment north of that interchange.  Needless to say, the upper-portion of the proposal died shortly after the decision was made to not build I-95 through Saugus & Lynn.

Long story short: the above was planned as an Interstate from day one.

Understood, but doesn't change my point that Interstates need to end at NHS routes, not necessarily Interstates.

^^Maybe preference/preferred are better words than insistence with respect to AASHTO's Interstate ending policy.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 09, 2019, 08:23:13 AM
^^Maybe preference/preferred are better words than insistence with respect to AASHTO's Interstate ending policy.

My earlier comment was based on personal experience in dealing with AASHTO in 2004 regarding a MassHighway proposal to terminate I-93 in Braintree instead of Canton.  This would have eliminated the "north/south road goes east/west (Canton to Braintree segment)" issue that had the Globe, then-Governor Romney, and others in a tizzy.  Before formally submitting the proposal, which would also have re-designated the section of highway between Canton and Braintree as I-595, to SCRN for consideration, my bosses had me informally vet it through a couple of the top people at AASHTO.  The response I got was basically an emphatic "No, that would never be approved.  2di Interstates must terminate at another 2di Interstate" (which is why I used the word 'insist' earlier).  Based on this response, plus the backlash when the Globe released MassHighway's intentions to remove the 128 designation south of Peabody, the higher ups ultimately decided the plan wasn't worth formally pursuing and dropped it from further consideration.

In one sense, it's a good thing the proposal was never adopted.  It would have made the signing coming from I-95, Route 24, and MA 3 more complex (I-595 to I-93 to Boston).

Quote from: roadman on April 09, 2019, 09:30:04 AMMy earlier comment was based on personal experience in dealing with AASHTO in 2004 regarding a MassHighway proposal to terminate I-93 in Braintree instead of Canton.  This would have eliminated the "north/south road goes east/west (Canton to Braintree segment)" issue that had the Globe, then-Governor Romney, and others in a tizzy.  Before formally submitting the proposal, which would also have re-designated the section of highway between Canton and Braintree as I-595, to SCRN for consideration, my bosses had me informally vet it through a couple of the top people at AASHTO.  The response I got was basically an emphatic "No, that would never be approved.  2di Interstates must terminate at another 2di Interstate" (which is why I used the word 'insist' earlier).

In all honesty, I could see why AASHTO rightly shot down that plan.  Such doesn't really change/expand Interstate coverage. 

OTOH, assuming that MA 3 south of Hingham(?) would receive the required upgrades, AASHTO would have likely been more willing to approve an extension of the I-93 designation (& have it take-over MA 3) even though such doesn't end at an Interstate.  As Alps had mentioned, there are other examples of 2d Interstates ending at non-Interstates.  Such is no different than, for example, I-40 ending at US 117 in Wilmington, NC.

Quote from: roadman on April 09, 2019, 09:30:04 AMIn one sense, it's a good thing the proposal was never adopted.  It would have made the signing coming from I-95, Route 24, and MA 3 more complex (I-595 to I-93 to Boston).

Had the actual plan to relocate/extend I-93 onto MA 24 ever been adopted; similar signage would've still been needed for I-95.  Heck, given the 1989 US 1 reroute; one could just leave that short stretch (between I-95 & MA 24) as just US 1... let the I-595 designation be silent/internal.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 09, 2019, 09:51:16 AM
Had the actual plan to relocate/extend I-93 onto MA 24 ever been adopted; similar signage would've still been needed for I-95.  Heck, given the 1989 US 1 reroute; one could just leave that short stretch (between I-95 & MA 24) as just US 1... let the I-595 designation be silent/internal.

Or, given the relatively short distance between I-95 in Canton and Route 24 in Randolph, they could just sign the segment as 'TO 93' eastbound and 'TO 95' westbound.

Quote from: roadman on April 09, 2019, 11:36:17 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 09, 2019, 09:51:16 AM
Had the actual plan to relocate/extend I-93 onto MA 24 ever been adopted; similar signage would've still been needed for I-95.  Heck, given the 1989 US 1 reroute; one could just leave that short stretch (between I-95 & MA 24) as just US 1... let the I-595 designation be silent/internal.

Or, given the relatively short distance between I-95 in Canton and Route 24 in Randolph, they could just sign the segment as 'TO 93' eastbound and 'TO 95' westbound.

We've seen them do this before with the Lowell Connector, so it's possible.

Quote from: Ben114 on April 09, 2019, 04:29:42 PM

Quote from: roadman on April 09, 2019, 11:36:17 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 09, 2019, 09:51:16 AM
Had the actual plan to relocate/extend I-93 onto MA 24 ever been adopted; similar signage would've still been needed for I-95.  Heck, given the 1989 US 1 reroute; one could just leave that short stretch (between I-95 & MA 24) as just US 1... let the I-595 designation be silent/internal.

Or, given the relatively short distance between I-95 in Canton and Route 24 in Randolph, they could just sign the segment as 'TO 93' eastbound and 'TO 95' westbound.

We've seen them do this before with the Lowell Connector, so it's possible.

Yes & no. 
Yes in the fact that ramps to the out/southbound Connector lists TO 495-3 on its signage. 
No in that one end of the Connector is not to a highway let alone an Interstate.

For many years, there were sporadic green Business Spur 495 route shields erected along the feeder roads to the Connector but not the Connector itself.

(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/lowell/spurl.jpg)
From Alpsroads.net (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/lowell/)

At present, only the JCT banner (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6258527,-71.3219939,3a,75y,127.32h,84.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYeSd9AaXXCsPsVI1SQB5ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) remains from the one along Plain St. (look towards the right of the GSV).

From what I understand, it was never 100% clear/known whether the Lowell Connector was actually designated as Business Spur 495.  Those old signs may have been rogue installs.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 10, 2019, 08:43:41 AM

Quote from: Ben114 on April 09, 2019, 04:29:42 PM

Quote from: roadman on April 09, 2019, 11:36:17 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 09, 2019, 09:51:16 AM
Had the actual plan to relocate/extend I-93 onto MA 24 ever been adopted; similar signage would've still been needed for I-95.  Heck, given the 1989 US 1 reroute; one could just leave that short stretch (between I-95 & MA 24) as just US 1... let the I-595 designation be silent/internal.

Or, given the relatively short distance between I-95 in Canton and Route 24 in Randolph, they could just sign the segment as 'TO 93' eastbound and 'TO 95' westbound.

We've seen them do this before with the Lowell Connector, so it's possible.

Yes & no. 
Yes in the fact that ramps to the out/southbound Connector lists TO 495-3 on its signage. 
No in that one end of the Connector is not to a highway let alone an Interstate.

For many years, there were sporadic green Business Spur 495 route shields erected along the feeder roads to the Connector but not the Connector itself.

(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/lowell/spurl.jpg)
From Alpsroads.net (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/lowell/)

At present, only the JCT banner (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6258527,-71.3219939,3a,75y,127.32h,84.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYeSd9AaXXCsPsVI1SQB5ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) remains from the one along Plain St. (look towards the right of the GSV).

From what I understand, it was never 100% clear/known whether the Lowell Connector was actually designated as Business Spur 495.  Those old signs may have been rogue installs.

I think I remember a roadman story about this, now I don't want to get it wrong, but I believe the story goes that industry in the city wanted the Lowell Connector designated an Interstate Business Spur to facilitate commerce and, on their own, produced a series of maps showing the Connector as BUS 495. They also lobbied the municipal government successfully to sign all approaches to the connector as BUS 495. So it was entirely a municipal thing within the City of Lowell and its interests. But because central MassDPW in Boston never bit on the line, the green shields never made it to any BGS. As those in power at the time faded from memory, the approach assemblies with BUS 495 shields was never replaced when they were knocked down. For years the only one left was that one approaching the Connector heading north on Plain St. Only the JCT plaque is left, however it isn't even the correct plaque as it is a state route plaque, albeit a cool vintage one from the 1970s as you see above. And that pretty much is the story how I recall it.

Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 17, 2019, 05:15:42 PMI think I remember a roadman story about this, now I don't want to get it wrong, but I believe the story goes that industry in the city wanted the Lowell Connector designated an Interstate Business Spur to facilitate commerce and, on their own, produced a series of maps showing the Connector as BUS 495. They also lobbied the municipal government successfully to sign all approaches to the connector as BUS 495. So it was entirely a municipal thing within the City of Lowell and its interests. But because central MassDPW in Boston never bit on the line, the green shields never made it to any BGS.

The green shields never made unto the D6 LGS 'Paddle'-style signs as well; the obvious reason being that such were then-MassDPW signs.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 18, 2019, 09:30:44 AM

Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 17, 2019, 05:15:42 PMI think I remember a roadman story about this, now I don't want to get it wrong, but I believe the story goes that industry in the city wanted the Lowell Connector designated an Interstate Business Spur to facilitate commerce and, on their own, produced a series of maps showing the Connector as BUS 495. They also lobbied the municipal government successfully to sign all approaches to the connector as BUS 495. So it was entirely a municipal thing within the City of Lowell and its interests. But because central MassDPW in Boston never bit on the line, the green shields never made it to any BGS.

The green shields never made unto the D6 LGS 'Paddle'-style signs as well; the obvious reason being that such were then-MassDPW signs.

Yep they were all post-mounted cutout assemblies

Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 17, 2019, 05:15:42 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 10, 2019, 08:43:41 AM

Quote from: Ben114 on April 09, 2019, 04:29:42 PM

Quote from: roadman on April 09, 2019, 11:36:17 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 09, 2019, 09:51:16 AM
Had the actual plan to relocate/extend I-93 onto MA 24 ever been adopted; similar signage would've still been needed for I-95.  Heck, given the 1989 US 1 reroute; one could just leave that short stretch (between I-95 & MA 24) as just US 1... let the I-595 designation be silent/internal.

Or, given the relatively short distance between I-95 in Canton and Route 24 in Randolph, they could just sign the segment as 'TO 93' eastbound and 'TO 95' westbound.

We've seen them do this before with the Lowell Connector, so it's possible.

Yes & no. 
Yes in the fact that ramps to the out/southbound Connector lists TO 495-3 on its signage. 
No in that one end of the Connector is not to a highway let alone an Interstate.

For many years, there were sporadic green Business Spur 495 route shields erected along the feeder roads to the Connector but not the Connector itself.

(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/lowell/spurl.jpg)
From Alpsroads.net (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/lowell/)

At present, only the JCT banner (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6258527,-71.3219939,3a,75y,127.32h,84.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYeSd9AaXXCsPsVI1SQB5ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) remains from the one along Plain St. (look towards the right of the GSV).

From what I understand, it was never 100% clear/known whether the Lowell Connector was actually designated as Business Spur 495.  Those old signs may have been rogue installs.

I think I remember a roadman story about this, now I don't want to get it wrong, but I believe the story goes that industry in the city wanted the Lowell Connector designated an Interstate Business Spur to facilitate commerce and, on their own, produced a series of maps showing the Connector as BUS 495. They also lobbied the municipal government successfully to sign all approaches to the connector as BUS 495. So it was entirely a municipal thing within the City of Lowell and its interests. But because central MassDPW in Boston never bit on the line, the green shields never made it to any BGS. As those in power at the time faded from memory, the approach assemblies with BUS 495 shields was never replaced when they were knocked down. For years the only one left was that one approaching the Connector heading north on Plain St. Only the JCT plaque is left, however it isn't even the correct plaque as it is a state route plaque, albeit a cool vintage one from the 1970s as you see above. And that pretty much is the story how I recall it.

Note that the business route assemblies on side streets approaching the Connector were fabricated by MassDPW (as evidenced by the MassDPW notation on some signs), and likely installed by District forces.  MassDPW Boston Office was probably aware of this designation, as official state highway maps in the late 1960s and early 1970s designated the Connector as '495S'.  This designation appeared on some oil company road maps as well.  However, as AMLNet49 points out, the Business Spur 495 shields never appeared on any BGS or LGS panels.

Quote from: roadman on April 18, 2019, 11:11:31 AM

Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 17, 2019, 05:15:42 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 10, 2019, 08:43:41 AM

Quote from: Ben114 on April 09, 2019, 04:29:42 PM

Quote from: roadman on April 09, 2019, 11:36:17 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 09, 2019, 09:51:16 AM
Had the actual plan to relocate/extend I-93 onto MA 24 ever been adopted; similar signage would've still been needed for I-95.  Heck, given the 1989 US 1 reroute; one could just leave that short stretch (between I-95 & MA 24) as just US 1... let the I-595 designation be silent/internal.

Or, given the relatively short distance between I-95 in Canton and Route 24 in Randolph, they could just sign the segment as 'TO 93' eastbound and 'TO 95' westbound.

We've seen them do this before with the Lowell Connector, so it's possible.

Yes & no. 
Yes in the fact that ramps to the out/southbound Connector lists TO 495-3 on its signage. 
No in that one end of the Connector is not to a highway let alone an Interstate.

For many years, there were sporadic green Business Spur 495 route shields erected along the feeder roads to the Connector but not the Connector itself.

(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/lowell/spurl.jpg)
From Alpsroads.net (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/lowell/)

At present, only the JCT banner (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6258527,-71.3219939,3a,75y,127.32h,84.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYeSd9AaXXCsPsVI1SQB5ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) remains from the one along Plain St. (look towards the right of the GSV).

From what I understand, it was never 100% clear/known whether the Lowell Connector was actually designated as Business Spur 495.  Those old signs may have been rogue installs.

I think I remember a roadman story about this, now I don't want to get it wrong, but I believe the story goes that industry in the city wanted the Lowell Connector designated an Interstate Business Spur to facilitate commerce and, on their own, produced a series of maps showing the Connector as BUS 495. They also lobbied the municipal government successfully to sign all approaches to the connector as BUS 495. So it was entirely a municipal thing within the City of Lowell and its interests. But because central MassDPW in Boston never bit on the line, the green shields never made it to any BGS. As those in power at the time faded from memory, the approach assemblies with BUS 495 shields was never replaced when they were knocked down. For years the only one left was that one approaching the Connector heading north on Plain St. Only the JCT plaque is left, however it isn't even the correct plaque as it is a state route plaque, albeit a cool vintage one from the 1970s as you see above. And that pretty much is the story how I recall it.

Note that the business route assemblies on side streets approaching the Connector were fabricated by MassDPW (as evidenced by the MassDPW notation on some signs), and likely installed by District forces.  MassDPW Boston Office was probably aware of this designation, as official state highway maps in the late 1960s and early 1970s designated the Connector as '495S'.  This designation appeared on some oil company road maps as well.  However, as AMLNet49 points out, the Business Spur 495 shields never appeared on any BGS or LGS panels.

Thanks for filling in the blanks! Evidently I had forgotten about the business spur designation getting state assistance. I have numerous MassDPW "official state map" and oil company Mass. maps from the 70s in pretty good condition in storage which I've never gone through that closely, I will see if I can find different ways it was labeled and make a thread with the pictures if they turn out to be interesting

Took a quick trip along MA 24 down to Taunton and back and while there were no new signs of note along the highway, I did spot several new sign foundations as far north as MA 123 in Brockton. Also took photos of some new ramp photos, such as this on MA 123 in Brockton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs719h.JPG&hash=9069d5e8baa75d6f132025df2f65b5069535c187)

Remaining photos on the MA 24 Sign Gallery page: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Despite not placing all the sign foundations as of yet, the contractor for the sign replacement contract has started putting up new signs in the Fall River area. Here's one of the two new 1-mile advance signs for the US 6 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs420g.JPG&hash=16561cc8b75f6a21a01f3eabf35c67916d9325d6)

The remaining new signs photos are on my MA 24 Photo Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Took a trip along MA 24 Memorial Day weekend to check on sign replacement progress. Many new signs had been placed since my previous trip in April. For example, here's the new 2-miles advance for the I-495 exit headed north. Notice as the previously posted sign plans indicated that Marlboro has replaced Worcester as a control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs520kk.JPG&hash=1f8c4643feee735b19272505ec764433026ef8f1)

The rest of the sign photos are on the MA 24 Sign Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Quote from: bob7374 on May 27, 2020, 11:35:18 PM
Took a trip along MA 24 Memorial Day weekend to check on sign replacement progress. Many new signs had been placed since my previous trip in April. For example, here's the new 2-miles advance for the I-495 exit headed north. Notice as the previously posted sign plans indicated that Marlboro has replaced Worcester as a control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs520kk.JPG&hash=1f8c4643feee735b19272505ec764433026ef8f1)

The rest of the sign photos are on the MA 24 Sign Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

I get the Worcester is not on I-495, but I absolutely hate Marlboro as a control city.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 27, 2020, 11:39:52 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on May 27, 2020, 11:35:18 PM
Took a trip along MA 24 Memorial Day weekend to check on sign replacement progress. Many new signs had been placed since my previous trip in April. For example, here's the new 2-miles advance for the I-495 exit headed north. Notice as the previously posted sign plans indicated that Marlboro has replaced Worcester as a control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs520kk.JPG&hash=1f8c4643feee735b19272505ec764433026ef8f1)

The rest of the sign photos are on the MA 24 Sign Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

I get the Worcester is not on I-495, but I absolutely hate Marlboro as a control city.

Yikes that's a lot of progress since I last saw it over the Easter weekend.

I'm not much of a fan of Marlboro being chosen over Worcester as well. As someone who has lived in the area for 15 years (and counting), Worcester is far more recognized and important than Marlboro.

Quote from: Ben114 on May 28, 2020, 01:02:31 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 27, 2020, 11:39:52 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on May 27, 2020, 11:35:18 PM
Took a trip along MA 24 Memorial Day weekend to check on sign replacement progress. Many new signs had been placed since my previous trip in April. For example, here's the new 2-miles advance for the I-495 exit headed north. Notice as the previously posted sign plans indicated that Marlboro has replaced Worcester as a control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs520kk.JPG&hash=1f8c4643feee735b19272505ec764433026ef8f1)

The rest of the sign photos are on the MA 24 Sign Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

I get the Worcester is not on I-495, but I absolutely hate Marlboro as a control city.

Yikes that's a lot of progress since I last saw it over the Easter weekend.

I'm not much of a fan of Marlboro being chosen over Worcester as well. As someone who has lived in the area for 15 years (and counting), Worcester is far more recognized and important than Marlboro.

Anyone wanna mention that Cape Cod isn't a city? Technically that should be Wareham. How obscure do we want to be? Also, the town is Marlborough, not Marlboro. Marlboro is in New Jersey. Nearly 40,000 people isn't terrible, and I'll throw this out there - Fall River traffic to Wista should be using I-195 to I-95 to RI/MA 146.

Quote from: Alps on May 28, 2020, 01:16:04 AM

Quote from: Ben114 on May 28, 2020, 01:02:31 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 27, 2020, 11:39:52 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on May 27, 2020, 11:35:18 PM
Took a trip along MA 24 Memorial Day weekend to check on sign replacement progress. Many new signs had been placed since my previous trip in April. For example, here's the new 2-miles advance for the I-495 exit headed north. Notice as the previously posted sign plans indicated that Marlboro has replaced Worcester as a control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs520kk.JPG&hash=1f8c4643feee735b19272505ec764433026ef8f1)

The rest of the sign photos are on the MA 24 Sign Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

I get the Worcester is not on I-495, but I absolutely hate Marlboro as a control city.

Yikes that's a lot of progress since I last saw it over the Easter weekend.

I'm not much of a fan of Marlboro being chosen over Worcester as well. As someone who has lived in the area for 15 years (and counting), Worcester is far more recognized and important than Marlboro.

Anyone wanna mention that Cape Cod isn't a city? Technically that should be Wareham. How obscure do we want to be? Also, the town is Marlborough, not Marlboro. Marlboro is in New Jersey. Nearly 40,000 people isn't terrible, and I'll throw this out there - Fall River traffic to Wista should be using I-195 to I-95 to RI/MA 146.

It isn't, but I'm actually fine with Cape Cod as a control city, unlike the states in Chicagoland.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 28, 2020, 10:40:42 AM
It isn't, but I'm actually fine with Cape Cod as a control city, unlike the states in Chicagoland.

Agreed, I think in certain instances using a region works better than a specific town/city/etc.  Another good example I can think of is VDOT replacing Nags Head/Manteo (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.760224,-76.2674364,3a,75y,191.12h,87.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szWVVJcd7vITFP8aWA-SwoQ!2e0!5s20120801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) with the more-inclusive "Outer Banks" (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7603387,-76.2674111,3a,24.3y,179.66h,90.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suxeUmkxryoXWHktPYNpJxw!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) when leaving the Hampton Roads area.

Quote from: Alps on May 28, 2020, 01:16:04 AM
Anyone wanna mention that Cape Cod isn't a city? Technically that should be Wareham. How obscure do we want to be? Also, the town is Marlborough, not Marlboro. Marlboro is in New Jersey. Nearly 40,000 people isn't terrible, and I'll throw this out there - Fall River traffic to Wista should be using I-195 to I-95 to RI/MA 146.

Cape Cod makes perfect sense as a control point for any road leading up to the Cape Cod Canal.  Then once on the cape, change to traditional town destinations.  I-90 Exit 11A was changed to Taunton on the primary signs, but retain Cape Cod for a secondary auxillary destination.  Seeing as how every other sign replacement project in the state is retaining Cape Cod, I'm not sure why I-90 was changed, of all roads. 

Yes, while true the town is "Marlborough", for some reason, Mass has shortened all of its towns that end in "ugh".  Older signs (going back to the ones prior to the current sign replacement project - so probably late 1970s/80s installs) used to have the "ugh".  The last ones I know of was on the Mass Pike for Exit 12 and on the Exit 11A ramp to I-495, with the latter shown below, taken just past the toll house:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/8738/28320959821_c1118bf8d1_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K9CjEH)IMG_1225 (https://flic.kr/p/K9CjEH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

But everywhere else, the "ughs" are gone, leaving Foxboro, Attleboro, Southboro, Westboro, Marlboro, Northboro, etc.

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 11:21:24 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2019, 01:15:28 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
As I've stated before, IMO Route 3 to Cape Cod better warrants an interstate designation, either I-93 or I-393, than 24.

FTFY

Or I-193.  :D

Or US 3.  That way it ends at another US Highway.

If the reasoning behind MA 24 being upgraded to an interstate over MA 3 is because they want I-93 to end at another interstate highway, then the solution is simple:

*  Extend the MA 25 expressway due east to meet MA 3 north of the Sagamore interchange (easier said than done)..
*  Sign this (and the portion west to I-195/I-495) as I-195...
*  Upgrade/sign MA 3 as I-93 down to this point in Sagamore where the new e/w road would meet MA 3....
*  Renumber MA 25 n/s section as something else (maybe MA 28).....
*  Renumber the Mid Cape Hwy as US 6... that way the exit numbers would "jive" better, for the locals
    "Hey, we'll keep the exit numbers on the Mid Cape if you let us build this e/w connection.  And this will lead to reduced traffic on US 6 along the canal."

It's been years since I've been on MA 24.  It just doesn't strike me as a route deserving a 2DI designation.  MA 3 fits that bill more.

Quote from: shadyjay on May 28, 2020, 09:01:34 PM
If the reasoning behind MA 24 being upgraded to an interstate over MA 3 is because they want I-93 to end at another interstate highway, then the solution is simple:

*  Extend the MA 25 expressway due east to meet MA 3 north of the Sagamore interchange (easier said than done)..
*  Sign this (and the portion west to I-195/I-495) as I-195...
*  Upgrade/sign MA 3 as I-93 down to this point in Sagamore where the new e/w road would meet MA 3....
*  Renumber MA 25 n/s section as something else (maybe MA 28).....
*  Renumber the Mid Cape Hwy as US 6... that way the exit numbers would "jive" better, for the locals
    "Hey, we'll keep the exit numbers on the Mid Cape if you let us build this e/w connection.  And this will lead to reduced traffic on US 6 along the canal."

It's been years since I've been on MA 24.  It just doesn't strike me as a route deserving a 2DI designation.  MA 3 fits that bill more.

Why not make the 4 lane mid cape highway I-93?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 28, 2020, 09:09:29 PM

Quote from: shadyjay on May 28, 2020, 09:01:34 PM
If the reasoning behind MA 24 being upgraded to an interstate over MA 3 is because they want I-93 to end at another interstate highway, then the solution is simple:

*  Extend the MA 25 expressway due east to meet MA 3 north of the Sagamore interchange (easier said than done)..
*  Sign this (and the portion west to I-195/I-495) as I-195...
*  Upgrade/sign MA 3 as I-93 down to this point in Sagamore where the new e/w road would meet MA 3....
*  Renumber MA 25 n/s section as something else (maybe MA 28).....
*  Renumber the Mid Cape Hwy as US 6... that way the exit numbers would "jive" better, for the locals
    "Hey, we'll keep the exit numbers on the Mid Cape if you let us build this e/w connection.  And this will lead to reduced traffic on US 6 along the canal."

It's been years since I've been on MA 24.  It just doesn't strike me as a route deserving a 2DI designation.  MA 3 fits that bill more.

Why not make the 4 lane mid cape highway I-93?

The Cape people would love that. :-D Much easier just to make MA 3 an interstate spur, then no meeting another interstate is needed.

And we're back to non-fictional highways.

Quote from: shadyjay on May 28, 2020, 02:38:17 PM

Quote from: Alps on May 28, 2020, 01:16:04 AM
Anyone wanna mention that Cape Cod isn't a city? Technically that should be Wareham. How obscure do we want to be? Also, the town is Marlborough, not Marlboro. Marlboro is in New Jersey. Nearly 40,000 people isn't terrible, and I'll throw this out there - Fall River traffic to Wista should be using I-195 to I-95 to RI/MA 146.

Cape Cod makes perfect sense as a control point for any road leading up to the Cape Cod Canal.  Then once on the cape, change to traditional town destinations.  I-90 Exit 11A was changed to Taunton on the primary signs, but retain Cape Cod for a secondary auxillary destination.  Seeing as how every other sign replacement project in the state is retaining Cape Cod, I'm not sure why I-90 was changed, of all roads. 

Yes, while true the town is "Marlborough", for some reason, Mass has shortened all of its towns that end in "ugh".  Older signs (going back to the ones prior to the current sign replacement project - so probably late 1970s/80s installs) used to have the "ugh".  The last one I know of was on the Mass Pike for, ironically, Exit 11A for I-495.  The old destinations on the westbound signage was "Marlborough/Milford" (since you were travelling west, you weren't probably looking to I-495 to reach NH/Maine or Cape Cod at that point).  This was the sign just past the old toll house:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/8738/28320959821_c1118bf8d1_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K9CjEH)IMG_1225 (https://flic.kr/p/K9CjEH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

But everywhere else, the "ughs" are gone, leaving Foxboro, Attleboro, Southboro, Westboro, Marlboro, Northboro, etc.

Attleboro never had 'ugh' in its name.  And eliminating the 'ughs' reduces the sign size, but the name is still understood by drivers.  With the exception of a handful of D6/D8 signs in more rural parts of the state, the signs on the Mass Pike were the last holdouts to use full spelling on names, until they were recently replaced under the I-90 sign replacement contracts and the legacy toll plaza demo work.

North Attleborough did....  Could've sworn I've seen an Attleborough once upon a time:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Attleborough+MA+I-95&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjOzOrfu9npAhWdC98KHX-xC5YQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Attleborough+MA+I-95&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoGCAAQBRAeOgYIABAKEBhQqWVYk2tg6WtoAHAAeACAAXCIAZUDkgEDMi4ymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWc&sclient=img&ei=zTTRXo6yNp2X_Ab_4q6wCQ&bih=937&biw=1920#imgrc=XzqOSMcdAqgVxM

Attleboro officially lost the -ugh when it incorporated as a city in 1914, though North Attleborough officially kept the -ugh.

Quote from: Ben114 on May 28, 2020, 01:02:31 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 27, 2020, 11:39:52 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on May 27, 2020, 11:35:18 PM
Took a trip along MA 24 Memorial Day weekend to check on sign replacement progress. Many new signs had been placed since my previous trip in April. For example, here's the new 2-miles advance for the I-495 exit headed north. Notice as the previously posted sign plans indicated that Marlboro has replaced Worcester as a control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs520kk.JPG&hash=1f8c4643feee735b19272505ec764433026ef8f1)

The rest of the sign photos are on the MA 24 Sign Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

I get the Worcester is not on I-495, but I absolutely hate Marlboro as a control city.

Yikes that's a lot of progress since I last saw it over the Easter weekend.

I'm not much of a fan of Marlboro being chosen over Worcester as well. As someone who has lived in the area for 15 years (and counting), Worcester is far more recognized and important than Marlboro.

I reached out to MassDOT to see why Marlboro was chosen over Worcester, and they've got back to me.

Quote from: MassDOTPlease be advised, as part of an evaluation of the principal destinations provided on our Interstate highways it was determined that Marlboro was a more appropriate destination for I-495 than Worcester. I-495 does not directly serve Worcester, and much of the traffic that enters I-495 from other routes is not destined for Worcester. Worcester is still listed alternately with Marlboro on pull-through and post interchange distance signs on I-495, and Worcester is still the signed destination at the interchange of I-495 and I-290 West.

Had a chance to take another trip along Route 24 this past Sunday to check out new signage. Additional new signs have been put up southbound starting at MA 139, plus additional new signs for MA 106 and I-495. Northbound also featured 2 more new signs for I-495, the first new signs for the MA 104 and Harrison Blvd/Central St exits and an additional one for MA 27. When I drove south on Sunday morning it looked like the sign contractor had closed the left lane northbound to finish work on a new advance sign support for the I-93 exit, backing up traffic to 139. Fortunately, they finished, or were told to finish, and left by the time I returned. Here's a photo of one of the new I-495 signs now mostly blocking the existing MA 104 sign heading north:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs620q.JPG&hash=962ac17fa215e4ec984bdca01cda3f716307b5c0)

More new sign images can be found at: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Quote from: Ben114 on May 29, 2020, 11:15:16 PM

Quote from: Ben114 on May 28, 2020, 01:02:31 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 27, 2020, 11:39:52 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on May 27, 2020, 11:35:18 PM
Took a trip along MA 24 Memorial Day weekend to check on sign replacement progress. Many new signs had been placed since my previous trip in April. For example, here's the new 2-miles advance for the I-495 exit headed north. Notice as the previously posted sign plans indicated that Marlboro has replaced Worcester as a control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs520kk.JPG&hash=1f8c4643feee735b19272505ec764433026ef8f1)

The rest of the sign photos are on the MA 24 Sign Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

I get the Worcester is not on I-495, but I absolutely hate Marlboro as a control city.

Yikes that's a lot of progress since I last saw it over the Easter weekend.

I'm not much of a fan of Marlboro being chosen over Worcester as well. As someone who has lived in the area for 15 years (and counting), Worcester is far more recognized and important than Marlboro.

I reached out to MassDOT to see why Marlboro was chosen over Worcester, and they've got back to me.

Quote from: MassDOTPlease be advised, as part of an evaluation of the principal destinations provided on our Interstate highways it was determined that Marlboro was a more appropriate destination for I-495 than Worcester. I-495 does not directly serve Worcester, and much of the traffic that enters I-495 from other routes is not destined for Worcester. Worcester is still listed alternately with Marlboro on pull-through and post interchange distance signs on I-495, and Worcester is still the signed destination at the interchange of I-495 and I-290 West.

I don't like Cape Cod as the control city TBH. I get why it is, but it's not an actual city. I would have preferred it say Hyannis or Barnstable.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 18, 2020, 11:37:31 AM

I don't like Cape Cod as the control city TBH. I get why it is, but it's not an actual city. I would have preferred it say Hyannis or Barnstable.

Hyannis isn't a city or town, either. It's only a village, and villages have no legal recognition in Massachusetts.

Quote from: 1 on June 18, 2020, 11:51:01 AM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 18, 2020, 11:37:31 AM

I don't like Cape Cod as the control city TBH. I get why it is, but it's not an actual city. I would have preferred it say Hyannis or Barnstable.

Hyannis isn't a city or town, either. It's only a village, and villages have no legal recognition in Massachusetts.

Yet it's still signed on MA 25. (https://goo.gl/maps/jF7xRy4iULbppW5D7)

Quote from: Ben114 on June 18, 2020, 12:46:58 PM

Quote from: 1 on June 18, 2020, 11:51:01 AM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 18, 2020, 11:37:31 AM

I don't like Cape Cod as the control city TBH. I get why it is, but it's not an actual city. I would have preferred it say Hyannis or Barnstable.

Hyannis isn't a city or town, either. It's only a village, and villages have no legal recognition in Massachusetts.

Yet it's still signed on MA 25. (https://goo.gl/maps/jF7xRy4iULbppW5D7)

Clarification: it's signed for an exit off MA 25 not 25 itself.

For some reason, MassDOT is recently showing some inconsistency with regards to listing control points (as opposed to control cities).  Along I-90, as Roadman mentioned, Cape Cod is not listed on the primary interchange ramp signage for I-495 but such is still listed for the MA 24 interchange signage for I-495 southbound.  Cape Cod is also still listed primary ramp signage for MA 3 southbound off I-93.

That said, I'm still in agreement with using Cape Cod as a listed control point on primary signage because such makes logical sense.   That said, either Wareham or Bourne could be used for a southbound I-495 & eastbound MA 25 listings if one got more MUTCD-anal. 

With regards to listing Worcester for an I-495 control city; MassDOT is, again, being inconsistent with its logic.  Many southbound I-495 signage from I-95 to MA 62 still list Worcester as a control city.  Logic & consistency would suggest that northbound I-495 signage could still list Worcester as a control city from I-195/MA 25 to MA 135; and the old signs indeed did such.

Quote from: PHLBOS on June 29, 2020, 12:48:49 PM

Quote from: Ben114 on June 18, 2020, 12:46:58 PM

Quote from: 1 on June 18, 2020, 11:51:01 AM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 18, 2020, 11:37:31 AM

I don't like Cape Cod as the control city TBH. I get why it is, but it's not an actual city. I would have preferred it say Hyannis or Barnstable.

Hyannis isn't a city or town, either. It's only a village, and villages have no legal recognition in Massachusetts.

Yet it's still signed on MA 25. (https://goo.gl/maps/jF7xRy4iULbppW5D7)

Clarification: it's signed for an exit off MA 25 not 25 itself.

For some reason, MassDOT is recently showing some inconsistency with regards to listing control points (as opposed to control cities).  Along I-90, as Roadman mentioned, Cape Cod is not listed on the primary interchange ramp signage for I-495 but such is still listed for the MA 24 interchange signage for I-495 southbound.  Cape Cod is also still listed primary ramp signage for MA 3 southbound off I-93.

That said, I'm still in agreement with using Cape Cod as a listed control point on primary signage because such makes logical sense.   That said, either Wareham or Bourne could be used for a southbound I-495 & eastbound MA 25 listings if one got more MUTCD-anal. 

With regards to listing Worcester for an I-495 control city; MassDOT is, again, being inconsistent with its logic.  Many southbound I-495 signage from I-95 to MA 62 still list Worcester as a control city.  Logic & consistency would suggest that northbound I-495 signage could still list Worcester as a control city from I-195/MA 25 to MA 135; and the old signs indeed did such.

All the BGSs on MA 25 were replaced in 2006 when the MA 3 flyover opened. Those control points are the same as the original late-80s versions IIRC.

I've added new sign photos from my July road trip down MA 24. One of the new signs since mid-June is a 2 advance sign cantilever for I-495 headed south. That and the rest of the new photos are at: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Took a quick trip along the corridor on Sunday to document any new signs. After a lull around July 4, many new signs were put up in the second half of July. The MA 106 exit went from having only 1 new sign placed, to having all the signs updated. The only exit now without new signage is at the end of MA 24 North at I-93. Further new photos can be found, marked with ^, on my sign replacement project section of the MA Route 24 Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

I've posted a few more photos of new MA 24 signage captured this weekend between I-93 and MA 106. Here's the overheads southbound at the MA 27 North exit, all the new signs have been placed for this exit and for MA 106 and 123:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs820r.JPG&hash=d6e0fd26b3fa352f070c7810c40afed8128ba5d6)

The rest of the new photos are in the MA 24 Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

The contractor has finally started placing the new overhead signs at the end of MA 24 North in Randolph. Photos of those and other new signs put up in October are at my MA 24 sign gallery:
http://malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (http://malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

MassDOT posted this on Twitter yesterday, looks like they are finally completing the sign work at the north end of MA 24 next week:
"In #Randolph ramp from Rt 24 north to I-93 north temporarily closed 9pm, Sunday, 3/7, until 5 am on Monday. MassDOT sign replacement ops also mean Rt 24 north lane closures Sun, Mon, Tues nights as of 9pm thru 5 am next day."
The Sunday work is to remove the old sign structure that has been in front of the new one since November. The exit renumbering contractors put new numbers on both signs in January (the second set currently hidden). Notice that the old exit signs were put on the old gantry and will have to be shifted to the new one when the former gets taken down:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma24signs121bbbb.jpg)

The upgraded MassDOT projects site, now with the name ProjectInfo, has, after a couple year hiatus, begun reporting construction progress %s again (though they have dropped the completion date information). For the Route 24 project, the project is listed as 99% complete. I plan to check whether the last old exit sign (the 1/2 mile advance for I-93) has been replaced tomorrow or later in the week.

Quote from: bob7374 on July 31, 2021, 10:12:29 PM
The upgraded MassDOT projects site, now with the name ProjectInfo, has, after a couple year hiatus, begun reporting construction progress %s again (though they have dropped the completion date information). For the Route 24 project, the project is listed as 99% complete. I plan to check whether the last old exit sign (the 1/2 mile advance for I-93) has been replaced tomorrow or later in the week.

The ProjectInfo site has been updated to say that the project is complete.* Here's the last sign put up NB for the I-93 (US 1) exit, the 1/2 mile advance:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma24signs821a.jpg)

*The same site still reports that the I-495 sign replacement project between Bolton and Lowell is also complete, though the overhead signs have not been put up yet.