News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Route 24 Fall River to Randolph sign project

Started by roadman, November 15, 2017, 02:12:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PHLBOS

#25
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. 
GPS does NOT equal GOD


Ben114

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.

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Roadgeekteen

Are they converting this road to I-93 anytime or not?
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

Ben114


jp the roadgeek

#30
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
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

AMLNet49

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

PHLBOS

#32
^^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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Alps

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".

PHLBOS

#34
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.

Edited for a better example - Exit 45 off I-295 where CR 626 crosses just south of MM 44.8
GPS does NOT equal GOD

hotdogPi

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.

There's already an Exit 56; 56 and 57 make more sense than 56A and 56B when it's just .2 miles off.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

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

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

PHLBOS

#36
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.

Edited for a better example - Exit 45 off I-295 where CR 626 crosses just south of MM 44.8

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 (Exit 45 off I-295 where CR 626 crosses just south of MM 44.8).

Earlier post has since been edited.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jp the roadgeek

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.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

PHLBOS

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on 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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jp the roadgeek

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
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

bob7374

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]

Alps

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.

Edited for a better example - Exit 45 off I-295 where CR 626 crosses just south of MM 44.8
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.

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

AMLNet49

#43
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?

PHLBOS

#44
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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

bob7374

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

roadman

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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

bob7374

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.

PHLBOS

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
GPS does NOT equal GOD

bob7374

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



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