Route 24 Fall River to Randolph sign project

[Roadgeekteen]

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. 

Already a MA 193.

[Alps]

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. 

Already a MA 193.

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

[PHLBOS]

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. 

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.

[hotdogPi]

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. 

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.

[PHLBOS]

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. 

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.

[froggie]

Second, 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.

[AMLNet49]

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

[bob7374]

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:


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

[roadman]

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.

[roadman]

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:


on my MA 24 Photo Gallery: 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.

[bob7374]

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?

[Alps]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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; 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.

[hotdogPi]

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; 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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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.

[Alps]

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

[PHLBOS]

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

[roadman]

^^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).

[PHLBOS]

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).

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.

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).

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.

[roadman]

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.

[Ben114]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.


From Alpsroads.net

At present, only the JCT banner 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.

[AMLNet49]

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.


From Alpsroads.net

At present, only the JCT banner 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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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

[AMLNet49]

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.

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