News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

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

Previous topic - Next topic

cl94

Quote from: noelbotevera on November 22, 2015, 03:41:39 PM
Why doesn't all of New England just adopt mile based exit numbering? 40+ states have done this, why are the other ten or so still behind?

Most of those states started with distance-based numbering. Unlike the rest of the country, exit numbers in the northeast have existed for nearly 100 years (if not more), long before distance-based schemes existed. A changeover costs a lot of money that is typically better put toward improvements. FHWA is funding the current changeover effort, speeding the process along.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)


hotdogPi

Quote from: cl94 on November 22, 2015, 04:01:20 PM
Unlike the rest of the country, exit numbers in the northeast have existed for nearly 100 years (if not more), long before distance-based schemes existed.

I had no idea that exit numbers existed before route numbers. Can you give me a link to more information about this?
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.

NE2

The earliest known exit numbers were on the NYC parkways in 1938.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Pete from Boston


Quote from: noelbotevera on November 22, 2015, 03:41:39 PM
Why doesn't all of New England just adopt mile based exit numbering? 40+ states have done this, why are the other ten or so still behind?

Nobody here ever says "It's a shame we don't have mileage-based exit numbers."

I promise there will be a big "Why are we spending money on this?" reaction.

AMLNet49

People in New England (well southern New England — CT, RI, MA) do not generally measure trips in distance but rather in time. "How far is it from here?" "About 20 minutes". This is because knowing the mileage doesn't always tell you even close to how much time you have to your destination, so people just don't pay attention to it.

Now this shouldn't preclude the states from changing. There are significant uses for it in northern Connecticut, western Mass, and all of New Hampshire and Vermont.

Duke87

Quote from: noelbotevera on November 22, 2015, 03:41:39 PM
Why doesn't all of New England just adopt mile based exit numbering? 40+ states have done this, why are the other ten or so still behind?

What needs to be appreciated is that while it is true today that 40+ states use mile-based exit numbering, this didn't happen overnight. It has taken more than half a century for distance based exit numbers to go from being a new idea to being the predominant way of doing things. Indeed, your own state of Pennsylvania only switched in 2001, decades after many other states had.

Changing signs, even if you only install greenouts, costs money, and a state needs to justify the expense of doing this. It can't just be done willy-nilly because someone wishes it so.

Also bear in mind that while FHWA may have reached the conclusion that distance based numbering is the way to go, this viewpoint is hardly gospel. Many jurisdictions outside of the US use sequential numbering and have no intention of switching. And while us roadgeeks may generally love distance based numbers and want to see them everywhere, the rest of the general public is not necessarily going to see it the same way.

As for "what's taking the remaining states so long?", well, there are varying factors at play here. New England is somewhat geographically isolated from the rest of the US and has somewhat of its own culture where they do more things differently than just exit numbers. As has been pointed out, people in New England tend to measure the length of trips in time, not distance ("this is an hour north of that"). The apparent benefit of exit numbers matching miles drops when people aren't so much paying attention to the miles.
The geographic isolation of New England also breeds somewhat of an isolationist mindset, so you get a lot of sentiment along the lines of "what's wrong with our exit numbers? Why should we have to spend our money to change them because people in other parts of the country don't like them?"

New York, meanwhile, has an ego that prevents it from adopting things which were invented elsewhere. And generally has a culture of not being cooperative. This is the state that only begrudgingly accepted the US highway system and to this day doesn't really show it much respect.

And Delaware... well, Delaware's sequentially numbered freeways are short enough that no one really notices. The fact that I-95 has no exit 2 but multiple exit 5s even helps create an illusion that the numbers are distance based. Indeed, it's very nearly an exit every two miles - if you took every existing number and simply doubled it, you'd have a pretty good approximation of mile-based numbers.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

bzakharin

Quote from: Duke87 on November 22, 2015, 06:50:31 PM
And Delaware... well, Delaware's sequentially numbered freeways are short enough that no one really notices. The fact that I-95 has no exit 2 but multiple exit 5s even helps create an illusion that the numbers are distance based. Indeed, it's very nearly an exit every two miles - if you took every existing number and simply doubled it, you'd have a pretty good approximation of mile-based numbers.
Got stuck in a much longer traffic jam than I thought recently on I-95 when I thought those exits were mile-based.

PurdueBill

There are problems with the numbers they plan on, as mentioned above, including...

I-95 Exit 50 for US 1 becoming 69B while MA 62, northbound only, is 69A
I-93 Exits 37A-B becoming 55B-C because of 55A (formerly 36) just to the south
I-93 Exits 2-5 all decreasing by 1

These are all unnecessary....as noted above by others, 69-70; 54-55A-55B; 0-2-3-4-5 would be reasonable sequences in the places mentioned.  They could save a lot of trouble by tweaking.  I-93's northern interchange with I-95 being a B-C instead of an A-B is downright silly, especially when the existing numbers involve 37C to the north--the A-B-C sequence shifting south one notch could be very confusing and a system interchange like this should get preference in numbering and suffixing and get its own A-B suffixes, especially when 54 is available for the next exit south.

PHLBOS

After reviewing the I-95 exit numbers a tad closer; I would also recommend tweaking the I-95 exit numbers from MA 16 to MA 30 to cut down on the overload of suffixes (38A through D) and orphaned northbound suffix (since there's only one exit ramp for MA 16 off I-95 northbound, 38B is skipped). 

Change MA 16 (current 21B-A southbound/21 northbound) to Exit 37B-A southbound/37 northbound (the down adjustment by 1 mile is justified here since MA 9 (current Exits 20A-B) will become Exits 36A-B).

Change Grove St. (current Exit 22) to Exit 38A northbound/38 southbound.

Change the northbound-only Recreation Rd. (current Exit 23) to Exit 38B.

Change I-90/Mass Pike (current Exit 25) to Exit 39A*.

Change MA 30 (current Exit 24) to Exit 39B*.

*I-90 crosses I-95 south of MA 30.  The I-95/90/MA 30 ramp order scenario is very similar to CT's I-84/691/CT 322 ramp order scenario.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cl94

Quote from: NE2 on November 22, 2015, 05:09:17 PM
The earliest known exit numbers were on the NYC parkways in 1938.

You sure it wasn't before then? I thought the Southern State had numbers when it opened in the 20s.

Quote from: Duke87 on November 22, 2015, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 22, 2015, 03:41:39 PM
Why doesn't all of New England just adopt mile based exit numbering? 40+ states have done this, why are the other ten or so still behind?

What needs to be appreciated is that while it is true today that 40+ states use mile-based exit numbering, this didn't happen overnight. It has taken more than half a century for distance based exit numbers to go from being a new idea to being the predominant way of doing things. Indeed, your own state of Pennsylvania only switched in 2001, decades after many other states had.

Changing signs, even if you only install greenouts, costs money, and a state needs to justify the expense of doing this. It can't just be done willy-nilly because someone wishes it so.

Also bear in mind that while FHWA may have reached the conclusion that distance based numbering is the way to go, this viewpoint is hardly gospel. Many jurisdictions outside of the US use sequential numbering and have no intention of switching. And while us roadgeeks may generally love distance based numbers and want to see them everywhere, the rest of the general public is not necessarily going to see it the same way.

As for "what's taking the remaining states so long?", well, there are varying factors at play here. New England is somewhat geographically isolated from the rest of the US and has somewhat of its own culture where they do more things differently than just exit numbers. As has been pointed out, people in New England tend to measure the length of trips in time, not distance ("this is an hour north of that"). The apparent benefit of exit numbers matching miles drops when people aren't so much paying attention to the miles.
The geographic isolation of New England also breeds somewhat of an isolationist mindset, so you get a lot of sentiment along the lines of "what's wrong with our exit numbers? Why should we have to spend our money to change them because people in other parts of the country don't like them?"

New York, meanwhile, has an ego that prevents it from adopting things which were invented elsewhere. And generally has a culture of not being cooperative. This is the state that only begrudgingly accepted the US highway system and to this day doesn't really show it much respect.

New York has been using them off and on since the 70s. They switched to using them for everything a few years back. They just aren't converting things. And all it will take for them to start converting is for a bill to get to the assembly floor. If the feds offered money, New York would convert in a heartbeat.

I agree completely about the time thing. East of approximately Utica, everything is time. Distance really doesn't mean crap because you learn to expect traffic. Long Island might be 120 miles long, but you'd be hard-pressed to get from the Midtown Tunnel to Montauk Point in much under 4 hours regardless of what Google Maps tells you.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

NE2

Quote from: cl94 on November 23, 2015, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 22, 2015, 05:09:17 PM
The earliest known exit numbers were on the NYC parkways in 1938.

You sure it wasn't before then? I thought the Southern State had numbers when it opened in the 20s.
No, I'm not sure. Do you have any evidence that it had them?
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

roadman

QuoteIf the feds offered money, New York would convert in a heartbeat.

Both MA and NH are being allowed to use Federal HSIP money for their exit number conversions - perhaps somebody should tell this to NYSDOT and NYSTA (sure, they have to request the funds, but the money should be there).

Note that HSIP money was used for the signing conversion from 'Fast Lane' to E-ZPass on the MassPike/I-90 in 2010, so the prescedent for using HSIP money for work on a toll road has been established.
"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)

Rothman

Quote from: roadman on November 23, 2015, 11:40:41 AM
QuoteIf the feds offered money, New York would convert in a heartbeat.

Both MA and NH are being allowed to use Federal HSIP money for their exit number conversions - perhaps somebody should tell this to NYSDOT and NYSTA (sure, they have to request the funds, but the money should be there).


What's your source on this?  Our FHWA Division would never let this fly.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

vdeane

Quote from: roadman on November 23, 2015, 11:40:41 AM
QuoteIf the feds offered money, New York would convert in a heartbeat.

Both MA and NH are being allowed to use Federal HSIP money for their exit number conversions - perhaps somebody should tell this to NYSDOT and NYSTA (sure, they have to request the funds, but the money should be there).

Note that HSIP money was used for the signing conversion from 'Fast Lane' to E-ZPass on the MassPike/I-90 in 2010, so the prescedent for using HSIP money for work on a toll road has been established.

Also keep in mind that the MassPike is under MassDOT whereas NYSTA is its own separate agency.  I also imagine NYSDOT would want to wait on a statewide conversion for the final alternative selection for the I-81 project in Syracuse.  No sense in changing the numbers twice if the boulevard is selected.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

roadman

Quote from: Rothman on November 23, 2015, 01:44:22 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 23, 2015, 11:40:41 AM
QuoteIf the feds offered money, New York would convert in a heartbeat.

Both MA and NH are being allowed to use Federal HSIP money for their exit number conversions - perhaps somebody should tell this to NYSDOT and NYSTA (sure, they have to request the funds, but the money should be there).


What's your source on this?  Our FHWA Division would never let this fly.
I've seen the actual letter from FHWA Massachusetts Division to MassDOT approving use of HSIP money for the Massachusetts exit numbering conversion.  The contract which is in the process of being awarded reflects this, as the project has a Federal Aid Number - HSIP-002S(874)X.
"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)

roadman

Quote from: vdeane on November 23, 2015, 02:02:43 PM

Also keep in mind that the MassPike is under MassDOT whereas NYSTA is its own separate agency.  I also imagine NYSDOT would want to wait on a statewide conversion for the final alternative selection for the I-81 project in Syracuse.  No sense in changing the numbers twice if the boulevard is selected.

Both good points.
"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)

Rothman

Quote from: roadman on November 23, 2015, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 23, 2015, 01:44:22 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 23, 2015, 11:40:41 AM
QuoteIf the feds offered money, New York would convert in a heartbeat.

Both MA and NH are being allowed to use Federal HSIP money for their exit number conversions - perhaps somebody should tell this to NYSDOT and NYSTA (sure, they have to request the funds, but the money should be there).


What's your source on this?  Our FHWA Division would never let this fly.
I've seen the actual letter from FHWA Massachusetts Division to MassDOT approving use of HSIP money for the Massachusetts exit numbering conversion.  The contract which is in the process of being awarded reflects this, as the project has a Federal Aid Number - HSIP-002S(874)X.

Excellent.  I'll check FMIS.

ETA:  I've checked FMIS and see the authorization with HSIP.  This made my day. :>
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

spooky

Quote from: noelbotevera on November 22, 2015, 03:41:39 PM
Why doesn't all of New England just adopt mile based exit numbering? 40+ states have done this, why are the other ten or so still behind?

There are six states in New England. two of them already have mile based exit numbering, while a third is the very topic of this thread.

AMLNet49

Only Maine currently is totally renumbered in New England. Massachusetts is changing at some indeterminate point in 2016, Connecticut began changing in 2015 though there is no timetable to renumber all of the roads, RI-NH-VT haven't decided to renumber. So there is only one state with all mile-based, and by early 2017 there should be two.

southshore720

Quote from: PHLBOS on November 23, 2015, 08:42:18 AM
After reviewing the I-95 exit numbers a tad closer; I would also recommend tweaking the I-95 exit numbers from MA 16 to MA 30 to cut down on the overload of suffixes (38A through D) and orphaned northbound suffix (since there's only one exit ramp for MA 16 off I-95 northbound, 38B is skipped). 

Change MA 16 (current 21B-A southbound/21 northbound) to Exit 37B-A southbound/37 northbound (the down adjustment by 1 mile is justified here since MA 9 (current Exits 20A-B) will become Exits 36A-B).

Change Grove St. (current Exit 22) to Exit 38A northbound/38 southbound.

Change the northbound-only Recreation Rd. (current Exit 23) to Exit 38B.

Change I-90/Mass Pike (current Exit 25) to Exit 39A*.

Change MA 30 (current Exit 24) to Exit 39B*.

*I-90 crosses I-95 south of MA 30.  The I-95/90/MA 30 ramp order scenario is very similar to CT's I-84/691/CT 322 ramp order scenario.

Are the proposed exit numbers in the plans set in stone, or is there room for negotiation/correction based upon all of your suggestions?

roadman

Quote from: southshore720 on November 25, 2015, 11:25:39 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 23, 2015, 08:42:18 AM
After reviewing the I-95 exit numbers a tad closer; I would also recommend tweaking the I-95 exit numbers from MA 16 to MA 30 to cut down on the overload of suffixes (38A through D) and orphaned northbound suffix (since there's only one exit ramp for MA 16 off I-95 northbound, 38B is skipped). 

Change MA 16 (current 21B-A southbound/21 northbound) to Exit 37B-A southbound/37 northbound (the down adjustment by 1 mile is justified here since MA 9 (current Exits 20A-B) will become Exits 36A-B).

Change Grove St. (current Exit 22) to Exit 38A northbound/38 southbound.

Change the northbound-only Recreation Rd. (current Exit 23) to Exit 38B.

Change I-90/Mass Pike (current Exit 25) to Exit 39A*.

Change MA 30 (current Exit 24) to Exit 39B*.

*I-90 crosses I-95 south of MA 30.  The I-95/90/MA 30 ramp order scenario is very similar to CT's I-84/691/CT 322 ramp order scenario.

Are the proposed exit numbers in the plans set in stone, or is there room for negotiation/correction based upon all of your suggestions?
The final numbers won't be set in stone until the overlays and/or new exit tabs are actually fabricated.  So there is room for correction here.

I understand that MassDOT is currently working on making revisions to some of the numbers (thanks to folks both within and outside of MassDOT - including the suggestions mentioned by AA Roads members), and this revised information will be provided to the Contractor at the pre-construction conference for this 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 November 25, 2015, 11:47:32 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 25, 2015, 11:25:39 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 23, 2015, 08:42:18 AM
After reviewing the I-95 exit numbers a tad closer; I would also recommend tweaking the I-95 exit numbers from MA 16 to MA 30 to cut down on the overload of suffixes (38A through D) and orphaned northbound suffix (since there's only one exit ramp for MA 16 off I-95 northbound, 38B is skipped). 

Change MA 16 (current 21B-A southbound/21 northbound) to Exit 37B-A southbound/37 northbound (the down adjustment by 1 mile is justified here since MA 9 (current Exits 20A-B) will become Exits 36A-B).

Change Grove St. (current Exit 22) to Exit 38A northbound/38 southbound.

Change the northbound-only Recreation Rd. (current Exit 23) to Exit 38B.

Change I-90/Mass Pike (current Exit 25) to Exit 39A*.

Change MA 30 (current Exit 24) to Exit 39B*.

*I-90 crosses I-95 south of MA 30.  The I-95/90/MA 30 ramp order scenario is very similar to CT's I-84/691/CT 322 ramp order scenario.

Are the proposed exit numbers in the plans set in stone, or is there room for negotiation/correction based upon all of your suggestions?
The final numbers won't be set in stone until the overlays and/or new exit tabs are actually fabricated.  So there is room for correction here.

I understand that MassDOT is currently working on making revisions to some of the numbers (thanks to folks both within and outside of MassDOT - including the suggestions mentioned by AA Roads members), and this revised information will be provided to the Contractor at the pre-construction conference for this project.
Good to hear that some revisions are possible. I have a couple more suggestions, not previously posted in this thread, but possibly brought up by others:
1. The eastern terminus of I-84 at the Mass Pike. The ramps have never had exit numbers, and are not given any proposed numbers is the sign summary list. Given the removal of the toll booths in the upcoming year, however, wouldn't it make sense to provide numbers to be consistent with other interstate termini in the state, such as with I-93?
2. The southern terminus of MA 3. In this case there are existing exit numbers for US 6, but there are no proposed numbers for this exit in the sign summary sheet document. While it may make some sense to not sign the US 6 West 'exit' since its simply a continuation of MA 3 as a ramp merging before the bridge, doesn't it make sense to number US 6 West, since the exit ramp is from MA 3 before it ends? To be consistent an Exit 0 tab could be used here.
3. Checking the sign summary and mounting summary lists for inconsistent information. In some cases there are differences in the proposed numbers for the same exits. For example, for MA 3. The summary sheet lists the exits as 42 B and C. The mounting summary has these exits as 42 A and B.

KEVIN_224

If the toll booths were removed in Sturbridge, how would the last ramps be signed?

Exit 8A - I-90 | Mass Pike EAST - Worcester/Boston
Exit 8B - I-90 | Mass Pike WEST - Springfield/Albany, NY

Of course they could also be signed as Exit 4A/4B without any mileage conversion!

Kacie Jane

Quote from: noelbotevera on November 22, 2015, 03:41:39 PM
Why doesn't all of New England just adopt mile based exit numbering? 40+ states have done this, why are the other ten or so still behind?

Really it depends on your perspective and your definition of "behind".  Most of the 40+ states you're talking about (not all, but I'm pretty sure most) have had mileage based numbers from the beginning because they didn't number their exits (or have exits to number) until much later, after mileage based became the standard. Why were they so behind?

Personally, I do prefer mileage based numbers, but I also understand why the New England states are in no huge rush to change if sequential numbers have been working for them for 40-80 years.

PHLBOS

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 28, 2015, 10:37:42 PM
If the toll booths were removed in Sturbridge, how would the last ramps be signed?

Exit 8A - I-90 | Mass Pike EAST - Worcester/Boston
Exit 8B - I-90 | Mass Pike WEST - Springfield/Albany, NY

Of course they could also be signed as Exit 4A/4B without any mileage conversion!
There's no MM 8 along I-84, (US 20, current Exits 3A-B are slated to become Exits 6A-B).  I-84's eastern terminus with I-90 would be assigned Exits 7A-B, probably after AET is adopted and the tollbooths are removed.

Quote from: roadman on November 25, 2015, 11:47:32 AMThe final numbers won't be set in stone until the overlays and/or new exit tabs are actually fabricated.  So there is room for correction here.

I understand that MassDOT is currently working on making revisions to some of the numbers (thanks to folks both within and outside of MassDOT - including the suggestions mentioned by AA Roads members), and this revised information will be provided to the Contractor at the pre-construction conference for this project.
Good to know.  IMHO, the biggest renumbering issue(s) here is to have Exit 0 or not have Exit 0 for the first interchange situated between MM 0 and MM 1; or should termini even have exit numbers at all? 

MassDOT should adopt one of the following approaches and consistently apply such for every highway that will have exit numbers (at present, there's some inconstencies in the listed documents):

1.  Assign Exit 1 to an interchange or terminus that's located between MM 0 and MM 1.

2.  Assign Exit 0 to an interchange or terminus that's located between MM 0 and MM 1.

Additionally, should MassDOT decide not to assign exit numbers for termini for this conversion; such an approach would be an modified version of approach #2.

The other-listed issue involved either unnecessary suffixing or creating orphaned suffixed exit numbers in areas where there are absolutely no plans (at least not in our lifetimes, anyway) to build additional interchanges between existing interchanges.  Examples: I-95 between MA 38 and I-93 in Woburn/Reading (the Washington St. interchange can become Exit 54 despite it being located at MM 55 so that the I-93 cloverleaf can maintain its current A-B directional suffixes (55A-B for the current 37A-B) and I-95 between MA 9 and MA 16 in Newton (MA 16 can be Exit 37/37B-A despite it being located at MM 38, such allows for a cleaner approach to the subsequent interchange numbering for Grove St., Recreation Rd and even I-90 & MA 30).
GPS does NOT equal GOD



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.