Extension of MA 2A?

[mass_citizen]

Not quite.  Chapter 85, Section 2, of the Massachusetts General Laws states, in part "The department of highways, in this chapter called the department, shall erect and maintain on state highways and on ways leading thereto and therefrom, and on all main highways between cities and towns, such direction signs ....."

State highway refers to actual jurisdiction of the road, and not whether it carries a route number or not.  All the streets and roads where the "mystery markers" have been appering are under City of Boston of jurisdiction, it is entirely possible that these signs were put in without MassDOT's knowledge or participation.

If that is the case then why would any city or town take it upon themselves to maintain state route signage on their roadways? It serves them no purpose that a particular local route that is state numbered happens to traverse through their town. As a matter of fact, why not just get rid of all state routes that aren't state maintained? This is why it is incumbent upon the state to look at the road network from a regional perspective instead of a local one and maintain the state numbered signs.

The law you quoted also states "and on main highways between city and towns." It makes a distinction between "state highways" (state maintained), and "main highways." I can't think of any other "main highways" that the law would refer to that are different than "state highways" other than state numbered routes under local jurisdiction. MassDOT (or Mass DPW) way back when deemed certain roads "main highways" and therefore elected to give them a state numbered designation. By giving these roads such a designation the state can't then pass off the responsibility of signing such to the local cities and towns. Therefore, according to this law, MassDOT IS responsible for maintaining said signs.

While I agree with your statement that MassDOT probably had no knowledge of the signs installation, as stewards of the regional road network it is now incumbent upon them to correct the situation to ensure that motorists are accurately guided along state numbered routes. For them to look away and say "oh that's not our road" is fundamentally doing a disservice to motorists and taxpayers. 

[Alps]

By numbering them as state routes, MassDOT has decided that they are "ways leading thereto and therefrom". They may have been installed without MassDOT oversight, but, now that they are there, they are MassDOT's responsibility.

You're misreading. The state has responsibility to maintain signs on "ways leading thereto and therefrom," but it does not say ALL ways, or else every street would have route shields. It is up to the state to decide which ways are signed by the state, and it does not explicitly forbid other agencies from maintaining their own trailblazing signs, which is what happened here.

[NE2]

It is up to the state to decide which ways are signed by the state

Which apparently includes Boston, normally:

I inquired about the new MA route signs in the City of Boston and got this response from MassDOT District 6:

This is in response to your e-mail regarding Route Number signage:

MassDOT is in general responsible for the installation and maintenance of Route Number signs. However, recently an unknown organization has started to install route number signs all over the City of Boston.  I have had discussions with the City sign shop and they were unaware of who is installing the signs. MassDOT is not installing these signs, and will not maintain these signs.

[mass_citizen]

By numbering them as state routes, MassDOT has decided that they are "ways leading thereto and therefrom". They may have been installed without MassDOT oversight, but, now that they are there, they are MassDOT's responsibility.

You're misreading. The state has responsibility to maintain signs on "ways leading thereto and therefrom," but it does not say ALL ways, or else every street would have route shields. It is up to the state to decide which ways are signed by the state, and it does not explicitly forbid other agencies from maintaining their own trailblazing signs, which is what happened here.

I think this actually falls under the category of "main highways" within the language of the law rather than a way "leading thereto and therefrom". The state at some point identified certain Boston city streets as large and important enough to contain state designations 2, 2A, 28, etc. By identifying these streets as "main highways" and numbering them as such, they undertake responsibility for maintaining the route signage. This law specifically identifies MassDOT alone as responsible for signage. There are no other corollaries or other chapters saying that each local jurisdiction is responsible for signing state routes. Therefore there is no legal charge or responsibility for localities to do so.

However, I think this question can be settled based on the MassDOT response to roadman's email where they admit they indeed are responsible for route number signs.

[Alps]

By numbering them as state routes, MassDOT has decided that they are "ways leading thereto and therefrom". They may have been installed without MassDOT oversight, but, now that they are there, they are MassDOT's responsibility.

You're misreading. The state has responsibility to maintain signs on "ways leading thereto and therefrom," but it does not say ALL ways, or else every street would have route shields. It is up to the state to decide which ways are signed by the state, and it does not explicitly forbid other agencies from maintaining their own trailblazing signs, which is what happened here.

I think this actually falls under the category of "main highways" within the language of the law rather than a way "leading thereto and therefrom". The state at some point identified certain Boston city streets as large and important enough to contain state designations 2, 2A, 28, etc. By identifying these streets as "main highways" and numbering them as such, they undertake responsibility for maintaining the route signage. This law specifically identifies MassDOT alone as responsible for signage. There are no other corollaries or other chapters saying that each local jurisdiction is responsible for signing state routes. Therefore there is no legal charge or responsibility for localities to do so.

However, I think this question can be settled based on the MassDOT response to roadman's email where they admit they indeed are responsible for route number signs.

If these are not on the "main road" or on the designated route, then MassDOT is not responsible. Plain and simple. You're all missing that point.

[NE2]

Eh? Some of the errors are incorrect directional plates on otherwise correct assemblies, on numbered routes.

[Alps]

Eh? Some of the errors are incorrect directional plates on otherwise correct assemblies, on numbered routes.

So you're saying that there are 2A shields not just on Mass Ave, but on intersecting state routes? In that case yes, the state is responsible for those, and should be taking them down. But not the ones on Mass Ave and not on any non-state highway.

[NE2]

These numbered routes are not state (maintained) highways. The question is whether MassDOT is still responsible.

[mass_citizen]

Eh? Some of the errors are incorrect directional plates on otherwise correct assemblies, on numbered routes.

So you're saying that there are 2A shields not just on Mass Ave, but on intersecting state routes? In that case yes, the state is responsible for those, and should be taking them down. But not the ones on Mass Ave and not on any non-state highway.

There are incorrect arrows/banners on state numbered routes such as 28, 9, 30, 2, and 2A. The actual thread was started because there are also 2A signs on portions of Mass Ave which aren't 2A. Not only are the signs there in error, but the directionals/arrows are also incorrect.  In this case I would still think MassDOT would want to remove those signs to prevent misinformation to motorists, particularly those who may actually be looking for 2A or even 2.

[bob7374]

Took a quick trip into Boston today and found more recently posted MA 2A shields, this time approaching Mass Ave from the ramp from I-93. This time labeled North. Both a junction sign and a trailblazer indicating this is where the route starts, as seen here:


Further images of other MA 2A on Mass Ave. and other new route signs I saw during a Thanksgiving morning drive can be found in the following blog entry: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-thanksgiving-boston-sign-feast.html

[Alps]

Took a quick trip into Boston today and found more recently posted MA 2A shields, this time approaching Mass Ave from the ramp from I-93. This time labeled North. Both a junction sign and a trailblazer indicating this is where the route starts, as seen here:


Further images of other MA 2A on Mass Ave. and other new route signs I saw during a Thanksgiving morning drive can be found in the following blog entry: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-thanksgiving-boston-sign-feast.html

I have no problem at all with 2A starting on Melnea Cass. Even if MassHighway's own definition has 2A ending at 2, when you're on the street, that seems like a completely arbitrary point, because you barely even notice MA 2/Comm Ave passing underneath. Not a lot of traffic uses those ramps - most stays on Mass Ave. Just change the N/S to W/E (respectively) and I'll accept it.

[PHLBOS]

I have no problem at all with 2A starting on Melnea Cass. Even if MassHighway's own definition has 2A ending at 2, when you're on the street, that seems like a completely arbitrary point, because you barely even notice MA 2/Comm Ave passing underneath. Not a lot of traffic uses those ramps - most stays on Mass Ave. Just change the N/S to W/E (respectively) and I'll accept it.

Historical note: prior to 1971, MA 2A along Mass Ave. between Memorial Drive and Commonwealth Ave. was originally MA 2.  Not sure whether Commonwealth Ave. east of Mass Ave. was also part of MA 2 back then or not.  If it was, that turning point (to/from Mass Ave.) isn't a arbitrary as one would think.

As far as designating Mass Ave. below Commonwealth Ave. as an extension of 2A is concerned; my suggestion would be (yes, Fictional Territory here) redesignate Mass Ave. below Memorial Drive as MA 2 and extend the designation to Melnea Cass/I-93.  Commonwealth Ave. in that area can be either an extension of US 20 or MA 30 (should AASHTO get its panties in a wad over the former).  Or even, dare I say, re-route MA 3 along Mass Ave. and have it join I-93 (& US 1) at the Mass Ave. interchange (Exit 18).  In this scenario, MA 2 would be truncated in Cambridge and run along the current MA 2A/Mass Ave. corridor up to MA 16.  It would multiplex w/MA 16 for a short distance to Alewife and resume onto its highway alignment.

Back to the topic at hand; the incorrect signs should be removed or corrected depending on the situation if, for nothing else, eliminate a conflict between what's out in the field vs. what's shown on maps and GPS data.

[NE2]

I have no problem at all with 2A starting on Melnea Cass. Even if MassHighway's own definition has 2A ending at 2, when you're on the street, that seems like a completely arbitrary point, because you barely even notice MA 2/Comm Ave passing underneath. Not a lot of traffic uses those ramps - most stays on Mass Ave. Just change the N/S to W/E (respectively) and I'll accept it.

Historical note: prior to 1971, MA 2A along Mass Ave. between Memorial Drive and Commonwealth Ave. was originally MA 2.  Not sure whether Commonwealth Ave. east of Mass Ave. was also part of MA 2 back then or not.  If it was, that turning point (to/from Mass Ave.) isn't a arbitrary as one would think.

It's not arbitrary because 2 runs along Commonwealth, and of course 2A should end at 2.

PS: Comm was US 20 there (and eastbound C-1): http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~212217~5500293:Downtown-Boston--Sightseeing-Guide-

Back to the topic at hand; the incorrect signs should be removed or corrected depending on the situation if, for nothing else, eliminate a conflict between what's out in the field vs. what's shown on maps and GPS data.

That's an argument for never creating any new routes ever. Routes on so-called "GPS data" are often only as up-to-date as the most recent USGS topo, converted into TIGER and slurped by the map data provider. Almost nobody's going to get confused because a route that's not on the map has signs, but they might get confused if they expect to be on one route and see reassurance for another.

[PHLBOS]

PS: Comm was US 20 there (and eastbound C-1): http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~212217~5500293:Downtown-Boston--Sightseeing-Guide-

Thanks, good to know.  Although I have to wonder why US 20 was later truncated to Kenmore Square (assuming circa 1971)?  IMHO, the DPW should've left the US 20 & MA 2 alignments at their pre-1971 locations.

Side bar: that 1956 Shell map scan shows a Wenham label along US 44 at the left side of the Cape Cod & Vicinity enlargement.  I'm assuming that's an erroneous listing; the only Wenham, MA I'm aware of is in Essex County (North Shore area).

That's an argument for never creating any new routes ever.

Who said anything about creating new routes?  It's almost to be expected that regions will either create, reroute or truncate routes from time to time.  Such changes was one selling point for map companies (AAA, Rand McNally, etc.) to encourage people to purchase their newly updated maps.  Today, similar could be said for marketing/selling updated GPS data.  In Greater Philly/Southeastern PA, within the last two years, a new 8 mile parkway opened (US 202) plus additional interchanges along I-76 & 276.  Long story short, updates & changes still happen.  Today's latest data becomes obsolete tomorrow, nothing new here.

Routes on so-called "GPS data" are often only as up-to-date as the most recent USGS topo, converted into TIGER and slurped by the map data provider.

Some USGS quad sheets haven't been updated since the late 1960s/early 1970s.  If a route change utilizing the existing roadways occurs (example: the re-route of MA 129 and the creation of MA 129A in Lynn, MA that occured during the 90s); will that change get picked up if the latest USGS quad sheet for that area is from 1969-1970?

Almost nobody's going to get confused because a route that's not on the map has signs, but they might get confused if they expect to be on one route and see reassurance for another.

Some of that may depend on how one is directed or told.  If one says that they're located where MA 2A ends (at Commonwealth Ave.) and one inadvertenly misses that interchange and still sees MA 2A assurance signs south of Commonwealth Ave.; they may still continue along looking for some type of logical end point like a T-intersection or even an END 2A sign. 

All of which brings up another question; is there even an END 2A sign (or traces of one) posted at the Commonwealth Ave. intersection?  Since the 80s, MA has posted END XX signs for its routes.  Granted, in locations where XA routes rejoin their parent route for a period are exceptions; but in this case, the 2/2A (Commonwealth Ave./Mass Ave.) interchange is the eastern-most location where 2A meets/ends its parent route.  An END 2A sign is certainly warranted for this case IMHO.

[PHLBOS]

Side bar: that 1956 Shell map scan shows a Wenham label along US 44 at the left side of the Cape Cod & Vicinity enlargement.  I'm assuming that's an erroneous listing; the only Wenham, MA I'm aware of is in Essex County (North Shore area).

That map viewer doesn't work on my phone, but perhaps you're misreading Wareham or Wrentham? Both are similar names that are down around there (Wareham is at 495/195, Wrentham near 495/95).

Two things:

1. Trust me, the word on that scanned map is clearly spelled out as W e n h a m and shown along US 44.  Besides, the map's limits do not extend as far west as Wrentham.

2. With all due respect, if you can't fully read the image in question on your phone; then IMHO you shouldn't be commenting on something that you haven't seen nor verified yourself.

I would suggest, you click on the link from a PC (or a device that supports a map viewer) and you'll plainly see why I commented as such.

Side note: For some reason, I'm now getting a Service Temporarily Unavailable message when clicking on NE2's link.  I was able to open it earlier.  I'll try again later.

Update: the link is now working again. 

Unfortunately, printing even a piece of the map image (& then scanning it to a readable pdf) is not possible.  The site does allow for the link to be shared via Facebook (not sure if you're on there).  I could post it on the Boston Roads page and comment about it and see how others react/respond.

[deathtopumpkins]

Well excuse the hell out of me for attempting to answer a question. I guess I learned my lesson!

Since its oh so unhelpful, your majesty, I have redacted my post.

[NE2]

Unfortunately, printing even a piece of the map image (& then scanning it to a readable pdf) is not possible.  The site does allow for the link to be shared via Facebook (not sure if you're on there).  I could post it on the Boston Roads page and comment about it and see how others react/respond.

You can download as SID in the lower left corner ("Download 1: Full Image Download...") Or take a screenshot...

That's an argument for never creating any new routes ever.

Who said anything about creating new routes?  It's almost to be expected that regions will either create, reroute or truncate routes from time to time.

And why can't they extend 2A? What makes this case so different that the signs can't go against what the "GPS data" says?

[PHLBOS]

Unfortunately, printing even a piece of the map image (& then scanning it to a readable pdf) is not possible.  The site does allow for the link to be shared via Facebook (not sure if you're on there).  I could post it on the Boston Roads page and comment about it and see how others react/respond.

You can download as SID in the lower left corner ("Download 1: Full Image Download...") Or take a screenshot...

I tried the print a screen shot, and all I got was a big black square and the computer I'm on at work does not recognize SID files.  The Raster Image saves (created from the Export function on the upper-right part of the page) creates an image that is completely unreadable.

The only other option is to pony up $24.95 for a readable PDF and I'm certainly not doing that.  I don't need it that badly.

That's an argument for never creating any new routes ever.

Who said anything about creating new routes?  It's almost to be expected that regions will either create, reroute or truncate routes from time to time.

And why can't they extend 2A?

That's MassDOT's decision to make.  Their reasoning for not doing such is because (guess on my part) they (the state) want the termini of XA highways ending with their respective parents as much as possible.  In this case, the Commonwealth Ave./Mass Ave. interchange is the easternmost point where 2A meets its parent.  Roadman can confirm the reasoning.

Additionally, a sizable chunk of Mass Ave. between St. Botolph St. and Harrison Ave. is residential (and appears to be a ritzy neighborhood at that).  Designating that street as part of a state highway might cause those residents to go in a tizzy over the perception of additional traffic that road would bring if it were designated as such.  Unlike the upcoming re-route of US 1 onto the last 2 miles of I-95 in Miami; the residences along Mass Ave. were there first not the route.

What makes this case so different that the signs can't go against what the "GPS data" says?

Personally, I don't give a hoot in Hades what GPS' says that area is.  I don't own one nor plan to get one. 

However, to my dismay, there seems to be a growing mindset out there that treat GPS info. as gospel rather than a guide that might contain a small error.  These individuals will go as far as even ignoring any posted signs and blindly follow their GPS.  I can not tell you the number of times that I've heard people comment "That's not what the GPS says." when they encounter something different out in the field.  What's even sadder that many that make such a comment are my age and older and have been driving for at least 30+ years.  Part of me wants to smack them behind the head and say "How did you handle this 5 or 10 years ago?"

Such was a reason why this particular sign was created; sadly there aren't any in this country... yet.


However, the erroneous 2A signs south of Commonwealth Ave. would be one case where in principle the GPS (and the maps) would be correct but the signs aren't.  Will these erroneous signs cause a vehicle to go into a ditch or a truck/bus to hit a low-clearance overpass?  No, but it's the principle of the matter here. 

[bob7374]

All of which brings up another question; is there even an END 2A sign (or traces of one) posted at the Commonwealth Ave. intersection?  Since the 80s, MA has posted END XX signs for its routes.  Granted, in locations where XA routes rejoin their parent route for a period are exceptions; but in this case, the 2/2A (Commonwealth Ave./Mass Ave.) interchange is the eastern-most location where 2A meets/ends its parent route.  An END 2A sign is certainly warranted for this case IMHO.

From my two visits to the Commonwealth/Mass Ave intersection I can say there is no End signage for MA 2A heading towards Comm Ave from Cambridge. There are some new trailblazers for MA 2 to go with the pre-existing paddle signs. Both paddle signs for 2A on Comm Ave heading east and the ramp to Mass Ave are new. The one on Comm Ave has new text saying 'Mass Ave'. The previous sign at this location had 'Cambridge' under the 2A shield.

[mass_citizen]

Well excuse the hell out of me for attempting to answer a question. I guess I learned my lesson!

Since its oh so unhelpful, your majesty, I have redacted my post.

I've noticed some on this site get very defensive when one even slightly disagrees or questions their post. I didn't think your post was out of line in the least. Maybe its a geek thing. I am active in computer geek forums and I see the same thing. Gotta love us road...err computer...err everything geeks! 

[PHLBOS]

I've noticed some on this site get very defensive when one even slightly disagrees or questions their post. I didn't think your post was out of line in the least. Maybe its a geek thing. I am active in computer geek forums and I see the same thing. Gotta love us road...err computer...err everything geeks! 

Since this subject has been brought up again and it's directed towards a reactive comment I posted earlier; allow me to chime in here (i.e. state my defense).

1.  Deathtopumpkins' (DTP, for short) smartphone (per his deleted post, I'm assuming that's the device he used) either did not have a map-reader nor it was it functioning properly; had he just he simply stated such and stopped there, either NE2 (who provided the web-link to the Shell Map scan) or I would've at least attempted to provide some type of alternate means to give DTP a readable file if he wanted such. 

Worth noting: unlike other web-sites; that particular web-site-link that NE2 provided (mind you, through no fault of his own), unfortunately, does not allow for a simple copy-and-paste of a readable scan of the map in question to be shared or e-mailed via a PM... at least not without downloading a particular software program that not every PC nor laptop has.  Since many of us, myself included, are posting via a computer at either work, a library or internet cafe; we aren't at complete liberty to simply download every single software program that's out there in order to read certain files.

For the record & later that day, I did try but had no success on printing the map directly from the website in question.  Had I been successful in doing such, I would have scanned it again and given DTP (via a PM e-mail) a pdf of the file so he could see that I was not mistaken in seeing that erroneous Wenham label.

2.  While I do realize that not every user here is able to attend the various & sundry meets (to see other AARoad users in person and get a better sense of who they are & their personalities).  As a result, outside of this forum; not everybody knows everybody here, I get that.  However, DTP and I have chimed in on other MA-related road topic threads over the past year or so; and I thought that by now that he would known a little bit about me and my background (Massachusetts native and long-time road/map geek/enthusiast).

That said, the wording of his "perhaps you're misreading Wareham or Wrentham? Both are similar names that are down around there (Wareham is at 495/195, Wrentham near 495/95)." comment was what came off (at least to me anyways) as an off-the-cuff insult (though unintentionally).  Had he worded his post a tad differently (IMHO, the "perhaps you're misreading..." portion of the post was where DTP went over the top IMHO); I would have not replied in the manner I did.  I may wear glasses but I'm not blind.

Additionally, if he indeed saw the map in readable form, he certainly wouldn't have commented as such; or, if I was in error on something, he would have had a stronger basis to back up his point.

Mind you, I'm not saying that everything I post or observation I have is 100% correct (far from it).  9 times out of 10, if I'm not 100% sure about something; I'll usually state such.  If someone proves that a statement/observation I made was in error and they show me the source (photo/web-link/CAD-file); I simply either thank them for the info. or state that I stand corrected and move on.

Nonetheless, DTP, if your earlier comment wasn't intended to be an insult towards me; then I apologize for the tone of my subsequent reply.

FWIW, here's an image scan of the map in question (pardon the non-readable quality, but that was the only quick-and-dirty way I could get the image posted).  The erroneous Wenham label is located at lower-left corner D1 of the Cape Cod map grid above the Carver label.


As one can at least glimpse, this map obviously predates the existence of I-195 (though part of it might be labeled as a segment of US 6 on this map), I-495 & the MA 25 freeway (the pre-freeway MA 25 was the current MA 225).

[NE2]

tl;dr fullofbs doubts that there can be two places with the same name
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=41.91421,-70.76220&z=15&t=T

also:

[roadman]

Two communities with the same name - perhaps.  Two communities with the same name in the same state - highly unlikely.  Maybe in Alanland perhaps.  But in Massachusetts - no.

http://www.wenhamma.gov/wenham_history.php

[Alps]

Two communities with the same name - perhaps.  Two communities with the same name in the same state - highly unlikely.

c.f. Franklin and Washington, NJ

[mass_citizen]

Sorry phlbos, wasn't meant as an attack on you. Just a friendly observation of forums in general (I've been guilty myself). I have indeed noticed your knowledge of MA roads and I enjoy your historical perspective. Although I must say, BOSPHL would look better on paper