Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[bob7374]

Just received several emails from MassDOT in response to my comments:

Regarding the US 3 interchange w/I-95/MA 128 being Exit 71 A/B instead of Exit 70 A/B.  They partially-agreed and will change/correct such to Exit 72 A/B.  The likely reasoning being that MM 72.0 is located just north of the I-95/MA 128 interchange.

MM 71.6 is located just north of the I-95/MA 128 underpass

Fair enough.  This interchange could be either Exit 71 A/B or 72 A/B; but their original plan to designate this one as Exit 70 A/B was just wrong.

Regarding the I-290/395 renumbering using only I-395's mileage:

hank you for your comment. To minimize potential driver confusion, we are continuing the I-395 numbering along I-290 to replicate the present exit numbering, which is continuous from Webster to Marlborough.   As part of this project, the existing mileposts on I-290 will be replaced with "˜dual' mile markers showing mileage for both I-395 and I-290.  MassDOT may consider re-designating I-290 as an extension of I-395 at a later date based on driver response to the new exit numbering and the "˜dual' mile markers.

MassDOT has considered this option for I-395.  Resetting the exit numbers at the Massachusetts border, as occurs now, provides travelers an additional cue that they've crossed over into a different state.  It is our judgement that this will aid driver navigation better than continuing the Connecticut exit number sequence into Massachusetts will.

So MassDOT's not ruling out a possible redesignation for I-290?

Regarding the omission of including the Recreation Rd. exit off I-95/MA 128 northbound:

The Recreation Road exit from I-95 north is planned to be closed within the next three years as part of a proposed development project.  As Recreation Road does not appear on any of the overhead signs for I-90 and MA 30, and as Recreation Road is a relatively low volume exit, the current exit number will be removed but not replaced with a new milepost-based one.  The existing "˜Recreation Road Exit 23' sign on I-95 northbound will be modified to read "˜Recreation Road Next Exit', and the existing overhead sign for Recreation Road on the exit ramp will be removed and replaced with a smaller ground-mounted sign.

That's one way around numbering an oddball setup.

Regarding that current I-95's Exit 45 being Exit 65 instead of Exit 64:

For single exit interchanges such as the I-95 north/Route 128 Peabody split, the proposed exit number is based on proximity of the exit gore to the mile marker, and not the midpoint of the interchange.  Mile marker 64 is approximately 280 feet south of the exit gore for 128 north.

I personally don't agree with their decision.

My comment regarding the proposed exit numbers suffixes for I-90 & MA 30 being switched (39 A to 39 B & vice-versa):

Noted.  We will revise the new exit numbers accordingly.

My comment regarding the listing of Exit 15 & 15 A for I-93 northbound:

The northbound exit to Frontage Road will be designated Exit 15B.  As there is no southbound exit for Southampton Street, the southbound exit for Frontage Road will be designated Exit 15.

MassDOT obviously agreed that there was a typo in the listing.

My comments regarding MA 128's proposed interchange numbers being way out-of-synch with respect to the mile markers:

The proposed exit numbering on all highways under this project will use the A/B/C scheme only to denote exits that either serve both directions of a route or street from separate ramps on the highway (such as I-95(128) at I-93 in Woburn); to denote multiple exits accessed by a collector-distributor road off the highway (such as the northbound exit from I-95 to I-90 and Route 30, and the southbound exit from I-95 to Highland Avenue and Kendrick Street); or to denote separate exits that are so closely spaced apart that assigning separate numbers is impractical (such as Southampton Street and Frontage Road on I-93 northbound in Boston).

To consistently apply this standard statewide, it is necessary on some routes, such as MA 128 north of Peabody and I-91 through Springfield, to adjust the proposed numbers in certain areas from the normal rounding conventions.  These deviations have been minimized so that the overall numbering will "catch up"  to the mile markers in a short distance.

As suspected, such was done to minimize suffixing except for multiple ramps at the same interchange.  Nonetheless, such isn't an excuse to do such.  Maybe I need to inform them that the NJTA recently revised some of their interchange numbers along the Garden State Parkway to be more in-synch with the mile markers even if such meant more suffixing.

Long story short: Our comments are indeed being heard.

That's good news. I haven't gotten a response to my comments yet, but since several (I-290/I-395, the US 3/I-95 exit, numbers on MA 128) repeated yours, I know what the answers will be, if they ever get back to me. Wonder what will become of I-190 if I-290 becomes an extended I-395. Does it become an I-x95? Do they extend I-190 to I-90 over what is now I-290? Was amused by comment that they are not changing exit numbers to reduce driver confusion, but putting up dual mile markers, as there won't be any confusion with those? As I suggested Exit 72 on my US 3 exit number listing for I-95, glad they are going with that. Wonder if/when the exit number listings on the MassDOT site will be updated?

[Duke87]

Wonder what will become of I-190 if I-290 becomes an extended I-395. Does it become an I-x95? Do they extend I-190 to I-90 over what is now I-290?

My guess is that in this scenario, nothing happens with I-190. It stays as is and just ends up orphaned. And while technically in violation of numbering convention, no one who isn't a roadgeek will notice or care. Especially since there will be absolutely no negative safety or navigational implications to this.

Was amused by comment that they are not changing exit numbers to reduce driver confusion, but putting up dual mile markers, as there won't be any confusion with those?

Yeah that's a really goofy way of handling this. Just change the mile markers so that 395 and 290 have one continuous set and be done with it.
I'm otherwise fine with I-290 continuing I-395's exit numbers - the two are physically one continuous road, so this makes sense.

What I find most aggravating though, is this:

The proposed exit numbering on all highways under this project will use the A/B/C scheme only to denote exits that either serve both directions of a route or street from separate ramps on the highway (such as I-95(128) at I-93 in Woburn); to denote multiple exits accessed by a collector-distributor road off the highway (such as the northbound exit from I-95 to I-90 and Route 30, and the southbound exit from I-95 to Highland Avenue and Kendrick Street); or to denote separate exits that are so closely spaced apart that assigning separate numbers is impractical (such as Southampton Street and Frontage Road on I-93 northbound in Boston).

So, okay, that also explains the mess where exit 1 on I-91 will be nearly 4 miles from the state line. MassDOT, it seems, really really really wants to avoid alphabet soup and will fudge numbers to all hell in order to do so.

[Alps]

Just received several emails from MassDOT in response to my comments:

Regarding the I-290/395 renumbering using only I-395's mileage:

hank you for your comment. To minimize potential driver confusion, we are continuing the I-395 numbering along I-290 to replicate the present exit numbering, which is continuous from Webster to Marlborough.   As part of this project, the existing mileposts on I-290 will be replaced with "˜dual' mile markers showing mileage for both I-395 and I-290.  MassDOT may consider re-designating I-290 as an extension of I-395 at a later date based on driver response to the new exit numbering and the "˜dual' mile markers.

MassDOT has considered this option for I-395.  Resetting the exit numbers at the Massachusetts border, as occurs now, provides travelers an additional cue that they've crossed over into a different state.  It is our judgement that this will aid driver navigation better than continuing the Connecticut exit number sequence into Massachusetts will.

So MassDOT's not ruling out a possible redesignation for I-290?

My comments regarding MA 128's proposed interchange numbers being way out-of-synch with respect to the mile markers:

The proposed exit numbering on all highways under this project will use the A/B/C scheme only to denote exits that either serve both directions of a route or street from separate ramps on the highway (such as I-95(128) at I-93 in Woburn); to denote multiple exits accessed by a collector-distributor road off the highway (such as the northbound exit from I-95 to I-90 and Route 30, and the southbound exit from I-95 to Highland Avenue and Kendrick Street); or to denote separate exits that are so closely spaced apart that assigning separate numbers is impractical (such as Southampton Street and Frontage Road on I-93 northbound in Boston).

To consistently apply this standard statewide, it is necessary on some routes, such as MA 128 north of Peabody and I-91 through Springfield, to adjust the proposed numbers in certain areas from the normal rounding conventions.  These deviations have been minimized so that the overall numbering will "catch up"  to the mile markers in a short distance.

As suspected, such was done to minimize suffixing except for multiple ramps at the same interchange.  Nonetheless, such isn't an excuse to do such.  Maybe I need to inform them that the NJTA recently revised some of their interchange numbers along the Garden State Parkway to be more in-synch with the mile markers even if such meant more suffixing.

Long story short: Our comments are indeed being heard.

2 replies to you.
1) Good! They recognize that multiple resets of numbering in a short distance hurts the unfamiliar traveler. I personally would not change I-290 to I-395, though I don't know what FHWA's take on this would be. 290 is a loop route through Worcester, 395 is a spur route from CT. You could consider I-290 as beginning at I-90, going through the toll plaza, and merging into the freeway mainline that is I-395. But I don't think they do. I am going to be most curious as to what the dual mile markers will look like. Is there going to be a de facto 290/395 multiplex?
2) Your last sentence is not quite right. The GSP did not renumber exits to be in synch "even if such meant more suffixing." The GSP, in fact, specifically only changed an exit number if that would reduce the suffixing and ease the transition. For example: 131, 131B, 131A became 132, 131B, 131A instead of adding a 131C. 117A became 118 to avoid having a 117A-B setup.

[Duke87]

So I ended up submitting my own comment to MassDOT on another... inconsistency in their plans:

I am curious as to why exits 1A and 1B on Route 6 are not proposed to be changed. Based on route 6 mileage, shouldn't these be renumbered to 54B and 54A? Otherwise there is an awkward jump from 55 to 1 in only a mile.

Let's see if they have an answer for that!

[vdeane]

If they really want to avoid alphabet soup, perhaps they should advocate that the US go metric.  You never hear about alphabet soup problems in Canada.

[DJ Particle]

I am curious as to why exits 1A and 1B on Route 6 are not proposed to be changed. Based on route 6 mileage, shouldn't these be renumbered to 54B and 54A? Otherwise there is an awkward jump from 55 to 1 in only a mile.

My guess is they're considering it MA-3 Exit 1A/B.  Since the Scusset Beach/3A exit is being considered Exit 3 in the new renumbering (despite Mile 3 being almost half a mile north of the exit presently), maybe they're pushing the Zero Point of MA-3 a bit further south over the bridge for a small US-6 concurrency?

Hey, I didn't say it was a *good* idea, but it would explain why northbound the exits are 1 A/B instead of 54 A/B.

[PHLBOS]

1) Good! They recognize that multiple resets of numbering in a short distance hurts the unfamiliar traveler. I personally would not change I-290 to I-395, though I don't know what FHWA's take on this would be. 290 is a loop route through Worcester, 395 is a spur route from CT. You could consider I-290 as beginning at I-90, going through the toll plaza, and merging into the freeway mainline that is I-395. But I don't think they do. I am going to be most curious as to what the dual mile markers will look like. Is there going to be a de facto 290/395 multiplex?

Given that Auburn interchange with I-90 was originally just a connector to MA 12 and that I-290 & I-395 (then MA 52) corridors & connections were built later & at different times; I would say that I-290's terminus was never at the toll plaza even though it conceivably could be.  Such may also be due to the fact that the toll plaza and the related feeder ramps to/from I-290/395 (former MA 52) were built & maintained by the then-Mass Turnpike Authority & not the then-MassDPW; Roadman can verify/confirm such.  The ramp overpass structures appear to be Turnpike Authority-spec'd/design.  Now that the toll plaza is gone plus the fact that the Turnpike Authority & MassDOT (formerly MassHighway) are now one entity; moving I-290's mile marker 0 to where the former toll plaza was could logistically be a possibility, although there would be some alphabet soup for the currently unnumbered MA 12 & I-395 southbound ramps.

With regards to the proposed exit renumbering along I-290 to reflect I-395's mileage; MassDOT's basically doing similar to what the PTC did with I-276 along the PA Turnpike's continuing I-76's mileage.  The two differences being the (East-West) PA Turnpike is a tolled facility w/toll gantries/plazas at every interchange; and, from a roadgeek perspective or even MUTCD perspective, the I-290/395 handoff is not a child interstate branching off its parent interstate in a TOTSO scenario.  As Duke87 mentioned earlier, such doesn't really matter to the general motoring public.

2) Your last sentence is not quite right. The GSP did not renumber exits to be in synch "even if such meant more suffixing." The GSP, in fact, specifically only changed an exit number if that would reduce the suffixing and ease the transition. For example: 131, 131B, 131A became 132, 131B, 131A instead of adding a 131C. 117A became 118 to avoid having a 117A-B setup.

Fair enough.

[5foot14]

I, like many of you, posted comments regarding the exit renumbering and finally got a reply.

My comments were generally about the exit numbering of 128 north of Peabody, and the resulting overlap in some of the exit numbers.

Thank you for your comment. Your concerns are noted.  We point out that duplicate exit numbers (12 to 29) have existed on both I-95/Route 128 between Canton and Peabody and Route 128 between Peabody and Gloucester for over 32 years.  In that time, we have had no known instances of police, fire, or other emergency services failing to respond to an accident or other incident due to drivers inaccurately informing them of their location.  The new exit renumbering has been reviewed with emergency responders and all are comfortable with the changes.

We agree that removing the Route 128 designation south of Peabody would allow the "˜zero' milepost for Route 128 to be at I-95 in Peabody.  However, such a change would require a significant outreach effort that is well beyond the scope of the current exit renumbering project.

MassDOT recognizes the significance of the Route 128 designation to the region.  However, "˜Historic Route"  designations are normally applied to ex-US numbered routes that are rural and scenic in nature,  and not to multi-lane Interstate highways in urban areas.

They make fair points and it's good to see that our concerns are being heard

SM-G900P

[PHLBOS]

I submitted an additional comment to MassDOT regarding I-84's terminus with I-90 having exit numbers (7 A & 7 B).  Now that the tollbooths are long gone and both highways are under the same state agency (MassDOT) control; assigning exit numbers for the ramps from I-84 eastbound to both directions of I-90 would be consistent with how MassDOT designates & signs other highway-to-highway termini.

Let's see what MassDOT's reply to the above will be.

[cl94]

I'm a bit confused about the I-91 numbering in Springfield. Like, why are they keeping Exit 1 at Mile 4? I get trying to avoid alphabet soup, but they could make it 3 and 4AB (or even 2-3-4), as 1 and 2 are both partial exits and could be combined.

[vdeane]

With regards to the proposed exit renumbering along I-290 to reflect I-395's mileage; MassDOT's basically doing similar to what the PTC did with I-276 along the PA Turnpike's continuing I-76's mileage.  The two differences being the (East-West) PA Turnpike is a tolled facility w/toll gantries/plazas at every interchange; and, from a roadgeek perspective or even MUTCD perspective, the I-290/395 handoff is not a child interstate branching off its parent interstate in a TOTSO scenario.  As Duke87 mentioned earlier, such doesn't really matter to the general motoring public.

And, of course, I-276 only has the PA Turnpike mileage - they don't post an additional set starting at 0.  I don't see why MassDOT couldn't just change I-290's mileage to continue from I-395 and leave it at that.  Seems like that would be less confusing.  I wouldn't change the designation - I don't want to see I-190 orphaned.

I'm a bit confused about the I-91 numbering in Springfield. Like, why are they keeping Exit 1 at Mile 4? I get trying to avoid alphabet soup, but they could make it 3 and 4AB (or even 2-3-4), as 1 and 2 are both partial exits and could be combined.

Same reason why I-195 in New Bedford has two numbers for one interchange - MassDOT is doing this with a sequential mindset and isn't using the opportunity to fix existing mistakes in their exit numbers, instead choosing to perpetuate them.

[hotdogPi]

I would actually prefer that I-84 continue its exit numbers from Connecticut, but this would require Connecticut to renumber before Massachusetts.

[jp the roadgeek]

I would actually prefer that I-84 continue its exit numbers from Connecticut, but this would require Connecticut to renumber before Massachusetts.

which apparently won't happen before 2028

[PHLBOS]

I'm a bit confused about the I-91 numbering in Springfield. Like, why are they keeping Exit 1 at Mile 4? I get trying to avoid alphabet soup, but they could make it 3 and 4AB (or even 2-3-4), as 1 and 2 are both partial exits and could be combined.

Maybe you can submit that suggestion to MassDOT if you haven't already done so.

I would actually prefer that I-84 continue its exit numbers from Connecticut, but this would require Connecticut to renumber before Massachusetts.

I definitely don't see that happening.  It wasn't until the mid-to-late 80s that ConnDOT renumbered the interchanges along I-84, east of CT 15 to their present sequential numbers.  Originally, this stretch (CT only) continued with CT 15's numbers.

Besides, I-84's interchanges in MA are far enough apart that converting such to mile marker based ones won't be as problematic as, say, those along the Lowell Connector.

[cl94]

Maybe you can submit that suggestion to MassDOT if you haven't already done so.

Submitted immediately after I made the post here. I'm curious what their response will be.

[bob7374]

Late this afternoon, I also received a response from MassDOT to my comments on exit renumbering. I won't repeat all the responses to the same comments I made as PHLBOS since my responses were the same. This includes that on the I-395 exit numbers, my comments also asking whether the potential of numbering I-195 and I-295 as continuations of RI exit numbers was considered. The response was the same:

Resetting the exit numbers at the Massachusetts border, as occurs now, provides travelers with an additional cue that they've crossed over into a different state.  It is our judgement that this will aid driver navigation better than continuing the adjacent state's exit number sequences into Massachusetts will.

One of my comments involved solutions to the criticism by Cape Cod officials of the US 6 numbers, apparently they are thinking of these options:
Has anyone thought of a compromise of assigning milepost based numbers, but using the Mid-Cape Highway miles instead of US 6? If the assigning of mileposts to a named highway would be difficult, perhaps you could create a new route to run concurrently with US 6 from Route 3 in Bourne to Route 28 in Orleans and use that highway's mileage for the exit numbers.

MassDOT is considering these possible alternatives to using the US 6 mile marker numbers for the Mid-Cape Highway exits.  If either alternative were considered acceptable to Cape Cod officials, AASHTO and/or FHWA approval would be required before any changes could be made.  We also note that, if the Mid-Cape Highway were designated as a different route from US 6, it would likely begin at the Sagamore Bridge, and not run concurrently with the section of US 6 Scenic Highway between Route 25 and the bridge.

I also made a comment about US 3/MA3 sharing mileage and wouldn't it be simpler to have the entire route US 3, either on the current route, or reroute it north of Boston, or just have 2 separate routes on the freeway portions:

The MA Route 3 designation cannot be changed to US 3 because Route 3 between the Mass. Ave Bridge and I-93 at Leverett Circle does not meet current AASHTO design standards, particularly regarding minimum vertical bridge clearances, to be given a US Route designation.  Rerouting US 3 between Burlington and Boston via I-95 (128) and I-93, which would require AASHTO review and approval before implementation, is not considered a practical option at this time.  This is due to capacity constraints at the I-95/I-93 interchange in Woburn, and would also require an outreach effort and highway sign changes that are beyond the scope of this project.

As you note, media traffic reporters, the general public, and others generally consider Route 3 to be two separate roads, one from Braintree south and the other from Burlington north.  Also, the freeway segments of US 3 and MA 3 already have distinct sets of exit numbers that do not duplicate — this will still be the case after milepost numbering is implemented.  For these reasons, and given the additional outreach effort and changes to highway signs required — both of which are outside the scope of this project, MassDOT sees little tangible benefit to the public to justify removing the Route 3 designation between Braintree and Burlington entirely.

I also asked that it was somewhat confusing under a mile-based system to have the Storrow Drive exit marked 18 in both directions, but have the southbound Exit 18 be north of mile 20:

For ease of navigation and for consistency in directing people to businesses, exits in different directions that serve the same route, street, or area of a city or town, are being given the same exit number even when they are physically located at different locations along the highway.  As the signs on I-93 south for the Sullivan Square and Leverett Connector/Storrow Drive exits overlap, this "out of order"  numbering should not create undue confusion for drivers.

The rest of my comments involved errors with the exit lists. The response was that the I-93 exit list needed to be updated regarding the inclusion of Sullivan Square as an exit southbound and also removing the reference to MA 28 in that direction also, but no timeline given for the corrections.

[PHLBOS]

Regarding US 6/Mid Cape Highway, barring the Cape seceding the Commonwealth or even the Union (the latter would be outside of AASHTO's/FHWA's jurisdiction); one compromise, though I'm a tad hesitant to submit this one to MassDOT, would be to feature dual MILE XX - EXIT YY tabs akin to those that I-93 north of Boston & I-295 in RI had from the 1970s through mid-1980s.  Granted such is from the outdated 1971(?) MUTCD but it might be the best way to display the classic (and I use the term very loosely) sequential exit numbers of the Mid-Cape Highway along with US 6's overall mileage on the same tab.

Problem solved(?)

[DJ Particle]

Regarding US 6/Mid Cape Highway, barring the Cape seceding the Commonwealth or even the Union (the latter would be outside of AASHTO's/FHWA's jurisdiction); one compromise, though I'm a tad hesitant to submit this one to MassDOT, would be to feature dual MILE XX - EXIT YY tabs akin to those that I-93 north of Boston & I-295 in RI had from the 1970s through mid-1980s.  Granted such is from the outdated 1971(?) MUTCD but it might be the best way to display the classic (and I use the term very loosely) sequential exit numbers of the Mid-Cape Highway along with US 6's overall mileage on the same tab.

Problem solved(?)

Or alternately, keep the "OLD EXIT xx" signs up until no one cares anymore.   

Otherwise, the only solution Codders will go for is "no change ever".  Trust me.  Once the change is done, over time the residents will get used to it, but unless that clock is allowed to start, it will NEVER happen.

If MA-DPW caved to Codders' demands back in the 1950s, there wouldn't even BE a Mid-Cape Highway.

Codders need to be told "the Mid-Cape is getting the new numbers, and it's not up for debate!"

[PHLBOS]

Or alternately, keep the "OLD EXIT xx" signs up until no one cares anymore.   

PA's tried and true model. 

[SectorZ]

They got back to me about the 128 exit numbers...

"Thank you for your comment. While I-95 is the primary designation for the highway between Canton and Peabody, Route 128 continues to be carried as a secondary designation on this road.  This is why the mileposts for Route 128 begin in Canton and not Peabody.  Although removing the Route 128 designation south of Peabody would allow the "˜zero' milepost for 128 to be at I-95 in Peabody, such a change would require an outreach effort and changes to highway signs that is beyond the scope of the current exit renumbering project."

[SectorZ]

As bob7374 pointed out above, the state responded by not wanting duplicated exit numbers for each route 3, then on another hand telling me the same for 128 is A-OK...

[hotdogPi]

Can someone contact them about the possibility of continuing Rhode Island's exit numbers for I-295? An additional advantage is that I-95's exit numbers and I-295's exit numbers won't be confused.

[PHLBOS]

"...Although removing the Route 128 designation south of Peabody would allow the "˜zero' milepost for 128 to be at I-95 in Peabody, such a change would require an outreach effort and changes to highway signs that is beyond the scope of the current exit renumbering project."

If you haven't already done so, you should reply back stating that 128 signs along that stretch only appear on stand-alone trailblazer & reassurance markers.  The main highway signs (independent contractor ones in Wakefield aside) don't have any MA 128 shields per federal mandate.

The biggest stumbling block to remove any 128 references along the I-95 stretch IMHO is the fore-mentioned Amtrak/MBTA Route 128 Station in Westwood.  If such were officially renamed; then it might be a tad easier to remove the old designation... at least in that vicinity.  Although history & culture, both locally as well as nationally, has made such a challenge.  That's why I mentioned, though MassDOT pooh-poohed such when someone else suggested such, replacing the MA 128 shields on the existing trailblazer/reassurance markers with brown rectangular HISTORIC 128 shields.  While such has only been done for US routes; the history & lore of 128 might be enough to warrant such for a state route.

Can someone contact them about the possibility of continuing Rhode Island's exit numbers for I-295? An additional advantage is that I-95's exit numbers and I-295's exit numbers won't be confused.

While I agree with you in principle regarding the continuation of RI's mileage along the short, 4-mile stretch of I-295 in MA, I'm not seeing where there would be any confusion with 295's exit numbers vs. those along I-95.  Such are two different roads regardless of exit numbering convention.  I-295's currently has an Exit 1 & 2 (terminus w/I-95) just as I-95 has an Exit 1 & 2.

Update: I decided to pull the trigger and submit my suggested dual MILE/EXIT tab idea for US 6/Mid-Cape Highway to MassDOT.  It'll probably get shot down; but it's worth a shot to submit a compromise.

[5foot14]

Regarding 128s exit numbers, how about this...

Sever the existing 128 into 2 "routes". Both routes would still be 128, however they would logged separately and have separate mileage. Canton to Peabody could be logged internally as 128L and Peabody to Gloucester could be logged as 128U (Lower and Upper). Signs in the field would however only use "128" for both routes. That way exit numbers in Peabody can start at 1 and 128 can still exist down to Canton. There's even somewhat of a precedent for this with the two different route 8As in Western MA logged as 8AU and 8AL.

SM-G900P

[vdeane]

Regarding 128s exit numbers, how about this...

Sever the existing 128 into 2 "routes". Both routes would still be 128, however they would logged separately and have separate mileage. Canton to Peabody could be logged internally as 128L and Peabody to Gloucester could be logged as 128U (Lower and Upper). Signs in the field would however only use "128" for both routes. That way exit numbers in Peabody can start at 1 and 128 can still exist down to Canton. There's even somewhat of a precedent for this with the two different route 8As in Western MA logged as 8AU and 8AL.

SM-G900P

Exactly.  They can do the same for US 6 to get the mile markers on the Mid-Cape Highway to start at Sagamore rather than RI.  I'm not really a fan of the "exit X mile Y" exit tab idea or of moving route numbers around.