Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[The Ghostbuster]

Are they any closer to a resolution on this subject?

[Beeper1]

Yes.    The plan is dead.    Mass will remain with sequential exit numbers for the foreseeable future.

[DJ Particle]

Yes.    The plan is dead.    Mass will remain with sequential exit numbers for the foreseeable future.

Or at least until they're refused a waiver from the feds... they wouldn't be the first state to request a waiver and be refused.

[kalvado]

Yes.    The plan is dead.    Mass will remain with sequential exit numbers for the foreseeable future.

Or at least until they're refused a waiver from the feds... they wouldn't be the first state to request a waiver and be refused.

1. request a wavier
2. get refusal letter
3. shrug your shoulders, mumble "Oh, ok, whatever"
4. do what you want to do anyway
5. lobby for including your approach in next must-pass federal spending bill
6. show FHWA middle finger
7. enjoy.

[roadman]

Yes.    The plan is dead.    Mass will remain with sequential exit numbers for the foreseeable future.

Or at least until they're refused a waiver from the feds... they wouldn't be the first state to request a waiver and be refused.

That ship has sailed.  Immediately after the 2009 MUTCD was adopted, Massachusetts, New York, and most of the other remaining sequential-number states jointly sent a letter to FHWA requesting a formal waiver from the requirement to convert to milepost-based exit numbers.  This request was flatly denied, but FHWA did indicate states could use Federal funds (HSIP) to pay for 'blanket-wide' conversion projects.  Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire were ready to do this.  Massachusetts' program got derailed when people who are more concerned about incorrect perception rather than realistic action stuck their hands in the cookie jar, and New Hampshire's program got derailed because the governor's bean-counters didn't want to pony up their share of the money to do it.

[bob7374]

Yes.    The plan is dead.    Mass will remain with sequential exit numbers for the foreseeable future.

Or at least until they're refused a waiver from the feds... they wouldn't be the first state to request a waiver and be refused.

That ship has sailed.  Immediately after the 2009 MUTCD was adopted, Massachusetts, New York, and most of the other remaining sequential-number states jointly sent a letter to FHWA requesting a formal waiver from the requirement to convert to milepost-based exit numbers.  This request was flatly denied, but FHWA did indicate states could use Federal funds (HSIP) to pay for 'blanket-wide' conversion projects.  Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire were ready to do this.  Massachusetts' program got derailed when people who are more concerned about incorrect perception rather than realistic action stuck their hands in the cookie jar, and New Hampshire's program got derailed because the governor's bean-counters didn't want to pony up their share of the money to do it.

Well, that will probably make MA and NH the last New England states with sequential numbering now that Vermont is changing its numbers in 2020. (Information from the Vermont thread, for those who have not seen it:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=218.msg2318486#msg2318486 )

[vdeane]

Depends on whether the political winds shift and how long it takes CT to convert everything.  Since CT is doing it when major sign rehabs are done, I'm not holding my breath and it could take a couple decades.

And I doubt Maine is renumbering the sequential section of I-295 any time soon.

[Beeper1]

I don't think CT is even serious about converting anything else major.  We'll see when the second Route 8 contract goes through, but they blew their chance to change over the northern half of it last year.

Maine I-295 (and I-395) were left alone because the existing sequential exits were deemed "close enough" to the mileposts that no changes were really needed.

Anyone know when RI plans to do the next round of changes?

[PurdueBill]

Depends on whether the political winds shift and how long it takes CT to convert everything.  Since CT is doing it when major sign rehabs are done, I'm not holding my breath and it could take a couple decades.

And I doubt Maine is renumbering the sequential section of I-295 any time soon.

295 in Maine is mileage-based, isn't it?  There are the exits at the southern end that are somewhat fudged by 1 or 2, but the alternative is excessive lettering, which the original proposed Mass exit numbers exhibited (I-95's exits for 93 at the northern crossing being B-C suffixed because Washington St. was the A; there is no reason for that--fudge by 1 if necessary so that the system interchange is an A-B!!) and once there are larger gaps between exits on 295, it's back to being right on the milepost number.  I think the 295 exit numbers are examples of pretty good practical application of the rules in a way that isn't confusing, as the alternative to current 1-11 (all used) would be 1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6A, 6B, 6C (maybe 7), 10, 11.  Why bother with all those letters? The exits average out to one per mile for the first 11 miles.  At exit 15, they go perfectly by milepost for the exit number.

[vdeane]

295 in Maine is mileage-based, isn't it?  There are the exits at the southern end that are somewhat fudged by 1 or 2, but the alternative is excessive lettering, which the original proposed Mass exit numbers exhibited (I-95's exits for 93 at the northern crossing being B-C suffixed because Washington St. was the A; there is no reason for that--fudge by 1 if necessary so that the system interchange is an A-B!!) and once there are larger gaps between exits on 295, it's back to being right on the milepost number.  I think the 295 exit numbers are examples of pretty good practical application of the rules in a way that isn't confusing, as the alternative to current 1-11 (all used) would be 1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6A, 6B, 6C (maybe 7), 10, 11.  Why bother with all those letters? The exits average out to one per mile for the first 11 miles.  At exit 15, they go perfectly by milepost for the exit number.

Only north of exit 11.  South of there is sequential.  IMO if it has to be fudged by more than 1 then it shouldn't be fudged.

Did not know about I-395.  Maine's exit numbers just get less elegant the more I learn about them.  IMO if you're going to do something, you should do it right, and if you do it right, you shouldn't be able to tell it wasn't always that way.

I don't think CT is even serious about converting anything else major.  We'll see when the second Route 8 contract goes through, but they blew their chance to change over the northern half of it last year.

Maine I-295 (and I-395) were left alone because the existing sequential exits were deemed "close enough" to the mileposts that no changes were really needed.

Anyone know when RI plans to do the next round of changes?

I've read that CT 8 will convert once all the sign contracts are done.

[RobbieL2415]

Honestly just convert the numbers and say "fuck you, get over it" to the road users.

[SectorZ]

Honestly just convert the numbers and say "fuck you, get over it" to the road users.

It's funny how they don't mind saying that to all of us for thousands of things, but this is where they take pause of their actions.

[PurdueBill]

Only north of exit 11.  South of there is sequential.  IMO if it has to be fudged by more than 1 then it shouldn't be fudged.

Going from numbers to a soup of suffixed exits just for the sake of accuracy when renumbering isn't worth it, though.  People are going to estimate it's 53 miles from Exit 11 to Exit 64 or something, but within the Portland section of 295, it's less likely to go by that, especially when the change would result in tons of numbers becoming new numbers that are near the old numbers.  Just not worth it. 
From the quantity of non-roadgeek friends who have absolutely no idea about the mileage being reflected by exit numbers, and these are people who you would think would know or care.  Doing something where 2 becomes 2A, 3 becomes 2B, 4 becomes 3, 5 becomes 4, and so on would serve no purpose other than to confuse people.  The beginning of I-93 is another example where the mileages happen to line up closely with one exit about every mile and thus from Canton up to near South Boston, the numbers might as well stay instead of tweaking by one here and there and adding letters. 

[vdeane]

And what happens if they ever need to add an exit between 9 and 10?  The entire scheme will be thrown out of whack!

[kalvado]

And what happens if they ever need to add an exit between 9 and 10?  The entire scheme will be thrown out of whack!

We desperately need FHWA approval for fractional exit numbers..

[PHLBOS]

And what happens if they ever need to add an exit between 9 and 10?  The entire scheme will be thrown out of whack!

Not necessarily.  Depending on where the additional exit falls between your Exit 9 and 10 example; only one of of those two existing exits would have its number tweaked.  One would ultimately have either a 9A (former 9), 9B, 10 or a 9, 10A, 10B (former 10) arrangement.

[Roadwarriors79]

The Mass Pike (I-90) should have been converted to mileage based numbering when all that AET was being installed. Could have attempted the other roads later.

[roadman]

The Mass Pike (I-90) should have been converted to mileage based numbering when all that AET was being installed. Could have attempted the other roads later.

Conversion of exit numbers on the Pike was proposed to be done as part of the ongoing sign upgrades, even after the opposition to letting DOT do their job mileage-based exit numbers mounted as the result of US 6 on the Cape.  It was flatly rejected.

[froggie]

Well, that will probably make MA and NH the last New England states with sequential numbering now that Vermont is changing its numbers in 2020.

They are...?

[bob7374]

Well, that will probably make MA and NH the last New England states with sequential numbering now that Vermont is changing its numbers in 2020.

They are...?

Is this an election year? (Did Doug Kerr give permission for them to use his photo?)

Hopefully, at least, the governor's criticism will be based on more facts after the meeting with the FHWA and VTrans. In particular, he seems to think that it will require all signs (in particular the new signs just put up) will have to be replaced. Nor does he know that the new exit tab signage, on I-91 anyway, includes space for the new exit numbers, reducing the cost of transition. Maybe he needs to see the planned information campaign that VTrans has in its budget for this fiscal year first before he makes up his mind.

[hotdogPi]

Well, that will probably make MA and NH the last New England states with sequential numbering now that Vermont is changing its numbers in 2020.

They are...?

Is this an election year? (Did Doug Kerr give permission for them to use his photo?)

Yes. Vermont has elections for governor and both parts of the legislature every 2 years (even-numbered as usual), unlike almost every other state.

[roadman65]

295 in Maine is mileage-based, isn't it?  There are the exits at the southern end that are somewhat fudged by 1 or 2, but the alternative is excessive lettering, which the original proposed Mass exit numbers exhibited (I-95's exits for 93 at the northern crossing being B-C suffixed because Washington St. was the A; there is no reason for that--fudge by 1 if necessary so that the system interchange is an A-B!!) and once there are larger gaps between exits on 295, it's back to being right on the milepost number.  I think the 295 exit numbers are examples of pretty good practical application of the rules in a way that isn't confusing, as the alternative to current 1-11 (all used) would be 1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6A, 6B, 6C (maybe 7), 10, 11.  Why bother with all those letters? The exits average out to one per mile for the first 11 miles.  At exit 15, they go perfectly by milepost for the exit number.

Only north of exit 11.  South of there is sequential.  IMO if it has to be fudged by more than 1 then it shouldn't be fudged.

Did not know about I-395.  Maine's exit numbers just get less elegant the more I learn about them.  IMO if you're going to do something, you should do it right, and if you do it right, you shouldn't be able to tell it wasn't always that way.

I don't think CT is even serious about converting anything else major.  We'll see when the second Route 8 contract goes through, but they blew their chance to change over the northern half of it last year.

Maine I-295 (and I-395) were left alone because the existing sequential exits were deemed "close enough" to the mileposts that no changes were really needed.

Anyone know when RI plans to do the next round of changes?

I've read that CT 8 will convert once all the sign contracts are done.

I-395 is not alone.  You have both I-664 and I-395 in VA that use sequential still despite the changes in that state.

[vdeane]

I-395 VA was basically perfectly mile-based by coincidence anyways (with the exception of exit 2, which is a classic off-by-1 situation that is common even on roads that were never sequential to avoid letters).  I-664 really should convert; the six mile gap between exits 7 and 8 is flat-out unacceptable.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Interstate 695 Baltimore Beltway is still sequential. So is Interstate 581 in Roanoke, Virginia. Likewise US 54 and US 75 (north of Interstate 635) in Texas. Most of the country already is using mileage-based exits anyway, so I think the lone stragglers should bite the bullet, and accept mile-based exit numbers.

[PHLBOS]

The Interstate 695 Baltimore Beltway is still sequential.

In that particular case, many if the interchanges (there are some exceptions) are close enough to their respective mile markers to justify not changing them... even with a fudge-factor taken into account.

In Massachusetts (& I probably mentioned this several pages back on this thread), the only highway IMHO that should not change its interchange numbers to mile-marker based would be the Lowell Connector.  A conversion there would convert just about every numbered interchange/ramp into alphabet soup.  Personally, I would recommend dropping the numbers for the Lowell Connector should sequential numbered-interchanges become illegal.  Maybe the use of the word illegal is extreme but I believe many will get the drift so to speak.