Massachusetts

Started by hotdogPi, October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

roadman

QuoteThe 1973 official Mass. map had someone has highlighted all the 'I-Routes' in the state which include 128 from Canton to Braintree being labeled I-93. If from 1973, this would be the earliest reference to this designation, however, this could have been done at  later date.

As the I-95 and I-93 reroutings over MA 128 were not approved by FHWA until January of 1975, it's reasonable to presume that the 1973 map was indeed altered at a later date.
"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)


PHLBOS

#501
Quote from: shadyjay on April 05, 2016, 09:04:29 PM
Another forum tipped me off to this page:

http://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=29085e10d60743cf9a37d62b5fe8b83d

You can view Mass state maps from the 1930s up to 2009.  City inserts, Boston detail (inside 128 and center city), and Mass Pike toll tickets.... it's all there.  There's also a 1970s Texaco tri-state (CT-RI-MA) map and a Mass Pike map in there as well.  Some of those old maps even show exit listings, not just for the Mass Pike, but for 128 as well.  Also one of them shows I-95 exits south of 128 being numbered based on the "#25 is 128" system.  I knew the SE Exp'y, Rt 3 South, Rt 24, Rt 3 North, and 93N all used that system but didn't know 95S did as well.
Great find.  I've already saved that link to my Favorites.

I knew that 128's Exit 9 in Gloucester numbers weren't the original ones; but I wasn't aware that the change was made in 1962... I thought such a change was made circa 1959.  Maybe it took a few years for the map(s) to catch up.

The state's 1961 map inadvertently predicted the future (at from 1974-1989) by showing an I-95 shield on US 1 just north of 128.

Quote from: roadman on April 06, 2016, 09:14:35 AM
QuoteThe 1973 official Mass. map had someone has highlighted all the 'I-Routes' in the state which include 128 from Canton to Braintree being labeled I-93. If from 1973, this would be the earliest reference to this designation, however, this could have been done at  later date.

As the I-95 and I-93 reroutings over MA 128 were not approved by FHWA until January of 1975, it's reasonable to presume that the 1973 map was indeed altered at a later date.
I concur. My grandfather has a copy of the 1973 state roadmap (I regret not telling my father to send it to me when he moved my grandfather out of his apartment during the early 90s) and such contained no such references of I-93 extending south of the Northeast Expressway.  Plus, a 1973 map showed Gov. Frank Sargent's picture; Mike Dukakis was governor when the first maps started showing the new I-95 & 93 routings.

It's worth noting that the 1973 map in that link is marked up with the words Proposed I-System with all the Interstate routes (present and then-future) marked by hand in black ink.  This was clearly somebody's (at MassDPW perhaps?) mark-up.  I love how the Route 128 exit number listings description still describes the then-21 year old Yankee Division Highway as the New Route 128.  It also lists Exit 29 as For Future Use (for I-95) and Exit 63N as Future (for what would have been I-95 North).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

KEVIN_224

It's fun looking at the Massachusetts state road maps, watching what would eventually be I-395 coming into existence. The road was only completed to Exit 1 in Webster on the 1971 map. Then it was finished to just north of the Webster/Oxford town line in 1973. I also see when I-190 for the northern stretches of Worcester will still being proposed. I-391 in Chicopee was shown as proposed by 1977. It looks like I-395 was completed to the Massachusetts Turnpike around 1978 or so.

As for the Texaco map from 1974: It had East Hartford to the Massachusetts state line as I-86 AND CT 15. Interesting. It looks like they also had US Route 44 along that stretch to Willington. Is that correct? Also, they had what was the completed portion of I-395 in Webster/Oxford as MA Route 193.

kefkafloyd

Pittsfield bypass shows up as proposed in 1969, disappears in 1975. RIP.

Also, the Lowell Connector was marked as 495 Spur all the way to the 1984 map.

roadman

Quote from: kefkafloyd on April 06, 2016, 11:29:43 AM
Also, the Lowell Connector was marked as 495 Spur all the way to the 1984 map.

Yet, in all that time, there were never any 495 Business Spur shields actually placed on guide signs for the Lowell Connector exits from I-495 or US 3.
"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)

AMLNet49

Quote from: roadman on April 06, 2016, 12:25:21 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on April 06, 2016, 11:29:43 AM
Also, the Lowell Connector was marked as 495 Spur all the way to the 1984 map.

Yet, in all that time, there were never any 495 Business Spur shields actually placed on guide signs for the Lowell Connector exits from I-495 or US 3.
That's because apparently it was never designated as a Business Interstate by the state. It was federally assigned, and adopted by mapmakers and trailblazers were all over Lowell (one shield remained until a few years ago), but was never officially on the books in Mass.

kefkafloyd

I didn't think it was actually marked like that on maps, which was a surprise to me. One of those "learn something new every day."

shadyjay

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 06, 2016, 11:25:14 AM
As for the Texaco map from 1974: It had East Hartford to the Massachusetts state line as I-86 AND CT 15. Interesting. It looks like they also had US Route 44 along that stretch to Willington. Is that correct? Also, they had what was the completed portion of I-395 in Webster/Oxford as MA Route 193.

Yup, that would've been correct.  I-86 and CT 15 were cosigned.  Originally, Mashapaug Road was MA 15.  The exit numbers on the CT portion were an extension of those from CT 15's.  Exit 1 would've been at the Whitestone Bridge in New York City, as those numbers back then were contiguous with the Hutchinson Parkway, Merritt Parkway, up CT 15 to the Mass state line. 

And for some reason, yes, US 44 was cosigned with I-86 and CT 15 up to Willington (today's Exit 69/CT 74).  So it got on I-84 in Hartford, exited in East Hartford at today's Exit 53, and got back on at today's Exit 60.  US 6 got on in Farmington and exited at today's Exit 60.  Today's US 44 through Manchester out to Willington was signed US 44A, until it was rerouted to its present route.  At that time, CT 74 got extended east of I-84/Exit 69. 

roadman

#508
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 06, 2016, 02:13:14 PM
That's because apparently it was never designated as a Business Interstate by the state. It was federally assigned, and adopted by mapmakers and trailblazers were all over Lowell (one shield remained until a few years ago), but was never officially on the books in Mass.

I believe you have the actual situation backwards.  Based on extensive research of available MassDPW plans and other internal records, I've determined that it was MassDPW that designated the road as a Business Spur (as evidenced by the fact the trailblazers in Lowell were fabricated by the MassDPW sign shop and presumably installed by District forces), but the designation was never officially sanctioned by AASHO or BPR.

Had AASHO or BPR officially given the Lowell Connector the I-495 Business Spur designation (which seems highly unlikely without the state requesting it first - which there is no evidence of in the records I've reviewed), then why wouldn't I-495 Business Spur shields have been placed on the exit signs on I-495 and US 3 for the Connector?  And if the state did not officially recognize the designation, then why would the state highway department place trailblazer assemblies for it on local streets?

As for the state and gas company maps having the I-495 Spur designation on them, be reminded that companies like Rand McNally and the like get their information about roadway changes to update maps and guides from the individual states, and not from the Federal Government.  Plus, if the state didn't officially recognize the designation, then why would it have been included on highway maps issued by the state?  An error in one year perhaps, but it carried over through multiple years.

As I've indicated in my responses in previous threads about both the Lowell Connector and Business Loop/Spur designations, I have spent considerable time researching this issue.  As such, and with due respect to your views, unless you or somebody else out here can produce physical evidence (by either scanning or linking to specific documents) to support the contention that the I-495 Business Spur designation was officially sanctioned at the Federal level but not actually recognized by Massachusetts, I am sticking to my story.
"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)

AMLNet49

#509
Quote from: roadman on April 06, 2016, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 06, 2016, 02:13:14 PM
That's because apparently it was never designated as a Business Interstate by the state. It was federally assigned, and adopted by mapmakers and trailblazers were all over Lowell (one shield remained until a few years ago), but was never officially on the books in Mass.

I believe you have the actual situation backwards.  Based on extensive research of available MassDPW plans and other internal records, I've determined that it was MassDPW that designated the road as a Business Spur (as evidenced by the fact the trailblazers in Lowell were fabricated by the MassDPW sign shop and presumably installed by District forces), but the designation was never officially sanctioned by AASHO or BPR.

Had AASHO or BPR officially given the Lowell Connector the I-495 Business Spur designation (which seems highly unlikely without the state requesting it first - which there is no evidence of in the records I've reviewed), then why wouldn't I-495 Business Spur shields have been placed on the exit signs on I-495 and US 3 for the Connector?  And if the state did not officially recognize the designation, then why would the state highway department place trailblazer assemblies for it on local streets?

As for the state and gas company maps having the I-495 Spur designation on them, be reminded that companies like Rand McNally and the like get their information about roadway changes to update maps and guides from the individual states, and not from the Federal Government.  Plus, if the state didn't officially recognize the designation, then why would it have been included on highway maps issued by the state?  An error in one year perhaps, but it carried over through multiple years.

As I've indicated in my responses in previous threads about both the Lowell Connector and Business Loop/Spur designations, I have spent considerable time researching this issue.  As such, and with due respect to your views, unless you or somebody else out here can produce physical evidence (by either scanning or linking to specific documents) to support the contention that the I-495 Business Spur designation was officially sanctioned at the Federal level but not actually recognized by Massachusetts, I am sticking to my story.

My research amounts to one email exchange with an official in 2010, which I no longer have so I was just going off of memory, and could easily have gotten them backwards. I'll go with your version for sure, you seem to have the topic blanketed really well.

NE2

There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.
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

Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2016, 12:12:12 AM
There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken.  However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.
"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)

kefkafloyd

Progress continues on the Masspike's open road tolling project. The gantry for the Charlton readers was being installed tonight (and I was stuck in traffic as it had closed down two of three lanes). Meanwhile, the gantry in Ludlow was active tonight, presumably doing live testing.

It was interesting observing what I could as I drove past. The entire gantry is one pre-made structure that gets hoisted upon the previously laid supports by a crane. It had all of the equipment already mounted on it.

AMLNet49

Quote from: roadman on April 07, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2016, 12:12:12 AM
There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken.  However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.

My theory is that it was to eliminate confusion. There were no other business Interstates in Massachusetts at the time, so drivers may not understand the difference between a green shield and a red and blue one. They may have incorrectly assumed that BS-495 was actually I-495, not understanding the difference.

Now for the trailblazers, it could be argued that since nearly all traffic getting on the connector is bound for the I-495/US-3 interchange, signing BS-495 from the streets would be less confusing because nearly all traffic is trying to reach I-495 anyway.

Alps

Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 10, 2016, 12:50:11 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 07, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2016, 12:12:12 AM
There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken.  However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.

My theory is that it was to eliminate confusion. There were no other business Interstates in Massachusetts at the time
Or... ever? For that matter, there are no other business Interstates in New England. (NH had one, CT apparently had two I was never aware of.) The next closest one still extant is Business I-83 in York, PA.

AMLNet49

Quote from: Alps on April 10, 2016, 02:41:48 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 10, 2016, 12:50:11 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 07, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2016, 12:12:12 AM
There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken.  However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.

My theory is that it was to eliminate confusion. There were no other business Interstates in Massachusetts at the time
Or... ever? For that matter, there are no other business Interstates in New England. (NH had one, CT apparently had two I was never aware of.) The next closest one still extant is Business I-83 in York, PA.
Exactly

spooky

Quote from: kefkafloyd on April 10, 2016, 07:50:11 AM
Progress continues on the Masspike's open road tolling project. The gantry for the Charlton readers was being installed tonight (and I was stuck in traffic as it had closed down two of three lanes). Meanwhile, the gantry in Ludlow was active tonight, presumably doing live testing.

It was interesting observing what I could as I drove past. The entire gantry is one pre-made structure that gets hoisted upon the previously laid supports by a crane. It had all of the equipment already mounted on it.

I heard from someone involved in the work that the overheads were assembled at Westover and then trucked along the Pike for erection at their various locations.

kefkafloyd

Quote from: spooky on April 11, 2016, 08:44:44 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on April 10, 2016, 07:50:11 AM
Progress continues on the Masspike's open road tolling project. The gantry for the Charlton readers was being installed tonight (and I was stuck in traffic as it had closed down two of three lanes). Meanwhile, the gantry in Ludlow was active tonight, presumably doing live testing.

It was interesting observing what I could as I drove past. The entire gantry is one pre-made structure that gets hoisted upon the previously laid supports by a crane. It had all of the equipment already mounted on it.

I heard from someone involved in the work that the overheads were assembled at Westover and then trucked along the Pike for erection at their various locations.

That's incredible, considering the twisty ramps at exit 5. This gantry has no middle support and it goes across all lanes in one assembly.

roadman

Bids were opened on the I-495 Raynham to Bolton sign replacement project earlier today.  RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA is the apparent low responsible bidder.
"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)

yakra

Quote from: roadman on April 12, 2016, 04:02:59 PM
Bids were opened on the I-495 Raynham to Bolton sign replacement project earlier today.  RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA is the apparent low responsible bidder.
Sorry if you've already covered this upthread -- is this going to include exit renumbering?
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

roadman

#520
Quote from: yakra on April 13, 2016, 12:24:49 AM
Quote from: roadman on April 12, 2016, 04:02:59 PM
Bids were opened on the I-495 Raynham to Bolton sign replacement project earlier today.  RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA is the apparent low responsible bidder.
Sorry if you've already covered this upthread -- is this going to include exit renumbering?
The project was designed to use milepost-based exit numbers, but that may change.  From the project addenda # 1:

QuoteITEM 828.1 OVERHEAD GUIDE SIGN - SQUARE FOOT
ALUMINUM PANEL (TYPE B)
The work under this item shall conform to the relevant provisions of Section 828 of the Standard
Specifications and the following:
Legend, border, and background of signs shall be High Intensity Prismatic (HIP) retrotreflective
sheeting conforming to ASTM D4956-11a Type VIII or better, except that the banners
indicating TOLL ROAD" , "EXIT ONLY" , etc. shall be fabricated with black opaque legend on
yellow retro-reflective sheeting conforming to ASTM D4956-11a Type VIII or better. .
The project plans and details for these sign panels presume that the existing exit numbers within
the project limits will be converted from the present sequential numbers to a referenced-based
(milepost) numbering system. However, the Contractor is advised that this conversion may now
be deferred until a later date. Accordingly, while the new exit number plates (tabs), gore, and
other signs shall be fabricated of sufficient width to accommodate the future exit numbers, the
Contractor may be directed to provide the current sequential exit numbers on new signs for now.
MassDOT shall inform the Contractor of which numbering scheme to use on new signs prior to
submission of the sign face drawings for review and approval.
(language added in Addenda # 1 - emphasis added)
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Item 828.1 will be measured for payment buy the square foot, complete in place,
BASIS OF PAYMENT
Item 828.1 will be paid for at the Contract unit price per square foot, which price shall include
furnishing and installing all materials, labor, equipment tools, appurtenances, and incidentals
necessary to satisfactorily complete the item of work, complete, in place and accepted.

A little birdie (no, not Twitter) told me this language was added as a result of the backlash from the US 6 preliminary design plans.
"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)

AMLNet49

#521
Well that's terrible news. If these signs are fabricated with the sequential numbers and this is just going out for bid now, there may not actually be mileage based numbers in Mass until 2017 or 2018 (other than the Mass Pike, which is definitely getting them later this summer). It was supposed to start right around this month, but I guess they need tons more time to come up with a PR initiative that should have already been done.

PHLBOS

A better, compromise solution would be to save the conversion of the US 6 Mid-Cape Highway interchange numbers for last; after all the other Bay State highway interchange numbers are converted.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

vdeane

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 13, 2016, 03:29:15 PM
A better, compromise solution would be to save the conversion of the US 6 Mid-Cape Highway interchange numbers for last; after all the other Bay State highway interchange numbers are converted.
Agreed.  The way they're going about this, it looks like I-90 will be the only road with mile-based numbers for a long time.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Beeper1

There should be a new sign at the state line:

"Welcome to Massachusetts: Into the Future Kicking and Screaming"



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.