Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[Mergingtraffic]

I really don't think the exit numbers on the i-95/MA-128 multiplex will favor 128. I mean cmon really. I-95 is the main route. After 128 splits off then it'll have its own numbers.

[Ben114]

Looked at the new website for the project. Updates about what has been debated.

I-290 and I-395 will not have a reset in Auburn. Mile 0 will be at the CT border.

Route 128 will have mile 0 in Canton.

[vdeane]

Is there something wrong with the interactive map?  It isn't loading for me.

[shadyjay]

I-290 and I-395 will not have a reset in Auburn. Mile 0 will be at the CT border.

I find this most interesting.  So that will probably mean new mile markers on the I-290 portion north of Auburn, as mile markers reset there currently, but exits do not.  Enhanced mile markers would then show (approx.) I-290 MILE 12 where currently I-290 MILE 0 exits.  The previous marker will be I-395 MILE 11.  Kind of strange.

Route 128 will have mile 0 in Canton.

So this will still lead to a duplication of exits on Route 128.  Sure. 


Also, US 3 north of "128" will feature exit numbers which combine the mileage of MA 3 and US 3.  It assumes MP 0 is down at the Cape Cod Canal at the southern terminus of MA 3, vs somewhere near the BU Bridge (where US 3 technically begins). 

Still I'm unsure why exits on US 1 will remain unnumbered.  Those on the Northeast Expressway are legitimate interchanges and in my opinion deserve to be numbered.

[Magical Trevor]

The logo for the public awareness campaign: once you see it...

[Alps]

15  If a circumferential, loop, or spur route crosses State boundaries, the numbering
sequence shall be coordinated by the States to provide continuous interchange numbering.

I-395 is none of those. It's a medium-distance connector similar to I-155 in Illinois and I-135 in Kansas.

It's still a spur of I-95 though.  However, despite the current MUTCD standard, the mileposts should reset to zero at the MA border.

In this case, I disagree, but only because you would be resetting numbers twice in a short distance along the continuous 395-290 freeway. I think it would be more intuitive to motorists to have exit numbers only reset once in that stretch.

The existing mile markers along I-395/290 in CT/MA already reset twice.  The highest I-395 mile marker in MA is MM 11.6 (within the US 20 interchange in Auburn) before I-290's mile markers start.  That said, the one location where such should change is indeed at the I-290/395 handoff location in Auburn.  While it could be argued about whether having another reset at the state line is necessary; I-395 in MA is long enough where such a change wouldn't cause too much confusion.  If anything, its the current sequential numbers in MA that can be confusing to one unfamiliar with the area.  IMHO, I-290's sequential numbers should've been reset in Auburn when or even before MA 52 (later I-395) was completed circa 1977.

Personally, the only MA highway that could ditch the mile-marker reset at the state line is I-295; given its short length in the Bay State (highest mile marker is 3.8).  IIRC, when that road was first built in the late 1960s; its original exit numbers in MA were a continuation of RI's then-sequential numbers.  The likely reasoning for not resetting at the state line then was due to the fact that the long-since-aborted extension east of I-95 was to be a different route (I-895).  I-295's interchange numbers in MA were changed to the current ones sometime during the 1970s.

I would continue numbers on I-295, I-195, and I-395. These are all spur/loop routes where that's allowable, and I think both 295 and 395 make cases for why. (It's rare for a through freeway to reset numbers at all, let alone 11 miles from a state line.) I-195 is also relatively short in RI.

[Alps]

The logo for the public awareness campaign: once you see it...

Sesame Street, or are we talking about the centered tab?

[Ben114]

The logo for the public awareness campaign: once you see it...

Sesame Street, or are we talking about the centered tab?

Or is it the circle and how the project is coming back to life?

[Magical Trevor]

The logo for the public awareness campaign: once you see it...

Sesame Street, or are we talking about the centered tab?

The latter - but hey, it could be accurate for CT to use whenever they renumber!

[jp the roadgeek]

Looks like MA will use the round to the nearest mile provision in exit numbers.  The overpass for MA 10/US 202 is between MP 40.6 and 40.8, but will have Exit 41.  MA 32 is at MP 62.6, but will be Exit 63.  OTOH, CTDOT plans on using Exit 37 on CT 9 for CT 175 even though the overpass of CT 175 is at MP 37.98.  Maryland always rounds up; Exit 77 on I-95 (MD 24), is at about MP 76.2

Some serious fudging is being done on I-91 in the Springfield area, especially in the area of Forest Park.  The US 5 exits are 1 SB and 2 NB, although you're in the 3-4 MP range. 

[Ben114]

Some serious fudging is being done on I-91 in the Springfield area, especially in the area of Forest Park.  The US 5 exits are 1 SB and 2 NB, although you're in the 3-4 MP range.

Similar fudging is happening in Worcester on I-290. The MA 122 exit is 18, with MLK Blvd being 20 (despite these exits being half a mile apart).

[PHLBOS]

My take, based on MassDOT's current listings.

I-95:

Current Exit 23/Recreation Rd. is missing from the list.  Will such be Exit 37 C?

Current Exit 45/MA 128 North should be Exit 65 not 64 due to MM 65 is located within the interchange footprint.

Current Exit 36/Washington St. is obviously fudged to Exit 54 to reduce suffixing.  The other option/original plan would've been to have it designated as Exit 55 A and the I-93 interchange ramps designated as Exits 55 B/C.

MA 30 should be Exit 39 B not 39 A due to the corridor being located north of I-90; which should be Exit 39 A not 39 B.  The proposed numbering still erroneously holds the southbound sequence; a repeat error from the 1987 I-95 sequential renumbering.  See I-84/691/CT 322 interchanges in CT for the proper approach to number two adjacent interchanges with the ramps in the same order for both directions.

I-93:

Typo for current Exit 27/new Exit 19.  Listing should be for US 1, not Rte. 9.

Northbound, there's an Exit 15 A (Southampton St.) as well as an Exit 15 (Frontage Rd.).  I believe such isn't MUTCD-kosher for mile-marker interchange numbering.  Maybe Exit 15 for northbound I-93 should be Exit 15 B.

MA 128:

Definitely some fudging was done to reduce suffixing; some a tad too extreme IMHO.  In a few instances, the interchange number is 2 higher than the actual mile markers. 

Endicott St./current Exit 24 should've been Exit 40 C, not Exit 41

MA 35/current Exit 23 should be Exit 41 (not Exit 42, MM 41.2 is located just beyond the MA 35 underpass)

MA 62/current Exit 22 should be Exit 42, not Exit 43

Current Exit 21/Conant St./Trask Ln. should be Exit 43 A or Exit 43, not Exit 44

MA 1A/current Exit 20 A/B should be Exit 43 B/C or Exit 44 A/B, not Exit 45 A/B

Current Exit 19 (Sohier Rd./Brimbal Ave.) is located at MM 44.2; such should be Exit 44 or Exit 44 C, not Exit 46.

MA 22/current Exit 18 should be Exit 46, not Exit 47

Current Exit 17/Grapevine Ave. is located at MM 47.4; such should be Exit 47, not Exit 48

128's proposed numbering definitely needs some recalibrating IMHO.

[jp the roadgeek]

I would imagine Recreation Rd would become 38B and Riverside would become 38A northbound.  Seems to be the easiest solution.  Absolutely agree the Pike should be 39A and MA 30 39B.  Funny thing is you get that same I-691/ CT 322 situation on I-91 in Hartford with the Airport Rd and CT 15 south exits, and it's also Exits 27 and 28.  Future numbers would be 40 A/B for I-84 and 36 A/B for I-91.

My 128 numbers were also off from 39-48.  Definite fudging there.  The south end of 93 was also fudged a bit to avoid the alphabet city within MP 1 by raising everything by 1.   Same with 95 in Attleboro and keeping the MA 1A exits as is.  My 91 numbers were spot on from the Pike north, but many were off a bit through Springfield (except the 291 exit is spot on).

[PHLBOS]

I-290 and I-395 will not have a reset in Auburn. Mile 0 will be at the CT border.

I know such was discussed on this thread just yesterday, but my opinion on this has not changed.  Unless MassDOT is planning on having I-395 take over I-290 in the process; not resetting the mile markers in Auburn where the two routes meet is a bad idea.  Just because it was done with sequential numbering in the past is not an excuse to do such with mile-marker based interchange numbering.

If the reason for doing this is because of the state-line reset 11 miles to the south along I-395; then a better solution is obvious... continue CT's mileage along I-395 into MA.  Now that CT already converted I-395's numbers, which resulted in lower numbers than the old CT-Turnpike-based sequentials, such a change will not mean that 3-digit-non-suffixed exit numbers would be appearing along I-395 in MA.

I would imagine Recreation Rd would become 38B and Riverside would become 38A northbound.  Seems to be the easiest solution.

Agree with you on that one. 

The south end of 93 was also fudged a bit to avoid the alphabet city within MP 1 by raising everything by 1.   Same with 95 in Attleboro and keeping the MA 1A exits as is.

I stated such before.  Not using Exit 0 for both I-93 & 95 allows more interchange numbers to not undergo a change; i.e. path-of-least-resistance.  A slight fudge with respect to the mile markers, yes; but not as ridiculous as the fudged ones for MA 128 from Danvers to Wenham.

When it comes time CT to renumber the interchanges along I-84; they should take a cue from MassDOT and not use Exit 0 as well.  Such would allow I-84's westernmost interchanges through Exit 8 to remain as is with minimal fudging.

[Henry]

I was hoping that I-395's exit numbers would carry over from CT; they will not, but I-290 will continue to pick up where it left off, so there's that. Personally, I feel that I-395 should count up from CT, and I-290 start over from Mile 0, but alas, it is not to be.

I-295's exits will basically be doubled, with Exit 1 becoming Exit 2 and the current Exit 2 becoming Exit 4.

I-195 will also reset from RI, which I don't mind, but if you ask me, I-295 should've had its exit numbers continue from there, as it loops around the north and west sides of Providence. All in all, I applaud MA for finally moving forward with its plans.

[jp the roadgeek]

When it comes time CT to renumber the interchanges along I-84; they should take a cue from MassDOT and not use Exit 0 as well.  Such would allow I-84's westernmost interchanges through Exit 8 to remain as is with minimal fudging.

I agree there.  If CT were to be totally exact, the only difference in Danbury would be making Exit 1 1A and Exit 2 1B eastbound / 1 B-C westbound.  Only places where Exit 0's might make sense are at the south end of I-91 (0A for the exit formerly known as CT 34 and 0B for I-95 North; where there is no northbound counterpart), and at the I-691/CT 66 handoff in Meriden (too many Exit 1's, with the 2 CT 66 exits being Exit 1, and the exits on 691 back to Downtown Meriden all being an alphabet city of Exit 1's, since I-691 is actually mileposted east-west in the CT Highway Log despite sequential numbers that go from west to east.)

Couple other MA related things:  I'm assuming the newish US 44 expressway will also remain numberless?  And why does I-93 North get a number on Route 3 north when the 93 North connection is actually mainline MA 3?  Same question for why I-95/MA 128 North gets a number when its mainline US 3.

[Magical Trevor]

Apologies if an answer has been made available elsewhere but I've always wondered, why not have I-290 start at the state line? (I know this would change the whole route mileage but while a ton of signage would be getting done anyway...) Steve Anderson's site implies it was the FHWA's decision.

Also, apparently Massachusetts is getting a new interstate in the form of "I-140".

[jp the roadgeek]

Apologies if an answer has been made available elsewhere but I've always wondered, why not have I-290 start at the state line? (I know this would change the whole route mileage but while a ton of signage would be getting done anyway...) Steve Anderson's site implies it was the FHWA's decision.

Also, apparently Massachusetts is getting a new interstate in the form of "I-140".

Actually, the smarter thing would have been to make the transition in CT, where I-395 would have bent east on the SR 695 CT Turnpike stub and I-290 took over the route to Worcester. 

[bob7374]

When it comes time CT to renumber the interchanges along I-84; they should take a cue from MassDOT and not use Exit 0 as well.  Such would allow I-84's westernmost interchanges through Exit 8 to remain as is with minimal fudging.

Couple other MA related things:  I'm assuming the newish US 44 expressway will also remain numberless?  And why does I-93 North get a number on Route 3 north when the 93 North connection is actually mainline MA 3?  Same question for why I-95/MA 128 North gets a number when its mainline US 3.

Roadman would probably be the best to explain. IIRC the reason both exits get numbers in the instances you mention was to provide a signal to the motorist that the particular highways (Pilgrims Highway, US 3) are ending. My biggest issue with the I-93 exit signs on Route 3 North is that they still do not have any US 1 shields, either on the signs or ground-mounted, associated with them, unlike those on I-93.

[The Ghostbuster]

I'm disappointed that highways that currently without exit numbers won't get them. In previous sequential-to-milepost conversions, some routes that didn't have exit numbers pre-conversion got them post-conversion. Maybe at some point in the future, those routes will get numbers. Also, I didn't see anything about State Highway 2 getting new exit numbers. Does that mean Highway 2's exit numbers won't change?

[SectorZ]

I'm disappointed that highways that currently without exit numbers won't get them. In previous sequential-to-milepost conversions, some routes that didn't have exit numbers pre-conversion got them post-conversion. Maybe at some point in the future, those routes will get numbers. Also, I didn't see anything about State Highway 2 getting new exit numbers. Does that mean Highway 2's exit numbers won't change?

I think they forgot to put 2 on there. I mean, so much is incorrect on it why not mess that up as well.

[SectorZ]

I sent them a comment about 128, bringing up the continued media confusion that can occur due to 95 and 128 sharing the same exit number in totally different places and this system perpetuating that problem. If they start 128 at zero, it ends before 20, whereas 95 is beyond 25 once it hits Canton. So if the media starts confusing 128 on 95 again, there is no chance of them saying an exit number that is the same as real 128.

Also sad that the media can't figure this out. With the 93 stretch not having had 128 on it for 30 years now, the media still calling it that can be confusion for a whole generation of people now.

[vdeane]

I'm disappointed that highways that currently without exit numbers won't get them. In previous sequential-to-milepost conversions, some routes that didn't have exit numbers pre-conversion got them post-conversion. Maybe at some point in the future, those routes will get numbers. Also, I didn't see anything about State Highway 2 getting new exit numbers. Does that mean Highway 2's exit numbers won't change?

I think they forgot to put 2 on there. I mean, so much is incorrect on it why not mess that up as well.

It was on the interactive map when I looked at it last night on Firefox (it won't load in Chrome for some reason).

[PHLBOS]

I just submitted my comments to MassDOT's website.  Let's see what happens.

[roadman]

Also sad that the media can't figure this out. With the 93 stretch not having had 128 on it for 30 years now, the media still calling it that can be confusion for a whole generation of people now.

When questioned about this in the past, the media's response has usually been something to the effect of "Well, the locals still call it 128, so as reporters we're obligated to use the reference most people are familiar with."