Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[jp the roadgeek]

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).

They just didn't put up the PDF list like they did for the other highways.  Still don't know why the southern terminus of MA 140 at US 6 gets an exit number for an at-grade intersection.  Seems ridiculous. Same with the turn off ramps to MA 24 at the northern terminus of the freeway section.

[roadman]

FYI, the first public information meetings have been scheduled for the Exit Renumbering Project.  They are:

-   Northampton- Monday, December 9, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Highway District 2 headquarters, 811 North King Street

-   Lenox- Wednesday, December 11, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Highway District 1 headquarters, 270 Main Street

-   Worcester- Monday, December 16, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Blackstone Heritage Corridor Visitor Center, 3 Paul Clancy Way.

[PHLBOS]

Discovered another boo-boo in the planned US 3 number changes:  Current Exits 25 A/B (I-95/MA 128) should be Exits 71 A/B not the listed Exits 70 A/B.  The reason being that the I-95/US 3/MA 128 interchange is located between US 3's MM 71 and 72.  As a matter of fact, US 3's MM 71 is located along the I-95/MA 128 collector-distributor road between that interchange & the one with the Middlesex Turnpike (current Exit 32 B/future Exit 50 B).

For those that may ask; yes, I submitted the above-comment to MassDOT's website.

It's starting to be adamantly clear that several of these lists weren't necessarily ready for prime-time release IMHO.

[PHLBOS]

And why does I-93 North get a number on Route 3 north when the 93 North connection is actually mainline MA 3?

Such is indeed odd.  If the MA 3 concurrency is to remain (though it's more silent than in previous years), the only ramp that should be exit-tabbed at MA 3 side of the interchange is the ramp to I-93 southbound. 

Same question for why I-95/MA 128 North gets a number when its mainline US 3.

Unless there's a plan to revive extending the Northwest Expressway portion of US 3 south of that interchange; I agree, such should not have an exit tab on it.  Since exit number hasn't changed since the highway's inception, aside from a change in suffix (N to A); nobody ever gave thought of removing it for that through-US 3 South movement when the highway's planned extension was killed off during the early 70s.

[bob7374]

Discovered a couple other exit number fudging problems. One is with I-195 through New Bedford. There are several exits clustered around mile 25. MassDOT decided not to use any suffixed exits, so for what under the 2016 proposal were Exits 25A-C are now 25 to 28. The exits for Washburn St (EB) and Coggeshall St (WB), which are at milepost 25.4 and 25.6 respectively, and were both labeled Exit 25C in 2016 are now Exits 27 and 28, probably because there are different numbers (16 and 17) under the current system.

The I-93 exit list just north of Boston is problematic in that it lists the same information for several exits that signs with different information depending on direction. For Future Exit 20 they only list MA 99 which is the NB exit, not Sullivan Square which will have that number SB. The Storrow Drive exits in each direction get the same number despite one being near mile 18 and the other at mile 20, probably because they have the same exit number currently, 26. Therefore Exit 18 SB will be farther north than Exit 20 NB, major fudging here.

[PHLBOS]

The I-93 exit list just north of Boston is problematic in that it lists the same information for several exits that signs with different information depending on direction. For Future Exit 20 they only list MA 99 which is the NB exit, not Sullivan Square which will have that number SB. The Storrow Drive exits in each direction get the same number despite one being near mile 18 and the other at mile 20, probably because they have the same exit number currently, 26. Therefore Exit 18 SB will be farther north than Exit 20 NB, major fudging here.

If memory serves, the exit number assignments aren't/shouldn't necessarily be based on where the (first) ramp of the interchange exits the mainline highway but rather where the two theoretical centerlines cross/intersect (for most interchanges, it's at the main over/underpass).  In the case of a three-way interchange, the exit number should be based on the mile marker within the interchange's right-of-way/footprint.

The above I-93 faux pas numbering tells me that whoever did such has still using the sequential mindset.

If you didn't already done so, you might want to post your comments to MassDOT's website.  If they get enough of these comments prior to the December Public Hearing dates; some of our recommended revisions/corrects might get implemented.

[southshore720]

Keeping my fingers crossed that this was rushed due to pressure to publish it and that they will make the appropriate modifications based on all of your suggestions!  This group has been known to have some pull in the past!

[Ben114]

The above I-93 faux pas numbering tells me that whoever did such has still using the sequential mindset.

Might be the same person doing I-290.

[sturmde]

Discovered a couple other exit number fudging problems. One is with I-195 through New Bedford. There are several exits clustered around mile 25. MassDOT decided not to use any suffixed exits, so for what under the 2016 proposal were Exits 25A-C are now 25 to 28. The exits for Washburn St (EB) and Coggeshall St (WB), which are at milepost 25.4 and 25.6 respectively, and were both labeled Exit 25C in 2016 are now Exits 27 and 28, probably because there are different numbers (16 and 17) under the current system.

The I-93 exit list just north of Boston is problematic in that it lists the same information for several exits that signs with different information depending on direction. For Future Exit 20 they only list MA 99 which is the NB exit, not Sullivan Square which will have that number SB. The Storrow Drive exits in each direction get the same number despite one being near mile 18 and the other at mile 20, probably because they have the same exit number currently, 26. Therefore Exit 18 SB will be farther north than Exit 20 NB, major fudging here.

.
Bob, this is comparable to MaineDOT when renumbering exits in 2004 looking at I-295 through Portland and just shrugging and saying "looks good enough" and not adjusting the exit numbers for the reasons of "clarity" by avoiding multiple suffixes.
.
These people have obviously never visited Kansas City.  We've got 26 letters to work with, folks.

[CapeCodder]

It appears that state reps from Cape Cod are trying to get an exemption.

The link explains it better:

https://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20191121/state-again-presses-for-renaming-of-route-6-exits

[bob7374]

It appears that state reps from Cape Cod are trying to get an exemption.

The link explains it better:

https://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20191121/state-again-presses-for-renaming-of-route-6-exits

As I've suggested before, maybe a compromise would be to put up mileage based numbers based on the length of the Mid-Cape Highway, either with a new route concurrency or not. This way MassDOT complies with the MUTCD and drivers get the benefit of a mileage based system that would be useful (stuck in summer traffic or not) to figure out how far they are to, or from, the Sagamore Bridge. The Cape would get its own unique number system, not as critics have complained as an arbitrary set of numbers. Exit 1 for MA 6A wouldn't have to change and the numbers would go up to 35 at the end of the Highway at the Orleans Rotary.

Looks like they are making an effort to correct some of the errors on the Route 'fliers.' The entry on the I-95 page that had the same number for the Neponset St exit has been corrected to show the correct future numbers, 23A/B. Still no change on the I-93 page with MA 9 being routed on the Tobin Bridge.

[jp the roadgeek]

Finally had a chance to really examine the list of exits vs what they should be.  Here is what I came up with (MP's refer to the center of the junction):

I-84, I-90, I-190 (fine with fudging Mountain St SB to 3 despite being at MP 3.54), MA 25, and MA 146: all fine as proposed.

I-91: Everything is fine from the Mass Pike north.  Here is how south of there should look (my changes in Bold

Current/Proposed Exit 1 (US 5 South; SB ONLY):  Exit is at MP 3.8.  Fudge down to Exit 3 to avoid Exit 4 logjam
Current/Proposed Exit 2 (MA 83 SOUTH; NB ONLY): Exit 4A
Current/Proposed Exit 3 (US 5 NORTH): Exit 4B
Current/Proposed Exit 4 (MA 83 SOUTH; SB ONLY): Make Exit 4A to match NB exit for 83 South
Current Exit 5/Proposed Exit 4 (Broad St; NB ONLY): Exit 5A
Current Exit 6/Proposed Exit 5 (MGM Way NB; Union St SB): Exit 5B NB; Exit 5 SB
The proposals for current Exits 7-9 are fine as is
Current Exit 10/Proposed Exit 8 (MA 116 NORTH; NB ONLY): Exit 7C. Exit is at MP 7.48
Current Exit 11/Proposed Exit 8 (Main St/US 20 WEST; SB): Make Exit 7 C-B to match NB.
Current Exit 12/Proposed Exit 9 (I-391): Exit 8
Current Exit 13 A-B/Proposed Exit 10 A-B (US 5): Exit 9 A-B

I-93
Everything is fine between MA 37 and the Mass Pike and from the Zakim Bridge north. The southern terminus is fine

Current/Proposed Exit 2 A-B (MA 138): Exit 1 C-D.  Exit is at MP 1.41
Current/Proposed Exit 3 (Houghtons Pond): Exit 2.  At MP 2.61, but fudged down for simplicity
Current/Proposed Exit 4 (MA 24 SOUTH): Exit 3
Current/Proposed Exit 5 A-B (MA 28): Exit 4 A-B.  Exit is at MP 4.23
Current Exit 20/Proposed Exit 16 NB/16A SB (I-90):NB Exit should be 16 A-B for each direction; SB Exit 16B
Current Exit 20A/Proposed to be merged with Exit 16 NB/16B SB (South Station): Exit 16C both directions
Current NB Exit 23/Proposed Exit 17: Fine as proposed
Current SB Exit 23/Proposed Exit 16B: Exit 17A.  Exit is at MP 17.48
Current Exit 24A/Proposed Exit 17A (Government Center; SB): Exit 17B.  At MP 17.81; fudged down to match GC NB
Current SB Exit 24B/Proposed Exit 17B (MA 1A; SB ONLY): Exit 18A.  At MP 17.81
Current Exit 26/Proposed Exit 18 (Storrow Dr): Exit 18 (NB)/18B (SB).  Fine with SB being an 18 to match NB exit

I-95
Spot changes north and south of the 128 portion, significant adjustments near the Pike and between US 3 and the 128 split.  I'm also fine with fudging the I-93 Canton exit to 26 (at MP 26.74) and the East St/Canton St exit to 28 (at MP 28.63) to avoid logjams at Exits 27 and 29, respectively.

Current/Proposed Exit 1 (US 1; SB ONLY): Exit 1A
Current/Proposed Exit 2 A-B (MA 1A): Exit 1 B-C. Exit is at MP 1.2
Current Exit 20 A-B/Proposed Exit 36 A-B (MA 9): Exit 37 A-B.  Exit is at MP 36.8
Current Exit 21 A-B/Proposed Exit 37 A-B (MA 16): Exit 38 A-B.  Exit is at MP 38.17
Current Exit 22/Proposed Exit 38 (Grove St): Exit 38C.  Exit is at MP 38.51; fudged down to avoid logjam at Pike exits
Current Exit 23/Omitted from proposal (Recreation Rd; NB ONLY): Exit 39A
Current Exit 24/Proposed Exit 39A (MA 30): Exit 39C.  Exit is north of I-90.  This corrects the error
Current Exit 25/Proposed Exit 39B (I-90): Fine  as proposed

To save space, I'll sum up the US 3/MA 3A to the 128 split portion: All proposed exits need to be adjusted up by 1, except for the US 1/MA 129 Exits (Current 44/Proposed 63). Central St (Current 55/Proposed 81) should be Exit 82, as it is at MP 81.54

I-195
Most changes are in the Fall River and New Bedford areas

Current Exit 5/Proposed Exit 11 (MA 79/138): Exit 12A.  MP 12 is on overpass
Current Exit 6/Proposed Exit 12 (Hartwell St EB; Pleasant St WB): Exit 12B
Current Exit 14/Proposed Exit 25 (Penniman St; EB ONLY): Exit 25A
Current Exit 15/Proposed Exit 26 (MA 18 SOUTH): Exit 25B (EB); Exit 25 (WB).  MP 25 is on overpass
Current Exit 16/Proposed Exit 27 (Washburn St; EB ONLY): Exit 26
Current Exit 17/Proposed Exit 28 (Coggeshall St; WB ONLY): Exit 26. Why 2 numbers for 2 exits at the same MP?
Current Exit 18/Proposed Exit 29 (MA 240 SOUTH): Exit 27.  Exit is near MP 27.3

I-290
This is an absolute mess, especially through Worcester.  Don't like the added 395 mileage either, so my proposals also include standalone numbers.

Current Exit 7/Proposed Exit 12 (EB) 12B (WB): Fine as proposed.  Standalone Exit 1A both directions
Current Exit 8/Proposed Exit 13 (WB ONLY): Fine as proposed. Standalone Exit 1B
Current Exit 9/Proposed Exit 13 (Swanson Rd EB): Fine as proposed.  Standalone Exit 1B
Current Exit 9/Proposed Exit 13 (Auburn St WB): Exit 14.  At MP 13.61.  Standalone Exit 2
Current Exit 10/Proposed Exit 14 (MA 12 NORTH; WB ONLY):Exit 15A.  At MP 15.26.  Standalone Exit 3
Current Exit 11/Proposed Exit 15 (College/Federal/Southbridge): Exit 15 EB, Exit 15B WB.  Standalone Exit 4
Current Exit 12/Proposed Exit 16 (MA 146 SOUTH; WB ONLY): Fine as proposed. At MP 16.52 but fudged to avoid logjam at 17.  Standalone Exit 5A
Current Exit 13/Proposed Exit 17 (MA 122A): Fine as proposed.  Standalone Exit 5 EB, Exit 5B WB
Current Exit 14/Proposed Exit 18 (MA 122): Exit 18A.  Standalone Exit 6A
Current Exit 15/Proposed Exit 19 (Shrewsbury St; EB ONLY): Exit 18B.  Standalone Exit 6B
Current Exit 16/Proposed Exit 20 (MLK Jr Blvd): Exit 18C.  Standalone Exit 6C
Current Exit 17/Proposed Exit 21 (MA 9; EB ONLY): Exit 19A.  At MP 18.49, but fudged up to match WB exit.  Standalone Exit 7A
Current Exit 18/Proposed Exit 21 (MA 9/70; WB ONLY): Exit 19A.  Standalone Exit 7A
Current Exit 19/Proposed Exit 22 (I-190/MA 12 NORTH): Exit 19B.  Standalone Exit 7B
Current Exit 20/Proposed Exit 23 (MA 70): Exit 20.  EB exit combined with 190 exit, but fudged up to match. Standalone Exit 8 (EB similarly fudged)
Current Exit 21/Proposed Exit 24 (Plantation St): Exit 21.  At MP 21.55, but fudged down for simplicity. Standalone Exit 9 (similarly fudged down)
Current Exit 22/Proposed Exit 25 (Main St): Leave it alone.  Standalone Exit 10
Current Exit 23 A-B/Proposed Exit 26 A-B (MA 140): Exit 25 A-B.  Standalone Exit 13 A-B

The last 3 exits to I-495 are fine as proposed.  Standalone numbers would be 15, 18 A-B, and 20 A-B

I-495
Only changes are in the Lawrence area.  I'm fine with fudging the MA 97 Exit to 108 for simplicity despite being at MP 107.4

Current Exit 43/Proposed Exit 101 (Mass Ave/Loring St): Exit 101A
Current Exit 44/Proposed Exit 102 (Merrimack St): Exit 101B. Closer to MP 101
Current Exit 45A/Proposed Exit 103A (Comm Dr NB, Marston St NORTH SB): Exit 102A.  Comm Dr is at MP 102.1
Current Exit 45B/Proposed Exit 103B (Marston St; SOUTH SB): Exit 102B
Current Exit 46/Proposed Exit 104 (MA 110): Exit 103
Current Exit 47/Proposed Exit 105 (MA 213): Exit 104.  Exit is at MP 104.1

MA 2
Spot changes in the Fitchburg area, as well as near 495.  I would add numbers to the Greenfield exits: 50 for I-91 North (WB ONLY) and 51 for US 5/MA 10.  Biggest mess is inside 128 (however, Exit 135 for Alewife is fine)

Current Exit 26/Proposed Exit 93 (Willard Rd/Village Inn Rd; EB ONLY): Exit 93A
Current Exit 27/Proposed Exit 94 (Narrows Rd/Depot Rd): Exit 93A EB; Exit 93 WB.  Exit is at MP 93.48
Current Exit 28/Proposed Exit 95 (MA 31): Exit 94. Exit is at MP 94.49
Current Exit 39/Proposed Exit 112 (Taylor Rd): Exit 113A.  Exit is at MP 113.05
Current Exit 40 A-B/Proposed Exit 113 A-B (I-495): Exit 113 B-C
Current Exit 42/Proposed Exit 117 (MA 27): Exit 118 EB; Exit 118 A WB.  Exit is at MP 117.61
Current Exit 43/Proposed Exit 118 (MA 111; WB ONLY): Exit 118B
Current Exit 52 A-B/Proposed Exit 127 A-B (I-95/MA 128): Exit 128 A-B.  Exit is at MP 128.53, but fudged down to avoid a logjam at 129.  Also makes for a fun "Exit 128 is 128" mnemonic
Current Exit 53/Proposed Exit 128 (Spring St; EB ONLY): Exit 129
Current Exit 54 A-B/Proposed Exit 129 A-B (Waltham St; WB ONLY): Exit 130 A-B.  Exit is at MP 130
Current Exit 55/Proposed Exit 130 (Pleasant St; EB ONLY): Exit 131A.  Exit is at MP 130.89
Current Exit 56/Proposed Exit 131 (Winter St EB, MA 4/225 WB): Exit 131B EB; Exit 131 WB
Current Exit 57/Proposed Exit 132A EB/132 WB (Dow Ave): Exit 132 both directions
Current Exit 58/Proposed Exit 132B EB/133 WB (Park Ave): Exit 133 both directions
Current Exit 59/Proposed Exit 133 EB/134 WB (MA 60): Exit 134A both directions
Current Exit 60/Proposed Exit 134 EB/135 WB (Lake St): Exit 134B both directions

MA/US 3
A mess from Braintree north to the NH line. Spot changes elsewhere.  Also, I would give the exit from 6 West to 3 North a US 6 exit number (54A), since it is technically a US 6 exit where US 6 itself leaves for a surface road

Current Exit 11/Proposed Exit 22 (MA 14): Exit 23.  Exit is near MP 22.6
Current Exit 17/Proposed Exit 40 (Union St): Exit 41.  Exit is at MP 40.8
Current Exit 18/Proposed Exit 41 (Washington St; SB ONLY): Exit 42. Exit is just before MP 42
Current Exit 19/Proposed Exit 42 (Burgin Pkwy/Quincy Adams T): Exit 42 NB; Exit 42B SB
Current Exit 20 A-B/Proposed Exit 43 A-B (I-93): Exit 43 for 93 SOUTH ONLY. 93 NORTH ramp is part of MA 3 mainline.
Current Exit 25 A-B/Proposed Exit 70 A-B (I-95/MA 128): Exit 72 for 95/128 SOUTH ONLY.  95/128 NORTH ramp is part of US 3 mainline. Exit is at 71.6 MP
Current Exit 30B/Proposed Exit 80 (Lowell Connector): Exit 82A.  Exit is at MP 81.6
Current Exit 30 A-C/Proposed Exit 81 A-B (I-495): Exit 82 B-C

I omitted the rest of the US 3 exits here, because it can be summed up by one action: raising each proposed exit number by 1.

US 6
Only a couple of spot changes, and a minor adjustment at the MA 3 junction

Current/Proposed Exit 1B (MA 3 NORTH; WB ONLY): Exit 54A
Current/Proposed Exit 1A (Scusset Beach Rd; WB ONLY): Exit 54B
Current Exit 4/Proposed Exit 62 (Chase Rd): Exit 63.  Exit is after MP 63
Current Exit 11/Proposed Exit 85 (MA 137): Exit 84.  Exit is at MP 84.4

MA 24
Some changes in the Fall River area.  A couple of spot changes elsewhere

Current/Proposed Exit 2 (Brayton Ave/Eastern Ave): Exit 2A NB; Exit 2 SB
Current/Proposed Exit 3 (I-195 WEST; NB ONLY): Exit 2B. MP 2 is on ramp to 195 EAST
Current/Proposed Exit 4 (I-195 EAST; SB ONLY): Exit 3.  MP 3.2 is on ramp to 195 WEST
Current/Proposed Exit 6 (Highland Ave; SB ONLY): Exit 7.  Exit is at MP 7.6, but fudged down for simplicity
Current/Proposed Exit 7 (MA 79 SOUTH): Exit 8
Current Exit 8A/Proposed Exit 8 (Commerce Dr): Exit 9.  Exit is at MP 8.4, but fudged up for simplicity
Current Exit 14 A-B/Proposed Exit 22 A-B (I-495): Exit 23 A-B.  Exit is at MP 22.9
Current Exit 19/Proposed Exit 35 (Harrison Blvd): Exit 36.  Exit is at MP 35.7

MA 128
A mess in the Danvers/Beverly area.  Fine near I-95 and east of Grapevine Rd

Current Exit 24/Proposed Exit 41 (Endicott St): Exit 40C.  Exit is at MP 40.45
Current Exit 23/Proposed Exit 42 (MA 35): Exit 41.  Exit is at MP 41.2
Current Exit 22/Proposed Exit 43 (MA 62): Exit 42.  Exit is at MP 41.8
Current Exit 21/Proposed Exit 44 (Folly Lane/Conant St): Exit 43.  RIRO's are at MP 42.5 and rounded up for simplicity.
Current Exit 20 A-B/Proposed Exit 45 A-B (MA 1A): Exit 44 A-B. Exit at MP 43.5 and rounded up for simplicity.
Current Exit 19/Proposed Exit 46 (Sohler Rd/Brimbal Ave): Exit 44C.  Exit at MP 44.2
Current Exit 18/Proposed Exit 47 (MA 22): Exit 45.  Exit is at MP 45.4
Current Exit 17/Proposed Exit 48 (Grapevine Rd): Exit 47.  Exit is as MP 47.4

MA 140
For starters, remove the number for the at-grade intersection at its southern terminus at US 6, and remove the numbers for the signalized interchange at MA 24. A couple of other changes:

Current/Proposed Exit 2 A-B (I-195): Exit 1 A-B
Current/Proposed Exit 3 (Hathaway Rd): Exit 2.  Exit is at MP 1.5 and rounded up for simplicity

[PHLBOS]

I-93
Everything is fine between MA 37 and the Mass Pike and from the Zakim Bridge north. The southern terminus is fine

Current/Proposed Exit 2 A-B (MA 138): Exit 1 C-D.  Exit is at MP 1.41
Current/Proposed Exit 3 (Houghtons Pond): Exit 2.  At MP 2.61, but fudged down for simplicity
Current/Proposed Exit 4 (MA 24 SOUTH): Exit 3
Current/Proposed Exit 5 A-B (MA 28): Exit 4 A-B.  Exit is at MP 4.23

Disagree on your recommendations for the following reasons:
1.  Only I-93 southbounders see Exits 1 A/B.  The first exit I-93 northbounders would see is Exit 1 C.  More awkward IMHO than seeing Exit 2 A.
2.  No real reason to change Exit 3 especially since such falls within tolerance levels; keep MA 24 at Exit 4.
3.  While MA 28 falls slightly below MM 4.5; its within reasonable tolerance to fudge a tad and round up to keep the current numbers.
Bottom line: justifiable fudging for the above is allowed to reduce the number of changes... i.e. the path of least resistance.

I-95
Current/Proposed Exit 1 (US 1; SB ONLY): Exit 1A
Current/Proposed Exit 2 A-B (MA 1A): Exit 1 B-C. Exit is at MP 1.2

No for the same reasons I mentioned regarding I-93's interchanges w/I-95 & MA 138.  The current Exit 1 (1 A in your plan) is only seen be southbound traffic.  The first exit northbound traffic would see is 1 B.  While there's certainly a fudge-factor in keeping the MA 1A interchange's numbers as they are; keeping such, along with the southbound Exit 1 (for US 1 South), as they are keeps things simple & reduces the level of awkwardness.

Current Exit 20 A-B/Proposed Exit 36 A-B (MA 9): Exit 37 A-B.  Exit is at MP 36.8
Current Exit 21 A-B/Proposed Exit 37 A-B (MA 16): Exit 38 A-B.  Exit is at MP 38.17
Current Exit 22/Proposed Exit 38 (Grove St): Exit 38C.  Exit is at MP 38.51; fudged down to avoid logjam at Pike exits
Current Exit 23/Omitted from proposal (Recreation Rd; NB ONLY): Exit 39A
Current Exit 24/Proposed Exit 39A (MA 30): Exit 39C.  Exit is north of I-90.  This corrects the error
Current Exit 25/Proposed Exit 39B (I-90): Fine  as proposed

Given that Recreation Rd. is only a partial interchange (northbound exit & entrance); I would recommend using Exit 38 D, thereby keeping such separate from the I-90 & MA 30 interchanges. 

I disagree regarding the A/B assignments for Exit 39.  I-90 crosses over I-95 south of where MA 30 crosses it; so the suffix assignments should be the opposite of what's being proposed.  The current sequential numbers for those two interchanges were erroneous IMHO since their 1987 inception due to such was holding the southbound order of the exit ramps as a guide.  As I stated earlier, see I-84 in CT at I-691 & CT 322 interchanges (current Exit 27-28, Future Exits 40 A/B) for the proper way to assign exit numbers in a situation where the ramp order is the same for both directions.

To save space, I'll sum up the US 3/MA 3A to the 128 split portion: All proposed exits need to be adjusted up by 1, except for the US 1/MA 129 Exits (Current 44/Proposed 63).

I'm not seeing any issue with what's being proposed.  Your proposed changes for this segment IMHO is unnecessary.  The only debate for that leg might be how to renumber the Washington St. (current Exit 36) and I-93 (current Exit 37 A/B) interchanges.  If one goes strictly be the mile markers, Exit 36 would become Exit 55 A and Exits 37 A/B would become Exits 55 B/C; such was the original plan.  Since there's no chance of a new interchange being built between Washington St. & MA 38 (current Exit 35, Proposed Exit 53); assigning Washington St. Exit 54 and I-93 Exits 55 A/B per the current plan is somewhat justified in that it reduces a suffixed exit & keeps the I-93 ramps as A/B... despite that the Washington St. overpass crosses I-95 at roughly MM 55.3-55.4.

[Magical Trevor]

Can I just say that, if we used kilometers, there wouldn't have to be so much fudging?   

[jp the roadgeek]

My proposal for the I-90 interchange on 95 does indeed correct the error.  It has the Pike as 39B and Route 30 as 39C, so you would have 39B followed by 39C southbound.  It's the same thing I did with the MA 83 interchanges on I-91 in Springfield. 

As for the 93 and 95 south ends, an Exit 0 in these situations would've made things so much easier. 

My renumbering of 95 between Burlington and Peabody takes care of the situation at the 93 interchange.  I have Washington St at MP 55.31 and I-93 at MP 55.71, so you'd have 55 for Washington and 56 A/B for 93.   

[bob7374]

I-93
Everything is fine between MA 37 and the Mass Pike and from the Zakim Bridge north. The southern terminus is fine

Current/Proposed Exit 2 A-B (MA 138): Exit 1 C-D.  Exit is at MP 1.41
Current/Proposed Exit 3 (Houghtons Pond): Exit 2.  At MP 2.61, but fudged down for simplicity
Current/Proposed Exit 4 (MA 24 SOUTH): Exit 3
Current/Proposed Exit 5 A-B (MA 28): Exit 4 A-B.  Exit is at MP 4.23

Disagree on your recommendations for the following reasons:
1.  Only I-93 southbounders see Exits 1 A/B.  The first exit I-93 northbounders would see is Exit 1 C.  More awkward IMHO than seeing Exit 2 A.
2.  No real reason to change Exit 3 especially since such falls within tolerance levels; keep MA 24 at Exit 4.
3.  While MA 28 falls slightly below MM 4.5; its within reasonable tolerance to fudge a tad and round up to keep the current numbers.
Bottom line: justifiable fudging for the above is allowed to reduce the number of changes... i.e. the path of least resistance.

I-95
Current/Proposed Exit 1 (US 1; SB ONLY): Exit 1A
Current/Proposed Exit 2 A-B (MA 1A): Exit 1 B-C. Exit is at MP 1.2

No for the same reasons I mentioned regarding I-93's interchanges w/I-95 & MA 138.  The current Exit 1 (1 A in your plan) is only seen be southbound traffic.  The first exit northbound traffic would see is 1 B.  While there's certainly a fudge-factor in keeping the MA 1A interchange's numbers as they are; keeping such, along with the southbound Exit 1 (for US 1 South), as they are keeps things simple & reduces the level of awkwardness.

Current Exit 20 A-B/Proposed Exit 36 A-B (MA 9): Exit 37 A-B.  Exit is at MP 36.8
Current Exit 21 A-B/Proposed Exit 37 A-B (MA 16): Exit 38 A-B.  Exit is at MP 38.17
Current Exit 22/Proposed Exit 38 (Grove St): Exit 38C.  Exit is at MP 38.51; fudged down to avoid logjam at Pike exits
Current Exit 23/Omitted from proposal (Recreation Rd; NB ONLY): Exit 39A
Current Exit 24/Proposed Exit 39A (MA 30): Exit 39C.  Exit is north of I-90.  This corrects the error
Current Exit 25/Proposed Exit 39B (I-90): Fine  as proposed

Given that Recreation Rd. is only a partial interchange (northbound exit & entrance); I would recommend using Exit 38 D, thereby keeping such separate from the I-90 & MA 30 interchanges. 

I disagree regarding the A/B assignments for Exit 39.  I-90 crosses over I-95 south of where MA 30 crosses it; so the suffix assignments should be the opposite of what's being proposed.  The current sequential numbers for those two interchanges were erroneous IMHO since their 1987 inception due to such was holding the southbound order of the exit ramps as a guide.  As I stated earlier, see I-84 in CT at I-691 & CT 322 interchanges (current Exit 27-28, Future Exits 40 A/B) for the proper way to assign exit numbers in a situation where the ramp order is the same for both directions.

To save space, I'll sum up the US 3/MA 3A to the 128 split portion: All proposed exits need to be adjusted up by 1, except for the US 1/MA 129 Exits (Current 44/Proposed 63).

I'm not seeing any issue with what's being proposed.  Your proposed changes for this segment IMHO is unnecessary.  The only debate for that leg might be how to renumber the Washington St. (current Exit 36) and I-93 (current Exit 37 A/B) interchanges.  If one goes strictly be the mile markers, Exit 36 would become Exit 55 A and Exits 37 A/B would become Exits 55 B/C; such was the original plan.  Since there's no chance of a new interchange being built between Washington St. & MA 38 (current Exit 35, Proposed Exit 53); assigning Washington St. Exit 54 and I-93 Exits 55 A/B per the current plan is somewhat justified in that it reduces a suffixed exit & keeps the I-93 ramps as A/B... despite that the Washington St. overpass crosses I-95 at roughly MM 55.3-55.4.

Are any of these recommendations to be forwarded to MassDOT? For what it's worth, they've now posted the MA 2 flier on the new exit number website: https://www.newmassexits.com/MassDOT_Documents/Route_2.pdf.

[PHLBOS]

Are any of these recommendations to be forwarded to MassDOT?

I can't speak for jp the roadgeek but I already sent in my earlier comments to their website.

[sturmde]

Can I just say that, if we used kilometers, there wouldn't have to be so much fudging?   

Hello Ohio, Arizona, Delaware, and Alabama... who among others each tried some variation of switching something to kilometers.  How's that working?
.
Alabama's kilometer post experiment... what a mess that was!

[DJ Particle]

It appears that state reps from Cape Cod are trying to get an exemption.

The link explains it better:

https://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20191121/state-again-presses-for-renaming-of-route-6-exits

As I've suggested before, maybe a compromise would be to put up mileage based numbers based on the length of the Mid-Cape Highway, either with a new route concurrency or not. This way MassDOT complies with the MUTCD and drivers get the benefit of a mileage based system that would be useful (stuck in summer traffic or not) to figure out how far they are to, or from, the Sagamore Bridge. The Cape would get its own unique number system, not as critics have complained as an arbitrary set of numbers. Exit 1 for MA 6A wouldn't have to change and the numbers would go up to 35 at the end of the Highway at the Orleans Rotary.

Dear merciful Zapfish, the Cape Cod crybabies are at it again! 

As a former Cape Codder, I can tell you, that compromise won't work.  Stubborn Codders don't want anything to change ever ever ever because they're of the mistaken idea that the Cape is still "rural" and that the slightest change will ruin the Cape forevermore.  They are the reason the last 12.5 miles of the freeway are Super-2.  They are the reason the freeway wasn't extended to North Eastham (and trust me, it NEEDS to be).  They are the reason the original renumbering project was shelved in 2016.  If they had a say, they'd kill the bridge replacement program too.

They seriously don't consider the Mid-Cape a freeway because "a freeway is a city thing".  They want exceptions for everything they don't like.  They are a breeding ground for the Karens of r/entitledpeople!

Sorry about the rant, but I REALLY hate it when the Cape (and the Cape Cod Commission) tries to wall off progress.  😔

[CapeCodder]

It appears that state reps from Cape Cod are trying to get an exemption.

The link explains it better:

https://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20191121/state-again-presses-for-renaming-of-route-6-exits

As I've suggested before, maybe a compromise would be to put up mileage based numbers based on the length of the Mid-Cape Highway, either with a new route concurrency or not. This way MassDOT complies with the MUTCD and drivers get the benefit of a mileage based system that would be useful (stuck in summer traffic or not) to figure out how far they are to, or from, the Sagamore Bridge. The Cape would get its own unique number system, not as critics have complained as an arbitrary set of numbers. Exit 1 for MA 6A wouldn't have to change and the numbers would go up to 35 at the end of the Highway at the Orleans Rotary.

Dear merciful Zapfish, the Cape Cod crybabies are at it again! 

As a former Cape Codder, I can tell you, that compromise won't work.  Stubborn Codders don't want anything to change ever ever ever because they're of the mistaken idea that the Cape is still "rural" and that the slightest change will ruin the Cape forevermore.  They are the reason the last 12.5 miles of the freeway are Super-2.  They are the reason the freeway wasn't extended to North Eastham (and trust me, it NEEDS to be).  They are the reason the original renumbering project was shelved in 2016.  If they had a say, they'd kill the bridge replacement program too.

They seriously don't consider the Mid-Cape a freeway because "a freeway is a city thing".  They want exceptions for everything they don't like.  They are a breeding ground for the Karens of r/entitledpeople!

Sorry about the rant, but I REALLY hate it when the Cape (and the Cape Cod Commission) tries to wall off progress.  😔

As a former Nantucketer, St. Louisan and current Cape Codder, I agree with you. Mileage based exits are the national standard. We are not and should not be exempt from it. The Mid-Cape Highway is a travesty (specifically Suicide Alley.)

[5foot14]

Are any of these recommendations to be forwarded to MassDOT? For what it's worth, they've now posted the MA 2 flier on the new exit number website: https://www.newmassexits.com/MassDOT_Documents/Route_2.pdf.

Right out of the gate there's 2 errors with the route 2 flyer. Old Exits 25 and 30 list the new exit numbers as... Wait for it... 25 and 30... Is anyone even checking these before they go up?

SM-G900P

[The Ghostbuster]

Not that anyone cares, but Wikipedia has updated its pages about highways in Massachusetts about the restart of Massachusetts's sequential to mileage-based exit renumbering project.

[DJ Particle]

Something else I noticed...

Cape Codders:
"They have exceptions for I-291, I-391, MA-213, and the Lowell, why not for us [US-6]?"

Because they are very short freeways (none longer than 6 miles) in highly urban areas with exits spaced very close together.  The Mid-Cape Highway fits NONE of those criteria!

[Henry]

Not that anyone cares, but Wikipedia has updated its pages about highways in Massachusetts about the restart of Massachusetts's sequential to mileage-based exit renumbering project.

So they have...

• I-84
• I-90
• • I-190
• • I-290
• I-91
• I-95
• • I-195
• • I-295
• • I-395
• • I-495

I can't wait to see the new exits next year!

[PHLBOS]

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.