Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[vdeane]

I agree with continuing the numbering rather than starting with 0, but honestly, I'd just make I-290's mileposts be a continuation of I-395's, rather than the "dual milepost" plan that MassDOT has.  And I'm definitely not a fan of just getting rid of I-290 in favor of I-395 like they seem to be considering, especially as such would orphan I-190.

[Roadgeekteen]

I agree with continuing the numbering rather than starting with 0, but honestly, I'd just make I-290's mileposts be a continuation of I-395's, rather than the "dual milepost" plan that MassDOT has.  And I'm definitely not a fan of just getting rid of I-290 in favor of I-395 like they seem to be considering, especially as such would orphan I-190.

What would they renumber I-190? I-595?

[Alps]

I agree with continuing the numbering rather than starting with 0, but honestly, I'd just make I-290's mileposts be a continuation of I-395's, rather than the "dual milepost" plan that MassDOT has.  And I'm definitely not a fan of just getting rid of I-290 in favor of I-395 like they seem to be considering, especially as such would orphan I-190.

What would they renumber I-190? I-595?

I-102

[Roadgeekteen]

I agree with continuing the numbering rather than starting with 0, but honestly, I'd just make I-290's mileposts be a continuation of I-395's, rather than the "dual milepost" plan that MassDOT has.  And I'm definitely not a fan of just getting rid of I-290 in favor of I-395 like they seem to be considering, especially as such would orphan I-190.

What would they renumber I-190? I-595?

I-102

I-2 is in Texas

[SkyPesos]

I agree with continuing the numbering rather than starting with 0, but honestly, I'd just make I-290's mileposts be a continuation of I-395's, rather than the "dual milepost" plan that MassDOT has.  And I'm definitely not a fan of just getting rid of I-290 in favor of I-395 like they seem to be considering, especially as such would orphan I-190.

What would they renumber I-190? I-595?

I-102

I-2 is in Texas

I-38 doesn't exist

[Roadgeekteen]

I agree with continuing the numbering rather than starting with 0, but honestly, I'd just make I-290's mileposts be a continuation of I-395's, rather than the "dual milepost" plan that MassDOT has.  And I'm definitely not a fan of just getting rid of I-290 in favor of I-395 like they seem to be considering, especially as such would orphan I-190.

What would they renumber I-190? I-595?

I-102

I-2 is in Texas

I-38 doesn't exist

Renumbering I-190 to I-102 would make no sense.

[jp the roadgeek]

I agree with continuing the numbering rather than starting with 0, but honestly, I'd just make I-290's mileposts be a continuation of I-395's, rather than the "dual milepost" plan that MassDOT has.  And I'm definitely not a fan of just getting rid of I-290 in favor of I-395 like they seem to be considering, especially as such would orphan I-190.

What would they renumber I-190? I-595?

I-102

I-2 is in Texas

I-38 doesn't exist

Renumbering I-190 to I-102 would make no sense.

Why not just demote I-190 and extend MA 146 via a duplex with the extended I-395?

[Roadgeekteen]

I agree with continuing the numbering rather than starting with 0, but honestly, I'd just make I-290's mileposts be a continuation of I-395's, rather than the "dual milepost" plan that MassDOT has.  And I'm definitely not a fan of just getting rid of I-290 in favor of I-395 like they seem to be considering, especially as such would orphan I-190.

What would they renumber I-190? I-595?

I-102

I-2 is in Texas

I-38 doesn't exist

Renumbering I-190 to I-102 would make no sense.

Why not just demote I-190 and extend MA 146 via a duplex with the extended I-395?

I guess you could but I-595 would make more sense.

[bob7374]

I agree with continuing the numbering rather than starting with 0, but honestly, I'd just make I-290's mileposts be a continuation of I-395's, rather than the "dual milepost" plan that MassDOT has.  And I'm definitely not a fan of just getting rid of I-290 in favor of I-395 like they seem to be considering, especially as such would orphan I-190.

What would they renumber I-190? I-595?

I-102

I-2 is in Texas

I-38 doesn't exist

Renumbering I-190 to I-102 would make no sense.

Why not just demote I-190 and extend MA 146 via a duplex with the extended I-395?

Or you could do the reverse, extend I-190 south along current I-290 to MA 146, then down 146 to I-90. Yes, there would probably have to be substantial improvements to the MA 146 roadway for it to be Interstate standard.

[SectorZ]

I agree with continuing the numbering rather than starting with 0, but honestly, I'd just make I-290's mileposts be a continuation of I-395's, rather than the "dual milepost" plan that MassDOT has.  And I'm definitely not a fan of just getting rid of I-290 in favor of I-395 like they seem to be considering, especially as such would orphan I-190.

What would they renumber I-190? I-595?

I-102

I-2 is in Texas

I-38 doesn't exist

Renumbering I-190 to I-102 would make no sense.

Why not just demote I-190 and extend MA 146 via a duplex with the extended I-395?

Or you could do the reverse, extend I-190 south along current I-290 to MA 146, then down 146 to I-90. Yes, there would probably have to be substantial improvements to the MA 146 roadway for it to be Interstate standard.

Does MA 146 need much for improvements between I-90 and I-290? Then going south of the Pike I-190 could just revert to MA 146 from there, where a freeway conversion is probably very unlikely to happen, probably ever.

[Roadgeekteen]

Or you could renumber I-395 to I-290. But that wouldn't make much sense.

[5foot14]

Does MA 146 need much for improvements between I-90 and I-290? Then going south of the Pike I-190 could just revert to MA 146 from there, where a freeway conversion is probably very unlikely to happen, probably ever.

This is just moving the problem from one highway to another. Instead of a 395/290 split you end up with a 146/190 split. If they're going to renumber highways, keep it simple, extend 395 over 290, change 190 to 595. No need to renumber exits again on old 190. If keeping 190 is a must, duplex it over 395 to 90, but that will require exit numbers to be changed again.

SM-A515U

[vdeane]

I don't think MassDOT has plans to renumber I-190 if I-290 became part of I-395.  It would just be orphaned.

IMO no need to renumber I-290 for its exits to be an extension of I-395's.  The situation isn't that different from the I-76/I-276 situation on the PTC.

[Roadgeekteen]

I don't think MassDOT has plans to renumber I-190 if I-290 became part of I-395.  It would just be orphaned.

IMO no need to renumber I-290 for its exits to be an extension of I-395's.  The situation isn't that different from the I-76/I-276 situation on the PTC.

Why wouldn't they renumber it?

[shadyjay]

Or you could renumber I-395 to I-290. But that wouldn't make much sense.

If you're going to do that, renumber I-395 in CT down to Exit 35 in Plainfield as I-290, so that I-395 continues the 5 miles east on the Conn Tpke spur to the state line.  South of Exit 35, I-395 remains as-is.  And maybe that would give CT inspiration to convert that desolate section of highway to 65 MPH.

[MikeTheActuary]

I don't think MassDOT has plans to renumber I-190 if I-290 became part of I-395.  It would just be orphaned.

IMO no need to renumber I-290 for its exits to be an extension of I-395's.  The situation isn't that different from the I-76/I-276 situation on the PTC.

Why wouldn't they renumber it?

Confusion/inertia.   Don't people still to this day refer to I-95 around Boston as "128"?

[Roadgeekteen]

I don't think MassDOT has plans to renumber I-190 if I-290 became part of I-395.  It would just be orphaned.

IMO no need to renumber I-290 for its exits to be an extension of I-395's.  The situation isn't that different from the I-76/I-276 situation on the PTC.

Why wouldn't they renumber it?

Confusion/inertia.   Don't people still to this day refer to I-95 around Boston as "128"?

I would rather just keep I-290.

[Rothman]

MassHighway renumbered this highway already -- From MA/CT 52.  Once was enough.

We are getting into fictional territory away from the topic of the thread.  I would rather keep this thread to the actual status of renumbering.

[yakra]

Also: M-2: I-795?

[Roadgeekteen]

Also: M-2: I-795?

What about I-795

[Alps]

Also: M-2: I-795?

What about I-795

I-795: M-2.

[PHLBOS]

IMO no need to renumber I-290 for its exits to be an extension of I-395's.  The situation isn't that different from the I-76/I-276 situation on the PTC.

Au contraire: the I-76/276 Valley Forge scenario is very different in that:

1. I-76 actually leaves one road (the PA Turnpike) and continues along another, the Schuylkill Expressway; i.e. a genuine TOTSO scenario.

2. One of the roadways is a toll road that, until very recently, featured a ticketed toll-system.  Such was why the exit numbering, both the original sequential numbering & the current milepost numbering, continued along the eastern, I-276 portion of the PA Turnpike.  Side bar: even with the PA Turnpike going fully AET, I don't see I-276's interchange numbers changing again anytime soon.  The only reason why the easternmost portion of the PA Turnpike received I-95's mileage markers & related-interchange numbers nearly 3 years ago was due to that stretch was no longer a fully, tolled stretch when the mainline toll gantry (eastern end of the old ticketed system) was moved west of the I-95/295 interchange.

Neither of the above-situations exists along I-290/395 in Auburn; i.e. I-395 does not veer off onto a separate highway corridor in Auburn and neither I-290 & I-395 are closed system tolled facilities. 

Yes, I-90/Mass Pike crosses the area and is roughly where the 290/395 routes change hands; but I-90 isn't the route that's leaving the tolled facility and continuing along as a free highway. 

It's also worth noting that I-290 was built first; I-395, originally MA 52, came along years later.  Prior to MA 52 being built, the upper (mostly I-290) portion of the highway simply dead-ended at the US 20 interchange (old Exit 6/current Exit 12 off I-395).

Long story short: either assign I-290 & I-395 separate mile markers (as they currently are) and interchange numbers or have I-395 fully take over I-290 as others have mentioned.

IMHO, I-290 & I-395 should have their own separate exit numbers despite utilizing the same overall corridor.  Personally, I thought this interchange conversion program would finally address the present sequential interchange numbering oddity; I was obviously proven wrong when I read MassDOT's latest plans.
_____________________________________________________________

Yes, the below is a fictional idea but could be a workable solution IMHO:

Now that the Turnpike toll booths are gone and the Pike & all other highways are under the jurisdiction of one agency (MassDOT); one option would be to reestablish I-290's mile marker 0 at the I-90/Auburn interchange connector where the toll booths once were. 

Exit 1 A along I-290 westbound would be for MA 12 South

Exit 1 B along I-290 westbound would be for MA 12 North

Exit 1 C along I-290 westbound would be for I-395 South

Exit 2 along I-290 westbound would be for I-90/MA 12 North

For I-290 eastbound approaching I-395:

Exit 2 along I-290 eastbound would be for MA 12 South 
For the adjacent US 20 BGS', I would use wider EXIT 12 x OFF 395* for such.
*small I-395 shield, similar to what was erected along I-295/former I-95 near Trenton, NJ per the yellow tabs.

Left Exit 1 B along I-290 eastbound would be I-395 South

Exit 1 A along I-290 eastbound would be for MA 12 North

Note: if one wants to assign exit numbers for the I-90 ramps (along eastbound I-290); such could be Exits 1 B-A.

Using that scenario, numbering the I-90 ramps; the fore-mentioned Exits 1 B-A off eastbound I-290 would be Exits 2 B-A.  The fore-mentioned Exits 1 A-B-C & 2 along westbound I-290 would be Exits 2 A-B-C-D respectively.

[bob7374]

IMO no need to renumber I-290 for its exits to be an extension of I-395's.  The situation isn't that different from the I-76/I-276 situation on the PTC.

Au contraire: the I-76/276 Valley Forge scenario is very different in that:

1. I-76 actually leaves one road (the PA Turnpike) and continues along another, the Schuylkill Expressway; i.e. a genuine TOTSO scenario.

2. One of the roadways is a toll road that, until very recently, featured a ticketed toll-system.  Such was why the exit numbering, both the original sequential numbering & the current milepost numbering, continued along the eastern, I-276 portion of the PA Turnpike.  Side bar: even with the PA Turnpike going fully AET, I don't see I-276's interchange numbers changing again anytime soon.  The only reason why the easternmost portion of the PA Turnpike received I-95's mileage markers & related-interchange numbers nearly 3 years ago was due to that stretch was no longer a fully, tolled stretch when the mainline toll gantry (eastern end of the old ticketed system) was moved west of the I-95/295 interchange.

Neither of the above-situations exists along I-290/395 in Auburn; i.e. I-395 does not veer off onto a separate highway corridor in Auburn and neither I-290 & I-395 are closed system tolled facilities. 

Yes, I-90/Mass Pike crosses the area and is roughly where the 290/395 routes change hands; but I-90 isn't the route that's leaving the tolled facility and continuing along as a free highway. 

It's also worth noting that I-290 was built first; I-395, originally MA 52, came along years later.  Prior to MA 52 being built, the upper (mostly I-290) portion of the highway simply dead-ended at the US 20 interchange (old Exit 6/current Exit 12 off I-395).

Long story short: either assign I-290 & I-395 separate mile markers (as they currently are) and interchange numbers or have I-395 fully take over I-290 as others have mentioned.

IMHO, I-290 & I-395 should have their own separate exit numbers despite utilizing the same overall corridor.  Personally, I thought this interchange conversion program would finally address the present sequential interchange numbering oddity; I was obviously proven wrong when I read MassDOT's latest plans.
_____________________________________________________________

The postponed 2016 project would have done that, with exits running from 0 A/B at I-90 to 20 A/B at I-495. With the exception of using Exit 0, they should have kept the original proposal. Will be interesting if drivers using the continuous sequential exit system are suddenly confused by a continued milepost one.

[vdeane]

What's wrong with exit 0?

IMO no need to renumber I-290 for its exits to be an extension of I-395's.  The situation isn't that different from the I-76/I-276 situation on the PTC.

Au contraire: the I-76/276 Valley Forge scenario is very different in that:

1. I-76 actually leaves one road (the PA Turnpike) and continues along another, the Schuylkill Expressway; i.e. a genuine TOTSO scenario.

2. One of the roadways is a toll road that, until very recently, featured a ticketed toll-system.  Such was why the exit numbering, both the original sequential numbering & the current milepost numbering, continued along the eastern, I-276 portion of the PA Turnpike.  Side bar: even with the PA Turnpike going fully AET, I don't see I-276's interchange numbers changing again anytime soon.  The only reason why the easternmost portion of the PA Turnpike received I-95's mileage markers & related-interchange numbers nearly 3 years ago was due to that stretch was no longer a fully, tolled stretch when the mainline toll gantry (eastern end of the old ticketed system) was moved west of the I-95/295 interchange.

Neither of the above-situations exists along I-290/395 in Auburn; i.e. I-395 does not veer off onto a separate highway corridor in Auburn and neither I-290 & I-395 are closed system tolled facilities. 

Yes, I-90/Mass Pike crosses the area and is roughly where the 290/395 routes change hands; but I-90 isn't the route that's leaving the tolled facility and continuing along as a free highway. 

It's also worth noting that I-290 was built first; I-395, originally MA 52, came along years later.  Prior to MA 52 being built, the upper (mostly I-290) portion of the highway simply dead-ended at the US 20 interchange (old Exit 6/current Exit 12 off I-395).

Long story short: either assign I-290 & I-395 separate mile markers (as they currently are) and interchange numbers or have I-395 fully take over I-290 as others have mentioned.

IMHO, I-290 & I-395 should have their own separate exit numbers despite utilizing the same overall corridor.  Personally, I thought this interchange conversion program would finally address the present sequential interchange numbering oddity; I was obviously proven wrong when I read MassDOT's latest plans.
_____________________________________________________________

Yes, the below is a fictional idea but could be a workable solution IMHO:

Now that the Turnpike toll booths are gone and the Pike & all other highways are under the jurisdiction of one agency (MassDOT); one option would be to reestablish I-290's mile marker 0 at the I-90/Auburn interchange connector where the toll booths once were. 

Exit 1 A along I-290 westbound would be for MA 12 South

Exit 1 B along I-290 westbound would be for MA 12 North

Exit 1 C along I-290 westbound would be for I-395 South

Exit 2 along I-290 westbound would be for I-90/MA 12 North

For I-290 eastbound approaching I-395:

Exit 2 along I-290 eastbound would be for MA 12 South 
For the adjacent US 20 BGS', I would use wider EXIT 12 x OFF 395* for such.
*small I-395 shield, similar to what was erected along I-295/former I-95 near Trenton, NJ per the yellow tabs.

Left Exit 1 B along I-290 eastbound would be I-395 South

Exit 1 A along I-290 eastbound would be for MA 12 North

Note: if one wants to assign exit numbers for the I-90 ramps (along eastbound I-290); such could be Exits 1 B-A.

Using that scenario, numbering the I-90 ramps; the fore-mentioned Exits 1 B-A off eastbound I-290 would be Exits 2 B-A.  The fore-mentioned Exits 1 A-B-C & 2 along westbound I-290 would be Exits 2 A-B-C-D respectively.

I'll give you that this isn't in the middle of a ticket-system toll road and never was, but IMO the fact that I-76 continues past the PTC isn't relevant to the issue.  When driving down I-395 and I-290, the transition is just as seamless as I-76 to I-276, if not more so.  If you miss these signs, you have no way of knowing you're on a road with a different number.  I-76, meanwhile, has multiple signs showing it exits itself before the road becomes I-276.

I do find the idea of extending I-290 to I-90 properly over the ramps and ending I-395 at I-290 interesting, though it does run into the issue that the interchange would need upgrading for those ramps to meet interstate standards.  And FHWA would likely want them to build the missing movement.

I don't think MassDOT has plans to renumber I-190 if I-290 became part of I-395.  It would just be orphaned.

IMO no need to renumber I-290 for its exits to be an extension of I-395's.  The situation isn't that different from the I-76/I-276 situation on the PTC.

Why wouldn't they renumber it?

Why would they?  Nobody cares about the intricacies of the interstate numbering system as roadgeeks do (not even AASHTO or FHWA) and most DOT employees are not roadgeeks.  Just leaving I-190 as-is is the path of least resistance, so that is what will happen unless there is some kind of push otherwise, regardless of what happens with I-290.

This situation unfortunately is not unprecedented.  See: I-585 and all I-x78 numbers

[Rothman]

Fictional crud needs to be separated out of here.