Boston Traffic Reporter/Blogger Defends Use of '128' moniker

[deathtopumpkins]

Braintree station also has some overhead signs with T logos: http://goo.gl/maps/TBQkn

You are correct though that the majority of signs with T logos are ground-mounted, rather than overhead, but IMHO there's not really a difference.

I fully agree.  And, try as I might, I can't find anything in any recent (1978 or newer) MUTCD to back the FHWA claim about not allowing transit logos on overhead guide signs.

As for the signs at Braintree Station, I believe those signs were installed by the MBTA, and not MassHighway/MassDOT.

That is a bogus claim.  The transit logo would be considered a "Pictograph", which is a symbol that represents a government sponsored agency or destination.  MBTA is under public ownership, last I checked.  Now if they wanted the Patriots logo at the Foxboro exit off of I-95, that would be different (and FHWA made Maryland and DC remove all of the "curly W" Washington Nationals logos from their signs.

Did they actually though? Last I saw they were still there.

[roadman]

Braintree station also has some overhead signs with T logos: http://goo.gl/maps/TBQkn

You are correct though that the majority of signs with T logos are ground-mounted, rather than overhead, but IMHO there's not really a difference.

I fully agree.  And, try as I might, I can't find anything in any recent (1978 or newer) MUTCD to back the FHWA claim about not allowing transit logos on overhead guide signs.

As for the signs at Braintree Station, I believe those signs were installed by the MBTA, and not MassHighway/MassDOT.

That is a bogus claim.  The transit logo would be considered a "Pictograph", which is a symbol that represents a government sponsored agency or destination.  MBTA is under public ownership, last I checked.  Now if they wanted the Patriots logo at the Foxboro exit off of I-95, that would be different (and FHWA made Maryland and DC remove all of the "curly W" Washington Nationals logos from their signs. 

As I recall the story, FHWA was adamant about their claim regarding not using transit logos on overhead BGSes.  And, while I personally agree that their claim is totally bogus, I suspect MassHighway decided at the time it was easier to given in to the regional office than spend a couple of years fighting them with HQ in Washington.  As it turns out, going with text instead of logos made modifying the existing signs easier.

[mtantillo]

Braintree station also has some overhead signs with T logos: http://goo.gl/maps/TBQkn

You are correct though that the majority of signs with T logos are ground-mounted, rather than overhead, but IMHO there's not really a difference.

I fully agree.  And, try as I might, I can't find anything in any recent (1978 or newer) MUTCD to back the FHWA claim about not allowing transit logos on overhead guide signs.

As for the signs at Braintree Station, I believe those signs were installed by the MBTA, and not MassHighway/MassDOT.

That is a bogus claim.  The transit logo would be considered a "Pictograph", which is a symbol that represents a government sponsored agency or destination.  MBTA is under public ownership, last I checked.  Now if they wanted the Patriots logo at the Foxboro exit off of I-95, that would be different (and FHWA made Maryland and DC remove all of the "curly W" Washington Nationals logos from their signs. 

As I recall the story, FHWA was adamant about their claim regarding not using transit logos on overhead BGSes.  And, while I personally agree that their claim is totally bogus, I suspect MassHighway decided at the time it was easier to given in to the regional office than spend a couple of years fighting them with HQ in Washington.  As it turns out, going with text instead of logos made modifying the existing signs easier.

Well I'll investigate further with my contacts at FHWA to see what I can find out.  I'm very curious as to the reason for this. 

[PHLBOS]

FWIW, here's another blog/article regarding the Route 128 saga:

http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/massmarkets/2012/08/13/despite-federal-and-state-agencies-efforts-a-road-by-any-other-name-is-still-route-128/#axzz2VOFYgwXr

At least this writer mentions the reasons for the re-routings (of I-95 & later US 1) along with the conditions (i.e. no 128 shields on BGS') the feds placed regarding eligibility to receive federal funding.

[deathtopumpkins]

One line from that article stuck out to me:

I-95 is a generic highway that spans the East Coast. Route 128 is a place we can call our own.

That's part of the reason why I say keep 128.

[Pete from Boston]

One line from that article stuck out to me:

I-95 is a generic highway that spans the East Coast. Route 128 is a place we can call our own.

That's part of the reason why I say keep 128.

There are good reasons that are far less sentimental.

My apologies if I have posted this before -- I didn't see it when glancing back -- but imagine a map of only the major highways in Eastern Mass., unlabeled.  I would wager that most people who know nothing about the nomenclature would say that's one road from Braintree to Peabody/Gloucester.  Similarly, would not appear to logically be a part of the road from Salisbury to Attleboro.

Government-issue nomenclature is fine and good, but should it defy human instinct?  On the contrary, it should cater to it.  It's one road (not 3 or 5).  Though there are lots of roads borrowing it as part of their through routing, it is still a discrete thing that it doesn't benefit anyone to name as if it isn't. 

Another issue not raised here is not specific to the number's worth as a road designation, but certainly attests to its broader cultural significance, and that is its use as a demarcation line between the dense inner suburbs and the further-afield outer belt.  "Inside 128" functions well as shorthand for Boston and the adjoining urban core.  I'm not sure what would replace that -- "inside 93/1/95/128" stumbles a little awkwardly off the tongue.

[PHLBOS]

Another issue not raised here is not specific to the number's worth as a road designation, but certainly attests to its broader cultural significance, and that is its use as a demarcation line between the dense inner suburbs and the further-afield outer belt.  "Inside 128" functions well as shorthand for Boston and the adjoining urban core.  I'm not sure what would replace that -- "inside 93/1/95/128" stumbles a little awkwardly off the tongue.

As I stated many posts back, had the street name of the highway (Yankee Division Highway) or a nickname equivalent (New Yorker-style YDH or YDE for Yankee Divsion Expressway) stuck better with the public than its orginal route number; most wouldn't have cared whether the entire road only had one route number along it or ten different numbers along the way because they would just call it by its street name and be done with it.

Proof of that in other areas include the PA Turnpike (I-76/276/Future 95) and the Capital Beltway (I-95/495); conicidentally, portions of both of those above-examples have become or will become de-facto segents of I-95 due to its originally-planned alignments not being built.

Back to 128:

Had MA 128 ran along the entire Pilgrims Highway (MA 3) to Sagamore instead of stopping at Braintree (at one time, it did multiplex w/MA 3 and turned northward towards Nantasket (via current MA 228)); maybe the push to completely eliminate MA 128 south of Peabody wouldn't have happened outside of the BGS'.

[agentsteel53]

Proof of that in other areas include the PA Turnpike (I-76/276/Future 95) and the Capital Beltway (I-95/495); conicidentally, portions of both of those above-examples have become or will become de-facto segents of I-95 due to its originally-planned alignments not being built.

also, proof of that right there in Mass: everyone calls the local east-west toll road "the Pike".  not "90". 

[NE2]

As I stated many posts back, had the street name of the highway (Yankee Division Highway) or a nickname equivalent (New Yorker-style YDH or YDE for Yankee Divsion Expressway) stuck better with the public than its orginal route number; most wouldn't have cared whether the entire road only had one route number along it or ten different numbers along the way because they would just call it by its street name and be done with it.

Back in the 1960s the FHWA demanded that NYC remove expressway names from new signs. This was quickly determined to be a bad idea and reversed.

[PHLBOS]

also, proof of that right there in Mass: everyone calls the local east-west toll road "the Pike".  not "90". 

I'm well aware about the Mass Pike (I'm a Bay State native afterall).  The only reason why I didn't mention it in my previous post was because I was purposely and diliberately posting examples of named highways that change route numbers throughout its entire length. 

Since the entire length of the Mass Pike is I-90; I intentionally did not include it.

I also could've mentioned the NY Thruway (with its I-87/90 changing hands west of Albany) or the Ohio Turnpike (I-76/80/90) as other examples.

Back in the 1960s the FHWA demanded that NYC remove expressway names from new signs. This was quickly determined to be a bad idea and reversed.

Did the FHWA demand similar from CalTrans at the time as well?

[agentsteel53]

I'm well aware about the Mass Pike (I'm a Bay State native afterall).  The only reason why I didn't mention it in my previous post was because I was purposely and diliberately posting examples of named highways that change route numbers throughout its entire length. 

Since the entire length of the Mass Pike is I-90; I intentionally did not include it.

I wonder if the Pike got its name stuck the same way 128 did: it predates the number by a very short time.  (1957 vs. 1959, IIRC)

(I believe that a preliminary interstate plan had I-90 going along the MA-2 corridor... am I correct or did I imagine that?)

[PHLBOS]

I wonder if the Pike got its name stuck the same way 128 did: it predates the number by a very short time.  (1957 vs. 1959, IIRC)

(I believe that a preliminary interstate plan had I-90 going along the MA-2 corridor... am I correct or did I imagine that?)

Other than the listed account in Wikipedia, I couldn't seem to find any other references to confirm.  The Wiki account stated that such a northerly alignment was rejected on the grounds of excessive cost.

While there were very early plans of a free east-west expressway; it's general location, more or less, was to be close to or adjacent to the US 20 corridor.

In case you don't already know, Steve Anderson's BostonRoads has a fairly comprehensive historical overvoew of the Mass Pike:

http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/mass-pike/

Excerpt:

DESIGN AND INITIAL CONSTRUCTION: The proposed Massachusetts Turnpike was to incorporate not only the original Western Expressway route, but also another expressway route - the Springfield Bypass - that was to provide a bypass of the existing US 20 through the Springfield area. In accordance with the 1944 Federal Highway Act, the authority drew a tentative line connecting the cities of Boston, Worcester and Springfield.

[NE2]

Back in the 1960s the FHWA demanded that NYC remove expressway names from new signs. This was quickly determined to be a bad idea and reversed.

Did the FHWA demand similar from CalTrans at the time as well?

I have no idea, since I read about it in contemporary New York Times articles.

[vdeane]

One line from that article stuck out to me:

I-95 is a generic highway that spans the East Coast. Route 128 is a place we can call our own.

That's part of the reason why I say keep 128.

There are good reasons that are far less sentimental.

My apologies if I have posted this before -- I didn't see it when glancing back -- but imagine a map of only the major highways in Eastern Mass., unlabeled.  I would wager that most people who know nothing about the nomenclature would say that's one road from Braintree to Peabody/Gloucester.  Similarly, would not appear to logically be a part of the road from Salisbury to Attleboro.

Government-issue nomenclature is fine and good, but should it defy human instinct?  On the contrary, it should cater to it.  It's one road (not 3 or 5).  Though there are lots of roads borrowing it as part of their through routing, it is still a discrete thing that it doesn't benefit anyone to name as if it isn't. 

By that logic, TOTSOs should be outlawed.

Another issue not raised here is not specific to the number's worth as a road designation, but certainly attests to its broader cultural significance, and that is its use as a demarcation line between the dense inner suburbs and the further-afield outer belt.  "Inside 128" functions well as shorthand for Boston and the adjoining urban core.  I'm not sure what would replace that -- "inside 93/1/95/128" stumbles a little awkwardly off the tongue.

How about "Boston's inner suburbs"? 

[bob7374]

Another issue not raised here is not specific to the number's worth as a road designation, but certainly attests to its broader cultural significance, and that is its use as a demarcation line between the dense inner suburbs and the further-afield outer belt.  "Inside 128" functions well as shorthand for Boston and the adjoining urban core.  I'm not sure what would replace that -- "inside 93/1/95/128" stumbles a little awkwardly off the tongue.

As I stated many posts back, had the street name of the highway (Yankee Division Highway) or a nickname equivalent (New Yorker-style YDH or YDE for Yankee Divsion Expressway) stuck better with the public than its orginal route number; most wouldn't have cared whether the entire road only had one route number along it or ten different numbers along the way because they would just call it by its street name and be done with it.

Back to 128:

Had MA 128 ran along the entire Pilgrims Highway (MA 3) to Sagamore instead of stopping at Braintree (at one time, it did multiplex w/MA 3 and turned northward towards Nantasket (via current MA 228)); maybe the push to completely eliminate MA 128 south of Peabody wouldn't have happened outside of the BGS'.

What is interesting (to me anyway) is that the MA 3 designation wasn't applied to the Pilgrims Highway until that road was complete. When it just extended as far south as Hingham from about 1959 to 1963 it was just signed as 128. From looking at newspapers at the time people saw the route as an extension of the SE Expressway and referred to it as such. No one seemed to call the route as 128 then, or now. The only reference I saw was an ad for a local car dealer who's address info included 'at Route 128 Exit 29' (as it was originally numbered, now Exit 15). They continued using the 128 exit reference up through 1969, 3 years after 128 had been truncated back to Braintree and 6 years after MA 3 was moved onto its current route, apparently this mistake wasn't bad for business. I remember this dealer also advertising it was located on the SE Expressway up through the early 1980's. I think they stopped this when I-93 exit numbers went up and there was now another Exit 15 along the real SE Expressway in Boston.

[PHLBOS]

 

What is interesting (to me anyway) is that the MA 3 designation wasn't applied to the Pilgrims Highway until that road was complete. When it just extended as far south as Hingham from about 1959 to 1963 it was just signed as 128. From looking at newspapers at the time people saw the route as an extension of the SE Expressway and referred to it as such. No one seemed to call the route as 128 then, or now. The only reference I saw was an ad for a local car dealer who's address info included 'at Route 128 Exit 29' (as it was originally numbered, now Exit 15). They continued using the 128 exit reference up through 1969, 3 years after 128 had been truncated back to Braintree and 6 years after MA 3 was moved onto its current route, apparently this mistake wasn't bad for business. I remember this dealer also advertising it was located on the SE Expressway up through the early 1980's. I think they stopped this when I-93 exit numbers went up and there was now another Exit 15 along the real SE Expressway in Boston.

Actually, there always was an Exit 15 along the SE Expressway: it just changed locations.  The original Exit 15 off the SE Expressway was the Mass Ave. (would-be I-95 South) interchange (current Exit 18); then in 1986-87, it was moved to its current interchange (Columbia Road - old Exit 17).  Note: there presently is no Exit 17 along I-93... at the moment.

Businesses making references to old route numbers (at least in eastern MA) is not uncommon.  When the Revere Showcase Cinema opened in the early 1980s (at the site of the old Drive-In at Cutler Circle), for at least 10 years, they still referred to their location as being off Route C1 (a designation that was at least 10 years obsolete then) rather than the correct/current (US) Route 1.

OTOH, one car dealership in Braintree (Dave Dinger Ford, not sure if they're still around) actually did the opposite.  When the exit numbers along I-93/MA 128 changed in the 80s; their ads were already stating their location as Exit 6 off I-93 as opposed to Exit 68 off Route 128.

[spooky]

Businesses making references to old route numbers (at least in eastern MA) is not uncommon.  When the Revere Showcase Cinema opened in the early 1980s (at the site of the old Drive-In at Cutler Circle), for at least 10 years, they still referred to their location as being off Route C1 (a designation that was at least 10 years obsolete then) rather than the correct/current (US) Route 1.

Must be a thing with movie theaters and Route 1. If you see a movie at Legacy Place in Dedham, an on-screen map incorrectly shows that Route 1 follows Providence Highway north of I-95/Route 128.

This is not an uncommon problem in this area, but it's especially disappointing to see a movie theater opened in 2009 reference a roadway alignment that hasn't existed since the late 1980s!

[PHLBOS]

Businesses making references to old route numbers (at least in eastern MA) is not uncommon.  When the Revere Showcase Cinema opened in the early 1980s (at the site of the old Drive-In at Cutler Circle), for at least 10 years, they still referred to their location as being off Route C1 (a designation that was at least 10 years obsolete then) rather than the correct/current (US) Route 1.

Must be a thing with movie theaters and Route 1. If you see a movie at Legacy Place in Dedham, an on-screen map incorrectly shows that Route 1 follows Providence Highway north of I-95/Route 128.

This is not an uncommon problem in this area, but it's especially disappointing to see a movie theater opened in 2009 reference a roadway alignment that hasn't existed since the late 1980s!

Similar has been done (or still being done) with some of the auto dealerships along the Providence Highway.  The so-called Auto-Mile stretch in advertisements had shown dealerships in Dedham (north of I-95 & MA 1A) still referring to their location as US 1.

[Alps]

I wonder if the Pike got its name stuck the same way 128 did: it predates the number by a very short time.  (1957 vs. 1959, IIRC)

(I believe that a preliminary interstate plan had I-90 going along the MA-2 corridor... am I correct or did I imagine that?)

Other than the listed account in Wikipedia, I couldn't seem to find any other references to confirm.  The Wiki account stated that such a northerly alignment was rejected on the grounds of excessive cost.

I'd always been of the belief that it was rejected on the grounds of being next to a toll road that wanted all the traffic to itself, since the Mass Pike was well on its way by the time the Interstate system was being finalized in 1956-7. At the same time, why build a new route when the one under construction could be included as-is?

[PHLBOS]

I'd always been of the belief that it was rejected on the grounds of being next to a toll road that wanted all the traffic to itself, since the Mass Pike was well on its way by the time the Interstate system was being finalized in 1956-7. At the same time, why build a new route when the one under construction could be included as-is?

I wouldn't necessarily consider nor call Route 2 and the Mass Pike as being "next to each other"; one route connects the Bay State's three major cities/regions (Boston-Worcester-Springfield) whereas the other runs along the northern/upper part of the state. 

[Alps]

I'd always been of the belief that it was rejected on the grounds of being next to a toll road that wanted all the traffic to itself, since the Mass Pike was well on its way by the time the Interstate system was being finalized in 1956-7. At the same time, why build a new route when the one under construction could be included as-is?

I wouldn't necessarily consider nor call Route 2 and the Mass Pike as being "next to each other"; one route connects the Bay State's three major cities/regions (Boston-Worcester-Springfield) whereas the other runs along the northern/upper part of the state. 

More in terms of parallel vs. next to, yes. I'm thinking Albany-Boston as the major corridor in play.

[NE2]

Plans going back to the 1930s had the interregional highway going through Springfield.

[bob7374]

I'm reviving this thread due to the contents of today's (Sunday 7/19) Starts & Stops column in the Globe (available online by subscription only). The new (since mid-2014) columnist posted an e-mail she got from a reader asking why the media keeps referring to the section of I-93/US 1 between Canton and Braintree as Route 128 when it hasn't been signed that for years. Her response was to get someone at MassDOT to confirm that the reader was right that the section hasn't been 128 since 1989 and to post a photo of the overhead signage at the MA 138 South on-ramp to South I-93/US 1.  Her final comment is that it will take more than the truth though to convince 'the old-timers' to call it by any other name than 128. At least she seems to be open to that possibility though.

[ixnay]

I-95 should use 91-15-84-90-495. Bring back 128.

Don't know if this has been addressed on this recently revived (after 2 years) thread, but NE2, how would you renumber the New Haven to Amesbury portion of 95?  Think.

ixnay

[hotdogPi]

I-95 should use 91-15-84-90-495. Bring back 128.

Don't know if this has been addressed on this recently revived (after 2 years) thread, but NE2, how would you renumber the New Haven to Amesbury portion of 95?  Think.

ixnay

New Haven to New London: I-395
New London to Canton: I-93
Peabody to Amesbury/Salisbury: MA 17?