I know this has probably been talked to death, but obviously we've not quite eradicated the road-related mistakes of those who don't follow roads and transportation like we do.
The latest I've seen comes from a local article in a TX paper reporting on the long-term effects of the interstate signage allowance changes recently made, especially along the I-69 corridor.
http://jacksonvilleprogress.com/local/x333946791/State-Rep-I-69-expansion-is-a-step-forward
QuoteState Rep.: I-69 expansion is a step forward
Progress staff reports
Jacksonville Daily Progress
JACKSONVILLE – The expansion of U.S. Highway 69 in Texas was approved and officials said it is something they have been waiting for.
The proposed I-69 will change the highway into a national interstate that will extend from Michigan to Texas. I-69 Texas will move people, freight and goods. Its development is essential to the state's job growth and economic development, a TxDOT press release stated.
Worse than a few of these :pan: :pan: and a boiling pot of :coffee: :coffee: ! ! !
This newspaper used to be VERY bad about US = state highways, state = US highways, and the like, but hadn't been too stupid lately. Now, I'm wondering. Especially since the eventual addition of I-69 in east TX will give the area TWO 69s (there will still be US 69), which will cross in the vicinity of Lufkin. This paper (and likely other local area media) will have to get their S straight in the future about highway types and labels, otherwise the confusion will continue and probably make things worse for those among us who aren't into roads/transport.
Are there others still seeing wrong info or confusion in their media regarding highways?
A few years back, Time magazine had I-75 going through Dallas. It's actually U.S. 75 A/K/A Central Expressway.
Off the subject: I-69 is a radically scaled-down version of the defunct Trans-Texas Corridor, a 10-lane toll road (with separate car and truck lanes), six rail lines, pipelines, and high voltage lines. One area would have been ground zero for an interchange with at least 14 traffic lanes.
[Removed political tangent. -S.]
I noticed on FourSquare that US 67 at Beebe, Arkansas was listed as I-67
Quote from: US71 on July 22, 2012, 08:40:34 PM
I noticed on FourSquare that US 67 at Beebe, Arkansas was listed as I-67
Perhaps they meant I-57. :poke:
In my local paper when a road classification is misidentified, it usually is identifying a US highway as a state highway. Last summer when the US 136 and US 159 bridges(among others) over the Missouri River were closed due to flooding, I saw them identified several times in the paper as the "Nebraska 136" and "Nebraska 159" bridges. I've seen the reverse-identifying a state highway as a US highway a few times, but I don't recall seeing an interstate identified as a US highway or vice versa. It's pretty easy though to keep interstate highways straight in Nebraska since the vast majority of the time when one is referred to in the local media it will be I-80.
I saw a business sign on Texas Highway 6 driving back from College Station this weekend. Had a U.S. 6 shield on it. :banghead: Would've taken a picture of it if I'd had my camera.
A few wall road maps (for Philly & vicinity) at the Independence Visitor's Center in Philadelphia have I-276 labeled as I-267.
This was in a flyer for an SCA event I was at this weekend:
Take I-67 north to Exit 55 in Bald Knob, AR.
I received a postcard in the mail once with a coupon to a specific business near the 44th St. interchange on I-196. The card had a map on it labeling the freeway as "96" in a circle. Many people in the Grand Rapids area call the Gerald R. Ford Freeway "I-96" if they use a number, and then this business downgraded the designation to M-96...
My wife and I got married in Branson, Missouri. We were living in the Chicago area, and at the same time moved to southern Illinois; immediately after the wedding, we flew out of Kansas City for our honeymoon. That all took a lot of logistical planning. Anyway, Carrie stayed in Branson for a few weeks before the wedding, getting things ready, while I stayed in the Chicago area to continue working. We had already moved all our stuff to southern Illinois, so I was living out of a backpack. Then, about a week before wedding day, we were to meet at our house in southern Illinois. She drove from Branson with her little sister, and I hitchhiked down from Chicago. My hitchhiking sign was a big piece of white cardboard with a red cutout of a fist with thumb upraised, the phrase "Getting Married", and a black-and-white outline of the I-57 shield.
When we were telling their grandparents about me hitchhiking down to Herrin, Carrie's little sister described my sign in detail, but called the shield "US Highway 57". To us roadgeeks, that's an unthinkable error, but I give her big credit for pulling out the phrase "US Highway XX" at the age of nine.
Many New Jereyians refer to the whole length of the NJ Turnpike as I-95 when in fact it is only that between Exit 6 and its northern terminus.
Some people refer to the I-78 local lanes between Springfield and Newark as NJ 24. My friend would argue it with me about it and consider the express lanes only as I-78.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2012, 01:11:37 PM
Many[/u] New Jereyians refer to the whole length of the NJ Turnpike as I-95 when in fact it is only that between Exit 6 and its northern terminus.
Who? Citation needed.
Quote
Some people refer to the I-78 local lanes between Springfield and Newark as NJ 24. My friend would argue it with me about it and consider the express lanes only as I-78.
Some people = your friend. No one else does that anymore. The only one that still trips people up is NJ 495 = Route 3, because people are used to taking one number to the Tunnel.
On an episode of Top Gear where the hosts are in America and traveling from Las Vegas to Bonneville, they don't take the direct route and instead "take the I-50, the Loneliest Road in America".
Forgivable, perhaps, since in the UK it's "the A-3" and "the M-5" and whatnot.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 24, 2012, 10:46:40 PM
On an episode of Top Gear where the hosts are in America and traveling from Las Vegas to Bonneville, they don't take the direct route and instead "take the I-50, the Loneliest Road in America".
Forgivable, perhaps, since in the UK it's "the A-3" and "the M-5" and whatnot.
I saw that episode :clap:, actually they were coming from Reno instead. ;-)
This has been brought up on other threads, but it's relevant to this topic, so I'll mention it here as well.
Boston traffic reporters continue to refer to the section of Interstate 93 between Canton and Braintree as Route 128. There's only one problem with this - the Route 128 designation was officially eliminated south (compass direction east) of Canton in 1989 (that's 23 years ago), and all existing '128' BGS panels and route markers were either removed or replaced with I-93 signs by 1991.
Quote from: roadman on July 25, 2012, 12:35:07 PM
This has been brought up on other threads, but it's relevant to this topic, so I'll mention it here as well.
Boston traffic reporters continue to refer to the section of Interstate 93 between Canton and Braintree as Route 128. There's only one problem with this - the Route 128 designation was officially eliminated south (compass direction east) of Canton in 1989 (that's 23 years ago), and all existing '128' BGS panels and route markers were either removed or replaced with I-93 signs by 1991.
They're not the only ones still calling I-93, Route 128 in that area. Many car dealerships and other businesses along that corridor also still call I-93, Route 128.
As does pretty much everyone who lives here. 128 always has and always will begin at Route 3 in Braintree, regardless of what the signs say.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 23, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
I received a postcard in the mail once with a coupon to a specific business near the 44th St. interchange on I-196. The card had a map on it labeling the freeway as "96" in a circle. Many people in the Grand Rapids area call the Gerald R. Ford Freeway "I-96" if they use a number, and then this business downgraded the designation to M-96...
It wouldn't actually be M-96, because Michigan shields are diamonds. Probably KY or IA 96.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 25, 2012, 06:14:43 PM
As does pretty much everyone who lives here. 128 always has and always will begin at Route 3 in Braintree, regardless of what the signs say.
With respect, tell that to the GPS makers - The Globe did an article about how GPS units do not recognize the Route 128 designation south of Peabody about a year ago.
And, again with respect, "because it's always been that way", is not a legitimate reason for keeping an obsolete route designation that's been outdated for almost 40 years (Canton to Braintree I-95/128 overlap). However, I am afraid that this issue won't be resolved until the State Police get a cell call about a serious crash on "Route 128 at Exit 22" that is cut off before the caller can identify the town, sends the response to Weston instead of Beverly (or visa-versa), and somebody dies as a result.
There are 49 other states in this country that seem to have no problem with re-designating Interstate, US, and state routes (like the NH 57 and NH 101 "swap" that (and businesses) adjust to the changes, and life goes on as usual.
Leave it to Massachusetts to be so contrary (even then-Governor Romney thwarted MassHighway's most-recent plan to completely remove the 128 designation south of Peabody in 2004).
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 25, 2012, 04:50:59 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 25, 2012, 12:35:07 PM
This has been brought up on other threads, but it's relevant to this topic, so I'll mention it here as well.
Boston traffic reporters continue to refer to the section of Interstate 93 between Canton and Braintree as Route 128. There's only one problem with this - the Route 128 designation was officially eliminated south (compass direction east) of Canton in 1989 (that's 23 years ago), and all existing '128' BGS panels and route markers were either removed or replaced with I-93 signs by 1991.
They're not the only ones still calling I-93, Route 128 in that area. Many car dealerships and other businesses along that corridor also still call I-93, Route 128.
Until the mid-1980s, the local phone company was New England Telephone (now part of Verizon), and the largest supermarket chain in the Boston area was First National (long since out of business). I seriously doubt that any of those same people who insist on using an outdated route designation write checks to New England Telephone to pay their phone bill or say to their spouse "Need anything from the First National?"
As the saying goes, what's good for the goose (private business) is good for the gander (state DOT).
And yet people will keep calling it Route 128. Get over it.
I encountered someone today that though the Illinois tollways were maintained and managed by IDOT**
** Though IDOT does maintain any bridge on a state route that crosses over a tollway.
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 25, 2012, 07:52:07 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 23, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
I received a postcard in the mail once with a coupon to a specific business near the 44th St. interchange on I-196. The card had a map on it labeling the freeway as "96" in a circle. Many people in the Grand Rapids area call the Gerald R. Ford Freeway "I-96" if they use a number, and then this business downgraded the designation to M-96...
It wouldn't actually be M-96, because Michigan shields are diamonds. Probably KY or IA 96.
Yes, but the generic state highway marker on maps is the circle; even MDOT used circles on their maps until a few years ago. Other map makers still use circles for Michigan's state highways.
Quote from: roadman on July 25, 2012, 08:13:07 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 25, 2012, 06:14:43 PM
As does pretty much everyone who lives here. 128 always has and always will begin at Route 3 in Braintree, regardless of what the signs say.
With respect, tell that to the GPS makers - The Globe did an article about how GPS units do not recognize the Route 128 designation south of Peabody about a year ago.
My GPS recognizes it down to I-95/93. "Continue on I-95 / Massachusetts 128 South".
QuoteAnd, again with respect, "because it's always been that way", is not a legitimate reason for keeping an obsolete route designation that's been outdated for almost 40 years (Canton to Braintree I-95/128 overlap).
In my opinion, yes it is. The point of signs and route numbers in the first place is to aid motorist navigation. If a number is still frequently used, and still forms a continuous route, it still has a useful purpose. 128 serves as a useful way to distinguish between the Boston beltway and other portions of I-95, for example. If you say "it's off 128" people will know it's off of the beltway, whereas if you say "it's off of 95" people will know (based on which part of the state you're in) that it's off 95 between Salisbury and Peabody or between Canton and Attleboro.
And 128 remains the through route in Peabody anyway. It's a continuous road from Gloucester to Braintree, while I-95 exits to the right at both splits.
QuoteThere are 49 other states in this country that seem to have no problem with re-designating Interstate, US, and state routes (like the NH 57 and NH 101 "swap" that (and businesses) adjust to the changes, and life goes on as usual.
Note though that most of those roads are not nearly as ingrained in the local culture as 128 is, and that most of those transitions happened decades ago, much earlier on.
QuoteLeave it to Massachusetts to be so contrary (even then-Governor Romney thwarted MassHighway's most-recent plan to completely remove the 128 designation south of Peabody in 2004).
I don't think MassDOT currently has any plans to truncate 128 anymore, based on what I hear around the office and what I've seen on new signs going up in Wakefield (signs that show 95 and 128 shields next to each other, rather than a 128 trailblazer mounted on the ground, as had become the norm).
Quote from: roadman on July 25, 2012, 08:21:25 PM
Until the mid-1980s, the local phone company was New England Telephone (now part of Verizon), and the largest supermarket chain in the Boston area was First National (long since out of business). I seriously doubt that any of those same people who insist on using an outdated route designation write checks to New England Telephone to pay their phone bill or say to their spouse "Need anything from the First National?"
While these specific examples are not true, people are slow to adopt to many name changes around here. The Loews becomes an AMC but is still called Loews. MassHighway becomes MassDOT but is still called MassHighway. The Garden's changed names several times but is still called the Garden, and I've even still heard FleetCenter tossed around recently. My bank recently changed names but no one uses the new name.
Quote from: roadman on July 25, 2012, 08:21:25 PM
Until the mid-1980s, the local phone company was New England Telephone (now part of Verizon), and the largest supermarket chain in the Boston area was First National (long since out of business). I seriously doubt that any of those same people who insist on using an outdated route designation write checks to New England Telephone to pay their phone bill or say to their spouse "Need anything from the First National?"
As the saying goes, what's good for the goose (private business) is good for the gander (state DOT).
NYNEX. Don't forget NYNEX. :P
Verizon probably won't deposit or accept a check written to New England Telephone, NYNEX, or Bell Atlantic, but no one who's been around the area for a long time is going to get lost if someone calls the road in question 128.
Living in NE Ohio for 10 years now, I recall Tops markets stocking certain Finast branded products until they left the area a few years ago. That was a blast from the past.....
In my visits back to the area, I still hear people talking about going to DeMoulas despite the last supermarket carrying that name (vs. Market Basket) with its iconic neon sign finally closing to make way for a new Market Basket. Any Market Basket will be called DeMoulas by a lot of people, probably forever--including ones off of 128--I mean 95--no, 128.
On one map for a business I saw in Riverside, I noticed that they had SR 60 using the spade, yet they gave SR 91 an Interstate shield.
Using an Interstate shield for ALL routes types is quite common on business maps, but to sit there and give SR 91 an Interstate shield and then an inch away in the SAME map give SR 60 the correct spade shield is ludicrous.
In St Louis there were still a lot of people calling I-64 "Highway 40". I think I read people tend to call it 64 more often now that it has been redone, but I'm not exactly sure of that.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 25, 2012, 11:34:39 PMI don't think MassDOT currently has any plans to truncate 128 anymore, based on what I hear around the office and what I've seen on new signs going up in Wakefield (signs that show 95 and 128 shields next to each other, rather than a 128 trailblazer mounted on the ground, as had become the norm).
Are we talking about new MassDOT-issued BGS' and LGS' here? The BGS/LGS' at the I-95/Rte. 128 interchange ramps only have the I-95 shields on them. The recently-erected BGS' at the Peabody split (Exit 45/29) only have I-95 shields on them for the southbound headings. The original 1988 BGS' for that interchange had MA 128 shields next to the I-95 shields.
I do know that when newer LGS' were erected along MA 129 westbound in Wyoma Square Lynn during the late 90s/early 2000s; the signs only had MA 129, I-95 & US 1 shields but no MA 128 shields. Most of these signs were replaced about a year later with MA 128 shields en lieu of I-95 shields.
If NYC can start to wean itself off of freeway names (which are slowly disappearing as signs get replaced, at least on I-95 from what I saw with Google Street View), Boston can let go of MA 128.
Why is it that routes were renumbered all the time before the 80s without consequence but the idea is now taboo?
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2012, 08:35:21 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 25, 2012, 11:34:39 PMI don't think MassDOT currently has any plans to truncate 128 anymore, based on what I hear around the office and what I've seen on new signs going up in Wakefield (signs that show 95 and 128 shields next to each other, rather than a 128 trailblazer mounted on the ground, as had become the norm).
Are we talking about new MassDOT-issued BGS' and LGS' here? The BGS/LGS' at the I-95/Rte. 128 interchange ramps only have the I-95 shields on them. The recently-erected BGS' at the Peabody split (Exit 45/29) only have I-95 shields on them for the southbound headings. The original 1988 BGS' for that interchange had MA 128 shields next to the I-95 shields.
I do know that when newer LGS' were erected along MA 129 westbound in Wyoma Square Lynn during the late 90s/early 2000s; the signs only had MA 129, I-95 & US 1 shields but no MA 128 shields. Most of these signs were replaced about a year later with MA 128 shields en lieu of I-95 shields.
Yes we are. Specifically the Salem St. exit in Wakefield. Brand-spanking new paddle signage with both shields.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 26, 2012, 11:56:42 AMSpecifically the Salem St. exit in Wakefield. Brand-spanking new paddle signage with both shields.
Next time I'm up that way (likely Labor Day weekend); that's something I'll check out.
That's a rather odd place to make that change since that particular interchange has
not had a MA 128 shield on
any paddle sign fabricated
after 1976 until your mentioned-example.
My earlier-mentioned Wyoma Square examples (that changed from I-95 to MA 128) had some merit because the ramp from MA 129 at Goodwin's Circle is not too far away from the I-95/MA 128 split.
That might be the same reason for these - the interchange is one of the last on the 95/128 multiplex. I'm 95% certain that the sign at the southbound onramp has a 128 shield too though.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 26, 2012, 03:22:54 PM
That might be the same reason for these - the interchange is one of the last on the 95/128 multiplex. I'm 95% certain that the sign at the southbound onramp has a 128 shield too though.
Back up a sec. Is the MA 128 shield you saw indeed on the paddle sign itself or mounted on the same post but
below the paddle (in a trailblazer layout)? Given the history, (no 128 shields on ANY paddle signs in that area since the mid-70s); my
guess would be that you likely saw the latter.
The below-photo from Google Earth (taken at the Salem St./Audubon Rd. intersection) proves otherwise... at least on approach to the I-95 South ramps:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.panoramio.com%2Fphotos%2Foriginal%2F10723175.jpg&hash=d716944da1d8e78a619c4d7da17017cbbe8e0678)
The only case where I've seen either a MA 128 shield (or text) on a LGS paddle
post-1977 along Salem St. was further east at the US 1/MA 129 interchange (for US 1 North paddle signage) near the S. Lynnfield/Saugus border.
While the Salem St. (Exit 42) is near the I-95/MA 128 split (Exit 45), there are still 2 interchanges between them. I know that the paddle signs at Walnut St. have only I-95 on them (w/supplemental MA 128 trailblazers) and the BGS' at the US 1 interchange only has MA 128 shields on the BGS' for the northbound direction.
Why would MassDOT do the Salem St. interchange signs differently than the others nearby?
In contrast, the fore-mentioned Wyoma Square examples are located south (and slightly east) of the I-95/MA 128 split.
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 25, 2012, 11:55:48 PM
NYNEX. Don't forget NYNEX. :P
Verizon probably won't deposit or accept a check written to New England Telephone, NYNEX, or Bell Atlantic...
Probably not, but they had no problem sending me a collection notice for a 12-year defunct NYNEX account I used to have. (It was my college dorm phone, and my roommate had reactivated and used the account after I left the school.)
I just told them I don't keep utility bills that old, and could they kindly produce a copy of the bill showing the debt they claimed? That ended that. :)
The local media in Salt Lake City will incorrectly refer to U.S. highways as state routes around seventy-five percent of the time (when not simply referring to the route as "Highway #"). Which is lamentable, but whatever.
In fact, there was a story posted on The Salt Lake Tribune's website (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54560172-78/bastin-johnson-kinder-lake.html.csp) just last night with a perfect example.
Quote from: CL on July 26, 2012, 06:27:24 PM
The local media in Salt Lake City will incorrectly refer to U.S. highways as state routes around seventy-five percent of the time (when not simply referring to the route as "Highway #"). Which is lamentable, but whatever.
In fact, there was a story posted on The Salt Lake Tribune's website (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54560172-78/bastin-johnson-kinder-lake.html.csp) just last night with a perfect example.
I know all too much about that; the Kanab-based SUN (Southern Utah News) does this often when I'm down there. I actually recall a rare case when Utah SR-20 was referred to as "US-20!"
I'm tempted to write these papers to clarify the difference, but not one article involving a death.
There was an Associated Press article in my local newspaper this morning about the recent release of extensive coverage on Google Street View of National Parks in California. The last paragraph of the article included this sentence:
"The project was part of a Street View "refresh" of California that involved a trip down U.S. 1 along the Big Sur coast."
Quote from: deanej on July 26, 2012, 11:48:01 AM
If NYC can start to wean itself off of freeway names (which are slowly disappearing as signs get replaced, at least on I-95 from what I saw with Google Street View), Boston can let go of MA 128.
Would that be the same NYC that has yet to wean itself off of Manhattan's Sixth Avenue or the 59th Street Bridge (the latter now on its second renaming)? And who says NYC is letting go of its freeway names? Just because signage changes doesn't mean that common usage does too.
I can't speak for any other set of urbanites, but the last thing a Bostonian is going to do is change what they call something just because there's a new sign with a different name on it. The stretch of road that was formerly MA128, between the I95/I93 junction in Canton and the "Braintree Split" is still called 128 by the locals, even though that usage was officially dropped in 1997. Even the author of 128's Wikipedia article admits that calling the entire Circumferential Highway 128 is "an established part of local culture." Likewise with I93 through downtown Boston. It's now officially the "Thomas P. O'Neill Tunnel," but to Bostonians it's either "the Artery" (excuse me, the "Ahtery") or "the Big Dig," even though construction has been done for years and the old Central Artery is long gone.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2012, 05:33:40 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 26, 2012, 03:22:54 PM
That might be the same reason for these - the interchange is one of the last on the 95/128 multiplex. I'm 95% certain that the sign at the southbound onramp has a 128 shield too though.
Back up a sec. Is the MA 128 shield you saw indeed on the paddle sign itself or mounted on the same post but below the paddle (in a trailblazer layout)? Given the history, (no 128 shields on ANY paddle signs in that area since the mid-70s); my guess would be that you likely saw the latter.
The below-photo from Google Earth (taken at the Salem St./Audubon Rd. intersection) proves otherwise... at least on approach to the I-95 South ramps:
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/10723175.jpg
The only case where I've seen either a MA 128 shield (or text) on a LGS paddle post-1977 along Salem St. was further east at the US 1/MA 129 interchange (for US 1 North paddle signage) near the S. Lynnfield/Saugus border.
While the Salem St. (Exit 42) is near the I-95/MA 128 split (Exit 45), there are still 2 interchanges between them. I know that the paddle signs at Walnut St. have only I-95 on them (w/supplemental MA 128 trailblazers) and the BGS' at the US 1 interchange only has MA 128 shields on the BGS' for the northbound direction.
Why would MassDOT do the Salem St. interchange signs differently than the others nearby?
In contrast, the fore-mentioned Wyoma Square examples are located south (and slightly east) of the I-95/MA 128 split.
Definitely on the paddle sign itself, not on the post below. Unless I'm going insane, which you're starting to make me think I might be...
The signage seen in Google Earth has been replaced. I don't know why they did the signage differently for this interchange. But this signage was just installed within the past few weeks, as they rebuilt the interchange this summer, so maybe there's been a change in policy.
I'll be driving through there again later this week so I'll take the exit and photograph the signs.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 29, 2012, 11:34:29 PM
The signage seen in Google Earth has been replaced. I don't know why they did the signage differently for this interchange. But this signage was just installed within the past few weeks, as they rebuilt the interchange this summer, so maybe there's been a change in policy.
I'll be driving through there again later this week so I'll take the exit and photograph the signs.
AFAIK, MassDOT has no plans to re-introduce the use of 128 shields on either BGS or LGS panels within the Canton to Peabody corridor. Note that the elimination of 128 shields from BGS and LGS signs along the I-95/MA 128 overlap section, which started in the early 1990s, was an FHWA mandate, and not a MassHighway internal policy decision.
It's my understanding that the recent Salem Street work in Wakefield at Pleasure Island Road and I-95(MA 128) was done by a private developer, which may explain the non-standard 128 shields on the new guide signs at this location.
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2012, 02:10:48 PMAFAIK, MassDOT has no plans to re-introduce the use of 128 shields on either BGS or LGS panels within the Canton to Peabody corridor. Note that the elimination of 128 shields from BGS and LGS signs along the I-95/MA 128 overlap section, which started in the early 1990s, was an FHWA mandate, and not a MassHighway internal policy decision.
In truth, the elimination of 128 shields from BGS & LGS along I-95 Peabody to Canton actually started in 1976-1977 but it was done in a sporadic and inconsistent manner until the early 90s FHWA mandate that you mentioned.
Heck, one BGS for the I-95 South ramp from the Goodwin's Circle connector (near US 1 & MA 129) was changed or altered
FIVE TIMESOriginal 1977 signage:
95 SOUTH
Burlington
TO Mass Pike1978 modification:
95 128 SOUTH
Burlington
TO Mass Pike1982 sign replacement (Jersey barrier median was placed along mainline I-95/MA 128 and featured the hideous-looking font on the I-shields):
95 SOUTH
Burlington1988 sign replacement project (coincided with the I-95/MA 128 Peabody interchange being constructed, the "9"s were cocked/tilted on the I-shields)
95 128 SOUTH
Waltham1990s sign replacement project (featuring button-copy I-shields):
95 SOUTH
WalthamQuote from: roadman on July 30, 2012, 02:10:48 PMIt's my understanding that the recent Salem Street work in Wakefield at Pleasure Island Road and I-95(MA 128) was done by a private developer, which may explain the non-standard 128 shields on the new guide signs at this location.
That indeed would explain it but I'm still a bit surprised that the ones at the actual ramps (as opposed to lead-in LGS') to I-95 were allowed to be done/replaced by a private developer.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 30, 2012, 02:26:43 PM
1988 sign replacement project (coincided with the I-95/MA 128 Peabody interchange being constructed, the "9"s were cocked/tilted on the I-shields)
95 128 SOUTH
Walthan
is this your typo or MassDOT's?
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 30, 2012, 02:26:43 PM
In truth, the elimination of 128 shields from BGS & LGS along I-95 Peabody to Canton actually started in 1976-1977 but it was done in a sporadic and inconsistent manner until the early 90s FHWA mandate that you mentioned.
When the I-95 and I-93 designations were added to Route 128 between Canton and Peabody in late 1974, MassDPW crews began re-shielding existing BGS panels (LGS panels on secondary roads - what PennDOTfan refers to as "paddle" signs - still used numerals instead of shields at this time), replacing '128' shields with '95' ones. This work started at the Peabody end and was progressing south until the Legislature questioned the re-designation. At that point, MassDPW stopped changing signs. Once it was decreed that the 128 designation would remain, the crews went back to work. Where signs had been changed to 95, they installed 128 entry markers; where signs still read 128, they installed I-95 markers.
The principal reason why the BGSes between Canton and Wellesley weren't updated until the "panels-only" sign replacement job in 1997 is because of the proposed "add-a-lane" project that is now under construction. Once it was learned that project would be delayed, the sign panels were replaced under a separate project.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 02:49:53 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 30, 2012, 02:26:43 PM
1988 sign replacement project (coincided with the I-95/MA 128 Peabody interchange being constructed, the "9"s were cocked/tilted on the I-shields)
95 128 SOUTH
Walthan
is this your typo or MassDOT's?
Oops! Mine, it should read Waltham (earlier post has since been corrected).
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2012, 02:52:29 PMWhen the I-95 and I-93 designations were added to Route 128 between Canton and Peabody in late 1974, MassDPW crews began re-shielding existing BGS panels (LGS panels on secondary roads - what PennDOTfan refers to as "paddle" signs - still used numerals instead of shields at this time), replacing '128' shields with '95' ones. This work started at the Peabody end and was progressing south until the Legislature questioned the re-designation. At that point, MassDPW stopped changing signs. Once it was decreed that the 128 designation would remain, the crews went back to work. Where signs had been changed to 95, they installed 128 entry markers; where signs still read 128, they installed I-95 markers.
The first LGS' I saw that called the road
95 circa 1976 in that area used I-shields on the main 'paddle' but usually the lower 'paddle' used
95 in text. Needless to say, this was after the DPW adopted the square/rectangular LGS over the older 6-sided style for its main 'paddle' signs. I don't recall seeing
any route number/shield modifications to existing (at the time) BGS/LGS' until 1979 or 1980. Any BGS/LGS sporting I-95 (or I-93) shields were brand new signs.
I first started seeing I-95 trailblazer signs along the highway around 1975 (while riding w/my father).
Most of the early-70s era BGS' that only had
128 shields were largely left alone until they were replaced with new signs in the 1990s and 2000s (the last
SOUTH 128 pull-through sign in Burlington was only taken down within the last year or two).
Quote from: frank gifford on July 22, 2012, 06:58:44 PM
A few years back, Time magazine had I-75 going through Dallas. It's actually U.S. 75 A/K/A Central Expressway.
Off the subject: I-69 is a radically scaled-down version of the defunct Trans-Texas Corridor, a 10-lane toll road (with separate car and truck lanes), six rail lines, pipelines, and high voltage lines. One area would have been ground zero for an interchange with at least 14 traffic lanes.
[Removed political tangent. -S.]
This forum is WAY too moderated. I've been on many forums, but this one is by far the most moderated forum that I've ever been on. Free speech is not acceptable here. This has become the premier forum for road enthusiasts, and it has a certain responsibility. Censoring posts for political views is silly. It makes me long for the MTR days where you could say anything you want.
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 05:21:11 PM
Quote from: frank gifford on July 22, 2012, 06:58:44 PM
A few years back, Time magazine had I-75 going through Dallas. It's actually U.S. 75 A/K/A Central Expressway.
Off the subject: I-69 is a radically scaled-down version of the defunct Trans-Texas Corridor, a 10-lane toll road (with separate car and truck lanes), six rail lines, pipelines, and high voltage lines. One area would have been ground zero for an interchange with at least 14 traffic lanes.
[Removed political tangent. -S.]
This forum is WAY too moderated. I've been on many forums, but this one is by far the most moderated forum that I've ever been on. Free speech is not acceptable here. This has become the premier forum for road enthusiasts, and it has a certain responsibility. Censoring posts for political views is silly. It makes me long for the MTR days where you could say anything you want.
You can still say anything you want on MTR. Look what happened to it.
I'm not saying to allow anarchy like on MTR. It should be a happy medium. Delete the obvious spam, but allow political discussions as long as they are civil. Good moderators are barely noticed. Bad moderators make a big deal out of everything no matter how small.
We do allow political discussions that are civil and relevant. A thread about roads is not the place to complain about such-and-such candidate's view on such-and-such issue, unless that issue happens to be the road the thread is about.
For example, complaining about a politician you don't like cutting funding to an important road project on that road project's thread is fine. Complaining about a politician you don't like bashing a politician you do like on a road project's thread is not fine.
On a road forum political discussions are necessary due to the political nature of transportation policy. They just need be kept civil and objective and relevant.
Quote from: Steve on July 30, 2012, 09:46:27 PM
You can still say anything you want on MTR. Look what happened to it.
you don't want a thirty-inch p1n4s?
I wrote the censored post in question. It's interesting to see it resurface. The comment was indeed political but NOT a tangent. It was spot-on relevant to the issue at hand. I complained to the moderators but to no avail.
My brief remark met the "civil and relevant" test put forth by the 19-year-old Moderator "deathtopumpkins". (19-year-old moderator...is that a typo?)
If this censored material still exists--it would be an interesting exercise to post my original version and let the group decide whether it was "civil and relevant" and advances the discussion.
I also complained (in jest) to the moderators about the use of "Bull----" in the headline of a thread. I'm not offended, but some folks may be. And yet it's perfectly acceptable.
Despite the quirks, this remains an interesting and valuable forum.
Too many chiefs, not enough Indians.
Quote from: frank gifford on July 31, 2012, 05:16:24 PM
I wrote the censored post in question. It's interesting to see it resurface. The comment was indeed political but NOT a tangent. It was spot-on relevant to the issue at hand. I complained to the moderators but to no avail.
My brief remark met the "civil and relevant" test put forth by the 19-year-old Moderator "deathtopumpkins". (19-year-old moderator...is that a typo?)
If this censored material still exists--it would be an interesting exercise to post my original version and let the group decide whether it was "civil and relevant" and advances the discussion.
I also complained (in jest) to the moderators about the use of "Bull----" in the headline of a thread. I'm not offended, but some folks may be. And yet it's perfectly acceptable.
Despite the quirks, this remains an interesting and valuable forum.
The remark was deleted before I saw it. If it's relevant, it should remain posted. Give it another shot - maybe think about how you can word it to avoid sounding like you're attacking a political group.
I didn't save it, AARoads would have to provide it.
Quote from: frank gifford on July 31, 2012, 06:33:21 PM
I didn't save it, AARoads would have to provide it.
it is not in our archived database of deleted posts, so it must have just been a partial deletion. therefore, we do not have it. could you please repost? (if, for nothing else, curiosity's sake!)
I think he dissed Bush.
I never saw the original post before it was edited either. It certainly wasn't me that cut it.
And no, Mr. Frank Gifford, my age is not a typo. And I find it insulting that you have an issue with my age. I've been with this site since it was first created, I've spent years obsessing over roads, I've clinched thousands of miles of highway, and I've discovered multiple previously undiscovered old signs. I'm also a Civil Engineering student who is currently employed by the Massachusetts DOT. Would you like to continue questioning my credentials?
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 31, 2012, 09:53:59 PMI'm also a Civil Engineering student who is currently employed by the Massachusetts DOT. Would you like to continue questioning my credentials?
Scholarship program? We do that in Kentucky. We give scholarships to engineering students, they work summers for us, and when they get out of school they are promised jobs with us (in fact, they may be required to work for us for a certain period of time before seeking employment elsewhere).
Just a summer internship. I was promised a job after graduation if I want it, though the state doesn't help pay for school at all.
I didn't (and didn't INTEND to) question "deathtopumpkins" road credentials. Nor do I have an "issue" with his age, and I was unaware of his background. Nor is any of that relevant.
The issue is inconsistent moderating, and lack of posted standards about brief political mentions. I sent e-mail about this to moderator Jake a couple hours ago.
My on-topic posting apparently no longer exists in its original form. But the little pro-Mitt Romney mention two posts back (which has nothing to do with roads) is apparently okay. So is the word "Bull----" which leads off a topic, and directly violates one of your posted standards, but doesn't get censored.
Quote from: frank gifford on July 31, 2012, 11:50:26 PM
So is the word "Bull----" which leads off a topic, and directly violates one of your posted standards, but doesn't get censored.
Bullying?
I had assumed "bullfrog". blatant species discrimination!
Quote from: frank gifford on July 31, 2012, 11:50:26 PM
I didn't (and didn't INTEND to) question "deathtopumpkins" road credentials. Nor do I have an "issue" with his age, and I was unaware of his background. Nor is any of that relevant.
The issue is inconsistent moderating, and lack of posted standards about brief political mentions. I sent e-mail about this to moderator Jake a couple hours ago.
My on-topic posting apparently no longer exists in its original form. But the little pro-Mitt Romney mention two posts back (which has nothing to do with roads) is apparently okay. So is the word "Bull----" which leads off a topic, and directly violates one of your posted standards, but doesn't get censored.
If you didn't intend to question my ability as a moderator, why did you question my age twice in the same post? What does my age have to do with it? You say my road-related credentials are irrelevant, yet you question my age. Age is just a number. Road knowledge, on the other hand, certainly is relevant.
Yes, there is a lack of posted standards about political discussions. This is because there is a lack of agreement on what exactly is appropriate and what is not. Thus we moderate these discussions on a case-by-case basis, which I feel is fairly consistent. There is never going to be 100% consistency because people (moderators included) think differently, but I think we try to do a fair job of it.
Finally, no, your post no longer exists in it's original form. The only person who can answer for it is the moderator who edited it, but if they removed the offending content, then it was obviously offensive in some way. I'm not sure which "pro-Mitt Romney" remark you're referring to though, since a quick little ctrl+F of the page doesn't turn up any other mention of the word "romney" apart from your post. So, no, it's not okay, because it's nonexistant.
As for the word "bullshit," if you'll re-read our forum guidelines (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0), the word "shit" is not prohibited. The only mention of inappropriate language is no
pointless cursing. Not no cursing period. Just no pointless cursing. If you'll notice there are thousands of examples of various 'curse words' across the forums that are not censored. Because we're (mostly) all adults here and can handle someone saying "shit".
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 01, 2012, 07:24:11 PM
I'm not sure which "pro-Mitt Romney" remark you're referring to though, since a quick little ctrl+F of the page doesn't turn up any other mention of the word "romney" apart from your post. So, no, it's not okay, because it's nonexistant.
It's in Hibby's sig. I say keep it; it tells noobs to ignore his posts.
We made the decision to allow a little more latitude within users' signatures (such as NE2's), provided that they're not attacking anyone on this forum or being blatantly assholic.
Ah, I tend to ignore signatures and so assumed he was talking about a post (which admittedly he did imply).
I have sent constructive criticism in an e-mail to the moderators. It's all boring internal stuff which they can post if they want, I'm not going to. The AARoads Forum is valuable, but this thread is a dead end.
Quote from: frank gifford on August 01, 2012, 10:46:22 PM
I have sent constructive criticism in an e-mail to the moderators. It's all boring internal stuff which they can post if they want, I'm not going to. The AARoads Forum is valuable, but this thread is a dead end.
a) No, you didn't, you may have sent it to one or two of us.
b) Stop wanking yourself. Threads are what you make of them. There's plenty of "non-roadgeek mistakes" posts in this thread.
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 29, 2012, 05:27:52 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 26, 2012, 11:48:01 AM
If NYC can start to wean itself off of freeway names (which are slowly disappearing as signs get replaced, at least on I-95 from what I saw with Google Street View), Boston can let go of MA 128.
Would that be the same NYC that has yet to wean itself off of Manhattan's Sixth Avenue or the 59th Street Bridge (the latter now on its second renaming)? And who says NYC is letting go of its freeway names? Just because signage changes doesn't mean that common usage does too.
I can't speak for any other set of urbanites, but the last thing a Bostonian is going to do is change what they call something just because there's a new sign with a different name on it. The stretch of road that was formerly MA128, between the I95/I93 junction in Canton and the "Braintree Split" is still called 128 by the locals, even though that usage was officially dropped in 1997. Even the author of 128's Wikipedia article admits that calling the entire Circumferential Highway 128 is "an established part of local culture." Likewise with I93 through downtown Boston. It's now officially the "Thomas P. O'Neill Tunnel," but to Bostonians it's either "the Artery" (excuse me, the "Ahtery") or "the Big Dig," even though construction has been done for years and the old Central Artery is long gone.
The MA 128 designation was removed from I-93 between Canton and Braintree in 1989, not 1997. And it's one thing for "Joe Public" to continue to refer to a road by an old designation. What's unacceptable is that professional traffic reporters continue to insist on using badly outdated designations to this day. Remember that the I-95 and I-93 designations were added to the highway between Peabody and Braintree in 1974. That's 38 years ago people - how many other outdated designations or corporate names are still in use 38 years after they've been changed?
Another post on this thread made reference to people referring to the Fleece - excuse me - FleetCenter as the "Garden", and calling the TD Garden the Fleet Center. While members of the public may have made those inaccurate references over the past few years, I have never heard that type of "mistake" uttered by a sports reporter or other member of the media.
The bottom line is that the Route 128 designation south of Peabody is an unnecessary overlap that only creates the potential for confusion. You can cite all sorts of reasons why people from the Boston area want to continue to use this outdated reference instead of the proper I-95 designation (in spite of the fact that the BGS panels, the exit numbers, and the mile markers ALL reference Interstate 95, not MA 128), but let's face the reality - it's just a route number folks. I doubt the world will fall off its axis if professional traffic reporters did their job and refereend to highways by their proper designations.
I take it you'd like traffic reporters nationwide to stop using deprecated freeway/bridge names too, right? Which means that here in Boston "the Expressway" has got to go, as do many of the named freeways and bridges in NYC and California and Chicagoland.
And I assume you'd also like traffic reporters to stop referring to interchanges by names that don't appear anywhere official or on maps, like Boston's "Braintree Split" (often just "the Split"), or various cities' spaghetti bowls or mixing bowls.
And finally I presume you'd like traffic reporters to stop abbreviating things. That certainly leads to motorist confusion. Like when someone in Boston hears that "the Expressway's jammed from the tunnel to Neponset" you would like them to specify that "93/3/1 southbound is backed up from the O'Neill Tunnel to the Neponset Valley Parkway", since non-locals wouldn't know what the expressway, the tunnel, or Neponset were.
In short, if you use a specific line of reasoning for one thing, you need to apply it universally.
Quote from: roadman on August 03, 2012, 09:58:20 AM
how many other outdated designations or corporate names are still in use 38 years after they've been changed?
the old surface street alignment of US-101 through the beach communities of northern San Diego County is still referred to as "the 101". There was a freeway bypass by the mid-50s, which was signed as I-5/US-101 until 1966. At that point, people figured the freeway could be "the 5" and the old road "the 101". It is technically San Diego County route S21, but various forms of "historic 101" signage outnumber the pentagons by about a 3:1 ratio at least, due to city interest and county apathy.
For your expressway example, 93 southbound would suffice. And yes, traffic reporters should cater to more than just lifelong locals. How is somebody who recently moved in supposed to know the local phrases? Someone who didn't live in Rochester growing up would have no way of knowing what the "can of worms" is (especially since it technically referrers to an interchange configuration that hasn't existed for as long as I've been alive), though they might be able to figure out "590 split" from context.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 03, 2012, 10:07:53 AM
I take it you'd like traffic reporters nationwide to stop using deprecated freeway/bridge names too, right? Which means that here in Boston "the Expressway" has got to go, as do many of the named freeways and bridges in NYC and California and Chicagoland.
And I assume you'd also like traffic reporters to stop referring to interchanges by names that don't appear anywhere official or on maps, like Boston's "Braintree Split" (often just "the Split"), or various cities' spaghetti bowls or mixing bowls.
And finally I presume you'd like traffic reporters to stop abbreviating things. That certainly leads to motorist confusion. Like when someone in Boston hears that "the Expressway's jammed from the tunnel to Neponset" you would like them to specify that "93/3/1 southbound is backed up from the O'Neill Tunnel to the Neponset Valley Parkway", since non-locals wouldn't know what the expressway, the tunnel, or Neponset were.
In short, if you use a specific line of reasoning for one thing, you need to apply it universally.
All excellent points, and well taken. But, had the local businesses and politicians not interferred with MassDPW in the first place when they started re-shielding signs 38 years ago, we wouldn't even be having this conversation now. And, unlike "Braintree spilt" or other local nicknames, referring to what are properly Interstate 93 and Interstate 95 as "Route 128", especially when that designation doesn't appear on any BGS or LGS panels (with the aforementioned exception of the recent Salem Street LGS errors in Wakefield), is a situation ripe for confusion. And, I've been personally told of cases where individuals ended up north of Peabody because (for example) somebody told them "you go up 128 to Exit 22", but was referring to an exit on the I-95 section, not the 128 section.
The reality is that times change, and traditions change. It happens in all aspects of life. And I reiterate, there is no LEGITIMATE justification to keep an unnecessary route designation that has been outdated for almost 40 years. As I stated in a previous post, the other 49 states don't seem to have any problems with changing US, state, and (ocassionally) Interstate designations for their roads - just look at the records of the AASHTO Special Committee On Route Numbering. Only Massachusetts citizens seem to be obsessed with such "important" government matters as not permitting route numbers to be changed, or insuring that they have a shot at obtaining a low-numbered license plate from the RMV.
While I understand your point, I still maintain that one single number on the length of Boston's beltway, rather than a mix of 93, 95, and 128 (with some 1 thrown in too), is a legitimate justification for keeping the number.
Remember when the states (mainly just Illinois I believe) wanted a single number for the Chicago-K.C. corridor? They created a state route number to overlay on the interstates.
Possibly an even better example would be the D.C. and Hampton Roads beltways. In D.C. just because I-95 was overlayed on half of it they didn't decommission I-495. And in Hampton Roads to try to eliminate motorist confusion VDOT added special beltway shields along the whole route, even though most of it is I-64 (though admittedly this was due more to issues with cardinal direction confusion).
Basically, the justification is that it is an accepted standard practice to try to give beltways one single number the whole way around, which should be even better of a reason for roads that don't have a NAME as a beltway (i.e. Atlanta's Perimeter, D.C.'s Capital Beltway, Ohio's Belts, N.C.'s Urban Loops), so that people have a unique name for that portion of the road. It's helpful to distinguish between the portions of I-95 and I-93 that aren't on the beltway and the portions that are. If you say "off 128" someone will instantly know it's off the beltway, rather than having to specify a more specific location, since it could then be anywhere in the eastern half of the state.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 03, 2012, 12:30:11 PM
Basically, the justification is that it is an accepted standard practice to try to give beltways one single number the whole way around, which should be even better of a reason for roads that don't have a NAME as a beltway (i.e. Atlanta's Perimeter, D.C.'s Capital Beltway, Ohio's Belts, N.C.'s Urban Loops), so that people have a unique name for that portion of the road. It's helpful to distinguish between the portions of I-95 and I-93 that aren't on the beltway and the portions that are. If you say "off 128" someone will instantly know it's off the beltway, rather than having to specify a more specific location, since it could then be anywhere in the eastern half of the state.
Be reminded that MassDPW's removal of the Route 128 designation between Canton and Braintree was required by AASHTO as a condition of their approval of the 1989 US 1 Dedham to Charlestown relocation. And MassHighway's subsequent removal of "128" from new BGS and LGS panels between Canton and Peabody starting in the early 1990s was required by FHWA as a condition of receiving Federal funding for the sign upgrading work.
So, if maintaining a single number for a beltway is indeed proper and right, I find it curious that both AASHTO and FHWA would issue route numbering mandates to a state DOT that are contrary to "accepted standard practice".
Now, if MassDOT were actually able to completely remove 128 south of Peabody, then how would the traffic reporters refer to the separate sections of I-95 and I-93?
That's easy. "I-95 lower end (RI Line to Canton)"; "I-95 middle section (Canton to Peabody)", "I-95 upper end (Peabody to NH Line)".
As for I-93: "I-93 lower end (Canton to Boston)"; "I-93 upper end (Boston to NH Line)".
But perhaps that would be too logical. Better to continue to use a reference that drivers won't see on any BGS or LGS signs, or even on the mile markers, right?!
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 03, 2012, 12:30:11 PMPossibly an even better example would be the D.C. and Hampton Roads beltways. In D.C. just because I-95 was overlayed on half of it they didn't decommission I-495. And in Hampton Roads to try to eliminate motorist confusion VDOT added special beltway shields along the whole route, even though most of it is I-64 (though admittedly this was due more to issues with cardinal direction confusion).
In the case of the Capital Beltway, the I-495 shields along the I-95 section
were originally taken down when the eastern-half of the Beltway received the I-95 designation in the mid-70s; Road maps of the era reflected the change as well. The I-495 shields reappeared on the eastern-half when VA adopted mileage-based exit numbering sometime during the late 80s/early 90s. Note: the VA segment of the Beltway east of I-95/395/495 didn't receive its current 3-digit exit numbers (conforming to those along the rest of I-95 in VA) until a decade after that change took effect. Prior to that, the mileage-based exit numbers along the VA section either started at the VA-MD border.
Nonetheless, since that road has commonly been referred to as
The Beltway or
Capital Beltway (aka its street name); it could either have 10 different route numbers or 10 changes to its route number but nobody besides the DOTs, engineers and roadgeeks would have noticed.
One does not have that situation along Greater Boston's Yankee Division Highway (aka Route 128). Had Bay Staters used its steet name (or its initals "YDH" like New Yorkers refer to their expressways); the route number changes would've went largely un-noticed. But due to several businesses (mostly car dealerships) naming their corporations and Amtrak/MBTA naming one train station after the highway route number (prior to most of the highway receiving its Interstate designations); it made shaking the 128 name a bit harder. While companies do change names; the reasoning behind it are usually due to legalities and/or the change being the result of an aquisition or merger. Changing a corporation name due to highway number change made by someone else (the state) does not have the legal urgency nor can the costs of those changes be written off.
The only exception to that would be area code changes; those changes forced companies to update their stationary letterhead and so forth. However, there's no business I'm aware of that is named after an area code.
The completion of the Peabody I-95/MA 128 interchange taking nearly a decade-and-a-half following the redesignations certainly didn't help with the phasing out of the 128 designation south of Peabody either. Only then, did the exit numbers along 128 undergo the change-over to the current sequential I-95 numbers.
It also didn't help when the DPW erected those blue
128 America's Technology Highway signs during the 1980s, when high-tech firms (like Raytheon) stated sprouting up near the highway. These BBS' were erected well after most of MA 128 was redesigated as I-95 & 93. The BBS' were later changed to read
America's Technology Region but that was done in response to complaints made by the Yankee Division Association; the organization in which the highway was actually named after. They thought the state took away their name from the highway (the DPW didn't).
Quote from: roadman on August 03, 2012, 01:52:17 PMNow, if MassDOT were actually able to completely remove 128 south of Peabody, then how would the traffic reporters refer to the separate sections of I-95 and I-93?
That's easy. "I-95 lower end (RI Line to Canton)"; "I-95 middle section (Canton to Peabody)", "I-95 upper end (Peabody to NH Line)".
As for I-93: "I-93 lower end (Canton to Boston)"; "I-93 upper end (Boston to NH Line)".
But perhaps that would be too logical. Better to continue to use a reference that drivers won't see on any BGS or LGS signs, or even on the mile markers, right?!
You're right and I agree with you; but it's going to be a challenge to get your average Joe Greater Boston to regularly refer to the Interstate segments of 128 as I-95 or I-93 given the above-mentioned items.
It is worth noting that it did not take too long for many to associate the Southeast Expressway and the Central Artery (when it existed) as I-93 even though news and traffic reporters still use the street names for those roads; but again, that was because the name had more staying power than the route number(s).
Let me add a historical note here - The original Route 128 station (it's been replaced "on-site" since) was actually built and named as "Route 128" by the New Haven Railroad in the mid-1950s. It was part of then-New Haven president Patrick McGinnis's attempt to introduce high-speed train service between Boston and New York City. The plan called for three-hour service between the new Route 128 station and a similar station to be constructed outside of New Rochelle (that station was never built).
Simply put, the plan turned out to be a huge disaster. Three prototype trains - all from different manufacturers, were placed into service. All proved horribly unreliable (one of the new trains actually caught fire on its press run, which thoroughly screwed up all trains leaving Grand Central Terminal during afternoon rush hour), and were generally unpopular with passengers (the ride was fast but horribly uncomfortable). So, the plan was offically cancelled - shortly after McGinnis was forced to resign from the New Haven (he also controlled the Boston and Maine at the same time, which the ICC had major issues with).
People around here refer to VA 288 as "I-288" on an alarmingly regular basis (whenever they don't just call it "288").
^ I'm one of those who just calls it 288, but I can see why people would think it's an interstate. It may as well be an x95.
Or I-366.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2012, 05:33:40 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 26, 2012, 03:22:54 PM
That might be the same reason for these - the interchange is one of the last on the 95/128 multiplex. I'm 95% certain that the sign at the southbound onramp has a 128 shield too though.
Back up a sec. Is the MA 128 shield you saw indeed on the paddle sign itself or mounted on the same post but below the paddle (in a trailblazer layout)? Given the history, (no 128 shields on ANY paddle signs in that area since the mid-70s); my guess would be that you likely saw the latter.
The below-photo from Google Earth (taken at the Salem St./Audubon Rd. intersection) proves otherwise... at least on approach to the I-95 South ramps:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.panoramio.com%2Fphotos%2Foriginal%2F10723175.jpg&hash=d716944da1d8e78a619c4d7da17017cbbe8e0678)
The only case where I've seen either a MA 128 shield (or text) on a LGS paddle post-1977 along Salem St. was further east at the US 1/MA 129 interchange (for US 1 North paddle signage) near the S. Lynnfield/Saugus border.
While the Salem St. (Exit 42) is near the I-95/MA 128 split (Exit 45), there are still 2 interchanges between them. I know that the paddle signs at Walnut St. have only I-95 on them (w/supplemental MA 128 trailblazers) and the BGS' at the US 1 interchange only has MA 128 shields on the BGS' for the northbound direction.
Why would MassDOT do the Salem St. interchange signs differently than the others nearby?
In contrast, the fore-mentioned Wyoma Square examples are located south (and slightly east) of the I-95/MA 128 split.
Update:As of this past Labor Day, that LGS in the earlier-Google Earth pic is still there. The LGS' that have MA 128 shields next to I-95 shields are at the following locations:
1. Entrance ramps for I-95 South at Audubon & Pleasure Island Roads, including one advance-LGS just before the overpass (to the left of that Google Earth pic but out of range).
2. Entrance ramp for I-95 North at Walnut St. (note: a nearby LGS w/only I-95 shields is also present).
3. Approach LGS' along Salem St. near Walnut St.
The above-mentioned LGS' all appear to be of the same vintage.
Note: the LGS at the I-95 Northbound entrance ramp at Salem St. only has I-95 shields on them. A supplemental LGS facing Montrose Ave. is a 1977-vintage LGS for I-95 South that lists,
TO SOUTH 95 BURLINGTON w/a right-arrow.
Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to take photos of the above.
I was watching Alice Season 1 (don't judge me) on DVD yesterday. The opening where they were coming from New Jersey to Phoenix is clearly EASTBOUND I-10.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 08, 2017, 09:35:47 AM
I was watching Alice Season 1 (don't judge me) on DVD yesterday. The opening where they were coming from New Jersey to Phoenix is clearly EASTBOUND I-10.
I remember watxhing that with my grandparents.. I loved the BGS in the beginning, same with "One Day at a Time" and the BGS showing 70 east
LGMS428
Quote from: Road Hog on July 23, 2012, 05:32:28 AM
I saw a business sign on Texas Highway 6 driving back from College Station this weekend. Had a U.S. 6 shield on it. :banghead: Would've taken a picture of it if I'd had my camera.
This is even somewhere within the Houston Metro Area
SM-N915T
I remember a map (it would have been either a phone book or AAA local map) referring to NJ 90 as I-90. This would have been 20 years ago. I'm pretty sure I-90 is prominent enough nationally that nobody thinks it goes through New Jersey.
Closer to the MA 128 example above, former NJ 24 (before the NJ 24 freeway was built in 1992) now carries various state and county designations, but is still popularly called "24" including by business names. See http://www.mendhamhealthclub.com/directions/ also http://www.delbarton.org/about/directions although that has many other oddities. No one uses C and S prefixes before numbers. I assume they mean C- to be county and S to be state, but "C-124" is a state route and "S-202" is a US route.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 08, 2017, 09:35:47 AM
I was watching Alice Season 1 (don't judge me) on DVD yesterday. The opening where they were coming from New Jersey to Phoenix is clearly EASTBOUND I-10.
Close. It's the I-19 terminus at I-10 in Tucson. The left-hand lanes proceed to 1-10 west to Phoenix. An exit lane on the right goes to I-10 east to El Paso. The interchange has since been widened and rebuilt, although the exit configuration is the same.
Apparently, if the opening credits were canon, Alice and her son took a detour to Nogales on the way west from Socorro.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on February 18, 2017, 10:42:54 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 08, 2017, 09:35:47 AM
I was watching Alice Season 1 (don't judge me) on DVD yesterday. The opening where they were coming from New Jersey to Phoenix is clearly EASTBOUND I-10.
Close. It's the I-19 terminus at I-10 in Tucson. The left-hand lanes proceed to 1-10 west to Phoenix. An exit lane on the right goes to I-10 east to El Paso. The interchange has since been widened and rebuilt, although the exit configuration is the same.
Apparently, if the opening credits were canon, Alice and her son took a detour to Nogales on the way west from Socorro.
Roads used in movies are done for the scene, background lighting etc not to be accurate.
The 1979 "Amityville Horror" was filmed around Ocean County NJ. There was a scene where she was driving frantically home she was crossing bridges that would have put her in circles and driving 20 miles out of the way.
And obviously it was not Long Island.
LGMS428
Quote from: US71 on July 22, 2012, 08:40:34 PM
I noticed on FourSquare that US 67 at Beebe, Arkansas was listed as I-67
This is insulting.
I once saw an advertisement on YouTube for a car dealer in Cape Girardeau, it showed a map with US 61 as SR 61, and I-55 as US 55. I nearly puked because of how bad it was.
Tx-87 is listed as US 87 in Galveston(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170314/42b2f0aebcbb5ca69a1f6baa05acd022.jpg)
There are also these mistakes in Valpak, and Money Mailer, where I-69/US 59 is labeled as I-59, and on TX-6 it says I-6.
Its just frustrating these design and marketing businesses don't get maps right, even though they are paied premium prices.