I recall reading here somewhere that there is/was a plan by MassDOT to extend the I-93 designation onto MA 24 down towards Fall River. The "wiki" also confirms this (though we all know the accuracy with that site). Just curious as to everyone's opinion on this, if it ever comes to pass, and what are the odds it will.
Personally, I think any I-93 extension south should be over MA 3 right down to the Cape Cod Canal.
And what would happen to the existing I-93 west of either exit to Canton, MA?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 21, 2012, 03:14:54 PM
And what would happen to the existing I-93 west of either exit to Canton, MA?
I-593. I've never liked how I-93 doglegs west to continue logically south. it would be much more acceptable if it headed south again along what is currently MA-24.
while we're at it, move US-1 back to its old VFW Pkwy alignment. goodness knows it's still copiously signed as such!
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 21, 2012, 03:14:54 PM
And what would happen to the existing I-93 west of either exit to Canton, MA?
Route 128.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 21, 2012, 03:10:43 PM
I recall reading here somewhere that there is/was a plan by MassDOT to extend the I-93 designation onto MA 24 down towards Fall River. The "wiki" also confirms this (though we all know the accuracy with that site). Just curious as to everyone's opinion on this, if it ever comes to pass, and what are the odds it will.
Personally, I think any I-93 extension south should be over MA 3 right down to the Cape Cod Canal.
Do you, by any chance, have a web-link for the above? I, personally, have never heard of such a proposal. The closest story/plan I know of to designate RI/MA 24 as an Interstate was one of the various (long dead) I-895 proposals that called for using RI/MA 24 (up to I-195 in Fall River) as a substitute alignment for the northern section of I-895.
Steve Anderson's Bostonroads site recommends extending I-93 along MA 3 to Sagamore and redesignating the old 128-section of I-93 as I-595.
Personally (and yes, I know this approaching 'Fictional Highways' territory) would redesignate all of RI/MA 24 as I-293 and MA 3 as I-393. And before somebody comments regarding I-93 presently not being in Rhode Island, let me remind everybody that I-87 doesn't go into NJ either yet, the majority of I-287 is in NJ.
Here's the link to the MA 24 page on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_24
Scroll down to the section "Possible upgrades to Interstate standards" and you'll find this interesting quote:
QuoteAccording to MassHighway, it will be an extension of I-93. The portion south of I-195 will remain MA-24 and then RI-24. There is no word on the designation of I-93/US-1 between exits 1 and 4.
Again, because it's Wiki, take it for what its worth but I thought it was interesting. Some link somewhere I stumbled upon yesterday led me to look up MA 24 on the wiki, though now I can't remember if it was a mention of this southern I-93 extension I saw on this site, or another.
Seems like a stupid decision to sign it as I-93. But remember back when the Maine interstates were being redesignated (c 2004?), the plan was to have I-495 signed from the Maine Turnpike, across the Falmouth Spur, and up the former I-95 route back to the turnpike, before "saner" heads prevailed and decided to eliminate confusion and just extend I-295 all the way up.
So perhaps by the time MA 24 is upgraded, MA 3 will be ready to receive I-93 shields. Seems like an easier match to me, given the ramp and roadway layout. That way, we can extend MA 128 back to the Braintree split. And if mile-based exits are the Mass craze by then, perhaps exit numbers for 128 wouldn't start at 1, but 19 instead. Why 19? Because the 95/128 interchange in Dedham is at ~ MP 26 and its 7 miles from there to the Braintree split. 128 can be prominent once again, have its exit numbers on par with 95, and US 1 gets rerouted back through Boston. Done and done.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 21, 2012, 06:21:32 PM
Scroll down to the section "Possible upgrades to Interstate standards" and you'll find this interesting quote:
QuoteAccording to MassHighway, it will be an extension of I-93. The portion south of I-195 will remain MA-24 and then RI-24. There is no word on the designation of I-93/US-1 between exits 1 and 4.
Again, because it's Wiki, take it for what its worth but I thought it was interesting.
There's a footnote with a dead link to "personal correspondence", and archive.org only has a 404 (http://web.archive.org/web/20110721190335/http://cacademy.info/alevitt/MHD.doc). Failure.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 21, 2012, 06:21:32 PMSo perhaps by the time MA 24 is upgraded, MA 3 will be ready to receive I-93 shields. Seems like an easier match to me, given the ramp and roadway layout. That way, we can extend MA 128 back to the Braintree split. And if mile-based exits are the Mass craze by then, perhaps exit numbers for 128 wouldn't start at 1, but 19 instead. Why 19? Because the 95/128 interchange in Dedham is at ~ MP 26 and its 7 miles from there to the Braintree split. 128 can be prominent once again, have its exit numbers on par with 95, and US 1 gets rerouted back through Boston. Done and done.
Actually the I-95/93 (US 1/MA 128) interchange is in
Canton not Dedham.
If I-93 was extended to follow MA 3 to Sagamore and MA 128 was re-established along the Canton-Braintree stretch (even w/US 1 piggy-backing); Exit 1 off 128 would either be at I-93 or MA 37 (if I-93 is set at Exit 0) and I-95 South in Canton would be Exit 7. From Canton to Peabody, the numbers would obviously follow I-95 (the MA 128 North in Peabody interchange is near MP 64). From Peabody to Gloucester, the exit numbers along MA 128 could either start at MP 45 (the fact that the current exit number is I-95's sequential Exit 45 is a just a coincidence) and increase or continue with the I-95 MP numbering (at 64) eastward. The latter would eliminate any confusion over someone saying
"Exit XX off 128" being at 2 different locations in the eyes of most locals.
Your suggestion of starting at Exit 19 in Braintree would work as well but w/mileage-based exit numbers it
could give the impression that 128 starts further south (it did at one time).
One problem w/the above would be the above set-up would mean that a 7-mile stretch of what was designated as an Interstate highway (in terms of funding) for decades would now no longer be eligible for any further Interstate funding. Yes, I'm aware that the old 90-10 federal/state funding for Interstates no longer applies; but I believe, there is still a distinction of how much federal funding percentage-wise exists for a state highway vs. an Interstate highway.
Yes, the Northeast Expressway and Tobin Bridge received a similar demotion back in the mid-70s (from I-95 to US 1) but that likely occurred when the Feds were a little more strict regarding how much Interstate mileage percentage-wise a state could have. One needs to remember that unbuilt Interstates outside of 128 like I-895, for example, were still in the MassDPW's master plan back then. The move to extend I-495 south of I-95 (the alignment between I-95 and MA 24 was originally planned to be an extension of MA 25) occurred after the I-895 proposal between I-95/295 and I-195 was ultimately killed off.
Nonetheless, I'm a bit surprised that the DPW didn't attempt to keep the Interstate designation for that road but just opt for a 3-di like I-193 perhaps.
That said, if MassDOT ever decided to extend I-93 either along MA 24 or MA 3 (would the MA 3 designation be also moved to the current MA 3A corridors aka 'old' MA 3?); the current I-93 segment from I-95 (3 miles to MA 24, 7 miles to MA 3) would just receive a 3di number (either I-595 per Steve Anderson's suggestion, 695, 193 or 293).
I say keep I-93 as it is and make MA 24 a spur (I-193, e.g.) from I-93 to I-195. However, this would require several costly upgrades that the MA DOT cannot afford. However, if a casino is built in Taunton off of Exit 12 on MA 24, there may be some forced upgrades occurring with the developers chipping in for traffic improvements. So maybe we will see this...one day...in the very FAR future.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 22, 2012, 11:42:46 AM
That said, if MassDOT ever decided to extend I-93 either along MA 24 or MA 3 (would the MA 3 designation be also moved to the current MA 3A corridors aka 'old' MA 3?); the current I-93 segment from I-95 (3 miles to MA 24, 7 miles to MA 3) would just receive a 3di number (either I-595 per Steve Anderson's suggestion, 695, 193 or 293).
In response to a Globe article in early 2004, MassHighway investigated several options for re-designating routes in the greater Boston area. The preferred alternative was to remove 128 entirely south of Peabody, truncate I-93 at the Braintree split, and re-designate the section between Canton and Braintree as I-595.
First, then-Governor Romney caved in to the "Keep Route 128 forever" contingent by making a public statement that the Route 128 designation would not be removed south of Peabody. Second, it's my understanding that, at the time, AASHTO indicated to MassHighway that they would not approve truncating I-93 in Braintree, even if the Canton to Braintree section was re-designated as I-595. So, the proposal was quietly scrapped. Which is probably a good thing, given how much more complex the signs in Canton would have to be (i.e. I-595 EAST To I-93 NORTH Boston).
Note that the MassDOT proposal to extend I-93 to Fall River (once the highway is upgraded to Interstate standards) is indeed correct. While it has been suggested by several people (mostly on blogs like this one) to extend I-93 to the
Bourne Bridge in Sagamore Sagamore Bridge in Bourne instead, AFAIK this option is not currently being considered by MassDOT.
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 11:47:07 AM
First, then-Governor Romney caved in to the "Keep Route 128 forever" contingent by making a public statement that the Route 128 designation would not be removed south of Peabody.
is there any other example anywhere else of people being so reluctant to accept a new route number? route 128 hasn't been that designation by itself for
forty years.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2012, 12:07:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 11:47:07 AM
First, then-Governor Romney caved in to the "Keep Route 128 forever" contingent by making a public statement that the Route 128 designation would not be removed south of Peabody.
is there any other example anywhere else of people being so reluctant to accept a new route number? route 128 hasn't been that designation by itself for forty years.
At last, somebody besides myself
finally gets it. Thank you agentsteel53.
The MA-128 designation needs to go. It still bothers me that people (namely the traffic reporters) refer to the de-commissioned portion from Canton to the Braintree split as MA-128. Let it go, people! Change can be a *good* thing!
Quote from: southshore720 on August 23, 2012, 01:36:26 PM
The MA-128 designation needs to go. It still bothers me that people (namely the traffic reporters) refer to the de-commissioned portion from Canton to the Braintree split as MA-128. Let it go, people! Change can be a *good* thing!
To quote Danny (the Las Vegas car guru on the History Channel) "Amen to that brother!" And, here's a question to consider. If Boston entertainment and news reporters continued to refer to the Comcast Center (local concert venue) as Great Woods (original name that's been superceded twice), how long do you think they would keep their jobs?
yawn
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 11:47:07 AMNote that the MassDOT proposal to extend I-93 to Fall River (once the highway is upgraded to Interstate standards) is indeed correct.
Wouldn't that
still complicate signage matters in Canton that you described earlier...
EAST 595 TO NORTH 93? It would also make I-595 one of the shortest Interstates out there.
IIRC, the whole point of extending the I-93 designation south of Boston to Canton in the first place back in the mid-70s was so that it could terminate at another 2-direction Interstate (I-95); I-90/Mass Pike only connected to the Artery/Expressway in one direction (to/from the west) until the Big Dig was finally completed.
If MA 24 is to be upgraded and designated as an Interstate; it should just get a 3di of its own (I-193, 293 or 393). If memory serves, there is already MA 193 out there, so 293 would be a logical choice if the designation extends in RI (thereby going
through Fall River) or 393 if the designation indeed stops at I-195
in Fall River. Heck, if the only areas along MA 24 that need upgrades are south of I-495; MassDOT could already designate MA 24 north of I-495 as a 3di.
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 11:47:07 AM
While it has been suggested by several people (mostly on blogs like this one) to extend I-93 to the Bourne Bridge in Sagamore instead, AFAIK this option is not currently being considered by MassDOT.
I think you have your Cape Cod bridges mixed up. MA 3 ends at US 6 near the
Sagamore Bridge. The Bourne Bridge carries MA 28 and the northern end of the bridge serves as the eastern terminus of MA 25.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 23, 2012, 05:32:25 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 11:47:07 AMNote that the MassDOT proposal to extend I-93 to Fall River (once the highway is upgraded to Interstate standards) is indeed correct.
Wouldn't that still complicate signage matters in Canton that you described earlier... EAST 595 TO NORTH 93? It would also make I-595 one of the shortest Interstates out there.
IIRC, the whole point of extending the I-93 designation south of Boston to Canton in the first place back in the mid-70s was so that it could terminate at another 2-direction Interstate (I-95); I-90/Mass Pike only connected to the Artery/Expressway in one direction (to/from the west) until the Big Dig was finally completed.
If MA 24 is to be upgraded and designated as an Interstate; it should just get a 3di of its own (I-193, 293 or 393). If memory serves, there is already MA 193 out there, so 293 would be a logical choice if the designation extends in RI (thereby going through Fall River) or 393 if the designation indeed stops at I-195 in Fall River. Heck, if the only areas along MA 24 that need upgrades are south of I-495; MassDOT could already designate MA 24 north of I-495 as a 3di.
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 11:47:07 AM
While it has been suggested by several people (mostly on blogs like this one) to extend I-93 to the Bourne Bridge in Sagamore instead, AFAIK this option is not currently being considered by MassDOT.
I think you have your Cape Cod bridges mixed up. MA 3 ends at US 6 near the Sagamore Bridge. The Bourne Bridge carries MA 28 and the northern end of the bridge serves as the eastern terminus of MA 25.
All excellent points PHLBOS. And you are correct about the original rationale regarding extending I-93 to I-95 in Canton.
Personally, what I would like to see happen is for MassDOT to "flip" the I-93 and I-95 designations between Canton and Woburn. For one thing, it would result in I-95 directly serving one of its major control cities (Boston). Then, when Route 24 is eventually upgraded to Interstate standards, you could give it a 3di designation based on I-95, not I-93 (say 795 or 895). That would be relatively easy to do when they eventually update the exit numbers on I-95 and I-93 to mileage-based (which is apparently scheduled to happen sometime within the next ten years).
And yes, I did get my Cape Cod bridges backwards (STSF - shouldn't type so fast). I've corrected my original post.
Quote from: roadman on August 24, 2012, 10:03:49 AMPersonally, what I would like to see happen is for MassDOT to "flip" the I-93 and I-95 designations between Canton and Woburn. For one thing, it would result in I-95 directly serving one of its major control cities (Boston). Then, when Route 24 is eventually upgraded to Interstate standards, you could give it a 3di designation based on I-95, not I-93 (say 795 or 895). That would be relatively easy to do when they eventually update the exit numbers on I-95 and I-93 to mileage-based (which is apparently scheduled to happen sometime within the next ten years).
Had high-speed fly-over ramps already existed at the Woburn interchange back in the 70s; that could've been a possibility (although I-93 might've been truncated at Woburn with MA 128 continuing to Canton).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 24, 2012, 02:35:40 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 24, 2012, 10:03:49 AMPersonally, what I would like to see happen is for MassDOT to "flip" the I-93 and I-95 designations between Canton and Woburn. For one thing, it would result in I-95 directly serving one of its major control cities (Boston). Then, when Route 24 is eventually upgraded to Interstate standards, you could give it a 3di designation based on I-95, not I-93 (say 795 or 895). That would be relatively easy to do when they eventually update the exit numbers on I-95 and I-93 to mileage-based (which is apparently scheduled to happen sometime within the next ten years).
Had high-speed fly-over ramps already existed at the Woburn interchange back in the 70s; that could've been a possibility (although I-93 might've been truncated at Woburn with MA 128 continuing to Canton).
Here's another logical option - truncate I-93 at I-95 in Woburn and make Woburn to Canton a child "loop" of I-95. I-895 perhaps - there are still too many people around who remember the controversy over the proposed I-695 inner belt, whereas I-895 never got off the drawing board.
Too bad the people at the Boston Globe have believed they know more about logical highway routing than MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT engineers do for the past thirty-seven years. Then Governor Mitt Romney's 2004 public announcement about keeping 128 south of Peabody was spurred by a Globe "128 should never die" editorial.
Not sure what you'd gain by either flipping I-93 and I-95 or truncating I-93 to Woburn. My suggestions would be to either
(A) Keep I-95 on its present route, extend I-93 down to the Sagamore Bridge, and former I-93 becomes an I-X95, or just 128.
(B) Same plans for I-93 as in (A), but I-95 would take I-93's present route from Canton to Braintree, then multiplex up to Charlestown, then a new Tobin Bridge/NE Expy alignment up to Revere, then build the rest of the NEX up to 128. 128/95 becomes solely 128 between Canton and Peabody. Maybe I-128... a la' I-238!
And what would I do with MA 24? Keep it as is. Does FR/NB need an interstate serving it? Don't they have one already? I-195?
I've been reading this thread with interest. Many good points. Was especially interested in reading about (then) MassHighway's designs to truncate I-93 in Braintree. Thought I'd share some of my views, for what it's worth.
I agree with the comments that MassDOT would probably not give up interstate mileage if I-93 was rerouted and they would redesignate the highway as a 3di, to keep the interstate mileage, rather than revert the road back to Route 128. My preference for a number, if this were to occur, would be I-695 in homage to the would be route number of the canceled Inner Belt highway.
My preference though would be that I-93 be kept were it is and any new interstate designation be through a 3di. I would prefer this happen to MA 3 to the Cape than MA 24. IMO MA 3 is a better candidate to be an interstate than MA 24, which largely parallels an existing interstate (I-95) and would, as has been pointed out, serve cities which already have an interstate (I-195). MA 3 is an important corridor that serves two important destinations, Plymouth and Cape Cod, which are not served directly by an interstate from Boston (if you can get (mostly) to the Cape on an Interstate from Providence, why not from Boston?). Also, though not an engineer, it would appear it would be less expensive to upgrade MA 3. MassDOT, or at least its predecessor agencies, seem to be fixated on a MA 24 interstate, despite several studies indicating its high cost, while apparently expressing little interest in the idea of one along MA 3. Politics or something else? If this was originally because back in the early 2000s they felt all 2di interstates had to end at another interstate, this should now not be a problem since I-90 ends at MA 1A. Besides, a trip along US 6 west would quickly get you to MA 25 and then I-195/495. MA 24 needs to be improved, but it doesn't have to be to interstate standards.
Another factor in my decision about I-93 staying where it is is the exit number situation. Unless an extension of I-93 along either MA 3 or MA 24 were to go on at the same time as the renumbering to a mileage based system, you would have to change all I-93 exit numbers north of the extension. This, would at least, make MassDOT more susceptible to complaints from the public, and perhaps another Globe editorial causing them to back down.
I'd like to see MA 3 become part of I-93. It does seem unlikely, as I'm sure it would be hard to justify any significant cost needed to upgrade to I standards.
But what I never understood is why MA 3 isn't part of US 3. Since everyone just calls the whole thing "Route 3" anyway, it makes sense to me for it to continue with a single (US) designation. With the number of MA 6, MA 7, MA 20, MA 202, etc. signs I've seen over the years, maybe it can be designated as US 3 at no cost, and all those white square 3's can be errors like the rest... Apologies if I am just dredging up an old topic.
Quote from: Jim on August 25, 2012, 01:16:40 PM
I'd like to see MA 3 become part of I-93. It does seem unlikely, as I'm sure it would be hard to justify any significant cost needed to upgrade to I standards.
But what I never understood is why MA 3 isn't part of US 3. Since everyone just calls the whole thing "Route 3" anyway, it makes sense to me for it to continue with a single (US) designation. With the number of MA 6, MA 7, MA 20, MA 202, etc. signs I've seen over the years, maybe it can be designated as US 3 at no cost, and all those white square 3's can be errors like the rest... Apologies if I am just dredging up an old topic.
That one's an oddity, because as long as there were US highways, US 3 ended in Boston and MA 3 continued to Cape Cod. Never was any thought given to bringing it down to US 6, which would have made a lot of sense. May have to ask someone retired from Mass DPW (if any are left).
Quote from: Steve on August 26, 2012, 12:07:10 AM
Quote from: Jim on August 25, 2012, 01:16:40 PM
I'd like to see MA 3 become part of I-93. It does seem unlikely, as I'm sure it would be hard to justify any significant cost needed to upgrade to I standards.
But what I never understood is why MA 3 isn't part of US 3. Since everyone just calls the whole thing "Route 3" anyway, it makes sense to me for it to continue with a single (US) designation. With the number of MA 6, MA 7, MA 20, MA 202, etc. signs I've seen over the years, maybe it can be designated as US 3 at no cost, and all those white square 3's can be errors like the rest... Apologies if I am just dredging up an old topic.
That one's an oddity, because as long as there were US highways, US 3 ended in Boston and MA 3 continued to Cape Cod. Never was any thought given to bringing it down to US 6, which would have made a lot of sense. May have to ask someone retired from Mass DPW (if any are left).
Guess on my part (and I stated similar in another thread), but DPW's reasoning for not continuing the US 3 designation to Cape Cod was probably due to their not wanting to have an odd US (1/2-di) route extend east of US 1. Seems a bit silly, especially since all of US 13 is located east of US 1 and much of US 17 in VA is located east of US 1 as well, but that seems to be the only possible explanation.
The location of the current US-MA 3 handoff in Cambridge dates back to when US 1 went along Memorial Drive (prior to 1971). When US 1 was moved to what was the old MA C1 corridor; the US 3 designation was never extended to reflect that despite the fact that the Boston segment of MA 3 was realigned to run along the Central Artery and
all of the Southeast Expressway. The old alignment of MA 3 was multiplexed w/the pre-1971 US 1 and then ran along the current MA 203 to the Expressway (current I-93) at Exits 11 & 12.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2012, 03:49:34 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 21, 2012, 03:10:43 PM
I recall reading here somewhere that there is/was a plan by MassDOT to extend the I-93 designation onto MA 24 down towards Fall River. The "wiki" also confirms this (though we all know the accuracy with that site). Just curious as to everyone's opinion on this, if it ever comes to pass, and what are the odds it will.
Personally, I think any I-93 extension south should be over MA 3 right down to the Cape Cod Canal.
Do you, by any chance, have a web-link for the above? I, personally, have never heard of such a proposal. The closest story/plan I know of to designate RI/MA 24 as an Interstate was one of the various (long dead) I-895 proposals that called for using RI/MA 24 (up to I-195 in Fall River) as a substitute alignment for the northern section of I-895.
This was from the current Wikipedia article on MA 24. This is referenced by a note indicating the information was obtained by a personal conversation with a (then) MassHighway official. The link is currently dead. I have exchanged e-mails with the person cited, though, so I would say the information was correct at that time. This was a couple years ago, however. I could see if I can dredge up my e-mails from a couple years ago and try to contact the guy again.
Off topic, but the subject of my e-mails was several old overhead signs at the Washington St on-ramp to I-93 in Braintree that were not replaced during the MA 3 sign replacement project. He said there had been problems with the soil where the new support posts would have been placed. He said the plan was to put new signs on the old sign supports and then work on putting in new supports once funds were found. However, nothing has been done at all, the old signs and structures are still there (along with a North 128 sign that he said would be removed 'immediately') and my e-mail was back in January 2010.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 27, 2012, 02:58:14 PM
Off topic, but the subject of my e-mails was several old overhead signs at the Washington St on-ramp to I-93 in Braintree that were not replaced during the MA 3 sign replacement project. He said there had been problems with the soil where the new support posts would have been placed. He said the plan was to put new signs on the old sign supports and then work on putting in new supports once funds were found. However, nothing has been done at all, the old signs and structures are still there (along with a North 128 sign that he said would be removed 'immediately') and my e-mail was back in January 2010.
Those oldies are certainly ugly! I always wondered why they were left out of the contract. And then there's the infamous "SOUTH TO 93, Dedham" sign which probably was supposed to read "SOUTH 93 TO 95, Dedham." Not to mention, Canton replaced Dedham as the control city on the MA 3 stretch of signage. Maybe they will be included in the I-93 replacement? (That's a whole separate thread.)
Quote from: southshore720 on August 22, 2012, 09:46:25 PM
I say keep I-93 as it is and make MA 24 a spur (I-193, e.g.) from I-93 to I-195. However, this would require several costly upgrades that the MA DOT cannot afford. However, if a casino is built in Taunton off of Exit 12 on MA 24, there may be some forced upgrades occurring with the developers chipping in for traffic improvements. So maybe we will see this...one day...in the very FAR future.
I've changed my mind...if I had my way I would continue the "I-193" mentioned above on the entire MA 24 alignment and have I-193 extend into RI and end at the current terminus with RI 114. Make it a true highway to Newport. Then federal funds could help pay for bridge maintenance instead of installing a toll on the Sakonnet River Bridge.
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 11:47:07 AM
...
First, then-Governor Romney caved in to the "Keep Route 128 forever" contingent by making a public statement that the Route 128 designation would not be removed south of Peabody.
...
Good news for I-93: Romney now favors eliminating Route 128 entirely :)
Quote from: Jim on August 25, 2012, 01:16:40 PM
I'd like to see MA 3 become part of I-93. It does seem unlikely, as I'm sure it would be hard to justify any significant cost needed to upgrade to I standards.
But what I never understood is why MA 3 isn't part of US 3. Since everyone just calls the whole thing "Route 3" anyway, it makes sense to me for it to continue with a single (US) designation. With the number of MA 6, MA 7, MA 20, MA 202, etc. signs I've seen over the years, maybe it can be designated as US 3 at no cost, and all those white square 3's can be errors like the rest... Apologies if I am just dredging up an old topic.
I, too, was under the impression that what is now MA 3 was once part of US 3. It's better to sign it as a single designation than break it into two. But I don't think the residents of Boston/Cape Cod would care, as long as it's Route 3.
As for I-93, I'm torn between whether it should extend to Cape Cod (via MA 3) or Fall River (via MA 24).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2012, 02:37:36 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 26, 2012, 12:07:10 AM
Quote from: Jim on August 25, 2012, 01:16:40 PM
I'd like to see MA 3 become part of I-93. It does seem unlikely, as I'm sure it would be hard to justify any significant cost needed to upgrade to I standards.
But what I never understood is why MA 3 isn't part of US 3. Since everyone just calls the whole thing "Route 3" anyway, it makes sense to me for it to continue with a single (US) designation. With the number of MA 6, MA 7, MA 20, MA 202, etc. signs I've seen over the years, maybe it can be designated as US 3 at no cost, and all those white square 3's can be errors like the rest... Apologies if I am just dredging up an old topic.
That one's an oddity, because as long as there were US highways, US 3 ended in Boston and MA 3 continued to Cape Cod. Never was any thought given to bringing it down to US 6, which would have made a lot of sense. May have to ask someone retired from Mass DPW (if any are left).
Guess on my part (and I stated similar in another thread), but DPW's reasoning for not continuing the US 3 designation to Cape Cod was probably due to their not wanting to have an odd US (1/2-di) route extend east of US 1. Seems a bit silly, especially since all of US 13 is located east of US 1 and much of US 17 in VA is located east of US 1 as well, but that seems to be the only possible explanation.
The location of the current US-MA 3 handoff in Cambridge dates back to when US 1 went along Memorial Drive (prior to 1971). When US 1 was moved to what was the old MA C1 corridor; the US 3 designation was never extended to reflect that despite the fact that the Boston segment of MA 3 was realigned to run along the Central Artery and all of the Southeast Expressway. The old alignment of MA 3 was multiplexed w/the pre-1971 US 1 and then ran along the current MA 203 to the Expressway (current I-93) at Exits 11 & 12.
Let's not forget US 6, which has higher-numbered routes north of it (US 20, for one). Also, US 44 and US 46 are well north of US 40. So, as seen from these examples, the US Highway Systems have been out of place long before the Interstates ever were.
Quote from: Henry on August 28, 2012, 10:46:06 AMQuote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2012, 02:37:36 PMGuess on my part (and I stated similar in another thread), but DPW's reasoning for not continuing the US 3 designation to Cape Cod was probably due to their not wanting to have an odd US (1/2-di) route extend east of US 1. Seems a bit silly, especially since all of US 13 is located east of US 1 and much of US 17 in VA is located east of US 1 as well, but that seems to be the only possible explanation.
Let's not forget US 6, which has higher-numbered routes north of it (US 20, for one). Also, US 44 and US 46 are well north of US 40. So, as seen from these examples, the US Highway Systems have been out of place long before the Interstates ever were.
Again, let me remind you that my earlier-posted reasoning was indeed listed as a
guess and I also stated that the reasoning seemed silly especially when there are other examples of US routes (be it even or odd) crossing each other, and hence, be somewhat out of sequence grid-wise for a bit; all when one considers US 13 in the Mid-Atlantic region.
I was just merely stating that the DPW
possibly did
not want another odd-numbered US route
in their state to continue
east of US 1; the lowest possible number on the US highway system.
Quote from: Jim on August 25, 2012, 01:16:40 PM
But what I never understood is why MA 3 isn't part of US 3. Since everyone just calls the whole thing "Route 3" anyway, it makes sense to me for it to continue with a single (US) designation.
Design standards are the reason. Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea. Had the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressway projects been completed, then Route 3 would have eventually been signed as a US route all the way from Tyngsborough to Cape Cod.
The only way that would happen now is if you re-located US 3 between Burlington and Boston from its present alignment to follow I-95 between Burlington and Woburn, and then follow I-93 from Woburn to Boston. You could then sign most of curretn US 3 as MA 3A.
Which might not be such a bad idea, were it not for the fact it would make the Woburn interchange even more of a cluster than it is already.
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2012, 03:34:37 PM
Design standards are the reason. Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea.
:confused: US 1 used those until about 1990. There's no reason US 3 couldn't have overlapped US 1 to JP and then followed Routes 203-3A-53-3A to Cape Cod, on what instead became State Route 3 in 1926-27.
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2012, 03:34:37 PM
Design standards are the reason. Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea. Had the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressway projects been completed, then Route 3 would have eventually been signed as a US route all the way from Tyngsborough to Cape Cod.
Everything in this paragraph is wrong.
Quote from: Steve on August 29, 2012, 12:33:23 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2012, 03:34:37 PM
Design standards are the reason. Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea. Had the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressway projects been completed, then Route 3 would have eventually been signed as a US route all the way from Tyngsborough to Cape Cod.
Everything in this paragraph is wrong.
I'm only repeating what MassDPW engineers told me when I first posed the question "why two Route 3s" to them in 1984. Since that time, I've done some further research and still have yet to find anything that contradicts those statements.
Now, if you have actual evidence to the contrary, perhaps you could share it with us.
Quote from: roadman on August 29, 2012, 09:27:30 AM
Now, if you have actual evidence to the contrary, perhaps you could share it with us.
Perhaps I already did.
Quote from: roadman on August 29, 2012, 09:27:30 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 29, 2012, 12:33:23 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2012, 03:34:37 PM
Design standards are the reason. Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea. Had the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressway projects been completed, then Route 3 would have eventually been signed as a US route all the way from Tyngsborough to Cape Cod.
Everything in this paragraph is wrong.
I'm only repeating what MassDPW engineers told me when I first posed the question "why two Route 3s" to them in 1984. Since that time, I've done some further research and still have yet to find anything that contradicts those statements.
I have no reason to doubt that that's what they told you, but do they really have higher design standards for US routes than state routes? Are there no tight curves and low clearances on the rest of the US highways in Massachusetts?
Quote from: Jim on August 29, 2012, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 29, 2012, 09:27:30 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 29, 2012, 12:33:23 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2012, 03:34:37 PM
Design standards are the reason. Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea. Had the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressway projects been completed, then Route 3 would have eventually been signed as a US route all the way from Tyngsborough to Cape Cod.
Everything in this paragraph is wrong.
I'm only repeating what MassDPW engineers told me when I first posed the question "why two Route 3s" to them in 1984. Since that time, I've done some further research and still have yet to find anything that contradicts those statements.
I have no reason to doubt that that's what they told you, but do they really have higher design standards for US routes than state routes? Are there no tight curves and low clearances on the rest of the US highways in Massachusetts?
Currently, for a state to designate a highway a US route it must submit plans to AASHTO indicating it follows that organization's established design standards among other things. It is probable there were established standards in the 1920s that MA officials thought Route 3 east of US 1 might not meet when applying for the first US routes.
I agree that if you wanted to establish US 3 all the way to Cape Cod today, you would need for the highway to follow freeways. I don't believe altering the US route would lead to too much of a traffic increase. I doubt people living in the Nashua area, for example, follow US 3's routing all the way, they probably already use I-95 in Burlington to go north to I-93 or south following '128' all the way to Braintree. If routing it down I-93 would cause problems given the current Woburn interchange, why not route it down I-95 south then I-93 to Braintree. Yes, this would create another wrong-way concurrency from Canton to the Split, but it would be only about 1 mile longer than if US 3 was routed the wrong way from Burlington to Woburn.
Either of these plans would also affect the routing of MA 3A. I wouldn't route it over 3's old routes. Most of them currently are concurrent with other routes, or the highway they are on are known more by name (Mem Drive). For the I-93 option, just end it where it is now in Burlington. For the '128' option perhaps it the northern route could just get on I-95 and end at the US 3 exit. For the southern portion, route it over the new Quincy Concourse route between existing MA 3A and the Burgin Parkway/Washington St exit in Braintree. MA 53 could be extended to cover the old 3A route north to Neponset Circle.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 30, 2012, 03:47:45 PM
Currently, for a state to designate a highway a US route it must submit plans to AASHTO indicating it follows that organization's established design standards among other things. It is probable there were established standards in the 1920s that MA officials thought Route 3 east of US 1 might not meet when applying for the first US routes.
Given some of the other U.S. Highways in the 1920s and on (Ridge Route on US 99, La Bajada Hill on US 66, US 2 being ferried across Glacier National Park on the railroad), it's probable that there were no minimum standards. Certainly nothing that the Boston parkways didn't meet (remember, US 1 used those same parkways until about 1990, and US 3 still does at its south end).
http://www.schlichtman.org/mahighways/bosmap37.gif
Quote from: NE2 on August 30, 2012, 03:56:37 PMUS 2 being ferried across Glacier National Park on the railroad
really? I had heard that the railroad segment of US-2 was between Williston, ND and Shelby, MT. (US-85 to US-91, basically)
but I cannot remember where I read that.
do you have a citation for Glacier being the railcar ferry segment? I'd love to know for sure.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2012, 04:22:13 PM
do you have a citation for Glacier being the railcar ferry segment? I'd love to know for sure.
http://www.broermapsonline.org/members/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/NorthernRockies/Montana/unitedstates1926ra_068.html
thanks!
and now I know.
interesting to note that Montana did not have a state route system in 1926.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2012, 07:23:54 PM
interesting to note that Montana did not have a state route system in 1926.
Neither did:
Delaware
California (signed)
Maryland
Idaho (they had lettered routes (http://www.us-highways.com/idaho/sampson.htm) that were apparently not assigned by the state)
Arizona
Alaska
Hawaii
Moon Base
and probably a few more states.
add Oregon to that list.
Moon Base had moon routes that were in a numeral system of their own devising.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
add Oregon to that list.
Right. (Like California they had an unsigned system but nothing signed yet.)
...Moon Base?
Bringing this thread back to Rte 24...here's a recent article about the safety conditions on the highway:
http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x1681146184/Accidents-fatalities-on-Route-24-up-in-2010