From the MassDOT blog:
November 13, 2012
Randolph to Westwood: I-93/I-95 New Lane to Open
Beginning at 5:00 AM tomorrow morning, Wednesday, November 14 through Friday, November 16, construction crews will open portions of the newly constructed fourth travel lane on the section of interstate roadway between Randolph and Westwood.
The work is part of a $53.7 million project to widen a 5.5 mile section of Route I-93/Route I-95/Route 128 between Randolph and Westwood to provide an additional travel lane in each direction.
The 5.5 mile project extends from Randolph on I-93 at the interchange with Route 24 (Exit 4) west, toward Canton Junction where I-93 ends and the roadway becomes I-95, continuing along I-95 to Route 109 (Exit 16) in Westwood.
The new travel lane opening schedule follows:
I-93 North between I-95 (Exit 1) in Canton and Route 24 (Exit 4) in Randolph will open tomorrow at 5:00 AM, Wednesday, November 14.
I-95 South between University Avenue (Exit 13) and I-93 North (Exit 12) in Canton will open at 5:00 AM on Thursday, November 15.
I-95 South between a point just south of Route 109 (Exit 16) and University Avenue (Exit 13) will open at 5:00 AM on Friday, November 16th. The above schedule is subject to change in case of inclement weather.
With the opening of the new fourth travel lane, authorized use of the breakdown lane for travel during weekday peak commuting periods will be discontinued within those segments.
Drivers should use extreme caution and pay particular attention to posted warning and regulatory signs when travelling within the above segments.
I like the reference to Canton Junction, which is NOT the location of the southern I-95/I-93 interchange. Rather, it's a railroad station near the Canton/Norwood/Stoughton line and well south of the highway interchange.
Thanks for the update
If I'm reading this correctly; the I-93/95 segments in question will now have 8 lanes rather than 6. Such practice of allowing travel in the breakdown lane/shoulder during rush hours had been permitted along this stretch of road since the 1980s.
Are there any plans to widen I-95 from MA 109 (Exit 16A-B) to MA 9 (Exit 20A-B) in the foreseeable future? That's the only stretch of Yankee Division Highway (128) south of the Pike (I-90) that will still be only 6 lanes.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 15, 2012, 03:59:03 PM
If I'm reading this correctly; the I-93/95 segments in question will now have 8 lanes rather than 6. Such practice of allowing travel in the breakdown lane/shoulder during rush hours had been permitted along this stretch of road since the 1980s.
Are there any plans to widen I-95 from MA 109 (Exit 16A-B) to MA 9 (Exit 20A-B) in the foreseeable future? That's the only stretch of Yankee Division Highway (128) south of the Pike (I-90) that will still be only 6 lanes.
That project, which is referred to as the Needham to Wellesley section and is the last portion of the "Add-A-Lane" project, is in final design and tenatively scheduled to be advertised for bids in early to mid 2013. Besides widening the I-95 mainline to 8 lanes, the work under this section will include constructing a new interchange at Kendrick Street and reconfiguring the interchanges at Route 9 and Highland Avenue.
For the record, peak-hour breakdown lane travel between Randolph and Wellesley began in late 1984.
Quote from: roadman on November 15, 2012, 04:09:57 PMBesides widening the I-95 mainline to 8 lanes, the work under this section will include constructing a new interchange at Kendrick Street and reconfiguring the interchanges at Route 9 and Highland Avenue.
At present, the MA 9 & Highland Ave. interchanges are full cloverleafs; how will those be reconfigured? I hope MassDOT isn't planning to turn those into diamond interchanges w/signals; that would be a very big mistake IMHO... especially along MA 9. Added Collector-distributor lanes along I-95, MA 9 and even Highland Ave. to the existing cloverleafs would be the way to go.
Will the new interchange at Kendrick St. be a full interchange or a partial interchange movementwise?
Additionally, will it be completed either during or after I-95's exit numbers changeover to mileage-based?
I'm assuming that it will be Exit 34 mileage-based (18A sequential).
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 15, 2012, 04:28:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 15, 2012, 04:09:57 PMBesides widening the I-95 mainline to 8 lanes, the work under this section will include constructing a new interchange at Kendrick Street and reconfiguring the interchanges at Route 9 and Highland Avenue.
Will the new interchange at Kendrick St. be a full interchange or a partial interchange movementwise?
At present, the MA 9 & Highland Ave. interchanges are full cloverleafs; how will those be reconfigured? I hope MassDOT isn't planning to turn those into diamond interchanges w/signals; that would be a very big mistake IMHO... especially along MA 9. Added Collector-distributor lanes along I-95, MA 9 and even Highland Ave. to the existing cloverleafs would be the way to go.
Additionally, will it be completed either during or after I-95's exit numbers changeover to mileage-based?
I'm assuming that it will be Exit 34 mileage-based (18A sequential).
Route 9 will be turned into a partial cloverleaf with signals on Route 9 for entry to I-95. However, I-95 mainline access to Route 9 will remain as separate off-ramps for each direction of Route 9. Highland Avenue will remain a cloverleaf, except that it will be served by C/D roads instead of the I-95 mainline - the SB C/D road will also serve Kendrick Street.
The new Kendrick Street interchange will have full access to I-95 south, and partial access to I-95 north (from Kendrick Street westbound only. If you look at the design plans, you'll understand why.
75% design plans and other information can be found at: http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/128_95_addLane&sid=about
As far as exit numbering, the new numbers will be sequential (Kendrick Street will be Exit 19A and Highland Ave will become Exits 19B-C), but the tabs will be designed to allow future conversion to reference-based numbers. MassDOT's re-numbering plan is to wait until all signs within a specific corridor are updated, and then convert numbers on a route-by-route basis over the next ten years or so.
Thanks for the info. It's interesting that MassDOT is planning to shift the southbound mainline lanes further away from the northbound mainline.
Nonetheless, I still think that converting the full cloverleaf MA 9 interchange to a partial one w/signals is major mistake given the traffic volumes along MA 9. Even if the MA 9 viaduct over under I-95 is widened to carry 2 addtional left-turn lanes; I can still see the possibility of traffic backing up onto the MA 9 through lanes during rush and/or heavy shopping hours.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 16, 2012, 08:52:27 AM
Thanks for the info. It's interesting that MassDOT is planning to shift the southbound mainline lanes further away from the northbound mainline.
Nonetheless, I still think that converting the full cloverleaf MA 9 interchange to a partial one w/signals is major mistake given the traffic volumes along MA 9. Even if the MA 9 viaduct over I-95 is widened to carry 2 addtional left-turn lanes; I can still see the possibility of traffic backing up onto the MA 9 through lanes during rush and/or heavy shopping hours.
One clarification, MA 9 goes under I-95, not over. That will not change under the new configuration.
Quote from: roadman on November 16, 2012, 10:06:26 AMOne clarification, MA 9 goes under I-95, not over. That will not change under the new configuration.
Brain freeze on that one. I've since corrected my original post. It was never my intent to insinuate that the over/under crossing would be reversed.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 16, 2012, 11:49:52 AM
Brain freeze on that one. I've since corrected my original post. It was never my intent to insinuate that the over/under crossing would be reversed.
[/quote]
No problem. Brain freezes happen.
It appears the fourth lane heading the other way, between Randolph and Westwood is opening this week. Driving on I-93/US 1 South by the MA 24 exit on Saturday there was a VMS indicating breakdown lane travel will no longer be permitted as of this Friday, 11/30. Assuming the same staggered opening schedule as in the other direction, they may have the new lane open on I-95 north of the I-93 interchange Wednesday morning (weather permitting). They still need to reconfigure the lanes near MA 138 for all lanes to be open from MA 24 to I-95.
Updated info from the MassDOT blog regarding opening the forth lane in the other direction:
MassDOT construction crews this week will open the remaining sections of the new 4th travel lane on I-93 and I-95 between Randolph and Westwood.
The work is part of a $53.7 million project to widen a 5.5 mile section of Route I-93/Route I-95/ Route 128 between Randolph and Westwood to provide an additional travel lane in each direction.
The project stretches from Randolph on I-93 at the interchange with Route 24 (Exit 4), west toward Canton Junction where I-93 ends and becomes I-95 (Route 128), and continues along I-95 to Route 109 (Exit 16) in Westwood.
This week's new travel lane scheduled openings are listed below:
I-95 (Route 128) North between East Street (Exit 14) and just south of Route 109 (Exit 16) will open at 5:00 AM on Tuesday, November 27th.
I-95 (Route 128) North between the point where the on ramp from I-95 North ties in and East Street (Exit 14) will open at 5:00 AM on Wednesday, November 28th.
I-93 South between Route 138 (Exit 2) and the point where I-95 (Route 128) North begins will open at 5:00 AM on Thursday, November 29th.
I-93 South between Ponkapoag Trail (Exit 3) and Route 138 (Exit 2) will open at 5:00 AM on Friday, November 30th.
I-93 South between Route 24 (Exit 4) and Ponkapoag Trail (Exit 3) will open at 5:00 AM on Saturday, December 1st.
The schedule is subject to change if inclement weather occurs and delays the completion of required work items.
With the opening of the new fourth travel lane, the authorized use of the breakdown lane for travel during weekday peak commuting periods will be discontinued to enhance driver safety and provide emergency vehicle access.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 16, 2012, 08:52:27 AMNonetheless, I still think that converting the full cloverleaf MA 9 interchange to a partial one w/signals is major mistake given the traffic volumes along MA 9. Even if the MA 9 viaduct under I-95 is widened to carry 2 addtional left-turn lanes; I can still see the possibility of traffic backing up onto the MA 9 through lanes during rush and/or heavy shopping hours.
Sidebar to the above: While heading eastbound along MA 9 last Friday night, I noticed one BGS that MassDPW/Highway/DOT never replaced; the one-mile advance BGS for MA 128 (I-95). It's still the old early-to-mid 70s-vintage that predates the I-95 designation. It reads
128 Dedham Gloucester EXIT 1 MI.. This particular BGS is not in the best condition; it's still in better shape than the much-discussed early-80s vintage I-95 North pull-through BGS at MA 2A.
Although it was late at night when I passed through this interchange; I have to wonder what the MassDOT traffic engineers were thinking with regards to the proposed plans to remove the two MA 9 to I-95 cloverleaf ramps in favor of left-turn movements w/traffic signals. Did they ever drive this road? Is there still time to modify the plans to keep the interchange as a full cloverleaf while still widening I-95?
Is the sign you're referring to similar to this outdated monstrosity?
http://goo.gl/maps/h5pMv
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 26, 2012, 01:12:12 PM
Is the sign you're referring to similar to this outdated monstrosity?
http://goo.gl/maps/h5pMv
In type & vintage, yes; the actual BGS (& its condition) I saw, no. In case, you don't already know, that particular BGS along MA 9 East is now long gone/replaced.
Interestingly, the all the other approach BGS' along MA 9 seem to be newer than the actual interchange BGS' (the latter feature button-copy I-95 numerals in the shields which are of 90s-vintage). Even more odd is the selection of local/closer control cities for the interchange BGS';
Peabody for I-95 North/
Canton for I-95 South rather than the more logical
Waltham for I-95 North and
Dedham for I-95 South.
Taking your Google Maps post and moving it back a bit; one sees the BGS in question (in its better days circa 2008).
Note: I was able to move the view back, but I was not able to set the link up to "stay" in postion (showing the 1 mile advance BGS).
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:23:41 AM
I-95 (Route 128) North between the point where the on ramp from I-95 North ties in and East Street (Exit 14) will open at 5:00 AM on Wednesday, November 28th.
THE RIGHT WAY TO LABEL 95 AND 128 FOR THE LOCALS AND VISITORS/ROADGEEKS, FOR ONCE!
If you listen to ANY Boston radio/TV traffic report you will hear what I mean. They go on and on with "128", "128", "128", blah, blah, blah, no 95's or 93's unless it's up in the Merrimack Valley (luckily where I live) which they RARELY cover. 128 got the lower designation YEARS ago when 93 and 95 came along. The signs have said 95 and 93 for years too and people STILL call it 128?? And plus I still wonder why they (locals/reporters) still use 128 for parts of 93 which was dropped as an alternate designation years ago by MassHighway/MassDOT. With the big 93/95 signs up there for years I wonder why they still have not stopped calling it 128. I think MassDOT should slowly drop the 128 designation from 95.
Traffic-reporting wise, yes, they should refer to it as I-93 and I-95, especially on the portion from Braintree to Dedham. (the 2013 Rand McN atlas finally removed the 128 designation from said section, btw).
Personally, I think 128 should live on with I-95.... but in order to satisfy both the "tourists" and the locals, I'd prominently put Route 128 on all guide signs which feature I-95 shields. Not stand-alone signs, but on the primary sign. That way, they both get prominence.
The reason 95 and 128 shields don't appear together on BGS panels any more is because, about 1990, FHWA made removal of the '128' designation from signs a requirement for obtaining Federal money to replace the signs (and despite some erroneous LGS panels on recent - and privately designed and funded - projects that have both shields, the requirement is still in effect). The addition of independent route assemblies at on-ramps and on the mainline was a compromise FHWA reluctantly agreed to in order to stave off a war between MassHighway, the Legislature, and the business community.
One of these days, I suspect FHWA is eventually going to mandate that the independent assemblies be removed as well, unless MassDOT actually decides to do it first. IMO, converting the exit numbers along I-95 to mileage-based would be the perfect time to eliminate the 128 designation south of Peabody once and for all.
Unless (and I hope this doesn't happen, but part of me feels it's inevitable) there's a big wreck in the meantime resulting in fatalities because the responders went to - say - "Route 128 Exit 25" in Peabody instead of "Route 128 Exit 25" in Weston - thus forcing the change earlier due to the indignant outroar from the same Legislature that's thwarted the change in the past. I've heard rumors from reliable sources that this type of confusion has already happened on ocassion with AAA dispatchers sending tow trucks to the wrong breakdowns.
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
The reason 95 and 128 shields don't appear together on BGS panels anymore is because, about 1990, FHWA made removal of the '128' designation a requirement for obtaining Federal money to replace the signs (the requirement is still in effect).
I've heard this said many times, but it has the feel of an urban legend. On the other hand, it would explain why US 1 and Route 3 are missing from most guide signs on I-93. If so, it's a horrible precedent.
Quote from: NE2 on November 26, 2012, 08:19:43 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
The reason 95 and 128 shields don't appear together on BGS panels anymore is because, about 1990, FHWA made removal of the '128' designation a requirement for obtaining Federal money to replace the signs (the requirement is still in effect).
I've heard this said many times, but it has the feel of an urban legend. On the other hand, it would explain why US 1 and Route 3 are missing from most guide signs on I-93. If so, it's a horrible precedent.
A then MassHighway official explained the lack of US 1 and/or MA 3 shields put up on some of the newer guide signs along I-93 from Boston south was that, when these signs were designed, the MA guide sign policy stated that only the most significant route should be displayed in the case of a 2 or more route concurrency, and the interstate route, by definition, is always the most significant. A few years ago, however, the policy was relaxed so that two shields could be put up. This allows for I-93 and US 1 shields to be put up on new overhead signs, such as with the new signs in Canton and Randolph. When new overheads are put up at the junction with MA 3, Exit 7 NB, the plan is to add North MA 3 signs to the support poles. This is what was done for the South MA 3 signs along US 1 as it is merging with I-93 in Charlestown.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 26, 2012, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 26, 2012, 08:19:43 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
The reason 95 and 128 shields don't appear together on BGS panels anymore is because, about 1990, FHWA made removal of the '128' designation a requirement for obtaining Federal money to replace the signs (the requirement is still in effect).
I've heard this said many times, but it has the feel of an urban legend. On the other hand, it would explain why US 1 and Route 3 are missing from most guide signs on I-93. If so, it's a horrible precedent.
A then MassHighway official explained the lack of US 1 and/or MA 3 shields put up on some of the newer guide signs along I-93 from Boston south was that, when these signs were designed, the MA guide sign policy stated that only the most significant route should be displayed in the case of a 2 or more route concurrency, and the interstate route, by definition, is always the most significant. A few years ago, however, the policy was relaxed so that two shields could be put up. This allows for I-93 and US 1 shields to be put up on new overhead signs, such as with the new signs in Canton and Randolph. When new overheads are put up at the junction with MA 3, Exit 7 NB, the plan is to add North MA 3 signs to the support poles. This is what was done for the South MA 3 signs along US 1 as it is merging with I-93 in Charlestown.
Well Massachusetts is dumb, but that's hardly news. All routes should be displayed.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 26, 2012, 05:27:07 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:23:41 AM
I-95 (Route 128) North between the point where the on ramp from I-95 North ties in and East Street (Exit 14) will open at 5:00 AM on Wednesday, November 28th.
THE RIGHT WAY TO LABEL 95 AND 128 FOR THE LOCALS AND VISITORS/ROADGEEKS, FOR ONCE!
If you listen to ANY Boston radio/TV traffic report you will hear what I mean. They go on and on with "128", "128", "128", blah, blah, blah, no 95's or 93's unless it's up in the Merrimack Valley (luckily where I live) which they RARELY cover. 128 got the lower designation YEARS ago when 93 and 95 came along. The signs have said 95 and 93 for years too and people STILL call it 128?? And plus I still wonder why they (locals/reporters) still use 128 for parts of 93 which was dropped as an alternate designation years ago by MassHighway/MassDOT. With the big 93/95 signs up there for years I wonder why they still have not stopped calling it 128. I think MassDOT should slowly drop the 128 designation from 95.
The Boston.com traffic blogger has translated the MassDOT press release above regarding lane openings into Boston traffic 'reporterese' (without references to I-93 or I-95). You can take a look for yourself through this link:
http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/2012/11/even_more_lanes_on_128_and_haverhill_line_hangups.html (http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/2012/11/even_more_lanes_on_128_and_haverhill_line_hangups.html)
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 26, 2012, 02:57:16 PM
Taking your Google Maps post and moving it back a bit; one sees the BGS in question (in its better days circa 2008).
Note: I was able to move the view back, but I was not able to set the link up to "stay" in postion (showing the 1 mile advance BGS).
Steve's MA 9 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/ma_9/e.html) has a pic of the sign you're talking about.
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
Unless (and I hope this doesn't happen, but part of me feels it's inevitable) there's a big wreck in the meantime resulting in fatalities because the responders went to - say - "Route 128 Exit 25" in Peabody instead of "Route 128 Exit 25" in Weston...
Doubtful. State Police would be responding from two different regions, Troop A for Peabody (station A-6 in Danvers) and Troop H for Weston (station H-2 in Framingham). There would be no logical reason to send someone from A-6 to Weston or H-2 to Peabody. Fire department and ambulance response would be from the nearest towns.
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
Unless (and I hope this doesn't happen, but part of me feels it's inevitable) there's a big wreck in the meantime resulting in fatalities because the responders went to - say - "Route 128 Exit 25" in Peabody instead of "Route 128 Exit 25" in Weston...
Additionally, Massachusetts is not New Jersey nor Connecticut. Accidents/traffic jams near or at an interchange is practically
never mentioned by exit number by reporters/newscasters/etc. Typically, the reference is given by the street name or route number.
The fore-mentioned Exit 25 in Peabody & Weston examples is normally mentioned as
Route 128 at (Route) 114 for the former and
Route 128 at the Pike (or Mass Pike) for the latter.
In the case of the US 1, US/MA 3 & MA 28 crossings; the town location is given as well...
Route 1 in Peabody or Dedham, Route 3 in Burlington or Braintree and
Route 28 in Reading or Randolph. Yes, I'm aware that the southerly MA 3 & MA 28 interchanges (Braintree & Randolph) are w/I-93 that was stripped of its MA 128 identity shields over 2 decades ago.
The only time, I've ever heard or seen exit number references given (outside of MapQuest or GPS directions) are in written and televised business advertisements. Some car dealers do indeed include I-95 or I-93 references in their newspaper advertisements; although, for obvious reasons, the
128 dealership enterprises in Wakefield still do not. IIRC,
Dave Dinger Ford in Braintree was one of the first dealerships to list their directions as
Exit 6 off I-93 back in the late 80s.
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 26, 2012, 11:04:32 PM
Steve's MA 9 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/ma_9/e.html) has a pic of the sign you're talking about.
Thanks for the link. I didn't have time to search over there when I'm posting.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 26, 2012, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 26, 2012, 08:19:43 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
The reason 95 and 128 shields don't appear together on BGS panels anymore is because, about 1990, FHWA made removal of the '128' designation a requirement for obtaining Federal money to replace the signs (the requirement is still in effect).
I've heard this said many times, but it has the feel of an urban legend. On the other hand, it would explain why US 1 and Route 3 are missing from most guide signs on I-93. If so, it's a horrible precedent.
A then MassHighway official explained the lack of US 1 and/or MA 3 shields put up on some of the newer guide signs along I-93 from Boston south was that, when these signs were designed, the MA guide sign policy stated that only the most significant route should be displayed in the case of a 2 or more route concurrency, and the interstate route, by definition, is always the most significant. A few years ago, however, the policy was relaxed so that two shields could be put up. This allows for I-93 and US 1 shields to be put up on new overhead signs, such as with the new signs in Canton and Randolph. When new overheads are put up at the junction with MA 3, Exit 7 NB, the plan is to add North MA 3 signs to the support poles. This is what was done for the South MA 3 signs along US 1 as it is merging with I-93 in Charlestown.
Typically, the only places where additional (lower-level) route shields along a multiplexed are displayed on BGS' are at locations where at least one of the routes veer off the corridor. The US 1 shields along the I-95 North & I-93 South BGS' at the Canton interchange (along the Yankee Division Highway stretch only) are only there because the corridor changes its major (Interstate) route number there.
At the US 1 interchange in Dedham, there's an I-95 Southbound pull-through BGS that has a US 1 shield in it as well because this location is where US 1 South veers off the Yankee Divsion Highway and back onto its own corridor (VFW Highway/Providence Turnpike).
Similar scenarios exist along the O'Neill Tunnel & north of the Zakim Bridge where MA 3 and US 1 exit off I-93.
One could also include the Braintree Split (I-93/US 1/MA 3) in that mix as well.
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2012, 09:52:40 PM
Well Massachusetts is dumb, but that's hardly news. All routes should be displayed.
Massachusetts isn't the only state that doesn't display all route shields in its multiplexes. I-84 west of Danbury, CT is multiplexed not only w/US 6 (its multiplexed w/this route at several locations throughout CT) but w/US 7 & 202 as well. While the through-BGS' have US 7 shields w/the I-84; there are
no US 6 & US 202 shields present. Heck, until recently; there were no trailblazer US 6 & US 202 shields along this stretch of I-84 at all.
In Philly, US 30 multiplexes w/I-76 for a few miles but shields on BGS' only appear at where US 30 enters & exits off the Schuylkill Expressway. IMHO, the only reason why US 30 shields are on
all exit BGS' for I-676/Vine Expressway (between 30th St. & the Ben Franklin Bridge) are because those were all designed prior to 1990.
The upshoot: Massachusetts is not unique in doing this. The only thing unique here is the fact that the road identity in question is strongly based on its original route number for a considerable distance.
Back to the Bay State:
Quote from: bob7374 on November 26, 2012, 09:53:44 PMThe Boston.com traffic blogger has translated the MassDOT press release above regarding lane openings into Boston traffic 'reporterese' (without references to I-93 or I-95). You can take a look for yourself through this link:
http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/2012/11/even_more_lanes_on_128_and_haverhill_line_hangups.html (http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/2012/11/even_more_lanes_on_128_and_haverhill_line_hangups.html)
In other news;
Dung don't flow uphill. FYI, another thread exists regarding this blogger's use of the
128 moniker.
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:10:51 PMOne of these days, I suspect FHWA is eventually going to mandate that the independent assemblies be removed as well, unless MassDOT actually decides to do it first. IMO, converting the exit numbers along I-95 to mileage-based would be the perfect time to eliminate the 128 designation south of Peabody once and for all.
IMHO, as long as there's an Amtrak station in Canton and several dealerships in Wakefield that still have
Route 128 or
128 in their name; the designation will still live on, signs or no signs.
Quote from: SidS1045 on November 27, 2012, 09:32:09 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
Unless (and I hope this doesn't happen, but part of me feels it's inevitable) there's a big wreck in the meantime resulting in fatalities because the responders went to - say - "Route 128 Exit 25" in Peabody instead of "Route 128 Exit 25" in Weston...
Doubtful. State Police would be responding from two different regions, Troop A for Peabody (station A-6 in Danvers) and Troop H for Weston (station H-2 in Framingham). There would be no logical reason to send someone from A-6 to Weston or H-2 to Peabody. Fire department and ambulance response would be from the nearest towns.
But mobile 911 calls go through a central dispatch center first, and then are routed to the applicable barracks. So the potential does exist for the central disptacher to forward the call to the wrong troop, especially if the caller doesn't give a lot of information - which I understand is usually the norm (if I were in charge of things, I would mandate that every person be required to go through a basic "this is how you report emergencies" course before they could purchase their cell phone, but that's another matter).
Quote from: MVHighways on November 26, 2012, 05:27:07 PM
If you listen to ANY Boston radio/TV traffic report you will hear what I mean. They go on and on with "128", "128", "128", blah, blah, blah, no 95's or 93's unless it's up in the Merrimack Valley (luckily where I live) which they RARELY cover. 128 got the lower designation YEARS ago when 93 and 95 came along. The signs have said 95 and 93 for years too and people STILL call it 128?? And plus I still wonder why they (locals/reporters) still use 128 for parts of 93 which was dropped as an alternate designation years ago by MassHighway/MassDOT. With the big 93/95 signs up there for years I wonder why they still have not stopped calling it 128. I think MassDOT should slowly drop the 128 designation from 95.
As I've pointed out in other threads about I-95/128, MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT have been trying to do exactly that for almost forty years, since I-95 was rerouted around Boston and I-93 was extended to Canton in late 1974. They have been continually thwarted in those attempts over the years by the Legislature (who demanded that Route 128 markers be re-instated on the highway in 1975 after crews started replacing them with I-95 shields), the local media (the Boston Globe is the long time leader of the local "Keep 128 Forever" movement), businesses, and even a former Governor (who recently tried to become the next US President), who issued a public statement declaring that MassHighway would not remove the 128 designation between Canton and Peabody during his tenure.
And the entire Capital Beltway is I-495. Chill.
Quote from: roadman on November 27, 2012, 05:22:28 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 26, 2012, 05:27:07 PM
If you listen to ANY Boston radio/TV traffic report you will hear what I mean. They go on and on with "128", "128", "128", blah, blah, blah, no 95's or 93's unless it's up in the Merrimack Valley (luckily where I live) which they RARELY cover. 128 got the lower designation YEARS ago when 93 and 95 came along. The signs have said 95 and 93 for years too and people STILL call it 128?? And plus I still wonder why they (locals/reporters) still use 128 for parts of 93 which was dropped as an alternate designation years ago by MassHighway/MassDOT. With the big 93/95 signs up there for years I wonder why they still have not stopped calling it 128. I think MassDOT should slowly drop the 128 designation from 95.
As I've pointed out in other threads about I-95/128, MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT have been trying to do exactly that for almost forty years, since I-95 was rerouted around Boston and I-93 was extended to Canton in late 1974. They have been continually thwarted in those attempts over the years by the Legislature (who demanded that Route 128 markers be re-instated on the highway in 1975 after crews started replacing them with I-95 shields), the local media (the Boston Globe is the long time leader of the local "Keep 128 Forever" movement), businesses, and even a former Governor (who recently tried to become the next US President), who issued a public statement declaring that MassHighway would not remove the 128 designation between Canton and Peabody during his tenure.
Whoa. I cannot believe that the BG wants to keep 128 forever, this plus the signs saying 95 and 93 will ultimately confuse future generations. Businesses simply have to change their name and marketing. I'm sure the local media will get mad, but too bad for them. People will just have to eat this change and although it may not be delicious for some, it's way better than if McDonald's was doing this road job, lol.
I thought about Mammoth Road in Lowell/Dracut today in conjunction with the 95/128 issue and I say that when they dump 128 forever and if they try to make it north of Peabody an auxilary I-x95 route, they should designate Mammoth Road from its Lowell terminus (as School Street) to the MA/NH line in Dracut as MA-128 which makes perfect sense because upon entering NH it becomes NH-128. Just reuse old regular road sized 128 signs and make new ones, it probably won't be THAT bad!
I honestly don't understand why there is such a big deal over a state route being co-signed with an interstate. Kentucky has KY 841 signed with I-265 for its entire length, and I-77 in West Virginia carries WV 2 for a significant length. There are lots of other examples.
(BTW, traffic reporters for WHAS refer to the Gene Snyder Freeway as "841" instead of "265." Don't know if that's to avoid confusion with I-265 in Indiana or what.)
Quote from: hbelkins on November 27, 2012, 11:45:41 PM
I honestly don't understand why there is such a big deal over a state route being co-signed with an interstate. Kentucky has KY 841 signed with I-265 for its entire length, and I-77 in West Virginia carries WV 2 for a significant length. There are lots of other examples.
(BTW, traffic reporters for WHAS refer to the Gene Snyder Freeway as "841" instead of "265." Don't know if that's to avoid confusion with I-265 in Indiana or what.)
Well, you have had MassHighway (now MassDOT) trying to dump 128 for years, but have been taken down by the media, general public etc. Those two parties should deal with MassDOT's decision. Businesses that label themselves something like "128 Burlington Honda" or something like that can rename themselves "95 Burlington Honda". Finally, we have a nonsensical situation --an entirely different 128 to deal with up in Lowell and Dracut that should be and the big one should not be. It's entirely public backlash. They should SLOWLY get rid of the 128 signs and
maybe give them to people who insist on using 128. People will EVENTUALLY adapt to calling tit that. Overkeeping of 128 will make future generations confused.
Quote from: NE2 on November 27, 2012, 05:44:05 PM
And the entire Capital Beltway is I-495. Chill.
Actually, there was a period (early-to-mid 80s) when the eastern half of the Beltway only had I-95 shields. The I-495 shields re-appeared when VA first adopted mile-marker-based exit numbers in the late 80s/early 90s.
That said, because most refer to the Capital Beltway as either that or simply just
The Beltway; it could conceivably change route numbers at several locations and nobody (except engineers & roadgeeks) would even notice and/or care.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 28, 2012, 06:12:12 AMBusinesses that label themselves something like "128 Burlington Honda" or something like that can rename themselves "95 Burlington Honda".
Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment: Just who's going to pay for those business name changes? Most if not all of those establishments that have
128 in their name existed well before the re-alignment of I-95 & the extension of I-93 onto 128 were even considered.
Changing of a business name involves more than just changing signs & advertisements; it, unfortunately, involves lawyers and so forth... especially if the business name is trademarked.
More legal involvement = more money spent.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 28, 2012, 06:12:12 AMFinally, we have a nonsensical situation --an entirely different 128 to deal with up in Lowell and Dracut that should be and the big one should not be.
A
128 in Lowell and Dracut? Please explain. Throwing in a completely different Route 128 in the mix will only add more confusion than there already exists.
IMHO, if there's resistance to truncate 128 west of I-95; one solution would be to re-establish the old as much of the pre-highway alignments of Route 128 west of US 1 (Exit 44 near Salem St./MA 129) as possible and run it at least as far as Canton. That way, the car dealerships and the Amtrak/MBTA station keeping their
128 names won't feel a sense of identity loss or meaning.
Quote from: roadman on November 26, 2012, 08:10:51 PMIMO, converting the exit numbers along I-95 to mileage-based would be the perfect time to eliminate the 128 designation south of Peabody once and for all.
It's worth noting that the newer mile markers mounted along 128 east of I-95 start at Mile 37.2; meaning the I-95 stretch from Canton to Peabody is being taken into account. Previously, the mile markers started at Mile 0 at the US 1 interchange (Exit 44) which existed years before the I-95/MA 128 interchange was built & opened.
I'd be curious to know whether the MA 128 mile markers will once again be reset to 0 (at I-95/Exit 45) once the statewide changeover takes place.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 27, 2012, 11:45:41 PM
I honestly don't understand why there is such a big deal over a state route being co-signed with an interstate. Kentucky has KY 841 signed with I-265 for its entire length, and I-77 in West Virginia carries WV 2 for a significant length. There are lots of other examples.
The issue isn't the fact that a state route is cosigned with an interstate - this also happens elsewhere in Mass with I-93/MA 3 from Braintree to Boston and I-195/MA24 in Fall River (though to be fair, both of these routes are major through routes on either side of their multiplex). The issue is that MA 128 has long since lost any purpose on the I-95 stretch. Back when 128 was only 128, and when it extended down what is Route 3 today, it had purpose. But since 128 ends while multiplexed with I-95, it would make more sense to just eliminate the multiplex and end it where it first meets 95.
Though I personally am a "fan" of 128 and don't see the
harm in cosigning 128 with 95, even if it is essentially pointless.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 28, 2012, 08:45:35 AM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 28, 2012, 06:12:12 AMFinally, we have a nonsensical situation --an entirely different 128 to deal with up in Lowell and Dracut that should be and the big one should not be.
A 128 in Lowell and Dracut? Please explain. Throwing in a completely different Route 128 in the mix will only add more confusion than there already exists.
Well, New Hampshire Route 128's south end is at the state line between Pelham, NH and Dracut, MA. (It is known as Mammoth Road in both states too.) It has no number in MA because of the whole I-95/MA-128 debate. What I was thinking is if they dropped 128 south of Peabody and tried to (successfully if this were to happen) make 128 north of Peabody an I-x95 route, then they could drop 128 from that area and transfer that to Mammoth Road's length in Massachusetts.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 28, 2012, 08:45:35 AMI'd be curious to know whether the MA 128 mile markers will once again be reset to 0 (at I-95/Exit 45) once the statewide changeover takes place.
I don't think said changeover is happening anytime soon because, despite the MUTCD, on most freeways the exits are generally close together, especially in Boston. It would be way easier to do so on I-93 in NH because none of the exits are that close together (EXCEPT exits 35/36.) Same with most of 95 in that state.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 28, 2012, 09:34:37 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 27, 2012, 11:45:41 PM
I honestly don't understand why there is such a big deal over a state route being co-signed with an interstate. Kentucky has KY 841 signed with I-265 for its entire length, and I-77 in West Virginia carries WV 2 for a significant length. There are lots of other examples.
The issue isn't the fact that a state route is cosigned with an interstate - this also happens elsewhere in Mass with I-93/MA 3 from Braintree to Boston and I-195/MA24 in Fall River (though to be fair, both of these routes are major through routes on either side of their multiplex). The issue is that MA 128 has long since lost any purpose on the I-95 stretch. Back when 128 was only 128, and when it extended down what is Route 3 today, it had purpose. But since 128 ends while multiplexed with I-95, it would make more sense to just eliminate the multiplex and end it where it first meets 95.
Though I personally am a "fan" of 128 and don't see the harm in cosigning 128 with 95, even if it is essentially pointless.
I agree with you, except for the facts that I'm no fan of 128 and I would prefer to see MassDOT at least to try to convert it north of Peabody to an I-x95 road (as stated earlier).
Converting 128 from Peabody northeastward to an x95 would probably require significant upgrades to the road. It's not up to I-standards, especially in certain places.
I'm trying to think of any instance in CT where a state route number was used in front of an interstate number. The one major multiplex that I know of is in Danbury. It's signed as I-84/US 6/US 7/US 202...and that assembly was only fully signed in 2011! In greater Hartford, US Route 6 runs with I-84 between Exits 39 in Farmington and 60 in Manchester. However, you only see the US 6 shields on I-84 itself, not on the BGS signs at the on-ramps.
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 28, 2012, 11:35:11 AM
Converting 128 from Peabody northeastward to an x95 would probably require significant upgrades to the road. It's not up to I-standards, especially in certain places.
Generally the farther east you go the lower-quality the road gets. The first mile or so after I-95 branches off is interstate-standard, then there's some decent interchanges in Peabody and Danvers around the malls (plus a few oddities like a cemetery entrance on the northbound lanes), then by the time you get to North Beverly you encounter the world's tiniest and crappiest cloverleafs and some RIROs, and finally in Gloucester the road has at-grade intersections. If the road did become an x95 it would probably be cut back to the first intersection in Gloucester, because pretty much everything east of there is undivided and some only 2 lanes.
It would cost a tremendous amount of money to upgrade 128 to interstate standards, and there's no serious proposal to do so, so it ain't gonna happen.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 28, 2012, 11:03:45 AMQuote from: PHLBOS on November 28, 2012, 08:45:35 AMI'd be curious to know whether the MA 128 mile markers will once again be reset to 0 (at I-95/Exit 45) once the statewide changeover takes place.
I don't think said changeover is happening anytime soon because, despite the MUTCD, on most freeways the exits are generally close together, especially in Boston. It would be way easier to do so on I-93 in NH because none of the exits are that close together (EXCEPT exits 35/36.) Same with most of 95 in that state.
Seeing that you're new here, there is an older thread that discusses MassDOT's plans to phase in mile-marker based exit numbering (note: it's sandwiched inside the
Clearview Banned in Massachusetts thread) .
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6944.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6944.0)
Key Excerpt (from SidS1045's post):
Massachusetts Amendments (section 2E.31):
"Massachusetts will be changing all its interchange exit signs statewide to the reference location
numbering system, with the entire state highway system to be converted to the new numbers within
the next five to ten years. The Department will be updating the exit numbers to the reference-based
system on a route-by-route basis, after existing signs within a given highway corridor have been
updated during normal replacement."So it is eventually coming.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 28, 2012, 01:25:28 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 28, 2012, 11:03:45 AMQuote from: PHLBOS on November 28, 2012, 08:45:35 AMI'd be curious to know whether the MA 128 mile markers will once again be reset to 0 (at I-95/Exit 45) once the statewide changeover takes place.
I don't think said changeover is happening anytime soon because, despite the MUTCD, on most freeways the exits are generally close together, especially in Boston. It would be way easier to do so on I-93 in NH because none of the exits are that close together (EXCEPT exits 35/36.) Same with most of 95 in that state.
Seeing that you're new here, there is an older thread that discusses MassDOT's plans to phase in mile-marker based exit numbering (note: it's sandwiched inside the Clearview Banned in Massachusetts thread) .
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6944.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6944.0)
Key Excerpt (from SidS1045's post):
Massachusetts Amendments (section 2E.31):
"Massachusetts will be changing all its interchange exit signs statewide to the reference location
numbering system, with the entire state highway system to be converted to the new numbers within
the next five to ten years. The Department will be updating the exit numbers to the reference-based
system on a route-by-route basis, after existing signs within a given highway corridor have been
updated during normal replacement."
So it is eventually coming.
Ah geez. Well, my 45, 46 and 48--my normal exits on I-93 (46 for my house, 45 for cousin's and 48 for great-grandmother's)--won't change much - only to 42, 43 and (potentially) 45B (at mile 45, exits 47 and 48 are literally right next to each other) and plus I would remember them by vision anyways.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 28, 2012, 01:02:08 PM
It would cost a tremendous amount of money to upgrade 128 to interstate standards, and there's no serious proposal to do so, so it ain't gonna happen.
Yep, and that's why I don't know that it's worth it to do that just so that current 128 could become an x95 so that the 128 number is freed up to be applied to Mammoth Road. Unless all of existing 128 is I-standard, the powers that be won't allow the I-number to be applied to the whole existing 128--and then what number does it get? Why bother renumbering it if not renumbering it entirely? Especially to do all that just to match a NH number.
I personally have no big problem with what's now 128 (Canton the rest of the way north) being called 128 at least by locals. The powers can remove the number from the road officially, but things like the Route 128 train station, radio tower "FM-128", 128 Volvo Saab, etc. are not going to change fast if they ever change.
Now that 128's mile markers on the "free section" east of Peabody reference the route starting in Canton, there won't be any confusion in exit numbers between "free 128" and the Canton-Braintree section, once exit numbers are changed to mile-based.
Also, now that the plan to reroute I-93 down MA 24, what will become of the section between there and I-95? How's 128 sound with everyone? Better yet, send I-93 down MA 3 to the canal, and have 128 start at the Braintree split. Or send I-95 on I-93's route and then it's just 128, prominently posted, from Canton to Peabody. How's I-128 sound? Of course, that'll happen when the NE Expy gets built through the swamps (cough) wetlands of Revere and Lynn.
But I digress...
Quote from: MVHighways on November 28, 2012, 11:03:45 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 28, 2012, 08:45:35 AM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 28, 2012, 06:12:12 AMFinally, we have a nonsensical situation --an entirely different 128 to deal with up in Lowell and Dracut that should be and the big one should not be.
A 128 in Lowell and Dracut? Please explain. Throwing in a completely different Route 128 in the mix will only add more confusion than there already exists.
Well, New Hampshire Route 128's south end is at the state line between Pelham, NH and Dracut, MA. (It is known as Mammoth Road in both states too.) It has no number in MA because of the whole I-95/MA-128 debate. What I was thinking is if they dropped 128 south of Peabody and tried to (successfully if this were to happen) make 128 north of Peabody an I-x95 route, then they could drop 128 from that area and transfer that to Mammoth Road's length in Massachusetts.
More likely, if MassDOT wanted to designate Mammoth Road as a state route/highway in that area; they would probably choose
328 for a number rather than extend NH 128. After all, MA 228 in the South Shore was originally MA 128 until the late-60s.
Speaking of MA-NH route number changes; ever since I-86 changed back to I-84; neither NHDOT nor the MassDPW, at the time, changed Route 286 back to its original Route 86 designation.
Quote from: shadyjay on November 28, 2012, 03:36:16 PM
Now that 128's mile markers on the "free section" east of Peabody reference the route starting in Canton, there won't be any confusion in exit numbers between "free 128" and the Canton-Braintree section, once exit numbers are changed to mile-based.
However, there could be some confusion numberwise between the I-95 (Canton-to-Peabody) and 128 from Peabody to Gloucester.
The Canton-Peabody stretch of I-95 currently Exits 12-45 would likely change to Exits 26-64 with the 128 Peabody-Gloucester stretch currently Exits 29-9 changing to Exits 37-57(?); so, like the present, there's still a potential for duplicate exit numbers occurring along both I-95/MA 128 and MA 128.
If the 128 Peabody-Gloucester stretch starts at Exit 1 at I-95; its final exit/intersection w/MA 127A in Gloucester will be Exit 21(?). Duplicate exit numbers w/the I-93 Canton-Braintree stretch, yes; but none with I-95 north of Canton.
Another option would be to duplicate how the PTC/PennDOT handled the exit numbers along I-76 & I-276 east of Valley Forge. The exit numbers along the I-276 stretch of the PA Turnpike continued as if 276 originated at the Ohio State Line (Exit 25-29 pre-2000; current Exit 326-358) rather than restarting at Exit 1 at Valley Forge (I-76).
Applying the above-approach to Route 128 would translate to Exit numbers running from Exit 64 in Peabody up to Exit 84(?) in Gloucester; but that could unintentionally imply that MA 128 originates at the RI border. The I-276/PA Turnpike example had more relevance because the mile markers reflected where the PA Turnpike started and not just I-76.
Quote from: shadyjay on November 28, 2012, 03:36:16 PMAlso, now that the plan to reroute I-93 down MA 24, what will become of the section between there and I-95? How's 128 sound with everyone? Better yet, send I-93 down MA 3 to the canal, and have 128 start at the Braintree split. Or send I-95 on I-93's route and then it's just 128, prominently posted, from Canton to Peabody. How's I-128 sound? Of course, that'll happen when the NE Expy gets built through the swamps (cough) wetlands of Revere and Lynn.
But I digress...
For all intensive purposes, I believe that it's safe to assume that the current I-93 & I-95 alignments in the Bay State are here to stay. Should either MA 24 or MA 3 be upgraded to Interstate standards down the road and receive a number; chances are that it would more likely be a 3di like either I-293 and/or I-393. That way the mile markers and exit numbers don't have to change again.
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 28, 2012, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 28, 2012, 01:02:08 PM
It would cost a tremendous amount of money to upgrade 128 to interstate standards, and there's no serious proposal to do so, so it ain't gonna happen.
Yep, and that's why I don't know that it's worth it to do that just so that current 128 could become an x95 so that the 128 number is freed up to be applied to Mammoth Road. Unless all of existing 128 is I-standard, the powers that be won't allow the I-number to be applied to the whole existing 128--and then what number does it get? Why bother renumbering it if not renumbering it entirely? Especially to do all that just to match a NH number.
I personally have no big problem with what's now 128 (Canton the rest of the way north) being called 128 at least by locals. The powers can remove the number from the road officially, but things like the Route 128 train station, radio tower "FM-128", 128 Volvo Saab, etc. are not going to change fast if they ever change.
The whole I-x95 and send 128 to Mammoth Road proposal is only if they were to actually do the change not thinking on Mammoth. (See more below.)
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 28, 2012, 04:19:15 PM
More likely, if MassDOT wanted to designate Mammoth Road as a state route/highway in that area; they would probably choose 328 for a number rather than extend NH 128. After all, MA 228 in the South Shore was originally MA 128 until the late-60s.
Speaking of MA-NH route number changes; ever since I-86 changed back to I-84; neither NHDOT nor the MassDPW, at the time, changed Route 286 back to its original Route 86 designation.
Hmm. Or follow a separate proposal at the bottom.
Quote from: shadyjay on November 28, 2012, 03:36:16 PM
Now that 128's mile markers on the "free section" east of Peabody reference the route starting in Canton, there won't be any confusion in exit numbers between "free 128" and the Canton-Braintree section, once exit numbers are changed to mile-based.
However, there could be some confusion numberwise between the I-95 (Canton-to-Peabody) and 128 from Peabody to Gloucester.
The Canton-Peabody stretch of I-95 currently Exits 12-45 would likely change to Exits 26-64 with the 128 Peabody-Gloucester stretch currently Exits 29-9 changing to Exits 37-57(?); so, like the present, there's still a potential for duplicate exit numbers occurring along both I-95/MA 128 and MA 128.
If the 128 Peabody-Gloucester stretch starts at Exit 1 at I-95; its final exit/intersection w/MA 127A in Gloucester will be Exit 21(?). Duplicate exit numbers w/the I-93 Canton-Braintree stretch, yes; but none with I-95 north of Canton.
Another option would be to duplicate how the PTC/PennDOT handled the exit numbers along I-76 & I-276 east of Valley Forge. The exit numbers along the I-276 stretch of the PA Turnpike continued as if 276 originated at the Ohio State Line (Exit 25-29 pre-2000; current Exit 326-358) rather than restarting at Exit 1 at Valley Forge (I-76).
Applying the above-approach to Route 128 would translate to Exit numbers running from Exit 64 in Peabody up to Exit 84(?) in Gloucester; but that could unintentionally imply that MA 128 originates at the RI border. The I-276/PA Turnpike example had more relevance because the mile markers reflected where the PA Turnpike started and not just I-76.
Quote from: shadyjay on November 28, 2012, 03:36:16 PMAlso, now that the plan to reroute I-93 down MA 24, what will become of the section between there and I-95? How's 128 sound with everyone? Better yet, send I-93 down MA 3 to the canal, and have 128 start at the Braintree split. Or send I-95 on I-93's route and then it's just 128, prominently posted, from Canton to Peabody. How's I-128 sound? Of course, that'll happen when the NE Expy gets built through the swamps (cough) wetlands of Revere and Lynn.
But I digress...
For all intensive purposes, I believe that it's safe to assume that the current I-93 & I-95 alignments in the Bay State are here to stay. Should either MA 24 or MA 3 be upgraded to Interstate standards down the road and receive a number; chances are that it would more likely be a 3di like either I-293 and/or I-393. That way the mile markers and exit numbers don't have to change again.
[/quote]I agree, I-95 and I-93 are in their alignments to stay. And it would be a 3di. As for that I-128, I-28 would be (it doesn't exist) between Kingsport, TN and a line extending northeastward from Fort Worth, TX to N. Little Rock, AR. And I-128 would be there. Unless we have another Bud Shuster.
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 28, 2012, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 28, 2012, 01:02:08 PM
It would cost a tremendous amount of money to upgrade 128 to interstate standards, and there's no serious proposal to do so, so it ain't gonna happen.
Yep, and that's why I don't know that it's worth it to do that just so that current 128 could become an x95 so that the 128 number is freed up to be applied to Mammoth Road. Unless all of existing 128 is I-standard, the powers that be won't allow the I-number to be applied to the whole existing 128--and then what number does it get? Why bother renumbering it if not renumbering it entirely? Especially to do all that just to match a NH number.
I personally have no big problem with what's now 128 (Canton the rest of the way north) being called 128 at least by locals. The powers can remove the number from the road officially, but things like the Route 128 train station, radio tower "FM-128", 128 Volvo Saab, etc. are not going to change fast if they ever change.
It's a pet peeve of mine in traffic reports. ANYWAYS if they wanted to bring 128 to Mammoth they could make MA-128 north of Peabody MASSACHUSETTS Route x95 so all they do is change a number and still make it a spur of I-95, which 128 north of Peabody is, like MA-213 is a spur of I-93.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 28, 2012, 05:35:08 PMANYWAYS if they wanted to bring 128 to Mammoth they could make MA-128 north of Peabody MASSACHUSETTS Route x95 so all they do is change a number and still make it a spur of I-95, which 128 north of Peabody is, like MA-213 is a spur of I-93.
Apples & oranges comparison. Aside from the first few years, MA 213 was MA 213
ever since the road was first built for most of its life.
While it may have been originally planned as an Interstate at one time, the state route number was assigned as such from the get-go.
The road was originally considered part of a Relocated MA 113 but was redesignated MA 213 in 1964 following the link w/I-495 being completed.
Changing MA 128 to MA x95 in order to free up the 128 number for Mammoth serves no real purpose and would cause more confusion than there already exists. Again, if MassDOT wanted Mammoth to be a route number; they would've assigned it another number (maybe MA 328).
The upshoot in 4 words:
Not going to happen!
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 29, 2012, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 28, 2012, 05:35:08 PMANYWAYS if they wanted to bring 128 to Mammoth they could make MA-128 north of Peabody MASSACHUSETTS Route x95 so all they do is change a number and still make it a spur of I-95, which 128 north of Peabody is, like MA-213 is a spur of I-93.
Apples & oranges comparison. MA 213 was MA 213 ever since the road was first built. While it may have been originally planned as an Interstate at one time, the state route number was assigned as such from the get-go.
Changing MA 128 to MA x95 in order to free up the 128 number for Mammoth serves no real purpose and would cause more confusion than there already exists. Again, if MassDOT wanted Mammoth to be a route number; they would've assigned it another number (maybe MA 328).
The upshoot in 4 words: Not going to happen!
Still, that was an idea. As for MA-213 they planed that to be an I-x93 but the FHWA said no to it so they gave it 213. I have no idea where 213 came from; maybe because it has a junction with 113.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 29, 2012, 02:50:15 PMI have no idea where 213 came from; maybe because it has a junction with 113.
The highway was originally proposed as a relocation of MA 113 and was signed as such for the first few years; see below-link.
http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/MA-213/ (http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/MA-213/)
Key Excerpt:
Much of the "Relocated Route 113" had been completed on September 11, 1962, when the expressway was ceremonially named the "Albert Slack Memorial Highway." Beginning at I-93, the new expressway had interchanges at MA 28 (Broadway) and existing MA 113 (Pleasant Street / Prospect Street), and ended at a temporary interchange with Pleasant Valley Street. In 1964, the MassDPW extended the expressway to the newly completed I-495. Upon completion, the MassDPW re-designated the route MA 213.Note: my earlier post has since been edited to reflect the above-info.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 29, 2012, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 29, 2012, 02:50:15 PMI have no idea where 213 came from; maybe because it has a junction with 113.
The highway was originally proposed as a relocation of MA 113 and was signed as such for the first few years; see below-link.
http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/MA-213/ (http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/MA-213/)
Key Excerpt:
Much of the "Relocated Route 113" had been completed on September 11, 1962, when the expressway was ceremonially named the "Albert Slack Memorial Highway." Beginning at I-93, the new expressway had interchanges at MA 28 (Broadway) and existing MA 113 (Pleasant Street / Prospect Street), and ended at a temporary interchange with Pleasant Valley Street. In 1964, the MassDPW extended the expressway to the newly completed I-495. Upon completion, the MassDPW re-designated the route MA 213.
Note: my earlier post has since been edited to reflect the above-info.
I knew that before. It made me wonder why they didn't call it something else when they re-designated though.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 29, 2012, 04:23:26 PMI knew that before. It made me wonder why they didn't call it something else when they re-designated though.
The DPW may have wanted to maintain a connection between that highway and the
old current MA 113. In most other instances, it's the new road that gets the old number and the old road gets renumbered (examples: MA 203 was originally MA 3, MA 228 was originally MA 128, MA 225 was originally MA 25, etc.).
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 29, 2012, 05:02:05 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 29, 2012, 04:23:26 PMI knew that before. It made me wonder why they didn't call it something else when they re-designated though.
The DPW may have wanted to maintain a connection between that highway and the old MA 113. In most other instances, it's the new road that gets the old number and the old road gets renumbered (examples: MA 203 was originally MA 3, MA 228 was originally MA 128, MA 225 was originally MA 25, etc.).
113 is still where it was, I am on 113 frequently.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 29, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 29, 2012, 05:02:05 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 29, 2012, 04:23:26 PMI knew that before. It made me wonder why they didn't call it something else when they re-designated though.
The DPW may have wanted to maintain a connection between that highway and the old MA 113. In most other instances, it's the new road that gets the old number and the old road gets renumbered (examples: MA 203 was originally MA 3, MA 228 was originally MA 128, MA 225 was originally MA 25, etc.).
113 is still where it was, I am on 113 frequently.
I know that. I should've used the word
current or
present MA 113 rather than
old in my earlier post.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 29, 2012, 02:50:15 PM
Still, that was an idea. As for MA-213 they planed that to be an I-x93 but the FHWA said no to it so they gave it 213. I have no idea where 213 came from; maybe because it has a junction with 113.
Designating MA 213 as an Interstate would be logical, as it connects I-93 with I-495. However, while there has recently been some discussions about re-designating MA 213 as a child of I-93 (likely I-193 or I-393), I am not aware of any effort currently being made by MassDOT to formally present the request to AASHTO or FHWA at this time.
That having been said, I see two obstacles to AASHTO and FHWA granting an Interstate designation for 213, namely the interchanges at the end points. The interchange at I-93 involves a very short weave section between traffic going from 213 west to I-93 south and traffic going from I-93 south to 213 east. The interchange at I-495 involves a tight compound curve for traffic going from 213
west east to I-495 north.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 29, 2012, 05:02:05 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 29, 2012, 04:23:26 PMI knew that before. It made me wonder why they didn't call it something else when they re-designated though.
The DPW may have wanted to maintain a connection between that highway and the old current MA 113. In most other instances, it's the new road that gets the old number and the old road gets renumbered (examples: MA 203 was originally MA 3, MA 228 was originally MA 128, MA 225 was originally MA 25, etc.).
The difference in this case is that 113 still exists on both sides. Routing it onto and back off of 213 would be cumbersome.
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 06:18:01 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 29, 2012, 05:02:05 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 29, 2012, 04:23:26 PMI knew that before. It made me wonder why they didn't call it something else when they re-designated though.
The DPW may have wanted to maintain a connection between that highway and the old current MA 113. In most other instances, it's the new road that gets the old number and the old road gets renumbered (examples: MA 203 was originally MA 3, MA 228 was originally MA 128, MA 225 was originally MA 25, etc.).
The difference in this case is that 113 still exists on both sides. Routing it onto and back off of 213 would be cumbersome.
Yeah. I live close to 113, thus my knowledge on it. 113 runs indirectly parallel to 213 for most of its length but I still don't see why it got numbered 213. AND I'M A LOCAL.
Quote from: roadman on November 30, 2012, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 29, 2012, 02:50:15 PM
Still, that was an idea. As for MA-213 they planed that to be an I-x93 but the FHWA said no to it so they gave it 213. I have no idea where 213 came from; maybe because it has a junction with 113.
Designating MA 213 as an Interstate would be logical, as it connects I-93 with I-495. However, while there has recently been some discussions about re-designating MA 213 as a child of I-93 (likely I-193 or I-393), I am not aware of any effort currently being made by MassDOT to formally present the request to AASHTO or FHWA at this time.
That having been said, I see two obstacles to AASHTO and FHWA granting an Interstate designation for 213, namely the interchanges at the end points. The interchange at I-93 involves a very short weave section between traffic going from 213 west to I-93 south and traffic going from I-93 south to 213 east. The interchange at I-495 involves a tight compund curve for traffic going from 213 west to I-495 north.
Where'd you hear about the re-discussion? And it's 213 east to 495 north. For the onramp to I-93 south, they could probably do a small change to it or add new signage.
Every so often, the local MPO that includes MA 213 casually mentions the possibility of a re-designation for 213 (IIRC, the last time was about six years ago). However, unlike with MA 24, there's been no serious effort on the part of MassDOT to study exactly what would be required to bring the road up to Interstate standards (perhaps because re-doing either or both of the end interchanges would require a $%!^load of money that MassDOT just doesn't have).
Quote from: roadman on November 30, 2012, 06:46:15 PM
Every so often, the local MPO that includes MA 213 casually mentions the possibility of a re-designation for 213 (IIRC, the last time was about six years ago). However, unlike with MA 24, there's been no serious effort on the part of MassDOT to study exactly what would be required to bring the road up to Interstate standards (perhaps because re-doing either or both of the end interchanges would require a $%!^load of money that MassDOT just doesn't have).
Hmm. Tomorrow I think I'll be on 213 end-to-end so I'll record it and post it here in realtime so you guys can actually SEE it. I know that you know, referring to everyone else.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 30, 2012, 06:51:30 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 30, 2012, 06:46:15 PM
Every so often, the local MPO that includes MA 213 casually mentions the possibility of a re-designation for 213 (IIRC, the last time was about six years ago). However, unlike with MA 24, there's been no serious effort on the part of MassDOT to study exactly what would be required to bring the road up to Interstate standards (perhaps because re-doing either or both of the end interchanges would require a $%!^load of money that MassDOT just doesn't have).
Hmm. Tomorrow I think I'll be on 213 end-to-end so I'll record it and post it here in realtime so you guys can actually SEE it. I know that you know, referring to everyone else.
http://youtu.be/ndDbC0kHLwg
Darn it.
Hmm. Not to be offensive to anyone but I'll probably have a better result. PLUS I'll probably be in both directions.
Quote from: MVHighways on November 30, 2012, 08:09:10 PM
Darn it.
Hmm. Not to be offensive to anyone but I'll probably have a better result. PLUS I'll probably be in both directions.
Oh, you can't do better than me. But you can always get the other direction.
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on November 30, 2012, 08:09:10 PM
Darn it.
Hmm. Not to be offensive to anyone but I'll probably have a better result. PLUS I'll probably be in both directions.
Oh, you can't do better than me. But you can always get the other direction.
Oh, was that you? If so sorry about that. But I did get EB 213 today. As for WB 213 that was the plan but my mom ended up following a friend of hers (who HATES highways) to the Outback off exit 47/I-93 and she took the SIDE ROADS instead of 495. I lose my roadgeek status and a video at the same time. And then my mom's friend ended up giving me bull about the "dangers" of highways. -_-
To further add to the annoyance, I had to sit in the back for the millionth time because the front seat was (as always) filled with $#!*..
Shaky video...
While everyone was eating I went outside, took a walk and took a picture of this BGS at the 93 NB onramp off exit 47:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg29%2F404%2Fdsc01005h.jpg&hash=858a4cbbd98711312920eb90e524ceef319d82b5)
Well, the sign got "manipulated" by the flash. Here's how it ACTUALLY looks w/o flash:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg259%2F9917%2Fdsc01006ta.jpg&hash=1b2fb2a7836521251559a74afff42d4ed66728ab)
Please resize and/or crop pictures before posting them. 4608x2592 images cause severe page lag and can take a minute to load even on high-speed connections.
The forum guidelines suggest a maximum size of 800x600, with a link to the full-size image if necessary.
Done. (Hopefully the thing didn't screw up on me.)
Oh, and I don't think I-128 is coming any time soon unless they A) put it and I-28 in the South or B) have another I-238 scenario. B isn't happening because most of it is already in the Interstate system as 95. Sorry.
Quote from: MVHighways on December 01, 2012, 09:27:09 PM
Oh, and I don't think I-128 is coming any time soon unless they A) put it and I-28 in the South or B) have another I-238 scenario. B isn't happening because most of it is already in the Interstate system as 95. Sorry.
It's a joke. A combination of Interstate to satisfy the I-95 crowed and 128 to appease the locals.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 01, 2012, 09:55:24 PM
It's a joke. A combination of Interstate to satisfy the I-95 crowed and 128 to appease the locals.
I like it! 128 can be posted on all BGSs and its still an interstate so there's no funding issues. Plus, the new "BEGIN 128" sign in Canton already has a blue "BEGIN" plate.
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 06:18:01 PMThe difference in this case is that 113 still exists on both sides. Routing it onto and back off of 213 would be cumbersome.
No more cumbersome than what the DPW did in their 1989 re-routing of US 1 between Boston and Dedham onto I-93 & I-95 (MA 128)... or what PennDOT did w/PA 332, 413 & 532 when the Newton (Bucks County) Bypass opened back in the 90s.
Quote from: MVHighways on December 01, 2012, 08:40:05 PMWhile everyone was eating I went outside, took a walk and took a picture of this BGS at the 93 NB onramp off exit 47:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg29%2F404%2Fdsc01005h.jpg&hash=858a4cbbd98711312920eb90e524ceef319d82b5)
Well, the sign got "manipulated" by the flash. Here's how it ACTUALLY looks w/o flash:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg259%2F9917%2Fdsc01006ta.jpg&hash=1b2fb2a7836521251559a74afff42d4ed66728ab)
Got some adjacent contrasting Red-Light/Green Light action going on there for any traffic singal geeks. :)
I took a trip over to check out the new lanes earlier today. I've posted some photos and comments here:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/12/i-93i-95-new-lane-report.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/12/i-93i-95-new-lane-report.html)
Awesome pictures! I see the ramp from I-93 South to I-95 South is now two lanes. :)
As for the "I-93 ENDS in 1 1/2 MILES" sign, that's been there for some time. Here's my picture of it from February 16, 2011:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fet6yf.jpg&hash=3e117d527c58d09c67084b6bc5505b9e3d5f8c22)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 15, 2012, 07:59:06 PM
Awesome pictures! I see the ramp from I-93 South to I-95 South is now two lanes. :)
As for the "I-93 ENDS in 1 1/2 MILES" sign, that's been there for some time. Here's my picture of it from February 16, 2011:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fet6yf.jpg&hash=3e117d527c58d09c67084b6bc5505b9e3d5f8c22)
IIRC, the "I-93 Ends" sign was installed in late 2003. Similar signs were posted approacing the ends of other Interstates and freeways within Massachusetts about the same time.
I was under the impression that they were going to make the ramp from I-95N to I-93N (Exit 12) two lanes throughout. Instead, they added a raised shoulder with traffic still forced to merge into one lane before entering I-93. Will they tear this up once the "exit only" lane for Exit 2A opens? This ramp creates HUGE bottlenecks!
Quote from: southshore720 on January 08, 2013, 05:42:20 PM
I was under the impression that they were going to make the ramp from I-95N to I-93N (Exit 12) two lanes throughout. Instead, they added a raised shoulder with traffic still forced to merge into one lane before entering I-93. Will they tear this up once the "exit only" lane for Exit 2A opens? This ramp creates HUGE bottlenecks!
The off-ramp from I-95N to I-93 N will become two lanes - the right lane will merge into the new "Exit Only" lane for Exit 2A, and the left lane will merge with the right travel lane from I-95 (MA 128) south.
This work is currently expected to be completed by early to mid-Spring of 2013 (weather permitting)
Thanks Roadman, that's what I initially thought it to be...but the installation of the raised shoulder had me scratching my head. Why not just put a jersey barrier up instead? What a waste (and environmentally unfriendly to boot!)
I don't think that was intended to be a raised shoulder, it just happens to be final pavement on the widened portion of the ramp only. I assume that they will repave the rest of the ramp when they finalize the alignment with the widened I-93.