Lowell Connector Signing Project

[roadman]

On Tuesday, December 17th, MassDOT opened bids on a project to replace the guide signs and supports on the full length of the Lowell Connector (MassDOT Project # 606014).  Liddell Brothers of Halifax, MA is the apparent low bidder for the work.

[vdeane]

So if they're replacing all the signs, does that mean it will switch to mile-based numbers?

[PHLBOS]

So if they're replacing all the signs, does that mean it will switch to mile-based numbers?

Probably not yet.  That change will take place 2015-2016.

[roadman]

So if they're replacing all the signs, does that mean it will switch to mile-based numbers?

Probably not yet.  That change will take place 2015-2016.

Correct.  MassDOT's current plan is to do mileage-based numbers on a route by route basis once the signs have been replaced, or on routes where the signs are still new enough   Phase I will focus on the shorter routes such as I-291, I-84, Route 146, and Phase II will focus on the longer routes such as I-495 and I-95.

[hotdogPi]

Mileage-based on the Lowell Connector? Wouldn't that just be MORE confusing than sequential, since the exits are so close?

[bob7374]

So if they're replacing all the signs, does that mean it will switch to mile-based numbers?

Probably not yet.  That change will take place 2015-2016.

Correct.  MassDOT's current plan is to do mileage-based numbers on a route by route basis once the signs have been replaced, or on routes where the signs are still new enough   Phase I will focus on the shorter routes such as I-291, I-84, Route 146, and Phase II will focus on the longer routes such as I-495 and I-95.

I have completed posting exit listings for Mass. interstates that include projected mileage based numbers regardless of whether they are to be posted during Phase I or Phase II. I plan to get to US and MA routes soon, though currently I have no plans to post a list for the Lowell Connector. Would mile based exits make more sense if the Connector had a route number to go with it?
The home page for the Exit lists is: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/intexits.html

[mass_citizen]

Mileage-based on the Lowell Connector? Wouldn't that just be MORE confusing than sequential, since the exits are so close?

I agree. The connector is less than 3 miles long. The less XX-A, B, C exits we have out there the better.

[PHLBOS]

Phase I will focus on the shorter routes such as I-291, I-84, Route 146, and Phase II will focus on the longer routes such as I-495 and I-95.

Will non-Interstates, like the Lowell Connector, be Phase III?

The home page for the Exit lists is: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/intexits.html

I'm bookmarking that link.  While I realize the proposed changes on that list are only speculation (& the site states such) and not official; I'll save my comments (regarding erroneous predictions) for another thread.

FWIW, predicted Lowell Connector Exit mile marker-based exit number changes (based on Wiki mileage breakdown):
Lowell Connector on Wiki

US 3 - current Exit 1, future Exit 1A
I-495 - current Exit 2, future Exit 1B
Industrial Ave. - current Exit 2, future Exit 2A
Plain St. - current Exit 3, future Exit 2A 2B
MA 3A South - current Exit 5A, future Exit 3A
MA 3A North - current Exit 5B, future Exit 3B
Gorham St* - current Exit 5C, future Exit 3C

*at-grade intersection, not really an exit ramp IMHO

[vdeane]

So if they're replacing all the signs, does that mean it will switch to mile-based numbers?

Probably not yet.  That change will take place 2015-2016.

Correct.  MassDOT's current plan is to do mileage-based numbers on a route by route basis once the signs have been replaced, or on routes where the signs are still new enough   Phase I will focus on the shorter routes such as I-291, I-84, Route 146, and Phase II will focus on the longer routes such as I-495 and I-95.

How are "when signs are replaced" and "phase I/II" part of the same system?  Wouldn't it be one or the other?  Or will signs installed in early 2014 be "too old"?  And how does age limit the ability to apply green-out anyways?  I normally don't cite CalTrans for good signage, but MassDOT might want to learn about green-out from them!

Phase I will focus on the shorter routes such as I-291, I-84, Route 146, and Phase II will focus on the longer routes such as I-495 and I-95.

Will non-Interstates, like the Lowell Connector, be Phase III?

The home page for the Exit lists is: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/intexits.html

I'm bookmarking that link.  While I realize the proposed changes on that list are only speculation (& the site states such) and not official; I'll save my comments (regarding erroneous predictions) for another thread.

FWIW, predicted Lowell Connector Exit mile marker-based exit number changes (based on Wiki mileage breakdown):
Lowell Connector on Wiki

US 3 - current Exit 1, future Exit 1A
I-495 - current Exit 2, future Exit 1B
Industrial Ave. - current Exit 2, future Exit 2A
Plain St. - current Exit 3, future Exit 2A
MA 3A South - current Exit 5A, future Exit 3A
MA 3A North - current Exit 5B, future Exit 3B
Gorham St* - current Exit 5C, future Exit 3C

*at-grade intersection, not really an exit ramp IMHO

I'd eliminate exit numbers at the termini altogether, so you'd have 1A/1B, 1C, 2, 3A/3B

EDIT: if you also remove the exit number for I-495 (a case can be made that it's part of the southern terminus), you eliminate alphabet soup altogether.  Or, if you don't like that but still hate 1C, change 1C/2 to 2A/2B.

[PHLBOS]

FWIW, predicted Lowell Connector Exit mile marker-based exit number changes (based on Wiki mileage breakdown):
Lowell Connector on Wiki

US 3 - current Exit 1, future Exit 1A
I-495 - current Exit 2, future Exit 1B
Industrial Ave. - current Exit 2, future Exit 2A
Plain St. - current Exit 3, future Exit 2A 2B
MA 3A South - current Exit 5A, future Exit 3A
MA 3A North - current Exit 5B, future Exit 3B
Gorham St* - current Exit 5C, future Exit 3C

*at-grade intersection, not really an exit ramp IMHO

I'd eliminate exit numbers at the termini altogether, so you'd have 1A/1B, 1C, 2, 3A/3B

EDIT: if you also remove the exit number for I-495 (a case can be made that it's part of the southern terminus), you eliminate alphabet soup altogether.  Or, if you don't like that but still hate 1C, change 1C/2 to 2A/2B.

Again, how (or if) the Lowell Connector's interchanges are renumbered is completely up to MassDOT.  That said, I would personally dump the exit number (current 5C/future 3C) for the Gorham St. connection because it's an intersection.  Granted, MA 128's Exits 9 through 11 in Gloucester are intersections as well; I would dump those too once renumbered.

As far as the connections w/US 3 & I-495 are concerned; one needs to take a closer look at how the interchange is set up and currently signed to see why exit ramps will still need to be numbered.  Wiki's exit listing doesn't completly tell the whole story.

Overall Lowell Connector Interchange w/US 3 & I-495

Approach from Southbound Connector (just after Industrial Ave.)
Note: Exits 2B-A was signed as Exit 2S-1N, Exit 1B was Exit 2N, and Exit 1A was Exit 1S per the old late 1960s/early 1970s button-copy BGS'.

Northbound Connector Approach to I-495 North ramp (signed w/US 3 exit numbers)

If memory serves, the I-495 North/Lowell Connector exit off US 3 Northbound was originally signed as Exit 30N and the old Lowell Connector through-BGS at the split had no exit tab.  One could theoretically mark the exit off US 3 North as one number (future XXA) and mark the I-495 North split ramp as future Exit 1 from the Lowell Connector.

Truth be told, do any businesses along the Lowell Connector corridor actually use/list the exit numbers when advertising their locations?  Those would be the locals most impacted by such a change.

[southshore720]

I'm personally not a fan of the proposed mileage-based alphabet soup.  There needs to be "exception" criteria for short stub highways like this one.  Exit numbers are supposed to ease the motorist get to their destination, not confuse them!   

[PHLBOS]

I'm personally not a fan of the proposed mileage-based alphabet soup.  There needs to be "exception" criteria for short stub highways like this one.  Exit numbers are supposed to ease the motorist get to their destination, not confuse them!   

A few things to note:

1.  At present, the only highways in MA that are definitely changing over to mile-marker-based exit numbers are the Interstates.  Roadman can confirm whether or not non-Interstate highways (including the Lowell Connector) that have numbered interchanges on them will receive the change as well or at a later date; the above's only speculation at the moment.

2.  I could easily see an exception for short stubs, per your comment, being applied here even if MA decides to convert all of their numbered exits (not just Interstates).

3.  A repeat of my final comment from my previous post is in order here: do any of the businesses along the Lowell Connector corridor actually use/list the exit numbers when advertising their locations?  Those would be the locals most impacted by such a change.

[roadman]

@vdeane  - For projects (like Lowell Connector) where signing updates are scheduled for the near future (now until about 2018), the exit re-numbering won't happen until after the new signs are installed.  The principal intent of this approach is for implementation reasons (imagine how confusing it would be to drivers if exit numbers were changed literally on a sign-by-sign basis on projects like Randolph to Boston), but is also to avoid the "bright green patch on worn out sign" issue that was a problem with a number of signs when the exit numbers on I-95 and I-93 were changed in the mid to late 1980s.

As the remaining signing on the majority of Massachusetts' Interstate and freeway system will be still serviceable when the exit numbers are changed, the "bright green patch" problem won't be nearly as bad for most of these signs.

@PHLBOS - The proposed exit re-numbering will include not just Interstates, but all freeways and expressways that are currently numbered.

As for your comment about impact to businesses by exit number changes, the idea of Massachusetts going to a mileage-based exit numbering system was first vetted internally by MassDPW (but never actually made public) in the early 1980s when preparing the I-95 and I-93 re-numbering contracts, and has been occasionally been considered since then (it was even considered as part of the 2004 Boston-area route change proposals that involved removing the MA 128 designation south of Peabody).

In those cases where MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT's intentions were made known to the public, the business community's opposition to the plan was very vocal - both directly and through the Legislature. I have it on good authority that this is one of the reasons that MassDOT is taking a phased approach to changing the numbers.  Do some of the smaller routes first to demonstrate to people that the change won't mean instant doom and gloom for businesses.

edited to clarify original MassDPW exit-renumbering plans - RM

[PHLBOS]

The proposed exit re-numbering will include not just Interstates, but all freeways and expressways that are currently numbered.

Good to know.

As for your comment about impact to businesses by exit number changes, the idea of Massachusetts going to a mileage-based exit numbering system was first vetted in the early 1980s when preparing the I-95 and I-93 re-numbering contracts, and has been occasionally been considered since then (it was even considered as part of the 2004 Boston-area route change proposals that involved removing the MA 128 designation south of Peabody).

In those cases where MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT's intentions were made known to the public, the business community's opposition to the plan was very vocal - both directly and through the Legislature. I have it on good authority that this is one of the reasons that MassDOT is taking a phased approach to changing the numbers.  Do some of the smaller routes first to demonstrate to people that the change won't mean instant doom and gloom for businesses.

I only brought up the impact on businesses point because I don't believe that too many businesses located along the Lowell Connector use/rely on the (current) exit numbers for their location advertisements; certainly not like the various malls & car dealerships that are near/adjacent to I-95/93/MA 128.  At least they didn't during the 1980s.  I.e. not a big deal if the exit numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5ABC vs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3AB(C).

I didn't know about MA proposing mile-marker-based exit numbering as far back as the early-80s; although I thought they would've tried it along I-93 when the O'Neill Tunnel replaced the elevated Central Artery a la the Big Dig, mainly because there are less exit ramps in the tunnel than there were along the old Artery (even after several ramps were cut during the 70s).

[roadman]

I didn't know about MA proposing mile-marker-based exit numbering as far back as the early-80s; although I thought they would've tried it along I-93 when the O'Neill Tunnel replaced the elevated Central Artery a la the Big Dig, mainly because there are less exit ramps in the tunnel than there were along the old Artery (even after several ramps were cut during the 70s).

The plan was informally discussed with local business groups, but was almost immediately dismissed as infeasible.  As such, it was never actually made public at the time.  I've revised my original comment to reflect this.

Can't verify whether converting to mileage based numbering on I-93 as a trial project as part of the Big Dig was ever discussed, but I doubt it would ever have gotten very far for the same reasons.  However, I am aware that other ideas were briefly explored for much of the Big Dig signing (like using Clearview font in the tunnels to improve visibility , given the smaller letter size (13.33/10 instead of 16/12)).  One of these ideas, the use of 30 inch high shields and warning sign overlays on the overhead panels, actually was approved for design and made it into fabrication - until FHWA, upon seeing the signs as they were installed prior to tunnel opening, did an about face and required 36 inch panels instead.

IMO, it's unfortunate that conversion to mileage-based numbering was not considered in the original Big Dig signing design.  I can think of a few examples where it will now be impractical to add a suffix to the existing numbers with the current legend heights, given the constraints of the overhead sign panels in the tunnels.  So the likely result will be very small exit numbers when the conversion is made.

[massroadpatriot]

So, I'm glad that MassDOT is planning to replace the BGS's, but while we're going and doing good things for motorists, then how about all of the bridges get replaced? I dare you to drive up there. Not only will the bridges damage your tires, but I guarantee that all of the bridges (save the Plain Street Bridge because it was replaced earlier this year) will collapse if not maintained.

[bob7374]

The proposed exit re-numbering will include not just Interstates, but all freeways and expressways that are currently numbered.

Good to know.

From this, I am assuming that expressways with no exit numbers, like the Northeast Expressway, will not have new mileage based exit numbers applied. Is this correct?

Would there be a benefit to applying numbers to currently non-numbered exits even if the expressway is not very long? I know North Carolina has adopted a policy to apply mile-based numbering to new exits, even if the highway is not a continuous freeway and the exit is for a new interchange of a former at-grade intersection where there are no other exits for miles in either direction. Perhaps this is a little too much, but for any freeway with at least a few exits might there be a benefit to adding numbers to them?

[vdeane]

even if the highway is not a continuous freeway and the exit is for a new interchange of a former at-grade intersection where there are no other exits for miles in either direction.

Sounds like Manitoba.

[NE2]

and Kentucky.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.002077,-84.430361&spn=0.027181,0.056691&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.002092,-84.430669&panoid=srp58OZm0nexsINaoWfY6Q&cbp=12,96.26,,0,7.85

[hotdogPi]

and anything in this thread.

[roadman]

AFAIK, MassDOT currently has no plans to apply exit numbers to shorter expressway segments (like US 1 between Chelsea and Danvers) that currently don't have exit numbers.

[PHLBOS]

I know North Carolina has adopted a policy to apply mile-based numbering to new exits, even if the highway is not a continuous freeway and the exit is for a new interchange of a former at-grade intersection where there are no other exits for miles in either direction. Perhaps this is a little too much, but for any freeway with at least a few exits might there be a benefit to adding numbers to them?

At present, the only highways that fall in the above-category and currently have exit numbers are the freeway stretches of MA 2 and US 6 along the Mid-Cape Highway (note: one could argue similar for US/MA 3).

Side bar & off-topic: when the US 6/Mid Cape Highway exit numbers are converted; will the new numbers be US 6-based or just Mid-Cape Highway based (like it presently is)?

[NE2]

At present, the only highways that fall in the above-category and currently have exit numbers are the freeway stretches of MA 2 and US 6 along the Mid-Cape Highway (note: one could argue similar for US/MA 3).

Route 140? Route 146? Route 128 ?

[PHLBOS]

At present, the only highways that fall in the above-category and currently have exit numbers are the freeway stretches of MA 2 and US 6 along the Mid-Cape Highway (note: one could argue similar for US/MA 3).

Route 140? Route 146? Route 128 ?

I didn't include 128 because it's a continuous freeway west of Grant Circle (Exit 11/MA 127).  The examples I posted are cases where the route goes from freeway to arterial/conventional road or vice-versa more than once.  140 also falls in that category as well because it starts as a freeway in New Bedford but changes to an arterial north of MA 24.  No other freeway segments of MA 140 containing its own exit numbers exists beyond MA 24.

In all fairness, you're right, I did forget about 146; although those exit numbers were only recently assigned.