Late this afternoon, I also received a response from MassDOT to my comments on exit renumbering. I won't repeat all the responses to the same comments I made as PHLBOS since my responses were the same. This includes that on the I-395 exit numbers, my comments also asking whether the potential of numbering I-195 and I-295 as continuations of RI exit numbers was considered. The response was the same:
Resetting the exit numbers at the Massachusetts border, as occurs now, provides travelers with an additional cue that they’ve crossed over into a different state. It is our judgement that this will aid driver navigation better than continuing the adjacent state’s exit number sequences into Massachusetts will.
One of my comments involved solutions to the criticism by Cape Cod officials of the US 6 numbers, apparently they are thinking of these options:
Has anyone thought of a compromise of assigning milepost based numbers, but using the Mid-Cape Highway miles instead of US 6? If the assigning of mileposts to a named highway would be difficult, perhaps you could create a new route to run concurrently with US 6 from Route 3 in Bourne to Route 28 in Orleans and use that highway's mileage for the exit numbers.
MassDOT is considering these possible alternatives to using the US 6 mile marker numbers for the Mid-Cape Highway exits. If either alternative were considered acceptable to Cape Cod officials, AASHTO and/or FHWA approval would be required before any changes could be made. We also note that, if the Mid-Cape Highway were designated as a different route from US 6, it would likely begin at the Sagamore Bridge, and not run concurrently with the section of US 6 Scenic Highway between Route 25 and the bridge.
I also made a comment about US 3/MA3 sharing mileage and wouldn't it be simpler to have the entire route US 3, either on the current route, or reroute it north of Boston, or just have 2 separate routes on the freeway portions:
The MA Route 3 designation cannot be changed to US 3 because Route 3 between the Mass. Ave Bridge and I-93 at Leverett Circle does not meet current AASHTO design standards, particularly regarding minimum vertical bridge clearances, to be given a US Route designation. Rerouting US 3 between Burlington and Boston via I-95 (128) and I-93, which would require AASHTO review and approval before implementation, is not considered a practical option at this time. This is due to capacity constraints at the I-95/I-93 interchange in Woburn, and would also require an outreach effort and highway sign changes that are beyond the scope of this project.
As you note, media traffic reporters, the general public, and others generally consider Route 3 to be two separate roads, one from Braintree south and the other from Burlington north. Also, the freeway segments of US 3 and MA 3 already have distinct sets of exit numbers that do not duplicate – this will still be the case after milepost numbering is implemented. For these reasons, and given the additional outreach effort and changes to highway signs required – both of which are outside the scope of this project, MassDOT sees little tangible benefit to the public to justify removing the Route 3 designation between Braintree and Burlington entirely.
I also asked that it was somewhat confusing under a mile-based system to have the Storrow Drive exit marked 18 in both directions, but have the southbound Exit 18 be north of mile 20:
For ease of navigation and for consistency in directing people to businesses, exits in different directions that serve the same route, street, or area of a city or town, are being given the same exit number even when they are physically located at different locations along the highway. As the signs on I-93 south for the Sullivan Square and Leverett Connector/Storrow Drive exits overlap, this “out of order” numbering should not create undue confusion for drivers.
The rest of my comments involved errors with the exit lists. The response was that the I-93 exit list needed to be updated regarding the inclusion of Sullivan Square as an exit southbound and also removing the reference to MA 28 in that direction also, but no timeline given for the corrections.