I-93/I-95 Additional lane opens

[roadman]

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).

[roadman]

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.

[NE2]

And the entire Capital Beltway is I-495. Chill.

[MVHighways]

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!

[hbelkins]

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.)

[MVHighways]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

Businesses 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[MVHighways]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

[PurdueBill]

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.

[KEVIN_224]

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.

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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

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.

[MVHighways]

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.

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

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.

[PurdueBill]

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. 

[shadyjay]

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...

[PHLBOS]

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

[MVHighways]

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.)

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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!

[MVHighways]

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.

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.

[PHLBOS]

I 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/

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.

[MVHighways]

I 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/

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.

[PHLBOS]

I 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.).

[MVHighways]

I 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.

[PHLBOS]

I 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.