Cape Cod Rail, Bridges and Highways

[ErnieAdams]

I mean, I don't know what to tell you if you don't think Cape Cod is unique. It's unique geographically from anywhere in the United States, owing to its origins by glacial formation and its prime location -- ocean-bound, temperate, and proximate to major population centers. Along with the Islands, it's unique economically from anywhere else in the Commonwealth, owing to its heavily weighted service and tourism dependencies. Its desirability as a summer destination and a retirement destination also makes it unique demographically. Barnstable County is the oldest in Massachusetts by a long freaking shot - 27.8% over 65 as of 2014 per the Census Bureau, vs. 15.1% for Massachusetts and 14.5% for the U.S. These are the facts -- uniquely coastal, uniquely tourist, uniquely old. I'll focus on "uniquely coastal" for this post, but notice that no appeals to sentimentality or aesthetics are needed. If I were that sentimental about it, I'd still be there, but when you're 22 and living down there alone with the seagulls in the desolation of February, you start calling your Boston friends to see about roommate vacancies really fast.

If you're the type of person who can so broadly deny the uniqueness of place, then you're probably also the type of person whose eyes don't glaze over during discussions of interstate standards and renumbering. And clearly those are both true, and that's cool. That's going to make it tough to find common ground. But as much as the discussion doesn't do it for me, Equilibria is right, I think. If the state needs to comply with these preposterous requirements, then it needs to re-designate the highways themselves so that the exit numbers will have some real-world resonance.

This gets back to geographic uniqueness, and this answers your question about why MA's numbering is better for the Mid-Cape, F-Line. Tourist or local, when you go over the bridge, your geographic compass resets because of the monumentality of the geographic border you just traversed. You've crossed the Canal over the bridge and you are now, for all intents and purposes, in a place that is all its own, technically if not literally an island apart. Locals divide the world into two parts: "on-Cape" and "off-Cape." The Rhode Island border is a sign along the highway between Seekonk and East Providence. The Canal the freaking Grand Canyon by comparison.

If you are leaving the Cape, you don't want to know how long it is until you hit Rhode Island. Set aside that you're in the southeast corner of the state, and you might not even be going to Rhode Island. You might be going to Boston or points north, or to Worcester or points northwest, in which case numbering to Rhode Island is wholly irrelevant. No, if you are leaving the Cape, you want to know how long until you hit the landmark you passed on the way out. You want to know when you will get to the Canal so that you can start to get to wherever else you're headed.

Counting down the exits so that the Canal is Exit 0 or 1 is the simplest and most correct way for that information to be conveyed. Give the Mid-Cape a new designation so that the Canal is Mile 0. That's the compromise that should work for everyone.

Now don't say nobody's answered the first question you raised above, F-Line, because that's the answer. Geographic uniqueness compels a different result here than that imposed by the MUTCD. As to the others:

Nobody has answered why there's a taxpayer argument to be made when the state has already spent the money to re-sign the entirety of its expressway network.

Because re-signing (necessary) does not have to mean re-numbering, and if the news article is to be believed, even the FHA hasn't completely made up its mind on re-numbering.

Nobody has answered why this is the tyranny of the feds when Massachusetts voluntarily undertook the action of re-signing its highways to-code.

Because "Massachusetts" is not the Borg, a single-consciousness organism possessing total awareness of all of the knowledge of every one of its citizens at every moment. Certain appointed/elected state officials have worked with the FHA to secure funding, and as the article makes clear, certain others are only being made aware of it now. We didn't all get this information beamed to us simultaneously at the moment the omnibus bill was signed in Washington. How many things around here fail or get pushback because people find out about them later in the process than would be ideal? Practically everything, it feels like.

F-Line, your best argument was the one I considered earlier - eventually the rest of the country will have milepost numbering and it will make MA confusing by comparison. I see it and I concede it. So my proposal is not to keep Exit 6 as Exit 6 forever. It's to make the Sagamore Bridge Mile 0 of the Mid-Cape Highway, and to make the Bourne Bridge Mile 0 of MacArthur Boulevard and whatever the limited access section to Falmouth is called. That's progress we can make sense of.

 

[Equilibria]

If you're the type of person who can so broadly deny the uniqueness of place, then you're probably also the type of person whose eyes don't glaze over during discussions of interstate standards and renumbering. And clearly those are both true, and that's cool. That's going to make it tough to find common ground. But as much as the discussion doesn't do it for me, Equilibria is right, I think. If the state needs to comply with these preposterous requirements, then it needs to re-designate the highways themselves so that the exit numbers will have some real-world resonance.

Let me add that I don't think these requirements are preposterous - as an out-of-stater in Vermont and New Hampshire I can attest to how useful they are. Re-numbering the Interstates is good. It's re-numbering a few select route numbers that were cobbled together from entirely unrelated and discontinuous highways that presents the problem.

It's really US-6 on the Cape, US-3 from Burlington to Nashua, and potentially US-44 and Route 140 that present issues. Route 2 isn't a problem, since people already conceive of its full length.

 

[ErnieAdams]

Let me add that I don't think these requirements are preposterous - as an out-of-stater in Vermont and New Hampshire I can attest to how useful they are. Re-numbering the Interstates is good. It's re-numbering a few select route numbers that were cobbled together from entirely unrelated and discontinuous highways that presents the problem.

It's really US-6 on the Cape, US-3 from Burlington to Nashua, and potentially US-44 and Route 140 that present issues. Route 2 isn't a problem, since people already conceive of its full length.

Agreed 100%. Preposterous as applied, I should have said.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I mean, I don't know what to tell you if you don't think Cape Cod is unique. It's unique geographically from anywhere in the United States, owing to its origins by glacial formation and its prime location -- ocean-bound, temperate, and proximate to major population centers. Along with the Islands, it's unique economically from anywhere else in the Commonwealth, owing to its heavily weighted service and tourism dependencies. Its desirability as a summer destination and a retirement destination also makes it unique demographically. Barnstable County is the oldest in Massachusetts by a long freaking shot - 27.8% over 65 as of 2014 per the Census Bureau, vs. 15.1% for Massachusetts and 14.5% for the U.S. These are the facts -- uniquely coastal, uniquely tourist, uniquely old. I'll focus on "uniquely coastal" for this post, but notice that no appeals to sentimentality or aesthetics are needed. If I were that sentimental about it, I'd still be there, but when you're 22 and living down there alone with the seagulls in the desolation of February, you start calling your Boston friends to see about roommate vacancies really fast.

In the whole of the United States...no, it is not unique at all. Because every single one of those arguments you make for the Cape's specialness can be made with equal vigor by somebody else tugging at the heartstrings of their very special region. None of these arguments you cite have any relevance whatsoever to the highway network and choice of exit numbering. None whatsoever. The glaciers, the the summer residents, the demographic age, the location on the coast, the islands which don't have any highways...absolutely none of that constitutes an argument for why a 1950's expressway constructed at the same time as the rest of the state expressway network and contiguously tied to that statewide expressway network is worthy of an exception. All ^this^ eye-of-beholder extracurricular is irrelevant. To prove specialness when so much policy precedent has been set nationwide about these considerations being not special at all requires precedent-setting evidence.

I'm listening if you can make a counterpoint that directly addresses, with evidence, the need for a policy exemption rooted in wayfinding superiority that sets that precedent. What about the road is so special it mandates it. The road as part of a larger network of roads, not the intangibles of the location and its demographics. All of the stuff you've cited falls orders of magnitude shy of setting a new policy precedent. It's irrelevant. Describe something relevant at a policy level, not a personal opinion level.

If you're the type of person who can so broadly deny the uniqueness of place, then you're probably also the type of person whose eyes don't glaze over during discussions of interstate standards and renumbering. And clearly those are both true, and that's cool. That's going to make it tough to find common ground. But as much as the discussion doesn't do it for me, Equilibria is right, I think. If the state needs to comply with these preposterous requirements, then it needs to re-designate the highways themselves so that the exit numbers will have some real-world resonance.

Again, the uniqueness is irrelevant to a policy decision. Just as individual citizens breaking along "road geek" and "not road geek" lines is really really really irrelevant to a policy decision. You're not helping your case making this all about emotional appeals, because that's not what's informing the policy decisions. If you think the policy should be changed, you should start catering your uniqueness arguments to making a conclusive, evidence-backed case that this road--not the demographics, not the intangible sense of community...but the non-sentient road--has a different enough design requiring different wayfinding needs than every other case nationwide that didn't earn itself an exemption.

The only cases nationwide that have consistently earned permanent exemptions (as opposed to non-exempted "we're short on money" open-ended delays) are short urban freeways with more exits than total miles. Washington D.C.'s expressways, for instance. There's nothing here on US 6 that follows that precedent...so the road's design has to be one hell of a precedent-setter to carve out some new category of exemptions.

That is not an argument you can make by falling back on emotional appeals. Step it out for us...why is US 6 laid out fundamentally differently from every other milepost-based expressway in the land. And no, exit numbering starting late isn't a difference because hundreds upon hundreds of roads do that.

This gets back to geographic uniqueness, and this answers your question about why MA's numbering is better for the Mid-Cape, F-Line. Tourist or local, when you go over the bridge, your geographic compass resets because of the monumentality of the geographic border you just traversed. You've crossed the Canal over the bridge and you are now, for all intents and purposes, in a place that is all its own, technically if not literally an island apart. Locals divide the world into two parts: "on-Cape" and "off-Cape." The Rhode Island border is a sign along the highway between Seekonk and East Providence. The Canal the freaking Grand Canyon by comparison.

You have not explained why this is different from every other milepost-based highway in the United States that crosses onto non-mainland territory. That is not a uniqueness argument, it's another emotional appeal. We have exit-numbered highways that cross the continental divide, exit-numbered highways self-contained on the island of Oahu, exit-numbered highways crossing Lake Michigan into the isolated upper peninsula of Michigan, exit-numbered highways crossing the Chesapeake Bay. Somehow those much bigger geographical divides don't merit exemptions, but the "monumentality" of Cape Cod Canal does?

There's nothing there except an emotional argument: "I personally believe harder. . ."

If you are leaving the Cape, you don't want to know how long it is until you hit Rhode Island. Set aside that you're in the southeast corner of the state, and you might not even be going to Rhode Island. You might be going to Boston or points north, or to Worcester or points northwest, in which case numbering to Rhode Island is wholly irrelevant. No, if you are leaving the Cape, you want to know how long until you hit the landmark you passed on the way out. You want to know when you will get to the Canal so that you can start to get to wherever else you're headed.

There's nobody from Rhode Island who has use for that information? Why are people from Rhode Island different from people everywhere else in the country who use mileposts for wayfinding. Why is 6 even signed "East / West" when that's meaningless for wayfinding to/from Boston? Why is anyone here fundamentally different from everyone else who gets along just spiffy with milepost wayfinding counting up west-to-east or south-to-north when they may not be traveling in that direction?

Now we're mutating and multiplying our "specialness" arguments to infinite complexity.

Counting down the exits so that the Canal is Exit 0 or 1 is the simplest and most correct way for that information to be conveyed. Give the Mid-Cape a new designation so that the Canal is Mile 0. That's the compromise that should work for everyone.

Except...the Canal isn't Exit 0, it's Exit 1C! And the whole other side of the bridge--that metaphorical Grand Canyon--it's 1A and 1B on the Route 3, not US 6, numbering scheme.

So again...what is the policy-based argument for sequentials when Massachusetts sequentials are hopelessly broken? You can re-sequence 6 from the Canal and that same Cape politician who was kvetching about what a devastating loss of identity changing Exit 12 would mean...would have Exit 12 changed on him anyway by this logic.

Is there a policy argument at all, or is this just pure emotion?

Now don't say nobody's answered the first question you raised above, F-Line, because that's the answer. Geographic uniqueness compels a different result here than that imposed by the MUTCD. As to the others:

Because re-signing (necessary) does not have to mean re-numbering, and if the news article is to be believed, even the FHA hasn't completely made up its mind on re-numbering.

You haven't answered what the hell geographic uniqueness is. It isn't an eye-of-the-beholder thing. There are thousands of unique locations around the country that have roads which don't buck the trend. You haven't made anything but hometown-proud emotional arguments why the Cape is fundamentally different from a whole nation's worth of other special places.

And, yes, the FHWA has completely made up its mind on re-numbering. The exemption was struck down. Implementation plans for the transition have to be submitted by the state, like every other state that lacks exemptions. MassDOT has done that. The only negotiating room is on the scheduling, where budget realities have made the FHWA very flexible on when these things get done. Of the 9 states still on sequentials, 3 (CT, MA, NH) are still at square-one with NH being such a recent convert it still hasn't submitted its implementation plan (for which it'll get fed funding). 2 others (RI and VT) are still waiting word on their applications for exemption extensions. 4 others are either very far along but still with a couple high-profile roads yet (NJ, DE, MD)...or are so hopelessly behind (NY) it'll be generations before they're done. The FHWA doesn't care when the Cape gets done. It does care that the Cape gets re-signed without it being done simultaneous with the re-signing, because MassDOT already got its exemption revoked for doing the rest of the state's re-signing without re-numbering.

The only choice here is whether the Cape gets new signs now or delays them for decades more. But I don't see the honor in impeding one's own safety by leaving faded, out-of-date signs up forever. After all, if you're going to throw out a provocative accusation that the feds caused a median fatality by ordering tree-cutting for sightlines...Cape pols are putting their constituents' lives at risk holding out for signs you can't see fog or heavy rain. There is nothing special or exceptional about that behavior.

Because "Massachusetts" is not the Borg, a single-consciousness organism possessing total awareness of all of the knowledge of every one of its citizens at every moment. Certain appointed/elected state officials have worked with the FHA to secure funding, and as the article makes clear, certain others are only being made aware of it now. We didn't all get this information beamed to us simultaneously at the moment the omnibus bill was signed in Washington. How many things around here fail or get pushback because people find out about them later in the process than would be ideal? Practically everything, it feels like.

I agree that coordination was lacking, especially around town records and whatnot which would need to be updated for the change. But that's not the reason they're upset about it. They're upset because they can't get an exception. And here we are back with the intangibles arguments about specialness.

F-Line, your best argument was the one I considered earlier - eventually the rest of the country will have milepost numbering and it will make MA confusing by comparison. I see it and I concede it. So my proposal is not to keep Exit 6 as Exit 6 forever. It's to make the Sagamore Bridge Mile 0 of the Mid-Cape Highway, and to make the Bourne Bridge Mile 0 of MacArthur Boulevard and whatever the limited access section to Falmouth is called. That's progress we can make sense of.

But that's not what the Cape pols are arguing. Exit 12 wouldn't be Exit 12 with your interim solution. Fixing the broken MA sequential numbering with sequential numbering that makes sense would piss them off just as much as going to mileposts. Pure, unadulterated "BANANA" (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) mentality. Exit 12's gonna change all the same if they fix the broken system or implement the new system. They don't want change. They are willing to hold up a safety improvement because they don't want to change anything about anything, even when status quo is more confusing than the alternatives. Or...rather, "alternative", because the choice is sign replacement now or sign replacement delayed...not "keep sequential numbering" or "go milepost-based". There's no wiggle room on the latter.

None of these "specialness" arguments have anything to do with the problem of impeding change, which negatively impacts wayfinding any which way. So why keep harping on those sidebars?

 

[Arlington]

Are there some signs along US 6 that still use glass cats-eye studs for their retro-reflectors, or is the problem that too much is from the non-reflective "flat paint" era?

 

[ErnieAdams]

F-Line, you are profoundly missing the Step 0 of any policy debate and wasting energy on being critical of the emotional appeal of my points. You're forgetting that emotional appeals are what make most policy debates happen in the first place. (No, I will not cite my source.) If nobody feels that anything is different about a place, then there's no reason to argue for special treatment and no policy debate occurs -- the policy is just applied and everyone moves on. But if a constituency looks at the proposed application of the policy and feels that it doesn't reach the right result, then we begin the policy debate. That's what is happening on the Cape right now, and that's what I'm trying to translate to you. Too late to debate? Too bad! It's happening anyway! We use emotions to feel our way through the world and to try to shape it into a more hospitable place.

The perspective of the Cape Codder and the Cape Cod traveler is what I know about, and that's what I hoped to convey with my posts today. I'm not road literate enough to tell you if anything is different enough about this discrete stretch of pavement to deserve special treatment under the MUTCD. And you must know that there's no humanly possible way to respond to everything you just put in your last post, which I suppose is by design.

But listen, application of the policy per the proposed status quo feels wrong, so people will talk about it. In the end, maybe there will be a determination by the feds that an exemption is warranted. Maybe there will be a determination by MassDOT that a change in road designation is warranted. Maybe we get an Exit 56 in Falmouth and an Exit 58 in Sandwich, 14 miles away from each other. And maybe the road crumbles into an even more dystopian death trap that makes it look like an expansion zone in Fallout 4. All are possible outcomes. I've given you some facts, but I'm not going to hide from or deny the feelings either, because without the feelings none of this discussion happens. That, too, is a fact.

The sidebars are what makes it a story. If anything changes from the current plan, it will be because of the sidebars. You can keep demanding evidence and examples, keep moving the goalposts back until they're sitting in the Atlantic Ocean, but that's not going to promote understanding of the issues. That's just going to make everyone take their balls and go home. You know so damn much about the policy, you have to know that very few people will be able to go toe-to-toe with you on it. But if you're insistent that my perspective thus far has been useless, I think it's your loss. I think I had a pretty good idea, I think it would be better than the proposed status quo, and I think you can sell it to Cape Codders, who are, sorry to harp on it, qualitatively different in some ways from other people who live in other places. "Because the MUTCD says so" didn't sell to them or their elected officials. That's another fact, and that's what led to the news article, whether or not anything ultimately comes of it, and that's what led to this failed attempt at discussion. It's been real, man. We'll do it again sometime.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

{^No counterpoint from me}There are several advantages to numbering exits by milepost

1) National wayfinding consistency...Federal dollars get spent on a federal system with national-standard features, including MUTCD signage (color, font, etc). US6 is not just the Cape's road.

Yep. And the 2009 MUTCD did a lot of firming-up of those standards. The new signs that follow the newest reflectivity standards are awesome. They're blazing bright from the reflection off headlights, and fonts crisp and clear for reading with night vision. And good visibility in fog, too. They're better than a bunch of the old signs that were lit with mounted floodlights (Pike had some of those). Before they swapped out the ones on the SE Expressway the transition from the 128 portion with all-new signs to the early-80's button copy on the Expressway was literally night and day. As in...the old button copy was so dark it was unreadable.

This is how New Hampshire is doing it. Rather than fight for a new exemption and likely lose, it committed to going to milepost-based exit numbers in exchange for fed funding for its badly-needed highway signage renewal they'd never be able to afford on their own. They're still hashing out the implementation plan that's required before any fed funding was released, but even Live Free or Die land could be bloodlessly bargained with. It's money well spent by the feds when the net result is all signage getting upgraded to maximum reflectivity/readability. That's real dollars in insurance claim savings. Honestly, the stipulation for exit numbering consistency is such a minor part of the signage funding deal it takes a certain amount of provincial vanity to bother raising a stink over that when it's the towns' own emergency personnel who save money not having to tend to wrecks from drivers taking eyes off the road to squint at a beat-up old non-reflective sign.

Wondering when Rhode Island is going to cut its deal; they're still fighting for an exemption extension they're now very unlikely to get with so many of their immediate neighbors committing to the change. No idea what Vermont's holdup is. Outside of 28 I-91 exits and 22 I-89 exits they only have 13 exits total scattered about on its other few/short expresswaylets. And only 8 of those would have to change because I-189's lone exit matches its milepost, 4 of US 4's exits match their rounded-up mileposts, and the VT 289 turnpike is already milepost-based. Really, except for Rhode Island's unsettled status sequentials are probably in their last decade of existence in the 6 New England states. The "all our neighbors are doing it" herd mentality has now been turned on its head.

2) Emergency Response / Milepost Wayfinding. In a cellphone-enabled emergency response world, when you call 911 from your car, it helps to be able to say "I saw [a bad thing] westbound near milepost 56.5" Milepost exits reinforce the "real" way (mileposts) that highways are measured. You'll also note that most bridges/structures now have milepost-based identifiers too.

Also the reason why the new milepost markers went up on every expressway at 2 tenths of mile intervals. This coincided with the retirement of all those hard-to-maintain motorist aid call boxes, now made obsolete by cell phones. Dial 911 in an accident or disablement and they specifically ask you if you recall the most recent milepost number you passed or can see the next .2 mile marker ahead. Since the exit signs are visible from much further away that'll actually help a little bit more.

3) Tourists. Exit numbers are for people who need navigation help from signs. GPS is going to say "turn here". True locals can probably navigate from the pavement feel or their internal clocks or natural landmarks. To the extent that exits get signs with numbers at all in the GPS era, the signs should conform to an intelligible, consistent system, such as also applies *wherever they're coming from* Mileposts, mileposts, mileposts.

This is where MA won't have a problem with the changeover, because the brokenness of their sequential system de-emphasized exit numbers for exit destination in local wayfinding. I think Connecticut's going to have a much tougher time adjusting; as I mentioned, where I grew up they are much bigger sticklers for exit numbers. I remember back when I-86 got deleted and changed over to a continuation of I-84. The renumbered exits all had little small-font temporary tabs on top saying "Formerly Exit __" that were supposed to stay up for 2 years. They lasted 6 years because the towns kept begging for time extensions on the tabs.

And yet...nobody's protesting the ramp-up to their conversion to milepost-based exits. Maybe because it's an actual improvement on I-395 which nonsensically continued I-95's numbering, and the gentler introduction on that road took most of the fear out of it elsewhere. I'm still a little surprised the public is neutral-to-mildly supportive. But CT also has some of the oldest highway signs in the region. You can't read that button copy on I-84 for shit anymore. So maybe the exit numbers have just been so unreadable for so long that people no longer care.

At any rate, Cape's not got much of a leg to stand on if some of the hoitiest-toitiest areas on the CT Shoreline aren't saying boo.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Are there some signs along US 6 that still use glass cats-eye studs for their retro-reflectors, or is the problem that too much is from the non-reflective "flat paint" era?

US 6, MA 24, MA 28, and Lowell Connector still use the mid-80's flat reflective paint. Pike is the last one that still has large installations of button copy/cats-eye reflectors. Other than maybe an occasional oddball that they forgot during the changeouts, and active construction zones like 128 in Needham/Wellesley, all other statewide highways are done.

The conversion to milepost exits is just going to resticker the exit tabs on the new signs and exit ramp markers. The new Pike signs are already being fabricated at the sign shop for installation starting after ground thaw; that genie's out of the bottle. That leaves 6, 28, and 24 as the only remaining attack vectors with MassDOT project numbers where NIMBY's can sabre-rattle to their Legislators to hold it up, because those are the ones that still have sign replacement contract money on the line. MassDOT doesn't have to listen to anyone's objections on the resticker jobs because that comes out of the same general-purpose sign maint fund that covers replacement cost of every sign that gets torn down in a truck accident. There's no line item anybody from the outside can interfere with on those. Yes, that means all the howling that's sure to ensue from these same Cape NIMBY's about MA 25 and (flagrantly illegal / makes no sense) MA 3 will be all for naught, because both those roads have already been re-signed.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

BTW...here are all the proposed exit numbering changes in the awarded contract. Note that some individual inconsistencies are still being debated out (e.g. they're being really inconsistent about using Exit 0), so nothing's final until the signs go up.

Interstates and U.S. Highways: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/intexits.html
State Highways: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/massexits.html


Yes, there is official federal funding committed for the restickering: FHWA funding award # HSIP-002S(874)X.

 

[whighlander]

Christ, what a stupid thing to argue about. Do these pols know how non-negotiable a thing they're trying to negotiate?

....It's not like many people in Massachusetts give directions by exit numbers to begin with. The numbering system here is so chewed up by canceled highways, infill exits suffixed with an "A", and years of that harebrained "128 is always Exit 25" numbering scheme that there's hardly any sequence in this state's sequential numbering to give directions to. Exit numbers are how people from Connecticut give their directions, not here. I learned that the hard way after I first moved here many moons ago and saw the glazed-over expressions when giving Pike directions by exit number. Exit numbering just isn't in the Masshole driver's wayfinding vernacular. You see the difference even in advertising...here businesses give their address by exit place, in Connecticut they give it by exit number. I guarantee the same pols bitching about precious, precious Exit 12 have rarely if ever referenced an exit number as a place.

F-Line -- you always raise some interesting points -- but then Riff-like open the valve without testing the firehose for leaks

This took about 5 seconds to google -- and its front and center [my highlights]

#23 Largest Independent
Dealer in the U.S.A.
Welcome to Bourne's Auto Center

Bourne's Auto Center in South Easton, MA is the largest pre-owned dealership in MA, conveniently located off Route 24 exit 17B on the Brockton line. We are only 25 miles south of Boston and 30 miles north of Providence. We are very close to Stoughton, Mansfield, Taunton, and Brockton,

 

[George_Apley]

^ That's advertising, not vernacular. I can vouch for the fact that many locals in MA (including my entire family) speak in terms of the exit destination: "Take the exit to Route 129 towards Wilmington" or "Take the Canton exit". I grew up on Route 2 in Acton and I don't have the slightest idea what the exit numbers are. I know streets all of the exits lead to though: "Get off the highway at Spring St", "hop off at Route 60 towards Belmont", etc.

 

[whighlander]

Yep. And the 2009 MUTCD did a lot of firming-up of those standards. The new signs that follow the newest reflectivity standards are awesome. They're blazing bright from the reflection off headlights, and fonts crisp and clear for reading with night vision. And good visibility in fog, too. They're better than a bunch of the old signs that were lit with mounted floodlights (Pike had some of those). Before they swapped out the ones on the SE Expressway the transition from the 128 portion with all-new signs to the early-80's button copy on the Expressway was literally night and day. As in...the old button copy was so dark it was unreadable.

This is how New Hampshire is doing it. Rather than fight for a new exemption and likely lose, it committed to going to milepost-based exit numbers in exchange for fed funding for its badly-needed highway signage renewal they'd never be able to afford on their own. They're still hashing out the implementation plan that's required before any fed funding was released, but even Live Free or Die land could be bloodlessly bargained with. It's money well spent by the feds when the net result is all signage getting upgraded to maximum reflectivity/readability.....

F-Line -- I guess that the crux of nearly all of your responses to someone's questioning your vision of the future is contained in the following:

....Rather than fight for a new exemption and likely lose, it committed to going to milepost-based exit numbers in exchange for fed funding for its badly-needed highway signage renewal they'd never be able to afford on their own.

Well I can't speak for all the states -- but Massachusetts spends $40B a year -- if the sign project was important enough there would be plenty of cash for it

The real problems is the dependence on the Federal Teat to which all of the state and local governments are attached well past the weaning stage.

What should be done:

• prune the number of Nationally designated Highways to the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System
• finish the mesh to make sure each end of each Interstate is connected to the network or crosses a National Border [including water]
• designate any major road connected to the EIHS as long as it interfaces without any traffic signals These connectors can be called Interstate Tributaries or something such
• The FHA will have no responsibility outside of the above
• the FHA is entirely responsible for funding the design construction and repair of the above with the States only responsibility for funding being for security and routine maintenance

the above will give us a complete reliable and robust network of roads built to state-of-the-art standards [allowance made for climate and geology]
Finally -- you exit the network -- the minute that you hit a traffic light -- beyond that point there is no more Federal control or funds. However, the states and localities are free to do any amount of alternative numbering if they so desire

Such a plan would give us I-93 extended south along Rt-3 to a junction with an extended I-495 [extended along Rt-25] and create the Spur I-393 from I-95 in Canton to I-93 in Braintree.

We would also have an Interstate version of Rt-2 from I-495 to I-190 -- possibly I-92 Within I-495 Rt-2 would be designated IT-2 from the light and within I-95 it would be designated IT-2 until Alewife

The Mid Cape would become IT-6 connecting the rotary to the Bridge and I-93 as extended along Rt-3

 

[whighlander]

^ That's advertising, not vernacular. I can vouch for the fact that many locals in MA (including my entire family) speak in terms of the exit destination: "Take the exit to Route 129 towards Wilmington" or "Take the Canton exit". I grew up on Route 2 in Acton and I don't have the slightest idea what the exit numbers are. I know streets all of the exits lead to though: "Get off the highway at Spring St", "hop off at Route 60 towards Belmont", etc.

Busses -- its really a bit of both exit numbers on some highways e.g. Rt-24, Rt-3 [towards the Cape] and the Mid Cape, and exits designated by streets e.g. Speen Street exit, Pleasant Street Exit. Note that there is even a sign along Rt-2 in Lexington telling the confused that while the next exit #55 is Pleasant Street in Lexington if you want Pleasant Street in Arlington you need to watch for Exit #58. The Rt-2 situation is further complicated by the fact that for most of the way inside of Rt-128/I-95 to nearly Alewife the highway is accompanied by two parallel one-way frontage roads one on each side of the highway -- Texas-style.

as is typically New England -- there are lots of local variations in naming and geographically locating points and such

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line -- I guess that the crux of nearly all of your responses to someone's questioning your vision of the future is contained in the following:


Well I can't speak for all the states -- but Massachusetts spends $40B a year -- if the sign project was important enough there would be plenty of cash for it

The re-sign money is spent. All but 4 roadways have been done; the last 3 are fully-funded. Ergo, there was plenty of funding for that.

The real problems is the dependence on the Federal Teat to which all of the state and local governments are attached well past the weaning stage.

Weaning stage? You mean...when the states are 18 they get kicked out and become their own self-sustaining enclaves? I'm sure this isn't news to you, but we kinda got rid of that system when the Articles of Confederation was retired.

It's the Federal Highway System, therefore the feds set the rules to follow. They also incentivize it by offering--of their own volition--funding for the sign replacements that get the states up-to-spec with the numbering requirements. Something Massachusetts is receiving and so will New Hampshire. This is a problem for the states...because?

What should be done:

• prune the number of Nationally designated Highways to the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System

Something the states cannot do on their own, because they are Federal Highways. States can petition the FHWA to decommission an interstate of U.S. route, but approval is at the Federal level.

I know...such an outrage that enumerated powers clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and all those activist judges who upheld the Necessary and Proper Clause allowing Congress to pass federal laws upholding the power of federal departments over preemption from the states. Somebody should really pass a state law making that illegal.

Oh, wait. . .

• finish the mesh to make sure each end of each Interstate is connected to the network or crosses a National Border [including water]
• designate any major road connected to the EIHS as long as it interfaces without any traffic signals These connectors can be called Interstate Tributaries or something such
• The FHA will have no responsibility outside of the above
• the FHA is entirely responsible for funding the design construction and repair of the above with the States only responsibility for funding being for security and routine maintenance

the above will give us a complete reliable and robust network of roads built to state-of-the-art standards [allowance made for climate and geology]
Finally -- you exit the network -- the minute that you hit a traffic light -- beyond that point there is no more Federal control or funds. However, the states and localities are free to do any amount of alternative numbering if they so desire

It's almost like we have something exactly like this already on the books. Like a highway system that's linked between states and national borders with a series of spur routes. That has, like, these scattered "doorways" to state- and town-control roads. One that's still being added to to fill gaps. The name...it's on the tip of my tongue. "Inter-"...somethingorother.


Little thin for your usual copypasta, but we'll award the ribbon for making the effort on the bullet formatting:

Such a plan would give us I-93 extended south along Rt-3 to a junction with an extended I-495 [extended along Rt-25] and create the Spur I-393 from I-95 in Canton to I-93 in Braintree.

We would also have an Interstate version of Rt-2 from I-495 to I-190 -- possibly I-92 Within I-495 Rt-2 would be designated IT-2 from the light and within I-95 it would be designated IT-2 until Alewife

The Mid Cape would become IT-6 connecting the rotary to the Bridge and I-93 as extended along Rt-3

I assume you're going to kick Bostonroads.com and Kurumi some royalties for those exact advocacies that have been spelled out on their sites for...oh, about 15 years now?

 

[Equilibria]

BTW...here are all the proposed exit numbering changes in the awarded contract. Note that some individual inconsistencies are still being debated out (e.g. they're being really inconsistent about using Exit 0), so nothing's final until the signs go up.

Interstates and U.S. Highways: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/intexits.html
State Highways: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/massexits.html


Yes, there is official federal funding committed for the restickering: FHWA funding award # HSIP-002S(874)X.

No reason to get involved in the rest of this (except to again hope that this makes I-293 a reality, since it's nonsensical to have US-3 numbering start at 70). However, thanks very much for these links. They should almost get their own sticky.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

No reason to get involved in the rest of this (except to again hope that this makes I-293 a reality, since it's nonsensical to have US-3 numbering start at 70). However, thanks very much for these links. They should almost get their own sticky.

Note that per those links MassHighway is taking feedback on some of the per-exit quibbles, since resolving conflicts is not an exact science. I have no idea what mechanism there is for getting citizen feedback direct to MassHighway, but if that source can be located you probably still have an opportunity to give your own two cents about this exit or that. On the majority of roads where it's just the restickering over an existing sign nothing has to be designed or fabricated in advance at the sign shop, so tweaks are fair game right up until the crews get scheduled to go out on the overnight and start applying the decals.

 

[Equilibria]

Note that per those links MassHighway is taking feedback on some of the per-exit quibbles, since resolving conflicts is not an exact science. I have no idea what mechanism there is for getting citizen feedback direct to MassHighway, but if that source can be located you probably still have an opportunity to give your own two cents about this exit or that. On the majority of roads where it's just the restickering over an existing sign nothing has to be designed or fabricated in advance at the sign shop, so tweaks are fair game right up until the crews get scheduled to go out on the overnight and start applying the decals.

Sure, but I don't care much about rounding up or down, or the various other things that the blogger has in his suggestions. The massive illogic of mile zero on US-6 and US-3 isn't going to be fixed through a complaint box.

 

[whighlander]

The re-sign money is spent. All but 4 roadways have been done; the last 3 are fully-funded. Ergo, there was plenty of funding for that.

F-Line -- before Ike we had an National Road system -- e.g. Rt-1, Rt-66, etc.

After Ike sketched it up [albeit based on the Autobahn] we had a true National Highway System [except for some gaps]

But the old rt-x system is still what it was pre-Ike only worse

As you pointed out since much of the original infrastructure is already built -- there really is very very little to do for the FHA and all the other Fxxx's associated with transportation

Therefore, since the States actually do have the responsibility for building roads [not the Fed's except on Military Bases --- check-out the last couple of Amendments in the Bill of Rights] -- let the States individually or collectively if they desire do it -- paid for by blocks of their own dollars being returned sans the meddling by the Idiodocracy in DC

PS: special for F-Line about supposed copy and paste -- if you can find the original I'll give you a virtual dollar to go with my virtual ribbon -- you might have trouble because the only place that exits was within my neural pathways a couple of days ago

 

[chmeeee]

BTW...here are all the proposed exit numbering changes in the awarded contract. Note that some individual inconsistencies are still being debated out (e.g. they're being really inconsistent about using Exit 0), so nothing's final until the signs go up.

Interstates and U.S. Highways: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/intexits.html
State Highways: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/massexits.html


Yes, there is official federal funding committed for the restickering: FHWA funding award # HSIP-002S(874)X.

I feel like somebody gamed the system for Route 2. How else did the mile markers come to fall such that 95/128 is exit #128?

 

[millerm277]

CapeFLYER 2016 press release: http://mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=6442455984&month=&year=