General Infrastructure

chmeeee said:
I would argue that having them continue logically past the split on both roadways could accidentally result in more confusion. The exit from I-95 to Route 114 would have the same number as the exit from 128 to Route 114 but go to a different place (they're equidistant from the split). Having the exit numbers restart at a different place makes that problem far less likely. That said I'd put Mile Marker 1 at the split since the rest of 128 is toast.
Click to expand...
I'd honestly prefer restarting the numbering at 1 from the split. But that's not going to happen either because they'd have to remove 128 from way too many signs only for everyone to keep calling the beltway 128 anyway, since that makes sense from a historical wayfinding perspective. The gap is stranger than duplicating exits, because if you're actually using the exit numbers to wayfind based on distance, you've just unmoored them with the gap (unless we think people are going to know off the top of their heads that 128's mileposts start 37 miles back in Canton).

Frankly, as someone all too familiar with 114, the exit numer duplication would be pretty minor. It's not terribly uncommon for Google Maps or Waze to route you to the 114 exit from 95 instead of the one from 128 when traffic is really bad on 128, because it's only a 3 mile gap between the two highways at that point. That's also the only such example (the other roads either don't have access from both highways or are not equidistant).

Optional solve (if I were God): Push all Danvers local traffic from I-95 onto US 1 (basically the way 95 SB is currently setup, aside from that really weird Centre St exit), simplifying both the 62 and 114 weird dual junctions with 95 and 1 where two highways are letting out onto those state roads in rapid succession.
 
I say eliminate the 128 designation from Braintree to Peabody, and only have Rote 128 run from Peabody to Gloucester, Have the route 128 exits start at zero at the junction with I-95 in Peabody. California did a massive overhaul of its route numbers in the 1960's. eliminating virtually all overlapping route numbers. including a lot of historical routes (US 99, US 66, etc). People here are used to Route 128 circling around Boston, but after a while the I-95 designation would become natural to most people.
 
At risk of nimbyhood, it will always be Exit 13 (Kelley Sq) in Wormtown.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I say eliminate the 128 designation from Braintree to Peabody, and only have Rote 128 run from Peabody to Gloucester, Have the route 128 exits start at zero at the junction with I-95 in Peabody. California did a massive overhaul of its route numbers in the 1960's. eliminating virtually all overlapping route numbers. including a lot of historical routes (US 99, US 66, etc). People here are used to Route 128 circling around Boston, but after a while the I-95 designation would become natural to most people.
Click to expand...
Having a cleanly referenced circumferential route is actually much better navigation / wayfinding practice.

What we have managed to do is turn what once was good practice (circumfrencial Route 128) into a classic Boston navigation cluster (From Route 3 Braintree, head South on I-93 -- although you are heading West; then go North on I-95 -- no don't' exit just stay on the same road, then go North on 128 in Peabody, no don't exit just stay on the same road, and then exit in Gloucester...)
 
www.wcvb.com

MassDOT to begin changing Massachusetts exit numbers this weekend

A highway on the South Coast will become the first in the state to receive mileage-based exit numbers.
www.wcvb.com www.wcvb.com

Tyranny begins (for some NIMBY's). . .

Milepost-based exit signage starts going up on MA 140 overnight tonight, the first highway to receive them.


They're starting with 140 because the first 7 exits--US 6 to Braley Rd. in New Bedford--already match their mileposts and don't need to be touched. Changes start at Chace Rd. in Freetown thru MA 24 in Taunton.
 
128 is obviously a tortured beast. But here's the stupidest re-numberings by far. . .
  • I-290 will continue flagrantly illegal route number I-395's mileposts all the way to Marlborough...BUT, to make it extra confusing, the wayside mileposts will be doubled-up with dual 395/290 mileposts in tiny print. Bye, Worcester; it was nice wayfinding you!
  • US 3 will continue flagrantly illegal route number MA 3's mileposts from Burlington to Tyngsboro. The wayside mileposts already do this, so they're just too lazy to replace those too. They've already been too lazy going on 50 years to replace square route shields with keystone route shields to fix this idiotic glitch.

I-291, I-391, MA 213, and Lowell Connector are exempt from the program and will stay sequential because they're each < 5 miles long and average >1 exit per mile over their whole lengths. Consistent with how other states have treated intra-city spurs so that's probably a fed-blessed option. Any other lesser highway rumplets simply don't have exit numbers at all (though I guess it's a little confusing that US 44 doesn't have them when Middleboro-Kingston is at the deep end of the milepost count).
 
chmeeee said:
Looks like the first 13 (!) match on 93 as well.
Click to expand...
93 will be interesting as you're right that the Freeport St Exit is the first to change (to 13A). The next two exits: Morrisey Blvd changes to 13B and Columbia Rd to 14 (from 15) will cause the most confusion IMO.
 
I drove on 395 (renumbered) and 95 in RI (not renumbered) yesterday and I have to say, I really appreciate the renumbering. It makes distances feel more intuitive for the most part, with one exception: 2A in Connecticut, which is disconnected from the rest of 2 by an unsigned concurrency on 95, and thus has seemingly random exit numbers.
 
I've seen laser-based height detection and appropriate signs responding work decently well, probably not 100% reliably but at least it provides more direct feedback then another static sign among many.

If my small old hometown in Connecticut could do it I'd have to imagine Boston could make it happen too. No idea what the price tag would be relative to $75k.
 
Quirk of moment in time. . .

Milepost exit signage is now fully-installed on Pike WB and 24 SB...but Pike EB and 24 NB still retain the old sequential exits. Which is weird seeing Exit 17 in one direction and Exit 127 in the rear-view. Spotted one "Exit 33A" sign yesterday on 24N for MA 27 in Brockton while the rest still showed 18A, so the changeover in the opposite direction is probably coming this weekend or next. Lot of crews staged about, and all the portable electronic signs are warning of re-signage in progress.

The resticker jobs seem to be pretty seamless. Although the sign notches on the Pike were pre-allocated for exit mileposts >100, it looks like they still had to opt for slightly tighter font kerning than anticipated on the restickers (*very* slight difference, whereas any 2-digit restickers are exactly the same). The old exit numbers are hung off to the side affixed to pole masts and aren't cluttering the main overhead signage (except on low-post signs like the actual exit splits)...though I've noticed they're slightly less-than-completist about every mast getting them (perhaps they don't have enough hangers yet for differing mast types?). I like that touch, as it's less obtrusive than other states which have suffixed their main signage and implicitly conveys that the old exits are being sunset.


From what I can tell MA 3 and MA 140 have been done for a few months now. Pike + 24, as noted, are mid-progress. 95/128, 93, 495, 395/290, 2, and 84 haven't been touched yet (pretty sure 1 hasn't either) from observations driving or seeing signage on a passing road since Xmas. And don't know status of 91, 190, 195, US 3, 6 since haven't been driven any stretch of those so far this year.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Maybe he can pull some more Federal transit funding to Mass. for BLX to Lynn, etc.
Click to expand...
She, but yes despite all the criticism she gets in MA, she was definitely one of the most progressive transportation secretaries in the country. It'll be interesting to see if i90 interchange lands some better funding now.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Quirk of moment in time. . .

Milepost exit signage is now fully-installed on Pike WB and 24 SB...but Pike EB and 24 NB still retain the old sequential exits. Which is weird seeing Exit 17 in one direction and Exit 127 in the rear-view. Spotted one "Exit 33A" sign yesterday on 24N for MA 27 in Brockton while the rest still showed 18A, so the changeover in the opposite direction is probably coming this weekend or next. Lot of crews staged about, and all the portable electronic signs are warning of re-signage in progress.
Click to expand...

BUMP. . .

Can confirm as of yesterday that 24N exit re-signing is fully complete, so last weekend was the finish-up. Not sure about Pike EB.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
BUMP. . .

Can confirm as of yesterday that 24N exit re-signing is fully complete, so last weekend was the finish-up. Not sure about Pike EB.
Click to expand...
Pike EB is getting there, at least - the exit for 128 has been re-signed, to be honest I haven't been paying much attention to the rest of the exits beyond that but can make a mental note to confirm tomorrow morning.
 
Was watching resigning on either 24 or 93 going into 95. Also amusing that Google Maps hadn't updated things yet - all rather confusing for a moment in the AM.
 
DBM said:
This could be posted in a number of transportation threads currently ongoing, but it seems like this one is the most appropriate for now. Quite a dismissal/condemnation of Pollack's legacy, I suppose.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/02...portation-vision-leader-who-can-carry-it-out/
Click to expand...

I mean, I haven't read it, and likely won't until tomorrow, but Pollack was publicly weary of going to work under Baker, who pretty much held puppet strings on all the big calls and how much money transportation was getting. It's more-so that we need a governor more progressive on transit and infrastructure spending rather than letting shit hit the fan and then maybe hesitatingly fixing it, followed by "See? This is why we need more privatization!" I had a glimmer of hope that the tide was changing after the infamous Red Line derailment in 2019, and the subsequent expedited maintenance spending, much needed shutdowns, as much of a nuisance as they were, and adequate maintenance funding in new capital planning projects. That's probably all thrown out the window with the T trying to dramatically save every penny it can, while other transit systems are getting by pretty fine.

I'm looking forward to seeing what she does in her new role under Biden/Buttigeg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top