Useless Highway Designations

[omaja]

No general-use name for a road is ever useless. 128 isn't just a designation anymore - how many people have you ever heard calling in "Yankee Division Highway" in conversation. In fact, not only is 128 a name for a road, it's a name for an entire linear edge city that runs along it, and it represents the whole circumferential road from Braintree to Gloucester, so that's where it should run.

I think we're talking about two different things: the cultural/local significance of 128 versus its role as a route designator. What you are referring to is the cultural/local significance which, given how little people like change, won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

But in terms of 128 as an officially commissioned highway, it is pretty useless because all major directional signage references 95 exclusively. You have to be looking for small, secondary sign assemblies off to the side of the road to find any mention of 128.

That said, I've always thought 93 should be extended to the Sagamore and 95 should continue to the Braintree Split where it would duplex with 93 up to the current northern 93/95 interchange. It has always annoyed me that the most important Interstate on the East Coast entirely avoids Boston. Then, at least, you wouldn't have such a long concurrency and 128 (and/or a replacement x95) could be signed again.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

290 doesn't break any rule as it begins and ends at an Interstate highway. 190, on the other hand, is an offender as it branches from 290 and never meets its parent route.

No, 190 is legal. The odd prefix is for a spur route, and spurs can legally fork off other non-parent interstates. The official term is "tertiary spurs", and they are always odd-prefixed. I-795 outside of Baltimore does this from the 695 beltway there.

Even prefixes are for beltways and bypasses. 290 doesn't bypass anything. It is the downtown-most highway in Worcester, and because it was never completed to 128 it doesn't bypass the Pike at all. And the 495 exit at the Pike is less congested than going through Worcester so it doesn't act as much of a 495 cut-over either. It honestly would've made more sense for 395 to become 290 all the way to Waterford, CT since that would make it a sort-of Rhode Island bypass from the shoreline to Boston, but the feds surprised everyone by assigning 395 instead.

 

[omaja]

Didn't realize that about the ability of 3dis to branch off of each other and never meet the parent route. I must have been thinking about all of the x78s in New York that were constructed before 78 through NYC was cancelled, so now none of them link to the parent.

The child route doesn't necessarily have to be the bypass, though, the parent can be. But as much as they love making all of these rules they thoroughly enjoy breaking them all the time. There are several examples like 290 where the route doesn't fit the strict definition of a bypass or beltway:
-295 in Maryland and DC branches from 95/495 to meet 395 in Downtown DC
-480 in Nebraska and Iowa loops through Downtown Omaha to link 80 with 29
-470 in Missouri connects 70 with 435
-684 in New York and Connecticut connects 84 with 287

And those are just a few!

I agree that the current 290/395 set up makes no sense. Making the whole route 290 would definitely be better but not really ideal. I guess it would end up like 476 in PA that ends at 81 and 95, intersecting 76 just north of Philadelphia. Certainly not as odd of a set up as it is now.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

That said, I've always thought 93 should be extended to the Sagamore and 95 should continue to the Braintree Split where it would duplex with 93 up to the current northern 93/95 interchange. It has always annoyed me that the most important Interstate on the East Coast entirely avoids Boston. Then, at least, you wouldn't have such a long concurrency and 128 (and/or a replacement x95) could be signed again.

Or we could just sign the whole damn thing as Interstate 128. It wouldn't be the first non-compliant designation...

 

[omaja]

I don't think I-128 will ever happen - people's reluctance to adopt a new designation wouldn't be reason enough to warrant an exception. The only two majorly messed up exceptions that I know of had pretty unique circumstances: California Route 238 became I-238 in the Bay Area because there were no x80s remaining and I-99 in Pennsylvania was written into law.

If they would ever consider duplexing 93/95 through Boston, 128 from Canton to Woburn would become an x95 to retain those lane miles as part of the Interstate system for federal funding purposes. Until then, though, we'll just have the odd 95/128 duplex with 128 left off any major directional signage.

 

[Ron Newman]

If you're on a bike trip with just a printed map and not a GPS (I'm old-fashioned that way), highway numbers are your friend. All of them. I don't want to have to learn all the twists and turns to get from Manchester to the Beverly-Salem bridge. I just want to follow 127 -- one of the routes you called 'useless'.

 

[massmotorist]

Lots of good ideas here - I like F-Lines in particular.

A few notes:

- Mileage based exit numbering will be happening, see Section 2E.31 of the 2012 Massachusetts MUTCD amendments:

Interchange Exit Numbering
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.

- Numbered routes usually (but not always) designate MassDOT-owned and -maintained routes. That's one important reason to not eliminate a number designation entirely from a particular road. EDIT: Details here: http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/oliver.php (Infrastructure>MassDOT Roads>MassDOT Roads by Admin)

- Route 128 needs to be Route 128 again, from Gloucester to Braintree. I don't understand why they don't use dual designations on the main overhead highway signs.

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

I'm not sure what happens for a road to be assigned a number, but I sure as hell would prefer the number to a series of ever-shifting road names, which I believe is the alternative.

That having been said, assign a new damn number to 1A/2A/3A/129A! Sticking an A on the end of the number just really, really bothers me for some reason. Is there really going to be some great confusion if 2A got changed to, say, 302 or something? Come on.

(Also, all highway numbers are assigned to designate 'state highways.' I'd say, then, that any numbered route which spends the entirety of its existence inside the same town is pretty useless.)

--

Discontinuing Town and County Roads - The Trustees of Reservations
http://www.thetrustees.org/assets/d...nitiative/Discontinuing-Town-County-Roads.pdf

See also Massachusetts General Laws Section 81. Some of these roads were county roadways.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV

I think a good way to get planning like this done would be to bring back County governments and to have a system in Mass. of strong counties and weak municipality government like in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Instead of somewhere like 300 or so separate public works, just have counties be in charge of most of the roads like in almost all of the other U.S. states.