By adamg on Thu., 4/7/2016 - 11:04 pm
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle reports that MassDOT plans to change our highway exit numbers from straight numerical sequences to numbers based on their distance from a particular point.
Seems most of the rest of the country now uses this mileage-based system and the feds want us to convert.
The new exit numbers have not been finalized, and no specific timeline has been set for rolling out the new system.
And not everybody is happy with the plan.
Still, Robert Malme, who follows such things, has lists of the proposed new exit numbers and a photo of the very first mileage-based exit number in the state - on I-395 at the Mass/Conn line.
Topics:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Come on, we're Massachusetts
By Ari O
Thu, 04/07/2016 - 11:21pm
We should take a cue from Franz Kafka airport in Prague and go for the most alienating highway numbering system award. Remember when every highway was numbered Exit 25 at 128? Or when 128/93 was exit 37 on both highways and then they renumbered 128 to be part of 95 and it was still 37? Or how you can drive North on Route 3 and go straight on to 93 South and then straight again on to 95 North but no one would actually give you those directions because you'd "get on 128 at the Braintree Split"?
This should be our goal. Exits should be numbered something like 1, D, π, 22, F, &, ∴, 63.3, F, Z. That would be a numbering system we could be proud of.
Or we should come up with an Dunkin Donuts-based exit numbering system. (Bonus points for Adam posting in that video's comments.)
That is still to convenient
By Roslindaler
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 8:00am
We should actually just remove all of the exit signs because, if you were from here you would know where you were going. ; )
ELIC: How are the numbers for interstate exits decided?
By theszak
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 8:07am
ELIC: How are the numbers for interstate exits decided? (self.ExplainLikeImCalvin)
https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainLikeImCalvin/comme...
reddit. com/r/ExplainLikeImCalvin/comments/4cz9r5/elic_how_are_the_numbers_for_interstate_exits/?sort=confidence
Alternate System
By Henley
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 2:50pm
We could use prime numbers
Yes, just like postage stamps
By Refugee
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 5:53pm
Yes, just like postage stamps.
about time
By Scumquistador
Thu, 04/07/2016 - 11:19pm
I grew up using the current setup so I can navigate just fine, but as I've traveled elsewhere it is pretty obvious that we're moving towards a superior convention.
I'm all for it, although, I will pour one out for my homies. You know who you are.
RIP
Per younger brother who
By anon42
Thu, 04/07/2016 - 11:41pm
Per younger brother who worked for DOT on asking him why MA does not have the same exit system as the rest of the county: b/c exits are too close together (in Boston esp) and you'd see exit numbers like 15.1, 15.3, 15.7 etc.
If we can do this in the wide open spaces of MA--great!
It would work on the Mass Pike
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 04/07/2016 - 11:58pm
I can't see this working very well on I-93 or sections of I-95. Some would be numbered in groupings (a-b-c) where, say, there are north and southbound exits. The rest would be wacky.
My dad was a "highwayman" most of his career and he thought that the local system was better given the conditions.
This is already the case when
By Ben K
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 5:29am
This is already the case when exits get changed around, and it can actually be worse with sequential numbers. Route 3 north at 495, you take one offramp for exits 30A and 30B, and a different one for exits 30C and 31! On 90/94 in downtown Chicago, there are exits every two blocks, and the letters go up to J or higher. It's not particularly confusing.
That won't change, actually
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 9:46am
When exits are for the same road/road system, they continue to be A, B, C, etc. in the distance-based system.
I find it more confusing when close together exits are labeled alphabetically and do not end up going different directions on the same roadway.
Part of me
By anon
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 1:21pm
was hoping that "31!" was actually an exit number, and not the punctuation you used.
I vote for emojis instead of numbers. I suspect the delegates from Allston will cast their votes ironically for the smiling pile of poo.
Huh?
By boo_urns
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 9:24am
The rest of New England, with the exception of the Maine Pike, are numbered based on order, not on mileage. What am I missing here?
Not for CT at least
By penguin_berry
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 10:09am
Pretty sure CT is converted. I was on 395 recently and saw "Exit N" with "formerly exit Y" signs everywhere.
Only I-395 has been converted
By roadman
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 12:39pm
to milepost based exit numbers - the remaining routes still have sequential numbers.
Unlike Massachusetts, which is planning a 'blanket' conversion statewide with overlays (instead of totally replacing signs), Connecticut has decided to not convert all the exit numbers until the signs on a given route are due for normal replacement. From both cost and logistical perspectives, it is highly impractical to replace all the signs on a given route at the same time, so this policy could result in some interesting inconsistencies on longer routes like I-84 and I-95.
At present, only five of the 50 states
By roadman
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 11:45am
still number highway exits sequentially instead of using a reference-based (milepost) system. Most of them happen to be in New England.
And when Maine converted their exit numbers (in 2004), they did it statewide and not just on the Maine Turnpike. Pennsylvania converted their exit numbers in a similar manner - blanket contract across the state. Amazingly, once the numbers were changed, all the businesses and tourists and everyone else managed to survive and go on with their lives.
The "controversy" over the proposed conversion is just another example of our obsession with petty issues and reluctance to accept logical changes.
Pettiness is changing the
By anon
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 6:21pm
Pettiness is changing the exits in 2016. In 2004 you could make an argument for renumbering because nobody was using automotive GPS back then - it was a novelty add-on for your PDA being advertised in the Sharper Image catalog. Everyone was still using printed maps, either preprinted or printed from mapquest. Today, everyone (except maybe grandma) already depends on GPS to get anywhere. A used standalone unit costs less than a tank of gas. And another ten years from now, if you want to know how far the exit is, you'll ask the car, because the car will be doing the driving.
How does changing the signs in 2017 make any sense from a cost benefit perspective? The potential benefit is going extinct very fast.
And the counter-argument is
By anon
Wed, 04/13/2016 - 7:13am
And the counter-argument is that in 2004 it was less convenient than nowadays to do this because back then people had to buy new maps and atlases after the changes were made, but nowadays the updated information will be pushed to your phone/Google maps for free.
That's not how exit numbers
By DTP
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 9:47am
That's not how exit numbers work. You'd have, in your example, exits 15A, 15B, and 16.
Also, Boston doesn't have more closely spaced exits than elsewhere. In fact, with the exception of maybe 93 from Columbia Rd into the O'Neill Tunnel, our exits tend to be spaced FARTHER apart than in many other cities.
If you want to see somewhere with really closely spaced exits, that uses mileage-based numbering, check out Kansas City: https://goo.gl/maps/cVPZdmSBPmn Pretty much their entire downtown is exit 2, with suffixes going up to 2Y!
Change Is Good
By Russ
Thu, 04/07/2016 - 11:49pm
Using mileage to determine exit numbers is a far superior system and worth the trouble to make the change. Drivers who understand basic math can easily determine distances in their heads. I drive out of state all the time and always appreciate being able to quickly figure out how far the next stop will be.
It might have been worth the
By anon
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 12:05am
It might have been worth the trouble ... 20 years ago.
Today when you want to determine the distance to your exit, you look at the GPS.
But when the apocalypse comes
By anon
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 8:10am
your GPS won't tell you how far you are from the zombie hordes at exit 80, but that rusted old exit sign might.
Except that you can read highway signs
By roadman
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 11:48am
without taking your eyes off the road. And, I realize this may be a foreign concept to you, but many people still figure out where they're going without using a GPS.
you can read highway signs
By Refugee
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 1:11pm
Which is literally only possible if a highway sign has fallen onto the road.
And for everyone who doesn't
By anon
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 3:45pm
And for everyone who doesn't have a data plan and is using a standalone GPS (or is using a smart phone app that didn't get the memo), they're going to be confused when the GPS says take exit 7, and the sign says exit 22.
I love my localism
By Waquiot
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 12:21am
They are highways, not "freeways".
It's Route 128, not two different interstate highways.
Yet still, I like using mileage for exits. You get to work out distances without using a map. I say, go for it.
And while you're at it, put the 128 signs back up.
Okay, honest question, since
By anon
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 7:32am
Okay, honest question, since you seem to know and are proud enough of it to talk about it
What constitutes 128??? The amount of totally useless directions I get from locals referring to this mythical unlabeled highway is awful. It's some patch of 95, right?
128 is the inner ring road
By anon
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 8:43am
128 is the inner ring road around Boston. Parts of it are labeled 93, parts are labeled 95, and parts are labeled both, but the whole ring road is 128.
Actually, there is no section where
By roadman
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 11:07am
I-95 and I-93 run concurrently. They do intersect in Canton, but that's it.
As for 128, the designation was officially removed between Canton and Braintree in 1989, and the signs announcing the highly confusing "North I-93 is also South 128" designation (on a road going due east) were removed by early 1991. Too bad our crack traffic reporters apparently never got that memo.
US 3 and I-95/MA128
By Neal
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 1:48pm
In Burlington, you can head south on US 3 while going north on I-95/128 (and vise-versa on the other side). There's a mile-and-a-half stretch between where the expressway portion of Route 3 ends at Route 128 and the two lane highway portion of it begins, and runs south from Burlington, through Woburn, Winchester, Arlington, and into Cambridge, where it ends at the Massachusetts Ave Bridge. MA 3 begins at that point and ends in Bourne. Per the mile marker placement, MassDOT treats it as one route, from Bourne to Tyngsborough.
Braintree to Rockport
By Waquiot
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 8:48am
Which means I count the section that even Mass Highway tried to get rid of along with the non-highway section up north.
Or, if you will, I-93 from Braintree to Canton, then, when the road continues and theoretically becomes I-95, I-95. Then, when I-95 leaves the highway up in Peabody and becomes 128, it keeps on going.
Question for Waquoit
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 9:49am
Would you prefer that the state not get federal $$$ to maintain those sections that were redesignated as interstates?
Or would you have preferred that I-95 had been rammed through your neighborhood for continuity instead?
That's why they are not 128 anymore.
The Feds shouldn't be impinging on states' rights
By Waquiot
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 10:43am
So there is no reason why Route 128 could not still exist.
And yes, I-95 was supposed to go a quarter mile from my house, but from the time Sargent halted that until the 1980s, the idea of having Boston's ring road signed as a state highway was kosher with people. There are numerous examples of dual numbers being allowed, the most famous of which is I-80/I-90 and the closest to us being US1/I-93 and I-95, which, from Braintree to Dedham, used to also be good old Route 128.
But hey, if you don't like us locals, I-90 will get you back to the Pacific Northwest.
So there is no reason why
By roadman
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 11:08am
Except that there is no reason why Route 128 should continue to exist south of Peabody. Nostalgia, "historical signifigance (LOL)", and "but that's the way it's always been" are not legitimate reasons to continue an overlapping route designation that only serves to confuse people using the highway.
And had the politicans not stuck their noses where they don't belong forty years ago, the Route 128 designation would have been quietly removed south of Peabody. And everyone would have gotten used to the new designations, and all would have continued right with the world.
Dual numbers are generally found
By roadman
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 12:46pm
where the routes in question diverge from each other at BOTH ends of the overlap (like I-80/I-90 do). And dual numbers normally involve Interstate/Interstate or Interstate/US routes, not Interstate/State routes.
Time to just suck it up - terminate 128 in Peabody where it intersects I-95, and call it a day.
Call it a day?
By Waquiot
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 1:18pm
Never!
Just like how the feds tried and failed to ban alcohol, they will fail with their ban on Route 128! Someday it will even be restored to Braintree, it's proper end.
State's Rights?
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 2:42pm
LOL.
You are gonna love it when Waquoit Jr. hits adolescence - what are you gonna say to the kid when he says "you aren't the boss of me and WHERE IS MY ALLOWANCE".
;)
But, hey, if you are so into "state's rights" while living off the federal government, well, I hear Mississippi and Alabama are "great places to raise your kids".
You do realize that New
By leviramsey
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 3:05pm
You do realize that New England has a far longer history of advocating for state's rights (including being the first to seriously consider secession) and local control than any other region of the country?
Yes
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 5:23pm
Your point?
Jeeze, thank you. People I
By anon
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 1:32pm
Jeeze, thank you. People I've asked are either also transplants, and can't explain it, or act like I'm a huge asshole for moving to their city.
It does make sense that that stretch of continuous road be one road, that whole loop is pretty... loopy.
You know you're on 128...
By anon
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 9:13am
...when you're on it, regardless of whatever highway number is posted.
horrifyingly enough...
By John-W
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 6:18am
...I have no opinion on this and don't really care. Aaaa! It's the end of the intertubes!!
How much is this going to
By anon
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 7:02am
How much is this going to cost? How about fix the pot holes instead.
It's being paid for with
By DTP
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 9:49am
It's being paid for with federal Highway Safety Improvement Program grants, thus it is coming from a completely separate funding pool than things like road repairs.
Ah, Federal money, which is
By anon
Wed, 04/13/2016 - 7:15am
Ah, Federal money, which is free - created out of thin air by the Money Fairy - rather than state money which is taken from the taxpayers and motorists.
That's not what I said at all
By DTP
Wed, 04/13/2016 - 9:34am
That's not what I said at all, and you know it.
I said it comes from "a different funding pool"
Meaning the state CAN'T just choose to allocate it towards something else. Yes, the money ultimately comes from the taxpayers. There's no question of that. But federal money always comes with stipulations about what it can be used for, and states cannot just use it on whatever they want.
Where are maps that delineate the exit numbers' locations?
By theszak
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 8:12am
Where are maps? Maps that clearly delineate the exit numbers' locations?... current? proposed?
Google the highways ...
By adamg
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 8:09am
And chances are one of the first links for each highway will be a Wikipedia page that will describe the current exits.
It's been recommended since 1961
By SeanD
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 8:57am
.... and mandatory since 1971 (here). There's been waivers for decades, primarily in the north east, but now the feds have decided not do issue waivers. This isn't a surprise to anyone involved.
Not exactly
By roadman
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 12:14pm
While the 1971 MUTCD (and subsequent edtions) recommended that states use milepost-based exit numbers, the requirement wasn't actually mandated by FHWA until the 2009 MUTCD. No waivers required to continue accepted practices if the requested change isn't actually mandated
Boo
By Lunchbox
Fri, 04/08/2016 - 9:11am
I like sequential numbering. It's deluding and soothing. It's nicer to think that I only have 2 more exits to go, and not be aware that means 45 miles.
Pages
Add comment