John Francini francini@mac.com
Tue Jun 3 11:35:38 EDT 2008

On 3 Jun 2008, at 11:24, marklaurence@mac.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 03, 2008, at 10:47AM, "Dan.Strassberg"  
> <dan.strassberg@att.net> wrote:
>> Isn't there a federal regulation that limits multiple route  
>> sineage on
>> Interstate highways to Interstate route numbers? That is, I don't
>> think you can have multiple route numbers on Insterstate highways
>> UNLESS ALL of the routes are Interstates. So I-93 and I-95 on the  
>> same
>> signpost would be OK but combining I-<anything> with Mass 128 would
>> NOT be OK. Can someone please verify that or shoot me out of the
>> water?
> Route 128 already shares with 95 from Peabody to Canton, and Route  
> 1 joins in from Dedham through I-93.  So the highways themselves  
> have mixed designations.  But the signs are on separate signposts,  
> and at most of the interchanges the 128 signs are woefully  
> inadequate.  But they could amend the regulation or create an  
> exemption, and if they came to their senses on this issue, they would.

My guess is that the signs that were funded by Federal money are only  
allowed to have the Federal highway numbers on them -- hence no Mass.  
3 or 128.  But US 1? Or US 3 (in Burlington)? Those darn well should  
be on the Federal signs, as they are US highways. Unless, of course,  
the Feds are trying to deprecate the US highway system.  (They tried  
to do that to US 66 out West, but the several states it went through,  
after considerable motorist complaint, came up with the "Historic US  
66" designation.)


More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list