TheBostonChannel.com
On The Road With Cindy & Jeff
SmartRoutes traffic reporters Cindy Campbell and Jeff Larson dish on all the latest traffic news in The Hub.
7/15/2008 7:36:17 PM
XML

Search
 
Where Is Route 128?
Posted by: Anonymous on April 24, 2007 at 11:28AM EST


Do you know where Route 128 is?

Apparently Traffic Reporters, like me, don’t know. While that’s not technically true (I know everything) we don’t refer to Route 128 in the “correct” way when we are talking about the road that runs between Braintree to Canton.

In actuality, Route 128 extends from the I-95 Interchange in Canton to Gloucester. But from the late 1940’s up until 1989 Route 128 ran all the way to Braintree. In 1989 the state re-designated the section between Braintree and Canton, no longer calling it 128. The change was made because the state moved the official designation of Route 1 off of Storrow Drive and the VFW Parkway over to 93. Rather than have the confusion of having Route 128 NB run in the same area as 93 SB, they dropped the reference of 128 entirely.

But not everyone made the change. The general public led by Traffic Reporters and the media have been calling it 128 ever since.

At first this wasn’t really a problem because everyone knew what we were talking about. The signs and maps may have said one thing, but if you grew up here, you knew it was 128, even if the signs said 93.

But that was a full generation ago. There are no signs that show that section of road as 128. In fact there are signs in Canton, near Route 95 that say “END 128”. Maps don’t refer to that section of road as 128. On-board navigational services don’t refer to it as 128. A generation of new drivers has learned the roads by looking at highway signs, none of which refer to 128. And a huge number of people have moved to the area and have never known that stretch of road as 128.

Channel 5 is taking a poll. Should we, as Traffic Reporters, and our general assignment reporters stop calling that section of road between Canton and Braintree as 128? Should we call it by it’s officially designated number of I-93, should we go on as we are, because it's not a problem, or should the state change it back to the way it was originally?

We’ve debated this for years in our Operations Center. Here’s your chance to influence the debate.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/traffic/12997467/detail.html



(4) Comments
Posted by: Scott on April 24, 2007 1:14PM EST
Why wouldn't those in the news business refer to a location by its rightful name? I don't see why this is an issue - if the road is officially known as 93, call it that.

Posted by: Aaron Read on April 25, 2007 11:53AM EST
Because sometimes the "official" name is either stupid, or unpronounceable, or too long to be used in regular news reports. Sometimes all three! :-)

A great example is the Big Dig. While everyone calls it the "Zakim Bridge", the official name is "Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge." Ditto for the "Big Dig Tunnel", "I-93 Tunnel", or "O'Neill Tunnel" which all refer to the below-ground stretch of I-93 under downtown Boston...whose official name is "Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. Tunnel"

The "BU Bridge" was originally called the "Cottage Farm Bridge" but, AFAIK, it was popular use of the term "BU Bridge" that forced the official name change.

However, I'm of the mindset that the designation of Rt.128 is long become anachronistic and really should be changed to be I-95 for the entire stretch from Woburn to Canton and Rt.128 limited to the Gloucester to Woburn stretch.

Posted by: Anonymous on April 25, 2007 8:39PM EST
That part of the highway is no longer called 128. Get over it Boston. I'm tired of having to double check directions to make sure that my exit is on the correct highway.

And what about all that 128/95 crap?

Posted by: Ed on April 27, 2007 2:34PM EST
128 actually went part way down route 3 before the Expressway existed. It went down towards Rockland--the road now known as 228 was then 128 where the highway part dropped to more local roads.

It did always confuse drivers on that stretch who were officially traveling south on 93 at the same time they were going north on 128, because of 128 being a c-shaped (circumfential) highway. The simultaneous north and south markings contradict the common rules US highway departments use to label roads.

It surely is easier for it to be only I-93. But folks who've been here a long time will always know it as 128, and that can make for confusion.

As for I-95/128, that's not that odd. Route 128 is a state road, I-95 is a Federal interstate highway. The two happen to split apart in Danvers, after having been the same road since Canton. That happens a lot in many states (dual signed roads) and there's not really a problem with it since it's signed properly (and no changes have been made, unlike the section Jeff wrote about). I-95 and 128 weren't supposed to be the same road, but that goes back to the history of highway construction in the '60s and '70s and the several cancelled highways that never were built.

Loading...
Powered by