MA: Revisiting US 202 in Holyoke

[froggie]

To begin with, what a mess...

Starting this thread because I have no recollection of the discussion on this back in the "Tim days".  For those of you who are unaware, US 202 has a very serious split through the Holyoke core, at least as primarily signed.  Southbound traffic has a several block concurrency with US 5, using Hampden St and Lincoln St to get to US 5.  Northbound traffic, as primarily signed, does not have this concurrency and uses Beech St throughout.

The complication stems from the fact that both streets have signage in the opposite direction as well, with southbound US 202 shields along Beech St at least from Resnic Blvd (the access route to I-391) and northbound US 202 signage on Lincoln St coming off US 5/Northampton St.

I'm guessing that Tim decided on the current route in the Highway Browser (US 5 concurrency, Lincoln St, Hampden St) because it is two-way throughout, while Beech St becomes one-way north of Hampshire St (though with a southbound compatriot along Linden St).

I'm wondering if this is a special case where we include both street routings in the Highway Browser, though I'm not sure which one we'd label as primary US 202 and how we'd label the other one, but I'm open to suggestion or just leaving it as is due to its complexity.

[yakra]

Twas I who first drafted the MA US routes back in the day. Signage and a two-way route were part of the decision to multiplex it with US5 here... what clinched it for me was that the US5 concurrency was listed in the AASHTO log.

just leaving it as is due to its complexity

I prefer this.

[mikeandkristie]

I was wondering about the path through Holyoke (north of Springfield) of US 202 when it is intersecting with US 5.  There seems to be some conflicting street signs about which path it is taking.  We were coming north along US 5 from Springfield where we'd visited Springfield Armory NHS.  We'd done I-91 in the morning, so we were coming back on US 5 to avoid duplication.  Got up to where US 202 is.  On MA US5, it is point US202.  On MA US202, it is point US5_S.  Looking at the map, it is Cherry St on one side and Beech St on the other.  We turned right as the sign said US 202 North and followed Beech St where we saw US 202 banners, passed Mitchell Field, crossed the Connecticut River, and hit a big roundabout.

But, the path for US 202 on the site has it going up to Lincoln St (LinSt on MA US5 and US5_N on MA US202).  It looks like it bends south, becomes Hampden St, and then passed by Mitchell Field and then into Beech St like we were going. 

According the GSV, heading northbound on US 5, there are US 202 North signs right before both Beech St and Lincoln St.  The OpenStreetMap Default, Mapbox Streets, and Esri WorldStreetMap sources list both of these as US 202, although Google just has along Lincoln.  Are these both US 202?

Mike

[Jim]

Here's some old discussion about this to inform discussion.

http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?t=521&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&mforum=clinched

Hopefully the link works for users who didn't have an account on the old CHM forum.

[yakra]

Topics merged.

[yakra]

Are these both US 202?

Yes. The RoadInv2017 shapefiles list the Beech St leg as "US202 NB", and Hampden/Lincoln leg as "US202 SB".
The presence of northbound signage on the SB route confuses things a bit.

This is worth revisiting.
My usual M.O. for a one-way couplet is to cut across from one end of the couplet to the other.
In this case, that would mean going straight from US5_S to LymSt, and cutting out the three intermediate points along US5.
This would closely parallel, but not exactly follow, the northbound alignment.
There would still be a graph connection with US5, so no loss in that regard.

For my travels, this would be a Good Thing, as I've only traveled US202 northbound. Due to multiplex detection, I'm credited with a segment of MS US5 I've not actually traveled.

Again, this would closely parallel, but not exactly follow, the northbound alignment.
Sometimes, I decide it's worthwhile to not cut the "diagonal" across a couplet, but instead follow one direction's routing. For a recent case study, see NY5 in downtown Buffalo (arguably another "very serious split"). In this case, we gained graph connections @ NY16 & NY354, and made things look arguably more neat & orderly.
Doing the same here, we could...
• add a point at Resnic Blvd for its connection to I-391 (compare existing FraSt), and
• retain a graph connection with MA141 at Appleton St. (Or more like, gain a new graph connection -- the existing one would still be there, as MA141/US5.)
Thoughts?

Also, while in the neighborhood, the ends of the 116/141 concurrency need a touch-up.

[Bickendan]

This kinda dovetails into a hyper-accurate version of this project I've been entertaining (but with no intention of doing), where each carriageway gets its own file, and each ramp likewise. (you can understand why while I'd love it, I wouldn't intend on embarking on this!)

With that said, this and the RI 114 mess in Pawtucket may be the exceptions that need addressing (and, if Vera Katz had had her way with the Portland Freeway Loop, turning I-5/405 into a giant roundabout :|). I don't know how elegant or intuitive it'd be for our users, but eastbound US 202 could be ma.us202 as usual, and the westbound could be ma.us202wbhol and treat it like a bannered route in the main set?

[mikeandkristie]

Wow, I didn't realize that I stumbled into such a convoluted mess of a road segment.  Lucky me.   

Mike

[yakra]

 

[Markkos1992]

Finally taking a look at this, I am more in tune with Bickendan's solution.  Even Petersburg, VA, with VA 36 does not have both directions signed on both routes.

[Duke87]

I am opposed to this solution on the grounds that it now effectively requires the user to drive both directions of US 202 through Holyoke to clinch all mapped mileage of it. (personally, I'd be able to claim it anyway, but in general...)

[froggie]

I am opposed to this solution on the grounds that it now effectively requires the user to drive both directions of US 202 through Holyoke to clinch all mapped mileage of it. (personally, I'd be able to claim it anyway, but in general...)

How is this any different than the multitude of situations where you have both a regular route and a bannered route through the same town...sometimes mere blocks from each other?  It's functionally the same thing.

[yakra]

Not going to change anything here.

[Markkos1992]

My final word on this is that to clinch US 202 here IMO that I would have do do both directions similar to how I did the same route in Norristown, PA.

[vdeane]

My final word on this is that to clinch US 202 here IMO that I would have do do both directions similar to how I did the same route in Norristown, PA.

Same.  Given how it's signed, I don't see how one could claim US 202 with only one.

Isn't there a route in Mexico where both directions are mapped separately?