Roads and Highways General Development Thread

That looks like a very car-centric proposal, calling for retention of the underpasses on Rutherford Ave at Sullivan Sq and Austin St, PLUS a new lengthy off ramp around the north side of Sullivan Square. We don't need new ramps, nor any underpasses. This is just enabling car commuting, plus keeping Rutherford Ave as an expressway.
Last month MPO had a meeting about center running bus lanes and filling in the underpass to facilitate new BNRD routings along Rutherford
@52:30 ish

Goal is to begin construction in 2027 and be done in 18 months
 
That looks like a very car-centric proposal, calling for retention of the underpasses on Rutherford Ave at Sullivan Sq and Austin St, PLUS a new lengthy off ramp around the north side of Sullivan Square. We don't need new ramps, nor any underpasses. This is just enabling car commuting, plus keeping Rutherford Ave as an expressway.
I agree. Didn't they not too long ago get rid of the overpasses over the rotary that connected to Mystic Ave? Seems like an awful idea to go ahead and add another overpass to that area again. The whole Rutherford/Sullivan area is a mess of 1950s highway engineering that needs to be blown up and redone from scratch.
 
With MCI Concord shutting down in June would there be any potential for MassDOT upgrading the Concord Rotary on a quicker timeline? Seems like with the prison no longer in use it would really simplify construction.
Unfortunately, probably no time soon. MassDOT would have to start the entire planning process over again and identify new alternatives, environmentals etc,, and it'd have to earn a spot on the STIP. That said, a quick Google suggests that there's some sort of Leominster-Lincoln planning study in the works that is looking at alternatives for the rotary, but this article is the only thing I've found on it. Can't find a word on it in the local Concord paper, in the CIP or anywhere MassDOT.

 
Unfortunately, probably no time soon. MassDOT would have to start the entire planning process over again and identify new alternatives, environmentals etc,, and it'd have to earn a spot on the STIP. That said, a quick Google suggests that there's some sort of Leominster-Lincoln planning study in the works that is looking at alternatives for the rotary, but this article is the only thing I've found on it. Can't find a word on it in the local Concord paper, in the CIP or anywhere MassDOT.

Looking at Google maps, there's ample room to slip Rte 2 over or under the rotary with on/off ramps to and from the rotary, plus bike paths. There are no residences, and just lawns and parking lots to deal with. Massachusetts has a habit of making these things overly complicated.
 
Looking at Google maps, there's ample room to slip Rte 2 over or under the rotary with on/off ramps to and from the rotary, plus bike paths. There are no residences, and just lawns and parking lots to deal with. Massachusetts has a habit of making these things overly complicated.
I'm surprised you're quick to suggest something like an overpass and ramps. (Though, I admit, I don't really know the common traffic loads here.) The other intersections of Route 2 around there are just ground level, signalized intersections. From the article, it sounds like that's mostly what's being considered. An overpass would make it more highway-like, which could be unpleasant for whoever ends up using the adjacent prison site.

As a total aside, this rotary is kind of a joke in my family, because basically no one has ever gotten the correct exit on the first try. (We're not from round here.) Back in the 90s we had a family vacation in New England, maybe the first time we had a SatNav in a rental car. The signs were unclear and the SatNav worse, we'd take the wrong exit, and the little computer would politely say "When possible, make a legal u-turn...." Multiple times.... A sibling and I moved to Massachusetts and we'd occasionally, rarely, be out that way, and fail. It's now spanned decades. The conversation in the car is always something like "Maybe that one?... No, wait, 2 or 2A?.... Map looks like we take the third right... Third right, including the exit for the gas station.... or not including the gas station... Why isn't that street labeled? Is that exit just for the prison? Do we count that one? Oh crap, the prison, we've gone too far... How can all these perpendicular streets be labeled 'West'? Except 111, which is 'North,' but that's even more west than the other roads labeled 'West'..... Exit for Littleton or Acton? I mean, if our destination is Vermont?.... Oh crap, the prison again...."
 
I'm surprised you're quick to suggest something like an overpass and ramps. (Though, I admit, I don't really know the common traffic loads here.) The other intersections of Route 2 around there are just ground level, signalized intersections. From the article, it sounds like that's mostly what's being considered. An overpass would make it more highway-like, which could be unpleasant for whoever ends up using the adjacent prison site.

It’s worth noting that Route 2 is built as an expressway from Alewife Brook Parkway (in Cambridge) to Route 128 (in Lexington) and from the MA-111 split in Acton to the Erving.

This 11-mile stretch between Lexington and Acton is the only stretch not built to those standards in that 70-mile span.

Personally, I’m pretty far on the anti-car side of the spectrum, yet still I think it makes sense to add grade separation here for Route 2.

It’s the Cambridge - Lexington stretch that should be downgraded in capacity.
 
I'm surprised you're quick to suggest something like an overpass and ramps. (Though, I admit, I don't really know the common traffic loads here.) The other intersections of Route 2 around there are just ground level, signalized intersections. From the article, it sounds like that's mostly what's being considered. An overpass would make it more highway-like, which could be unpleasant for whoever ends up using the adjacent prison site.
MassDOT's original project was for a full interchange. But that's been stalled for 20 years now. I think now they're just grasping at straws looking for anything that reduces the horrible crash stats and piss-poor wayfinding (as you describe).

Traffic loads are lower at the rotary than they are at Crosby's Corner where the rebuild did do a full interchange. But it still gets borked pretty frequently, enough that you have to pay close attention to those "CONCORD ROTARY __ MINS" electronic signs approaching 128. Since there's so little at-grade left anywhere on 2, I agree with @bigeman312 that full separation is a desired get here.
 
It’s worth noting that Route 2 is built as an expressway from Alewife Brook Parkway (in Cambridge) to Route 128 (in Lexington) and from the MA-111 split in Acton to the Erving.

This 11-mile stretch between Lexington and Acton is the only stretch not built to those standards in that 70-mile span.

Personally, I’m pretty far on the anti-car side of the spectrum, yet still I think it makes sense to add grade separation here for Route 2.

It’s the Cambridge - Lexington stretch that should be downgraded in capacity.
MassDOT's original project was for a full interchange. But that's been stalled for 20 years now. I think now they're just grasping at straws looking for anything that reduces the horrible crash stats and piss-poor wayfinding (as you describe).

Traffic loads are lower at the rotary than they are at Crosby's Corner where the rebuild did do a full interchange. But it still gets borked pretty frequently, enough that you have to pay close attention to those "CONCORD ROTARY __ MINS" electronic signs approaching 128. Since there's so little at-grade left anywhere on 2, I agree with @bigeman312 that full separation is a desired get here.
Thanks. I didn't realize it's really just this stretch of 2 that isn't built as an expressway. But I'm also not sure that's a great reason to turn it into an expressway. I'm not trying to be (just) knee-jerk anti-car here. I'm also being cheap. MassDOT says the plan for the highway interchange will cost $100 million. A signalized intersection would cost a fraction of that (either of you could probably estimate the difference better than I can). The overpass wouldn't seem to speed things up much, because there are still traffic lights just a half mile down the road on Route 2, and about a half dozen lights going through Concord. If the main problem to fix really is reducing car crashes, then a simple intersection ought to do that just fine. What's the benefit of a highway overpass here that's worth the extra $10s of million? (or maybe half a billion dollars, if you wanted to gradually grade separate this whole section?)
 
Thanks. I didn't realize it's really just this stretch of 2 that isn't built as an expressway. But I'm also not sure that's a great reason to turn it into an expressway. I'm not trying to be (just) knee-jerk anti-car here. I'm also being cheap. MassDOT says the plan for the highway interchange will cost $100 million. A signalized intersection would cost a fraction of that (either of you could probably estimate the difference better than I can). The overpass wouldn't seem to speed things up much, because there are still traffic lights just a half mile down the road on Route 2, and about a half dozen lights going through Concord. If the main problem to fix really is reducing car crashes, then a simple intersection ought to do that just fine. What's the benefit of a highway overpass here that's worth the extra $10s of million? (or maybe half a billion dollars, if you wanted to gradually grade separate this whole section?)

The exerpeince of anyone who regularly drives this stretch would show that the bolded section (emphasis mine) isn't true. This rotary ends up being the single biggest chokepoint on Route 2 nearly every single day.

I don't think the entire 11-mile stretch should be upgraded to be an expressway. In fact, in a perfect world with limitless MassDOT funding, I'd rather see grade added seperation here (and only right here), a downgrade of the 128-to-Alewife stretch, and status quo elsewhere.
 
Thanks. I didn't realize it's really just this stretch of 2 that isn't built as an expressway. But I'm also not sure that's a great reason to turn it into an expressway. I'm not trying to be (just) knee-jerk anti-car here. I'm also being cheap. MassDOT says the plan for the highway interchange will cost $100 million. A signalized intersection would cost a fraction of that (either of you could probably estimate the difference better than I can). The overpass wouldn't seem to speed things up much, because there are still traffic lights just a half mile down the road on Route 2, and about a half dozen lights going through Concord. If the main problem to fix really is reducing car crashes, then a simple intersection ought to do that just fine. What's the benefit of a highway overpass here that's worth the extra $10s of million? (or maybe half a billion dollars, if you wanted to gradually grade separate this whole section?)
I'm also rather puzzled how this manages to cost $100m. Is that really the cost for a single new highway bridge and a mile or two of paving at this point? Seems hard to have a less complicated place for a totally new interchange installation in terms of the state already owning nearly all the property in the surrounding area and the primary abutters being....state prisons and MassDOT.

I suppose since it's from 1997, it's actually a proposed cost of close to $190m in today's money, which seems even more difficult to fathom how it can cost that much.
 
Thanks. I didn't realize it's really just this stretch of 2 that isn't built as an expressway. But I'm also not sure that's a great reason to turn it into an expressway. I'm not trying to be (just) knee-jerk anti-car here. I'm also being cheap. MassDOT says the plan for the highway interchange will cost $100 million. A signalized intersection would cost a fraction of that (either of you could probably estimate the difference better than I can). The overpass wouldn't seem to speed things up much, because there are still traffic lights just a half mile down the road on Route 2, and about a half dozen lights going through Concord. If the main problem to fix really is reducing car crashes, then a simple intersection ought to do that just fine. What's the benefit of a highway overpass here that's worth the extra $10s of million? (or maybe half a billion dollars, if you wanted to gradually grade separate this whole section?)
I'm sure a signalized intersection was studied. And the reason why it wouldn't have come up as a Preferred Alt. is that the LOS would've tanked even more than the rotary (and not the other traffic lights) tanks the road's LOS. Safety improvements are all well and good, but if it turns a pretty bad pre-existing carpocalypse into a really bad carpocalypse there's no reason to do it.

The exerpeince of anyone who regularly drives this stretch would show that the bolded section (emphasis mine) isn't true. This rotary ends up being the single biggest chokepoint on Route 2 nearly every single day.

I don't think the entire 11-mile stretch should be upgraded to be an expressway. In fact, in a perfect world with limitless MassDOT funding, I'd rather see grade added seperation here (and only right here), a downgrade of the 128-to-Alewife stretch, and status quo elsewhere.
Grade separation of 128-to-Bedford Rd. (i.e. all in Lincoln that the Crosby's Corner separation didn't touch) was also supposed to be studied, since that is a relatively small job and would create a contiguous expressway from Alewife to Route 126. Nuke the rotary and there's very little left: Route 62, Old Road to 9 Acre Corner, 126, and 2 small residential streets (no lights or thru access at 1 of them) east of the rotary, 2 small residential streets (no lights or thru access at either) and the Piper Rd. light at the rump-end of the 111 interchange west of the rotary. Nuke the rotary for whatever that costs, and getting the rest of the way to a 55 MPH-design 4-lane expressway Alewife-to-495 probably costs the same or less than the rotary in a lump.

Really, other than finishing the Route 146 expressway grade separation in Millbury-Sutton, this is relatively small-hanging fruit overall. Moving on the rotary replacement kicks it well on its way.
 
I'm surprised you're quick to suggest something like an overpass and ramps. (Though, I admit, I don't really know the common traffic loads here.)
I'm not a fan of expressways, but in this case I think it's appropriate to grade separate this key choke point. It's in the outer suburbs, there's another grade-separated intersection on this route (Rte 2) nearby, and it is a major regional highway. My professional background is design and project management of context sensitive road projects in National Parks and other Federal lands. I managed to help bring back to life one road relocation project that had been shut down by a lawsuit, revising the design to be much more context sensitive and to lay lightly on the land, compared to the original design. So like I say, I'm no fan of expressways, but each case is unique.
 
For reference: here's the ca 2003 feasibility study that ended up generating the proposed alternatives. Note that they did a robust study on signaling the rotary as Alternative 1, to include multiple "packages" where that was paired with various treatments to the other signalized intersections between the rotary and 111 at modeled 2020 traffic levels. While it would have provided some, if minimal benefit, Politically that was a nonstarter - Both concord and Acton favored a grade separated solution.


That led to the 2008 effort, (presentation pdf here) which refined alts 3 and 5. Note that the BFRT construction was originally packaged with this, but got broken out and built as a standalone. Now that we don't have to worry as much about the prison, I can't see any reason we can't move the entire shebang to the east slightly and eat the prison parking lot instead of moving the comm ave alignment.

Screenshot_20240125_193316_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
Screenshot_20240125_193257_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
 
Unfortunately I commuted for decades through the rotary. An example of how bad it is that in the evening commute Waze will take you off RT 2 WB at Rt 62, take you through West Concord on to Laws Brook Rd past the rotary, you then take a right on to School St., where you can get on RT 2 EB, drive east to the rotary, then go around the rotary and continue west. This is about a 4 mile trip vs about 1.25 if you stay on RT 2 but at times is quicker. There's less traffic going EB plus at the rotary you have the right of way over everybody else except for the people coming east on RT 2A, but they can't get in to the rotary because of the heavy flow westbound. Rt 2A EB can be backed up 1 to 1.5 miles am and pm.

I've probably confused everybody but if you look at a map you will see the logic behind this Waze routing.
 
Route 2 has always been the weird stepchild of a state highway and an Interstate. It’s the northern tier equivalent of I-90, but it’s built more like Route 20. Having grown up along that stretch of Route 2, I have memories of the “shut your eyes, step on the gas, and pray” approach most drivers had to navigating the rotary.

I do wonder how the residents of Concord will react to demands to speed up Route 2 elsewhere in town, after the rotary is no longer a rate limiter on the volume through that stretch.
 
Route 2 has always been the weird stepchild of a state highway and an Interstate. It’s the northern tier equivalent of I-90, but it’s built more like Route 20. Having grown up along that stretch of Route 2, I have memories of the “shut your eyes, step on the gas, and pray” approach most drivers had to navigating the rotary.

I do wonder how the residents of Concord will react to demands to speed up Route 2 elsewhere in town, after the rotary is no longer a rate limiter on the volume through that stretch.
The original vision in the 1960s was for Route 2 to be a full blown multi-lane expressway all the way from I-91 in Greenfield to the Inner Belt Expressway (I-695) near Union Square in Somerville, most of it on completely new alignment. Of course that didn't happen due to the rise of anti-highway community opposition beginning in the early 60s onward. If it had been pushed through in the post-WW II future oriented and obedience to government culture of the 1950s, it probably would have happened, but the funding wasn't there at that time.
 
IMG_5187.jpeg

I'm a bit confused as to how the project is under design through December while being very much under construction. The bridge decks over the swamps for the ramps are over halfway complete.
 
View attachment 49743
I'm a bit confused as to how the project is under design through December while being very much under construction. The bridge decks over the swamps for the ramps are over halfway complete.
Its a design-build project. The design was advanced to 25% and then put out to bid. The contractor then teams with a designer and they finish the design to 75% and then 100% final design, all while the contractor begins preliminary construction. Those are not bridge decks over the swamps, they are temporary work trestles. They are built so the cranes and drilling rigs can access the pier locations without disturbing the environmental swamps. I will say I have driven through here recently, saw the new center pier in the I-495 median for the new I-495 NB on-ramp from I-90, new bridges over I-90 on I-495 looked nearly complete in the median.
 
Joined the meeting for this project yesterday in Medford. It's not even at 25% design yet so there's hopefully changes that could be made to improve the design after all of the feedback MassDOT and the consulting firm received last night. There seemed to be a lot of enthusiasm from residents for outright removing or closing the ramps (which MassDOT seemed opposed to). There were also a lot of people very vocal about how turning the sidewalks into narrow shared-use paths was a step backwards as well as many gripes about the addition of a turn lane on Main St, increasing the lanes of traffic from 4 to 5. Overall I hope they're able to refine this design to something more friendly to all road users instead of prioritizing car throughput and "safety" (fewer car-on-car crashes).
 

Back
Top