Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,933
- Reaction score
- 7,951
MassDOT has reached 25% design (for a second time) for 9/27 in Natick:
The pedestrian connections look like a drunk's walk.
This is just an incredibly compacted Diverging Diamond interchange. They’re amazing for traffic flow but pretty awful for everything else. They make sense for connecting an interstate to a major arterial. I don’t really see the use case for using one between two state routes that both have driveways everywhere. Making one wicked efficient interchange won’t help anything when there’s tons of conflict points all over the place. I guess the only positive is it’ll be a lot safer than the current abomination of a cloverleaf that’s there now.
MassDOT has reached 25% design (for a second time) for 9/27 in Natick:
I guess the only positive is it’ll be a lot safer than the current abomination of a cloverleaf that’s there now.
I thought that was a joke when I first saw it.
What problem does this solve? The existing cloverleaf is nothing special but its no better or worse than any other anonymous cloverleaf. This new design requires 3 bridges where before there was 1 ($$$), a million more feet of pavement than before, and in the end doesnt really seem to make anything that much better, while making the biking/walking portion a clusterfuck.
How much will this anti-pedestrian, anti-bike white elephant cost? The public policy on transportation funding priorities is apparently skewed way too far towards frivolous, unnecessary road projects, when really, the establishment of bike, pedestrian, bus lanes, and other transit should have a much higher priority than wasting many $ millions on road-monger proposals like this one.What problem does this solve? The existing cloverleaf is nothing special but its no better or worse than any other anonymous cloverleaf. This new design requires 3 bridges where before there was 1 ($$$), a million more feet of pavement than before, and in the end doesnt really seem to make anything that much better, while making the biking/walking portion a clusterfuck.
What I would do is build a wide ped/bike overpass over the entire existing interchange. Also eliminate at least two of the four cloverleaf inside ramps to eliminate the weaving problem. This would be a lot cheaper and ped/bike friendly than the current proposal.Has anyone in this thread seen the current state of the interchange before complaining? It's literally a squashed cloverleaf with no northbound bike/ped path, no westbound bike/ped path, and minimal eastbound facilities. The proposed change is clearly an improvement for all modes, at least in terms of safety. Bikes and peds will get perpendicular crossings, and there will no longer be a 200 foot high speed weaving lane.
This location isn't going to be the next north end any time soon. Land use is sparse, public transportation is minimal, there's no rail ROW, and the area is served by several state highways and an interstate. Let's take the curb-separated connection to the Cochichuate rail trail as a realistic victory.