Roads and Highways General Development Thread

[king_vibe]

Most of these make a good amount of sense (from a "highways are the only way to move people" perspective), but I can't imagine the critical Nantasket-South Weymouth commuter demographic was really large enough to merit its own expressway.

The book Cadillac Desert is about American water policy in the drier western states, but much of is devoted to a frenzy of dam construction that occurred from roughly the 1930s to 1970s. Half a dozen different agencies (and their preferred private contractors) were competing for essentially free federal dam construction government money. As a result, dam projects that made zero financial or practical sense would get promoted by the Army Corps of Engineers or the USBR or whatever other agency for fear that one of the other agencies would snatch it up and they’d lose out on a major project. Each project meant jobs, both to retain their own team members and to be doled out as patronage.

I think the same concept applied for highway construction as well. It wasn’t just a matter of connecting drivers and destinations, because so many of the planned (and built) highways made no sense. It was a race to get free money and the clout that came with it.

 

[PercyL]

The Red Line to Alewife was largely because of Tip O'Neill's power and influence in DC. He lived next to Porter Square, and he was serving his home turf with the Alewife extension. I'm not discounting what you said, just adding that Tip O'Neill was a powerhouse politician with the right priorities.

Tip's home was at 26 Russell Street, literally adjacent to the Cambridge/Somerville city line, halfway between Porter Square and Davis Square.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Tip's home was at 26 Russell Street, literally adjacent to the Cambridge/Somerville city line, halfway between Porter Square and Davis Square.

I know. I used to go to the same church as he did, and went to grammar school with one of his sons.

 

[stick n move]

The book Cadillac Desert is about American water policy in the drier western states, but much of is devoted to a frenzy of dam construction that occurred from roughly the 1930s to 1970s. Half a dozen different agencies (and their preferred private contractors) were competing for essentially free federal dam construction government money. As a result, dam projects that made zero financial or practical sense would get promoted by the Army Corps of Engineers or the USBR or whatever other agency for fear that one of the other agencies would snatch it up and they’d lose out on a major project. Each project meant jobs, both to retain their own team members and to be doled out as patronage.

I think the same concept applied for highway construction as well. It wasn’t just a matter of connecting drivers and destinations, because so many of the planned (and built) highways made no sense. It was a race to get free money and the clout that came with it.

Looking at places like Atlanta makes me really wish that they had either built the highway further away from downtown or only built highways that ended at a ring road outside the city center. Many cities like Detroit for example could get rid of all of the highways that go beyond the ring road to downtown and still have 99% of the functionality of their highway system and international crossing. I really hope this is the next step we take as a country towards righting the mistakes of the past. Its probably a step too far at least today to get rid of many highways all together, but I think this could be a reasonable middle ground that would keep most of the highway infrastructure in tact while repairing many of the downtowns that are cut off from the rest of the city.

 

[Badusername]

Looking at places like Atlanta makes me really wish that they had either built the highway further away from downtown or only built highways that ended at a ring road outside the city center. Many cities like Detroit for example could get rid of all of the highways that go beyond the ring road to downtown and still have 99% of the functionality of their highway system and international crossing. I really hope this is the next step we take as a country towards righting the mistakes of the past. Its probably a step too far at least today to get rid of many highways all together, but I think this could be a reasonable middle ground that would keep most of the highway infrastructure in tact while repairing many of the downtowns that are cut off from the rest of the city.

95 is effectively a ring road, and all highways within it could be eliminated if NSRL is built with park&rides where it intersects Commuter Rail lines.

 

[Scalziand]

At one point(1968), there was also a plan for an intermediate beltway between 128 and 495.

MassDPW Recommended Highway Plan-Outside Route 128 (1968)

Map of proposed expressways in the Boston area outside Route 128, as shown in the 1968 report "Recommended Highway and Transit Plan" developed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works.

www.bostonroads.com

 

[ritchiew]

The book Cadillac Desert is about American water policy in the drier western states, but much of is devoted to a frenzy of dam construction that occurred from roughly the 1930s to 1970s. Half a dozen different agencies (and their preferred private contractors) were competing for essentially free federal dam construction government money. As a result, dam projects that made zero financial or practical sense would get promoted by the Army Corps of Engineers or the USBR or whatever other agency for fear that one of the other agencies would snatch it up and they’d lose out on a major project. Each project meant jobs, both to retain their own team members and to be doled out as patronage.

I think the same concept applied for highway construction as well. It wasn’t just a matter of connecting drivers and destinations, because so many of the planned (and built) highways made no sense. It was a race to get free money and the clout that came with it.

Exactly. I probably don't need to recommend "The Power Broker" to this forum, but there you can see a lot of this dynamic explicitly with highway funds. Robert Moses would fight for any federal money coming in so he could leverage it for political favors from city, state, unions, banks, law firms, etc.

 

[Highwayguy]

At one point(1968), there was also a plan for an intermediate beltway between 128 and 495.

*veering even more off topic, mods feel free to move*

Wondering what the consensus would be for this hypothetical: trade the current limited access highway system for everything shown (including proposed) on this map (crazy overbuilt outside of 128 but zero limited access highways inside 128).

I think l would take the map…

 

[RandomWalk]

Bisecting Weston, Concord, Acton, Wayland and/or Lincoln is something that wouldn’t have flown in any post-war time period.

 

[OldColony]

Bisecting Weston, Concord, Acton, Wayland and/or Lincoln is something that wouldn’t have flown in any post-war time period.

The planners for the establishment of Route 128 as a limited access highway had some thoughtful foresight on this. Its present route largely follows the borders between towns/cities, as seen on the map above. Hence the curves between Wellesley and Newton just south of the Mass Pike, and the worse set of curves running around Wakefield. It's clear they avoided as best they could to bisect any town along the route.

 

[Highwayguy]

Bisecting Weston, Concord, Acton, Wayland and/or Lincoln is something that wouldn’t have flown in any post-war time period.

Full agree; my question isn’t to say “which one of these two alternatives is good” (both are bad), but more like Robert Moses has a bulldozer to your head and you have to pick one, which is going to have the least detrimental impact?

Or in other words, would the majority trade gashing the outer ‘burbs to prevent the pike extension, original central artery, Storrow, and 93 from ever happening?

 

[JeffDowntown]

Full agree; my question isn’t to say “which one of these two alternatives is good” (both are bad), but more like Robert Moses has a bulldozer to your head and you have to pick one, which is going to have the least detrimental impact?

Or in other words, would the majority trade gashing the outer ‘burbs to prevent the pike extension, original central artery, Storrow, and 93 from ever happening?

It is never about the "majority". The money in those outer burbs would never have let it happen.

In our republic, we operate on one dollar one vote.

 

[RandomWalk]

And coordination across the larger region happen because of the boogeyman of public education getting swept into the larger region. Such were the political fights that led to METCO being a one-way busing, instead of an exchange.

 

[Koopzilla24]

Carrying this discussion from the SCR thread:

It's the best. In 2023, approximately 4% of National Highway System bridges by size were in poor condition (it's higher in MA). Similarly, the last time it was measured, the one measure of pavement quality collected large-scale by FHWA had the same 4% of Interstates in poor condition. As a high-level statement, 96% of the major highways in the US are in fair or better condition at the moment. Given (as you point out) the breadth of the system and its age, I don't think that's awful. Other countries may have much smaller systems that are in better condition by some metrics, but the breadth of the system - the way it opens up every corner of the country to economic opportunity - is unmatched in the world.

And I think you kind of made the same point I did: for decades the US considered the system it was building to be the ideal solution. Whether you consider that "propaganda" (and outside of a few GM ads I think I struggle to see it that way), it was backed up by facts: the US economy and internal infrastructure for the movement of goods produced the strongest economy in the history of humans. Highways were definitely not seen as "evil by the majority of citizens" - some specific urban freeways maybe, but not the Interstate System generally.

There are very real negative externalities of highways, but the propaganda today runs the other direction, and it has convinced a relatively small number of mostly city-dewlling Americans that the system they've invested in and depended upon for seven decades is now an evil mistake.

Avoiding a long winded summarization of the history of highway expansion in the US, I recommend reading about the never ending American fight against freeways and the lies fed to people by the auto industry, it is true that the concept and original intent of the interstate highway system is an incredible contribution to the country’s history. If it went as properly intended.
Movement around the country, for goods that don’t make sense to move by rail, via a network of high-speed high-capacity roadways is essential for national development. However, they lose this when they destroy neighborhoods and businesses, pose health risks to millions, and operate in an incredibly inefficient manor. These make urban highways’ costs and externalities outweigh any economic benefit from the limited people and goods they can squeeze into a city.

Highways have a place and function. A good example is Dublin, Ireland. The M50 ring road circles the city like 128 here, but rather than having highways that then go directly through the city center, there are a few smaller Storrow sized freeways that stop short a few miles of city center to interface with arterials. M50 itself tunnels under the city with no exits to directly serve the industrial port area. This prioritizes the main highway as a trucking route to interface with the wider area avoiding passenger vehicle congestion and city streets while minimizing neighborhood destruction. Then the arterials themselves encourage traffic to spread out more amongst the streets as they’re not a direct downtown express. Boston is a city perfect for a Dublin-like setup because unlike Dublin, every single major route or highway into Boston has 1 or 2 higher capacity rail lines serving the same corridor. With better, faster, and cheaper alternatives for passenger transport like buses and trains, the ubiquity of highways in the urban United States would not be necessary and everyone would be better off.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Carrying this discussion from the SCR thread:
Avoiding a long winded summarization of the history of highway expansion in the US, I recommend reading about the never ending American fight against freeways and the lies fed to people by the auto industry, it is true that the concept and original intent of the interstate highway system is an incredible contribution to the country’s history. If it went as properly intended.
Movement around the country, for goods that don’t make sense to move by rail, via a network of high-speed high-capacity roadways is essential for national development. However, they lose this when they destroy neighborhoods and businesses, pose health risks to millions, and operate in an incredibly inefficient manor. These make urban highways’ costs and externalities outweigh any economic benefit from the limited people and goods they can squeeze into a city.

Highways have a place and function. A good example is Dublin, Ireland. The M50 ring road circles the city like 128 here, but rather than having highways that then go directly through the city center, there are a few smaller Storrow sized freeways that stop short a few miles of city center to interface with arterials. M50 itself tunnels under the city with no exits to directly serve the industrial port area. This prioritizes the main highway as a trucking route to interface with the wider area avoiding passenger vehicle congestion and city streets while minimizing neighborhood destruction. Then the arterials themselves encourage traffic to spread out more amongst the streets as they’re not a direct downtown express. Boston is a city perfect for a Dublin-like setup because unlike Dublin, every single major route or highway into Boston has 1 or 2 higher capacity rail lines serving the same corridor. With better, faster, and cheaper alternatives for passenger transport like buses and trains, the ubiquity of highways in the urban United States would not be necessary and everyone would be better off.

President Eisenhower's vision for the Interstate Highway System was inter-city expressways, not intra-city. He was horrified when he saw plans for interstates through cities. I blame Robert Moses of NYC and William Callahan of Massachusetts for nationally setting the agenda of post WW-II development of expressway networks inside major cities. Los Angeles, inspired by those two, quickly followed suit in the early 1950s and developed a massive metro area freeway system while abolishing its extensive Pacific Electric LRV system. Then of course virtually every other major city in the US copied this model once the 90% Federal funding became available with the Interstate Highway System in the late 1950s. This of course shaped zoning and development of the suburbs to be car-centric and low density, as rail commuter systems went bankrupt from the competition of automobile commuting on the new urban/suburban expressways. It is a shame that the expressways inside the circumferential expressways (e.g. Rte 128) were ever built. Eisenhower's original vision of inter-city expressways ending at the circumferential ring road never happened. Instead we got the strangling car-centric suburban sprawl and urban congestion from the urban expressways.

 

[iamdjmichael]

Carrying this discussion from the SCR thread:


Avoiding a long winded summarization of the history of highway expansion in the US, I recommend reading about the never ending American fight against freeways and the lies fed to people by the auto industry, it is true that the concept and original intent of the interstate highway system is an incredible contribution to the country’s history. If it went as properly intended.
Movement around the country, for goods that don’t make sense to move by rail, via a network of high-speed high-capacity roadways is essential for national development. However, they lose this when they destroy neighborhoods and businesses, pose health risks to millions, and operate in an incredibly inefficient manor. These make urban highways’ costs and externalities outweigh any economic benefit from the limited people and goods they can squeeze into a city.

Highways have a place and function. A good example is Dublin, Ireland. The M50 ring road circles the city like 128 here, but rather than having highways that then go directly through the city center, there are a few smaller Storrow sized freeways that stop short a few miles of city center to interface with arterials. M50 itself tunnels under the city with no exits to directly serve the industrial port area. This prioritizes the main highway as a trucking route to interface with the wider area avoiding passenger vehicle congestion and city streets while minimizing neighborhood destruction. Then the arterials themselves encourage traffic to spread out more amongst the streets as they’re not a direct downtown express. Boston is a city perfect for a Dublin-like setup because unlike Dublin, every single major route or highway into Boston has 1 or 2 higher capacity rail lines serving the same corridor. With better, faster, and cheaper alternatives for passenger transport like buses and trains, the ubiquity of highways in the urban United States would not be necessary and everyone would be better off.

Side note, it’s crazy just how similar Dublin and Boston look at firsr glance on a map

 

[tysmith95]

*veering even more off topic, mods feel free to move*

Wondering what the consensus would be for this hypothetical: trade the current limited access highway system for everything shown (including proposed) on this map (crazy overbuilt outside of 128 but zero limited access highways inside 128).

I think l would take the map…

The dotted line through downtown Salem would be awful.

 

[matredsoxfan5]

While they are not keeping the project website up to date at all, the second largest DOT contract (I-495/I-90 interchange the largest) is ongoing in Weston/Newton.

Presentation from March when it was at the MassDOT Board for approval.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/newton-weston-i-90i-95-bridge-bundle-replacement-and-rehabilitation-contract-presented-to-the-board-on-march-15-2023/download

The Newton-Weston I-95/I-90 Bridge Bundle project is replacing 4 bridges, rehabilitating 3 bridges and replacing the superstructures on 2 additional bridges for a total of 9 bridges at the interchange. Awarded to a JV team SPS-Walsh, which is a Joint Venture of SPS New England Inc of Salisbury and Walsh Construction Co of Chicago the project will take 4 1/2 years to complete with final completion in 2028.

The bridges include.....

1) I-90 over the Charles River/I-95/Ramps A/B- Full bridge replacement of entire structure with new structure to be built slightly to the East and within existing footprint with 5 traffic stages
2) I-90 over MBTA Worcester Commuter Rail- Superstructure Replacement to be completed over 55-hour weekend lane shifts on I-90 with full barrel closures & zipper barrier.
3) I-90 over Charles Street- Bridge Rehabilitation
4) Ramps A/B over Charles River (from I-95 NB to I-90 Former Toll Area)- Superstructure Replacement
5) Ramps A/B over I-95/Charles River- Bridge Rehabilitation
6) Ramp G over Ramps A/B/ Former Toll Area (from I-95 SB to I-90 EB)- Full Bridge Replacement, to be built off-line on new alignment
7) Ramp G over Hultman Aqueduct- Full Bridge Replacement, to be built off-line on new alignment
8) Ramp G over I-90/Ramp K- Full Bridge Replacement, to be built off-line on new alignment
9) Ramp C (I-90 Former Toll Area to I-95 SB) over Hultman Aqueduct- Bridge Rehabilitation

First major traffic shift took place last weekend where traffic was shifted off the C-D road that takes traffic from I-90 or Grove Street onto I-95 NB. The lanes and the ramps are now shifted out to the mainlines (but still separated on I-95 NB) on a new temporary roadway crews built. This gives crews a work zone to set up a crane.

 

[LexSEDotVille]

How Do We Fix Congestion Around Sullivan Square?

MAPC and other public agencies are releasing recommendations for public transit and transportation infrastructure improvements in the Sullivan Square area.

www.mapc.org

Came across this in the Lower Mystic Regional Working Group "Spring 19" report while searching for info on Rutherford:

This alternative examines three highway infrastructure improvements that are shown in Figure 6; a new I-93 northbound on-ramp from City Square in Charlestown, a new I-93 off-ramp at Sullivan Square, and converting the I-93 southbound high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane to a general purpose lane. In Alternative 5, all three will be modeled together to determine their benefits/impacts. (See Appendix E for a cost estimate and additional figures prepared by MassDOT.)

The new City Square on-ramp to I-93 northbound would provide motorists from the City Square area of Charlestown and the North End of Boston an opportunity to directly get onto I-93 north instead of having to travel through Sullivan Square for I-93 northbound access. The estimated cost for this on-ramp is $48,400,0003 The I-93 northbound off-ramp at Sullivan Square would provide a direct connection from I-93 to Route 99 and the Alford Street Bridge; eliminating the need for motorists to travel through Sullivan Square. There are number of issues related to this alternative including potential impacts to the transit station, compatibility with ongoing redevelopment of the area, and the requirement of a tunnel or viaduct to carry traffic directly to Route 99. The estimated cost for this on-ramp is $64,700,0003.

The last modification to the highway system converts the existing I-93 southbound HOV lane to a general-purpose lane. Currently the HOV lane is under-utilized and converting this to a general purpose lane would provide an increase to I-93 southbound capacity. This is estimated to cost between$1,000,000 and $2,000,000.Alternative 5.1 removes the proposed I-93 northbound off-ramp at SullivanSquare. The off-ramp is being removed to examine the effects on traffic volumes along Rutherford Avenue and also because of the numerous impacts to Sullivan Square and its’ potential redevelopment.

(edited for correct link)

 

[Charlie_mta]

How Do We Fix Congestion Around Sullivan Square?

MAPC and other public agencies are releasing recommendations for public transit and transportation infrastructure improvements in the Sullivan Square area.

www.mapc.org

Came across this in the Lower Mystic Regional Working Group "Spring 19" report while searching for info on Rutherford:


View attachment 46882
View attachment 46883
(edited for correct link)

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.