128 Widening

[tangent]

Most of this traffic seems to be caused by the I-93/I-95 interchange. Particularly the I-93 North to I-95 South move. The merge area under the overpass is too short and too wide and always slows everyone down. Widening it would probably just provide more space to store the queuing vehicles in advance of the interchange, not necessarily reduce delays.

Yes the I-93 and I-95 clover-leaf in Woburn simply isn't designed for the number of vehicles... I wonder if it ever really was. Extra lanes could help, but the real issue is that the interchange needs to finally get redone with at least some flyovers ... there isn't much room to work with residential neighborhoods on 3 sides...

Lack of appetite for eminent domain (of possibly 5, 10, 20 or maybe even 30 yards and houses depending how you do it) is part of what has held up that project for decades and trying to do that project in-place with multiple temporary ramp closures and lane reductions...

It will happen eventually, but probably only when the I93 overpass is ready to fall down... which doesn't look that far off by the looks of it.

 

[tysmith95]

Is it though? I'll believe it when I see it.

Yah wasn't the green line extension supposed to be opening around now.

 

[mass88]

Most of this traffic seems to be caused by the I-93/I-95 interchange. Particularly the I-93 North to I-95 South move. The merge area under the overpass is too short and too wide and always slows everyone down. Widening it would probably just provide more space to store the queuing vehicles in advance of the interchange, not necessarily reduce delays.

The 93/95 interchange in Woburn is flat out awful. Massachusetts seems to be one of the only states where you can have the interchange of 2 major highways and no additional roadway capacity to facilitate the interchange.

Example - 95 should widen to 4 full travel lanes plus to 2 additional travel lanes a mile before the interchange - those 2 additional lanes would be exit only. On the other side you would have 1-2 full travel lanes for those merging from 93 that would last for a mile.

 

[JeffDowntown]

The 93/95 interchange in Woburn is flat out awful. Massachusetts seems to be one of the only states where you can have the interchange of 2 major highways and no additional roadway capacity to facilitate the interchange.

Example - 95 should widen to 4 full travel lanes plus to 2 additional travel lanes a mile before the interchange - those 2 additional lanes would be exit only. On the other side you would have 1-2 full travel lanes for those merging from 93 that would last for a mile.

The way to fix the I-93 / I-95 interchange is a very high flyover, with directional cross-over ramps under it. High flyover for through lanes of I-93 (plenty of space up there, and the road is straight enough you can start and end well before/after the interchange). Crossover ramps under the flyover to eliminate the clover-loops.

 

[tangent]

The way to fix the I-93 / I-95 interchange is a very high flyover, with directional cross-over ramps under it. High flyover for through lanes of I-93 (plenty of space up there, and the road is straight enough you can start and end well before/after the interchange). Crossover ramps under the flyover to eliminate the clover-loops.

Yes, design wise this is a solved problem... as they say. And it really shouldn't even be that expensive compared to the benefits. Just haven't had a state government able to actually get it done in at least the last 40 years.

 

[Arlington]

The whole project is going to be completed in Spring 2019. I am going to assume that's the reason for the 2019 date.

Driving from Providence to Lexington takes one across the new sections in Needham-Newton which are looking really good. I think it loooks quite doable for the whole Newton-and-southward arc to be done by spring 2019.

It would seem that the next project(s) should be both 95/93 intersections.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The way to fix the I-93 / I-95 interchange is a very high flyover, with directional cross-over ramps under it. High flyover for through lanes of I-93 (plenty of space up there, and the road is straight enough you can start and end well before/after the interchange). Crossover ramps under the flyover to eliminate the clover-loops.

Are you thinking of a 3 or 4 level design?

It looks like the I-93 through traffic needs 3 lanes in each direction to deal with the peak hour 2011 volumes in ftp://ctps.org/pub/Express_Highway_Volumes/21_I93_North.pdf but the left turn ramps max out at 1600 vehicles in the peak hour (apparently 6-7 PM, the right turn 128 eastbound to I-93 southbound is 1800 vehicles), so one might wonder if the value engineered approach would be 128 on the bottom, I-93 northbound on the middle level, and 128 westbound to I-93 southbound (maxes out at 1350 vehicles 5-6 PM) and 128 eastbound to I-93 northbound (maxes out at 1400 3-4PM) on the top level, to minimize the length of three lane in each direction bridge required, and perhaps the I-93 southbound to 128 eastbound (maxes out at 1000 vehicles in the peak hour) and I-93 northbound to 128 westbound (maxes out at 1600 3-4 PM) ramps could stay as ~270 degree loops to minimize their cost.

I thought I read somewhere that someone involved in some iteration of the planning process thought that 2 lane left turn ramps would make sense, but if the mainline carries three lanes of traffic and then the ramps from each direction of the other highway provides one lane, don't we already have 3 + 1 + 1 = 5 merging down to four lanes? Is there any way a second left turn lane would really get used if the highway mainlines stay at four lanes in each direction?

(And I'd been focused on I-93 southbound to 128 eastbound having a low traffic count, possibly because state highway 129 may be a useful bypass and more direct route for much of that traffic, as a reason to not invest in a direct ramp if there only end up being two left turn direct ramps, but if that's paired with the high peak hour traffic count I-93 northbound to 128 westbound, if adding a second lane of graded dirt turns out to be cheaper than building a bridge, maybe having a cheap upgrade available to a second lane where it's most likely to be useful might have value.)

And is it worthwhile to design it to plan to have I-93 HOV lane(s)? (Does it make any sense to try to convert part of 28 through the Fells Reservation to I-93 HOV?)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Driving from Providence to Lexington takes one across the new sections in Needham-Newton which are looking really good. I think it loooks quite doable for the whole Newton-and-southward arc to be done by spring 2019.

It would seem that the next project(s) should be both 95/93 intersections.

They still have till Spring 2019? I don't know what finish-up could possibly be left other than very minor tidy-up landscaping well off the road, because it looks like they're one layer of blacktopping left from opening the 4th lane in both directions. All of the trucks, jersey barriers, and staging equipment have been removed in the last week or so. All that's left is the row of orange drums in the shoulder awaiting moving for the paving machines, which indicates the final paving/striping is near-imminent. If they aren't 100% done on the roadway surface by August 15, I'd be shocked.

Even with it still 6 lanes at this moment, the disappearance of all jersey barriers has made increased speeds and decreased congestion already quite noticeable around Highland at rush.

 

[mass88]

They still have till Spring 2019? I don't know what finish-up could possibly be left other than very minor tidy-up landscaping well off the road, because it looks like they're one layer of blacktopping left from opening the 4th lane in both directions. All of the trucks, jersey barriers, and staging equipment have been removed in the last week or so. All that's left is the row of orange drums in the shoulder awaiting moving for the paving machines, which indicates the final paving/striping is near-imminent. If they aren't 100% done on the roadway surface by August 15, I'd be shocked.

Even with it still 6 lanes at this moment, the disappearance of all jersey barriers has made increased speeds and decreased congestion already quite noticeable around Highland at rush.

Having the frontage roads was a smart move for the Highland Ave exits. Also adding an exit at Kendrick street was smart too. I would have liked to see them add in a frontage road setup for the route 16 and grove street exit.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Having the frontage roads was a smart move for the Highland Ave exits. Also adding an exit at Kendrick street was smart too. I would have liked to see them add in a frontage road setup for the route 16 and grove street exit.

Out-of-scope for this leg of the widening project, but those two exits could be fair game for getting reworked whenever they decide to give the Pike interchange a makeover. Grove in particular is close enough to the existing northbound frontage to get folded into the works.

 

[Equilibria]

Having the frontage roads was a smart move for the Highland Ave exits. Also adding an exit at Kendrick street was smart too. I would have liked to see them add in a frontage road setup for the route 16 and grove street exit.

Growing up there and getting off at Grove NB and on at 16 NB constantly, I never saw much of a weaving issue. Others experiences may vary, but while the distance might justify a frontage setup, I'm not sure about the traffic pattern.

What would definitely help that location is rebuilding the Pike interchange into a more compact form that allows that exit to be in sight of the Pike. What I HAVE seen, all the time, is people getting off at Grove when they want the Pike, then reversing (!) or cutting across the painted area because they don't realize they can just go over Grove and back down.

That would allow the former 128 alignment to go from access road to a 2-way extension of Recreation Road, allowing much easier access to Riverside from the north and taking cars off of streets in Lower Falls.

Worth noting, too, that the various Riverside developments have called for reshaping the Grove St. NB ramps. The latest of these:

 

[stick n move]

Concrete pavement is more durable than asphalt. The problem is that, unlike asphalt, it cannot simply be resurfaced in overnight small impact projects periodically - it has to be rebuilt from scratch. Midwestern states with powerful freeze/thaw cycles use it for its durability, but when the bill comes due it's a real pain.

It also sucks ass to drive on because every like 10ft they have to put in an expansion joint. So it sounds like your on train tracks where it click clacks while your driving and its annoying as hell. I hateeee driving long distances on concrete highways.

 

[CSTH]

So...10 years later, I think this is finally all done?

Drove the Weston-Westwood stretch a couple times over the long holiday and ... it works.

Can we do Woburn, Wakefield Lynfield & Peabody now please?

 

[mass88]

So...10 years later, I think this is finally all done?

Drove the Weston-Westwood stretch a couple times over the long holiday and ... it works.

Can we do Woburn, Wakefield Lynfield & Peabody now please?

The official completion of the project is Spring 2019, however it looks like they're pretty much done and the latest update from MassDOT said the contractor is on their punch list of leaving the site.

Overall it looks great and a nice roadway upgrade project. The frontage roads around Highland Ave were a smart idea and make navigating the area a lot easier.

 

[Shepard]

The Kendrick Street exit has almost certainly taken traffic off of Needham Street. But, now Nahanton Street (the continuation of Kendrick in Newton) is backed up in rush hour sometimes all the way down to Dedham Street. These parts of Newton used to not have much in the way of traffic at all.

Anecdotally I can say that if you want to go 95 South from Brookline, JP, Brighton, Chestnut Hill or Newton Center, Waze almost always recommends avoiding Route 9 by winding through south Brookline, out to Dedham Street, and on to Nahanton to the Kendrick exit.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The Kendrick Street exit has almost certainly taken traffic off of Needham Street. But, now Nahanton Street (the continuation of Kendrick in Newton) is backed up in rush hour sometimes all the way down to Dedham Street. These parts of Newton used to not have much in the way of traffic at all.

Is that GLX-Needham's music playing? Seems to be getting a lot louder these days.

 

[FK4]

The Kendrick Street exit has almost certainly taken traffic off of Needham Street. But, now Nahanton Street (the continuation of Kendrick in Newton) is backed up in rush hour sometimes all the way down to Dedham Street. These parts of Newton used to not have much in the way of traffic at all.

Anecdotally I can say that if you want to go 95 South from Brookline, JP, Brighton, Chestnut Hill or Newton Center, Waze almost always recommends avoiding Route 9 by winding through south Brookline, out to Dedham Street, and on to Nahanton to the Kendrick exit.

Nahanton is horribly backed up because of the new traffic light they installed by the farm. That was the most asinine mistake I've ever seen... and the second they installed it, traffic backed up all the way down that road. The new exit doesn't help but that traffic light has been a total disaster, and I am thankful I've moved recently and have less of a need to use that route when going out to my dad's house. Amazed that Newton residents haven't gone ballistic and demanded better light timing calibration, or something.

 

[mass88]

Is that GLX-Needham's music playing? Seems to be getting a lot louder these days.

Needham essentially has their own rapid transit of sorts given the commuter rail has 4 stops in town and it's a very short ride into Back Bay and South Station. Would having a branch on the green line make things a lot better? I am just thinking from a cost benefit perspective.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Needham essentially has their own rapid transit of sorts given the commuter rail has 4 stops in town and it's a very short ride into Back Bay and South Station. Would having a branch on the green line make things a lot better? I am just thinking from a cost benefit perspective.

Read the threads about regional rail or NSRL. The problem is going to be capacity on the NEC with Amtrak looking for more train slots. Something in the commuter rail world needs to go away to allow Indigo frequencies and more NEC slots for Amtrak. Needham is the logical candidate (two service expansions options, Orange or Green.)

 

[mass88]

Read the threads about regional rail or NSRL. The problem is going to be capacity on the NEC with Amtrak looking for more train slots. Something in the commuter rail world needs to go away to allow Indigo frequencies and more NEC slots for Amtrak. Needham is the logical candidate (two service expansions options, Orange or Green.)

Is it not possible to add more tracks?