Additional lane on the Southeast Expressway

[mass88]

I agree, safety and reliability are paramount. How about my 1+3+1+3+1 suggestion from earlier? Or, perhaps stagger the breakdown lanes.

That would not work. That will offer less travel lanes.

1+4+2+4+1 would be better.

 

[Matthew]

That would not work. That will offer less travel lanes.

1+4+2+4+1 would be better.

There simply isn't enough space in the right-of-way for 12 lanes. The proposal being put forth here would spend a few billion dollars to widen from 8->9 lanes in the vicinity of Savin Hill.

But if breakdown lanes were truly held to be important, then MassDOT would lay out 1+3+1+3+1. But they obviously don't think it's that important to have breakdown lanes.

So in the hypothetical case that 12 lanes-worth of room was magically found for the Southeast Expressway, I hypothesize that it would only be a short while before enough political pressure would turn that 1+4+2+4+1 layout into 5+2+5 with no breakdown lanes, once again.

 

[ant8904]

That would not work. That will offer less travel lanes.

1+4+2+4+1 would be better.

1+3+1+3+1 probably can't work. But I think 1+4+2+4+1 will require land taking that needs a lot of justification before that should be considered.


I mean, the original set up was 1+3+3+1. But it was changed to 4+4 before it changed to what it is now because of congestion was that bad. This would indicate to me that changing it back - even with a HOV lane - will result in making things worse. If it didn't, then they wouldn't have chose to sacrifice the breakdown lane in favor for more travel lanes in the first place. Remember that the tunnel is semi-1+4+4+1. The strength of the entire network is dependent on its weakest link. And my experience have found that many backups have been lane mergers.

On the other hand, the 1+4+2+4+1 will require land taking. At the moment, this is an idea that should not be considered without great justification. Especially since my thinking says there could be an alternative that can ease congestion without such cost to the surroundings and homes of people.


As people have mentioned here, perhaps a discontinuous breakdown lane can be built. There are pieces around the highway that can put a breakdown lane without issue. A discontinuous breakdown lane might fix most of the single car of death this stretch so many times.

The second half of the problem the congestion itself. From what I can notice, I believe much of the problems of this highway is the number of merging and exiting ramps. As traffic leaves the tunnel, it is greeted by a decent curve, an HOV merge, a ramp merge, and an exit. There's two other merges and exists not too far from each other too. Perhaps by connecting the 3 miles between the HOV and the Zipper, it can have surprising amount of change to the congestion there.

While Matt worries it is a stealth add-a-lane strategy. I am currently seeing that this maybe a major help. As long it is not so expensive that the same money can be better spent on something that gives more returns (we also have to consider that this depends if said money can be better allocated to a high returns project).

So my thinking is first doing the low hanging fruit of building intermediate breakdown lanes can greatly fix many problems without destroying buildings or homes. The proposal of the HOV lane addition might have surprising amount of affect of the congestion too. Instead of a mass land-taking 1+4+2+4+1 strategy or an ineffective 1+3+1+3+1 strategy.

 

[mass88]

There simply isn't enough space in the right-of-way for 12 lanes. The proposal being put forth here would spend a few billion dollars to widen from 8->9 lanes in the vicinity of Savin Hill.

But if breakdown lanes were truly held to be important, then MassDOT would lay out 1+3+1+3+1. But they obviously don't think it's that important to have breakdown lanes.

So in the hypothetical case that 12 lanes-worth of room was magically found for the Southeast Expressway, I hypothesize that it would only be a short while before enough political pressure would turn that 1+4+2+4+1 layout into 5+2+5 with no breakdown lanes, once again.

My idea of having 10 travel lanes will probably never happen due to cost. Outside of the East Milton Square area, there is plenty of space to add in 3-4 lanes.

The HOV lane that runs on the southbound stretch from just out of the tunnel to just before the South Bay area is a joke and only causes more traffic. There is also substantial space along the right side before the exit for Mass Ave that could also be use for example to widen things as you get closer to the tunnels.

In my opinion, any way you look at it, that stretch of road is awful and for a major artery heading into a city, it's very poor. You are talking about 3 lanes in one direction during rush hour without a breakdown lane. I used to do a reverse commute into Boston in the evenings for a year and the HOV caused massive traffic coming into the city. Worse than the other direction. If you have a flight out of Logan during the busy rush hour period from 5-8 pm, you better leave very early if you are coming from the south.

The only other stretch of road that is worse than 93 that I have experienced would probably be the 5 out in Seattle where you go from up to 6 travel lanes in each direction down to only 3 right as you pass the downtown area.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

The HOV lane that runs on the southbound stretch from just out of the tunnel to just before the South Bay area is a joke and only causes more traffic. There is also substantial space along the right side before the exit for Mass Ave that could also be use for example to widen things as you get closer to the tunnels.

Especially given how at any given moment you could reach out of your window in that heavy traffic and grab on to the zipper barrier, which is insane.

Since we absolutely must not ever widen any roads anywhere, it's better to just kill the thing and median-ize it. Then you can have 1+3+1+3+1 but actually effective, or, if the banks are permissive enough, 3/4+3+3/2+3+3/4, which might be the best solution as it provides plenty space on either side to pull a car but physically discourages driving in the breakdown lane.

Of course, if we could widen the road, we could have 3/4+4+1+4+3/4 with the HOV lane killed, driving in the breakdown lane made extremely difficult but getting disabled vehicles into it extremely easy, and still have 8 lanes of travel to work with.

 

[whighlander]

I was thinking safety of people (all modes) rather than "safe for big trucks to turn." But that does bring up an interesting point. Fire trucks in this country are very large because most roads have been designed to be very large. And then, because the fire trucks are large, new roads are designed even wider to accommodate them. It's an unfortunate cycle which causes fire marshals to be at odds with city residents, and results in streets less safe for walking, though easier for fire trucks.

Mathew -- "Fire trucks in this country are very large because most roads have been designed to be very large"

I like antique fire equipment -- I've been to the Boston Fire Museum (right next to the Childrens Museum) and its very enjoyable as a small museum

Yet -- if my house or place of business was one fire -- I'd like the state-of-the-art in fire fighting equipment and well trained crews to respond -- nostalgia and history of technology not withstanding

Fire trucks are large because they carry heavy things such as big pumps, water tanks or large heavy aerial towers -- they've gottern bigger to do their job better

Take a looks at the monsters at Logan for example -- they are big not because they can drive on taxiways and runways -- but rather to be capable of meeting their requirements to rapidly respond to air crashes and similar specialized types of events associated with major airports

Fireboats are also very large to meet their specialized requirements.

Essentially it comes down to Newtons Laws of motion -- If you have a 100 foot arial ladder or a big crane - the platform needed to support it and allow it to be flexibly and rapidly deployed has to be big and heavy with a wide foodprint (and extensions) to insure stability

By the way -- take a typical suburban street and park cars on both sides and then try to get piece of fire equipment through without creeping along -- yet in the absensence of the parked cars the street seems excessively wide

 

[whighlander]

Especially given how at any given moment you could reach out of your window in that heavy traffic and grab on to the zipper barrier, which is insane.

Since we absolutely must not ever widen any roads anywhere, it's better to just kill the thing and median-ize it. Then you can have 1+3+1+3+1 but actually effective, or, if the banks are permissive enough, 3/4+3+3/2+3+3/4, which might be the best solution as it provides plenty space on either side to pull a car but physically discourages driving in the breakdown lane.

Of course, if we could widen the road, we could have 3/4+4+1+4+3/4 with the HOV lane killed, driving in the breakdown lane made extremely difficult but getting disabled vehicles into it extremely easy, and still have 8 lanes of travel to work with.

Commute -- my highway priorities are:

1) Finish adding the 2 lanes to I-95 (Rt-128) between I-95 and US-9
2) Build the flyover or redo of the cloverleaf into a sheleighlei at Rt-128 & I-93 north of Boston
3) Fix the Braintree split
4) Add 2 lanes to Rt-3 to Plymouth and make it into I-93 (the wierd piece of I-93 along Rt-128 from I-95 to the Braintree split can be redesignated as I-595
5) Fix R-2 to insure decent Rt-1 like highway travel from Rt-128 to I-495 -- get rid of all of the L turns, rotary, grade crossing of tracks, etc.

 

[Matthew]

Places with really small streets (not America) deal with them accordingly.

http://www.homesforheroes.com/blog/cool-international-fire-trucks

 

[mass88]

Commute -- my highway priorities are:

1) Finish adding the 2 lanes to I-95 (Rt-128) between I-95 and US-9
2) Build the flyover or redo of the cloverleaf into a sheleighlei at Rt-128 & I-93 north of Boston
3) Fix the Braintree split
4) Add 2 lanes to Rt-3 to Plymouth and make it into I-93 (the wierd piece of I-93 along Rt-128 from I-95 to the Braintree split can be redesignated as I-595
5) Fix R-2 to insure decent Rt-1 like highway travel from Rt-128 to I-495 -- get rid of all of the L turns, rotary, grade crossing of tracks, etc.

Those are some well needed projects. I would also add the interchange in Canton.

What would you do to fix the Braintree split?

 

[whighlander]

Those are some well needed projects. I would also add the interchange in Canton.

What would you do to fix the Braintree split?

Mass -- yes the Interchange in Canton as well as the other major interchanges along that section such as the Rt-24 Interchange would fill some of the later slots in my list

As to Braintree -- ideally there would be a series of splittings of the traffic well separated to reduce weaving:
1) a "Mass Ave-like interchanges" conecting to high capacity local access roads feeding the immediate area around South Shore Plaza, Crown Colony Office Park and Quincy Adams T Station
2) several dedicated lanes heading to I-595 bound for Rt-24 and I-95 South
3) Similar dedicated express lanes with their own interchanges for the through traffic to I-93 to Plymouth
4) dedicated lanes for the local connections at the first few existing interchanges of Rt-3

 

[ant8904]

Mass -- yes the Interchange in Canton as well as the other major interchanges along that section such as the Rt-24 Interchange would fill some of the later slots in my list

As to Braintree -- ideally there would be a series of splittings of the traffic well separated to reduce weaving:
1) a "Mass Ave-like interchanges" conecting to high capacity local access roads feeding the immediate area around South Shore Plaza, Crown Colony Office Park and Quincy Adams T Station
2) several dedicated lanes heading to I-595 bound for Rt-24 and I-95 South
3) Similar dedicated express lanes with their own interchanges for the through traffic to I-93 to Plymouth
4) dedicated lanes for the local connections at the first few existing interchanges of Rt-3

I think since the designed is already set up to be the best it can be (Seeing it is a Direction-T interchange). I'm not sure direct improvements to the highway can really help it. After all, it is the combing of two separate ones highways into one.

Instead, we have to find a way to reduce demand rather than increase supply. I would imagine expansion of the Orange Line, creation of the Indigo from Fairmount, and another extension of the Red Line to cover more southern towns would help reduce demand. Shorter Headways on the Red lines will help create the induction of demand for the Red Line too. It would reduce the number of cars on the highways including the amount that would use the Braintree Split.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Mass -- yes the Interchange in Canton as well as the other major interchanges along that section such as the Rt-24 Interchange would fill some of the later slots in my list

As to Braintree -- ideally there would be a series of splittings of the traffic well separated to reduce weaving:
1) a "Mass Ave-like interchanges" conecting to high capacity local access roads feeding the immediate area around South Shore Plaza, Crown Colony Office Park and Quincy Adams T Station
2) several dedicated lanes heading to I-595 bound for Rt-24 and I-95 South
3) Similar dedicated express lanes with their own interchanges for the through traffic to I-93 to Plymouth
4) dedicated lanes for the local connections at the first few existing interchanges of Rt-3

I-595?

That's the first I've heard of this.

What road becomes 595?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I-595?

That's the first I've heard of this.

What road becomes 595?

That's the would-be interstate designation for I-93 Braintree-Canton if 93 were re-routed down Route 3 to the Sagamore. Must be an odd-numbered prefix because it only touches an I-x95 in one direction, and 5 is the next available odd.

 

[DominusNovus]

That's the would-be interstate designation for I-93 Braintree-Canton if 93 were re-routed down Route 3 to the Sagamore. Must be an odd-numbered prefix because it only touches an I-x95 in one direction, and 5 is the next available odd.

Quick related question: What would be required to upgrade rt 24 to an interstate?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

That's the would-be interstate designation for I-93 Braintree-Canton if 93 were re-routed down Route 3 to the Sagamore. Must be an odd-numbered prefix because it only touches an I-x95 in one direction, and 5 is the next available odd.

Why not just reroute I-95 into Boston and rebrand 128 as 695? It makes more sense for the spur interstate designation to be applied to a beltway, IMO. Then you can attach 595 to MA-3.

Quick related question: What would be required to upgrade rt 24 to an interstate?

I don't think anything would actually be needed to turn the MA-24 corridor into I-193 except a rebannering.

The real obstacle would be RI-24, which is only partially built as a freeway and has wonky exits.

e: Wait, no, I forgot about the screwy 24/195 interchange. That shit probably can't fly if 24 was/is to be given an interstate designation. You might be able to get away with just designating everything between 93 and 195 as an interstate, though.

 

[omaja]

Must be an odd-numbered prefix because it only touches an I-x95 in one direction, and 5 is the next available odd.

Even-number prefixes don't need to reconnect to the parent, just another Interstate, like how I-290 connects I-90/I-395/I-495. It really ought to be I-695 (or, alternatively, an I-x93 designation given a new I-93 alignment along Route 3).

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Even-number prefixes don't need to reconnect to the parent, just another Interstate, like how I-290 connects I-90/I-395/I-495. It really ought to be I-695 (or, alternatively, an I-x93 designation given a new I-93 alignment along Route 3).

How about this?

 

[omaja]

Not bad!

-I love the idea of 93/95 through Boston. That has always made infinitely more sense to me than routing the East Coast's most important route around the city.

-I'm not sure if I see US 6 along the Cape being upgraded to Interstate standards - lots of work to be done with substandard ramps, nonexistent breakdown lanes and, of course, the threat of overdeveloping/commercializing the Cape. Ending I-93 at the Sagamore would probably be sufficient considering 3 is already basically up to Interstate standards as it is.

-I'd designate 24 as I-695 as it would connect I-95 to I-195 in Fall River. Similarly, I'd redesignate I-193 as I-895 because it connects to I-95 on both ends as the official inner bypass of Boston. And just to be consistent without other designations planned, swap I-795 for I-595 (though I guess you could use I-595 for MA-2 or US-1 as well).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Why not just reroute I-95 into Boston and rebrand 128 as 695? It makes more sense for the spur interstate designation to be applied to a beltway, IMO. Then you can attach 595 to MA-3.



I don't think anything would actually be needed to turn the MA-24 corridor into I-193 except a rebannering.

The real obstacle would be RI-24, which is only partially built as a freeway and has wonky exits.

e: Wait, no, I forgot about the screwy 24/195 interchange. That shit probably can't fly if 24 was/is to be given an interstate designation. You might be able to get away with just designating everything between 93 and 195 as an interstate, though.

24 south of 195 isn't under consideration because of the truncated RI portion. All proposals from the last 30+ years active or bandied about only sought interstate designation for the 128-to-195 segment, which is all expressway. 24 into RI would've remained as a different route, which it kinda is anyway since nobody really treats the disconnected ends + 195 concurrency as a single road. So it'd be x95 with reset exit numbering from Westport north to 128.

The most deficient parts of the highway are the 2-lane 495-to-140 stretch + 140 interchange, the dangerous ramp splits with Route 79, and the 195 interchange. None of them are blockers to seeking the designation, but the feds are known to throw those in the circular file when they're unimpressed with road conditions so it's generally assumed that those 3 trouble spots will get settled up before an application gets filed. I think everything else is up to spec except a couple overpasses slightly less than the regulation 16' clearance and maybe a couple tightish ramps of little consequence. Generally speaking it's more "compliant" an expressway than anything in the Boston area save for those 3 aforementioned interchanges.



Note: The state has no say whatsoever in what number actually gets doled out. 29 years ago both CT and MA had the sign shops ready and waiting to stick 290 shields up the whole length of Route 52 from the Mass Pike to New London. But the USDOT had other ideas and surprised both states by handing out a 395 designation instead. Even CT didn't want that, the Worcester-area expressway layout and "395 ends, 290 begins" signs don't make sense to this day, and everyone went home feeling confused and unsatisfied. But thems the breaks when it comes to 3-digit interstates. No control over the name = spares a lot of silly cripple fights with local pols over vanity numbers (obviously a 2-digit highway like 93 is a different deal altogether if MA applies to re-route it on 3 to Bourne).


Braintree-Canton and 24 are each going to be x95's, anyway. And I don't think anyone here has got money riding on a 5- or 6- prefix enough to care what it's ultimately called. In fact, I predict that any x95 Canton-Braintree designation will just redouble people's efforts to call it "Route 128" once and for all, to the point where the state--finally--has to cave to irrepressible public will and put up x95/128 signs on it.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Not bad!

-I love the idea of 93/95 through Boston. That has always made infinitely more sense to me than routing the East Coast's most important route around the city.

-I'm not sure if I see US 6 along the Cape being upgraded to Interstate standards - lots of work to be done with substandard ramps, nonexistent breakdown lanes and, of course, the threat of overdeveloping/commercializing the Cape. Ending I-93 at the Sagamore would probably be sufficient considering 3 is already basically up to Interstate standards as it is.

-I'd designate 24 as I-695 as it would connect I-95 to I-195 in Fall River. Similarly, I'd redesignate I-193 as I-895 because it connects to I-95 on both ends as the official inner bypass of Boston. And just to be consistent without other designations planned, swap I-795 for I-595 (though I guess you could use I-595 for MA-2 or US-1 as well).

Thank you.

Of the concerns you raise about US 6, I feel that the substandard ramps and nonexistent breakdown lanes will need to be fixed regardless of whether or not it's ultimately made into a part of new I-93. Overdeveloping the Cape is a more significant concern, I'll grant you that. Perhaps a study is in order?

I wanted to avoid using the 695/895 designations because of their association with the two defunct beltways they originally corresponded to. 595/795 don't correspond to anything in this region, so I went with them. Similarly, I went with 193 because it's strange to me that 293 and 393 exist, but there is no 193. If we were going to provide the Northeast Expressway with an interstate designation, I'd probably hand it 193 to reflect what 393 in New Hampshire is.

Similarly, the OTHER half of 24 that I didn't provide an interstate designation to could be bumped up to I-595 with some work, most likely. It'd be difficult, and you'd have to go through RIDOT, but it's probably manageable.

Let me ruminate on this some more.

24 south of 195 isn't under consideration because of the truncated RI portion. All proposals from the last 30+ years active or bandied about only sought interstate designation for the 128-to-195 segment, which is all expressway. 24 into RI would've remained as a different route, which it kinda is anyway since nobody really treats the disconnected ends + 195 concurrency as a single road. So it'd be x95 with reset exit numbering from Westport north to 128.

The most deficient parts of the highway are the 2-lane 495-to-140 stretch + 140 interchange, the dangerous ramp splits with Route 79, and the 195 interchange. None of them are blockers to seeking the designation, but the feds are known to throw those in the circular file when they're unimpressed with road conditions so it's generally assumed that those 3 trouble spots will get settled up before an application gets filed. I think everything else is up to spec except a couple overpasses slightly less than the regulation 16' clearance and maybe a couple tightish ramps of little consequence. Generally speaking it's more "compliant" an expressway than anything in the Boston area save for those 3 aforementioned interchanges.



Note: The state has no say whatsoever in what number actually gets doled out. 29 years ago both CT and MA had the sign shops ready and waiting to stick 290 shields up the whole length of Route 52 from the Mass Pike to New London. But the USDOT had other ideas and surprised both states by handing out a 395 designation instead. Even CT didn't want that, the Worcester-area expressway layout and "395 ends, 290 begins" signs don't make sense to this day, and everyone went home feeling confused and unsatisfied. But thems the breaks when it comes to 3-digit interstates. No control over the name = spares a lot of silly cripple fights with local pols over vanity numbers (obviously a 2-digit highway like 93 is a different deal altogether if MA applies to re-route it on 3 to Bourne).


Braintree-Canton and 24 are each going to be x95's, anyway. And I don't think anyone here has got money riding on a 5- or 6- prefix enough to care what it's ultimately called. In fact, I predict that any x95 Canton-Braintree designation will just redouble people's efforts to call it "Route 128" once and for all, to the point where the state--finally--has to cave to irrepressible public will and put up x95/128 signs on it.

I suppose, but at that point, why not just rebrand the SE and N Expressways into a 93/95 Concurrency, call 24 x95 and drop the interstate designation on 128 altogether? The Braintree to Canton portion can get 95/128 concurrency and having a road running North and South at the same time is slightly less screwy than designating 95 as it is right now.