Additional lane on the Southeast Expressway

[F-Line to Dudley]

No, I mean CT-2 to 395 to that aborted turnpike stub to 6 to 195 and on to the Cape via Southside as the Hartford-Providence-Cape connection.

Under such a proposal, 395 would get split, and I was wondering what would end up happening to the 95-to-(82?) 395 stub and the 82-to-90/290 stub.

If I made that sound as clear as mud, I can draw a map of what I mean.

Yeah, maybe a map would help. CT 2 goes to Norwich, 22 miles south of that stub. And it's pretty much complete as-built, except for some never agreed-upon Norwich beltway. I-384 is the road they want to extend out east to unite the various expressway stubs. 2 charges hard out of Hartford in the southeasterly direction; it's not even close to an alignment that could swing back to the vicinity of US 6.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Yeah, maybe a map would help. CT 2 goes to Norwich, 22 miles south of that stub. And it's pretty much complete as-built, except for some never agreed-upon Norwich beltway. I-384 is the road they want to extend out east to unite the various expressway stubs. 2 charges hard out of Hartford in the southeasterly direction; it's not even close to an alignment that could swing back to the vicinity of US 6.

Something like this.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Something like this.

Wouldn't work. Route 11, which they are finally proposing to for-real complete to New London and 95/395, eats up all the remaining original capacity 2 was designed for. It's supposed to be a Hartford-Norwich/New London expressway forking in Colchester. Asking it to carry interstate traffic would require full rebuild of the very curvy, 4-lane segment from Glastonbury Center that's constrained to mostly 55 MPH, and completion of the unbuilt radial freeways on CT 17 and CT 3. CT 3 in particular, because that was the SE quadrant of the canceled I-291/491 Hartford beltway. 2 dumps most of its load smack in downtown without a lot of meaningful load-spreading options. I mean, look at all that wasn't built that was supposed to interchange with 2 in just the 5 miles between Hartford and Glastonbury. I'm not even sure it's going to be fully adequate-to-task to handle a completed Route 11 with all the load-bearing cross-connections that are missing in Greater Hartford.

Wouldn't be possible to get a fed designation of a road that lacks the capacity and redundancy to thru-route interstate traffic. And then the other strikes against it are that the gerrymandered interstate designation is not a faster Hartford-Providence thru trip a majority of the time than CT9-->95 (where speed limit is 65 more often than not) or CT2-->CT11 (if complete)-->95. If "least congested" Hartford-Providence route only tips the difference a few select hours of the day, then it's not an interstate corridor...it's a bypass.


384/"old"-82 is hands-down the only one that matters for getting to/thru Providence. So much cheaper to build than all the auxiliary work they'd have to do anywhere else because existing I-384 already has that 10-lane + 2 HOV lane supersize segment of 84 in East Hartford to CT 15 and the completed NE leg of I-291 to load-balance itself. They've tried every fantasy CT 2 napkin sketch...every time the required Hartford-Glastonbury fixes become such an exercise in masochism that the only plausible solution is redoubling the effort at getting 384 done. Trust me...Hartford-Providence may be one of the Top 5 most studied vaporware highways in history. There's no great revelations left to uncover other than which adjustment of 1/2 mile or less around the Hop River and/or Scituate Reservoir is it going to take to get that permit issued. It's been studied that much by that many people. Actually, there isn't even that much dispute left on the permitting. In CT they more or less found the route to that the residents will support, but the Army Corps. took its ball and went home because it wasn't "their" preferred route (same grandstanding they're pulling with electric trains through the swamp on South Coast Rail). In RI it's even clearer...add a second carriageway to the stub that already plows through the Reservoir, but their own state EPA can't agree amongst itself how to file the paperwork.

 

[whighlander]

The operative word being "Brockton". That introduces a significant amount of skew in the density numbers, but it's far enough away from Plymouth with different commute patterns that Plymouth-centric development is not going to meaningfully impact Brockton or vice versa. ...

I won't deny that Plymouth is growing, but those are very, very loaded numbers to be trotting out for a claim that there's Crazy Transit Pitches-level urbanity popping up in Greater Plymouth. The 44 expressway completion and I-x93'ing is no-brainer because that road traces the edge of the 495 belt better than 495 itself does on the Middleboro-Wareham stretch, but let's not start putting Plymouth in the same urban heft category as a Lowell or Nashua. Affluence and relative upside ≠ urbanity.

F-Line I didn't actually mention Brockton except in the context of the joint Plymoth County Seat a la the joint Middlesex County Seat of Lowell and Cambridge

BUT back to Plymouth -- for some reason you ommitted the key point about the growth of the town of Plymouth proper

Area
• Total 134.0 sq mi (347.0 km2)
• Land 96.5 sq mi (249.8 km2)
• Water 37.5 sq mi (97.2 km2)
Elevation[3] 187 ft (57 m)
Population (2010)[4]
• Total 56,468
• Density 608.1/sq mi (234.9/km2)

1940 13,100 +0.4%
1950 13,608 +3.9%
1960 14,445 +6.2%
1970 18,606 +28.8%
1980 35,913 +93.0%
1990 45,608 +27.0%
2000 51,701 +13.4%
2010 56,468 +9.2%

Plymouth has a lot of land and so it will grow -- how much is a question -- but if it just grows to have the density of Lexington [1914/sq mi] then the population of Plymouth [177,763] will approach Worcester [181,045]

So in the 2030 -- 2050 time frame -- Plymouth is likely to become a major urban core on the South Shore - thereby justifying an investment in signiicant transit connectivity

 

[omaja]

Plymouth has a lot of land and so it will grow -- how much is a question -- but if it just grows to have the density of Lexington [1914/sq mi] then the population of Plymouth [177,763] will approach Worcester [181,045]

So in the 2030 -- 2050 time frame -- Plymouth is likely to become a major urban core on the South Shore - thereby justifying an investment in signiicant transit connectivity

You're still only talking about densities less than 2,000 people/square mile. Worcester, with its population of 181K averages over 4,600 people/square mile. Not sure exactly what you mean by 'significant transit connectivity', but I can't see much more than increased commuter rail frequencies as viable for Plymouth.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

You're still only talking about densities less than 2,000 people/square mile. Worcester, with its population of 181K averages over 4,600 people/square mile. Not sure exactly what you mean by 'significant transit connectivity', but I can't see much more than increased commuter rail frequencies as viable for Plymouth.

Light rail or some kind of trolley service is out of the question down there? Obviously, it's never going to be big enough to support some kind of true rapid transit, but a light rail line shouldn't be out of the question...

 

[HenryAlan]

So in the 2030 -- 2050 time frame -- Plymouth is likely to become a major urban core on the South Shore - thereby justifying an investment in signiicant transit connectivity

No, it will become a mass of suburban sprawl. Don't confuse a large population in a large geography with an urban area. Lexington level densities on a larger footprint are still Lexington level densities.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

384/"old"-82 is hands-down the only one that matters for getting to/thru Providence. So much cheaper to build than all the auxiliary work they'd have to do anywhere else because existing I-384 already has that 10-lane + 2 HOV lane supersize segment of 84 in East Hartford to CT 15 and the completed NE leg of I-291 to load-balance itself. They've tried every fantasy CT 2 napkin sketch...every time the required Hartford-Glastonbury fixes become such an exercise in masochism that the only plausible solution is redoubling the effort at getting 384 done. Trust me...Hartford-Providence may be one of the Top 5 most studied vaporware highways in history. There's no great revelations left to uncover other than which adjustment of 1/2 mile or less around the Hop River and/or Scituate Reservoir is it going to take to get that permit issued. It's been studied that much by that many people. Actually, there isn't even that much dispute left on the permitting. In CT they more or less found the route to that the residents will support, but the Army Corps. took its ball and went home because it wasn't "their" preferred route (same grandstanding they're pulling with electric trains through the swamp on South Coast Rail). In RI it's even clearer...add a second carriageway to the stub that already plows through the Reservoir, but their own state EPA can't agree amongst itself how to file the paperwork.

I don't understand how this is supposed to work. Is there a map somewhere?

 

[omaja]

Light rail or some kind of trolley service is out of the question down there? Obviously, it's never going to be big enough to support some kind of true rapid transit, but a light rail line shouldn't be out of the question...

Where would it go to? It would be pretty useless considering how decentralized and sparse the South Shore is; Plymouth itself would have to grow and densify exponentially before light rail would even be entertained. I'd like to see the South Shore try buses to prove there's even an ounce of intra-suburban transit demand first.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Where would it go to? It would be pretty useless considering how decentralized and sparse the South Shore is; Plymouth itself would have to grow and densify exponentially before light rail would even be entertained. I'd like to see the South Shore try buses to prove there's even an ounce of intra-suburban transit demand first.

Well, it could...

...uh...

...okay, point taken. Reminds me of South County, yikes.

 

[whighlander]

No, it will become a mass of suburban sprawl. Don't confuse a large population in a large geography with an urban area. Lexington level densities on a larger footprint are still Lexington level densities.

Henry, et al -- don't confuse density with DENSITY:

What is the density of the "Alure of the Seas" even at 250,000 tons its overall density is less than that of sea water or even the fresh water in the Finish Fijord where she was built

However, you can be "take it to the bank" certain that there are many pieces of the Alure which would be on the bottom if they weren't a part of the whole ship

Similarly - as I ilustrated in many previous posts -- there are several parts of Lexington and many parts of Arlington (mostly near to Mass Ave) which possess densities comparable to Collige Corner or a number of points in Newton served by the Green Line

existing building on same side of Mass Ave on the other side of Waltham St.

indeed I'm willing to bet that there are places in Lexington denser than parts of West Roxbury (served by the Orange Line)

A 150,000 population Plymouth circa 2060 would certainly have parts that were transit eligible - and just like another Greater Boston local population and employment core such as Worcester -- there should be high frequency connectivity wih the Hub

 

[statler]

West Roxbury (served by the Orange Line)

¿Qué?

 

[omaja]

A 150,000 population Plymouth circa 2060 would certainly have parts that were transit eligible - and just like another Greater Boston local population and employment core such as Worcester -- there should be high frequency connectivity wih the Hub

So when you wrote this:

So in the 2030 -- 2050 time frame -- Plymouth is likely to become a major urban core on the South Shore - thereby justifying an investment in signiicant transit connectivity

you really meant only that Plymouth should have better commuter rail service?

I don't think anyone would argue with that. Hopefully by then (much sooner, really) the entire commuter network will have been electrified.

 

[whighlander]

¿Qué?

OK -- a bit of stretch -- I was of course referring to Forest Hills

 

[whighlander]

So when you wrote this:



you really meant only that Plymouth should have better commuter rail service?

I don't think anyone would argue with that. Hopefully by then (much sooner, really) the entire commuter network will have been electrified.

Omaja -- To start with -- Electrified CR within Rt-128 and on selected other lines -- Plymouth being one of them -- allowing higher frequency (2 to 3 per hour each way) with lesser trains of 1 or 2 cars -- overall improving connectivity

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Omaja -- To start with -- Electrified CR within Rt-128 and on selected other lines -- Plymouth being one of them -- allowing higher frequency (2 to 3 per hour each way) with lesser trains of 1 or 2 cars -- overall improving connectivity

To kind of attempt at bringing us full circle here...

In the future, we should be able to restore rail to the Cape. As part of dealing with the SE expressway, Old Colony Bottleneck, and rebannering 93 to the Sagamore, we should take a serious look at median-running HSR down that corridor. My belief is that running any HSR with 2-per-hour or better headways that doesn't butcher local service is going to need to be pulled off of the local tracks. (This is part of my interest in rehabbing the Interstate system - wider medians can eventually be punched out and a ROW established where local ROWs are too twisted or too congested for HSR service.)

HSR from BOS to the Cape - and then, from the Cape to PVD and Hartford along future I-82 - is desirable, and local commuter service extended into the Cape from the Old Colony Lines could/should/would follow.

Hourly 4x4 service - 4 trains North, 4 trains 'South' (East) - out of Middleboro/Lakeville, the future Cape Cod line. I'm not sure about Plymouth/Kingston and whether or not it is possible to run that ROW out to Hyannis - or, failing that, Woods Hole - but that'd be something else to look at.

A rising tide lifts all boats, you see, and making Hyannis a network hub - that helps everyone.

 

[DominusNovus]

Since this thread seems to be something of a 'highway catch-all' thread, I figured I'd ask this here:

What are thoughts on 'big dig-ing' I-93 down through to Quincy as well up Somerville, and I-90 through Newton?

I'm envisioning something along the lines of following the current routes and building the new highway directly underneath, to minimize traffic disruption. Also an option would be widening the highway somewhat where necessary, to allow for break-down lanes, perhaps even proper HOV lanes (or, my preference, toll express lanes). Of course, this would also allow for real estate to be developed overhead, similar to how its supposed to be done over the Pike in the city (admittedly, this is a horrible selling point, given how well tose projects have gone)

- Beyond political problems (people remembering how annoying the Big Dig was), what might the economics of such a proposal? Once the economy swings back, might that be something worth considering?
- What physical barriers are there? There's obviously a few rivers that need to be handled; either go below them or bring the highway back up above them to the current level.
- In terms of exits, would it be worthwhile to have the highway sort of 'camel back' (like a roller coaster, but obviously much less extreme) up to current level to meet existing exits, rather than attempt to redo them completely?

Anyway, just a thought I have when I'm on the road (read: every day) and figured it might be a good starter for conversation.

 

[whighlander]

Since this thread seems to be something of a 'highway catch-all' thread, I figured I'd ask this here:

What are thoughts on 'big dig-ing' I-93 down through to Quincy as well up Somerville, and I-90 through Newton?

I'm envisioning something along the lines of following the current routes and building the new highway directly underneath, to minimize traffic disruption. Also an option would be widening the highway somewhat where necessary, to allow for break-down lanes, perhaps even proper HOV lanes (or, my preference, toll express lanes). Of course, this would also allow for real estate to be developed overhead, similar to how its supposed to be done over the Pike in the city (admittedly, this is a horrible selling point, given how well tose projects have gone)

- Beyond political problems (people remembering how annoying the Big Dig was), what might the economics of such a proposal? Once the economy swings back, might that be something worth considering?
- What physical barriers are there? There's obviously a few rivers that need to be handled; either go below them or bring the highway back up above them to the current level.
- In terms of exits, would it be worthwhile to have the highway sort of 'camel back' (like a roller coaster, but obviously much less extreme) up to current level to meet existing exits, rather than attempt to redo them completely?

Anyway, just a thought I have when I'm on the road (read: every day) and figured it might be a good starter for conversation.

DN -- the economics of N and S smaller Big Digs is horrible:

I] Building over the pike is potentially feasible because of the value of building in its immediate vicinity and the absensnce of land to build upon

II] The value of the Big Dig besides the asthetics was that:
1) the old thing was in serious need of rebuilding
2) there was nowhere else to put the traffic while a replacement was built
3) the utility infrastructure for downtown was all old and it could be renewed while the highway was rebuilt
4) even without substantial widening by rebuilding to modern standards, taking advantage of the surface and the tunnel the overall capacity of the system has been substanially improved

None of the above is true about I-93 North of the the Big Dig as the highway was built to the state of the art of Interstate Highway standards.

This is somewhat less true about the I-93 south of the parts rebuilt for the Big Dig - but even those highways were modern compared to the old Central Artery

However, you do bring up an issue which will evntually need to be addressed when the I-93 double deck starts to age to the point of danger and uneconomic repair -- its not there yet

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Since this thread seems to be something of a 'highway catch-all' thread, I figured I'd ask this here:

What are thoughts on 'big dig-ing' I-93 down through to Quincy as well up Somerville, and I-90 through Newton?

I'm envisioning something along the lines of following the current routes and building the new highway directly underneath, to minimize traffic disruption. Also an option would be widening the highway somewhat where necessary, to allow for break-down lanes, perhaps even proper HOV lanes (or, my preference, toll express lanes). Of course, this would also allow for real estate to be developed overhead, similar to how its supposed to be done over the Pike in the city (admittedly, this is a horrible selling point, given how well tose projects have gone)

- Beyond political problems (people remembering how annoying the Big Dig was), what might the economics of such a proposal? Once the economy swings back, might that be something worth considering?
- What physical barriers are there? There's obviously a few rivers that need to be handled; either go below them or bring the highway back up above them to the current level.
- In terms of exits, would it be worthwhile to have the highway sort of 'camel back' (like a roller coaster, but obviously much less extreme) up to current level to meet existing exits, rather than attempt to redo them completely?

Anyway, just a thought I have when I'm on the road (read: every day) and figured it might be a good starter for conversation.

I promise this is not me ragging on you.

Economics: Unfeasable
Physical Barriers: Many and varied
"Camel backing": Psychotic in theory and illegal in execution.

The SE expressway, as I said, is a great corridor to look at for future Cape Cod HSR, and our chance for NSRL frankly came and left when it was deleted from the Big Gold Dig™. Our next chance is going to be when that tunnel falls apart and needs to be rebuilt/replaced.

If we had infinite funding? I'd say bore 93 from both ends of 128, 4-track on top of the tunnels for HSR and Regional trains, slap the NSRL between the tunnels, and yank Amtrak off of the existing (now freight/commuter) ROWs permanently.

We don't have even 1% of the kind of budget that would require. So, the conversation becomes: something has to give - what? Obviously, 4 tracks for HSR/RER and another 4 for freight/CR is excessive, so that's the first thing gone.

After that, the next thing is unfortunately to abandon burying 93 - the amount of $$$ needed is cost prohibitve and you'd have to sacrifice safety to make the numbers fit the budget.

 

[choo]

i would really like the city and state to do a full cost benefit analysis of decking the pike from downtown to BU. Make it so it has the proper ventilation and can support major developments (or whatever scale they want to zone for). Then they should build these parcels out to bid and maintain ownership doing 99 year leases. Given the cost of land in the city, it could be close. There is also a huge jobs benefit and quality of life of creating acres of new neighborhood fabric out of this current highway scare.

I think the economics could come real close from the states perspective, even without the intangibles taken into account. You also consider the rise in values of neighboring properties.