Crazy Highway Pitches

RandomWalk said:
Riffing on the discussion in the thread on the 20-23 Cummings project: How could I-93 north of the Charles to 128 be re-envisioned to make it more sensible? Could exits be dropped?
Click to expand...
It would be great to depress I-93 through Somerville and build air rights buildings and parks over it, but there's a reason it was built as an elevated highway through the Ten Hills area and over the Fellsway. The Mystic River being immediately adjacent to I-93, where it enters the Ten Hills neighborhood from the north, obviously precludes depressing the highway. So what to do with it? Eliminate some of the spaghettis maze of on/off ramps, and maybe depress the Fellsway instead. Doing these two things would enable pedestrian and bikeway connections throughout the area,
 
Charlie_mta said:
It would be great to depress I-93 through Somerville and build air rights buildings and parks over it, but there's a reason it was built as an elevated highway through the Ten Hills area and over the Fellsway. The Mystic River being immediately adjacent to I-93, where it enters the Ten Hills neighborhood from the north, obviously precludes depressing the highway. So what to do with it? Eliminate some of the spaghettis maze of on/off ramps, and maybe depress the Fellsway instead. Doing these two things would enable pedestrian and bikeway connections throughout the area,
Click to expand...
I understand that I-93 couldn't be depressed where it's adjacent to the Mystic (without a deep bore tunnel I imagine), but does that preclude depressing the stretch roughtly between the 28/38 junction and the Zakim? That sounds valuable, esp. given all the development planned in Assembly, Inner Belt, and western Charlestown.
 
The Zakim approaches are built assuming an elevated I-93. Changing its profile would return to the world of the Charles River crossing battles and Scheme Z.

It feels like the highway could use an optimization like the Big Dig did downtown. All the exits lead to weaving and dodging on the highway, ramps, and frontage roads.
 
kdmc said:
I understand that I-93 couldn't be depressed where it's adjacent to the Mystic (without a deep bore tunnel I imagine), but does that preclude depressing the stretch roughtly between the 28/38 junction and the Zakim? That sounds valuable, esp. given all the development planned in Assembly, Inner Belt, and western Charlestown.
Click to expand...

93 is elevated over active rail lines from Sullivan to the Zakim. Aside from "I think elevated highways are ugly", I don't see what's accomplished by burying it. You don't get much new land at all and the width of all the rail/other infrastructure along much of that stretch will still heavily limit East-West connections and feelings of connectivity.

(Also....Boston Sand & Gravel is still there, and if they had enough clout to get the Big Dig built around them, I doubt you're getting them out in the future either).
 
I-93 north of Boston is never going to be something that will work well with anything near the current volume of vehicles. It's always going to connect to 128 and the Pike and the Central Artery and Southeast Expressway. It's always going to connect to narrow, congested surface streets.

The best thing to be done with 93 is to make it irrelevant for passenger trips. Make the Green and Orange lines functional (and extend them), electrified regional rail on the Lowell and Haverhill lines with better bus connections in the cities, NSRL, fast and frequent local bus service, etc. The vast majority of trips on I-93 inside 128 can and should be diverted to transit. Then the trips that do need the highway - buses, commercial vehicles - have a useful highway.
 
millerm277 said:
93 is elevated over active rail lines from Sullivan to the Zakim. Aside from "I think elevated highways are ugly", I don't see what's accomplished by burying it. You don't get much new land at all and the width of all the rail/other infrastructure along much of that stretch will still heavily limit East-West connections and feelings of connectivity.

(Also....Boston Sand & Gravel is still there, and if they had enough clout to get the Big Dig built around them, I doubt you're getting them out in the future either).
Click to expand...
Even if we have a thermonuclear war someday, Boston Sand & Gravel will still be standing. ;)
 
The EGE said:
I-93 north of Boston is never going to be something that will work well with anything near the current volume of vehicles. It's always going to connect to 128 and the Pike and the Central Artery and Southeast Expressway. It's always going to connect to narrow, congested surface streets.

The best thing to be done with 93 is to make it irrelevant for passenger trips. Make the Green and Orange lines functional (and extend them), electrified regional rail on the Lowell and Haverhill lines with better bus connections in the cities, NSRL, fast and frequent local bus service, etc. The vast majority of trips on I-93 inside 128 can and should be diverted to transit. Then the trips that do need the highway - buses, commercial vehicles - have a useful highway.
Click to expand...
That is spot on. We could spend $billions trying to form better bs sculptures out of these rotten expressways, but those $billions would be much better spent on transit improvements and extensions.
 
millerm277 said:
93 is elevated over active rail lines from Sullivan to the Zakim. Aside from "I think elevated highways are ugly", I don't see what's accomplished by burying it. You don't get much new land at all and the width of all the rail/other infrastructure along much of that stretch will still heavily limit East-West connections and feelings of connectivity.
Click to expand...
Heard.
Charlie_mta said:
Eliminate some of the spaghettis maze of on/off ramps, and maybe depress the Fellsway instead. Doing these two things would enable pedestrian and bikeway connections throughout the area,
Click to expand...
I'm still curious about this, though. I live around the area, and the sea of pavement that is MA-38, I-93, and their on/offramps between Assembly and East Somerville is awful as a pededtrian and cyclist. At least the highway has a ped tunnel under it; the on-ramps just have crosswalks. Streetsblog had a piece on the "corridor of death" 28/38 intersection, which as far as I can tell is complicated by these on/offramps.

It also seems to me (perhaps naively) that at least the northbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramps are redundant, as they exist just a mile to the north on 38, at the Medford/Somerville city line. Could closing the seemingly-redundant ramps open up room for safety improvements in the area? Or would it just increase traffic on the stretch of 38 between the city line and here, creating more danger for people who live on 38?
 
The discussion about Alewife lately in the Development Projects section got me to thinking about the oversized Route 2 from Route 128 to Alewife. It is an 8-lane expressway dumping onto a 4 lane parkway, with extreme traffic gridlock along Alewife Brook Parkway in both directions much of the day. The Route 2 expressway was built in the mid to late 60s in anticipation of it being extended as an expressway through North Cambridge, connecting to the Inner Belt. Of course none of that was built, so now we have an 8-lane Route 2 ending at Alewife.

My solution: Downsize the Route 2 expressway through Arlington and Lexington to 2 lanes each direction, and re-purpose the open space thus created as parkland with paved bike and pedestrian trails. The trails would run from the Alewife RL station all the way to Rte 128 along Route 2, and hopefully extended all the way to Concord. Even with just 2 lanes each way, Route 2 from Rte 128 to Alewife would still function fine in my opinion, and I think the traffic congestion along Fresh Pond Parkway would be significantly reduced. Plus we would get a new regional trail.
 
Last edited:
RandomWalk said:
Downsizing won’t fly because the northwest burb denizens like their commutes. Swapping the lanes for RLX might work.
Click to expand...
Not likely. The grades on the hills in Arlington are at or above the design maxes for HRT. You'd have to do a lot of tunneling or elevating to pound it out, at self-defeating cost. Plus it's a much ridership-inferior alignment compared to continuing under the Minuteman to Arlington Heights because there isn't much except for single-family residential on half-acre lots surrounding 2 in Arlington/Belmont, a lot of nothing in that stretch of Lexington, and no arterials at all where 2 hits 128 to anchor a station at.

Rail-on-2 is a frequent crayoning daydream, but the fundamentals of it pretty much suck compared to the alternatives.
 
RandomWalk said:
Downsizing won’t fly because the northwest burb denizens like their commutes. Swapping the lanes for RLX might work.
Click to expand...
True, but so ironic, because if Route 2 had been left as a 4-lane road, as it was originally built in the 1930s, and not widened to an 8 lane expressway in the 1960s, but the State wanted to widen it today, the NIMBYs would not allow it.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Not likely. The grades on the hills in Arlington are at or above the design maxes for HRT. You'd have to do a lot of tunneling or elevating to pound it out, at self-defeating cost. Plus it's a much ridership-inferior alignment compared to continuing under the Minuteman to Arlington Heights because there isn't much except for single-family residential on half-acre lots surrounding 2 in Arlington/Belmont, a lot of nothing in that stretch of Lexington, and no arterials at all where 2 hits 128 to anchor a station at.

Rail-on-2 is a frequent crayoning daydream, but the fundamentals of it pretty much suck compared to the alternatives.
Click to expand...
I apologize. I was ambiguous in my phrasing. I meant swapping for RLX via Minuteman.
 
Whatever is done, it seems that expanding rail access *prior* to considering reducing road access (just as a general rule) is the proper course of action. I get that there’s a general concern about highway overbuild, but I’d say controlled access highways are not the problem. Its uncrossable normal streets that are everywhere (and then there’s Storrow…).
 
Charlie_mta said:
True, but so ironic, because if Route 2 had been left as a 4-lane road, as it was originally built in the 1930s, and not widened to an 8 lane expressway in the 1960s, but the State wanted to widen it today, the NIMBYs would not allow it.
Click to expand...
I've always wondered what Route 2 west of Alewife looked like prior to its expressway overhaul in the 1960's - anyone have maps or historic photos or aerials that could give an idea?
 
lainpimicaja said:
I've always wondered what Route 2 west of Alewife looked like prior to its expressway overhaul in the 1960's - anyone have maps or historic photos or aerials that could give an idea?
Click to expand...

Mapjunction

alpha.mapjunction.com alpha.mapjunction.com
That's a great tool for comparing old maps and aerial photos.
Comparing to images from 1955, sections that are now 8 lanes plus frontage roads used to just be a 4 lane road. There was a roundabout where the Concord Turnpike met up with Alewife. Parts were more highway-like, like with highway ramps around Pleasant Street. The new highway made that interchange bigger and it now slightly runs over what was once part of Spy Pond.

1705687103135.png

1705686444900.png

1705686720557.png

1705686827500.png
 
ritchiew said:

Mapjunction

alpha.mapjunction.com alpha.mapjunction.com
That's a great tool for comparing old maps and aerial photos.
Comparing to images from 1955, sections that are now 8 lanes plus frontage roads used to just be a 4 lane road. There was a roundabout where the Concord Turnpike met up with Alewife. Parts were more highway-like, like with highway ramps around Pleasant Street. The new highway made that interchange bigger and it now slightly runs over what was once part of Spy Pond.

View attachment 46907
View attachment 46902
View attachment 46903
View attachment 46904
Click to expand...
There was nothing functionally wrong with the old 4-lane Route 2 prior to its widening in the 1960s. As a kid in the early 1960s, prior to Route 2 being widened, I used to peddle my bike up it from North Cambridge all the way to Lexington, up ""Mile Hill" as it was called. The old highway had a few traffic lights (no big deal) and even had a median strip through Arlington. It was fine as it was. It was reconstructed to an 8-lane expressway only because it was planned to continue on as the Northwest Expressway through.North Cambridge to the proposed Inner Belt expressway. That Route 2 widening project, in hindsight, was a mistake. Narrowing it now back to 2 lanes each direction would help alleviate the traffic bottleneck in the Alewife area.
 
ritchiew said:

Mapjunction

alpha.mapjunction.com alpha.mapjunction.com
That's a great tool for comparing old maps and aerial photos.
Comparing to images from 1955, sections that are now 8 lanes plus frontage roads used to just be a 4 lane road. There was a roundabout where the Concord Turnpike met up with Alewife. Parts were more highway-like, like with highway ramps around Pleasant Street. The new highway made that interchange bigger and it now slightly runs over what was once part of Spy Pond.

View attachment 46907
View attachment 46902
View attachment 46903
View attachment 46904
Click to expand...
this is great - thank you, @ritchiew! Completely agree with @Charlie_mta's proposal and the idea of re-introducing RLX under the MM ROW - another thing that is apparent from those aerials is that dozens of homes were demolished to make way for the wider highway. Narrowing Rt 2 and introducing more multimodal options would also make way for rebuilding much-needed housing, similar to the Inner Loop in Rochester, NY: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal...with-google-street-view-rochesters-inner-loop
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
The discussion about Alewife lately in the Development Projects section got me to thinking about the oversized Route 2 from Route 128 to Alewife. It is an 8-lane expressway dumping onto a 4 lane parkway, with extreme traffic gridlock along Alewife Brook Parkway in both directions much of the day. The Route 2 expressway was built in the mid to late 60s in anticipation of it being extended as an expressway through North Cambridge, connecting to the Inner Belt. Of course none of that was built, so now we have an 8-lane Route 2 ending at Alewife.

My solution: Downsize the Route 2 expressway through Arlington and Lexington to 2 lanes each direction, and re-purpose the open space thus created as parkland with paved bike and pedestrian trails. The trails would run from the Alewife RL station all the way to Rte 128 along Route 2, and hopefully extended all the way to Concord. Even with just 2 lanes each way, Route 2 from Rte 128 to Alewife would still function fine in my opinion, and I think the traffic congestion along Fresh Pond Parkway would be significantly reduced. Plus we would get a new regional trail.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wonder if a highway busway or HOV conversion would satisfy some of the upper middle class northwestern burbs. I know that the folks further up Route 2 seem to constantly say they want highway "BRT".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top