Crazy Highway Pitches

I guess you might have some really compelling argument why this universal law does not apply to Boston, but I doubt it.

The best we can do is hopefully get you a fast train that gets you where you need to go, because, yeah, driving sucks.
I do. Boston, like I said, is a rare outlier in the argument for adding lanes.

I also feel that we should extend the BL to Salem Depot. OL to Wilmington (Concord St). RL to Middlesex CC (Bedford), GL to Anderson (Woburn), RL and BL to Gillette Stadium.

Watch me work.
 
I also feel that we should extend the BL to Salem Depot. OL to Wilmington (Concord St). RL to Middlesex CC (Bedford), GL to Anderson (Woburn), RL and BL to Gillette Stadium.

Watch me work.
That's cool, dude. I would like that, and personally, I would also like a rail tunnel under the Atlantic. But, please come back to our real world where MassDOT has a total of $16B to spend over the next five years and $12B (!!!!) of that is already going to roads.

Your 8-mile Burlington->Cambridge->Boston megatunnel would swallow that entire 5-year budget two times over, not to mention the billion+ in maintenance cost it would incur every decade, forever. Those billions would be spent instead of achieving your MBTA mega-expansion. It's not urban elitism to say that if we're going to spend $32B on transportation, we shouldn't burn all of it on new highways.
 
That's cool, dude. I would like that, and personally, I would also like a rail tunnel under the Atlantic.
Me too.


Also…


The INRIX 2023 Global Traffic Scorecardfound that on average, Boston drivers spent about 88 hours in traffic during 2023. Boston ranked the eighth-highest city for traffic delay times in the world — coming in at the fourth-highest throughout the country.
 
Last edited:
Me too.


Also…

Yes, the Boston metro area is a bit unique, mainly because of its narrow roads, such as Fresh Pond Parkway. But the chance of new additional roads passing NIMBY and political muster is absolutely zero. It was tried in the 1960s with the Inner Belt, NE Expwy and SW Expwy, and they were all blocked. by fierce public opposition. I was around then and saw it all transpire. NIMBYs are even fierce now, so forget it.
 
Yes, the Boston metro area is a bit unique, mainly because of its narrow roads, such as Fresh Pond Parkway. But the chance of new additional roads passing NIMBY and political muster is absolutely zero. It was tried in the 1960s with the Inner Belt, NE Expwy and SW Expwy, and they were all blocked. by fierce public opposition. I was around then and saw it all transpire. NIMBYs are even fierce now, so forget it.
NIMBYism aside, @Charlie_mta , if you were Supreme Dictator of the Commonwealth, are there any Boston-area highway expansions that you think would be worth doing? Or would all your highway pitches be road diets and transit/bike conversions?
 
Maybe not additional lanes, but make highways more efficient? Most highways in eastern - central Massachusetts are fine, IMHO, EXCEPT at intersections. It is the backup at intersections that leads to the increase in travel times. And the fixes, at least to a civil engineering layman like me, don't go the full way in one iteration. Case in point - the I495-South/I290 intersection. This used to backup traffic for upto 3 miles. It was recently re-engineered to have the 2 right most lanes on 495-S to be able to take that exit. There was NO additional taking of private property, and I think the existing footprint of the intersection wasn't changed. It works better at MOST times, there still exists a problem at peak times. I290 starts with 3 lanes - currently, one comes from I495S, one from MA-85, and one from I495 south. But most of the traffic on 290 originates on I-495 S. So, while this whole re-design was done, it was made so that 2 lanes from 495-S became 2 lanes on 290, it would have been more efficient. But I guess a study 20 years from now would suggest that?

The intersection of 84 E to 90 is also for some reason inefficient - there are often backups on I84 that disappear once the merge to I90 is done.

The same is true with most interchanges - adding a lane to a highway is costly, and might need a repurposing of large portions of land. But making intersections more efficient should be on the plate, IMHO.
 
Maybe not additional lanes, but make highways more efficient? Most highways in eastern - central Massachusetts are fine, IMHO, EXCEPT at intersections. It is the backup at intersections that leads to the increase in travel times. And the fixes, at least to a civil engineering layman like me, don't go the full way in one iteration. Case in point - the I495-South/I290 intersection. This used to backup traffic for upto 3 miles. It was recently re-engineered to have the 2 right most lanes on 495-S to be able to take that exit. There was NO additional taking of private property, and I think the existing footprint of the intersection wasn't changed. It works better at MOST times, there still exists a problem at peak times. I290 starts with 3 lanes - currently, one comes from I495S, one from MA-85, and one from I495 south. But most of the traffic on 290 originates on I-495 S. So, while this whole re-design was done, it was made so that 2 lanes from 495-S became 2 lanes on 290, it would have been more efficient. But I guess a study 20 years from now would suggest that?

The intersection of 84 E to 90 is also for some reason inefficient - there are often backups on I84 that disappear once the merge to I90 is done.

The same is true with most interchanges - adding a lane to a highway is costly, and might need a repurposing of large portions of land. But making intersections more efficient should be on the plate, IMHO.
I don't think anyone disagrees with interchange improvements generally, but I'm curious about the I84 one. That one seems to be basically geometrically perfect - basically flat, long sweeping smooth curve, good sightlines and perfect lane math on 84 for 2 lanes EB and 1 WB on 90, same on EB 90 with 4 lanes after the join, 2 lanes continuing and 2 joining, and that 4th lane continues for a full ¾ of a mile. The only thing I can see gumming up the works is if there's a lot of semis trying to to make lane changes - and I'm not sure extending lane 4 even further would help that.
 
I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a serious push to add another lane to the Pike between I-84 and I-291. To be clear, I am not saying that the Pike in Western Mass needs or should have an extra lane. It's just surprising to me that the "one more lane" crowd hasn't set their sights on that segment of the Pike since it can often be a shitshow.

I wouldn't mind another exit or two on the Pike, however. Some of the gaps between exits on the Pike are huge.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind another exit or two on the Pike, however. Some of the gaps between exits on the Pike are huge.
As I recall, the gap between Exit 2 & 3 (or whatever the new numbers are out there) is the 5th largest in the entire national interstate system, which is kind of a ridiculous statistic when you consider how small the state is. Unfortunately, when the state did the study on adding an exit from 2018-2020 Blandford voted it down - no local support, no exit.
 
As I recall, the gap between Exit 2 & 3 (or whatever the new numbers are out there) is the 5th largest in the entire national interstate system, which is kind of a ridiculous statistic when you consider how small the state is. Unfortunately, when the state did the study on adding an exit from 2018-2020 Blandford voted it down - no local support, no exit.
The (formerly) proposed Blandford exit isn't a great location for an exit, as it would have been dispensing traffic from the Pike onto a local road (North Street) and not a regionally important numbered route. An exit at MA 23 in Russell makes much more sense IMO, although I'm not sure whether Russell residents are supportive of a new exit or not. An exit in Russell was examined during the recent 2020 study, but it was dropped from consideration as it was deemed too close to Exit 41 in Westfield, which is 6.3 miles to the east. The recent study was only looking into a new exit that would've evenly split the difference between Exit 10 and Exit 41, which is kind of a short-sighted approach IMO. This is an excerpt from the study, emphasis mine:
It was found that three of the seven locations did not fulfill the primary goal of the study, which was to consider alternatives that would provide access to I-90 for the center of regional study area. After discussion with the Working Group, these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration as a part of this study. The eliminated alternatives represent locations on the outskirts of the study area: Loose Tooth Road/Route 20, Werden Road in Becket, and Route 23 in Russell. (page 4-13)
They were only looking into an exit in the center of the study area, and Blandford or Otis are the only two towns that fit that description. The issue (aside from opposition in Blandford) is that the Pike doesn't cross over or under any regionally important numbered routes in those towns. Even though an exit at MA-23 in Russell wouldn't evenly split the difference between Exit 10 and Exit 41, it would shorten the gap between the two exits by a considerable amount. An exit at this location would also provide easy access to Westfield State University, and it would relieve the badly congested exit in Westfield.

This was the conceptual layout of an interchange with MA-23 in Russell.
MA 23 Interchange.PNG


US-20/MA-8 in Becket is also a potential good spot for a new exit, and the combination of an exit in Russell and an exit in Becket would completely fill the 30-mile gap between Lee and Westfield. A simple diamond interchange would probably suffice at the Becket location. The study oddly did not examine an exit at this location, it instead examined a partial cloverleaf interchange about a mile to the northwest, at US-20 (w/o MA-8, which heads south into Otis). An exit at the former location is far preferable to the latter, IMO. It's worth noting that Becket residents have fiercely opposed a new exit in their town for decades. I don't expect to see a new exit in Becket anytime in the foreseeable future.

This is an excerpt from the July 29, 1966 issue of The Berkshire Eagle about a potential interchange in Becket.
The_Berkshire_Eagle_Fri__Jul_29__1966_.png


Here's an excerpt from the November 2, 1987 issue of the Daily Hampshire Gazette about a feasibility study of a new interchange in Becket. The study was approved in April 1988, but a new exit was not recommended by the study and the interchange project was consequentially voted down by the Turnpike Authority in October 1988.
Daily_Hampshire_Gazette_Mon__Nov_2__1987_.png


This is an excerpt from the May 16, 2003 issue of The Berkshire Eagle, detailing opposition to a new exit by Becket residents.
The_Berkshire_Eagle_Fri__May_16__2003_.png


This is what gantry signs for these new exits would look like:
ma 23.png
ma 8.png
 
Last edited:
NIMBYism aside, @Charlie_mta , if you were Supreme Dictator of the Commonwealth, are there any Boston-area highway expansions that you think would be worth doing? Or would all your highway pitches be road diets and transit/bike conversions?
Yes, there are choke points at some key major intersections that could use capacity and traffic flow improvements, up to and including building new vehicular overpasses or underpasses at those sites. Mystic Valley Pkwy and the Fellsway (Wellington Circle) is one. So is the rotary on Rte 2 in Concord at the prison. Maybe Rte 2 and 16 at Alewife. Plus several others I'm sure.

I'm not anti-highway. I just think that adding lanes and/or new highways in the Boston Metro area inevitably encourages more people to drive versus using transit and/or active transportation.
 
Yes, the Boston metro area is a bit unique, mainly because of its narrow roads, such as Fresh Pond Parkway. But the chance of new additional roads passing NIMBY and political muster is absolutely zero. It was tried in the 1960s with the Inner Belt, NE Expwy and SW Expwy, and they were all blocked. by fierce public opposition. I was around then and saw it all transpire. NIMBYs are even fierce now, so forget it.
Wow. It’s like I didn’t know history about the cancelled Inner Belt and Gov. Sargent’s moratorium on new highways (a choice he later regretted).

Real talk though, I would tend to agree with you. Hence the forum name. 🤪
 
Wow. It’s like I didn’t know history about the cancelled Inner Belt and Gov. Sargent’s moratorium on new highways (a choice he later regretted).

Real talk though, I would tend to agree with you. Hence the forum name. 🤪
Well, I threw in that well known info about the cancelled expressways just for context for others. Side tidbit: Gov. Sargent used to go fishing with my uncle from Gloucester.
 
Please don’t tempt me with a good time.

Unfortunately, Boston is one of the rare cases of One More Lane Bro, and I think that we can do both. This foolishness that we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time (e.g., Highway AND RLX) is what kills us. Boston is gridlocked and I’ve been in that Fresh Pond traffic. I don’t know what you see but I see a hellscape. It took me ONE FVCKING HOUR to get from the old Faces to the Alewife off ramp. 6:30 p.m. Summer. No rhyme or reason.

One More Lane Bro is apt when talking about Atlanta. Because Atlanta probably could use one less lane of vehicle traffic and MARTA extension plan. We probably rely on our cars up here a lot more than we’d like to admit. The amount of gridlock because of a lack of Transit and Infrastructure is appalling and I can’t keep leaving an hour early to get into Boston for a job that starts two hours later.

Again, we are an outlier in the One More Lane, but I urge planners to extend the RL up to Middlesex Community College in Bedford. This is my hill to die on and I’ll be damned if I have to hear the end of this from Urban Elitist bros.
I think that high speed light rail is the future on that line. Getting affordable heavy rail out past Arlington heights will be rough
 

Back
Top