Crazy Highway Pitches

[kingofsheeba]

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.

 

[ritchiew]

I do. Boston, like I said, is a rare outlier in the argument for adding lanes.

Yeah, but what is your compelling reasoning? Why is Boston different? You're just asserting it as a fact, and that's not very convincing.

 

[kdmc]

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.

 

[kingofsheeba]

That's cool, dude. I would like that, and personally, I would also like a rail tunnel under the Atlantic.

Me too.


Also…

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/boston-traffic-delays-ranked-4th-worst-in-us-and-8th-worst-worldwide-report-shows/3409481/

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.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Me too.


Also…

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/boston-traffic-delays-ranked-4th-worst-in-us-and-8th-worst-worldwide-report-shows/3409481/

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.

 

[kdmc]

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?

 

[malabari]

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.

 

[Stlin]

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.