Crazy Highway Pitches

Does anyone know of any information on any efforts to widen rte 3 south? There's an old thread on it that hasn't been touched in a decade:

I thought for sure there would be something connected to the canal bridge project, but nothing that I found, either.

I think a general scheme of "widen rte 3 from 4 lanes to 6, while ditching the breakdown lane travel" would make a lot of sense, particularly given how wide the median is for most of rte 3. If there were any particular commuter rail or redline improvements that could be done at the same time, in conjunction with this, I think that would make it more palatable for any transit advocates who are opposed to highway widening in principle.
 
Does anyone know of any information on any efforts to widen rte 3 south? There's an old thread on it that hasn't been touched in a decade:

I thought for sure there would be something connected to the canal bridge project, but nothing that I found, either.

I think a general scheme of "widen rte 3 from 4 lanes to 6, while ditching the breakdown lane travel" would make a lot of sense, particularly given how wide the median is for most of rte 3. If there were any particular commuter rail or redline improvements that could be done at the same time, in conjunction with this, I think that would make it more palatable for any transit advocates who are opposed to highway widening in principle.
The best chance of it happening was decades ago, I kinda doubt it will ever happen. Even the most recent attempt (2012) was a long shot; they probably would've had to do it in the '90s or early aughts if they seriously wanted to get it done. Instead, we should spend money on double-tracking the Old Colony mainline through Dorchester and Quincy, with some new double-tracking on the branches.

IIRC, Mitt Romney canceled plans for widening Route 3 in 2003 or 2004. Is anyone able to confirm this? I looked for a source online but I wasn't able to locate one.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know of any information on any efforts to widen rte 3 south? There's an old thread on it that hasn't been touched in a decade:

I thought for sure there would be something connected to the canal bridge project, but nothing that I found, either.

I think a general scheme of "widen rte 3 from 4 lanes to 6, while ditching the breakdown lane travel" would make a lot of sense, particularly given how wide the median is for most of rte 3. If there were any particular commuter rail or redline improvements that could be done at the same time, in conjunction with this, I think that would make it more palatable for any transit advocates who are opposed to highway widening in principle.
Umm, where would the traffic go after crossing the canal? U.S. Route 6 (the Mid-Cape Highway) east of Sagamore is a two-lane parkway, with no breakdown lanes and poorly designed (by interstate standards) interchanges down to Route 132.

I can think of many much better transportation projects to spend limited dollars on than widening Route 3 from Weymouth to Sagamore. To name just a couple, replacing the I-93/I-95 interchanges in Reading and Canton (highways), and double-tracking the Old Colony mainline through Dorchester and Quincy (public transit).
 
Umm, where would the traffic go after crossing the canal? U.S. Route 6 (the Mid-Cape Highway) east of Sagamore is a two-lane parkway, with no breakdown lanes and poorly designed (by interstate standards) interchanges down to Route 132.

I can think of many much better transportation projects to spend limited dollars on than widening Route 3 from Weymouth to Sagamore. To name just a couple, replacing the I-93/I-95 interchanges in Reading and Canton (highways), and double-tracking the Old Colony mainline through Dorchester and Quincy (public transit).
The Old Colony Double Track Project should be #1 on the list of any project increasing the capacity of moving human beings between the Boston area and Southeastern Mass.
 
Umm, where would the traffic go after crossing the canal? U.S. Route 6 (the Mid-Cape Highway) east of Sagamore is a two-lane parkway, with no breakdown lanes and poorly designed (by interstate standards) interchanges down to Route 132.

I can think of many much better transportation projects to spend limited dollars on than widening Route 3 from Weymouth to Sagamore. To name just a couple, replacing the I-93/I-95 interchanges in Reading and Canton (highways), and double-tracking the Old Colony mainline through Dorchester and Quincy (public transit).
I’m not talking about traffic after the bridge on rte 6. Rte 3 is quite congested, well away from the canal.

Edit: and lets be honest, if rte 3 wasn't overly congested, then they would have their gimmicky 'its okay to drive in the breakdown lane during rush hour' solution. Something should be done?
 
Last edited:
I’m not talking about traffic after the bridge on rte 6. Rte 3 is quite congested, well away from the canal.

Edit: and lets be honest, if rte 3 wasn't overly congested, then they would have their gimmicky 'its okay to drive in the breakdown lane during rush hour' solution. Something should be done?
So widen as far south as the active breakdown lane runs, which I understand ends at Route 139 in Pembroke? Got it -- that makes sense. Thanks.
 
For some reason I had just assumed that the bridge replacements/expansions done to Route 3 over High Street and Webster Street in Norwell/Hanover were in anticipation of an impending widening. Seems a bit odd that they would have only widened the bridges to include a left shoulder... instead of provisioning for an eventual third travel lane.
 
So widen as far south as the active breakdown lane runs, which I understand ends at Route 139 in Pembroke? Got it -- that makes sense. Thanks.
Thats pretty much it. In the interest of keeping things tidy, I’d say down to rt 44, but the area around 3a in Kingston is a tight fit.
 
Here's a absolutely bonkers highway pitch, inspired by the fact that I was looking at the Tobin Approaches in Chelsea and wondering what manner of possibilities there are for solving the space constraints that resulted in a stacked highway structure in the first place - the cross section of the roadbed is notably narrow, requiring the CANA tunnels in Charlestown just to achieve the stacking. A tunnel along this alignment does make a lot of sense, but I can't see how it's actually constructable given that you'd also need to underpin the existing bridge / viaduct structures given that there's basically no spare width. The same applies to a replacement bridge - the existing Tobin is right up to its abutters. Given the minimal amounts of space, I couldn't see how any Tobin replacement could be built without either closing the Tobin/Rt1 completely for a decade or invasive eminent domaining. And I thought, if you're going to go megaproject and invasively eminent domain anyways...

Therefore, the Crazy Pitch: swap the alignments of Route 1 and Route 1A/60, leveraging the existing and fairly new Ted Williams Tunnel. (Let's assume it's capacity isn't already pretty maxed.) Here, I'm envisioning widening and grade separation of the 1A/60 alignment as a further extention of the Big Dig I-90 extention through Revere, meeting the existing Rt 1 at the Copeland Circle rotary. From the current I90 terminus, its already a 6 lane cross section. I'd close the Curtis /Addison access in favor of an underpasses, but Boardman/Winthrop would probably require access ramps, between which I'd propose a "backage" road, using this disused MBTA RoW, which has minimal reuse potential, to provide site access to impacted properties. The few abutters on the Eastern side appear have reasonable access from local roads already, and from here simply take the Revere Beach Pkwy RoW, reconfiguring the interchange and expanding it with a new connection to the 1A alignment.
1000037590.jpg


However, a maximialist approach (in red) which would remove the most highway from the most residents, is to continue along the rt 60 alignment. This next segment is maximally impactive to residential - I'd propose a modern elevated viaduct until we reach the Salem Turnpike Rotary, which by my count would affect <100 abutting residential properties, over 3 segments totaling about 0.75 miles. From here, we leave the existing alignment, and route along the rear arc of the commercial area, which skirts Rumney Marsh and which other than one new build apartment building is largely low value industrial uses, until you rejoin 1 at Copeland Circle.

This would, in theory, be a capacity "swap" that would allow you to take the Tobin out of service as a high level crossing, and rebuild this as a surface boulevard. From Charlestown, retaining the CANA tunnels as a connection to I-93, you can use the Chelsea St RoW and connect to New Rutherford. Plus, now that were accepting lights on this segment, we can build a surface level crossing with a moveable span across the Mystic, which can provide a long desired walkable/bikeable connection into Boston. A moveable span should provide adequate access to the Autoport and LNG terminal. Plus, with narrower lanes and no more viaduct supports, it should be possible to maintain at least a 4 lane cross section through Chelsea. In my estimation, it could in all likelihood include enough space to enable a transit reservation that could enable a Community College/North Station terminating LRT corridor in this important gap between Orange and Blue.
 
Last edited:
Here's a absolutely bonkers highway pitch, inspired by the fact that I was looking at the Tobin Approaches in Chelsea and wondering what manner of possibilities there are for solving the space constraints that resulted in a stacked highway structure in the first place - the cross section of the roadbed is notably narrow, requiring the CANA tunnels in Charlestown just to achieve the stacking. A tunnel along this alignment does make a lot of sense, but I can't see how it's actually constructable given that you'd also need to underpin the existing bridge / viaduct structures given that there's basically no spare width. The same applies to a replacement bridge - the existing Tobin is right up to its abutters. Given the minimal amounts of space, I couldn't see how any Tobin replacement could be built without either closing the Tobin/Rt1 completely for a decade or invasive eminent domaining. And I thought, if you're going to go megaproject and invasively eminent domain anyways...

Therefore, the Crazy Pitch: swap the alignments of Route 1 and Route 1A/60, leveraging the existing and fairly new Ted Williams Tunnel. (Let's assume it's capacity isn't already pretty maxed.) Here, I'm envisioning widening and grade separation of the 1A/60 alignment as a further extention of the Big Dig I-90 extention through Revere, meeting the existing Rt 1 at the Copeland Circle rotary. From the current I90 terminus, its already a 6 lane cross section. I'd close the Curtis /Addison access in favor of an underpasses, but Boardman/Winthrop would probably require access ramps, between which I'd propose a "backage" road, using this disused MBTA RoW, which has minimal reuse potential, to provide site access to impacted properties. The few abutters on the Eastern side appear have reasonable access from local roads already, and from here simply take the Revere Beach Pkwy RoW, reconfiguring the interchange and expanding it with a new connection to the 1A alignment.
View attachment 60498

However, a maximialist approach (in red) which would remove the most highway from the most residents, is to continue along the rt 60 alignment. This next segment is maximally impactive to residential - I'd propose a modern elevated viaduct until we reach the Salem Turnpike Rotary, which by my count would affect <100 abutting residential properties, over 3 segments totaling about 0.75 miles. From here, we leave the existing alignment, and route along the rear arc of the commercial area, which skirts Rumney Marsh and which other than one new build apartment building is largely low value industrial uses, until you rejoin 1 at Copeland Circle.

This would, in theory, be a capacity "swap" that would allow you to take the Tobin out of service as a high level crossing, and rebuild this as a surface boulevard. From Charlestown, retaining the CANA tunnels as a connection to I-93, you can use the Chelsea St RoW and connect to New Rutherford. Plus, now that were accepting lights on this segment, we can build a surface level crossing with a moveable span across the Mystic, which can provide a long desired walkable/bikeable connection into Boston. A moveable span should provide adequate access to the Autoport and LNG terminal. Plus, with narrower lanes and no more viaduct supports, it should be possible to maintain at least a 4 lane cross section through Chelsea. In my estimation, it could in all likelihood include enough space to enable a transit reservation that could enable a Community College/North Station terminating LRT corridor in this important gap between Orange and Blue.
Core fundamental problem is the Ted Williams Tunnel operates very close to capacity today. That has been clearly demonstrated by recent Sumner Tunnel closure impacts which turned transit time through the Ted Williams or Tobin Bridge into 30+ minutes just to cross the water. You have no room to close any of the cross-water north of Boston capacity.
 
Core fundamental problem is the Ted Williams Tunnel operates very close to capacity today. That has been clearly demonstrated by recent Sumner Tunnel closure impacts which turned transit time through the Ted Williams or Tobin Bridge into 30+ minutes just to cross the water. You have no room to close any of the cross-water north of Boston capacity.
You would have to radically mode shift for Logan
 
Here's an idea I've been thinking about for a few years.
Bar all additional traffic from expressways inside route 128/I 95 whenever they meet their capacity. Once an expressway gets below, say 35 mph, don't allow any more vehicles on it (except emergency and police vehicles) until the traffic flow improves. This would be accomplished by gates at each on ramp, coupled with a camera monitoring system and advance warning signs. No more traffic clogged expressways, and a great motivator for more commuters to take transit instead.
I've never heard of this idea before. Just an idea of my own.
 
Here's an idea I've been thinking about for a few years.
Bar all additional traffic from expressways inside route 128/I 95 whenever they meet their capacity. Once an expressway gets below, say 35 mph, don't allow any more vehicles on it (except emergency and police vehicles) until the traffic flow improves. This would be accomplished by gates at each on ramp, coupled with a camera monitoring system and advance warning signs. No more traffic clogged expressways, and a great motivator for more commuters to take transit instead.
I've never heard of this idea before. Just an idea of my own.
Uhh...and the traffic actively en route to the closed expressways does what? Oh, right...it starts a traffic jam of its own from people still on the within-capacity highways suddenly scrambling to detours. Which then closes another expressway and sends more cars scrambling to yet more detours. Rinse, repeat until the entire regional highway system is completely paralyzed in less than an hour's time from a negative feedback loop reverberating at grand scale. And--bonus!--that type of gridlock cascade can happen well outside of rush-hour volume too just with an ill-placed accident or two.

All that type of 'dynamic access' gatekeeping does is kick all the resiliency out of a mass-flowing system. If you want to decrease congestion, you have to divert it before the source by encouraging car-free trips. Once the cars are on the road, they're on the road and have to go somewhere...and last-minute detouring is horribly inefficient. Constricting flow on major arteries just ends up giving the patient a massive heart attack in the end. And 'scaring' the cars away en masse with induced crises just leads to exactly what we had during COVID: incredibly unsafe driving speeds and aggression on the much emptier highways leading to markedly higher accident rates and fatalities despite markedly lower traffic.
 
Uhh...and the traffic actively en route to the closed expressways does what? Oh, right...it starts a traffic jam of its own from people still on the within-capacity highways suddenly scrambling to detours. Which then closes another expressway and sends more cars scrambling to yet more detours. Rinse, repeat until the entire regional highway system is completely paralyzed in less than an hour's time from a negative feedback loop reverberating at grand scale. And--bonus!--that type of gridlock cascade can happen well outside of rush-hour volume too just with an ill-placed accident or two.

All that type of 'dynamic access' gatekeeping does is kick all the resiliency out of a mass-flowing system. If you want to decrease congestion, you have to divert it before the source by encouraging car-free trips. Once the cars are on the road, they're on the road and have to go somewhere...and last-minute detouring is horribly inefficient. Constricting flow on major arteries just ends up giving the patient a massive heart attack in the end. And 'scaring' the cars away en masse with induced crises just leads to exactly what we had during COVID: incredibly unsafe driving speeds and aggression on the much emptier highways leading to markedly higher accident rates and fatalities despite markedly lower traffic.
Thank you for the insightful reply. The technology just isn't there yet for roadway management at this level. Maybe with self driving cars it could work.
 

Back
Top