Crazy Highway Pitches

[Vagabond]

It's a "Pitch". The usage case and benefit need to be clearly defined with evidence, not "I thinks..." if

That's demonstrably a poor standard through the continual lack of reengagement after being rudely rebuffed for not doing a full engineering study. This thread has been stifled from producing innovative conversation because of the ridiculous notion that "Crazy" accckktualllyy doesn't really mean Crazy.

In fact, a crazy pitch brings up real ideas, like why are we holding back the entire chelsea creek for a tank farm that could easily have feeders farther south and still be protected?

Not getting paid, not going to write up a cost study. It's an internet forum for water-cooler transportation ideas.

 

[BeyondRevenue]

We should start on mine now AND mandate the crap out of development on flood plains, estuaries and all affected watersheds. The layered shore plan should be a given. Really, I’m wondering why we have a highway parent thread but no global warming thread. Sub-tier lip service won’t do. We talk about waterfront development sometimes we let someone grouse a bit about the silliness of regulation regarding height, mass, etc but rarely do we talk about how rising tides will make every project less valuable from it proximity to New Venice.
I honestly think we’ll react much more expensively in 20 years time and by then we’ll be too concerned with breathable methane levels and be bitching about ill fitting OxiPax™ and considering a place in the Berkshires.

 

[George_Apley]

Regarding the sniping about what's up for debate in a "crazy pitches" thread... I just updated the What is this Forum? thread:

Crazy Highway Pitches: Use this thread for road infrastructure projects and ideas that are a) not official, b) would require large-scale political advocacy and significant allocation of funds, c) fill a clear road infrastructure deficiency or gap, significantly improve existing travel, or reconfigures the existing environment, and d) are connected to reality with regards to engineering, cost, politics, and ethical questions. Be prepared for folks to dig into the pitch for feasibility/need/etc.

 

[Charlie_mta]

That sounds pretty fair. However, one parameter is that it would take detailed engineering designs and studies, in many cases, to determine the feasibility or worth of a proposal. It's somewhat of a reach, in many cases, to dismiss ideas out of hand without design-level information.

But, as you say, any crazy highway pitch placed on here is open for discussion and critiquing.

 

[George_Apley]

Always feel free to nitpick the nitpick. If you don't want nitpicks at all, go to our God Mode thread.

 

[BeyondRevenue]

Poke holes all you want but at least acknowledge an idea without reflexively and immediately bringing an insult or dismissal. Was polio cured in a God Thread? Do you think the Golden Gate Bridge would have made it past this group? If the TVA had to make it out of here the south would still be without power.
I think we can will something into being and people push it along. When the momentum gets going nothing - not law, money, not history - can stop a good idea.
Some people think Regional Rail/NSRL should be in a god thread. I think it should already have been built a century ago.
We’ve all been trained by Business Class NY shuttle passengers to think we don’t need public investment. We have all been cowed into a defeatist mentality since the 80s. It’s not good to abuse the public into submission but it gives them more money to offshore. It’s worse when we let that abuse happen to ourselves. It’s like fiscal and regulatory Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[George_Apley]

Poke holes all you want but at least acknowledge an idea without reflexively and immediately bringing an insult or dismissal. Was polio cured in a God Thread? Do you think the Golden Gate Bridge would have made it past this group? If the TVA had to make it out of here the south would still be without power.
I think we can will something into being and people push it along. When the momentum gets going nothing - not law, money, not history - can stop a good idea.
Some people think Regional Rail/NSRL should be in a god thread. I think it should already have been built a century ago.
We’ve all been trained by Business Class NY shuttle passengers to think we don’t need public investment. We have all been cowed into a defeatist mentality since the 80s. It’s not good to abuse the public into submission but it gives them more money to offshore. It’s worse when we let that abuse happen to ourselves. It’s like fiscal and regulatory Stockholm Syndrome.

I agree with all of that. Without detailed feasibility studies all we can do is discuss and debate. Keep on nitpicking.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Here's my idea to compress Storrow Drive at the Longfellow Bridge interchange. It would require some modification to the eastern leg of the new pedestrian overpass, Green is new park area:

 

[Stlin]

Here's my idea to compress Storrow Drive at the Longfellow Bridge interchange. It would require some modification to the eastern leg of the new pedestrian overpass, Green is new park area:

I like that! Although, I'd be inclined to say that if you're going to consolidate off ramps, it might actually make sense to go a little bit beyond the junction itself, and point the "northern ramps" directly at Fruit St, reversing the direction of traffic on that and N. Grove. This would eliminate the left from Cambridge St onto N Grove, which is the source of a lot of traffic and backups. I mean... Ideally, MGH parking and main dropoff would be on blossom, a relatively under used street with lots more capacity.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I like that! Although, I'd be inclined to say that if you're going to consolidate off ramps, it might actually make sense to go a little bit beyond the junction itself, and point the "northern ramps" directly at Fruit St, reversing the direction of traffic on that and N. Grove. This would eliminate the left from Cambridge St onto N Grove, which is the source of a lot of traffic and backups. I mean... Ideally, MGH parking and main dropoff would be on blossom, a relatively under used street with lots more capacity.

Based on your feedback and Banarama's from the Red-Blue Connector thread, here is a modified version of my idea for improving the interchange on Storrow:
It would move the interchange to Fruit Street and also consolidate both directions of Storrow under one portal of Longfellow Bridge, which would require depressing Storrow Drive a bit into the ground to get necessary vertical clearance for automobiles (no trucks or buses allowed).

 

[mass88]

In looking at a photo from the On the Dot thread, the way 93 cut through that area really stood out. Bury 93 - from Columbia Road right into the Central Artery tunnels. Make the new tunnels wide enough to accomodate 5 full travel lanes in each direction with full shoulders on each side. You could even run tandem roads (think frontage) for exits to Mass Ave, the bypass road, the Pike and downtown. This would enable traffic to those areas to break away from the main highway a lot earlier than they currently do. Think of the nice development space that would be created, the Widett Circle area becomes even more attractive. This might also help with freight traffic from the port, which will hopefully only increase in the coming years.

 

[Charlie_mta]

In looking at a photo from the On the Dot thread, the way 93 cut through that area really stood out. Bury 93 - from Columbia Road right into the Central Artery tunnels.

I like the idea but it would cost in the 10s of $billions. Also I'm concerned about tunnels in a high water table area, which this is. It might be easier to leave the highway and ramps as is and cover them with a large deck in the Widett Circle area, staring at Malden Street in the north down to Southhampton Street. Sitting on the deck would be buildings. parks and trails directly connected at the same elevation to a multi-level Widett Circle development.

 

[donkeybutlers]

In looking at a photo from the On the Dot thread, the way 93 cut through that area really stood out. Bury 93 - from Columbia Road right into the Central Artery tunnels. Make the new tunnels wide enough to accomodate 5 full travel lanes in each direction with full shoulders on each side. You could even run tandem roads (think frontage) for exits to Mass Ave, the bypass road, the Pike and downtown. This would enable traffic to those areas to break away from the main highway a lot earlier than they currently do. Think of the nice development space that would be created, the Widett Circle area becomes even more attractive. This might also help with freight traffic from the port, which will hopefully only increase in the coming years.

A much better idea than building a 10 lane highway the entire length of the city, would be to start taking some of that ROW to decongest single tracked Rail. Maybe put a raised pedestrian trail/flood barrier on the other side along the water too.

 

[Vagabond]

 

[Highwayguy]

View attachment 18396

Nope, Nope, Nope. Splicing a new ramp on to an existing one at an entrance gore is about the worst thing you could propose, not even considering the speed differential from the tight curve up the embankment. Also the 93 S breakdown lane is already stripped as a travel lane. Don’t know how serious this could be if the proponent hasn’t even looked at google maps yet.

Edit:
Found the town’s feasibility study here

https://www.woburnma.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/DRAFT_Cedar_Street_Report_9-11-19.pdf

Wayyy less crazy than what the infographic above implied. The Cedar St ramp would be fully separated from the 128 NB off ramp and the 93 mainline until past the extended acceleration lane, about to the Salem St overpass, 1/2 a mile downstream from the cloverleaf. From there it would eat the breakdown lane till Montvale. Unclear if only the added lane would exit or if there would be an additional option lane.

Still not crazy about the weaving this would induce for exiting traffic to Montvale, and Im not sure how “low cost” this would be since this calls for widening the cross section of 93 by 30’ on an embankment. That said, from a traffic engineering perspective, seems like this could actually check out (feasibility hasn’t progressed to modeling yet; the concept was only evaluated on FHWA controlling criteria) instead of being absolute insanity like l first thought.

 

[Arlington]

I don’t see what problem that ramp is solving. What trips is it diverting from the “problematic” movements on I-95/93? Who is the intended user of this “go north to go southbound” ramp?

Like can we tell which daily rush hour (AM or PM) it purports to improve?

 

[Brattle Loop]

I don’t see what problem that ramp is solving. What trips is it diverting from the “problematic” movements on I-95/93? Who is the intended user of this “go north to go southbound” ramp?

Like can we tell which daily rush hour (AM or PM) it purports to improve?

That information does seem to be absent, at least from the linked documentation. As it stands now the "best" way to get to 93 South from that area requires going onto 95/129 by the Toyota dealership and then through part of the existing cloverleaf's ramps over to 93. I suppose this ramp would at least have the advantage of not having to engage the 95/128 portion of the cloverleaf at all (which isn't a bad thing, that interchange is awful). Still doesn't make ton of sense to me, though (much as I would like anything that lets me avoid that cloverleaf...shudders.)

 

[Highwayguy]

I don’t see what problem that ramp is solving.

Im assuming primarily local traffic with minimal effect on the 128 or 93 mainlines. The queues on the Washington St on ramp are brutal, in addition to the slog of lights South along Washington, especially the LT movement at the on ramp.

Reading between the lines of the feasibility study, it seems like the town thought they could crayon in the ramp as shown in that infographic for essentially no money and pay for it themselves, but WSP came back and said lol no.

That Washington St ramp and associated weave is one of if not the primary reason that interchange is so hard to solve. The fact that it would divert (some?) traffic off of the that ramp is how the town is trying to sell it to DOT, especially since the only feasible alternative is wayyy out of a municipality’s price range.

However, unless the capacity analysis comes back and really surprises me, l doubt this ends up getting built. For half the money, DOT could add a lane on 128 NB to North Ave, eliminating the kamikaze 3 lane change on the 93 S to 128 N movement due to the lane drop prior to the 93 N off ramp. That job actually would tangibly improve overall interchange operations instead of just saving a few Woburn residents 3 minutes at a light.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Allegedly, MassDOT has plans for (eventually, someday?) completely reconfiguring the I95/128/I-93 interchange. So why spend a substantial amount of money to help a weaving problem that the future revised interchange would solve? Here is the latest proposal for the new interchange, which is of course on hold:

 

[Brattle Loop]

Allegedly, MassDOT has plans for (eventually, someday?) completely reconfiguring the I95/128/I-93 interchange. So why spend a substantial amount of money to help a weaving problem that the future revised interchange would solve? Here is the latest proposal for the new interchange, which is of course on hold:

Presumably because of exactly the issue you identify; MassDOT's plans are perpetually stalled. I'm guessing that they figured this was small enough that it could get done quickly and cheaply (though the "get done" part was probably the motivator) without having to wait the three thousand or so years for MassDOT to finally do something about the cloverleaf. (That consideration, however, concerns motivation behind pushing the proposal, not whether or not it's a good idea. Sometimes quick, cheap, and 'easy' make for bad projects. Odd how that tends to generate fewer complaints than slow and expensive projects that ultimately work well.)