Crazy Highway Pitches

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
3,556
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.)
The problem with their logic is that you still need MassDOT's approval and help to build an onramp to an Interstate. You can't just sneak it in there like Mayor Daley carving up a runway.
 

DrFreewind

Active Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
148
Reaction score
238
What weaving issue? The on ramp from washington st is an exit only lane to 93 south (it maybe just needs some new paint) The real weaving issue is going to 93 north which, along with the lane drop, is the cause of backups. I dont think would have enough of an impact to be worth it. I'd be interested in how many trips this would actually re-route, specifically during peak hours.
I feel like this would cause more issues than it would solve:
-Traffic now attempting to cut through the commercial properties between washington and cedar to get to this on ramp
-Wetlands issues, there is a brook or something right between the car dealership and the existing ramp
-Spending money on something that will have to get removed, or reconfigured, when the interchange reconfiguration finally gets moving

Let's just do the 93/95 reconfiguration correctly the first time
 

Brattle Loop

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
491
Reaction score
734
The problem with their logic is that you still need MassDOT's approval and help to build an onramp to an Interstate. You can't just sneak it in there like Mayor Daley carving up a runway.
Well, if the fine you'd get for that is as laughably small as it was for Daley destroying Meigs Field, they might consider it worthwhile 🙃

In all seriousness, though, I do wonder if they thought that this had a better chance of not getting stuck in the mud with the main reconfiguration...though I agree that it's a weird bit of logic given that MassDOT doesn't really have any incentive to help with this when they're already (if slowly) working on redesigning the cloverleaf.
 

Highwayguy

New member
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
64
Reaction score
80
What weaving issue? The on ramp from washington st is an exit only lane to 93 south (it maybe just needs some new paint)

The weaving condition is caused by exactly that. Functions the same as the inner ramps of a cloverleaf, except some Washington St entering traffic stays within that lane to exit onto 93 S, further complicating the weave for 128 N - 93 S traffic. Thats why this flyover in the most recent interchange redesign is there.

1635970481233.png


Agree with the rest though. Since were in Crazy Pitches, almost wonder if it would be easier/cheaper to remove the Washington St ramps all together and eat the light industrial at the corner of Mishawum and Olympia. Perhaps could eliminate the need for that flyover if the distances / volumes pencil out. Doubt the neighbors would go for it though.

1635971088553.png
 
Last edited:

Highwayguy

New member
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
64
Reaction score
80
The problem with their logic is that you still need MassDOT's approval and help to build an onramp to an Interstate. You can't just sneak it in there like Mayor Daley carving up a runway.
Approval yes, but funding not necessarily. Town might have thought it could have been done cheap enough that they would only need to get an access permit and (at least mostly) fund it themselves. Same process as when a town or developer wants to connect a new street to a non-limited access state highway. If that was the case and the town had a study that proved to DOT that their ramp would improve or at least not degrade state highway operations, no reason for DOT to say no. DOT has issued plenty of access permits to developers to reconfigure interstate ramps.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
3,556
Approval yes, but funding not necessarily. Town might have thought it could have been done cheap enough that they would only need to get an access permit and (at least mostly) fund it themselves. Same process as when a town or developer wants to connect a new street to a non-limited access state highway. If that was the case and the town had a study that proved to DOT that their ramp would improve or at least not degrade state highway operations, no reason for DOT to say no. DOT has issued plenty of access permits to developers to reconfigure interstate ramps.
Yes, but in this case they include Federal grant funding in their schedule. Can't get that without both MassDOT and the MPO helping.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1,819
The way that Rutherford Ave fragments the west side of Charlestown has come up on AB discussion threads. So my idea is to relocate Rutherford Ave over towards I-93. stitching together Charlestown as well as creating land for a greenway, a trail and a busway along the existing Rutherford Ave location. Reloacting Rutherford Ave as shown below would take one building plus part of another (as labeled, plus take a couple of truck dependent businesses (leaving the building intact but placing the new roadway on space currently used by trucks at loading docks). The new busway is shown as tan color, and the green is new open space/trails. Hey, instead of reconfiguring Rutherford Ave on its existing location that slices through Charlestown, move it to the west a few blocks.

 
Last edited:

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
8,011
Reaction score
3,506
Whenever I look at the i90/128 interchange I always think of how much wasted land there is now that the toll booths are gone.



What if you pushed the pike over to the left where the 128 exit is now and freed up all of that wasted land for development. There would be a bunch of land available around the existing office buildings plus a CR station opportunity as well. This land would be newly freed up, away from existing houses, between two highways, and at a CR station so you could try to build high density.
 
Last edited:

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1,819
Whenever I look at the i90/128 interchange I always think of how much wasted land there is now that the toll booths are gone.



What if you pushed the pike over to the left where the 128 exit is now and freed up all of that wasted land for development. There would be a bunch of land available around the existing office buildings plus a CR station opportunity as well. This land would be newly freed up, away from existing houses, between two highways, and at a CR station so you could try to build high density.
A few years ago I posted this concept of mine to compress the interchange and open up land for TOD development. The pea-green color is land opened up for TOD, with easy pedestrian/bus access via a new local road to the Riverside GL and a relocated commuter rail station:
 
Last edited:

mass88

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
142
A simple cloverleaf interchange here would be a dumpster fire.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1,819
On the Dorchester Bay City thread, it was noted that Morrissey Blvd/Gallivan Road intersection would be/already is overloaded due to the traffic circle on Morrisey Blvd and the tangle of streets surrounding it. So I cam up with this plan that would totally grade-separate Morrisey Blvd, and provide a few roundabouts off to the side to connect the various streets and access ways. Morrisey Blvd would be tunneled under the roundabouts.

 

Blackbird

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
695
Reaction score
829
Definitely interesting, but I don't think I like it. Looks intimidating from above so I can just imagine what it'd be like to drive through.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1,819
Definitely interesting, but I don't think I like it. Looks intimidating from above so I can just imagine what it'd be like to drive through.
With the proper signing I think navigating it would be okay, especially as GPS maps are utilized more and more. Also, people will get used to roundabouts as they become more common. The great thing about a roundabout is if you miss your turn, just go around one more time to reach the desired exit.
 

Blackbird

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
695
Reaction score
829
With the proper signing I think navigating it would be okay, especially as GPS maps are utilized more and more. Also, people will get used to roundabouts as they become more common. The great thing about a roundabout is if you miss your turn, just go around one more time to reach the desired exit.
*rotary

And the thing about the one you drew is that it's basically 2 rotaries attached to one another. Moving between them I think is what seems so daunting to me. Why not just cut out that middle part and make it a large, irregular peanut like so:

1639768844019.png


Guess it would make going from Mt. Vernon to Morrissey much more of a hassle than in the original.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1,819
I thought of doing that, but I don't like giant rotaries, especially one like Sullivan Square has. or the one at Squire Road/Route 1 in Revere. Traffic speeds up on a large rotary. The smaller roundabouts I put in would slow the traffic down. Also the two roundabouts disperse the traffic better than one giant one would, basically spreading the traffic out on more roadways.
 

Blackbird

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
695
Reaction score
829
Fair enough, though my concern about it being too complicated still stands then. I also wonder how often you'd see back up in one rotary because of enough people waiting to merge into the other rotary. Do any examples exist in the wild of this type of configuration?
 

Top