General Thoughts/State of Southeast Expressway

[Kahta]

http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/4_res...ighway/braintree_split/braintree_split_p1.pdf

Eventually, the highway should be double decked

 

[Ron Newman]

A bad idea, and it will never happen. The double-decking of I-93 through Somerville and Charlestown is universally regarded as a mistake and an eyesore.

 

[Lurker]

If we are going to talk about pipe dreams: instead of decking, the entire highway could be elevated with a modern concrete structure and an East Boston style greenway run underneath it.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I think there is definitely space to add 2 lanes to the SE Expressway from just after the Braintree split until the Mass Pike. The overpasses along this stretch, there aren't many of them, need to be rebuilt for the most part anyways.

No there isn't unless you don't mind ripping up new parts of East Qunicy and Savin Hill.

 

[Ron Newman]

Other than keeping it in good repair, I don't see any reason to put more resources into our highway infrastructure.

 

[jass]

Double deck eh?

This is what that would look like during the archboston construction phase (who cares what happens once its done)

http://stopandmove.blogspot.com/2011/12/mexico-city-periferico-construction-in.html

 

[Justin7]

http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/4_res...ighway/braintree_split/braintree_split_p1.pdf

Eventually, the highway should be double decked

Not sure if serious.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Other than keeping it in good repair, I don't see any reason to put more resources into our highway infrastructure.

I would add fixing standards-deficient stretches as a priority. A lot of that mid-1950's construction doesn't come close to meeting modern interstate standards. Stuff like regulation-sized shoulders, acceleration/deceleration lane lengthenings around ramps, and fixing overtight ramp curves are good investments purely on safety reasons. But also for congestion. I guess, though, you could lump that under the state-of-good-repair umbrella. MassHighway has done a pretty good job getting its roads up-to-standard outside of the city where it's easier.

I would have no problem with the following, since they fix highly substandard trouble spots:
-- Route 1/NE Expressway curve and weaving improvements.
-- 1A road geometry improvements north of Logan. High-speed tolls at the Sumner Tunnel would also open up the space to fix that curve in both directions and eliminate the side street intermixing.
-- A substantial Lowell (Deathtrap) Connector rebuild and exit ramp re-spacing.
-- The small-scale breakdown lane improvements where possible on the SE Expressway.
-- Finishing the last 2 miles of 146 in Millbury-Sutton (in design).
-- Braintree split, Canton split, 93/128 Peabody, 95/295 upgrades to those ridiculous turning radii and/or weaving zones on the incomplete interchanges, and drawing out over-dense ramp concentrations (e.g. Route 37 and Furnace Brook Pkwy. exits way too close to Braintree split) near those interchanges.
-- Route 2 Crosby's Corner (construction pending) and Concord Rotary (in design) grade separations. Alewife fix (NOW PLEASE!!!). 128 to Bedford Rd. grade separation (really easy, being studied). Go back and close out the last few Leominster grade separations they didn't take care of in the 90's when the rest of the road was rebuilt. Not sure how many curb cuts that leaves between Bedford Rd. and Crosby's Corner, but possible we could see contiguous expressways Acton-west and Concord-east with only minor closeouts after the big two elimination projects are done.
-- Picking off any remaining substandard exit ramps on 128, 495, 24, as those roads can reasonably achieve full standards compliance without a ton more money. Plus other awful bottlenecks and safety concerns of note like 91/5/57 Longmeadow rotaries and lane drop, 291/Pike intersection in Springfield, 140/24 in Taunton, 195/79 interchange Fall River (scheduled soon), 24/79/Highland Ave. merges in Fall River (left merges, blind curves, all-around deathtrap), 1A/16 rotary, 495/44/28/18 interchange + rotary.
-- Bourne flyover and rotary elimination (in design).
-- Ending once and for all Mass.'s insane rush hour breakdown lane travel. It's mercifully over on 128 in Dedham next year, and Needham in three years. If this means Route 3 has to go to six lanes from Duxbury and Weymouth, so be it. That is one of the worst practices ever, and I can't believe it's lasted this long.
-- *Judicious* add-a-lanes on small stretches: 24 Taunton from 495 to 140, 195 New Bedford/Fairhaven from 140 to 240, 495 Taunton/Middleboro from 24 to 79/105, 91 Chicopee from 202 to 5. And I guess they're gonna have to study a few biggies like 3 Duxbury-Weymouth to eliminate the breakdown lane travel, Pike from 84 to 291 for lack of other options (not a high induced demand risk because of extremely sparse exit spacing), and 91 to 5 in Northampton for exploding population and lack of better options. But that's it. I'd ban expanding anything to 8 lanes when 128 is done, outside of any needed acceleration/deceleration lanes at major interchanges. And would seriously resist any other 6-lane expansions except for the little ones and the really intractible or unsolveable-by-other-means ones like 3/breakdown lane or Pike through Central MA.


Beyond that there's not much other than studying new Pike exits in Boston; Super-2 grade separations and/or 4-lane upgrades on 6 from Dennis to Brewster, 44 expressway in Middleboro on the last unfinished stretch, and 88 in Westport from 195 to 177 (high crash rate, median barrier isn't working nearly as well as hoped); maybe some more easy Route 2 separation segments like the 111 concurrency in Acton to the (replaced) rotary; completing the last 1.5 mile leg of Route 57 to Southwick; and building the 1/2 mile Attleboro Connector off the 295 stub ramps to 152 as relief valve for downtown and the 95/123 exit. All pretty much little cleanups attached to other pending or recently (i.e. '95-05 decade) completed projects, and stuff with pretty broad community support like Attleboro Connector.

Really, compared to other New England states like CT that still have very choppy gaps and controversies (CT 11, I-384, US 7) that will never ever die, our highway system is as fully built as it can get. Inside 128 is off-limits (though I think they might want to look at full 1A grade separation from Eastie to 16), all the other in-state cities are built out, nearly all the major highway revolts were proven more or less correct by history, and most of what we do have is contiguous except for those little bits of low-hanging closeout pieces detailed above. Maybe the Bourne-Sagamore Southside Connector becomes reality (another low-hanging one on the build, albeit with induced demand anxiety), but that's the only substantial new-new one I could ever see moving forward. And in fact we may see just as much mileage in urban highway teardowns as we see with new builds and up-to-spec expressway upgrades with how things are shaping up on 79 in Fall River, Casey and Bowker overpasses on the parkways, the Rutherford Ave. downgrade studies, and the overwhelming support for blowing up McGrath Hwy. Maybe we even gain the courage in a few decades to pull the plug on Storrow.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

That's a pretty good list. Really where Mass is in terms of highway projects is not too far off from most other urban areas with post-WW highways. We are working on borrowed time by not addressing the deteriorating infrastructure in this country and it would be nice to have someone in power address this head on instead of the usual piecemeal pork projects.

Throwing up tolls and increasing the gas tax are the only realistic ways. People will bitch and moan so we'll need a politician who isn't afraid to treat the general electorate like adults.

 

[Ron Newman]

Interstate standards are designed for the wide-open spaces of the American West. I don't feel any compulsion to spend any money to 'upgade' highways to these standards.

What is the grade separation project on Route 2 west of 128? I'd rather see the median barrier removed at intersections (Mill Street, Page Road, Lexington Road), allowing all left turns and adding crosswalks, so that the road isn't an impermeable barrier to north-south pedestrian and bicycle travel.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Interstate standards are designed for the wide-open spaces of the American West. I don't feel any compulsion to spend any money to 'upgade' highways to these standards.

What is the grade separation project on Route 2 west of 128? I'd rather see the median removed at intersections (Mill Street, Page Road, Lexington Road), allowing all left turns and adding crosswalks, so that the road isn't an impermeable barrier to pedestrian and bicycle travel.

Crosby's Corner is being reconstructed with a bypass to eliminate the 2/2A backups, a full interchange, and frontage roads to handle the curb cuts. Now funded, construction to begin (next?) year. A decade in the making because of the tightrope they had to walk on property acquisition, but Concord and Lincoln are singing hallelujah that it's finally happening. That knocks out the biggest separation by far on the entire route, and the curb cut separations stretch pretty far east. I can't find any renderings online though, so I don't know exactly how far. Scope of work is between Bedford Rd. and the 126 intersection.

Concord Rotary elimination has been in design forever. Construction's been punted again due to budget problems, but state's feeling a lot of pressure to make that one happen before decade's out because it's getting untenable. That one's pretty straightforward on construction because all of the land-taking is on the prison's front lawn and parking lot. Also involves a rebuild of the Elm St. intersection, better pedestrian access across the existing bridge over the river, and co-mingling of a Bruce Freeman Trail underpass further up the road. After they do the rotary, separating the 111 concurrency becomes a piece of cake because the median is already there. They only have to make 111 a full interchange, cut 1 intersection, and bridge another to bring the expressway in to Elm St. I think that one's pretty much inevitable after they get the rotary done.



As for upgrading highways, yes...it's absolutely a factor. All these roads with no breakdown lanes, inadequate acceleration lanes on ramps, over-density of ramps, and razor-sharp ramp curves are the highest crash rates in the state and most major sources of congestion. Stuff like Braintree split doesn't even touch the main interchange, but gets all its improvements from making the way too close 37, Furnace Brook, Quincy Ctr., and Burgin Pkwy. ramps better spaced. That's your compliance, and that's the bulk of the congestion mitigation. Making the 95/128 ramps into real T-interchanges instead of incomplete cloverleafs where the ramps were never designed to carry mainline traffic is a compliance issue. Nobody expects 1950's construction to get a ridiculous rebuild like I-84 in Manchester, CT with a 1/4 mile wide carriageway and HOV lanes, now seen as a colossal waste 25 years later. But it's a major quality of life issue to continue to pound highways designed for a third of their current loads, 20 MPH lower speed, and projected 50-year lifespans (because they thought we'd just rebuild everything anew on a set schedule) now being pushed past 60 years. No more a quality of life issue than when crash rates are the issue and crumbling infrastructure of the I-35W kind is the issue.

We can, and absolutely should, be judicious with what we do. And seek every multimodal option possible to throttle down instead of induce traffic loads. But where that's not possible...it's not optional. And when safety risk is too high...it's not optional.


Again, I'd rather be confronting a maintenance backlog and list of bite-size patches on generally good-condition roads, and amp up the transit options in more infrastructure-constrained areas like inside-128, than face what Connecticut faces with its catastrophic highway gaps sucking the economic life out of areas like New Milford, Willimantic, Bristol, etc. and absolutely unfixable problems on existing roads in Hartford, downtown New Haven, and Fairfield County from the bypasses it couldn't build. We have our more or less ideal highway network outside 128, the multimodal options to compensate for what couldn't be done inside 128, a not-bad existing state of repair outside the urban cores, a future repair/compliance bill that's achievable in the next 30 years with the right kind of attention to infrastructure, and very few needs with individual sticker shock other than 3 or 4 mega interchanges. And nothing at all on asphalt with a $1B price tag that still needs to be built. For all the agony the Big Dig caused we have it pretty good relatively speaking vs. other states. Our daunting megaproject needs are all transit-related. Which I suppose is a bit better situation than needing to pay for multiple projects on all modes a la New York state with 3 transit ultramegaprojects underway and/or critical priority to finish (2nd Ave. Subway, East Side Access, Gateway Tunnel) and a budgetary holocaust of a bridge replacement like the Tappan Zee that has to be done NOW before it takes thousands of people to their deaths crashing into the Hudson.

 

[datadyne007]

Interstate standards are designed for the wide-open spaces of the American West. I don't feel any compulsion to spend any money to 'upgade' highways to these standards.

The problems are not going to magically go away if we just ignore the fact that highways exist and are necessary. This mentality seems to pop up on aB every so often. Yes, it's a good thing to promote and advocate for public transportation, but you have to be realistic about highway loads and the associated demands. Highways have to exist, so we might as well make our deficient ones as efficient as possible.

Think of it as a necessary evil. Think about emergency vehicles, ambulances, specifically. We are a hub of medical service. Picture a traffic jam on the SE Ex due to the lack of a breakdown lane and the valuable minutes lost to an ambulance coming from 24.(for the record I originally abbreviated it as SEX without thinking lol) I don't think you'll ever see medical services using public transportation to bring people to hospitals.

 

[mass88]

I think in general interchanges in Mass are poor. Two examples being the 95/93/128 in Canton and the 495/95 in Mansfield.

I hope the former gets redone as part of the much needed widening of 128 project.

I too agree that breakdown lane travel during rush hour is crazy. I remember reading Brandon Spike's (LB for the Pats) interview when he had his debut in Foxboro. He commented that on the ride from Logan to Foxboro he thought it was crazy that people were driving in the breakdown lane.

 

[omaja]

I don't understand the open-HOV concept. What makes it different from a fifth lane?? How is HOV-only traffic handled and enforced? :-/

I'm not sure what you mean. Normal HOV lanes have designated entry and exit points, usually separated by a double yellow line or some other distinguishing marker.

The open HOV concept allows drivers to enter and exit the lane freely while maintaining the HOV-2+ restriction. It is enforced the same way as any other HOV lane - spot checks and heavy non-compliance fines. The upside to this layout is that (in addition to more freedom of movement) the lane can more recognizably be opened to all traffic outside of peak times.

 

[datadyne007]

I'm not sure what you mean. Normal HOV lanes have designated entry and exit points, usually separated by a double yellow line or some other distinguishing marker.

The open HOV concept allows drivers to enter and exit the lane freely while maintaining the HOV-2+ restriction. It is enforced the same way as any other HOV lane - spot checks and heavy non-compliance fines. The upside to this layout is that (in addition to more freedom of movement) the lane can more recognizably be opened to all traffic outside of peak times.

That picture is dramatically different than the one that I was responding to. That picture has clear lane demarcations in the form of a single line and a double yellow.

This is the picture I was responding to. It doesn't make any sense to me because there's no separation at all:

 

[omaja]

That is precisely why I posted two different photos. The only difference is that the designated entry and exit points are dropped in lieu of an open lane concept. In both cases the left lane is reserved for HOV-2+. The pseudo separation by adding double-yellow striping (or in some cases double white, solid white, solid yellow, etc.) doesn't really change how the lane operates.

The benefit of not striping the lane so as to restrict it is that the lane can easily function as an additional mixed-flow lane outside of peak hours, and traffic would not be trapped in the HOV lane if an accident were to occur.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

The benefit of not striping the lane so as to restrict it is that the lane can easily function as an additional mixed-flow lane outside of peak hours, and traffic would not be trapped in the HOV lane if an accident were to occur.

This makes perfect sense to me. The Zipper lane, then, is the best of both as it allows for a separated HOV lane but flexibility when needing another travel lane.

 

[omaja]

No, actually the zipper lane is the worst of both in the case of I-93. Zipper lanes only really function if traffic flows are disproportionally in one direction during either peak period. I-93 sees heavy traffic in both directions, with the relatively lighter side (southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening) being adversely affected by the loss of a lane to the other direction of traffic.

Compounding the uselessness of the zipper lane is the fact that it dumps vehicles at the Braintree Split (forcing HOVs to merge over 3 lanes in a short distance to continue on I-93) and ends at Savin Hill, well before the 90/93 interchange and useless for HOVs heading to South Station or Logan. God help you if there is an accident in the HOV lane anywhere along that stretch with maybe one or two spaces for disabled vehicles to pull over.

Not to mention, it takes a significant amount of time to open/close the lane, leading to further congestion. They would be better off painting HOV diamonds and throwing up some signage to restrict access to the left lane in both directions. But that will never happen; taking away a general purpose lane is politically infeasible.

My guess is somewhere down the line they'll bite the bullet and have to elevate 2-4 HOV/express lanes in the future.

 

[whighlander]

All of the wishful thinking is a waste of time (the drivers) and resources

The solution is to make the HOV lanes available to anyone who is willing to pay and to introduce congestion pricing with open road tolling:

n the middle of the night the former HOV lanes are just regular lanes with no premium

at rush hour the former HOV lanes run at a significant premium to the regular tolled lanes

As for the most critical project it's the I-93 I-95 interchange in Woburn

the other one not mentioned is adding a private lane along I-95 / RT-128 in Lexington between RT-2 and Rt-2A -- a lot of traffic is from Rt-2 to Rt-2A and today it needs to join I-95 / Rt-128 for a few hundred yards of jamming

most of my others are covered by F-Line in excruciating detail

 

[Kahta]

Not to mention, it takes a significant amount of time to open/close the lane, leading to further congestion. They would be better off painting HOV diamonds and throwing up some signage to restrict access to the left lane in both directions. But that will never happen; taking away a general purpose lane is politically infeasible.

On a highway without breakdown lanes, plus the MA mentality, no one is going to follow this.