I-90 u-turn ramp delayed, Pike says

[kz1000ps]

U-turn Ramp is Delayed But Not Dead, Pike Reports

By Mac Daniel, Globe Staff | February 16, 2007

A U-turn ramp at the Massachusetts Turnpike's Allston-Brighton tolls, a $1.3 million project intended to speed trips from Back Bay hotels to the new convention center in South Boston, ground to a halt after the fatal Big Dig ceiling collapse and soil problems were discovered at the construction site.

The project was supposed to have been completed in November, but yesterday concrete barriers still lined the work site more than a year after construction began.

The project, however, is not dead, said a Massachusetts Turnpike Authority spokesman.

James E. Rooney , executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, one of the ramp's chief supporters, said that the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center would get a huge boost from the ramp and that he has told prospective clients it would be built.

"After the tunnel ceiling collapse, the project was postponed just because there were so many traffic detours going on and the city and the turnpike did not want to add another one," he said. "I anticipated it would pick up again once the tunnel system and ramps were back in order."

Traveling from Logan International Airport or the new convention center to the Back Bay is difficult because there are no direct exits from the turnpike westbound. The long-sought U-turn would allow vehicles to loop from the Allston interchange to the eastbound on ramp.

Vehicles headed to the Back Bay could then use the eastbound exit at Prudential Center-Copley Square.

Going from Back Bay to Logan, a vehicle could use one of four westbound on ramps in the Back Bay, drive 2 miles, and then make the U-turn to head eastbound.

Jon Carlisle , spokesman for the Turnpike Authority, said the ramp's design has gone through three revisions after the soil under the proposed site was found to be moisture-absorbing and unstable peat. In the latest design, stone columns will be placed to distribute the weight of the ramp. It is expected to increase the project's cost by $250,000, Carlisle said.

"The biggest impediment was the geotechnical issues we've had to deal with," he said. "But I think it's fair to say that following the ceiling collapse, there was an all-hands-on-deck mentality."

Construction is expected to begin this spring and be completed in about six months, he said.

Meanwhile, all 1,825 Boston taxi cab owners have signed up for Fast Lane electronic toll transponders, a major factor in the success of the ramp, which is designed to accommodate only an electronic toll booth, said Lieutenant Robert Ciccolo , commander of the Boston Police Department's hackney unit.

Ciccolo said a new rule will allow police to remove a medallion from a cab if the owner is not signed up for Fast Lane. The city also will install signs in cabs this spring informing that the taxis are equipped with electronic toll transponders.

Mac Daniel can be reached at mdaniel@globe.com.
? Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

 

[bosdevelopment]

Jim Rooney proposed this a long time ago. It was stupid then, and worst now. His main point about the turn around is that it would allow tourists to get a view of downtown boston after the U-turn on the pike.

This just puts a band-aid on the problem. At the time I suggest adding an entrance to the east-bound side of the pike under the Pru and he laughed it off as a pipe dream that would cost hundreds of millions. Why was this never thought of in the first place?

Now he, along with the city want to impose tolls on everyone that wants to make a U-turn?

 

[PerfectHandle]

Yeah...it certainly is a band-aid, and it would be much better to add an eastbound entrance. If I were a betting man, I'd say that it would have been hard for anyone to imagine the TW Tunnel when they built the Pike and, thus, there wouldn't have been enough traffic going Eastbound from the Back Bay to justify adding an entrance.

As for wanting to charge people tolls, well, the Pike is a toll road. I don't see a problem there. If everyone else has to pay a toll to drive on it, why shouldn't people driving on it have to pay a toll?

 

[Ron Newman]

You'd need to add both an westbound off-ramp and a eastbound on-ramp, somewhere in the Back Bay or perhaps Chinatown. It's a good idea, but I'm wondering where you could shoehorn these in.

Perhaps an off-ramp and on-ramp could cross each other at grade like an "X" on Newbury Street west of Mass. Ave.? Both would be very short and non-standard, but better than nothing at all.

 

[bosdevelopment]

^ At this point, I don't see where else it would be logistacally possibly. Unless the whole thing was covered from Mass ave to Fenway and they incorporated an exit directly above one of the right lanes each way.

 

[Ron Newman]

Maybe you could slip an eastbound on-ramp in from Ipswich Street? Or from Herald Street? Again, you'd have to throw the entire highway standards book out the window, but it might be worth it.

The presence of the railroad (and, further east, the Orange Line) in the same right-of-way greatly complicates any plan.

 

[IMAngry]

Yes ...

I think Herald Street would work as an off-ramp; the other way, I'd add an on-ramp at Berkeley (cut that road to one way, at Columbus).

Or vice-versa, I forget what I thought.

I actually like the slingshot - of course, it's only for commercial traffic right? I hate that part of it. Stupid. Angry.

 

[Ron Newman]

I thought it was "Fast Lane only".

 

[Charlie_mta]

There is enough room between Arlington St. and Berkeley St. along the north side of the Turnpike to construct a standard off-ramp for westbound traffic. All that would have to be done is to slightly move the existing westbound on-ramp toward the pike, thus freeing up enough land between that ramp and Cortes Street for the westbound off-ramp, which would empty onto Berkeley Street.

All that would be required is design coordination with the pending air-rights development over the Pike at that location.