Memorial Drive Greenway Phase III

[Equilibria]

I mean... the segment of Memorial Drive thats being dieted is technically US RT3 and MA RT2 - yay concurrency. MA RT2 technically departs Mem Drive at the BU bridge and continues to Boston Common down Comm. Ave, and actually makes the loop around the Public Garden.

Meanwhile, The entire segment of US3 between Burlington and Cambridge is surface streets, but technically still has a US Route number. MA RT3 continues along Memorial from the Mass Ave Bridge, across the Longfellow to join Storrow and I93 until Braintree, while MA RT 2A is technically routed down Mass Ave through Cambridge.

As for whether any of those roads should have a route number is a matter for debate, as there's definitely an argument for renumbering or removing numbers entirely in the urban core. But all those RT2 signs down Comm Ave do is serve to confuse out of town visitors who want to get to Concord and have been told to take RT2, when they should actually join Storrow - and no one is clamoring for a highwayfication of Comm Ave through Back Bay. Besides.... Storrow used to be signed as part of US 1 pre big dig.

I think you could totally denumber Mem Drive and 2A - but in this case I think the more appropriate RT2 routing downtown is off Comm Ave and onto Storrow.

Well now we're in the topic of another thread, but:

- The freeway section of US-3 should be renumbered I-293 in coordination with NHDOT reclassifying the Everett Turnpike.
- From Burlington to Nashua US-3 should be renumbered onto what is now MA-3A, continuing the New Hampshire arrangement.
- US-3 is where it is in Cambridge because it was the fastest route from Mass Ave in Arlington to the Mass Ave Bridge, which carried US-1 at the time and was therefore a logical endpoint. Since the purpose of US-3 (following a lineage of New England route numbers) is to link Cape Cod to New Hampshire, it should be routed to do so by the fastest non-interstate route. In this case, that would probably be Fresh Pond Parkway, Soldier's Field Road, and Storrow Drive. Rerouting would currently require renumbering the Northwest Expressway because MassDOT (very confusingly for drivers) used a single mileage system continuing from Bourne to Tyngsborough, but the exits would be renumbered with 0 in Burlington when I-293 is designated, regardless.
- US-3 then continues in concurrency with I-93 to Braintree and picks up MA-3, taking over that pointless alternate designation to terminate at US-6 just north of the Sagamore Bridge. If that road were ever brought to Interstate grade it should be I-93, but MassDOT shouldn't be expanding highways at this point.
- MA-2 ends at Alewife. That's where people think it ends colloquially and Memorial Drive, which is not meant to be a major road and is being reduced to two lanes, should not carry a route number.

 

[sneijder]

I mean... the segment of Memorial Drive thats being dieted is technically US RT3 and MA RT2 - yay concurrency. MA RT2 technically departs Mem Drive at the BU bridge and continues to Boston Common down Comm. Ave, and actually makes the loop around the Public Garden.

Meanwhile, The entire segment of US3 between Burlington and Cambridge is surface streets, but technically still has a US Route number. MA RT3 continues along Memorial from the Mass Ave Bridge, across the Longfellow to join Storrow and I93 until Braintree, while MA RT 2A is technically routed down Mass Ave through Cambridge.

As for whether any of those roads should have a route number is a matter for debate, as there's definitely an argument for renumbering or removing numbers entirely in the urban core. But all those RT2 signs down Comm Ave do is serve to confuse out of town visitors who want to get to Concord and have been told to take RT2, when they should actually join Storrow - and no one is clamoring for a highwayfication of Comm Ave through Back Bay. Besides.... Storrow used to be signed as part of US 1 pre big dig.

I think you could totally denumber Mem Drive and 2A - but in this case I think the more appropriate RT2 routing downtown is off Comm Ave and onto Storrow.

Route 2 is crazy overbuilt inside 128, as an artifact of when the inner belt highway was proposed. It really should be reconfigured to never be wider than 2 lanes, which should help cut down on all the cars getting stuffed down fresh pond parkway (and onto memorial/storrow). Reduce capacity, and thru-traffic will use 93/90 instead. The extra space on route 2 can then be used for express buses (a bunch of company/commuter shuttles can use this + express buses to lexington, bedford, and burlington that drop you at Alewife).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Route 2 is crazy overbuilt inside 128, as an artifact of when the inner belt highway was proposed. It really should be reconfigured to never be wider than 2 lanes, which should help cut down on all the cars getting stuffed down fresh pond parkway (and onto memorial/storrow). Reduce capacity, and thru-traffic will use 93/90 instead. The extra space on route 2 can then be used for express buses (a bunch of company/commuter shuttles can use this + express buses to lexington, bedford, and burlington that drop you at Alewife).

There's no need to do bus lanes on 2. The nearly-empty frontage roads carry all buses through Arlington/Belmont as de facto busways, and those routes would disappear from the highway alignment entirely if RLX-Arlington Heights allowed those routes to hub instead at the two extension stops. The Lexington portion of the highway is well under-capacity, and passes through a density cavity meaning there's probably few routes you could draw up for that alignment to begin with.

Re-stripe it as contiguous 6 lanes from Alewife to 128, do full-width left and right shoulders, and maybe scrape a couple feet to the side for added buffer from the frontage roads. That's about it. It's not a high-leverage corridor for anything, so why spend for a reconfiguration like it is?

 

[millerm277]

Route 2 is crazy overbuilt inside 128, as an artifact of when the inner belt highway was proposed. It really should be reconfigured to never be wider than 2 lanes, which should help cut down on all the cars getting stuffed down fresh pond parkway (and onto memorial/storrow). Reduce capacity, and thru-traffic will use 93/90 instead. The extra space on route 2 can then be used for express buses (a bunch of company/commuter shuttles can use this + express buses to lexington, bedford, and burlington that drop you at Alewife).

It's a good example that induced demand isn't quite infinite.

It is overbuilt, but I'm not sure what you actually achieve for spending a bunch of money on doing that. A highway that doesn't have traffic jams on most of it is a highway where a bus moves at full speed without needing a dedicated lane.

Other than the last mile of the EB approach to Alewife, as far as I've ever observed the only typical slowdowns are sometimes right at the 128 interchange for typical ancient MA cloverleaf reasons (+ if the 128 mainline is so backed up that it's killing the ramps too).

 

[Charlie_mta]

- The freeway section of US-3 should be renumbered I-293 in coordination with NHDOT reclassifying the Everett Turnpike.

I'd like to see it renumbered as I-89, from Rte 128 up to the present start of I-89 in NH, overlapping with I-93 north of Manchester NH. The I-89 designation would tell drivers in Massachusetts where the highway is ultimately going.

 

[Equilibria]

I'd like to see it renumbered as I-89, from Rte 128 up to the present start of I-89 in NH, overlapping with I-93 north of Manchester NH. The I-89 designation would tell drivers in Massachusetts where the highway is ultimately going.

I've liked that idea too, but I think that NHDOT might need to rebuild the segment through Downtown Manchester if it were to become a 2-digit route, which they will not and should not do. Getting the Everett Turnpike to Interstate grade, on the other hand, is I think pretty much done or in-progress (though maybe lacking in some subtle way). I believe US-3 in MA is already there.

You could also make the case that for Massachusetts drivers the highway is going to Lowell, Nashua, Manchester, Concord, and then "places more north than Concord" in both NH and VT - I'm not sure there's a need to communicate that it goes to VT (or Montreal) with the designation. In that case, the numbering would logically communicate that the road is an alternative to I-93 that does the same thing, hence I-293. Either one can be used to access I-89 depending on where you're starting from.

Anyway, well off the thread at this point... I've found conversations we've had on this point dating back at least to 2012 .

 

[Charlie_mta]

I've liked that idea too, but I think that NHDOT might need to rebuild the segment through Downtown Manchester if it were to become a 2-digit route, which they will not and should not do.

The design standards for an interstate highway are the same for both 2-digit or 3-digit numbered interstates. Also, the segment through downtown Manchester is already signed as I-293, so re-signing it as I-89 shouldn't require reconstruction of that route.

 

[Equilibria]

The design standards for an interstate highway are the same for both 2-digit or 3-digit numbered interstates. Also, the segment through downtown Manchester is already signed as I-293, so re-signing it as I-89 shouldn't require reconstruction of that route.

I don't think it's at Interstate standards at all. I could be wrong. I think it's a legacy and if you mess with the number at all you'll need to reckon with it, but if you just designate a new Interstate from Bedford to Burlington it doesn't need to come up.

 

[bigeman312]

I love this discussion and so I’ll throw my two cents down.

I love the idea of US-3 becoming I-293 for its freeway section between 128/I-95 and the current I-293 designation.

Here’s where I’d shift the US-3 designation to accommodate this change:

• Continuing south on Concord St in Nashua to Main St.
• Returning to the Daniel Webster Highway from Main St, Nashua to the Massachusetts state line (this section used to be signed as US-3).
• Continuing onto Middlesex Rd in Tyngsborough.
• Taking over the MA-3A designation south of MA-113.
  • The MA-3A designation would be eliminated north of Boston and would exist only a South Shore designation.
• Following the current MA-3A designation from MA-113 in Tyngsborough until its current southern terminus at 128/I-95 in Burlington.
• The US-3 alignment would remain unchanged from 128/I-95 in Burlington through its current southern terminus in Cambridge.
• Then, I’d extend the US-3 designation beyond its current terminus at Mass Ave, along Memorial Drive and the Longfellow Bridge, replacing the MA-3 designation there, terminating at the Longfellow Bridge / Storrow Drive interchange.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I mean... the segment of Memorial Drive thats being dieted is technically US RT3 and MA RT2 - yay concurrency. MA RT2 technically departs Mem Drive at the BU bridge and continues to Boston Common down Comm. Ave, and actually makes the loop around the Public Garden.

Meanwhile, The entire segment of US3 between Burlington and Cambridge is surface streets, but technically still has a US Route number. MA RT3 continues along Memorial from the Mass Ave Bridge, across the Longfellow to join Storrow and I93 until Braintree, while MA RT 2A is technically routed down Mass Ave through Cambridge.

As for whether any of those roads should have a route number is a matter for debate, as there's definitely an argument for renumbering or removing numbers entirely in the urban core. But all those RT2 signs down Comm Ave do is serve to confuse out of town visitors who want to get to Concord and have been told to take RT2, when they should actually join Storrow - and no one is clamoring for a highwayfication of Comm Ave through Back Bay. Besides.... Storrow used to be signed as part of US 1 pre big dig.

I think you could totally denumber Mem Drive and 2A - but in this case I think the more appropriate RT2 routing downtown is off Comm Ave and onto Storrow.

Or just do the more logical thing which is truncate Route 2 at the end of the expressway, and extend US 20 down Comm Ave. from Kenmore Square to the Public Gardens. 20 is already the longest highway in North America...another 1.4 miles to the heart of the cradle of the Revolution would be fitting, not to mention lots more logical for wayfinding by having one thing stay bolted to Comm Ave. all the way through the Back Bay. After all, 20 is officially signed as an Evacuation Route the whole way from Kenmore to Watertown. Shouldn't the wayfinding for that Evac Route be fully consistent all the way from Downtown and free from super-confusing route concurrencies?

I'd also keep US 3 on Mass Ave. all the way to Mass Ave. Connector for the I-93 tie-in so its north-south wayfinding is more coherent, and truncate the useless 2A urban designation.


Do ^these^ and you de-number all of the river roads while straightening up a lot of suburban-to-urban wayfinding that currently loses all its plot somewhere in Cambridge.

 

[as02155]

Apparently this is actually happening soon now (?):

https://www.mass.gov/doc/memorial-drive-improvements-phase-iii-meeting-presentation-992025/download

^"Pre-construction Briefing"...see last slide for opportunity to comment (Comment deadline 9/23/25)

I looked at this, and, most of it is good.

But, a very cold take: a f****ng HAWK signal?! What are we Tucson?! Those horrendous things should be banned from the MUTCD and die a dishonorable death. At the minimum, Stantec should be fired from this project for supporting this anti-human signal infrastructure.

 

[sm89]

I looked at this, and, most of it is good.

But, a very cold take: a f****ng HAWK signal?! What are we Tucson?! Those horrendous things should be banned from the MUTCD and die a dishonorable death. At the minimum, Stantec should be fired from this project for supporting this anti-human signal infrastructure.

Looking back at the prior presentations, they did show a "signal" but no details or callouts on the type. I think most people assumed it would be a regular signal. There was no opportunity to provide comment/ask to discuss the reasons why they selected it. Nor were they challenged on how they've been working elsewhere nearby (poorly, at least anecdotally). I think its fairly obvious that the Beacon St Somerville HAWKs were a failure, hence why the city reprogrammed them all to be less HAWK-like (no longer alternating red during countdown). I find the comment period for this project a bit odd as they also said the project was bid and the contractor already got their notice to proceed. What are we commenting on? It's weird that such an impactful roadway project got barely any explanation in the presentations. Not even a public roll-plan exists. Just a couple grainy insets. The presentations felt more like they were checking boxes about how well they are protecting and enhancing the trees (I get it, they're a park agency, but...).

HAWKs are still relatively new and a lot of people don't know how to use them, but I DID just receive an RMV notice recently and the PSA flyer was about how to use a HAWK signal.

 

[Stlin]

Looking back at the prior presentations, they did show a "signal" but no details or callouts on the type. I think most people assumed it would be a regular signal. There was no opportunity to provide comment/ask to discuss the reasons why they selected it. Nor were they challenged on how they've been working elsewhere nearby (poorly, at least anecdotally). I think its fairly obvious that the Beacon St Somerville HAWKs were a failure, hence why the city reprogrammed them all to be less HAWK-like (no longer alternating red during countdown). I find the comment period for this project a bit odd as they also said the project was bid and the contractor already got their notice to proceed. What are we commenting on? It's weird that such an impactful roadway project got barely any explanation in the presentations. Not even a public roll-plan exists. Just a couple grainy insets. The presentations felt more like they were checking boxes about how well they are protecting and enhancing the trees (I get it, they're a park agency, but...).

HAWKs are still relatively new and a lot of people don't know how to use them, but I DID just receive an RMV notice recently and the PSA flyer was about how to use a HAWK signal.

The original proposal was for RRFBs - as I recall from the December 24 meeting, HAWKs were dropped in as a replacement because prior comments during the 2022 public meetings demanded a red aspect. It seems to have been delayed a bit, but the Public feedback bit happened years ago and the latest meetings have been "presenting finalized plans" vs "seeking community input."

 

[pfd12]

HAWKs are still relatively new and a lot of people don't know how to use them, but I DID just receive an RMV notice recently and the PSA flyer was about how to use a HAWK signal.

They've been sending those out for a while, I got one with my renewed DL last year. Unfortunately any traffic device that requires explanation like this is simply not going to be effective, and I bet many people don't even read those PSA inserts before chucking the envelope. Literally just a few months ago there was this news story from Arizona (where HAWKs were invented/first deployed, over 2 decades ago) about how drivers still don't understand them and police still need to do educational enforcement campaigns around them.

The original proposal was for RRFBs - as I recall from the December 24 meeting, HAWKs were dropped in as a replacement because prior comments during the 2022 public meetings demanded a red aspect. It seems to have been delayed a bit, but the Public feedback bit happened years ago and the latest meetings have been "presenting finalized plans" vs "seeking community input."

IIRC the ask people were making in 2022 wasn't for a "stronger" signal, it was for DCR to commit to a 25 mph design speed for the roadway - a speed at which an RRFB would be appropriate. So things like road narrowing, especially approaching crossings, as well as vertical traffic calming elements such as making that pedestrian crossing raised. Unfortunately DCR did not want to do this, and in 2024 came back with a design that just added a HAWK signal here.

In response, several people pushed for at least replacing the HAWK with a more standard, intuitive red-yellow-green signal, already used at pedestrian crossings in several other parkway locations. There's even one that was installed recently less than a mile away on this exact road (for a temporary pedestrian crossing to get around a long-term construction closure of the sidewalk) which seems to be working out just fine. But DCR (or Stantec, I guess) seem committed to using a HAWK here. Even during this most recent meeting they pushed back on suggestions to do otherwise.

 

[BOS2BON]

They've been sending those out for a while, I got one with my renewed DL last year. Unfortunately any traffic device that requires explanation like this is simply not going to be effective, and I bet many people don't even read those PSA inserts before chucking the envelope. Literally just a few months ago there was this news story from Arizona (where HAWKs were invented/first deployed, over 2 decades ago) about how drivers still don't understand them and police still need to do educational enforcement campaigns around them.


IIRC the ask people were making in 2022 wasn't for a "stronger" signal, it was for DCR to commit to a 25 mph design speed for the roadway - a speed at which an RRFB would be appropriate. So things like road narrowing, especially approaching crossings, as well as vertical traffic calming elements such as making that pedestrian crossing raised. Unfortunately DCR did not want to do this, and in 2024 came back with a design that just added a HAWK signal here.

In response, several people pushed for at least replacing the HAWK with a more standard, intuitive red-yellow-green signal, already used at pedestrian crossings in several other parkway locations. There's even one that was installed recently less than a mile away on this exact road (for a temporary pedestrian crossing to get around a long-term construction closure of the sidewalk) which seems to be working out just fine. But DCR (or Stantec, I guess) seem committed to using a HAWK here. Even during this most recent meeting they pushed back on suggestions to do otherwise.

They pushed back against raised crossings too.

 

[BOS2BON]

Parts of the Riverbend park will be closed for an extended period of time over the summer.