North Shore Transit Improvement Initiative: US-1 moved, new BL branch, Everett subway

[BostonUrbEx]

Take a gander, this is what I've been doing for an hour at 2AM:

http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...249,-71.039143&spn=0.074285,0.181789&t=h&z=13

It started with an idea to remove the curvy sections of US-1, particularly in Chelsea, and then coupled with Van's uncompleted Boston highways map. MA-1A was supposed to be a full built highway and from the looks of it, and was even going to Copeland Circle to meet I-95 immediately before the circle, pretty much meaning my path for an improved US-1 follows that almost exactly. The only difference with mine is the existing US-1 south of Copeland Circle would be obliterated, and obviously I-95 through Lynn was never (and hopefully never will be) built.

I want the current ROW through Revere and Chelsea to be brought back to grade as much as possible, and hopefully fill it in with some form of rapid transit. It would probably be elevated, but not running over a street. I hope that this will better connect the two sides of US-1. As for the new US-1, as soon as it curves south off the marsh, it would begin a downward grade so it passes under the small bit of neighborhood in that area, allowing even better connectivity than at present. And again, the same thing at Bell Circle to allow better connectivity than at present and no big jumbly intersection (although, the rail trench is still there, hopefully air rights could be sold there).

I kind of wish the Pike extension never happened as that kind of defeats the new tunnel and interchange with I-93 under Rowes Wharf. It could have killed a few birds with one stone. Alas, the routing could always go via the Ted, but it is so terribly out of the way...



I'm sorry I don't organize my thoughts better. I'm always quick to toss things up here... So any questions just ask. Comments welcome too. And criticism as well (you can call me an asshole if you feel compelled to do so, I need to know what people's blunt honest reactions are, as this is something I would honestly like to see perused).

inb4"another big dig?" (this would be a better use of $22 billion, IMHO... and I doubt it would cost that much)

EDIT: Note that the ultimate goal is to get rid of I-95 between the Topsfield/Danvers circle thingy with US-1 and 128 in order to consolidate two highways into one. Thus, merging US-1 and I-95 to run concurrently.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Here's the first phase of the overall project, it's relatively simple.

http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...494,-70.974255&spn=0.074085,0.181789&t=h&z=13

First step is to widen US-1 to 3 lanes each way (currently 2) from Topsfield down to the split by taking the median and then taking space on the sides for an access lane which will be used to get to the businesses along US-1. Then with some realignment of some ramps at each end, it is complete.

The present I-95 could be left to revert to woods, volunteers could help the natural reclamation process, and should Danvers feel the need they could make a bike path.


Sidenote: Peabody jug handle needs to be removed or reworked to eliminate the stoplight, or traffic will back up significantly.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Note that the ultimate goal is to get rid of I-95 between the Topsfield/Danvers circle thingy with US-1 and 128 in order to consolidate two highways into one. Thus, merging US-1 and I-95 to run concurrently.

But why is this even a good idea? What would be the purpose?

 

[BostonUrbEx]

But why is this even a good idea? What would be the purpose?

OCD.


LOL. Nahhh. The capacity up there is rather excessive, no? 4 lanes of US-1 and 8 lanes of I-95? I think 6 lanes total is enough. There's no need for what is essentially *12* lanes of wide highway and ramps shooting around all over the place. We're cutting out 6 lanes of maintenance here. That's also 6 lanes of oil soaked asphalt that rain water is running off of. And the I-95 ROW appears to be incredibly expansive, I'm not one to hug a tree, but there's plenty of trees that could go there, hundreds of them. Also, have you driven on this stretch of 95? People drive at ridiculous speeds there because it's so wide, expansive, and volume is relatively low most of the time. US-1 has speeds more around 55, where your mileage improves 15% over 65 MPH (and I'm pretty sure no one is going as slow as 65 here). With lower speeds, it also makes commutes longer, despite the better mileage, so I would think that new development would slow down north of here, keeping people closer to Boston. Ideally the I-95 concurrency would run at least all the way to that spaghetti interchange between US-1 and MA-128 in Lynnfield but there's no median to take and very little room on the sides.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I like your basic proposal for Route 1 through East Boston (though the Ted Williams Tunnel makes your new tunnel moot). I've had a similar idea to expand Route 1A up that way but you take it much further through Revere. That probably wouldn't make people up there too happy but it could be built below grade with an urban design that integrates the road into the landscape.

The highways around Boston don't operate as efficiently as they need to be due to the fact that they were designed as a network and that major portions of the network were never built. I'm not arguing for or against highway expansion, just stating a fact about the planning.

I think a much more useful application of highway funds would be to rebuild Route 1 through Saugus to I95/128 as a modern limited-access highway. If there is additional capacity beyond 128 then whatever. The section through Saugus will always be a bottle neck if never addressed.

*********************

Regardless of it all I think highway expansion in this day and age is a terrible waste of limited resources. Gas is only going to get more expensive and throwing more money at more lanes is a sure fire way to bankrupt the country. True our roads are in terrible shape, some over capacity, and this needs to be addressed objectively. But highway expansion at this point just seems old fashioned.

I'm not the only one who has said this but I feel like the Big Dig was the last gasp for highway expansion projects. Look at cities like Seattle and Buffalo which are trying to solve similar problems. The Big Dig was always brought up as an option for them but I don't think the country has the financial resources to devote to projects that are just that damn expensive and don't contribute to more of the economy.

Look at the burgeoning awareness of "complete streets" throughout cities in the US. It will take another generation for this to become more ubiquitous but that is normal. Road diets, bike lanes, alternative transportation options. It's all about reclaiming the road, a public area, for more people than just drivers. The point isn't to get rid of cars but rather to give more people more options than just driving. This also leads to much safer streets for all users.

********************

SO bringing it back after that tangent, I think that a reorganization of highways such as this proposal is a good step. New infrastructure will address current and future needs while obsolete infrastructure can be repurposed for new uses like mass transit/bikes/pedestrians.

Infrastructure in America is from our grandparents generation and not suited for the 21 Century. But our needs are not like theirs and we need to be much more conscious of what we build to make sure that it gives all people better connectivity.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Absolutely agree that our highways need to be reorganized. Although ideally they won't be necessary for commutes in my little fantasy land, I can imagine them always being important to commercial (trucks) and national defense/evacuation routes. So in my view, we should be removing highways and rethinking those we keep.

Although nothing in this thread is included, here's my basic layout: http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...3751,-71.18042&spn=4.720215,11.634521&t=h&z=7

And I consider this my not radical map... My radical map would probably have just 90, 91, 93, and 95. They'd be capped at 4 lanes unless surrounding density calls for 6.

Maybe it's the simple fact that I've never been down 395 in Connecticut, but looking at it on a map makes me go "WTF? Why do you exist?" 290, 295, 84 (east if Hartford), and much of 495 seem unnecessary to me. Again, I think the biggest factor is commercial trucking, and I can see a lot of reduction elsewhere.

I have to say New England really isn't that bad though. The highways surrounding NYC seem incredibly excessive... I mean, really? I think we can lay out something better now.

 

[armpitsOFmight]

Who cares about the North Shore? It's all about Boston, biaatch!!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Absolutely agree that our highways need to be reorganized. Although ideally they won't be necessary for commutes in my little fantasy land, I can imagine them always being important to commercial (trucks) and national defense/evacuation routes. So in my view, we should be removing highways and rethinking those we keep.

Although nothing in this thread is included, here's my basic layout: http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...3751,-71.18042&spn=4.720215,11.634521&t=h&z=7

And I consider this my not radical map... My radical map would probably have just 90, 91, 93, and 95. They'd be capped at 4 lanes unless surrounding density calls for 6.

Maybe it's the simple fact that I've never been down 395 in Connecticut, but looking at it on a map makes me go "WTF? Why do you exist?" 290, 295, 84 (east if Hartford), and much of 495 seem unnecessary to me. Again, I think the biggest factor is commercial trucking, and I can see a lot of reduction elsewhere.

I have to say New England really isn't that bad though. The highways surrounding NYC seem incredibly excessive... I mean, really? I think we can lay out something better now.

395 out to that little Route 6 stub was supposed to be the routing of I-95 before the shoreline bitched enough to get it continued there instead. That's why the Connecticut Turnpike continues up 395 instead of following 95 to the border, and why the exit numbers used to reset on 95 and are (still) all screwy up 395. 395 was CT Route 52 until 1983, and it's still totally unrenovated from that era. They sought the interstate designation back then to spur economic development out in Eastern CT. And that's why you've got the weird changeover to I-290 at the Pike. Used to be MA 52 changing to I-290.

84 east of Hartford is the oldest stretch of that highway. Used to be CT 15, extension of the Wilbur Cross Highway. Dates back to late-30's/early-40's. All they did was slap the Interstate designation on it, and eventually it was widened to 6 lanes in the early 80's. But that was another one back-ported into the Interstate system from a pre-existing expressway. Part of the reason for it (at least when it was I-86) was that MA was supposed to build it out further to Route 2 in Westminster (2 intended to be its own cross-state Interstate). You can easily see on Google Maps that Wells State Park was intended to be the highway grading into East Brookfield.


As for add-a-lanes and big expansion projects, these are the only ones in the state I think have merit:
-- Pike, 6 lanes Sturbridge-Springfield. Intercity trunk, and it's just awful in the Springfield area. 4 lanes is more than adequate to Albany, but this add-a-lane is the highest-priority highway expansion left after 128's done.
-- Route 24, 6 lanes on the 4-mile 495-to-140 stretch. Outermost extent of the Boston commute, and extremely congested from folks making the 495-to-140 zigzag. 24's pretty empty south of there after New Bedford bound traffic splits off on really, really empty 140. Also think this needs a true interchange because the 140 lights are terrible, and dangerous.
-- I-195, downtown New Bedford-Fairhaven. Somewhat curious that it's 6 lanes until right at the point you hit downtown, then it squeezes. Very odd for an urban area. East of Route 240 it thins out considerably and is fine at 4 lanes, but gotta fix that 3 miles.
-- Route 146, complete last expressway upgrades. Only a couple tiny stretches outside of Worcester left, and I think they are funded. Critical link to Providence and economic development corridor. I'd even consider going for an Interstate conversion...190 extension, I-390 or something like that...once it's fully up-to-spec.


That's totally it, though. I think a lot of the expressways in the Boston area need exit ramp renewal to get rid of all the woefully substandard turning radii, acceleration lanes, weaving, incomplete cloverleafs (Canton split, I-295/I-95) for highways never built, and at-grade intersections for highways never built which need upgrades to full interchanges of much better terminating intersections (140/24, I-291/Pike, 2/Alewife rotary). But that's already being done exit by exit so they just have to keep doing more of the same. At least MA doesn't have as many batshit dangerous ones as CT and RI do.

There really isn't any gap-filler on par with Route 11 in CT or I-384/Route 6 in CT needed in MA. Certainly none that are actually feasible. I don't think Routes 1 or 1A are easily improvable with the density of those areas...they're gonna have to stay malformed. Obviously nothing inside of 128 is buildable. Whatever they do to the Concord rotary, 2 is still never going to have that critical 128-Acton gap filled. I-391 is never going to be complete through Holyoke. 44 is never going to be complete to 495 (although that might be easier than most to build). And we'll be waiting a few more decades before the Sagamore Bridge is due for replacement or complementing by a parallel span for 3 and 6 to get joined finally. And I don't think you see Route 25 linked up the 2 miles to 3/6 until that happens.

I would most definitely NOT do any 8-lane expansions whatsoever beyond finishing the ongoing 128 work. The Route 3 Kingston-93 and Route 24 Brockton-128 widening proposals are insanely destructive, just bring more induced demand to suburban sprawl hellholes, and cram even more traffic into the unexpandable Braintree split. Moratorium on >6 lane expansions should be in effect. Get the commuter rail capacity pumping way higher to those areas...people are gonna have to adapt to less feasible car travel sooner or later.


There could be some corridor development with more interstate designations on existing highways, but I don't think the Feds are all that keen on passing those out like candy unless it's a major deal like the new I-86 being made from old NY 17. Could look at these though:
-- I-190: Route 146 Worcester-Providence upon completion of highway upgrades. Obvious economic development corridor. If extending, I would just truncate 290 where they meet north and extend 395 from the Pike to where it meets 146 and let 190 become the new trunkline.
-- I-293: Manchester, NH to 128, displacing US 3. Economic development corridor on already at-spec expressway. I'd go for it. The US3/MA3 separate expressways thing is confusing as hell anyway. At least make 1 of them a side road.
-- I-495: To Bourne Bridge, eliminating MA 25. More a map cleanup than anything else, since the designation change for such a short stretch of the same named highway is pretty useless.
-- I-93: Displacing MA 3 to US 44 in Plymouth, upon upgrade of all exit ramps to full standards. But DON'T do the 8-lane add-a-lane project. If the Sagamore is upgraded/replaced decades in the future, extend the 93 onto the Cape displacing the existing 6 expressway. Longer-term economic development, and has a nice continuity with 93's current routing. Plus 3 is the highest-volume completed (i.e. not malformed like Route 1) expressway in the state that's not got an interstate designation.


Other. . .
-- I'd also outright eliminate MA 79 in Fall River for an at-grade boulevard, like many there want to do. It's underutilized, the exits aren't convenient, and the Braga Bridge ramps aren't designed for expressway volumes to begin with. Get rid of it, and if that's the excuse to do 24 at 6 lanes through Fall River-proper and improve the 195 interchange, acceptable trade-off.
-- Reduce 2 in Arlington to 6 lanes. It was built to 8 lanes because the cancelled US 3 expressway was supposed to meet it in Lexington and run concurrent. Humongous waste of space and induces demand at the last-second Alewife crunch. Get rid of it and put some buffer around the frontage roads so they're sort of returned to Arlington and Belmont as city streets instead of wasted as barren speed traps.

 

[Equilibria]

^

We're probably totally off-topic now, but this really intrigues me.

The problem with renaming roads is that while it might make more sense on a map, the locals will take it as an affront to their sense of place. We've seen this dramatically in MA when MassHighway tried to de-designate 128 south of I-95 in Peabody. It became so confusing (since no one stopped calling it 128) that they backed down somewhat, though all the newer signs only say I-95.

That said, you've hit all the highlights for new interstate designations, more or less. I actually think it might make sense, pending an upgrade of the Everett Turnpike in NH (which isn't interstate grade, actually) to pull the I-89 designation all the way down from Concord to Burlington, with a multiplex with 93 between Concord and Manchester. Given that Lowell-Nashua-Manchester-Concord is a much higher-profile corridor than Reading-Canobie Lake Park-Manchester-Concord, this would refocus attention where it belongs and create a single interstate routing between Boston, VT, and Montreal.

That 395/290/190/146 stuff needs to be cleaned up, though I'm not sure the best way to do it (once 146 is all at grade). It might actually make sense to eliminate 290 all-together and extend 395 to Marlborough, with 190 taking over 146, again with a concurrency in DT Worcester.

The new designation I've liked (BostonRoads) that you left out was Route 24 being given a 695 designation to tie it in to the 95/128 network a little better. That might create a local reference issue, though.

Tying into the North Shore subject, though, I do think that upgrading Route 1 to interstate grade all the way to Peabody (potentially by this plan closer in) improves efficiency (NOT congestion) in the system by giving trunk traffic from ME a direct route to Boston without diverting to 128 and 93. Using this map, I-95 takes over the 93 section to Braintree, then runs concurrently with 93 on the SE Expressway like it used to, then uses the Ted and new Route 1 routing plus an upgraded Route 1 to Peabody. I-90 ends at South Bay, I-89 runs from Burlington to Canton and 128 runs alone from Burlington to Gloucester.

I should get with this map-making thing.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I don't think cleanup of 25/495, 3/93, 3/293, and 146/190 are hard transitions. 128 is wholly unique because it was one of the first expressways hard-baked into the Boston psyche and is a badge of honor for highway foes when the Southwest Expressway and Innerbelt got defeated. It's totally cultural.

The stretch of 495 from 24 to the Cape didn't get its interstate designation until 1984 and used to be 25 all the way. I-84 has changed 3 times...MA 15 --> I-84 --> I-86 --> I-84...last one in 1986. 146 is a brand new expressway; nobody knew the malformed old stub existed because it fell short of both the Pike and Worcester before the late-90's. And the choppy 3 designation is confusing as hell to begin with, with all the side route 3A's making it worse because some folks still call that 3 too. I bet they'll adjust really quick. 290 might be a slightly different animal, but the sudden change to 395 is annoying and isn't fixable unless 395 is the number that wins the battle. I think all these places will adjust just as seamlessly as the 25/495, 52/395, and every-20-years or so changes to whatever the hell the I-84 tolls flavor of the moment designation is. Don't forget, during the highway fights everything we now call I-93 south of Somerville and Route 1 were changing designations every few years...and even went a span where there was no route designation whatsoever. Boston pretty much instantaneously moved over when the numbering got set for good in the early 70's.


I'm wary of the Route 24 interstate designation because that road has already encouraged such wasteful suburban sprawl that those towns are going to have a real problem with sustainability pretty soon. Interstate designation is only going to make that worse. This one is a little different from the others in that it's totally in-state whereas the others are true interstate linking major cities. Even the 93 extension to Plymouth works for continuity purposes on a major 2-digit trunkline interstate. While 24 is a legal 3-digit interstate upgrade by the feds' definition, it's a harder sell as an economic development corridor, a harder sell as a direct-to-Boston route because of the 128/Braintree split job, it isn't a beltway, and Fall River's served on its natural commute pattern by 195 (24 really isn't that well-utilized south of 140).

I think that corridor's got to get its ass in gear on sustainable planning and that commuter rail (at least to Taunton...south of there is really dubious on timescales shorter than 15 years) needs to get fully knitted into that planning before seeking fed highway investment. Though I do think they should keep on keeping on with getting the exit ramps up to full spec end-to-end. Much higher upside to be had with corridor redesignations on US 3, 146, and the South Shore first.


BostonRoads is a great site. Kurumi's CT site even better. There is a BUILD EVERYTHING bias to them especially when it comes to all the cancelled expressways, so wish there was a little more sustainability focus. But whatever...they're road nuts, it's expected.

 

[Equilibria]

I'm wary of the Route 24 interstate designation because that road has already encouraged such wasteful suburban sprawl that those towns are going to have a real problem with sustainability pretty soon. Interstate designation is only going to make that worse. This one is a little different from the others in that it's totally in-state whereas the others are true interstate linking major cities. Even the 93 extension to Plymouth works for continuity purposes on a major 2-digit trunkline interstate. While 24 is a legal 3-digit interstate upgrade by the feds' definition, it's a harder sell as an economic development corridor, a harder sell as a direct-to-Boston route because of the 128/Braintree split job, it isn't a beltway, and Fall River's served on its natural commute pattern by 195 (24 really isn't that well-utilized south of 140).

I think that corridor's got to get its ass in gear on sustainable planning and that commuter rail (at least to Taunton...south of there is really dubious on timescales shorter than 15 years) needs to get fully knitted into that planning before seeking fed highway investment. Though I do think they should keep on keeping on with getting the exit ramps up to full spec end-to-end. Much higher upside to be had with corridor redesignations on US 3, 146, and the South Shore first.

I see your point, but I'm not sure I totally agree. Even excepting Fall River, Route 24 connects Brockton, Taunton and New Bedford (via 140) with Boston. Honestly, a road connects to Boston if it hits 128. In the absence of the SW, NE, AND NW Expressways it's unreasonable to expect more.

I also see your point about the difficulty of changing numbering. I would actually argue that changing the numbering on both Route 3s might be more difficult than you think, but it makes a huge amount of sense in both cases, as those routes should be integrated into larger regional corridors.

To that end, here's my rough, rough draft for a reorganization of routes using primarily existing pavement:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=209340212912914501929.0004a4bca7dadd8a2ade2


The most radical idea in there (other than rerouting I-95 and extending I-89 from Concord to Canton) is combining I-190, Route 146 and I-195 (with some connections in Providence) into a new outer ring road for Metro Boston (geographically, it's obvious). This time, the idea wouldn't be to allow for sprawl, but to spiritually and economically link the region's peripheral urban centers in New Bedford, Fall River, Providence, Woonsocket, Worcester and Leominster with a single road, which if extended according to original plans for I-190 could reach Manchester and even Hampton along NH-101. I use the I-490 designation, but that might get confused with I-495, so plenty of other numbers could work.

Also, it might be getting time to split off this thread if this conversation is going to continue...

 

[whighlander]

A few ones that I've missed earlier:
FLine wrote '' Reduce 2 in Arlington to 6 lanes. It was built to 8 lanes because the cancelled US 3 expressway was supposed to meet it in Lexington and run concurrent. Humongous waste of space and induces demand at the last-second Alewife crunch. Get rid of it and put some buffer around the frontage roads so they're sort of returned to Arlington and Belmont as city streets instead of wasted as barren speed traps. " -- obviously you never drove on 2 when close to capacity (every working day) -- I'm constantly trying to scheme how to widen it in Cambridge with dedicated lane to Lake St., 2nd lane to Cambridge Discovery Park, 3rd lane to Alewife, 2 lanes across the bridge to Cambridge

Bos_Urb wrote " The capacity up there is rather excessive, no? 4 lanes of US-1 and 8 lanes of I-95? I think 6 lanes total is enough. There's no need for what is essentially *12* lanes of wide highway and ramps shooting around all over the place. We're cutting out 6 lanes of maintenance here. That's also 6 lanes of oil soaked asphalt that rain water is running off of. And the I-95 ROW appears to be incredibly expansive, I'm not one to hug a tree, but there's plenty of trees that could go there, hundreds of them. Also, have you driven on this stretch of 95? People drive at ridiculous speeds there because it's so wide, expansive, and volume is relatively low most of the time. US-1 has speeds more around 55, where your mileage improves 15% over 65 MPH (and I'm pretty sure no one is going as slow as 65 here). With lower speeds, it also makes commutes longer, despite the better mileage, so I would think that new development would slow down north of here, keeping people closer to Boston. Ideally the I-95 concurrency would run at least all the way to that spaghetti interchange between US-1 and MA-128 in Lynnfield but there's no median to take and very little room on the sides. " -- again obviously never used I-95 when its busy -- I-95 is the Lifeline of Northern New England coastline (northshore MA, NH around Portsmouth, and all of Maine -- it needs to have better interfaces -- not some harebrained scheme to reduce speed -- when I drive N/S on I-95 I hang real close to 80 and still get tailgated sometimes

 

[BostonUrbEx]

I hang real close to 80 and still get tailgated sometimes

I'm now even further convinced that I-95 is overbuilt.

And I've been on 95 at all sorts of times. North of 128, it is completely excessive.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

A few ones that I've missed earlier:
FLine wrote '' Reduce 2 in Arlington to 6 lanes. It was built to 8 lanes because the cancelled US 3 expressway was supposed to meet it in Lexington and run concurrent. Humongous waste of space and induces demand at the last-second Alewife crunch. Get rid of it and put some buffer around the frontage roads so they're sort of returned to Arlington and Belmont as city streets instead of wasted as barren speed traps. " -- obviously you never drove on 2 when close to capacity (every working day) -- I'm constantly trying to scheme how to widen it in Cambridge with dedicated lane to Lake St., 2nd lane to Cambridge Discovery Park, 3rd lane to Alewife, 2 lanes across the bridge to Cambridge

Oh, I definitely think 2 in Cambridge needs a lot of work. That's still built on the footprint of the old Concord Turnpike, the road that was torn up and replaced by a new carriageway when they were building MA 2 expressway and MA 2/US 3 concurrency in Arlington. Lake St. exit was as far as they got before the environmental opposition around Alewife and the community opposition in Cambridge stopped further progress. An abysmal stretch of substandard road by any objective measure that they have to do something about.

I don't like how all the Discovery Park planned development pretty much keeps it on that footprint without possibility of creating a frontage road to get rid of the curb cuts and hard right turn onto Park St. to get to Discovery Park. And I think they botched the Minuteman overpass rebuild a few years ago by not widening it. Westbound needs more room on top and regulation-width lanes/shoulders for a more natural merge off the rotary so traffic entering from 16 east doesn't need to stop at a second light to enter. And there should've been room carved out underneath for a second Alewife ramp to 2 west to take all that station traffic off the rotary. If they'd done the overpass right I think that would've fixed things enough at the rotary to not have to consider more radical alternatives like flyover ramps that would've turned the parkway into a speed trap in front of the station where there's lots of pedestrians.


The part I think should be narrowed is just the 8-lane Arlington section intended for the MA 2/US 3 concurrency that was never built. I don't think the lane crunch in Lexington westbound does it any favors on traffic flow to the 128 interchange or the transition from full expressway back to the substandard old Concord Turnpike. And for damn sure the eastbound crunch at Lake St. makes Alewife all that much more of a living hell. The ends don't have the capacity to handle the mass drag racing that happens on the 8-lane section. Do a constant 6 lanes the whole way with the aforementioned improvements at Alewife and I think that manages the flow end-to-end at much more even keel. 8 lanes does more harm than good when it isn't bridging between major interchanges. Ditch the center guardrail for a little vegetation or pad a little between the frontage roads so the generally pretty-looking surrounding neighborhoods have a greener/less-imposing concrete canyon dividing them.

 

[mikelaw85]

ive always thought they should connectroute one through the marsh and connected at copeland circle because i believe that will be done once suffolk downs gets a casino. they will need north access to the casino and that will provide it.. why the need for removing original route one and putting the blue line there go to http://futurembta.com/theblueline/
there is a map mbta put out of hopefully the future of the blue line and they want to extend the current route to beverly and also branch off in between airport and maverick and send a branch through chelsea, everett, and north revere. I believe if they upgrade 1a to freeway standards by doing the steps you explain either elevated over intersections or under them and connect 1a to route 1 at copeland circle going through the marsh it will reduce traffic and make it much more accessible to get into boston for north shore residence. the problem is that the north shore has been totally cut off having no highway access and no rapid transit.. downtown beverly to salem, marblehead,swampscott,lynn.... possible a north shore connector some how maybe using marsh road route 107 and cutting through revere dump connecting to the lynnway 1a near the General Edward's bridge. not totally sold they would work yet though but north shore definitely needs something done to help commuters....

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

there is a map mbta put out

LOL

 

[BostonUrbEx]

LOL

Wow, that's like the third time that's happened on this forum. lmao

 

[whighlander]

ive always thought they should connectroute one through the marsh and connected at copeland circle because i believe that will be done once suffolk downs gets a casino. they will need north access to the casino and that will provide it.. .... I believe if they upgrade 1a to freeway standards by doing the steps you explain either elevated over intersections or under them and connect 1a to route 1 at copeland circle going through the marsh it will reduce traffic and make it much more accessible to get into boston for north shore residence. the problem is that the north shore has been totally cut off having no highway access and no rapid transit.. downtown beverly to salem, marblehead,swampscott,lynn.... possible a north shore connector some how maybe using marsh road route 107 and cutting through revere dump connecting to the lynnway 1a near the General Edward's bridge. not totally sold they would work yet though but north shore definitely needs something done to help commuters....

Mike -- there used to be a piece of proto I-95 NE where fill had been dumped in a salt marsh -- the enviros required that it be reconverted into an artificial salt-marsh

I'm will to wager in the casino that nothing will be done in the next 25 years with respect to the highways in the Revere, Saugus, Lynn area

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Yeah, unless it involves extending the Blue Line I don't think any other plan will gain traction.

Reconfiguring Route 1 to be an interstate standard limited access road would be the only major highway project that I could see going forward especially if they were to route I95 up that way and redesignate 128 as I695 (or something like that).

And as much as I'd like to see the old Saugus Branch RR turned into a light rail line it will probably be just another rails-to-trails since the demand might just never be there.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I could see full 1A grade separation and frontage road sections to the rotary and a simplified T-interchange put in to 16 in the Railroad St. vicinity simply to keep the truck traffic off the beleaguered residential streets and heavy-duty traffic shaped well away from all the Revere residential density. But that's the literal only strip of asphalt inside of 128 that ever could get enough support to newly drive 55. We'll be tearing down twice as many roads as we build in Metro Boston this century.