Roads and Highways General Development Thread

Re: Wellington Circle: I'm not particularly interested in what someone 80 years ago expected, or that the vision of "parkway" as destination for some kind of relaxing scenic cruise panned out just about nowhere and is never going to. - all true things, but I don't see how it informs the present at all.

Generally, I think I much better argument needs to be provided for why we should be doing something than a belief that roads of X lanes are bad or that fewer cars = automatic success. A road diet could be the completely right choice for Wellington Circle but I'm not seeing much supporting evidence.

Rt 16 serves as component of de-facto inner belt, with a lot of local land use in this area being truck-heavy industrial/warehouses, big-box strip malls, and suburban-style office complexes. None of this really screams to me "road diet".

Wellington's "walkshed", unless I'm missing something, is virtually non-existent. Wellington Circle could be transformed into a single lane roundabout of light traffic that looks like of Amsterdam and I'm still confused as to where anyone would come up with a very significant number of pedestrians from given the lack of actual people living near here besides the small, mostly SFH neighborhood to the north.

Hell, the "best" pedestrian entrance to Wellington is what, to wander into a parking garage, up their elevator, and use the skybridge attached to the garage?

Ironically, unless the pedestrian bridge in the circle design gets built, this design probably doesn't improve anything for the only actual axis of modest pedestrian demand...which is between Wellington (the neighborhood) and Station Landing.
 
millerm277 said:
Re: Wellington Circle: I'm not particularly interested in what someone 80 years ago expected, or that the vision of "parkway" as destination for some kind of relaxing scenic cruise panned out just about nowhere and is never going to. - all true things, but I don't see how it informs the present at all.

Generally, I think I much better argument needs to be provided for why we should be doing something than a belief that roads of X lanes are bad or that fewer cars = automatic success. A road diet could be the completely right choice for Wellington Circle but I'm not seeing much supporting evidence.

Rt 16 serves as component of de-facto inner belt, with a lot of local land use in this area being truck-heavy industrial/warehouses, big-box strip malls, and suburban-style office complexes. None of this really screams to me "road diet".

Wellington's "walkshed", unless I'm missing something, is virtually non-existent. Wellington Circle could be transformed into a single lane roundabout of light traffic that looks like of Amsterdam and I'm still confused as to where anyone would come up with a very significant number of pedestrians from given the lack of actual people living near here besides the small, mostly SFH neighborhood to the north.

Hell, the "best" pedestrian entrance to Wellington is what, to wander into a parking garage, up their elevator, and use the skybridge attached to the garage?

Ironically, unless the pedestrian bridge in the circle design gets built, this design probably doesn't improve anything for the only actual axis of modest pedestrian demand...which is between Wellington (the neighborhood) and Station Landing.
Click to expand...
It's not 80 years ago that is the focus; it's the present and the future. Maintaining the faux-expressway and suburban parking lot sprawl is the lazy way. I'd prefer a more proactive and visionary public policy approach of transit development (even if only bus lanes initially) and zoning changes to encourage denser development, including an increased residential presence along with the historically retail and commercial in the area. If that's living 80 years ago, then great. This area doesn't have to be a wannabe Los Angeles. There is heavy rail transit nearby, and a massively wide right-of way on Routes 16 and 28 that could accommodate all kinds of transit and trails, along with, yes, a severe road diet.
 
Equilibria said:
MassDOT has reached 25% design (for a second time) for 9/27 in Natick:

View attachment 39145
Click to expand...
I get what they're doing and I see a lot of individual pieces that I like. I'll list those: bi-directional bike and ped paths on either side of this road, ped/bike crossings of no more than 2 lanes at a time. However, a design has to be better than the sum of its parts; the sum of the parts is just plain negative.
 
as02143 said:
I get what they're doing and I see a lot of individual pieces that I like. I'll list those: bi-directional bike and ped paths on either side of this road, ped/bike crossings of no more than 2 lanes at a time. However, a design has to be better than the sum of its parts; the sum of the parts is just plain negative.
Click to expand...
Bottom line for me is that it is way too much pavement, too many lanes, and too many wide roadways.
It reminds me of a sci-fi story I once read where there was a planet somewhere entirely paved over, and the sentient beings on it were each literally a rubber tire, each living tire just rolling around endlessly on the planet-wide parking lot. Honestly, that's what I see when I look at that highway plan.
 
Temporary off-ramp for I-90, 495 opens
1689126384265.jpeg



“WESTBOROUGH – A new temporary off-ramp from the Mass. Turnpike eastbound to Route 495 northbound and southbound will open on July 11.

According to a bulletin provided by the state’s Department of Transportation, the temporary off-ramp will continue to provide two lanes for exiting traffic, but will require motorists using the ramp to reduce their speed to safely navigate the temporary alignment.

The mainline of the Pike (and Route 495) will continue to provide three lanes per direction (except for limited off-peak lane closures), and all other ramps at the interchange will remain open in their existing configuration and alignment.

This is part of the MassDOT project to improve the interchange between the Pike and Route 495. For information and updates, visit https://www.mass.gov/i-495i-90-interchange-improvements”


https://www.communityadvocate.com/2...X5yDjzYMiy34EV0OBcYcdPgmB4TsLjl_UDsnHIrT_Oh3A
 
I've driven by here a few times in the last couple of months - it's a very active construction site. Nice to see the use of flyover ramps as they will reduce the overall footprint of this key interchange.
 
That interchange today is super sketchy, so at least as a non-resident, I'm happy to see this.
 
stick n move said:
Temporary off-ramp for I-90, 495 opens
View attachment 40172


“WESTBOROUGH – A new temporary off-ramp from the Mass. Turnpike eastbound to Route 495 northbound and southbound will open on July 11.

According to a bulletin provided by the state’s Department of Transportation, the temporary off-ramp will continue to provide two lanes for exiting traffic, but will require motorists using the ramp to reduce their speed to safely navigate the temporary alignment.

The mainline of the Pike (and Route 495) will continue to provide three lanes per direction (except for limited off-peak lane closures), and all other ramps at the interchange will remain open in their existing configuration and alignment.

This is part of the MassDOT project to improve the interchange between the Pike and Route 495. For information and updates, visit https://www.mass.gov/i-495i-90-interchange-improvements”


https://www.communityadvocate.com/2...X5yDjzYMiy34EV0OBcYcdPgmB4TsLjl_UDsnHIrT_Oh3A
Click to expand...
Will MassDOT actually build the entire new interchange, or just a couple of ramps? Interchange plans in Massachusetts seem to get a burst of energy in the planning stage, but then somehow they never make it to construction. I'm thinking specifically of the two I-93/95 interchanges north and south of Boston.
 
The northern one hasn’t advanced due to local opposition to the flyovers.
 
That new ramp has been pushed to opening July 13th now. Second delay on it, it was supposed to open a week ago.
 
Newton-Weston Bridge Bundle, Replacement and Rehabilitation at I-90/I-95, Including Ramp G
03-Newton-Weston-1536x614.jpg


“The proposed project consists of replacing and rehabilitating a series of nine bridges at the Interstate 90/Interstate 95 interchange (I-90/I-95). The bridges include I-90’s crossing of I-95 and the Charles River, I-90 Over the Worcester Mainline commuter rail tracks just east of the Charles River, as well as ramp bridges within the I-90/I-95 interchange itself. Of the nine bridges, five will be replaced, two will be rehabilitated, and two will have their superstructure replaced. The proposed project will provide bridge and roadway safety improvements, increase vertical clearance for freight movements, improve seismic resiliency and reduce noise impacts through the installation of noise walls along I-90 in Auburndale to the project’s eastern limit of work. MassDOT will use staged construction to maintain existing three lanes of I-90 during construction. The project will also use accelerated bridge replacement and offline construction.”

https://www.mass.gov/event/newton-a...2022-08-18t180000-0400-2022-08-18t200000-0400

https://www.hshassoc.com/our-work/agencies/i-495-i-90-interchange-project-2/
 
I was looking at one of the smaller MassDOT bridge projects for... Reasons, and I noticed that most, if not all bridge replacements planned or that have been built to cross 495 all share the same configuration - one that explicitly calls out the future widening of 495. Now, I'm not against widening universally - I think it can be extremely useful in specific contexts, such as to provide additional length for acceleration/ deceleration and safe merges around exits. But I can't see any call for widening 495 generally - it's a 3 lane highway that seems perfectly adequate for today's needs and the needs of the foreseeable future?

1000011505.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1000012131.jpg
    1000012131.jpg
    359.1 KB · Views: 64
Stlin said:
I was looking at one of the smaller MassDOT bridge projects for... Reasons, and I noticed that most, if not all bridge replacements planned or that have been built to cross 495 all share the same configuration - one that explicitly calls out the future widening of 495. Now, I'm not against widening universally - I think it can be extremely useful in specific contexts, such as to provide additional length for acceleration/ deceleration and safe merges around exits. But I can't see any call for widening 495 generally - it's a 3 lane highway that seems perfectly adequate for today's needs and the needs of the foreseeable future?

View attachment 42122
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure 495 northbound between the Pike and Route 9 is planned to be widened to 4 lanes as part of the ongoing 495/90 interchange project, so I'm not necessarily surprised that widening is being provisioned for elsewhere on the route. That being said, I agree that a large-scale widening of 495 is unnecessary.
 
I doubt we're going to see any significant portion of 495 widened to 4 travel lanes in each direction. My guess is that we will see modest widening in areas you have noted - to provide safe merging, add in acceleration and decertation lanes and really, make key interchanges flow a bit better. One of the main issues with the highways in the Greater Boston area is the poor layout of interchanges. This is a prime example. This is the merge from rte 3 onto 495 S. It's not very long and look at those tire marks in the right lane. This is an example of where widening the highway with a full travel lane for at least 3/4 or a mile will allow people to safely merge.

1692924584146.png


On the other side, we have a Massachusetts favorite - people merging onto 495 from 110 have to contend with people exiting 495 to rte 3.

1692924803399.png
 
Last edited:
495 between Rte 2 and Rte 93 gets extremely busy - I live in Groton, and while 495->95N is the shortest route to get to NH/Maine beaches, I now go 3N->101. Longer, but much more predictable.

One issue I think is that any traffic from Maine, and most parts of NH, to get to CT and NY gets on 495. Which eventually results in congestions in Worcester and the stretch on I-90 between I90/290 intersection till I-84.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Here is a fairly accurate Google map of officially proposed expressways in the Boston metro area, as of 1969. A screen shot of the map:

View attachment 43526
Click to expand...
Most of these make a good amount of sense (from a "highways are the only way to move people" perspective), but I can't imagine the critical Nantasket-South Weymouth commuter demographic was really large enough to merit its own expressway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
Charlie_mta said:
Here is a fairly accurate Google map of officially proposed expressways in the Boston metro area, as of 1969. A screen shot of the map:

View attachment 43526
Click to expand...

I'm always intrigued by the 209 expressway proposal, as I spent a lot of time in Medway when I was younger and it would've dramatically changed the town had it been constructed. I'm surprised to see 209 go all the way to 395 in the map you sent, as all other depictions of 209 had it instead ending at 146.
 
themissinglink said:
I'm always intrigued by the 209 expressway proposal, as I spent a lot of time in Medway when I was younger and it would've dramatically changed the town had it been constructed. I'm surprised to see 209 go all the way to 395 in the map you sent, as all other depictions of 209 had it instead ending at 146.
Click to expand...
I think the intent of extending it to I-395 was to provide a relief valve for Boston - NYC traffic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top