Roads and Highways General Development Thread

Here's a very factual video on the land and urbanity wasted on large expressway interchanges located in central areas of large cities. As it says in the video, a mission of new generations of Americans should be to dismantle these land gobbling monstrosities and replace them with housing, multi-uses, and transit.
 
spectrumnews1.com

Eyeing traffic changes for Route 146

The Route 146 Corridor Vision Study is evaluating the Route 146 stretch between State Route 122A in Millbury and the Rhode Island State Line.
spectrumnews1.com spectrumnews1.com
Right at the heart of it is the intersection at Boston Road in Sutton. Soon, it’ll be the only signalized intersection on 146, and there’s a long-term goal of taking those traffic lights away as well.

“Since 146 has been built in the last two decades, and having actual intersection with a signalized intersections there, there were only two in the entire corridor," Sujatha Krishnan said. "One was in Rhode Island. One was in Massachusetts at Boston Road. So, it has always been a long-range priority for the region to have this intersection become an interchange.”
[…]
MassDOT held the first public information meeting for the Route 146 Corridor Vision Study on Wednesday, Dec. 11.
[…]
A final report on the state’s findings is expected in the spring of next year.
Click to expand...
 
themissinglink said:
spectrumnews1.com

Eyeing traffic changes for Route 146

The Route 146 Corridor Vision Study is evaluating the Route 146 stretch between State Route 122A in Millbury and the Rhode Island State Line.
spectrumnews1.com spectrumnews1.com
Click to expand...
It never made sense to keep the signals when they redid it years ago. This should have been done when they redid the intersection the first time. The only thing after eliminating this intersection that's left is to add some access roads on either side so nobody has a driveway onto 146 for that section between Millbury and Sutton.
 
lainpimicaja said:
Today is finally the day that congestion pricing starts in New York. Hopefully it can get some positive results (fewer car trips into CBD, improved air quality, less noise pollution, revenue for transit, etc.), which will encourage other US cities to follow suit, including Boston: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2025/01...has-begun-here-is-the-only-explainer-you-need
Click to expand...
A discount for low income people should be provided. As it stands now it's a flat fee on all drivers, a regressive tax.
 
WormtownNative said:
It never made sense to keep the signals when they redid it years ago. This should have been done when they redid the intersection the first time. The only thing after eliminating this intersection that's left is to add some access roads on either side so nobody has a driveway onto 146 for that section between Millbury and Sutton.
Click to expand...
Yea I imagine theyre going to do the exact same thing they did in RI. The exact same treatment should do the trick.

1736104486996.jpeg

1736104498880.jpeg

https://www.dot.ri.gov/projects/Route146/
 
Charlie_mta said:
A discount for low income people should be provided. As it stands now it's a flat fee on all drivers, a regressive tax.
Click to expand...
It's regressive on drivers, but not necessarily the whole population. If the congestion charge ends up effectively being a transfer from drivers to transit riders (which seems to be the plan), it becomes much less clear how regressive (or progressive) the tax is. With most trips to Lower Manhattan being on transit, and those transit riders being lower-income on average than drivers, this is a tax on a wealthier segment of the population to provide benefits for a poorer one.

There's also the fact that for a congestion fee to actually reduce congestion, it has to be high enough for drivers to mode shift or not take the trip altogether. Someone needs to be "hit the hardest" so to speak, and flat taxes avoid thornier arguments about how much of a discount should be received and who should get it.

Lastly, there are discounts for low income NYers. One for anyone in the state making less than $50,000/year, and another for residents of the congestion zone making less than $60,000 a year. You can argue that the discounts should be steeper or apply to a broader section of the population, but they do exist.
 
Charlie_mta said:
A discount for low income people should be provided. As it stands now it's a flat fee on all drivers, a regressive tax.
Click to expand...
Which low income people are you including? People in the Congestion Zone? People in Manhattan, or in the 5 Boroughs, or in Long Island, or in New York State, or in Connecticut & New Jersey? As BeansTheCat says, some of these are already included.

You can still drive into Manhattan and take the train down to the congestion zone without your EZPass getting hit. And actually, it's not a flat fee on all drivers. Motorcycles pay the least, then cars, then Trucks and Buses, and the prices change between day and night.

Owning a car in Manhattan, or even driving into the city, is supposed to be cost-prohibitive. It is 100% easier to take a train in, or if you have to take a car, drive to a park and ride. Most people I know who have cars in Manhattan keep them in already expensive garages, or in a different Borough.

In a world where EZPass doesn't have access to IRS documents, what's a more effective way to make this more fair?
 
BeansTheCat said:
It's regressive on drivers, but not necessarily the whole population. If the congestion charge ends up effectively being a transfer from drivers to transit riders (which seems to be the plan), it becomes much less clear how regressive (or progressive) the tax is. With most trips to Lower Manhattan being on transit, and those transit riders being lower-income on average than drivers, this is a tax on a wealthier segment of the population to provide benefits for a poorer one.

There's also the fact that for a congestion fee to actually reduce congestion, it has to be high enough for drivers to mode shift or not take the trip altogether. Someone needs to be "hit the hardest" so to speak, and flat taxes avoid thornier arguments about how much of a discount should be received and who should get it.

Lastly, there are discounts for low income NYers. One for anyone in the state making less than $50,000/year, and another for residents of the congestion zone making less than $60,000 a year. You can argue that the discounts should be steeper or apply to a broader section of the population, but they do exist.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification on the discounts for low income.
 
So I have a question: why is it that in Boston, and only in Boston, manhole/utility covers always sink down into the pavement, often causing hazards for smaller vehicles and a bumpy ride for the rest, including buses? I have driven in numerous cities with comparable weather and I have never seen this problem anywhere else, so I know it's not just the winters. It seems especially bad on certain roads, such as Centre St, Morton St, and others, but consistent across Boston and perhaps a few of the outlying towns. Seems like a problem that should be avoidable but isn't.
 
FK4 said:
So I have a question: why is it that in Boston, and only in Boston, manhole/utility covers always sink down into the pavement, often causing hazards for smaller vehicles and a bumpy ride for the rest, including buses? I have driven in numerous cities with comparable weather and I have never seen this problem anywhere else, so I know it's not just the winters. It seems especially bad on certain roads, such as Centre St, Morton St, and others, but consistent across Boston and perhaps a few of the outlying towns. Seems like a problem that should be avoidable but isn't.
Click to expand...
Riser rings for manholes to bring them up to grade are not that hard to install.
1736140495933.png
 
Charlie_mta said:
Riser rings for manholes to bring them up to grade are not that hard to install.
View attachment 59198
Click to expand...

No, they aren't.

But as someone who deals with installation of utility castings for a living, riser rings are far from ideal. They aren't nearly as stable as the cast iron frames they get installed on, they don't necessarily fit the covers the same way (resulting in rocking or lose fits) and the damage easier if a plow happens to hit the edge.

The right way is t adjust the casting to proper grade, backfill with concrete to 3" below grade and place hot mix asphalt to finish grade.
 
But why is it that sunken covers even on medium speed roads are so common around here? It’s a problem, it creates hazards for vehicles and wear and tear, and because it clearly is not as much of an issue in other cities, it’s something that every local public works department Should be addressing but for some reason is not.
 
FK4 said:
But why is it that sunken covers even on medium speed roads are so common around here? It’s a problem, it creates hazards for vehicles and wear and tear, and because it clearly is not as much of an issue in other cities, it’s something that every local public works department Should be addressing but for some reason is not.
Click to expand...
North Shore I also dealt with this, that's the exact way it should be done, but it requires extra time and obstacles ( raised structures poking up from the milled surface) that the public whines to government about. So the officials tell the DPW just mill the pavement and pave it don't adjust the structures. Also last I knew MASS DOT did not allow riser rings, imagine how deadly they would be if they were dislodged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top