Roads and Highways General Development Thread

MassDOT has reached 25% design (for a second time) for 9/27 in Natick:

1686872032704.png
 
Im not too surprised why Not Just Bikes is not very optimistic about the US and Canada. All of this over-engineered traffic sewers are still being designed and built today.

The U.S. is so far behind in lowering VMT and emissions. This will still induce A LOT of VMT and emissions.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The pedestrian connections look like a drunk's walk.o_O
Click to expand...

I think the serpentine is necessary to climb the hill.

Per the team's presentation, their first two alternatives were reduced-pavement solutions with signals and roundabouts, respectively. They were rejected by the neighbors, who loved this concept.
 
Equilibria said:
MassDOT has reached 25% design (for a second time) for 9/27 in Natick:

View attachment 39145
Click to expand...
This is just an incredibly compacted Diverging Diamond interchange. They’re amazing for traffic flow but pretty awful for everything else. They make sense for connecting an interstate to a major arterial. I don’t really see the use case for using one between two state routes that both have driveways everywhere. Making one wicked efficient interchange won’t help anything when there’s tons of conflict points all over the place. I guess the only positive is it’ll be a lot safer than the current abomination of a cloverleaf that’s there now.
 
This design seems like it'll be completely illegible for drivers and pedestrians. It's going to require signs every 50 ft and I doubt it'll even be clear then.
 
hipster_garbage said:
I guess the only positive is it’ll be a lot safer than the current abomination of a cloverleaf that’s there now.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact opposite, given that there's going to be tons of crashes from people who get confused and go the wrong way or try to cut over at the last second.
 
I actually think it's going to work, at least for driving. There's no obvious "should I turn here" in the design, it's all driving straight until you see the exit. People will have to cut over but it shouldn't be too egregious.

The pedestrian experience though...woof.
 
What problem does this solve? The existing cloverleaf is nothing special but its no better or worse than any other anonymous cloverleaf. This new design requires 3 bridges where before there was 1 ($$$), a million more feet of pavement than before, and in the end doesnt really seem to make anything that much better, while making the biking/walking portion a clusterfuck.
 
stick n move said:
What problem does this solve? The existing cloverleaf is nothing special but its no better or worse than any other anonymous cloverleaf. This new design requires 3 bridges where before there was 1 ($$$), a million more feet of pavement than before, and in the end doesnt really seem to make anything that much better, while making the biking/walking portion a clusterfuck.
Click to expand...

The nearby Midas needs work?
 
One of my pet peeves with MassDOT's "complete streets" designs is that they are STILL trying to build/add car capacity and then adding more sidewalks and bike lanes on top of that. In many locations, the physical constraints of the right of way prevent them from adding even more lanes, but in a situation like this where there's a lot of land to work with, I think they tend to go overboard. They also seem to not factor in cost into the equation, such as building 3 bridges in this case.

What I don't understand is why a road that is a single lane in each direction has to fan out to 3 lanes in each direction at one point through the intersection. It just seems like such a waste. There has to be a better way.
 
stick n move said:
What problem does this solve? The existing cloverleaf is nothing special but its no better or worse than any other anonymous cloverleaf. This new design requires 3 bridges where before there was 1 ($$$), a million more feet of pavement than before, and in the end doesnt really seem to make anything that much better, while making the biking/walking portion a clusterfuck.
Click to expand...
How much will this anti-pedestrian, anti-bike white elephant cost? The public policy on transportation funding priorities is apparently skewed way too far towards frivolous, unnecessary road projects, when really, the establishment of bike, pedestrian, bus lanes, and other transit should have a much higher priority than wasting many $ millions on road-monger proposals like this one.
 
Has anyone in this thread seen the current state of the interchange before complaining? It's literally a squashed cloverleaf with no northbound bike/ped path, no westbound bike/ped path, and minimal eastbound facilities. The proposed change is clearly an improvement for all modes, at least in terms of safety. Bikes and peds will get perpendicular crossings, and there will no longer be a 200 foot high speed weaving lane.

This location isn't going to be the next north end any time soon. Land use is sparse, public transportation is minimal, there's no rail ROW, and the area is served by several state highways and an interstate. Let's take the curb-separated connection to the Cochichuate rail trail as a realistic victory.
 
W-4 said:
Has anyone in this thread seen the current state of the interchange before complaining? It's literally a squashed cloverleaf with no northbound bike/ped path, no westbound bike/ped path, and minimal eastbound facilities. The proposed change is clearly an improvement for all modes, at least in terms of safety. Bikes and peds will get perpendicular crossings, and there will no longer be a 200 foot high speed weaving lane.

This location isn't going to be the next north end any time soon. Land use is sparse, public transportation is minimal, there's no rail ROW, and the area is served by several state highways and an interstate. Let's take the curb-separated connection to the Cochichuate rail trail as a realistic victory.
Click to expand...
What I would do is build a wide ped/bike overpass over the entire existing interchange. Also eliminate at least two of the four cloverleaf inside ramps to eliminate the weaving problem. This would be a lot cheaper and ped/bike friendly than the current proposal.
 
Are they land taking for this? It seems so big that it seems like they would have to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top