Last month MPO had a meeting about center running bus lanes and filling in the underpass to facilitate new BNRD routings along Rutherford
I agree. Didn't they not too long ago get rid of the overpasses over the rotary that connected to Mystic Ave? Seems like an awful idea to go ahead and add another overpass to that area again. The whole Rutherford/Sullivan area is a mess of 1950s highway engineering that needs to be blown up and redone from scratch.
Unfortunately, probably no time soon. MassDOT would have to start the entire planning process over again and identify new alternatives, environmentals etc,, and it'd have to earn a spot on the STIP. That said, a quick Google suggests that there's some sort of Leominster-Lincoln planning study in the works that is looking at alternatives for the rotary, but this article is the only thing I've found on it. Can't find a word on it in the local Concord paper, in the CIP or anywhere MassDOT.
www.cbsnews.com
Looking at Google maps, there's ample room to slip Rte 2 over or under the rotary with on/off ramps to and from the rotary, plus bike paths. There are no residences, and just lawns and parking lots to deal with. Massachusetts has a habit of making these things overly complicated.Unfortunately, probably no time soon. MassDOT would have to start the entire planning process over again and identify new alternatives, environmentals etc,, and it'd have to earn a spot on the STIP. That said, a quick Google suggests that there's some sort of Leominster-Lincoln planning study in the works that is looking at alternatives for the rotary, but this article is the only thing I've found on it. Can't find a word on it in the local Concord paper, in the CIP or anywhere MassDOT.
How do you fix the Concord rotary? MassDOT studying Route 2 traffic problems
For years, Route 2 commuters have been dealing with the traffic nightmare that is the Concord rotary.
I'm surprised you're quick to suggest something like an overpass and ramps. (Though, I admit, I don't really know the common traffic loads here.) The other intersections of Route 2 around there are just ground level, signalized intersections. From the article, it sounds like that's mostly what's being considered. An overpass would make it more highway-like, which could be unpleasant for whoever ends up using the adjacent prison site.
MassDOT's original project was for a full interchange. But that's been stalled for 20 years now. I think now they're just grasping at straws looking for anything that reduces the horrible crash stats and piss-poor wayfinding (as you describe).
Thanks. I didn't realize it's really just this stretch of 2 that isn't built as an expressway. But I'm also not sure that's a great reason to turn it into an expressway. I'm not trying to be (just) knee-jerk anti-car here. I'm also being cheap. MassDOT says the plan for the highway interchange will cost $100 million. A signalized intersection would cost a fraction of that (either of you could probably estimate the difference better than I can). The overpass wouldn't seem to speed things up much, because there are still traffic lights just a half mile down the road on Route 2, and about a half dozen lights going through Concord. If the main problem to fix really is reducing car crashes, then a simple intersection ought to do that just fine. What's the benefit of a highway overpass here that's worth the extra $10s of million? (or maybe half a billion dollars, if you wanted to gradually grade separate this whole section?)
I'm also rather puzzled how this manages to cost $100m. Is that really the cost for a single new highway bridge and a mile or two of paving at this point? Seems hard to have a less complicated place for a totally new interchange installation in terms of the state already owning nearly all the property in the surrounding area and the primary abutters being....state prisons and MassDOT.
I'm sure a signalized intersection was studied. And the reason why it wouldn't have come up as a Preferred Alt. is that the LOS would've tanked even more than the rotary (and not the other traffic lights) tanks the road's LOS. Safety improvements are all well and good, but if it turns a pretty bad pre-existing carpocalypse into a really bad carpocalypse there's no reason to do it.
Grade separation of 128-to-Bedford Rd. (i.e. all in Lincoln that the Crosby's Corner separation didn't touch) was also supposed to be studied, since that is a relatively small job and would create a contiguous expressway from Alewife to Route 126. Nuke the rotary and there's very little left: Route 62, Old Road to 9 Acre Corner, 126, and 2 small residential streets (no lights or thru access at 1 of them) east of the rotary, 2 small residential streets (no lights or thru access at either) and the Piper Rd. light at the rump-end of the 111 interchange west of the rotary. Nuke the rotary for whatever that costs, and getting the rest of the way to a 55 MPH-design 4-lane expressway Alewife-to-495 probably costs the same or less than the rotary in a lump.
I'm not a fan of expressways, but in this case I think it's appropriate to grade separate this key choke point. It's in the outer suburbs, there's another grade-separated intersection on this route (Rte 2) nearby, and it is a major regional highway. My professional background is design and project management of context sensitive road projects in National Parks and other Federal lands. I managed to help bring back to life one road relocation project that had been shut down by a lawsuit, revising the design to be much more context sensitive and to lay lightly on the land, compared to the original design. So like I say, I'm no fan of expressways, but each case is unique.
The original vision in the 1960s was for Route 2 to be a full blown multi-lane expressway all the way from I-91 in Greenfield to the Inner Belt Expressway (I-695) near Union Square in Somerville, most of it on completely new alignment. Of course that didn't happen due to the rise of anti-highway community opposition beginning in the early 60s onward. If it had been pushed through in the post-WW II future oriented and obedience to government culture of the 1950s, it probably would have happened, but the funding wasn't there at that time.
Its a design-build project. The design was advanced to 25% and then put out to bid. The contractor then teams with a designer and they finish the design to 75% and then 100% final design, all while the contractor begins preliminary construction. Those are not bridge decks over the swamps, they are temporary work trestles. They are built so the cranes and drilling rigs can access the pier locations without disturbing the environmental swamps. I will say I have driven through here recently, saw the new center pier in the I-495 median for the new I-495 NB on-ramp from I-90, new bridges over I-90 on I-495 looked nearly complete in the median.
