Roads and Highways General Development Thread

[Stlin]

Thanks so much for posting these. I am extremely unhappy with the seemingly recent trend where slides are shown on video at public meetings, but the PDF is not posted anywhere. PDFs are easy to save and provide a permanent record; videos disappear whenever the hosting service dies.

To be fair to the MPO, they do typically post the PDFs (and a HTML version) of the referenced docs to their meeting calendar - that particular presentation seems to have been omitted on the day, as do some of the external presentations they take, but otherwise it's all there in one form or another. Let's put it this way - at least it's all more transparent than our neighbors at RIDOT.

Meeting Calendar | Boston Region MPO

www.ctps.org

 

[ceo]

A pity the plan doesn't include fixing that ludicrous high-speed crossover between MVP eastbound and the ramp from Main St towards 93.

 

[hipster_garbage]

A pity the plan doesn't include fixing that ludicrous high-speed crossover between MVP eastbound and the ramp from Main St towards 93.

I feel like it would be possible to delete that off ramp and therefore eliminate the weave if they allowed straight-through traffic from South St and the eastbound off ramp. However, they seem to really not want to allow most turns onto the eastbound on-ramp except for traffic traveling north on Main. Ideally the whole overpass and ramp system would be demolished, and this would be turned into an intersection where you'd have movements allowed in every direction but I'm sure we'll have to wait another 30 years for that once the overpass starts to collapse on its own.

 

[Stlin]

A pity the plan doesn't include fixing that ludicrous high-speed crossover between MVP eastbound and the ramp from Main St towards 93.

Wait, I'm actually completely lost as to where you're referring to. Main St in Charlestown doesn't come anywhere close to meeting MVP, which doesn't even enter Somerville, let alone Charlestown. Mystic Ave sure, but the entire Sullivan Sq circle is going away with the Rutherford rebuild. Are you referring to the Main St / MVP / 93 ramp weave in Medford? If so, that's very far from this project's scope. That said, while they're not addressing the weave at the MVP/93 connector, at least the Main / MVP intersection is getting redone.

 

[ceo]

Wait, I'm actually completely lost as to where you're referring to. Main St in Charlestown doesn't come anywhere close to meeting MVP, which doesn't even enter Somerville, let alone Charlestown. Mystic Ave sure, but the entire Sullivan Sq circle is going away with the Rutherford rebuild. Are you referring to the Main St / MVP / 93 ramp weave in Medford? If so, that's very far from this project's scope. That said, while they're not addressing the weave at the MVP/93 connector, at least the Main / MVP intersection is getting redone.

Different project. See https://archboston.com/community/th...s-general-development-thread.6872/post-500400

 

[Smuttynose]

I'm generally a fan of public transit/bike-ped investments over highway ones, but there a couple highway interchanges that are congested almost 100% of the time and accident prone and deserve investment. Chief among them is the I-93 and I-95/Rt.128 interchange in Woburn of which the state has been discussing major improvements since at least 2001. The following is a timeline pulled of the proposed improvements from the article linked below. It is a perfect example of the glacial pace at which projects move in Massachusetts -

* 2001: State releases plan to overhaul I-93/I-95 interchange in Wobrun but it would require the loss of 77 homes. Public freaks out. Plan is abandoned. State creates Task Force to provide recommendations on alternatives.
* 2004: Task Force releases recommendations, but State appears to have all but abandoned project.
* 2012: State pursues Environmental Review of proposed $267 m interchange project, but state again appears to drop project.
* 2022: State returns to project, focusing on temporary "Quick fixes"
* 2024: State releases plans for proposed temporary "Quick Fix" that will cost $9 million and not require any land takings or easements.
* 2028: Optimistically State hopes to break ground on "Quick Fix" improvements by 2028 after completing design work in 2026.

MassDOT views I-95N widening project as temporary cloverleaf fix

With state officials estimating a total cloverleaf overhaul will require a minimum investment of $276.7 million, it’s an admitted $9 million bandaid aimed at partially alleviating accident and congestion issues

homenewshere.com

Am I missing something or does the state's timeline to construct a relatively cheap Quick Fix improvement - with no eminent domain - take about the same amount of time that an average state takes to complete a major transportation upgrade? How the hell does a relatively cheap temporary 'quick fix' interchange improvement take at least 6 years?

Massachusetts is a great place to live in many ways. But I feel like we are an SNL skit when it comes to project management/delivery. It is just embarrassing. The Globe described the proposed Somerville-Everett bike/ped bridge as "a very Massachusetts kind of project" for its chronic delays and it perfectly sums up how we approach projects.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I'm generally a fan of public transit/bike-ped investments over highway ones, but there a couple highway interchanges that are congested almost 100% of the time and accident prone and deserve investment. Chief among them is the I-93 and I-95/Rt.128 interchange in Woburn of which the state has been discussing major improvements since at least 2001. The following is a timeline pulled of the proposed improvements from the article linked below. It is a perfect example of the glacial pace at which projects move in Massachusetts -

* 2001: State releases plan to overhaul I-93/I-95 interchange in Wobrun but it would require the loss of 77 homes. Public freaks out. Plan is abandoned. State creates Task Force to provide recommendations on alternatives.
* 2004: Task Force releases recommendations, but State appears to have all but abandoned project.
* 2012: State pursues Environmental Review of proposed $267 m interchange project, but state again appears to drop project.
* 2022: State returns to project, focusing on temporary "Quick fixes"
* 2024: State releases plans for proposed temporary "Quick Fix" that will cost $9 million and not require any land takings or easements.
* 2028: Optimistically State hopes to break ground on "Quick Fix" improvements by 2028 after completing design work in 2026.

MassDOT views I-95N widening project as temporary cloverleaf fix

With state officials estimating a total cloverleaf overhaul will require a minimum investment of $276.7 million, it’s an admitted $9 million bandaid aimed at partially alleviating accident and congestion issues

homenewshere.com

Am I missing something or does the state's timeline to construct a relatively cheap Quick Fix improvement - with no eminent domain - take about the same amount of time that an average state takes to complete a major transportation upgrade? How the hell does a relatively cheap temporary 'quick fix' interchange improvement take at least 6 years?

Massachusetts is a great place to live in many ways. But I feel like we are an SNL skit when it comes to project management/delivery. It is just embarrassing. The Globe described the proposed Somerville-Everett bike/ped bridge as "a very Massachusetts kind of project" for its chronic delays and it perfectly sums up how we approach projects.

In addition to the I-93/I-95 Woburn interchange, MassDOT and/or Boston are famous for proposing road and pedestrian projects that somehow fall off the radar and never happen. Ones that come to mind include::

• Route 1 realignment/reconfiguration from Squire Road in Revere to the junction with Hwy 99 in Saugus.
• The I-95/I-93 interchange in Canton,
• Rte. 2 interchange at the rotary in Concord.
• Reconfigure the Squire Road/US 1 traffic circle
• Northern Ave bridge replacement.
• Pedestrian bridge crossing the tracks along the Charles at North Station.

Then of course, in a more active category at this point are the I-90 Mass Pike interchange and realignment at Beacon Park RR yard, the grounding of the McGrath Hwy, and the boulevardation of Rutherford Ave, all three of which could actually happen.

 

[malabari]

For some of the major intersections (3/I-95, 3-I-495), I think that dropping a lane at the intersection in the main highway, and removing the need for a merge for incoming traffic could make traffic better, but would seem to make the merge safer. At least 1/3 of the traffic moves around at these intersections?

 

[mass88]

It's a horrendous interchange and one that should have been addressed many years ago. We don't need massive stacked interchanges like you see in places like Houston, Dallas and Los Angeles. But modest widening before and after major interchanges and some flyover ramps will go a long way to making things safer and bit smoother. Acceleration and deceleration lanes need to be present.

 

[FK4]

I don't think this has really been publicly discussed yet, but I've recently taken to checking YouTube meeting recordings for interesting pieces of information, where I found updated concepts of Rutherford Ave from Dec 2024. This is probably something like 5-10% concept design, but notable for full center running bus lanes and an all-surface layout with all underpasses eliminated. 25% design scheduled for October 25, and tentatively funded for construction in 2029 including 25M in Wynn money.View attachment 62095
View attachment 62096View attachment 62099View attachment 62098View attachment 62097
View attachment 62100
View attachment 62101

Nice find. Even though it’s taken an absurd number of years, I’m glad that in the end, all the underpasses are being eliminated. My one question is, what purpose do center running bus lanes on route 99 serve, once you’re south of Sullivan Square? Between the casino and Sullivan is a no-brainer, but since the distance between Sullivan and North Station is already served by the OL, this seems to be a case of just repurposing a right of way because the space is there and calling it something that’s trendy and sounds good. Is there really a need for BRT here or might this land be better used for other purposes?

 

[Charlie_mta]

Nice find. Even though it’s taken an absurd number of years, I’m glad that in the end, all the underpasses are being eliminated. My one question is, what purpose do center running bus lanes on route 99 serve, once you’re south of Sullivan Square? Between the casino and Sullivan is a no-brainer, but since the distance between Sullivan and North Station is already served by the OL, this seems to be a case of just repurposing a right of way because the space is there and calling it something that’s trendy and sounds good. Is there really a need for BRT here or might this land be better used for other purposes?

Excellent point about the questionable need for the proposed bus lanes. I would eliminate them, and shift the general traffic lanes to the west side of the roadway, thus opening up space along the east side of the corridor for a much wider greenway,, like an extension of the RKG. After all, Charlestown doesn't really have a lot of green space, and this would make for a stellar connector in the regional trail system.

 

[Highwayguy]

Removing the tunnels is such a typical own goal it pains me. These tunnels are not the equivalent of the Mcarthy or Forest Hills overpass that divide and darken neighborhoods; with some window dressing at the portals, they would allow regional traffic to pass almost unseen under the new neighborhood rather than require multiple turn lanes on the surface, where people and bikes and housing should be.

Good urbanism these days means tearing down the Harvard underpass:View attachment 63345 to replace with four vehicular lanes?!?!

The tunnels aren’t the problem, its the 0 effort currently given to not making Rutherford hideous. In miniature, this is no different than filling in the central artery after it was bought and paid for to route all 93 traffic onto the Greenway. Should we have skipped the Big Dig and done that to begin with? Maybe so. But after the fact is peak insanity. No different here.

Sullivan is turning into the same quagmire as Allston; designing a neighborhood that still tries to function as an interchange. Just like a stroad, no matter what the urban planners and traffic engineers whip out of their toolbox, it’s going to suck at both functions. Not burning money to destroy expensive tunnels at least mitigates the harm.

 

[kdmc]

Excellent point about the questionable need for the proposed bus lanes. I would eliminate them, and shift the general traffic lanes to the west side of the roadway, thus opening up space along the east side of the corridor for a much wider greenway,, like an extension of the RKG. After all, Charlestown doesn't really have a lot of green space, and this would make for a stellar connector in the regional trail system.

Under BNRD:

• The 101 is getting extended from Medford-Sullivan into Meford-Kendall via CC.
• The 7 is getting extended from Downtown-Southie into Sullivan-Southie.

Both routes are intended to be frequent (every 15min or better). The bus lanes on Rutherford would help make that happen.

Speculating about the future, a Rutherford-NWashington-Downtown busway could seriously improve the Silver Line's reach. Imagine what a Nubian-Everett connection via DTX or SS could do for those communities if it ran every 5 minutes. This could be done with much less capital than a new GL or OL branch (even if that's what those communities really deserve).

 

[bigeman312]

Removing the tunnels is such a typical own goal it pains me. These tunnels are not the equivalent of the Mcarthy or Forest Hills overpass that divide and darken neighborhoods; with some window dressing at the portals, they would allow regional traffic to pass almost unseen under the new neighborhood rather than require multiple turn lanes on the surface, where people and bikes and housing should be.

Good urbanism these days means tearing down the Harvard underpass:View attachment 63345 to replace with four vehicular lanes?!?!
View attachment 63347

The tunnels aren’t the problem, its the 0 effort currently given to not making Rutherford hideous. In miniature, this is no different than filling in the central artery after it was bought and paid for to route all 93 traffic onto the Greenway. Should we have skipped the Big Dig and done that to begin with? Maybe so. But after the fact is peak insanity. No different here.

Sullivan is turning into the same quagmire as Allston; designing a neighborhood that still tries to function as an interchange. Just like a stroad, no matter what the urban planners and traffic engineers whip out of their toolbox, it’s going to suck at both functions. Not burning money to destroy expensive tunnels at least mitigates the harm.

I'm somewhat understanding of this position, as I agree that if automobile volume was left completely constant, it's better to be routed under something livable, than cutting through the surface. The issue I have with some automobile underpasses is that they can induce demand for automobile traffic, funneling into neighborhoods that otherwise would have a lower volume of automobiles funneling into them. In the case of the I-93, the mere presence of the interstate being the highest volume N-S automobile route through Boston means a ton of aumobile volume is going to be using that road for the foreseeable future. Therefore, I am hugely in favor of burying that highway underground rather than trying to blunt demand through traffic calming.

Rutherford Ave is different. It doesn't need to serve as a high capacity, high speed automobile route. In the case of Rutherford Ave, it's worth assessing whether either (or both) of the following or true:

• the current automobile volume doesn't necessitate the existing highway-like infrustructure.
• an alteration in the infrastructure can blunt some of the automobile demand and induce a mode shift.

If at least one of those are true, then I can support removing the underpass and redesigning that corridor to be less highway-like for a couple reasons (sorry I'm in a list mood):

1. Development. There is such a massive amount of underutilized, developable land along Rutherford Ave. If Rutherford Ave were less of a highway, that land immediately becomes so much more desirable for humans to live, work, or play. We have a massive housing shortage in the region, so I can get behind it on that ground alone.
2. Micromobility. The best way to ride through Charlestown right now is via Main St, which lacks any protected infrastructure and has many cross streets and intersections. Including a two-way seperated bike lane along the length of Rutherford Ave would be a game changer. That's the stuff of mode shifts. Good infrastructure like that could entice many towards micromobility, whether your starting or ending points are in Charlestown, or you are passing through the neighborhood between Everett/Assembly/Wellington/Northern_Strand and the rest of Boston, which is currently a big gap in the network.

 

[omaja]

I'm generally a fan of public transit/bike-ped investments over highway ones, but there a couple highway interchanges that are congested almost 100% of the time and accident prone and deserve investment. Chief among them is the I-93 and I-95/Rt.128 interchange in Woburn of which the state has been discussing major improvements since at least 2001. The following is a timeline pulled of the proposed improvements from the article linked below. It is a perfect example of the glacial pace at which projects move in Massachusetts -

* 2001: State releases plan to overhaul I-93/I-95 interchange in Wobrun but it would require the loss of 77 homes. Public freaks out. Plan is abandoned. State creates Task Force to provide recommendations on alternatives.
* 2004: Task Force releases recommendations, but State appears to have all but abandoned project.
* 2012: State pursues Environmental Review of proposed $267 m interchange project, but state again appears to drop project.
* 2022: State returns to project, focusing on temporary "Quick fixes"
* 2024: State releases plans for proposed temporary "Quick Fix" that will cost $9 million and not require any land takings or easements.
* 2028: Optimistically State hopes to break ground on "Quick Fix" improvements by 2028 after completing design work in 2026.

MassDOT views I-95N widening project as temporary cloverleaf fix

With state officials estimating a total cloverleaf overhaul will require a minimum investment of $276.7 million, it’s an admitted $9 million bandaid aimed at partially alleviating accident and congestion issues

homenewshere.com

Am I missing something or does the state's timeline to construct a relatively cheap Quick Fix improvement - with no eminent domain - take about the same amount of time that an average state takes to complete a major transportation upgrade? How the hell does a relatively cheap temporary 'quick fix' interchange improvement take at least 6 years?

Massachusetts is a great place to live in many ways. But I feel like we are an SNL skit when it comes to project management/delivery. It is just embarrassing. The Globe described the proposed Somerville-Everett bike/ped bridge as "a very Massachusetts kind of project" for its chronic delays and it perfectly sums up how we approach projects.

I don't see how auxiliary lanes in a cloverleaf interchange will meaningfully impact the bottleneck... you cannot eliminate or mitigate the very heavy weaving volumes simply by adding a lane. Sure, the fourth lane on I-95 should help the through traffic. But any time people see red brake lights, they slow down. Left lanes always slow to a crawl as through traffic shifts left to avoid the gridlocked right lanes and ramps.

I also don't see why they would need to do any home takings to add indirect flyover ramps.
Here's I-93/I-95 compared to a turbine interchange between I-85 and I-485 in Charlotte:


Yes, the current footprint is smaller and would require modifications to accommodate the tighter turning radii (perhaps longer ramps for exiting and merging traffic).

But there are other options that wouldn't require any land taking. Keep the loop ramps but segregate all of the ramps to eliminate the weaving. Here are two examples of this, the first is I-405 at Wilshire Boulevard on the West Side of LA. The second is the Frankfurter Kreuz (junction of A3 and A5) near Frankfurt Airport in Germany... which is said to be the busiest interchange in the EU.


Why they won't propose these sorts of alternatives is a bit of a mystery. Hamstrung by absurd Interstate standards that are really meant to be applied to new build roads, not existing infrastructure that is hemmed in by development.