Unbuilt Highways in Massachusetts

[Charlie_mta]

Is there any particular need for it to be an Interstate? Knowing New Hampshire they'd probably balk at the cost of replacing all the signs (well, unless re-designating it came with a fat chunk of federal highway dollars, I suppose).

I'd say there's a need because the Everett Turnpike in NH currently has no route number at all, and it would be helpful to non-local people to have a continuous route number along that major turnpike/expressway from Manchester NH to I-95 at Burlington MA. Many of the signs would just need an I-89 plaque placed on the existing signs.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I'd say there's a need because the Everett Turnpike in NH currently has no route number at all, and it would be helpful to non-local people to have a continuous route number along that major turnpike/expressway from Manchester NH to I-95 at Burlington MA. Many of the signs would just need an I-89 plaque placed on the existing signs.

Fair enough, though part of me thinks it's probably not worth the effort to change the designation as long as it has an identifiable designation (Everett Turnpike), given that the non-locals are probably going to be using GPS. (Also, would it make more sense just to extend the US 3 designation up to Manchester or wherever, given that's already the designation to somewhere around Nashua?)

 

[Charlie_mta]

Fair enough, though part of me thinks it's probably not worth the effort to change the designation as long as it has an identifiable designation (Everett Turnpike), given that the non-locals are probably going to be using GPS. (Also, would it make more sense just to extend the US 3 designation up to Manchester or wherever, given that's already the designation to somewhere around Nashua?)

Oddly enough, the practice in the US has been to not have US highway numbers (such as US 3) on toll roads. Interstate highways are designated along toll roads, but US routes are not.

 

[stick n move]

Now that Rhode Island is zapping the last of its surface signalized intersections on 146, what is the likelihood of MassDOT following suit in Sutton/Millbury at some reasonable future date?

It was studied back in 2005; at the time, the provision of frontage roads and potential eminent domain costs appears downright reasonable, even escalated to 2023 dollars despite the horrendous number of curb cuts, though there are actually now more compared to 2005 since they've built the new Market32 plaza. Admittedly, construction costs for a full interstate-grade upgrade weren't given - but the Patrick admin seems to have abandoned it when they rebuilt the Boston Rd intersection in 2013 basically as-is with minor improvements?

(And once that's done, could you justify giving it an interstate number?)

I was actually just looking into this recently and was wondering the exact same thing. When I had come across the planned Rhode Island upgrade I first thought that it was the Sutton intersection and thought to myself, holy crap finally! The images of the planned upgrade looked like a carbon copy of what would need to be done on the Mass side. I was not aware of the intersection still left in Rhode Island. Once I realized that it was not the Sutton intersection I did a bit of digging to try to find out if there were any proposals for there and couldnt find anything, so thanks for posting the link to the old study.

Its pretty annoying to see that the idea unceremoniously died years ago and hasnt been revisited. Hopefully once the last couple of intersections in Rhode Island are removed and Sutton is the last one left it will get attention again as an important project. When there was a few intersections left it would be easier to ignore vs when Sutton is the last intersection left holding up the whole system. Hopefully they revisit this again soon.

 

[Equilibria]

Is there any particular need for it to be an Interstate? Knowing New Hampshire they'd probably balk at the cost of replacing all the signs (well, unless re-designating it came with a fat chunk of federal highway dollars, I suppose).

In this case I think there is. Interstate numbers indicate that you can get somewhere far away by using it. The US-3 designation does not communicate this, and it was also used by MassDOT to justify the absurd mile-marking of the road as a continuation of MA-3 so that the exit numbers start in the 70s in Burlington. Meanwhile in NH, the designation-free F.E. Everett Turnpike communicates nothing about how major a connector the road is.

The question of which number to use comes down to how the road should be perceived. A 3-digit I-293 or I-493 designation indicates that the road is an alternative to I-93 from Boston to Manchester. An I-89 designation would imply that the I-89 corridor from Concord to Montreal logically now extends to Manchester, Nashua, and Boston (through Burlington) creating a Boston-Montreal routing.

To the everyday user headed to Vermont not starting in Nashua, they'd probably check their Waze to see which of US-3 and I-93 is faster to get to I-89 in Concord. To me that pretty clearly indicates that these are parallel alternatives to one another, and with US-3 and the Everett Turnpike being the lower-design road (particularly in Manchester), I think the three-digit designation would be most appropriate.

I'd say there's a need because the Everett Turnpike in NH currently has no route number at all, and it would be helpful to non-local people to have a continuous route number along that major turnpike/expressway from Manchester NH to I-95 at Burlington MA. Many of the signs would just need an I-89 plaque placed on the existing signs.

It might be easy to put a sticker on the signs, but I think extending a two-digit Interstate requires an act of Congress. When it happens, it requires a lot of study of the corridor to be designated, and I don't think that Burlington-Burlington is enough of a clear-cut corridor to deserve it. Boston-Montreal maybe.

 

[Charlie_mta]

In this case I think there is. Interstate numbers indicate that you can get somewhere far away by using it. The US-3 designation does not communicate this, and it was also used by MassDOT to justify the absurd mile-marking of the road as a continuation of MA-3 so that the exit numbers start in the 70s in Burlington. Meanwhile in NH, the designation-free F.E. Everett Turnpike communicates nothing about how major a connector the road is.

The question of which number to use comes down to how the road should be perceived. A 3-digit I-293 or I-493 designation indicates that the road is an alternative to I-93 from Boston to Manchester. An I-89 designation would imply that the I-89 corridor from Concord to Montreal logically now extends to Manchester, Nashua, and Boston (through Burlington) creating a Boston-Montreal routing.

To the everyday user headed to Vermont not starting in Nashua, they'd probably check their Waze to see which of US-3 and I-93 is faster to get to I-89 in Concord. To me that pretty clearly indicates that these are parallel alternatives to one another, and with US-3 and the Everett Turnpike being the lower-design road (particularly in Manchester), I think the three-digit designation would be most appropriate.
It might be easy to put a sticker on the signs, but I think extending a two-digit Interstate requires an act of Congress. When it happens, it requires a lot of study of the corridor to be designated, and I don't think that Burlington-Burlington is enough of a clear-cut corridor to deserve it. Boston-Montreal maybe.

The trouble with the three digit interstate numbers in this case is there is already an I-293 in Manchester, and if another one is added it could be confusing, like an alphabet soup. The I-89 designation would clearly show this is a north-south interstate route going basically from Boston to Montreal, via Manchester and Concord NH. I could be wrong, but I don't think adding a 2-digit interstate number to an existing highway requires any more governmental action than adding a 3-digit interstate number..After all, an interstate is an interstate

 

[Equilibria]

The trouble with the three digit interstate numbers in this case is there is already an I-293 in Manchester, and if another one is added it could be confusing, like an alphabet soup. The I-89 designation would clearly show this is a north-south interstate route going basically from Boston to Montreal, via Manchester and Concord NH. I could be wrong, but I don't think adding a 2-digit interstate number to an existing highway requires any more governmental action than adding a 2-digit interstate number..After all, an interstate is an interstate

All Interstate designations must at least be approved by FHWA, and they seem to typically be supported by Congressional action.

I don't think it muddies the water to have multiple 3-digit designations, particularly on the MA end. Springfield has I-90, I-91, I-291, and I-391, and it seems to do fine. There's even an additional I-291 just down the road in Hartford.

 

[ceo]

Designate US3 and the Everett Turnpike, from Burlington to Hooksett, as I-293, and redesignate the leftover bit of I-293 as I-193 (or just NH101).

 

[Equilibria]

Designate US3 and the Everett Turnpike, from Burlington to Hooksett, as I-293, and redesignate the leftover bit of I-293 as I-193 (or just NH101).

That would be best, but the challenge would be that MassDOT couldn't act on the Interstate-ready portion of the road prior to NHDOT agreeing to upgrade and designate the Everett Turnpike. A process for I-493 could be started in MA tomorrow.

Only problem is that until you get to at least I-293 in Manchester you wouldn't touch anything with an I-93 number. FHWA might not like that.

NH-101 wouldn't be a good idea - Interstates have special status in how funding is distributed and data is reported. It's part of why US-3 in MA is a problematic thing (as is MA-24). For example: FHWA freight reliability metrics total only across Interstates, so any highway that isn't an Interstate but carries interstate truck traffic isn't being properly accounted. In MA, US-3, MA-3, and MA-24 all carry long-distance freight on Interstate-grade roads but aren't included in the count. Similarly, FHWA pavement quality metrics differentiate Interstate from Non-Interstate, so despite the nominal difference in importance between, say, MA-24 and I-195, I-195 is lumped in with the Turnpike while MA-24 is lumped in with two-lane signalized roads.

Roads at Interstate grade should have Interstate numbers. Now, whether I-293 in Manchester needs to exist at all or could be brought down to a riverfront boulevard is a valid question.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Designate US3 and the Everett Turnpike, from Burlington to Hooksett, as I-293, and redesignate the leftover bit of I-293 as I-193 (or just NH101).

Has to be an even-numbered I-x93 because it spans two interstates. Odd-numbereds are for one-ended stubs. The leftover bit would probably be I-493.

 

[Charlie_mta]

That would be best, but the challenge would be that MassDOT couldn't act on the Interstate-ready portion of the road prior to NHDOT agreeing to upgrade and designate the Everett Turnpike. A process for I-493 could be started in MA tomorrow.

Only problem is that until you get to at least I-293 in Manchester you wouldn't touch anything with an I-93 number. FHWA might not like that.

NH-101 wouldn't be a good idea - Interstates have special status in how funding is distributed and data is reported. It's part of why US-3 in MA is a problematic thing (as is MA-24). For example: FHWA freight reliability metrics total only across Interstates, so any highway that isn't an Interstate but carries interstate truck traffic isn't being properly accounted. In MA, US-3, MA-3, and MA-24 all carry long-distance freight on Interstate-grade roads but aren't included in the count. Similarly, FHWA pavement quality metrics differentiate Interstate from Non-Interstate, so despite the nominal difference in importance between, say, MA-24 and I-195, I-195 is lumped in with the Turnpike while MA-24 is lumped in with two-lane signalized roads.

Roads at Interstate grade should have Interstate numbers. Now, whether I-293 in Manchester needs to exist at all or could be brought down to a riverfront boulevard is a valid question.

I'm curious as to what features of the Everett Turnpike are below interstate highway standards? I did a scan of the length of it in Google maps, and nothing in that regard stands out. The geometry looks to be on a par with expressway/freeway standards.

 

[Equilibria]

I'm curious as to what features of the Everett Turnpike are below interstate highway standards? I did a scan of the length of it in Google maps, and nothing in that regard stands out. The geometry looks to be on a par with expressway/freeway standards.

I looked through Wikipedia actually to try and see this yesterday and couldn't specifically find it. I'm repeating what I've been told. I agree that I can't see anything on Google.

Good ole' BostonRoads (the out-of-date bible on this sort of thing) doesn't say it isn't.

Everett Turnpike (US 3, I-293, and I-93)

Descriptive history and current conditions on the FE Everett Turnpike (US 3, I-293, and I-93) in southern New Hampshire.

www.bostonroads.com

 

[hipster_garbage]

I'm curious as to what features of the Everett Turnpike are below interstate highway standards? I did a scan of the length of it in Google maps, and nothing in that regard stands out. The geometry looks to be on a par with expressway/freeway standards.

When I was younger there was a substandard section in Merrimack between Nashua and Manchester but that was rebuilt probably 10+ years ago at this point along with all the other upgrades for the airport exit. I don't think there's any geometry problem on the Everett Turnpike that would preclude it from becoming an interstate at this point. Maybe some of the reverse curves with multiple closely packed exits along 293 in Manchester; but they're no worse than some of the curves on I-95 around Providence.

 

[Highwayguy]

Main reason the Turnpike doesn’t meet intestate standard is likely interchange spacing/ geometry standards. Interchanges spaced less than a mile apart are supposed to have C/D roads or grade separated ramps. The ramp radii are below spec if l recall too.

Off the too of my head, l know the mainline lane reductions are 100% non compliant and l think the shoulder/ median width North of Nashua may still be substandard even after the recent work. And thats even before you touch the tolling issue or that changing their precious exit numbers would be nonnegotiable for the I-293 designation.

For a point if reference, MA- 24 was going to cost 750 mill to bring up to interstate grade, mostly due to having to nuke just about every interchange south of 495. From the public’s perspective, its easy to think 4+ lanes, no traffic signals, and a median = interstate grade, but the standards are much more exacting than that.

TLDR, the headache/ expense to NHDOT probably isn’t worth it (even if exceptions were granted) considering the end user would only notice some new shields, and they are too busy planning to add another lane or 5 to I-93 anyway.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Main reason the Turnpike doesn’t meet intestate standard is likely interchange spacing/ geometry standards. Interchanges spaced less than a mile apart are supposed to have C/D roads or grade separated ramps. The ramp radii are below spec if l recall too.

Off the too of my head, l know the mainline lane reductions are 100% non compliant and l think the shoulder/ median width North of Nashua may still be substandard even after the recent work. And thats even before you touch the tolling issue or that changing their precious exit numbers would be nonnegotiable for the I-293 designation.

For a point if reference, MA- 24 was going to cost 750 mill to bring up to interstate grade, mostly due to having to nuke just about every interchange south of 495. From the public’s perspective, its easy to think 4+ lanes, no traffic signals, and a median = interstate grade, but the standards are much more exacting than that.

TLDR, the headache/ expense to NHDOT probably isn’t worth it (even if exceptions were granted) considering the end user would only notice some new shields, and they are too busy planning to add another lane or 5 to I-93 anyway.

There are a lot of interstate highways with interchanges spaced closer than a mile that have no C/D roads or braided ramps. Looking at Google maps, some of the interchanges along the Everett Turnpike are close. A highway engineer would have to measure the weaving distances on the mainline between on and off ramps to determine if they meet the AASHTO Green Book standards. As for the mainline lane drops, those are fairly common on interstate highways, so I would think proper signing would mitigate those.

 

[Highwayguy]

There are a lot of interstate highways with interchanges spaced closer than a mile that have no C/D roads or braided ramps. Looking at Google maps, some of the interchanges along the Everett Turnpike are close. A highway engineer would have to measure the weaving distances on the mainline between on and off ramps to determine if they meet the AASHTO Green Book standards. As for the mainline lane drops, those are fairly common on interstate highways, so I would think proper signing would mitigate those.

*Looks nervously at SE Xway*
Agree but typically those are old grandfathered routes; NHDOT could seek waivers but the facility still wouldn’t meet interstate design criteria. Theres no prohibition against mainline lane drops, but the ones on the Turnpike do not meet stripping/ taper length or signage requirements.
Even if they could get the turnpike designated through waivers alone, seems like a lot of paperwork for NHDOT to change some shields on a facility that ‘works’ as is. Definitely annoying to us nerds but not worth it to NHDOT.

 

[Equilibria]

*Looks nervously at SE Xway*
Agree but typically those are old grandfathered routes; NHDOT could seek waivers but the facility still wouldn’t meet interstate design criteria. Theres no prohibition against mainline lane drops, but the ones on the Turnpike do not meet stripping/ taper length or signage requirements.
Even if they could get the turnpike designated through waivers alone, seems like a lot of paperwork for NHDOT to change some shields on a facility that ‘works’ as is. Definitely annoying to us nerds but not worth it to NHDOT.

If it were just about changing shields I'd agree with you, but there are financial considerations too. There are funds you can only use on Interstates.

And in any case MassDOT could designate the US-3 portion of the highway that meets standards now. That would at least be a start.

 

[millerm277]

And in any case MassDOT could designate the US-3 portion of the highway that meets standards now. That would at least be a start.

As example - NY has been slowly designating NY-17 as I-86 as they bring sections up to interstate standard over the past 20+ years, and it's seemingly no issue legally to have discontinuous sections of the corridor.

 

[NHMaples]

The F.E. Everette Turnpike has just begun a five-year $160,000,000 improvement project which will widen the existing two-lane sections to three lanes and a breakdown lane where appropriate. After these three projects are complete, exits 6 and 7 on 293, currently the most hellish in the state, will be completely replaced. Far more than a problem of congestion, this is a real safety issue that the state will finally tackle. I don't know what's involved in changing a state highway to an interstate, but I suspect that the tolls in Bedford might be an issue. For some reason I think that there are different restrictions on what the funds can be used for depending on whether it is an interstate or not. Here's a link to FE Everette project: Everett Turnpike Widening

 

[Charlie_mta]

As example - NY has been slowly designating NY-17 as I-86 as they bring sections up to interstate standard over the past 20+ years, and it's seemingly no issue legally to have discontinuous sections of the corridor.

It's okay to have discontinuous sections, as long as the official goal of the State(s) is to have a continuous interstate highway, which in the case of NY 17, it is.