archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Boston's Built Environment > Transit and Infrastructure

Transit and Infrastructure All things T or civilly engineered within Boston Metro.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-24-2012, 04:10 PM   #41
Equilibria
Senior Member
 
Equilibria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,005
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcLaughlin View Post
There is precedent for this, although I-128 would be considerably longer.
That's not a precedent for this situation - the issue there was that California ran out of designations off of I-80, which (quite stupidly) is the only major interstate running through the Bay Area. Actually, the limitation isn't even there anymore, since the Embarcadero Freeway actually never took I-480 before being destroyed - they could use that number instead of I-238. In fact, I think no one there would notice...

This would be more in the spirit of the guys in Georgia trying to get I-3 there to honor the 3rd Infantry based nearby, or the deeply odd I-99 designation in PA (which never even leaves the state at the moment).

The reason that they moved I-95 out to a beltway was to encourage its use by through traffic to Maine and NH. If you aren't actually trying to go to Boston, it's not that much of a detour and keeps you out of the Artery.
Equilibria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 07:35 PM   #42
Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,168
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley View Post
Yes. 101 would have to be an odd-numbered prefix. 293 is legal in "spirit" of the rules for supplanting US 3 to 128 because the 495 and 128 connections loop back to 93. They aren't ironclad about even-numbered prefixes touching on both ends (witness I-290...even in its original proposal it didn't directly retouch the Pike on the east end), so long as it connects to a straightforward shot down another crisscrossing interstate.

I'm pretty sure the current E-W segment of 293 between US3 and 93 couldn't share the same number with an x93'ing of NH101, though. Two different roads, two different purposes. It only makes sense in the original 101 expressway proposal which had it continuing west to Keene and Brattleboro.
No, no, I'm thinking something like this.

x90 would require some brand new Interstate ROW, and 89 and x95 both need to be brought up to Interstate standards, but other than that the entire project is a matter of signage.

Interstate 89 would become the de facto Boston-Montreal highway, and with the North-South of 293 chewed up and spat out by an upgrade to primary Interstate, the number is freed up for reassignment to 101. It might be easier to go for an x89 designation though, since it'd be easier to get clearance for 'Interstate 93/189' than 'Interstate 93/293.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Equilibria View Post
That's not a precedent for this situation - the issue there was that California ran out of designations off of I-80, which (quite stupidly) is the only major interstate running through the Bay Area. Actually, the limitation isn't even there anymore, since the Embarcadero Freeway actually never took I-480 before being destroyed - they could use that number instead of I-238. In fact, I think no one there would notice...

This would be more in the spirit of the guys in Georgia trying to get I-3 there to honor the 3rd Infantry based nearby, or the deeply odd I-99 designation in PA (which never even leaves the state at the moment).

The reason that they moved I-95 out to a beltway was to encourage its use by through traffic to Maine and NH. If you aren't actually trying to go to Boston, it's not that much of a detour and keeps you out of the Artery.
I can think of better uses for that 99 designation, since it doesn't even fit the numbering convention as far as 'higher numbers farther north' goes.

Never mind that it's a primary interstate that doesn't go inter-state.

As for the 95/beltway explanation... it makes some sense, I guess, but the flip side is that in the age of GPS navigation it doesn't really matter what the signs say, and I'd be skeptical that the majority of people ever took 128 over the Central Artery because it was signed as 95.

All other things being equal, the 93/95 concurrency looks 'cleaner' and preempts the problem of what to do with that stretch of 93 between 128 and MA-3 if MA-3 does become I-93.
Commuting Boston Student is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 09:32 PM   #43
mass88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,782
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Newman View Post
You won't know if it's a disaster until it's tried for a few months. If it works, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than rebuilding an interchange.
The major interchanges in the region are flat out bad and substandard.
mass88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 12:54 AM   #44
Equilibria
Senior Member
 
Equilibria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,005
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commuting Boston Student View Post
All other things being equal, the 93/95 concurrency looks 'cleaner' and preempts the problem of what to do with that stretch of 93 between 128 and MA-3 if MA-3 does become I-93.
This is a conversation I feel like I've had verbatim with someone on this site before, but I like talking about it, so whatever. One of my possible solutions to this problem has been extending the I-89 designation all the way to Canton (that segment of 128 runs basically N/S anyway) with either bare 128 designation past Burlington or an I-895 designation to I-95, since it combines the numbers 89 and 95, which is corny, but hey.

The easiest answer, of course, would be simply using MA-128, which other states have no problem with on ring roads (here's looking at you, Texas).
Equilibria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 01:49 AM   #45
TMcLaughlin
Member
 
TMcLaughlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West Warwick, RI
Posts: 37
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Equilibria View Post
That's not a precedent for this situation - the issue there was that California ran out of designations off of I-80, which (quite stupidly) is the only major interstate running through the Bay Area. Actually, the limitation isn't even there anymore, since the Embarcadero Freeway actually never took I-480 before being destroyed - they could use that number instead of I-238. In fact, I think no one there would notice...

This would be more in the spirit of the guys in Georgia trying to get I-3 there to honor the 3rd Infantry based nearby, or the deeply odd I-99 designation in PA (which never even leaves the state at the moment).
Crazy thing is I-99 is probably closer to the I-238 situation. It is supposed to extend into NY and the closest available options were I-99 and I-67.

Anyway, leaving MA-128 would make sense. Does anyone actually call it I-95?
TMcLaughlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 06:07 AM   #46
Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,168
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcLaughlin View Post
Crazy thing is I-99 is probably closer to the I-238 situation. It is supposed to extend into NY and the closest available options were I-99 and I-67.

Anyway, leaving MA-128 would make sense. Does anyone actually call it I-95?
Nope, not even people from other states call it I-95.

All the more reason to delete that interstate designation and send 95 somewhere else, in my opinion.
Commuting Boston Student is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 10:54 AM   #47
whighlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lexington
Posts: 6,519
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commuting Boston Student View Post
Nope, not even people from other states call it I-95.

All the more reason to delete that interstate designation and send 95 somewhere else, in my opinion.
Commute:

Not going to happen -- because of the $ tied to the Interstate designation -- Rt-128 is the single most important highway in Greater Boston and will remain tied to the Interstate Highway $s

The only change in local highway designations which makes any sense is to route I-93 from NH border to I-495 at the Cape -- using the existing I-93 passing through Boston and then continuing on Rt-3 south. Eventually Rt-44 in Plymouth could become I-993

I-95 continues as is from RI border to NH border folowing Rt-128

Due to the paterns of growth there will eventually need to be an Interstate from the Mass Border along Rt-101 ultimately interconnecting I-190 to I-93 and I-95 -- this will be the outermost belt
whighlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 11:14 AM   #48
Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,168
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by whighlander View Post
Commute:

Not going to happen -- because of the $ tied to the Interstate designation -- Rt-128 is the single most important highway in Greater Boston and will remain tied to the Interstate Highway $s

The only change in local highway designations which makes any sense is to route I-93 from NH border to I-495 at the Cape -- using the existing I-93 passing through Boston and then continuing on Rt-3 south. Eventually Rt-44 in Plymouth could become I-993

I-95 continues as is from RI border to NH border folowing Rt-128

Due to the paterns of growth there will eventually need to be an Interstate from the Mass Border along Rt-101 ultimately interconnecting I-190 to I-93 and I-95 -- this will be the outermost belt
Which is why I'm saying give it the I-128 designation, or 193, 493, 693, 695, 895. It is the most important beltway in the state and possibly the country but it's still a beltway. There's better uses for the 95 designation.
Commuting Boston Student is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 11:24 AM   #49
whighlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lexington
Posts: 6,519
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commuting Boston Student View Post
Which is why I'm saying give it the I-128 designation, or 193, 493, 693, 695, 895. It is the most important beltway in the state and possibly the country but it's still a beltway. There's better uses for the 95 designation.
Commute -- When you redesignate the Oneil as I-95 you've now cut the possible connection between I-93 on the north and the route to the Cape along Rt-3. As the south shore develops it is inevitable that you need an Interstate to connect to Plymouth.

Your only alternative then is to confuse everyone with a dual designation from Woburn to Quincy as I-95/I-93 where the roads separate with I-95 heading along Rt-128 to Canton and south to Providence and I-93 heading south along Rt-3 to Plymouth and I-495 at the Sagamore Bridge to the Cape
whighlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 12:20 PM   #50
Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,168
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by whighlander View Post
Commute -- When you redesignate the Oneil as I-95 you've now cut the possible connection between I-93 on the north and the route to the Cape along Rt-3. As the south shore develops it is inevitable that you need an Interstate to connect to Plymouth.

Your only alternative then is to confuse everyone with a dual designation from Woburn to Quincy as I-95/I-93 where the roads separate with I-95 heading along Rt-128 to Canton and south to Providence and I-93 heading south along Rt-3 to Plymouth and I-495 at the Sagamore Bridge to the Cape
Yes, exactly - I want the CA/T and immediate surroumdings redesignated for concurrency of 93/95.
Commuting Boston Student is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 09:15 PM   #51
omaja
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Boston
Posts: 584
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by whighlander View Post
Your only alternative then is to confuse everyone with a dual designation from Woburn to Quincy as I-95/I-93 where the roads separate with I-95 heading along Rt-128 to Canton and south to Providence and I-93 heading south along Rt-3 to Plymouth and I-495 at the Sagamore Bridge to the Cape
Confuse whom? Concurrencies are quite common: see 90/94 in Chicago, 75/85 in Atlanta, 80/580 in San Francisco area, 71/75 in Cincinnati, 29/80 in Iowa, 80/90 in Indiana and Ohio, 39/90/94 in Wisconsin, etc. You'd eliminate the confusing interchange in Canton where I-93 South defaults to I-95 North (and vice versa), not to mention end the perpetual discussion of what to call the Braintree Split-to-Canton segment of 93 in the event it is extended along 3 to the Sagamore Bridge.

93/95 through Boston makes a lot more sense than routing the East Coast's primary north-south route around one of its largest cities. Route 128 should be designated 695 or 895 (though I'd lean towards 895 as it is a better fit for the 'inner' beltway with 495 as the 'outer').
omaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 05:05 PM   #52
Kahta
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bellingham
Posts: 300
Re: 128 Widening

You're forgetting Route 2, which maybe could get an upgrade to Interstate standards between 495 and 128. It's going to need an additional lane out to Fitchburg/Leominster and a rebuilt 4-stack interchange at 495.
Kahta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 06:53 AM   #53
BussesAin'tTrains
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Union Sq, Somerville
Posts: 3,415
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahta View Post
You're forgetting Route 2, which maybe could get an upgrade to Interstate standards between 495 and 128. It's going to need an additional lane out to Fitchburg/Leominster and a rebuilt 4-stack interchange at 495.
Not in Concord it won't...
BussesAin'tTrains is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 07:43 AM   #54
Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,168
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahta View Post
You're forgetting Route 2, which maybe could get an upgrade to Interstate standards between 495 and 128. It's going to need an additional lane out to Fitchburg/Leominster and a rebuilt 4-stack interchange at 495.
What? No!

That stretch does need to be grade separated and those intersections replaced with interchanges (especially Crosby's Corner), but a full on interstate? That's taking things way too far, especially given that 'between 495 and 128' is the least Interstate like part of that road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BussesAin'tTrains View Post
Not in Concord it won't...
I forget whether or not Concord is one of the anti-transit NIMBY towns, but it seems like they're down for the necessary Route 2 fixes from what I can tell. (Whether or not they're anti-transit is important because I consider it 'getting exactly what you asked for' when such places are victimized by road megaprojects.)

Pretty sure there's no way in hell they would agree to have Interstate 191/491/591 running through their city, either way.
Commuting Boston Student is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 08:32 AM   #55
Equilibria
Senior Member
 
Equilibria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,005
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by omaja View Post
Confuse whom? Concurrencies are quite common: see 90/94 in Chicago, 75/85 in Atlanta, 80/580 in San Francisco area, 71/75 in Cincinnati, 29/80 in Iowa, 80/90 in Indiana and Ohio, 39/90/94 in Wisconsin, etc.
Since I live a mile from 80/580, that one should have occurred to me earlier when someone was asking about concurrencies between a spur and its parent interstate. Then again, as I've mentioned before, Bay Area freeway numbering is a hopeless cause.

Combining numbers through downtown areas is actually a reasonable thing to do. Numbered routes are defined by the cities they connect. If you have 3 routes passing through a city, they should all pass through it - it's that simple. That's why we have so many "Union Station"s in this country.

That's the same reason why I-89/93 from Concord to Manchester makes sense. There should be a single numbered road connecting Montreal to Boston for wayfinding purposes (not to mention Boston to Vermont). Unfortunately for semantic purposes, but fortunately in every other sense, the US-3 extension into Boston never got built, but you could theoretically do a short concurrency with 128 and use the interstate-grade Route 2 to get the road as far as Cambridge (I'm full of ideas on where that could go, aren't I?)
Equilibria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 08:44 AM   #56
Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,168
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Equilibria View Post
Since I live a mile from 80/580, that one should have occurred to me earlier when someone was asking about concurrencies between a spur and its parent interstate. Then again, as I've mentioned before, Bay Area freeway numbering is a hopeless cause.

Combining numbers through downtown areas is actually a reasonable thing to do. Numbered routes are defined by the cities they connect. If you have 3 routes passing through a city, they should all pass through it - it's that simple. That's why we have so many "Union Station"s in this country.

That's the same reason why I-89/93 from Concord to Manchester makes sense. There should be a single numbered road connecting Montreal to Boston for wayfinding purposes (not to mention Boston to Vermont). Unfortunately for semantic purposes, but fortunately in every other sense, the US-3 extension into Boston never got built, but you could theoretically do a short concurrency with 128 and use the interstate-grade Route 2 to get the road as far as Cambridge (I'm full of ideas on where that could go, aren't I?)
I was the guy asking about the concurrency. I wanted to know if it was possible to redesignate 101 as 293 east and west in NH to accomodate for an Interstate 89 extension down the length of the Everett Turnpike into Route 3, where I think you and I agree on taking it to 128 at least.

You could also tweak the 128/3 and 128/Pike interchanges, and have a 128/89 concurrency leading into an 89/90 concurrency through downtown Boston to the Airport.

That might invite concern trolling over having 89 South technically heading Northeast through the Ted Williams Tunnel, though - and I'd probably cut 89 at the 128 merger since that seems like the best possible logical conclusion for it against awkwardly trying to fit it into the Pike or creating another South/North mess to send it into the CA/T. (And you'd still need to drop the designation somwhere.)
Commuting Boston Student is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 08:36 PM   #57
BussesAin'tTrains
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Union Sq, Somerville
Posts: 3,415
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commuting Boston Student View Post


I forget whether or not Concord is one of the anti-transit NIMBY towns, but it seems like they're down for the necessary Route 2 fixes from what I can tell. (Whether or not they're anti-transit is important because I consider it 'getting exactly what you asked for' when such places are victimized by road megaprojects.)

Pretty sure there's no way in hell they would agree to have Interstate 191/491/591 running through their city, either way.
They're down for fixing Crosby's Corner; the project is supposed to begin this year I think. The rotary romoval project has also been planned, but I don't know when that's going to happen. Concord has no interest in getting rid of the series of lighted intersections that confound Rt2 from the rotary to Crosby's Corner (nor do Acton or Lincoln seem eager to get rid of the lights in their towns).

The best fix that I could see for the stretch of Route 2 from the Piper Road intersection in Acton to the Bedford Road intersection in Lincoln is Storrow Drive-style underpasses to allow through traffic to bypass the intersection. Not sure if Concord would go for that. Also not sure if the geography and development near Emerson Hospital, the Concord River and Walden Pond would allow for that sort of construction.

Regardless, Route 2 will NEVER be up to Interstate standards between I-495 and Route 128.
BussesAin'tTrains is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 02:35 PM   #58
Kahta
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bellingham
Posts: 300
Re: 128 Widening

Quote:
Originally Posted by BussesAin'tTrains View Post
They're down for fixing Crosby's Corner; the project is supposed to begin this year I think. The rotary romoval project has also been planned, but I don't know when that's going to happen. Concord has no interest in getting rid of the series of lighted intersections that confound Rt2 from the rotary to Crosby's Corner (nor do Acton or Lincoln seem eager to get rid of the lights in their towns).

The best fix that I could see for the stretch of Route 2 from the Piper Road intersection in Acton to the Bedford Road intersection in Lincoln is Storrow Drive-style underpasses to allow through traffic to bypass the intersection. Not sure if Concord would go for that. Also not sure if the geography and development near Emerson Hospital, the Concord River and Walden Pond would allow for that sort of construction.

Regardless, Route 2 will NEVER be up to Interstate standards between I-495 and Route 128.

From what I have read, the town now supports upgrading Route 2 because (as predicted 40 years ago) traffic on a 1920s roadway is bad enough that commuters cut through side roads and residential neighborhoods to avoid the traffic lights and resulting congestion.

The limited access road has been identified as a long term solution to diverting traffic from local streets to the roadway since 1987:

http://www.concordma.gov/pages/Conco...20analysis.pdf

Not to mention, building overpasses (or underpasses) at the signalized intersections would make crossing route 2 much less of a challenge and divider for the town. It already functions largely as a limited access highway.

More detail here calling for

-multiple grade separations to the highway at the rotary, crosbys corner, sudbury Rd, and rt 126.
-traffic flow improvements to divert traffic from local roads-- presumably this would be some sort of grade separation as they also state that additional lanes are not acceptable or part of the soution.
- Eliminate curb cuts and future status as a limited access highway
- adding a center barrier and full break down lanes as soon as possible

http://www.concordma.gov/pages/conco.../clrp/appz.pdf
Kahta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 03:22 PM   #59
Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,168
Re: 128 Widening

I suppose this is the thread to ask.

Is the freeway section of 140 between 6-195 and 24 up to Interstate Standards, and do the rules of spur Interstate designations allow for a spur route to cross its paret interstate but neither start nor end at it?
Commuting Boston Student is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 03:33 PM   #60
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,417
Re: 128 Widening

2 needs to have the last few curb cuts in Leominster between Route 31 and Route 12 eliminated so the west portion of the expressway is contiguous to 495. Those are easy fixes...that's closeout work they never completed 25 years ago when they got rid of the other curb cuts.

If Concord Rotary separation ever gets funded then they should have no trouble upgrading the Route 111 concurrency up to Concord Rotary. That's another stretch built to expressway dimensions with just a few closeout intersections and no real private curb cuts.

It's the portion from the rotary to 128 that'll always be a no-go and always have too much baked-in opposition. There's studies about eliminating the few curb cuts from 128 to Bedford Rd. because they're few in number and it would ease the transition from expressway to non-expressway. But that's about the best you can do...narrow the gap to the 6 miles inside Lincoln and Concord, fix the two clusterfuck bottlenecks, and get the separate expressways and transition areas up to full spec. And, really, that's all that's needed. Lincoln-Concord's never going to be a congestion-free drive, but it can be bottled-up and managed.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.