News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Mass. Route 146

Started by Ben114, December 29, 2018, 10:58:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Magical Trevor

#25
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2019, 10:54:52 PM
^ I don't think that's the right approach, either:

- You've added two intersections (both requiring turns) to the trip to get to both US 20 and westbound I-90.
- Your mock-up also makes it impossible to get to 146 from either westbound I-90 or US 20.
- You have an AWFULLY TIGHT curve at the south end of your new flyover to get to eastbound I-90.  My estimate based on how you drew it is a 15 mph design speed.  Might also be too tight for the tandem-trailers.

D'oh! I went through a couple of iterations on this and had considered the missing movements you mention - but didn't triple-check for them before what I thought was the final version posted a few hours ago. Here's the fixed version:



I consider it to be only one full intersection added (one was eliminated, with no-stop movements at the T adjacent to the railyard, and the junctions at the police station driveway and parking lots were basically built upon).

Yes, that 20/146->90EB onramp is annoyingly tight but that is in consideration of the noted terrain/wetlands. If those could be worked with it could be opened up - and at least there are two long acceleration lanes to merge on with. Can't be much worse than getting on westbound at 10/Auburn (one of my favorite but scariest passing zones!).

I didn't want to have as many movements requiring lefts and at first had the bridges/flyover start from sort of the middle of the railyard overpass - but that effectively cut off access to the fancy new trailer parking area and ate up more available lane width. At least volumes entering/exiting those lots shouldn't require much signal interference with the traffic effectively just moving west under that new structure.


Magical Trevor

#26
...OK, so I actually measured it and the center of that lane has a radius of only about 80 feet, less than half that of the inside lane of that entrance from Auburn.

Yeah, yikes.... But I guess hopefully a little massaging of the landscape wouldn't be impossible? Heh, this is pretty much all just because I read JWF1959's first-and-so-far-only post!

KEVIN_224

I wonder if taking out that commuter parking lot could change anything? It's at the top center, roughly.

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

SectorZ

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 08, 2019, 07:22:15 AM
I wonder if taking out that commuter parking lot could change anything? It's at the top center, roughly.

The "right" half of that lot is for double-trailer drop-offs, something that will probably still be needed somewhere at that interchange if they re-route ramps into it.

Magical Trevor

Quote from: NE2 on January 08, 2019, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: Magical Trevor on January 07, 2019, 08:38:53 PM
Also, regarding the comment about "unbuilt lanes"; after reading the route's Wikipedia article (how is there no BostonRoads entry on this one?), I'm led to believe those spans and extra lane(s) are the remains of the undivided alignment that was in place before the early 1980s.
Nope.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0764299,-71.6823094,3a,75y,314.98h,88.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFwc5MdTfNS7FTB3-UmqBOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0826604,-71.6893711,3a,75y,324.85h,77.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seipFBg014z092gVsX7Aliw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.historicaerials.com/location/42.082892/-71.689627/1966/18

You know, I thought about checking those out on historicaerials, but thought, "Naw, that has to be it! Can't tell me these things were made 50 years ago and never used once in either iteration of this highway!"

Maddening...

Roadsguy

Quote from: Magical Trevor on January 08, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 08, 2019, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: Magical Trevor on January 07, 2019, 08:38:53 PM
Also, regarding the comment about "unbuilt lanes"; after reading the route's Wikipedia article (how is there no BostonRoads entry on this one?), I'm led to believe those spans and extra lane(s) are the remains of the undivided alignment that was in place before the early 1980s.
Nope.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0764299,-71.6823094,3a,75y,314.98h,88.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFwc5MdTfNS7FTB3-UmqBOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0826604,-71.6893711,3a,75y,324.85h,77.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seipFBg014z092gVsX7Aliw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.historicaerials.com/location/42.082892/-71.689627/1966/18

You know, I thought about checking those out on historicaerials, but thought, "Naw, that has to be it! Can't tell me these things were made 50 years ago and never used once in either iteration of this highway!"

Maddening...

So those are remnants of a much older widening plan with a narrow median?
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

Ben114

Quote from: Magical Trevor on January 08, 2019, 01:55:44 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2019, 10:54:52 PM
^ I don't think that's the right approach, either:

- You've added two intersections (both requiring turns) to the trip to get to both US 20 and westbound I-90.
- Your mock-up also makes it impossible to get to 146 from either westbound I-90 or US 20.
- You have an AWFULLY TIGHT curve at the south end of your new flyover to get to eastbound I-90.  My estimate based on how you drew it is a 15 mph design speed.  Might also be too tight for the tandem-trailers.

D'oh! I went through a couple of iterations on this and had considered the missing movements you mention - but didn't triple-check for them before what I thought was the final version posted a few hours ago. Here's the fixed version:



I consider it to be only one full intersection added (one was eliminated, with no-stop movements at the T adjacent to the railyard, and the junctions at the police station driveway and parking lots were basically built upon).

Yes, that 20/146->90EB onramp is annoyingly tight but that is in consideration of the noted terrain/wetlands. If those could be worked with it could be opened up - and at least there are two long acceleration lanes to merge on with. Can't be much worse than getting on westbound at 10/Auburn (one of my favorite but scariest passing zones!).

I didn't want to have as many movements requiring lefts and at first had the bridges/flyover start from sort of the middle of the railyard overpass - but that effectively cut off access to the fancy new trailer parking area and ate up more available lane width. At least volumes entering/exiting those lots shouldn't require much signal interference with the traffic effectively just moving west under that new structure.
Don't forget that Route 20 exists as part of this interchange.

Anyways, the parking area should be moved over to where the old toll booth was.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.