News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Massachusetts

Started by hotdogPi, October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

shadyjay

Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2022, 12:17:58 PM
According to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, the sign replacement project along I-290 between I-90 and I-190 and that replacing the remaining signs not replaced previously along MA 24 and I-195 in vicinity of their interchanges have been completed (though the I-290 project has been listed as complete before before the information was revised).

Shrewsbury Street has something to say....

"What about me?"
290EB-Exit19 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr


Alps

Quote from: shadyjay on May 13, 2022, 06:07:31 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2022, 12:17:58 PM
According to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, the sign replacement project along I-290 between I-90 and I-190 and that replacing the remaining signs not replaced previously along MA 24 and I-195 in vicinity of their interchanges have been completed (though the I-290 project has been listed as complete before before the information was revised).

Shrewsbury Street has something to say....

"What about me?"
290EB-Exit19 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr
what about those mileposts, says i

kernals12

Having spent a week in Texas, I think Massachusetts needs to learn to love frontage roads. The first place I'd put them is on I-93 between the I-95 interchange in Canton and the Braintree Split.

MATraveler128

Quote from: kernals12 on May 14, 2022, 10:22:28 AM
Having spent a week in Texas, I think Massachusetts needs to learn to love frontage roads. The first place I'd put them is on I-93 between the I-95 interchange in Canton and the Braintree Split.

A good candidate for a Massachusetts highway having frontage roads would be US 1 between Saugus and Peabody. The high number of accidents caused by people pulling out of store parking lots onto a highway where people go 70+ absolutely warrants such a thing, although it might cause a ruckus for the businesses plus redesigning interchanges along the way.
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 56

Ted$8roadFan

Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 14, 2022, 12:12:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 14, 2022, 10:22:28 AM
Having spent a week in Texas, I think Massachusetts needs to learn to love frontage roads. The first place I'd put them is on I-93 between the I-95 interchange in Canton and the Braintree Split.

A good candidate for a Massachusetts highway having frontage roads would be US 1 between Saugus and Peabody. The high number of accidents caused by people pulling out of store parking lots onto a highway where people go 70+ absolutely warrants such a thing, although it might cause a ruckus for the businesses plus redesigning interchanges along the way.

That stretch of US 1 is the poster child for frontage roads. Of course, this being Massachusetts, of course, such change would never some cheaply or easily.

roadman65

Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SectorZ

Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.

I think the only one planned for now is the 90/495 junction in Westboro.

Ted$8roadFan

Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.

I would guess it's a combination of (1) cost (inflation), (2) complexity in the current ramp configuration, (3) geography (not in metro Boston), and (4) NIMBYism (a lot of residences/businesses nearby). Perhaps if people keep getting priced out of Boston and move to central Mass. it may become a priority.

RobbieL2415

Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.
A traditional interchange with I-290 would probably be tighter than it is now.
But I would endorse a freeway-to-freeway connection for MA 146.

RobbieL2415

Quote from: SectorZ on May 27, 2022, 03:39:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.

I think the only one planned for now is the 90/495 junction in Westboro.
Because there's actually space available to do it

DrSmith

Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on May 27, 2022, 03:58:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.

I would guess it's a combination of (1) cost (inflation), (2) complexity in the current ramp configuration, (3) geography (not in metro Boston), and (4) NIMBYism (a lot of residences/businesses nearby). Perhaps if people keep getting priced out of Boston and move to central Mass. it may become a priority.

That interchange is fit into a tight space between both residential/business and also geography. There are rock cuts already fro the ramps. Not an impossible stopping point, although adds more to rebuilding. There is also the lake/reservoir right there which adds complexity in redesign.

Without the toll plaza, it seems to me when going through that there is more weaving with heavier traffic that actually slows it down even more. The toll plaza had several lanes and helped to stagger traffic heading into the rest of the interchange.

A modest shorter term solution might be to reconfigure and even remove some of the ramps for Route 12. It would alleviate the constant ramp traffic in a tight space. Instead of separate N and S access to/from Route 12, it could potentially be converted to single on and off set there. Some movements could even be re-routed via Route 20 with some other local improvements to the surface streets.

With the removal of some Route 12 ramps, that might also provide room to improve the radius on some of the curves on the ramps between the Pike and 290, although that would be a little bigger effort and include more new bridges and such.

There are probably some smaller improvements that could help it before any type major rebuild is considered. Beyond the 495 interchange, there is also the rebuild of the Allston-Brighton interchange and viaducts upcoming too.

bob7374

Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 19, 2022, 12:16:52 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 19, 2022, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 19, 2022, 10:29:36 AM
Advertised this morning by MassDOT, upcoming sign replacement project on I-84, winning bid to be announced May 3:
Location: DISTRICT3
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement along a Section of Interstate 84
District: 3 Ad Date: 3/19/2022 Section Response: Const Project Value: $687,691.00
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-0843(001)X Project Number: 609056 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A

If they're smart (and consistent), they'll add exit numbers to the Mass Pike ramps.

The signs at I-84's eastern terminus have already been replaced when the Mass Pike went through its sign replacement project. They likely won't get exit numbers, but they really should.
According to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, the I-84 project was given the notice to proceed yesterday (6/2). The listing does not include a completion date but I will assume, even given the small number of exits, that it will take at least until 2024.

PHLBOS

#1887
Quote from: bob7374 on March 24, 2022, 11:22:36 PM
The new sign replacement project along I-95 between Attleboro and Norwood is replacing the overhead signs for Rest Areas with ground mounted ones. Here are the old and new signs NB in Mansfield:

It's interesting that NEXT RIGHT is being used on the new sign here rather than the listed distance (1/2 mile on the overhead sign.  Seems a bit old school/retro.

Quote from: pderocco on March 28, 2022, 01:09:54 AM
The same issue could arise on the Southeast Expressway, since it is also a state route that has been overlaid by a more important interstate. That could be decommissioned, and the few miles that connect it to US-3 could be incorporated into US-3, or just left unnumbered. Would anyone notice?
To a degree, you're correct; but a historical explanation is in order here (granted, many elements have probably been mentioned both here & other related-threads).

One big difference is that, unlike 128, the Southeast Expressway originally had no route number assigned to it when it first opened in 1959; the Route 3 assignment came in stages over time. 

The Expressway south of Neponset Circle first became MA 3 circa 1962 following the full completion of the Pilgrim's Highway stretch (Braintree to Plymouth).  Prior to that, MA 3 followed the current MA 203 & 3A corridors and the northern portion of the Pilgrim's Highway was designated as an extension of the 'new' MA 128.

The remainder of the Southeast Expressway, followed by the Pulaski Skway (between the Mass Ave. & the South Station Tunnel), South Station Tunnel & most of the Central Artery didn't receive the MA 3 designation until 1971.  Such a change coincided with the phase-out of Boston's C-route system as well as the creation of MA 203 (along former-MA 3) & MA 99; much of the latter was formerly US 1. 

In hindsight, especially given the fact that the proposed Southwest Expressway leg of I-95 was already cancelled at this point & time; MA 3 IMHO should've remained in its pre-1971 alignment.  The initial de-facto I-95 routing, sans the Southwest Expressway, would've had it run along the Southeast Expressway and the later leg of MA 128 between Braintree and Canton.  The current Canton trumpet interchange was (re)designed with such a routing in mind. 

However (& as most of us here know), the cancellation of the unbuilt I-95 leg from Saugus (US 1/MA 60) to Peabody (MA 128) some 2 years after its southern leg was cancelled triggered the current routing of I-95 onto most of 128 and I-93 extending through Boston via the Expressway and the latter piece of 128 (Yankee Division Highway) to the Canton I-95 interchange.  Note & side bar: a redesign of the Canton interchange is in the works.

Long story short; since the Southeast Expressway had no route number & was referred to as such since its inception, it could theoretically change route numbers several times over and nobody would really notice.

Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on May 14, 2022, 12:22:44 PM
That stretch of US 1 is the poster child for frontage roads. Of course, this being Massachusetts, of course, such change would never some cheaply or easily.
Another historic tid-bit: one alternate proposal for I-95, after the Saugus/Lynn leg was cancelled circa 1972, was to create a dual-carriageway along US 1 from the I-95 interchange at the Peabody/Danvers line (current Exit 66/former Exit 46) to the MA 60/Copeland Circle interchange.  The inner-express lanes would've been I-95 while the outer-local lanes (frontage roads could've done similar here) would've been US 1.  Needless to say, such a proposal went nowhere.  The fore-mentioned Exit 66 interchange would've been the only hint of such an idea (at least for the southbound direction) because the original plan for that interchange was to have the opposite movements (I-95 NB to US 1 NB/US 1 SB to I-95 SB) of what's there presently.  Trace of where a ramp from US 1 SB would've connected to I-95 SB on the left side of the roadbed.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

#1888
Quote
The signs at I-84's eastern terminus have already been replaced when the Mass Pike went through its sign replacement project. They likely won't get exit numbers, but they really should.

That issue was reviewed during the I-84 project design.  Due to structural limtations (yes, even with the big APL signs), MassDOT determined that, in this case, if exit number tabs were installed while allowing for an acceptable safety margin for loading, they would be too small to be effective.  Unlike other states (Texas for one), Massachusetts' specifications only give general guidance to sign structure fabricators, and does not have either "standard" design plans for overhead sign structures nor a "design for certain percentage over area of signs being installed" requirement.
Quote
According to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, the I-84 project was given the notice to proceed yesterday (6/2). The listing does not include a completion date but I will assume, even given the small number of exits, that it will take at least until 2024.
As I noted in my response to a similar comment on the I-95 Signing Project thread, the I-84 Holland to Sturbridge and I-95/128 Lynnfield to Danvers sign replacement projects are mainly to replace the sign panels only, and will reuse the existing structures and posts - which were replaced during the previous sign replacement projects on these roads, and are are still in serviceable condition.  With a handful of exceptions in those projects to be let for bids between now and 2026, this will be the normal practice for MassDOT sign replacements going forward for about the next eighteen to twenty years.  The duration for so-called "panels only" projects is typically between twelve and eighteen months, as there is no structural work involved, just fabricating and installing signs.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

kramie13

Why is Route 3 along the South Shore always jammed on Sunday afternoons passing the Rte. 228 and Derby St. exits??????

It seems so baffling that a stretch of highway that is expected to have congestion on a weekday morning would also be clogged on a weekend afternoon!

MATraveler128

Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:27:21 PM
Why is Route 3 along the South Shore always jammed on Sunday afternoons passing the Rte. 228 and Derby St. exits??????

It seems so baffling that a stretch of highway that is expected to have congestion on a weekday morning would also be clogged on a weekend afternoon!

It must be Cape traffic coming home on Sundays. That and the fact that MA 3 should probably be widened at some point to accommodate all the summer traffic.
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 56

kramie13

Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 14, 2022, 03:47:41 PM
It must be Cape traffic coming home on Sundays. That and the fact that MA 3 should probably be widened at some point to accommodate all the summer traffic.

But the highway traffic on Rte. 3 North moves just fine through Plymouth and Kingston, some 15 miles north of the Sagamore Bridge.  So why would there be an extra load 35 miles north of the Cape?

Alps

Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 14, 2022, 03:47:41 PM
It must be Cape traffic coming home on Sundays. That and the fact that MA 3 should probably be widened at some point to accommodate all the summer traffic.

But the highway traffic on Rte. 3 North moves just fine through Plymouth and Kingston, some 15 miles north of the Sagamore Bridge.  So why would there be an extra load 35 miles north of the Cape?
Probably other shore traffic adding onto the post-queue traffic volume and hitting a new maximum capacity

Ted$8roadFan

Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:27:21 PM
Why is Route 3 along the South Shore always jammed on Sunday afternoons passing the Rte. 228 and Derby St. exits??????

It seems so baffling that a stretch of highway that is expected to have congestion on a weekday morning would also be clogged on a weekend afternoon!

I suspect a few things:

The area is closer  to Boston than Plymouth. Lots of higher population communities.

Route 228 (18, 53) are major connector from Route 3A and the coast to Route 3.

The aforementioned summer Cape traffic.

Southbound Route 3 has that awful lane drop that just appears seconds before it happens.

Northbound Route 3 with 3 lanes still has traffic coming from other areas of the south shore and southeast Mass. heading to the Boston area.

Route 3, in addition to widening, also needs better accel./decel. lanes.

RobbieL2415

Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:27:21 PM
Why is Route 3 along the South Shore always jammed on Sunday afternoons passing the Rte. 228 and Derby St. exits??????

It seems so baffling that a stretch of highway that is expected to have congestion on a weekday morning would also be clogged on a weekend afternoon!
I've only driven that stretch a handful of times, but I can guess it's due to traffic entering MA 3 to bypass Whiting St.

If that's truly the case, then just add an aux lane between the two exits and call it a day. Funny though, MassDOT allows breakdown lane travel in that stretch on weekdays.

southshore720

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 15, 2022, 02:48:41 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:27:21 PM
Why is Route 3 along the South Shore always jammed on Sunday afternoons passing the Rte. 228 and Derby St. exits??????

It seems so baffling that a stretch of highway that is expected to have congestion on a weekday morning would also be clogged on a weekend afternoon!
I've only driven that stretch a handful of times, but I can guess it's due to traffic entering MA 3 to bypass Whiting St.

If that's truly the case, then just add an aux lane between the two exits and call it a day. Funny though, MassDOT allows breakdown lane travel in that stretch on weekdays.
The lane drop on Rte 3 South occurs right before Exit 36 (Former Exit 15).  It would help (but not totally eliminate the backups there) if they extended the three lanes to Exit 36 and made the exit ramp an EXIT ONLY, making a cleaner lane drop.  Conversely, adding the third lane at the Exit 36 on-ramp onto Rte 3 North would help in the opposite direction.

NE2

Quote from: PHLBOS on June 12, 2022, 06:54:01 PM
Another historic tid-bit: one alternate proposal for I-95, after the Saugus/Lynn leg was cancelled circa 1972, was to create a dual-carriageway along US 1 from the I-95 interchange at the Peabody/Danvers line (current Exit 66/former Exit 46) to the MA 60/Copeland Circle interchange.  The inner-express lanes would've been I-95 while the outer-local lanes (frontage roads could've done similar here) would've been US 1.  Needless to say, such a proposal went nowhere.  The fore-mentioned Exit 66 interchange would've been the only hint of such an idea (at least for the southbound direction) because the original plan for that interchange was to have the opposite movements (I-95 NB to US 1 NB/US 1 SB to I-95 SB) of what's there presently.  Trace of where a ramp from US 1 SB would've connected to I-95 SB on the left side of the roadbed.
I'm confused about how that grade (and the matching northbound one) would have been part of this plan. Wouldn't 95 have used 1 south of here, meaning the part of 95 southeast to 128 would not have been built?
I do see on a 1978 aerial how they probably would have only had these two unbuilt ramps, with the temporary ramps carrying 95 not rebuilt into their current status. There was even a bridge on 1 northbound over the unbuilt ramp to 95 south.
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".

roadman

#1897
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 12, 2022, 06:54:01 PM
Another historic tid-bit: one alternate proposal for I-95, after the Saugus/Lynn leg was cancelled circa 1972, was to create a dual-carriageway along US 1 from the I-95 interchange at the Peabody/Danvers line (current Exit 66/former Exit 46) to the MA 60/Copeland Circle interchange.  The inner-express lanes would've been I-95 while the outer-local lanes (frontage roads could've done similar here) would've been US 1.  Needless to say, such a proposal went nowhere.  The fore-mentioned Exit 66 interchange would've been the only hint of such an idea (at least for the southbound direction) because the original plan for that interchange was to have the opposite movements (I-95 NB to US 1 NB/US 1 SB to I-95 SB) of what's there presently. 

I remember hearing about that proposal from a now-former MassDPW engineer shortly after I started working there in the 1980s.   As it was explained to me, the plan was not to widen US 1 through Saugus and Lynnfield, but to depress the main roadway (which would become I-95) and then cantilever additional lanes out over the main roadway, which would be US 1 and allow for access to and from the businesses.  Years later, a fellow member at our model railroad club claimed to have a set of preliminary engineering drawings for the project.  He never showed them to me before he passed away, and my research through the MassDOT Highway Division Plans and Records files has failed to turn up any evidence that the proposal went beyond the "hey, here's an idea for you' stage.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

kernals12

Quote from: roadman on June 15, 2022, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 12, 2022, 06:54:01 PM
Another historic tid-bit: one alternate proposal for I-95, after the Saugus/Lynn leg was cancelled circa 1972, was to create a dual-carriageway along US 1 from the I-95 interchange at the Peabody/Danvers line (current Exit 66/former Exit 46) to the MA 60/Copeland Circle interchange.  The inner-express lanes would've been I-95 while the outer-local lanes (frontage roads could've done similar here) would've been US 1.  Needless to say, such a proposal went nowhere.  The fore-mentioned Exit 66 interchange would've been the only hint of such an idea (at least for the southbound direction) because the original plan for that interchange was to have the opposite movements (I-95 NB to US 1 NB/US 1 SB to I-95 SB) of what's there presently. 

I remember hearing about that proposal from a now-former MassDPW engineer shortly after I started working there in the 1980s.   As it was explained to me, the plan was not to widen US 1 through Saugus and Lynnfield, but to depress the main roadway (which would become I-95) and then cantilever additional lanes out over the main roadway, which would be US 1 and allow for access to and from the businesses.  Years later, a fellow member at our model railroad club claimed to have a set of preliminary engineering drawings for the project.  He never showed them to me before he passed away, and my research through the MassDOT Highway Division Plans and Records files has failed to turn up any evidence that the proposal went beyond the "hey, here's an idea for you' stage.

Yeah, that's going to cost too much, and be a nightmare to maintain with all the road salt we use.

roadman

Quote from: kernals12 on June 15, 2022, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 15, 2022, 09:39:19 PM
I remember hearing about that proposal from a now-former MassDPW engineer shortly after I started working there in the 1980s.   As it was explained to me, the plan was not to widen US 1 through Saugus and Lynnfield, but to depress the main roadway (which would become I-95) and then cantilever additional lanes out over the main roadway, which would be US 1 and allow for access to and from the businesses.  Years later, a fellow member at our model railroad club claimed to have a set of preliminary engineering drawings for the project.  He never showed them to me before he passed away, and my research through the MassDOT Highway Division Plans and Records files has failed to turn up any evidence that the proposal went beyond the "hey, here's an idea for you' stage.

Yeah, that's going to cost too much, and be a nightmare to maintain with all the road salt we use.
Plus, how would you build it without having to completely shut down Route 1 for a period of time?  The businesses would LOVE that.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)



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.