Boston is lucky to have 2 freeway loops; 95/128 and 495. It means that congestion in Boston's suburbs is merely annoying rather than unbearable.
It's especially amazing when you consider all the cities that clearly need outer loops but don't have them (Washington DC, Atlanta, Seattle) or do have them but users are required to pay tolls (Houston, Dallas, Chicago). So how did Boston luck out?
Four of the six cities you mention had much lower populations when the Interstate system was first being built.
Boston almost had a third loop, the Middle Circumferential Highway: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/middle-belt/. However, the road proved to be unfeasible.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2022, 12:20:33 PM
Boston almost had a third loop, the Middle Circumferential Highway: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/middle-belt/. However, the road proved to be unfeasible.
Interesting. There is also an almost-complete third loop
outside of I-495, following I-195, I-95, RI/MA 146, I-290, I-190, (gap), the Everett Turnpike, I-293, I-93, and NH 101. I don't think that's by design, but it could be used that way aside from the gap between Leominster, MA and Nashua, NH.
I-495 also serves as an important regional connector to Cape Cod in the south and NH/ME in the north; it's much more than just a loop around Boston.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2022, 12:20:33 PM
Boston almost had a third loop, the Middle Circumferential Highway: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/middle-belt/. However, the road proved to be unfeasible.
"almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. As far as I can tell, it was never anything more than a line on a map. Bostonroads is the only place I can find any reference to it.
495 in Massachusetts isnt exactly a rural loop, it has quite a few bigger cities around it, Lowell, Lawrence, Taunton, Marlborough.
I-495 in Massachusetts is a loop for Boston that serves as a major connector for the Merrimack Valley and a major route to Cape Cod. It almost doesn't seem like a loop of Boston at all. Besides, it is the way to get to Maine without going through the city of Boston. Having driven all 120 miles of it, I can confirm this to be true. Lowell is even large enough to have a spur (Lowell Connector) leading into the city.
Quote from: 1 on February 19, 2022, 10:56:33 AM
Four of the six cities you mention had much lower populations when the Interstate system was first being built.
Expanding off of this, four of the six also have the ability to host full loops. Boston being along water made it so bypassing was only possible on one side.
(I know Houston you could argue about whether it can host multiple complete loops around the city due to Trinity Bay and Galveston Bay. Chicago is out completely in that capacity and Seattle I would rule out as well.)
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 12:24:22 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2022, 12:20:33 PM
Boston almost had a third loop, the Middle Circumferential Highway: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/middle-belt/. However, the road proved to be unfeasible.
"almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. As far as I can tell, it was never anything more than a line on a map. Bostonroads is the only place I can find any reference to it.
It's "almost" enough that there are still some ghost ramps present that it would have connected to, so I guess you can say a little tiny itty bit of it was built. 😁
It seems that the other places me to even a needing loops could have them (or could have had them) back in the day. However it seems unlikely that an outer loop could be built today, given significant costs, competition, and NIMBYism.
The 495 corridor may have been rural in 1950 or 1960, but of course its completion changed all of the places it passes through.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on February 21, 2022, 07:10:18 AM
The 495 corridor may have been rural in 1950 or 1960, but of course its completion changed all of the places it passes through.
Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill were definitely not rural then.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2022, 12:20:33 PM
Boston almost had a third loop, the Middle Circumferential Highway: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/middle-belt/. However, the road proved to be unfeasible.
That 3rd loop exists in the form of MA 27 :D
There was also the Inner Belt that never happened. That would have allowed for a bypass of the Central Artery, but it would have been Boston's third loop, even though it would have been entirely within Boston.
Quote from: 1 on February 21, 2022, 07:13:45 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on February 21, 2022, 07:10:18 AM
The 495 corridor may have been rural in 1950 or 1960, but of course its completion changed all of the places it passes through.
Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill were definitely not rural then.
But most other towns arguable were.
If agentsteele was still active he would have tore the OP to shreds by saying something like "Because AASHTO gave it that number" or " Because that is what it is." :bigass:
If I'm reading it correctly it has nothing to do with the number usage, but why is an outer beltway chosen for the city of Boston.
Well whatever, IMO, it was good that they built the freeway when they did cause if they waited later, it would have been more costly and more harder to get control of the land needed.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 11:59:10 AM
If agentsteele was still active he would have tore the OP to shreds by saying something like "Because AASHTO gave it that number" or " Because that is what it is." :bigass:
If I'm reading it correctly it has nothing to do with the number usage, but why is an outer beltway chosen for the city of Boston.
Well whatever, IMO, it was good that they built the freeway when they did cause if they waited later, it would have been more costly and more harder to get control of the land needed.
it's just a glorified ramp from MA 24 to I-95
The southern part was long delayed. I-495 was completed to I-95 in 1969, but not extended to MA-24 in 1983. I always wondered if that piece (and renumbering MA-25 as I-495) was an afterthought.
^ It was. Pre~1975, what is now 495 east of 95 was planned and built as part of the Route 25 Expressway. MassDPW got approval in 1975 to designate the 95-to-195 segment as 495.
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2022, 11:35:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 12:24:22 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2022, 12:20:33 PM
Boston almost had a third loop, the Middle Circumferential Highway: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/middle-belt/. However, the road proved to be unfeasible.
"almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. As far as I can tell, it was never anything more than a line on a map. Bostonroads is the only place I can find any reference to it.
It's "almost" enough that there are still some ghost ramps present that it would have connected to, so I guess you can say a little tiny itty bit of it was built. 😁
Where are these ghost ramps that you're referring to? Keep in mind that such is
not in reference to the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2022, 08:47:20 PM
Where are these ghost ramps that you're referring to? Keep in mind that such is not in reference to the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt.
MA 125, maybe? (This isn't a ghost ramp but rather a 50 mph expressway with no development.)
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2022, 08:53:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2022, 08:47:20 PM
Where are these ghost ramps that you're referring to? Keep in mind that such is not in reference to the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt.
MA 125, maybe? (This isn't a ghost ramp but rather a 50 mph expressway with no development.)
Such is a little too far north from the proposed highway corridor in question. Such would've ended at I-95 in Boxford.
Quote from: froggie on February 23, 2022, 06:49:05 PM
^ It was. Pre~1975, what is now 495 east of 95 was planned and built as part of the Route 25 Expressway. MassDPW got approval in 1975 to designate the 95-to-195 segment as 495.
* East of MA 24 was planned and built as part of Route 25. The part from I-95 to MA 24 was designated MA 25 as it was built but it was already planned to become part of I-495.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2022, 08:47:20 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2022, 11:35:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 12:24:22 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2022, 12:20:33 PM
Boston almost had a third loop, the Middle Circumferential Highway: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/middle-belt/. However, the road proved to be unfeasible.
"almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. As far as I can tell, it was never anything more than a line on a map. Bostonroads is the only place I can find any reference to it.
It's "almost" enough that there are still some ghost ramps present that it would have connected to, so I guess you can say a little tiny itty bit of it was built. 😁
Where are these ghost ramps that you're referring to? Keep in mind that such is not in reference to the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt.
I don't believe I've ever found in my travels a single trace of what may have been the middle loop. I think that was just an idea and nothing more.
Quote from: Alps on February 21, 2022, 03:30:23 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 11:59:10 AM
If agentsteele was still active he would have tore the OP to shreds by saying something like "Because AASHTO gave it that number" or " Because that is what it is." :bigass:
If I'm reading it correctly it has nothing to do with the number usage, but why is an outer beltway chosen for the city of Boston.
Well whatever, IMO, it was good that they built the freeway when they did cause if they waited later, it would have been more costly and more harder to get control of the land needed.
it's just a glorified ramp from MA 24 to I-95
Lol!
Quote from: Alps on February 23, 2022, 11:14:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 23, 2022, 06:49:05 PM
^ It was. Pre~1975, what is now 495 east of 95 was planned and built as part of the Route 25 Expressway. MassDPW got approval in 1975 to designate the 95-to-195 segment as 495.
* East of MA 24 was planned and built as part of Route 25. The part from I-95 to MA 24 was designated MA 25 as it was built but it was already planned to become part of I-495.
Steve Anderson's site suggests that between 95 and 24 was also originally planned as 25. Nevertheless, approval for 495 east of 95 did not happen until the mid-70s.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2022, 08:47:20 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2022, 11:35:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 12:24:22 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2022, 12:20:33 PM
Boston almost had a third loop, the Middle Circumferential Highway: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/middle-belt/. However, the road proved to be unfeasible.
"almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. As far as I can tell, it was never anything more than a line on a map. Bostonroads is the only place I can find any reference to it.
It's "almost" enough that there are still some ghost ramps present that it would have connected to, so I guess you can say a little tiny itty bit of it was built. 😁
Where are these ghost ramps that you're referring to? Keep in mind that such is not in reference to the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boston,+MA/@42.3803617,-71.0763791,727m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3652d0d3d311b:0x787cbf240162e8a0!8m2!3d42.3600825!4d-71.0588801
I do believe this was supposed to be where I-695 met I-93. The northern ghost ramps, now no longer so, were appropriated for the new Storrow Dr. exit when they built the Zakim bridge.
Just thought of something else too... wasn't current I-93 between current US-1 and that exit supposed to originally be I-695 (with I-93 starting at I-695 instead of the other way around?)
It kind of makes sense that MA went ahead and used up all of its even I-x95s for various projects, given its small size. I-495 and I-295 (albeit for a short distance before continuing into RI) got built, while I-695 and I-895 did not.
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 25, 2022, 12:07:16 AM
Just thought of something else too... wasn't current I-93 between current US-1 and that exit supposed to originally be I-695 (with I-93 starting at I-695 instead of the other way around?)
That is correct. I-93 was originally supposed to end at the I-695 junction at the Somerville/Boston line. What are now the upper and lower decks on I-93 were originally supposed to be part of the I-695 Inner Belt.
Quote from: roadman on February 25, 2022, 10:16:58 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 25, 2022, 12:07:16 AM
Just thought of something else too... wasn't current I-93 between current US-1 and that exit supposed to originally be I-695 (with I-93 starting at I-695 instead of the other way around?)
That is correct. I-93 was originally supposed to end at the I-695 junction at the Somerville/Boston line. What are now the upper and lower decks on I-93 were originally supposed to be part of the I-695 Inner Belt.
Inner Belt Rd. in Somerville (just to the west of the stubs) is one long-lasting vestige of the Inner Belt, and thankfully the only thing with that name.
Quote from: roadman on February 25, 2022, 10:16:58 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 25, 2022, 12:07:16 AM
Just thought of something else too... wasn't current I-93 between current US-1 and that exit supposed to originally be I-695 (with I-93 starting at I-695 instead of the other way around?)
That is correct. I-93 was originally supposed to end at the I-695 junction at the Somerville/Boston line. What are now the upper and lower decks on I-93 were originally supposed to be part of the I-695 Inner Belt.
So traffic that wanted to head to NH from Boston would have to take 695 south for a mile to pick up 93 north? Weird.
If you wanna get creative, I-190 -> MA/RI 146 ->I-195 could be the third Boston beltway.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2022, 10:58:28 AM
If you wanna get creative, I-190 -> MA/RI 146 ->I-195 could be the third Boston beltway.
You would still be missing the segment of freeway from Leominster, MA to Manchester, NH. Then combine that with NH 101 all the way to Hampton, and there's your third bypass.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 01, 2022, 11:00:27 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2022, 10:58:28 AM
If you wanna get creative, I-190 -> MA/RI 146 ->I-195 could be the third Boston beltway.
You would still be missing the segment of freeway from Leominster, MA to Manchester, NH. Then combine that with NH 101 all the way to Hampton, and there's your third bypass.
I have lived in the general area near the current end of I-190 for most of my life. Back when 190 was on the drawing board there were some discussions of it continuing past its current end at Rt 2, generally running parallel to Rt 13 through North Leominster and Lunenburg- and eventually into New Hampshire. Without making any drastic turns- that would have put the highway on the west side of Nashua, but that was beyond my scope at the time. It would not have been a big deal at that time to envision it continuing north paralleling Rt 13 to Rt 101.
Chris
I-495 makes it easier for traffic from NY/DC to get to NH/Maine. It also connects a lot of mid-sized cities in the state.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 17, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
I-495 makes it easier for traffic from NY/DC to get to NH/Maine. It also connects a lot of mid-sized cities in the state.
I'm always a bit bemused at the online-generated directions from Connecticut and Rhode Island and points south to Northern New England that call for staying on I-95 throughout instead of 495. 495 certainly has its issues, but if I were traveling north, it's much more preferable.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 17, 2022, 06:24:47 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 17, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
I-495 makes it easier for traffic from NY/DC to get to NH/Maine. It also connects a lot of mid-sized cities in the state.
I'm always a bit bemused at the online-generated directions from Connecticut and Rhode Island and points south to Northern New England that call for staying on I-95 throughout instead of 495. 495 certainly has its issues, but if I were traveling north, it's much more preferable.
From Rhode Island I-495 is longer than just staying on I-95.
If you take I-395 north from New London into I-290, and then connect with I-495, that may be a valuable alternative to staying on I-95 through Providence and Boston.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 17, 2022, 10:50:09 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 17, 2022, 06:24:47 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 17, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
I-495 makes it easier for traffic from NY/DC to get to NH/Maine. It also connects a lot of mid-sized cities in the state.
I'm always a bit bemused at the online-generated directions from Connecticut and Rhode Island and points south to Northern New England that call for staying on I-95 throughout instead of 495. 495 certainly has its issues, but if I were traveling north, it's much more preferable.
From Rhode Island I-495 is longer than just staying on I-95.
Depends on the time of day. Boston-area traffic can easily make whatever mileage is saved on 95/128 longer in terms of time.
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 25, 2022, 12:07:16 AM
Just thought of something else too... wasn't current I-93 between current US-1 and that exit supposed to originally be I-695 (with I-93 starting at I-695 instead of the other way around?)
That is correct. I-93 was supposed to end at the Boston/Somerville line at I-695. What are now the upper and lower decks of I-93 were originally part of I-695, although they were never signed as such. Although completed in 1971, the roadway wasn't opened until September 11, 1973, the day after an overloaded gravel truck struck a support bent of the Tobin Bridge, causing part of the bridge to collapse. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10395.msg246301#msg246301
Quote from: SectorZ on February 24, 2022, 08:20:37 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2022, 08:47:20 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2022, 11:35:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 12:24:22 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2022, 12:20:33 PM
Boston almost had a third loop, the Middle Circumferential Highway: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/middle-belt/. However, the road proved to be unfeasible.
"almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. As far as I can tell, it was never anything more than a line on a map. Bostonroads is the only place I can find any reference to it.
It's "almost" enough that there are still some ghost ramps present that it would have connected to, so I guess you can say a little tiny itty bit of it was built. 😁
]Where are these ghost ramps that you're referring to? Keep in mind that such is not in reference to the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt.
I don't believe I've ever found in my travels a single trace of what may have been the middle loop. I think that was just an idea and nothing more.
The statement below was made two years
after the "line on the map" was drawn by MassDPW, at a meeting with the Subregionial Intertown Liaison Committee. Opposition then only continued to increase, and the line disappeared from MassDPW maps five years later.
Quote from: Robert J. Gagnon, Assistant to the Chief Engineer – 14-JAN-1970
There are just no plans to discuss about this mid-circumferential highway, and you people who are asking 'Why build it here?' are talking about something that is simply non-existent.
Quote from: pderocco on February 22, 2022, 07:21:56 PM
The southern part was long delayed. I-495 was completed to I-95 in 1969, but not extended to MA-24 in 1983. I always wondered if that piece (and renumbering MA-25 as I-495) was an afterthought.
Most of the route was constructed in just a few years. Remember before the parapets were covered by guard rail extensions, most had dates (with the bronze state shield) in the mid sixties. Would imagine land out there was very cheap back then.
Quote from: Henry on February 25, 2022, 10:13:56 AM
It kind of makes sense that MA went ahead and used up all of its even I-x95s for various projects, given its small size. I-495 and I-295 (albeit for a short distance before continuing into RI) got built, while I-695 and I-895 did not.
Don't forget 195 and 395
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 24, 2022, 11:59:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2022, 08:47:20 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2022, 11:35:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 12:24:22 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2022, 12:20:33 PM
Boston almost had a third loop, the Middle Circumferential Highway: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/middle-belt/. However, the road proved to be unfeasible.
"almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. As far as I can tell, it was never anything more than a line on a map. Bostonroads is the only place I can find any reference to it.
It's "almost" enough that there are still some ghost ramps present that it would have connected to, so I guess you can say a little tiny itty bit of it was built. 😁
Where are these ghost ramps that you're referring to? Keep in mind that such is not in reference to the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boston,+MA/@42.3803617,-71.0763791,727m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3652d0d3d311b:0x787cbf240162e8a0!8m2!3d42.3600825!4d-71.0588801
I do believe this was supposed to be where I-695 met I-93. The northern ghost ramps, now no longer so, were appropriated for the new Storrow Dr. exit when they built the Zakim bridge.
The name of the neighborhood adjacent to that section of I-93 kind of gives it away.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 04, 2022, 08:29:58 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 25, 2022, 10:13:56 AM
It kind of makes sense that MA went ahead and used up all of its even I-x95s for various projects, given its small size. I-495 and I-295 (albeit for a short distance before continuing into RI) got built, while I-695 and I-895 did not.
Don't forget 195 and 395
195 and 395 are not even.
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
I know I've asked it before, but... are there actually any official "rules" about 3di numbering
at all? There are conventions and patterns, yes, but are there any
rules?
Quote from: kphoger on September 06, 2022, 09:13:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
I know I've asked it before, but... are there actually any official "rules" about 3di numbering at all? There are conventions and patterns, yes, but are there any rules?
As much as there are rules for 2di numbering. AASHTO decides all.
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2022, 10:18:37 PM
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
Yes it is. 50,000 will justify a freeway in most states. It's at least a 4-lane highway out here.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2022, 10:18:37 PM
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
That whole book is depressing. Red Line and Orange Line to 128, Blue Line to Salem, Rt 209, upgraded 128 to Gloucester. There are a dozen+ things in there that didn't happen at a minimum.
Quote from: SectorZ on September 08, 2022, 09:54:50 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2022, 10:18:37 PM
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
That whole book is depressing. Red Line and Orange Line to 128, Blue Line to Salem, Rt 209, upgraded 128 to Gloucester. There are a dozen+ things in there that didn't happen at a minimum.
Massachusetts infrastructure is lacking, all these changes should be made.
Quote from: SectorZ on September 08, 2022, 09:54:50 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2022, 10:18:37 PM
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
That whole book is depressing. Red Line and Orange Line to 128, Blue Line to Salem, Rt 209, upgraded 128 to Gloucester. There are a dozen+ things in there that didn't happen at a minimum.
They were forecasting a population boom in the Boston area that never materialized. They ignored how the gas tax would be eroded by inflation. They also drew lines on maps without detailed studies that would've probably turned up steep slopes and wetlands.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2022, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 08, 2022, 09:54:50 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2022, 10:18:37 PM
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
That whole book is depressing. Red Line and Orange Line to 128, Blue Line to Salem, Rt 209, upgraded 128 to Gloucester. There are a dozen+ things in there that didn't happen at a minimum.
They were forecasting a population boom in the Boston area that never materialized. They ignored how the gas tax would be eroded by inflation. They also drew lines on maps without detailed studies that would've probably turned up steep slopes and wetlands.
209 definitely falls into the wetlands problem. If 109 wasn't there I feel that would be a problem being built now in Millis and Medfield.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2022, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 08, 2022, 09:54:50 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2022, 10:18:37 PM
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
That whole book is depressing. Red Line and Orange Line to 128, Blue Line to Salem, Rt 209, upgraded 128 to Gloucester. There are a dozen+ things in there that didn't happen at a minimum.
They were forecasting a population boom in the Boston area that never materialized. They ignored how the gas tax would be eroded by inflation. They also drew lines on maps without detailed studies that would've probably turned up steep slopes and wetlands.
If Volpe hadn't joined the Nixon administration, quite a bit of that would likely have been built. Enourmous mistakes were made in the 1970 timeframe.
Quote from: DJStephens on March 21, 2023, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2022, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 08, 2022, 09:54:50 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2022, 10:18:37 PM
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
That whole book is depressing. Red Line and Orange Line to 128, Blue Line to Salem, Rt 209, upgraded 128 to Gloucester. There are a dozen+ things in there that didn't happen at a minimum.
They were forecasting a population boom in the Boston area that never materialized. They ignored how the gas tax would be eroded by inflation. They also drew lines on maps without detailed studies that would've probably turned up steep slopes and wetlands.
If Volpe hadn't joined the Nixon administration, quite a bit of that would likely have been built. Enourmous mistakes were made in the 1970 timeframe.
It was Volpe's Lt. Governor, Frank Sargent, on whose watch the highway building era ended.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 22, 2023, 05:18:08 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 21, 2023, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2022, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 08, 2022, 09:54:50 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2022, 10:18:37 PM
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
That whole book is depressing. Red Line and Orange Line to 128, Blue Line to Salem, Rt 209, upgraded 128 to Gloucester. There are a dozen+ things in there that didn't happen at a minimum.
They were forecasting a population boom in the Boston area that never materialized. They ignored how the gas tax would be eroded by inflation. They also drew lines on maps without detailed studies that would've probably turned up steep slopes and wetlands.
If Volpe hadn't joined the Nixon administration, quite a bit of that would likely have been built. Enourmous mistakes were made in the 1970 timeframe.
It was Volpe's Lt. Governor, Frank Sargent, on whose watch the highway building era ended.
Due to public backlash from how the Turnpike Extension was handled...
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2022, 10:18:37 PM
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
50,000 AADT is certainly enough to warrant a freeway, and may be close to 6 lane warrants depending on peak traffic flows, and would likely carry higher volumes now, in 2023, had it been built.
495 isn't really a circumferential of Boston southeast of Foxborough, or arguably southeast of the Mass Pike. It would be if a ton of traffic was generated from Cape Cod, but Cape Cod is quite decidedly not a dense urban core generating a massive amount of traffic. It generates a good amount, yes, but not a ton. 495 does serve a good purpose in its southeastern reaches, though, providing access to a lot of populated areas in southeastern Mass. And 495 is a suitable enough number, as the majority of the highway serves as a bypass. My point is that Boston, more or less, has 1 1/2 bypasses rather than 2. (Same with I-355 in Chicagoland; I'm hesitant to call that a bypass.) I'd be more inclined to call the southern half of 495 a bypass if there was a highway running south from Wareham or Cape Cod south across the ocean to, say, the Hamptons? :-P
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 24, 2023, 10:06:19 AM
495 isn't really a circumferential of Boston southeast of Foxborough, or arguably southeast of the Mass Pike. It would be if a ton of traffic was generated from Cape Cod, but Cape Cod is quite decidedly not a dense urban core generating a massive amount of traffic. It generates a good amount, yes, but not a ton. 495 does serve a good purpose in its southeastern reaches, though, providing access to a lot of populated areas in southeastern Mass. And 495 is a suitable enough number, as the majority of the highway serves as a bypass. My point is that Boston, more or less, has 1 1/2 bypasses rather than 2. (Same with I-355 in Chicagoland; I'm hesitant to call that a bypass.) I'd be more inclined to call the southern half of 495 a bypass if there was a highway running south from Wareham or Cape Cod south across the ocean to, say, the Hamptons? :-P
Wut.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 24, 2023, 10:06:19 AM
495 isn't really a circumferential of Boston southeast of Foxborough, or arguably southeast of the Mass Pike. It would be if a ton of traffic was generated from Cape Cod, but Cape Cod is quite decidedly not a dense urban core generating a massive amount of traffic. It generates a good amount, yes, but not a ton. 495 does serve a good purpose in its southeastern reaches, though, providing access to a lot of populated areas in southeastern Mass. And 495 is a suitable enough number, as the majority of the highway serves as a bypass. My point is that Boston, more or less, has 1 1/2 bypasses rather than 2. (Same with I-355 in Chicagoland; I'm hesitant to call that a bypass.) I'd be more inclined to call the southern half of 495 a bypass if there was a highway running south from Wareham or Cape Cod south across the ocean to, say, the Hamptons? :-P
Sorry, but no. For one thing, 495 very much is a bypass all the way down. Prior to the completion of 495 to the Bourne Bridge, from the west you pretty much had to go 90->128->3. And that was hell. Now, yes, you're bypassing Boston on 128 (now 95) as well - but the bypass is of the densely populated Boston inner suburbs and 495 does that well. Also, I've had the pleasure of traveling between NH and Cape Cod a time or two and you have 3 choices: MA 3->93 through downtown (horrible traffic), MA 3 -> 93/95/128->MA 3 (bad traffic) or 495 -> US (traffic usually moving). I've done #1 in the middle of the night, #2 late a night and #3 the rest of the time.
Also, your comment about 355 isn't correct either. It is also a bypass of sorts, providing a routing between the NW suburbs and points south. Were it not there, tens of thousands of cars would be heading to the Eisenhower (290) and on to the Tri State rather than staying on 355. Just because the bypass doesn't bypass downtown does not mean that it's not a bypass, Both examples above involve freeways to do indeed bypass very heavily traveled and congested areas that are every bit as busy as the center of a mid-sized city.
Out of these cities the metro population in 1950 vs. 2020:
Boston:
3,186,970 in 1950
4,941,632 in 2020.
Washington, DC:
1,464,089 in 1950
6,385,162 in 2020.
Atlanta:
997,666 in 1950
6,089,815 in 2020.
Seattle:
1,120,448 in 1950
4,018,762 in 2020.
Houston:
806,701 in 1950
7,122,140 in 2020.
Dallas: I only see as far back as 1980 for some reason but there is also a huge difference here.
2,794,805 in 1980
7,637,387 in 2020.
Chicago:
5,495,364 in 1950
9,618,502 in 2020.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Well obviously when a state runs out of even numbers for the first digit of loop/circumferential routes, they're allowed to use odd numbers for the first digit of additional such routes. That doesn't disprove the existence of such a rule.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2023, 08:08:28 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2022, 10:18:37 PM
According to the 1968 MassDPW Recommended Highway and Transit Plan, the Middle Circumferential Corridor would've served less than 50,000 vehicles per day.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:437541510$53b
That's not nearly enough to justify a freeway.
50,000 AADT is certainly enough to warrant a freeway, and may be close to 6 lane warrants depending on peak traffic flows, and would likely carry higher volumes now, in 2023, had it been built.
50K AADT is enough to build a freeway connection, if you're someplace like Phoenix. With someplace as densely populated as Boston, it's not nearly enough to spend multiple billions of dollars on just property acquisition for the freeway.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 26, 2023, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Well obviously when a state runs out of even numbers for the first digit of loop/circumferential routes, they're allowed to use odd numbers for the first digit of additional such routes. That doesn't disprove the existence of such a rule.
That is not how it goes.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 24, 2023, 10:06:19 AM
495 isn't really a circumferential of Boston southeast of Foxborough, or arguably southeast of the Mass Pike. It would be if a ton of traffic was generated from Cape Cod, but Cape Cod is quite decidedly not a dense urban core generating a massive amount of traffic. It generates a good amount, yes, but not a ton.
The thing about Cape traffic is that it is extremely variable, light most of the time but huge on summer weekends. It's not sufficient to look at AADT. They should probably compute the RMS of the traffic instead, which would weight the busier times more heavily.
So that extension feels like an odd 3DI, because it's going
to something rather than
around it. But for most of its distance it feels like an even 3DI because it is primarily going around Boston. The only city over 100K on its route is Lowell, and no one thinks of 495 as the Lowell road, except locally.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 26, 2023, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 26, 2023, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Well obviously when a state runs out of even numbers for the first digit of loop/circumferential routes, they're allowed to use odd numbers for the first digit of additional such routes. That doesn't disprove the existence of such a rule.
That is not how it goes.
You stop that.
What's the alternative, don't build any more 3di when the numbers run out? Of course not.
So once again, you stop that.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 27, 2023, 04:12:31 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 26, 2023, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 26, 2023, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Well obviously when a state runs out of even numbers for the first digit of loop/circumferential routes, they're allowed to use odd numbers for the first digit of additional such routes. That doesn't disprove the existence of such a rule.
That is not how it goes.
You stop that.
What's the alternative, don't build any more 3di when the numbers run out? Of course not.
So once again, you stop that.
As Texas and Florida, not to mention California and Arizona, have amply demonstrated, not every freeway or tollway has to have that red, white, and blue Interstate shield.
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 27, 2023, 04:12:31 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 26, 2023, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 26, 2023, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Well obviously when a state runs out of even numbers for the first digit of loop/circumferential routes, they're allowed to use odd numbers for the first digit of additional such routes. That doesn't disprove the existence of such a rule.
That is not how it goes.
You stop that.
What's the alternative, don't build any more 3di when the numbers run out? Of course not.
So once again, you stop that.
As Texas and Florida, not to mention California and Arizona, have amply demonstrated, not every freeway or tollway has to have that red, white, and blue Interstate shield.
That's a non-answer
The question is, what are states allowed to do, or what *should* states do, if they run out of even-first-digit 3di numbers, but they build more 3dis. Interstate designation is valuable because interstate standards are higher than state route standards generally.
Some people think they shouldn't be allowed to use odd-first-digit 3di numbers.
That is incorrect, and I am right about that, and unless someone shows me a legitimate reference that I am incorrect about that, then I will treat it as me being right about that.
For some reason, this level of ridiculous I'm finding highly amusing.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 24, 2023, 10:06:19 AM
495 isn't really a circumferential of Boston southeast of Foxborough, or arguably southeast of the Mass Pike. It would be if a ton of traffic was generated from Cape Cod, but Cape Cod is quite decidedly not a dense urban core generating a massive amount of traffic. It generates a good amount, yes, but not a ton. 495 does serve a good purpose in its southeastern reaches, though, providing access to a lot of populated areas in southeastern Mass. And 495 is a suitable enough number, as the majority of the highway serves as a bypass. My point is that Boston, more or less, has 1 1/2 bypasses rather than 2. (Same with I-355 in Chicagoland; I'm hesitant to call that a bypass.) I'd be more inclined to call the southern half of 495 a bypass if there was a highway running south from Wareham or Cape Cod south across the ocean to, say, the Hamptons? :-P
At one point, 495 was exclusively circumferential, ending at its current interchange at I-95 in Mansfield. IIRC, it wasn't until the 1980s that it was extended to Taunton at MA-24 and then down to its terminus with MA-25 and I-195 in Wareham.
The southern portion of I-495 is no less circumferential than the northern third (I-495 north of MA 2). Both segments are roughly straight lines, where the endpoint of the route is farther from Boston than the western end of the segment.
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 27, 2023, 04:12:31 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 26, 2023, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 26, 2023, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Well obviously when a state runs out of even numbers for the first digit of loop/circumferential routes, they're allowed to use odd numbers for the first digit of additional such routes. That doesn't disprove the existence of such a rule.
That is not how it goes.
You stop that.
What's the alternative, don't build any more 3di when the numbers run out? Of course not.
So once again, you stop that.
As Texas and Florida, not to mention California and Arizona, have amply demonstrated, not every freeway or tollway has to have that red, white, and blue Interstate shield.
Michigan has as well. We have several freeways here that aren't Interstates.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 27, 2023, 04:12:31 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 26, 2023, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 26, 2023, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Well obviously when a state runs out of even numbers for the first digit of loop/circumferential routes, they're allowed to use odd numbers for the first digit of additional such routes. That doesn't disprove the existence of such a rule.
That is not how it goes.
You stop that.
What's the alternative, don't build any more 3di when the numbers run out? Of course not.
So once again, you stop that.
Show me one state that has run out of numbers that is planning on building another Interstate that would need to use a 3di number. California has used up all the I-x80's but they have no plans on building anymore I-x80's; the numbers get reused by state, no state is that large that they are going to run out of numbers that easily and for the most part the state's that are large like that don't need a large number of 3dis. And also something that has already been mentioned, not every freeway needs to be an Interstate.
Michigan is a state that isn't going to run out of numbers, in fact they aren't going to be building anymore Interstates and in a few years one of the numbers that are currently in use will become available again as Michigan is eliminating an Interstate in Detroit. I-75 most certainly won't use up all the numbers, I-96 won't either, neither will I-94 and I-69 doesn't even have any 3dis in the state.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 27, 2023, 06:50:30 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 27, 2023, 04:12:31 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 26, 2023, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 26, 2023, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Well obviously when a state runs out of even numbers for the first digit of loop/circumferential routes, they're allowed to use odd numbers for the first digit of additional such routes. That doesn't disprove the existence of such a rule.
That is not how it goes.
You stop that.
What's the alternative, don't build any more 3di when the numbers run out? Of course not.
So once again, you stop that.
As Texas and Florida, not to mention California and Arizona, have amply demonstrated, not every freeway or tollway has to have that red, white, and blue Interstate shield.
That's a non-answer
The question is, what are states allowed to do, or what *should* states do, if they run out of even-first-digit 3di numbers, but they build more 3dis. Interstate designation is valuable because interstate standards are higher than state route standards generally.
Some people think they shouldn't be allowed to use odd-first-digit 3di numbers.
That is incorrect, and I am right about that, and unless someone shows me a legitimate reference that I am incorrect about that, then I will treat it as me being right about that.
They make them into state highways. There is no rule that a highway has to be an Interstate in order to be Interstate standard, you can build a state highway to Interstate standards.
An odd 3di is a spur route, if you see an odd 3di you are going to assume that it only connects to the parent Interstate once, an even 3di is a bypass or beltway and you are going to assume that it starts and ends at the same route or another Interstate highway. Why should they be allowed to use an digit 3di when the highway is a bypass or beltway and not a spur route?
You are right about that? How do you figure that? You have a guideline of how highways are numbered and you want to start just using any number? How does that make sense?
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 28, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 27, 2023, 06:50:30 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 27, 2023, 04:12:31 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 26, 2023, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 26, 2023, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Well obviously when a state runs out of even numbers for the first digit of loop/circumferential routes, they're allowed to use odd numbers for the first digit of additional such routes. That doesn't disprove the existence of such a rule.
That is not how it goes.
You stop that.
What's the alternative, don't build any more 3di when the numbers run out? Of course not.
So once again, you stop that.
As Texas and Florida, not to mention California and Arizona, have amply demonstrated, not every freeway or tollway has to have that red, white, and blue Interstate shield.
That's a non-answer
The question is, what are states allowed to do, or what *should* states do, if they run out of even-first-digit 3di numbers, but they build more 3dis. Interstate designation is valuable because interstate standards are higher than state route standards generally.
Some people think they shouldn't be allowed to use odd-first-digit 3di numbers.
That is incorrect, and I am right about that, and unless someone shows me a legitimate reference that I am incorrect about that, then I will treat it as me being right about that.
They make them into state highways. There is no rule that a highway has to be an Interstate in order to be Interstate standard, you can build a state highway to Interstate standards.
An odd 3di is a spur route, if you see an odd 3di you are going to assume that it only connects to the parent Interstate once, an even 3di is a bypass or beltway and you are going to assume that it starts and ends at the same route or another Interstate highway. Why should they be allowed to use an digit 3di when the highway is a bypass or beltway and not a spur route?
You are right about that? How do you figure that? You have a guideline of how highways are numbered and you want to start just using any number? How does that make sense?
There's no reason to force a state to only use state numbers if even 3di run out while odd 3di are still available.
Again, stop it.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 28, 2023, 11:57:44 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 28, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 27, 2023, 06:50:30 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 27, 2023, 04:12:31 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 26, 2023, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 26, 2023, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
There is no rule that odd-numbered first-digit three-digit Interstate Highways can't end at another Interstate at both ends.
Well obviously when a state runs out of even numbers for the first digit of loop/circumferential routes, they're allowed to use odd numbers for the first digit of additional such routes. That doesn't disprove the existence of such a rule.
That is not how it goes.
You stop that.
What's the alternative, don't build any more 3di when the numbers run out? Of course not.
So once again, you stop that.
As Texas and Florida, not to mention California and Arizona, have amply demonstrated, not every freeway or tollway has to have that red, white, and blue Interstate shield.
That's a non-answer
The question is, what are states allowed to do, or what *should* states do, if they run out of even-first-digit 3di numbers, but they build more 3dis. Interstate designation is valuable because interstate standards are higher than state route standards generally.
Some people think they shouldn't be allowed to use odd-first-digit 3di numbers.
That is incorrect, and I am right about that, and unless someone shows me a legitimate reference that I am incorrect about that, then I will treat it as me being right about that.
They make them into state highways. There is no rule that a highway has to be an Interstate in order to be Interstate standard, you can build a state highway to Interstate standards.
An odd 3di is a spur route, if you see an odd 3di you are going to assume that it only connects to the parent Interstate once, an even 3di is a bypass or beltway and you are going to assume that it starts and ends at the same route or another Interstate highway. Why should they be allowed to use an digit 3di when the highway is a bypass or beltway and not a spur route?
You are right about that? How do you figure that? You have a guideline of how highways are numbered and you want to start just using any number? How does that make sense?
There's no reason to force a state to only use state numbers if even 3di run out while odd 3di are still available.
Again, stop it.
To force a state to only use state numbers? What are you talking about? In order for a highway to become an Interstate they have to apply for it to become an Interstate, it either gets approved or denied. I'd love to see you tell MDOT that they should have all their freeways as Interstates. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here.
You stop it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
I-376 in Pennsylvania is another one, which has the same story as I-520 in which it was extended back to I-76 and even up to I-80 back in 2009. In the case of I-540 in Raleigh becoming I-640, I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.
https://youtu.be/njCft_pK0yY
There are misnumbered routes here and there, but the closest ones to New England are I-495 and I-684 in New York and I-476 in Pennsylvania. All 3dis that contain exits in New England are correct or could go either way.
Maine
I-195: Spur
I-295: Bypass of I-295
I-395: Spur
Vermont
I-189: Spur
New Hampshire
I-293: Beltway of I-93
I-393: Spur
Massachusetts
I-190: Connects two cities (Leominster and Worcester); clearly not a loop or anything similar.
I-290: I could see this one going either way. It's does make an almost 90° turn, but it's not really a bypass of anything, since it goes through Worcester rather than around it.
I-291: Quarter beltway.
I-391: Spur
I-195: Providence-Fall River-New Bedford connector. While I prefer odd as it is currently, an even first digit wouldn't be totally out of place, as it's part of Boston's third beltway.
I-295: Obvious beltway of Providence.
I-395: Straight line connecting Worcester and New London. While not exactly a spur, it's definitely not a loop; it's similar to I-135 in Kansas or I-155 in Illinois and therefore gets an odd number.
I-495: Beltway of Boston, even if it does have some straight segments.
Rhode Island
Both I-195 and I-295 are in the Massachusetts section.
Connecticut
I-291: One quarter (one sixth?) beltway.
I-384: Spur
I-395: See Massachusetts section
I-684: This one is wrong (it goes straight towards New York City), which is why I specified "that contain exits" at the beginning of this post.
I-691: This could go either way, as it's a straight line, but it's also a way to avoid Hartford.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 29, 2023, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
I-376 in Pennsylvania is another one, which has the same story as I-520 in which it was extended back to I-76 and even up to I-80 back in 2009. In the case of I-540 in Raleigh becoming I-640, I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.
Ahh yes I-376. It looks like in all these cases here that the freeways were originally spurs but then somehow extended back to their parent route. North Carolina's Interstate system is a mess IMO so I guess it really doesn't matter if it's 540 or 640 or whatever.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 28, 2023, 12:28:15 PM
Show me one state that has run out of numbers that is planning on building another Interstate that would need to use a 3di number.
Not a real example, but the Berkshire connector of NY Thruway is arguably a part of the interstate system, and there are no I-x90 numbers available.
It could easily be I-x87 if there was any actual interest in such a designation, though.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 29, 2023, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
I-376 in Pennsylvania is another one, which has the same story as I-520 in which it was extended back to I-76 and even up to I-80 back in 2009. In the case of I-540 in Raleigh becoming I-640, I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.
Ahh yes I-376. It looks like in all these cases here that the freeways were originally spurs but then somehow extended back to their parent route. North Carolina's Interstate system is a mess IMO so I guess it really doesn't matter if it's 540 or 640 or whatever.
So someone disproved your point yet you don't want to admit you were wrong...
Unless somehow NC doesn't count as part of the USA and its Interstate system anymore. But now that I'm saying this you'll probably try to argue that too.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 29, 2023, 11:00:04 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 29, 2023, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
I-376 in Pennsylvania is another one, which has the same story as I-520 in which it was extended back to I-76 and even up to I-80 back in 2009. In the case of I-540 in Raleigh becoming I-640, I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.
Ahh yes I-376. It looks like in all these cases here that the freeways were originally spurs but then somehow extended back to their parent route. North Carolina's Interstate system is a mess IMO so I guess it really doesn't matter if it's 540 or 640 or whatever.
So someone disproved your point yet you don't want to admit you were wrong...
Unless somehow NC doesn't count as part of the USA and its Interstate system anymore. But now that I'm saying this you'll probably try to argue that too.
Logic will only apply if it takes place within the state limits of Michigan.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
I-540 is not going to be renumbered, and there is zero reason to.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:07:57 AM
To force a state to only use state numbers? What are you talking about? In order for a highway to become an Interstate they have to apply for it to become an Interstate, it either gets approved or denied. I'd love to see you tell MDOT that they should have all their freeways as Interstates. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here.
You stop it.
If a state wanted another 3di route but was out of even numbers (for a loop / connecting route), they could use an odd number. IF they wanted an interstate, they would not be forced to just make it a state route. It's a hypothetical situation for any state. Not an umpteenth non-existent situation for the state of Michigan.
What Michigan does is not representative of all states, so citing it directly in a scenario that isn't even remotely similar, is a poor argument.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 29, 2023, 11:00:04 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 29, 2023, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
I-376 in Pennsylvania is another one, which has the same story as I-520 in which it was extended back to I-76 and even up to I-80 back in 2009. In the case of I-540 in Raleigh becoming I-640, I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.
Ahh yes I-376. It looks like in all these cases here that the freeways were originally spurs but then somehow extended back to their parent route. North Carolina's Interstate system is a mess IMO so I guess it really doesn't matter if it's 540 or 640 or whatever.
So someone disproved your point yet you don't want to admit you were wrong...
Unless somehow NC doesn't count as part of the USA and its Interstate system anymore. But now that I'm saying this you'll probably try to argue that too.
So three examples disproves my point? That isn't even close to being the majority. Most of the Interstate's in the US do follow the rules of the system, of course there are going to be a few exceptions that is common so what is exactly disproving my point? My point with North Carolina is that it's a state that has overdone the Interstate system, nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 29, 2023, 12:21:20 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 29, 2023, 11:00:04 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 29, 2023, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
I-376 in Pennsylvania is another one, which has the same story as I-520 in which it was extended back to I-76 and even up to I-80 back in 2009. In the case of I-540 in Raleigh becoming I-640, I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.
Ahh yes I-376. It looks like in all these cases here that the freeways were originally spurs but then somehow extended back to their parent route. North Carolina's Interstate system is a mess IMO so I guess it really doesn't matter if it's 540 or 640 or whatever.
So someone disproved your point yet you don't want to admit you were wrong...
Unless somehow NC doesn't count as part of the USA and its Interstate system anymore. But now that I'm saying this you'll probably try to argue that too.
Logic will only apply if it takes place within the state limits of Michigan.
And how is that? I'm pretty aware of how other states operate other than Michigan. Michigan also isn't the only state that doesn't put the red, white and blue shield on every freeway they have.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 29, 2023, 12:21:58 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
I-540 is not going to be renumbered, and there is zero reason to.
I never said it was going to or needed to be, I simply said that I've seen it mentioned elsewhere.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 29, 2023, 12:24:10 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:07:57 AM
To force a state to only use state numbers? What are you talking about? In order for a highway to become an Interstate they have to apply for it to become an Interstate, it either gets approved or denied. I'd love to see you tell MDOT that they should have all their freeways as Interstates. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here.
You stop it.
If a state wanted another 3di route but was out of even numbers (for a loop / connecting route), they could use an odd number. IF they wanted an interstate, they would not be forced to just make it a state route. It's a hypothetical situation for any state. Not an umpteenth non-existent situation for the state of Michigan.
What Michigan does is not representative of all states, so citing it directly in a scenario that isn't even remotely similar, is a poor argument.
Um ok.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 29, 2023, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
I-376 in Pennsylvania is another one, which has the same story as I-520 in which it was extended back to I-76 and even up to I-80 back in 2009. In the case of I-540 in Raleigh becoming I-640, I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.
Ahh yes I-376. It looks like in all these cases here that the freeways were originally spurs but then somehow extended back to their parent route. North Carolina's Interstate system is a mess IMO so I guess it really doesn't matter if it's 540 or 640 or whatever.
What about I-678 in NY. A Spur now but originally a loop of cancelled I-78. So really it's in violation in two ways as the other that it no longer plans to connect back to its parent.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 29, 2023, 10:27:47 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 29, 2023, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 29, 2023, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2023, 11:26:51 PM
^ See NC I-540, SC I-520
Are those the only two examples? In I-520's case it wasn't originally a loop, it ended before getting back to I-20 it was extended so the number was kept that is what I gather from it. In I-540's case that one is still a spur actually but I thought that they were talking about renumbering it when it was completed.
I-376 in Pennsylvania is another one, which has the same story as I-520 in which it was extended back to I-76 and even up to I-80 back in 2009. In the case of I-540 in Raleigh becoming I-640, I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.
Ahh yes I-376. It looks like in all these cases here that the freeways were originally spurs but then somehow extended back to their parent route. North Carolina's Interstate system is a mess IMO so I guess it really doesn't matter if it's 540 or 640 or whatever.
What about I-678 in NY. A Spur now but originally a loop of cancelled I-78. So really it's in violation in two ways as the other that it no longer plans to connect back to its parent.
It's indeed a violator now. Same thing with it's neighbors I-278, I-295 and I-495, although I-495 does connect with I-295 which connects with I-95 but only on one end at it's northern terminus in The Bronx. I don't have a problem with even numbered 3dis that have both ends at an Interstate regardless if one of the ends isn't at the parent route but rather another Interstate such as I-696 in Michigan. But ones that just end at random places instead of another Interstate shouldn't have an even first number but rather an odd one. I don't have a problem with the odd 3dis having both ends at the parent Interstate either but if I was in that area and saw like I-520 I'd assume that it only connects with I-20 once even though it does connect with it twice. I would also assume that I-678 would get me back to I-78 on both ends. I guess it's hard in that area since I-78 ends on the New Jersey side and doesn't continue past NYC. I guess it's ok the way it is now since we're all used to it.
If the Mid Manhattan Expressway didn't get cancelled I-495 would have connected to its parent at one end at least and its other end at cancelled I-78.
The section of I-495 east of I-295 was originally NY 24 to later become NY 495 to then what it is now. Plans also got studied to extend I-495 further east into CT or RI via a long Cross Sound Bridge, and was also considered to travel further east onto the North Fork hence its end at Old Country Road having an off ramp from a stub.
It would have been an interesting multi-state Route 24 if it had happened differently...
This is supposed to be a thread about why Boston has two loops, not about highway numbering. Derailing it with a particularly gratuitous highway numbering discussion
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 10:54:23 AM
is merely annoying
To get back on track, Houston has one more loop than Boston. It has its third being built in stages as I write, so Boston isn't so unusual anymore.
Houston's 1st loop is small enough that the 3rd one is not that far out though.
Quote from: ran4sh on June 03, 2023, 09:44:24 PM
Houston's 1st loop is small enough that the 3rd one is not that far out though.
...and Boston was to have a little inner loop...
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on May 28, 2023, 10:35:41 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 24, 2023, 10:06:19 AM
495 isn't really a circumferential of Boston southeast of Foxborough, or arguably southeast of the Mass Pike. It would be if a ton of traffic was generated from Cape Cod, but Cape Cod is quite decidedly not a dense urban core generating a massive amount of traffic. It generates a good amount, yes, but not a ton. 495 does serve a good purpose in its southeastern reaches, though, providing access to a lot of populated areas in southeastern Mass. And 495 is a suitable enough number, as the majority of the highway serves as a bypass. My point is that Boston, more or less, has 1 1/2 bypasses rather than 2. (Same with I-355 in Chicagoland; I'm hesitant to call that a bypass.) I'd be more inclined to call the southern half of 495 a bypass if there was a highway running south from Wareham or Cape Cod south across the ocean to, say, the Hamptons? :-P
At one point, 495 was exclusively circumferential, ending at its current interchange at I-95 in Mansfield. IIRC, it wasn't until the 1980s that it was extended to Taunton at MA-24 and then down to its terminus with MA-25 and I-195 in Wareham.
There are bridges on the east end of I-495 dated 1966, so I don't think this is accurate.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 06, 2023, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on May 28, 2023, 10:35:41 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 24, 2023, 10:06:19 AM
495 isn't really a circumferential of Boston southeast of Foxborough, or arguably southeast of the Mass Pike. It would be if a ton of traffic was generated from Cape Cod, but Cape Cod is quite decidedly not a dense urban core generating a massive amount of traffic. It generates a good amount, yes, but not a ton. 495 does serve a good purpose in its southeastern reaches, though, providing access to a lot of populated areas in southeastern Mass. And 495 is a suitable enough number, as the majority of the highway serves as a bypass. My point is that Boston, more or less, has 1 1/2 bypasses rather than 2. (Same with I-355 in Chicagoland; I'm hesitant to call that a bypass.) I'd be more inclined to call the southern half of 495 a bypass if there was a highway running south from Wareham or Cape Cod south across the ocean to, say, the Hamptons? :-P
At one point, 495 was exclusively circumferential, ending at its current interchange at I-95 in Mansfield. IIRC, it wasn't until the 1980s that it was extended to Taunton at MA-24 and then down to its terminus with MA-25 and I-195 in Wareham.
There are bridges on the east end of I-495 dated 1966, so I don't think this is accurate.
The far east end, between MA 24 and I-195, was already built as MA 25. It was re-numbered in the 80's at some point after 495 was built between I-95 and 24.
Quote from: SectorZ on June 06, 2023, 04:08:21 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 06, 2023, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on May 28, 2023, 10:35:41 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 24, 2023, 10:06:19 AM
495 isn't really a circumferential of Boston southeast of Foxborough, or arguably southeast of the Mass Pike. It would be if a ton of traffic was generated from Cape Cod, but Cape Cod is quite decidedly not a dense urban core generating a massive amount of traffic. It generates a good amount, yes, but not a ton. 495 does serve a good purpose in its southeastern reaches, though, providing access to a lot of populated areas in southeastern Mass. And 495 is a suitable enough number, as the majority of the highway serves as a bypass. My point is that Boston, more or less, has 1 1/2 bypasses rather than 2. (Same with I-355 in Chicagoland; I'm hesitant to call that a bypass.) I'd be more inclined to call the southern half of 495 a bypass if there was a highway running south from Wareham or Cape Cod south across the ocean to, say, the Hamptons? :-P
At one point, 495 was exclusively circumferential, ending at its current interchange at I-95 in Mansfield. IIRC, it wasn't until the 1980s that it was extended to Taunton at MA-24 and then down to its terminus with MA-25 and I-195 in Wareham.
There are bridges on the east end of I-495 dated 1966, so I don't think this is accurate.
The far east end, between MA 24 and I-195, was already built as MA 25. It was re-numbered in the 80's at some point after 495 was built between I-95 and 24.
That is correct. MA - 25 was subsumed by the I-495 extension. Have to wonder, if during the early planning process, 495 was ever considered to have gone to Plymouth, instead, via the US - 44 corridor? There is a bitsy US 44 expressway, now, extending westward out of the Plymouth area. Not sure if it meets standards, have never been on it, am guessing no.
Quote from: DJStephens on June 07, 2023, 10:22:36 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 06, 2023, 04:08:21 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 06, 2023, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on May 28, 2023, 10:35:41 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 24, 2023, 10:06:19 AM
495 isn't really a circumferential of Boston southeast of Foxborough, or arguably southeast of the Mass Pike. It would be if a ton of traffic was generated from Cape Cod, but Cape Cod is quite decidedly not a dense urban core generating a massive amount of traffic. It generates a good amount, yes, but not a ton. 495 does serve a good purpose in its southeastern reaches, though, providing access to a lot of populated areas in southeastern Mass. And 495 is a suitable enough number, as the majority of the highway serves as a bypass. My point is that Boston, more or less, has 1 1/2 bypasses rather than 2. (Same with I-355 in Chicagoland; I'm hesitant to call that a bypass.) I'd be more inclined to call the southern half of 495 a bypass if there was a highway running south from Wareham or Cape Cod south across the ocean to, say, the Hamptons? :-P
At one point, 495 was exclusively circumferential, ending at its current interchange at I-95 in Mansfield. IIRC, it wasn't until the 1980s that it was extended to Taunton at MA-24 and then down to its terminus with MA-25 and I-195 in Wareham.
There are bridges on the east end of I-495 dated 1966, so I don't think this is accurate.
The far east end, between MA 24 and I-195, was already built as MA 25. It was re-numbered in the 80's at some point after 495 was built between I-95 and 24.
That is correct. MA - 25 was subsumed by the I-495 extension. Have to wonder, if during the early planning process, 495 was ever considered to have gone to Plymouth, instead, via the US - 44 corridor? There is a bitsy US 44 expressway, now, extending westward out of the Plymouth area. Not sure if it meets standards, have never been on it, am guessing no.
I've never heard of any plan to have I-495 go towards Plymouth. I've been on it once and it just doesn't have the traffic to warrant being an Interstate. I'm not exactly sure the benefit of the freeway to begin with, but it's probably for the best that I-495 go towards the Cape.
The US 44 freeway opened in 2005, so it is unrelated to anything having to do with Interstate 495. It would take some doing (and won't happen anyway) but the US 44 freeway could theoretically be extended westward to Interstate 495, since US 44 is limited-access from the traffic circle eastward. I doubt US 44 will be upgraded any further, so that's that.
Am aware that the US - 44 improvements came later. Just asking that if a long time ago, perhaps even in the Fifties, 495 was considered to go somewhere beyond, on it's southern end, than the planned or "projected" southern connection with I-95. MA - 25 connected with MA - 24 pre early eighties. The "gap" was then filled. Meaning extending 495 to the MA 24/25 interchange. To be entirely correct, 495 should have had an Odd 3di number, E of its' southern connection with 95, but am guessing it was not done that way, to avoid confusion with a new designation. 595, 795 both would have worked.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 07, 2023, 10:28:32 AM
I've been on it once and it just doesn't have the traffic to warrant being an Interstate. I'm not exactly sure the benefit of the freeway to begin with, but it's probably for the best that I-495 go towards the Cape.
Wut.
If only DOTs knew this is all you needed to do to determine where projects were needed...
Quote from: DJStephens on June 07, 2023, 10:49:39 AM
Am aware that the US - 44 improvements came later. Just asking that if a long time ago, perhaps even in the Fifties, 495 was considered to go somewhere beyond, on it's southern end, than the planned or "projected" southern connection with I-95. MA - 25 connected with MA - 24 pre early eighties. The "gap" was then filled. Meaning extending 495 to the MA 24/25 interchange. To be entirely correct, 495 should have had an Odd 3di number, E of its' southern connection with 95, but am guessing it was not done that way, to avoid confusion with a new designation. 595, 795 both would have worked.
No. It was never planned as such.
Quote from: DJStephens on June 07, 2023, 10:22:36 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 06, 2023, 04:08:21 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 06, 2023, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on May 28, 2023, 10:35:41 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 24, 2023, 10:06:19 AM
495 isn't really a circumferential of Boston southeast of Foxborough, or arguably southeast of the Mass Pike. It would be if a ton of traffic was generated from Cape Cod, but Cape Cod is quite decidedly not a dense urban core generating a massive amount of traffic. It generates a good amount, yes, but not a ton. 495 does serve a good purpose in its southeastern reaches, though, providing access to a lot of populated areas in southeastern Mass. And 495 is a suitable enough number, as the majority of the highway serves as a bypass. My point is that Boston, more or less, has 1 1/2 bypasses rather than 2. (Same with I-355 in Chicagoland; I'm hesitant to call that a bypass.) I'd be more inclined to call the southern half of 495 a bypass if there was a highway running south from Wareham or Cape Cod south across the ocean to, say, the Hamptons? :-P
At one point, 495 was exclusively circumferential, ending at its current interchange at I-95 in Mansfield. IIRC, it wasn't until the 1980s that it was extended to Taunton at MA-24 and then down to its terminus with MA-25 and I-195 in Wareham.
There are bridges on the east end of I-495 dated 1966, so I don't think this is accurate.
The far east end, between MA 24 and I-195, was already built as MA 25. It was re-numbered in the 80's at some point after 495 was built between I-95 and 24.
That is correct. MA - 25 was subsumed by the I-495 extension. Have to wonder, if during the early planning process, 495 was ever considered to have gone to Plymouth, instead, via the US - 44 corridor? There is a bitsy US 44 expressway, now, extending westward out of the Plymouth area. Not sure if it meets standards, have never been on it, am guessing no.
As has been mentioned, the US 44 expressway is relatively recent. I don't think it goes as far west as 495, and isn't even four lanes in parts. It could become a bona fide expressway, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 08, 2023, 05:29:36 AM
As has been mentioned, the US 44 expressway is relatively recent. I don't think it goes as far west as 495, and isn't even four lanes in parts. It could become a bona fide expressway, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.
Maybe not soon, but I think it will happen, as the area's population increases. There's plenty of ROW along the super 2 for doubling it up, including diamonds at the current traffic lights, and it's almost as flat as a board. Combine that with the long-imagined flyover at the Middleborough rotary, and it would be full freeway from I-495 to MA-3.
Quote from: DJStephens on June 07, 2023, 10:22:36 AM
MA - 25 was subsumed by the I-495 extension. Have to wonder, if during the early planning process, 495 was ever considered to have gone to Plymouth, instead, via the US - 44 corridor? There is a bitsy US 44 expressway, now, extending westward out of the Plymouth area. Not sure if it meets standards, have never been on it, am guessing no.
As others have stated, that US 44 project was not part of any I-495 or MA 25 plan I'm aware of.
However, when MA 25 was planned; one early proposal had such extending & connecting to MA 3 just north of the then-Sagamore rotary.