Ah, Route 146, one of the weirdest highways in Mass.
1. It's a highway then a road with homes and businesses and then highway again.
2. Exit numbers on gore signs end at 8
3. The construction at exit 8 means that passing over the bridge gets fairly dangerous, especially with trucks.
4. Labels on bridges end at exit 9 (and this one is wrong).
5. Boston Rd in Sutton light backs up real bad.
fixes to this can be found at Fictional Highways, but here just post experiences if you've been here
I was there before it was a freeway to 290. So take
6. Before mid-2000s, drops from four freeway lanes to a two-lane city street on the outskirts of Worcester before connecting to full freeway I-290
7. Even given all of the above it's still a way more coherent road than its brother RI 146. At least until the resigning/addition of exit numbers
Bridges over unbuilt lanes that were built farther away for a wider median.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 30, 2018, 01:29:11 AM
7. Even given all of the above it's still a way more coherent road than its brother RI 146. At least until the resigning/addition of exit numbers
RI 146 is a mess currently since it really needs a signage upgrade along the entire length of the highway. Sometime in the last few years, I believe they added mile markers going up from Providence.
8. It has an exit directing you to Manchaug, which for some reason sounds gross to me.
Quote from: SectorZ on December 30, 2018, 07:00:18 PM
8. It has an exit directing you to Manchaug, which for some reason sounds gross to me.
Exit 5, Main Street in Northbridge, does have that Manchaug auxiliary sign.
Manchaug, I've actually been there several times, is named after the lake (trust me it isn't gross).
MASSDOT really just wants to say it has three beltways around Boston.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 30, 2018, 10:19:00 PM
MASSDOT really just wants to say it has three beltways around Boston.
I wouldn't call 146 to 290 a beltway considering it's not worth it because of the Worcester traffic.
Quote from: Ben114 on December 30, 2018, 10:25:26 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 30, 2018, 10:19:00 PM
MASSDOT really just wants to say it has three beltways around Boston.
I wouldn't call 146 to 290 a beltway considering it's not worth it because of the Worcester traffic.
No but it is the third and outer belt (despite not functioning as such) of the Providence-Worcester-Boston Metro area. Any further west and you get into the Hartford-Springfield metro area. 395 is like no mans land in the middle
I guess you could call 146-290-190 a third far out beltway.
Quote from: Ben114 on December 31, 2018, 05:10:45 PM
I guess you could call 146-290-190 a third far out beltway.
You can add 195 to that, too. If something went from Leominster to Manchester NH you'd have that and 101 to Hampton.
Quote from: SectorZ on December 31, 2018, 09:04:25 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on December 31, 2018, 05:10:45 PM
I guess you could call 146-290-190 a third far out beltway.
You can add 195 to that, too. If something went from Leominster to Manchester NH you'd have that and 101 to Hampton.
Google maps says that the Wareham-Providence-Worcester-Lemoinster route is 108 miles and just over a 2 hour drive, so it'll fit the length of a beltway for sure with 95 (full MA length) being about 90 miles and 495 being roughly 120 miles.
For an extra 10 miles, just add MA 25.
If regular roads were an option, hop onto MA 13 and take that to NH 101.
Quote from: Ben114 on December 30, 2018, 10:51:47 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 30, 2018, 01:29:11 AM
7. Even given all of the above it's still a way more coherent road than its brother RI 146. At least until the resigning/addition of exit numbers
RI 146 is a mess currently since it really needs a signage upgrade along the entire length of the highway. Sometime in the last few years, I believe they added mile markers going up from Providence.
RI 146 has to be the only highway that has different mileposts in each direction. SB uses mileposts from the MA border, while NB uses mileposts from I-95. The exit #'s listed above from Wikipedia are based on NB mileposts for both directions.
Quote from: Ben114 on December 30, 2018, 07:38:51 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 30, 2018, 07:00:18 PM
8. It has an exit directing you to Manchaug, which for some reason sounds gross to me.
Exit 5, Main Street in Northbridge, does have that Manchaug auxiliary sign.
Manchaug, I've actually been there several times, is named after the lake (trust me it isn't gross).
Everybody Manchaug tonight!! And then of course, not too far from there, you have Lake CharÂgoggÂaÂgoggÂmanÂchauggÂaÂgoggÂchauÂbunÂaÂgungÂaÂmaugg.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 01, 2019, 12:55:20 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on December 30, 2018, 10:51:47 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 30, 2018, 01:29:11 AM
7. Even given all of the above it's still a way more coherent road than its brother RI 146. At least until the resigning/addition of exit numbers
RI 146 is a mess currently since it really needs a signage upgrade along the entire length of the highway. Sometime in the last few years, I believe they added mile markers going up from Providence.
RI 146 has to be the only highway that has different mileposts in each direction. SB uses mileposts from the MA border, while NB uses mileposts from I-95. The exit #'s listed above from Wikipedia are based on NB mileposts for both directions.
I have never heard of that. This deserves its own thread in General Highway Talk.
Quote from: Alps
I have never heard of that. This deserves its own thread in General Highway Talk.
Created (title: RI 146 mile markers).
Unless it's changed in the past year or so, the exit from 146-S to the Mass Pike entrance has to be one of the most poorly designed off ramps of all time. You have to immediately cut over to the left lane to get on the Pike while avoiding traffic also trying to get on the Pike from 146-N
Quote from: JWF1959 on January 01, 2019, 04:41:59 PM
Unless it's changed in the past year or so, the exit from 146-S to the Mass Pike entrance has to be one of the most poorly designed off ramps of all time. You have to immediately cut over to the left lane to get on the Pike while avoiding traffic also trying to get on the Pike from 146-N
What they should do is just have that ramp for 20 and since they did the toll removal, have another ramp that leads into the former toll plaza.
^ That wouldn't work due to wetlands and then you'd also have to relocate the ramp from 20/Pike to southbound 146.
Further complicating factors for any widespread interchange changes are accesses to the tandem trailer lot, the park-and-ride lot, and the State Police station.
After looking at Google Earth, they should have just kept the ramps going to 20 when the Pike exit was built and give NB direct-ish access to the Pike.
Quote from: JWF1959 on January 01, 2019, 04:41:59 PM
Unless it's changed in the past year or so, the exit from 146-S to the Mass Pike entrance has to be one of the most poorly designed off ramps of all time. You have to immediately cut over to the left lane to get on the Pike while avoiding traffic also trying to get on the Pike from 146-N
Which is funny because it didn't exist prior to 2001.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 01, 2019, 12:55:20 AM
RI 146 has to be the only highway that has different mileposts in each direction.
I believe this has been fixed. At last check, in the North Smithfield stretch, the mile markers were descending.
This thread (and the fact I've driven through the above-mentioned wacky interchange a few times) got me spending way too much time building the following reconfiguration with a new flyover-style ramp (or pair of spans with an earthen abutment between them) exclusively for connection between 146 and 90 East - I needed practice playing with GIMP for the first time anyway. What do you guys think?
(https://mm50sq.dm.files.1drv.com/y4mdRmBWc1BGxsmHptDx3a16XMxbCeMBO6OkP5Z1u2MCjbTE1VcUyTExLO-D2XST1K_6lF9KfIYRSlzMJn14hu7P3kicrqyxoQzx0xCSDMsMG6kJNXadlEzQeEdg0fMzlNcIT--eV2RzfBkkXZ176Ox6DnUs90EVzCJGKO_fXofoZxjpJ1VGnkVBQ_1b7VewsZ_x68r-iUOEeCOYOpbyPTdpA/146-20-90edit.jpg?psid=1)
Also, regarding the comment about "unbuilt lanes"; after reading the route's Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_146#History) (how is there no BostonRoads entry on this one?), I'm led to believe those spans and extra lane(s) are the remains of the undivided alignment that was in place before the early 1980s.
^ I don't think that's the right approach, either:
- You've added two intersections (both requiring turns) to the trip to get to both US 20 and westbound I-90.
- Your mock-up also makes it impossible to get to 146 from either westbound I-90 or US 20.
- You have an AWFULLY TIGHT curve at the south end of your new flyover to get to eastbound I-90. My estimate based on how you drew it is a 15 mph design speed. Might also be too tight for the tandem-trailers.
More realistic will be a couple of finger ramps, like 90W-146N would be useful.
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2019, 10:54:52 PM
^ I don't think that's the right approach, either:
- You've added two intersections (both requiring turns) to the trip to get to both US 20 and westbound I-90.
- Your mock-up also makes it impossible to get to 146 from either westbound I-90 or US 20.
- You have an AWFULLY TIGHT curve at the south end of your new flyover to get to eastbound I-90. My estimate based on how you drew it is a 15 mph design speed. Might also be too tight for the tandem-trailers.
D'oh! I went through a couple of iterations on this and had considered the missing movements you mention - but didn't triple-check for them before what I thought was the final version posted a few hours ago. Here's the fixed version:
(https://mm50sq.dm.files.1drv.com/y4mAY1zToEEM2DE6RLepAjPlt3RYgrby4zRn022QXiEwVD5fk3U-kpRvUJ4Ijxq9dXcz_wOHJcX0MfwCWF8H0cS7hexeK5P5QQZq9OQOhlWHiA--liiw8N0BPHxmWcBeUrYYmhQuHJgkM9C51h9Q2FrIxXv1fg82udkMKVn4_KwHtwa1buuCSiFsc3tb7Hv5u_9EHyuudWFuvLO-fxl7ck5XQ/146-20-90edit.jpg?psid=1)
I consider it to be only one full intersection added (one was eliminated, with no-stop movements at the T adjacent to the railyard, and the junctions at the police station driveway and parking lots were basically built upon).
Yes, that 20/146->90EB onramp is annoyingly tight but that is in consideration of the noted terrain/wetlands. If those could be worked with it could be opened up - and at least there are two long acceleration lanes to merge on with. Can't be much worse than getting on westbound at 10/Auburn (one of my favorite but scariest passing zones!).
I didn't want to have as many movements requiring lefts and at first had the bridges/flyover start from sort of the middle of the railyard overpass - but that effectively cut off access to the fancy new trailer parking area and ate up more available lane width. At least volumes entering/exiting those lots shouldn't require much signal interference with the traffic effectively just moving west under that new structure.
...OK, so I actually measured it and the center of that lane has a radius of only about 80 feet, less than half that of the inside lane of that entrance from Auburn.
Yeah, yikes.... But I guess hopefully a little massaging of the landscape wouldn't be impossible? Heh, this is pretty much all just because I read JWF1959's first-and-so-far-only post!
I wonder if taking out that commuter parking lot could change anything? It's at the top center, roughly.
Quote from: Magical Trevor on January 07, 2019, 08:38:53 PM
Also, regarding the comment about "unbuilt lanes"; after reading the route's Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_146#History) (how is there no BostonRoads entry on this one?), I'm led to believe those spans and extra lane(s) are the remains of the undivided alignment that was in place before the early 1980s.
Nope.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0764299,-71.6823094,3a,75y,314.98h,88.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFwc5MdTfNS7FTB3-UmqBOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0826604,-71.6893711,3a,75y,324.85h,77.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seipFBg014z092gVsX7Aliw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.historicaerials.com/location/42.082892/-71.689627/1966/18
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 08, 2019, 07:22:15 AM
I wonder if taking out that commuter parking lot could change anything? It's at the top center, roughly.
The "right" half of that lot is for double-trailer drop-offs, something that will probably still be needed somewhere at that interchange if they re-route ramps into it.
Quote from: NE2 on January 08, 2019, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: Magical Trevor on January 07, 2019, 08:38:53 PM
Also, regarding the comment about "unbuilt lanes"; after reading the route's Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_146#History) (how is there no BostonRoads entry on this one?), I'm led to believe those spans and extra lane(s) are the remains of the undivided alignment that was in place before the early 1980s.
Nope.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0764299,-71.6823094,3a,75y,314.98h,88.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFwc5MdTfNS7FTB3-UmqBOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0826604,-71.6893711,3a,75y,324.85h,77.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seipFBg014z092gVsX7Aliw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.historicaerials.com/location/42.082892/-71.689627/1966/18
You know, I thought about checking those out on historicaerials, but thought, "Naw, that has to be it! Can't tell me these things were made 50 years ago and never used once in either iteration of this highway!"
Maddening...
Quote from: Magical Trevor on January 08, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 08, 2019, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: Magical Trevor on January 07, 2019, 08:38:53 PM
Also, regarding the comment about "unbuilt lanes"; after reading the route's Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_146#History) (how is there no BostonRoads entry on this one?), I'm led to believe those spans and extra lane(s) are the remains of the undivided alignment that was in place before the early 1980s.
Nope.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0764299,-71.6823094,3a,75y,314.98h,88.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFwc5MdTfNS7FTB3-UmqBOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0826604,-71.6893711,3a,75y,324.85h,77.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seipFBg014z092gVsX7Aliw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.historicaerials.com/location/42.082892/-71.689627/1966/18
You know, I thought about checking those out on historicaerials, but thought, "Naw, that has to be it! Can't tell me these things were made 50 years ago and never used once in either iteration of this highway!"
Maddening...
So those are remnants of a much older widening plan with a narrow median?
Quote from: Magical Trevor on January 08, 2019, 01:55:44 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2019, 10:54:52 PM
^ I don't think that's the right approach, either:
- You've added two intersections (both requiring turns) to the trip to get to both US 20 and westbound I-90.
- Your mock-up also makes it impossible to get to 146 from either westbound I-90 or US 20.
- You have an AWFULLY TIGHT curve at the south end of your new flyover to get to eastbound I-90. My estimate based on how you drew it is a 15 mph design speed. Might also be too tight for the tandem-trailers.
D'oh! I went through a couple of iterations on this and had considered the missing movements you mention - but didn't triple-check for them before what I thought was the final version posted a few hours ago. Here's the fixed version:
(https://mm50sq.dm.files.1drv.com/y4mAY1zToEEM2DE6RLepAjPlt3RYgrby4zRn022QXiEwVD5fk3U-kpRvUJ4Ijxq9dXcz_wOHJcX0MfwCWF8H0cS7hexeK5P5QQZq9OQOhlWHiA--liiw8N0BPHxmWcBeUrYYmhQuHJgkM9C51h9Q2FrIxXv1fg82udkMKVn4_KwHtwa1buuCSiFsc3tb7Hv5u_9EHyuudWFuvLO-fxl7ck5XQ/146-20-90edit.jpg?psid=1)
I consider it to be only one full intersection added (one was eliminated, with no-stop movements at the T adjacent to the railyard, and the junctions at the police station driveway and parking lots were basically built upon).
Yes, that 20/146->90EB onramp is annoyingly tight but that is in consideration of the noted terrain/wetlands. If those could be worked with it could be opened up - and at least there are two long acceleration lanes to merge on with. Can't be much worse than getting on westbound at 10/Auburn (one of my favorite but scariest passing zones!).
I didn't want to have as many movements requiring lefts and at first had the bridges/flyover start from sort of the middle of the railyard overpass - but that effectively cut off access to the fancy new trailer parking area and ate up more available lane width. At least volumes entering/exiting those lots shouldn't require much signal interference with the traffic effectively just moving west under that new structure.
Don't forget that Route 20 exists as part of this interchange.
Anyways, the parking area should be moved over to where the old toll booth was.