https://alpha.mapjunction.com/?lat=42.3436004&lng=-71.1117688&clipperX=0.7296977&clipperY=0.5708245&map1=google.SATELLITE&map2=mosaic.mapwarperlayer488&zoom=14.2017655&mode=overlay&b=0.000&p=0.000
Above is a link to the 1962 Inner Belt freeway plan overlaying current aerial view of Boston, with a slider to compare. Pan and zoom work as they do in Google Maps. You can select other maps dating back to the 17th century.
Interesting map layout website! I wonder if this could be done for other cities? Also, I know the MA 24 freeway was likely never proposed to extend beyond the MA 128 beltway, though if it did, I wonder where it would have intersected the Southwest Expressway? That seem likely the only logical terminus for this otherwise "fictional" extension.
That just proves how detrimental 695 would have been to Cambridge.
Interesting. If Route 3 were to stay on the Central Artery until the northern part of the loop, then follow the loop until it turns onto its own freeway, I trust at that point the entire "Route 3" could be switched to US-3
Does that also mean MA-2 would terminate all the way over where it meets US-3?
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 08, 2021, 11:34:50 PM
Interesting. If Route 3 were to stay on the Central Artery until the northern part of the loop, then follow the loop until it turns onto its own freeway, I trust at that point the entire "Route 3" could be switched to US-3
Does that also mean MA-2 would terminate all the way over where it meets US-3?
US 3 was never going to be extended beyond Boston. It would have been decades ago if so. MA 2 would have continued in probably to the Inner Loop and terminated simultaneously with US 3. MA 3 would either have been signed around 695 back to SE Expwy. or would have been truncated to I-95 (had everything been built); my guess is the former because MA never gets rid of anything.
Quote from: Alps on April 08, 2021, 06:15:02 PM
That just proves how detrimental 695 would have been to Cambridge.
Wouldn't have been a picnic through the Fenway or Lower Roxbury either...
Quote from: froggie on April 09, 2021, 10:59:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 08, 2021, 06:15:02 PM
That just proves how detrimental 695 would have been to Cambridge.
Wouldn't have been a picnic through the Fenway or Lower Roxbury either...
Cambridge would have been destroyed. Kendall/MIT would be completely cut off from downtown and Harvard and it would all have withered on the vine. I don't get the sense that anything in its path on the Boston side was that central to the neighborhood, not that it's unpopulated by any stretch.
To echo others points here, I can't believe 695 thru a lot of what it went thru was such a serious idea given how much it was going to wipe out.
If it existed today, Boston and Cambridge would be vastly different and not in any good way.
There's a lot of cancelled freeways that had BS cancellations. This was not one of them.
Tip O'Neill described the inner belt best:
"a China Wall dislocating 7,000 people just to save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore."
According to Bostonroads, federal requirements to provide replacement housing alone made the project infeasible.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:56:50 AM
Tip O'Neill described the inner belt best:
"a China Wall dislocating 7,000 people just to save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore."
According to Bostonroads, federal requirements to provide replacement housing alone made the project infeasible.
Never knew that quote. Not that costing US taxpayers $25B to build a tunnel to "save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore" was a better idea, but hey he got his name on the boondoggle at least.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2021, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:56:50 AM
Tip O'Neill described the inner belt best:
"a China Wall dislocating 7,000 people just to save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore."
According to Bostonroads, federal requirements to provide replacement housing alone made the project infeasible.
Never knew that quote. Not that costing US taxpayers $25B to build a tunnel to "save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore" was a better idea, but hey he got his name on the boondoggle at least.
Most of that $25 billion was borne by the state.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2021, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:56:50 AM
Tip O'Neill described the inner belt best:
"a China Wall dislocating 7,000 people just to save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore."
According to Bostonroads, federal requirements to provide replacement housing alone made the project infeasible.
Never knew that quote. Not that costing US taxpayers $25B to build a tunnel to "save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore" was a better idea, but hey he got his name on the boondoggle at least.
Tip O'Neill was correct about the Inner Belt, which would have bulldozed through his neighborhood. The Central Artery Tunnel project had an opposite effect. The project achieved the following outcomes:
- A new tunnel connecting the Massachusetts Turnpike to East Boston and Logan Airport
- An obsolete and dangerous highway, from Massachusetts Avenue north into Charlestown, was replaced with a tunnel and bridge system that is safer and able to handle significantly more traffic.
- The removal of the elevated structure in downtown Boston transformed the center of the city, replacing a barrier with a pleasant place to walk. The connection from Faneuil Hall to the North End is a particularly significant benefit for tourism in the city.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 12:32:06 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2021, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:56:50 AM
Tip O'Neill described the inner belt best:
"a China Wall dislocating 7,000 people just to save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore."
According to Bostonroads, federal requirements to provide replacement housing alone made the project infeasible.
Never knew that quote. Not that costing US taxpayers $25B to build a tunnel to "save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore" was a better idea, but hey he got his name on the boondoggle at least.
Most of that $25 billion was borne by the state.
Most =/= all
Quote from: paul02474 on April 12, 2021, 01:52:17 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2021, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:56:50 AM
Tip O'Neill described the inner belt best:
"a China Wall dislocating 7,000 people just to save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore."
According to Bostonroads, federal requirements to provide replacement housing alone made the project infeasible.
Never knew that quote. Not that costing US taxpayers $25B to build a tunnel to "save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore" was a better idea, but hey he got his name on the boondoggle at least.
Tip O'Neill was correct about the Inner Belt, which would have bulldozed through his neighborhood. The Central Artery Tunnel project had an opposite effect. The project achieved the following outcomes:
- A new tunnel connecting the Massachusetts Turnpike to East Boston and Logan Airport
- An obsolete and dangerous highway, from Massachusetts Avenue north into Charlestown, was replaced with a tunnel and bridge system that is safer and able to handle significantly more traffic.
- The removal of the elevated structure in downtown Boston transformed the center of the city, replacing a barrier with a pleasant place to walk. The connection from Faneuil Hall to the North End is a particularly significant benefit for tourism in the city.
If they had proposed the Inner Belt as a tunnel instead of the Central Artery, might it have made it through?
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2021, 06:19:07 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on April 12, 2021, 01:52:17 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2021, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:56:50 AM
Tip O'Neill described the inner belt best:
"a China Wall dislocating 7,000 people just to save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore."
According to Bostonroads, federal requirements to provide replacement housing alone made the project infeasible.
Never knew that quote. Not that costing US taxpayers $25B to build a tunnel to "save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore" was a better idea, but hey he got his name on the boondoggle at least.
Tip O'Neill was correct about the Inner Belt, which would have bulldozed through his neighborhood. The Central Artery Tunnel project had an opposite effect. The project achieved the following outcomes:
- A new tunnel connecting the Massachusetts Turnpike to East Boston and Logan Airport
- An obsolete and dangerous highway, from Massachusetts Avenue north into Charlestown, was replaced with a tunnel and bridge system that is safer and able to handle significantly more traffic.
- The removal of the elevated structure in downtown Boston transformed the center of the city, replacing a barrier with a pleasant place to walk. The connection from Faneuil Hall to the North End is a particularly significant benefit for tourism in the city.
If they had proposed the Inner Belt as a tunnel instead of the Central Artery, might it have made it through?
It would have been much more expensive. And you'd have still needed to demolish thousands of homes for your cut and cover tunnel
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 07:10:51 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2021, 06:19:07 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on April 12, 2021, 01:52:17 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2021, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:56:50 AM
Tip O'Neill described the inner belt best:
"a China Wall dislocating 7,000 people just to save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore."
According to Bostonroads, federal requirements to provide replacement housing alone made the project infeasible.
Never knew that quote. Not that costing US taxpayers $25B to build a tunnel to "save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore" was a better idea, but hey he got his name on the boondoggle at least.
Tip O'Neill was correct about the Inner Belt, which would have bulldozed through his neighborhood. The Central Artery Tunnel project had an opposite effect. The project achieved the following outcomes:
- A new tunnel connecting the Massachusetts Turnpike to East Boston and Logan Airport
- An obsolete and dangerous highway, from Massachusetts Avenue north into Charlestown, was replaced with a tunnel and bridge system that is safer and able to handle significantly more traffic.
- The removal of the elevated structure in downtown Boston transformed the center of the city, replacing a barrier with a pleasant place to walk. The connection from Faneuil Hall to the North End is a particularly significant benefit for tourism in the city.
If they had proposed the Inner Belt as a tunnel instead of the Central Artery, might it have made it through?
It would have been much more expensive. And you'd have still needed to demolish thousands of homes for your cut and cover tunnel
It wouldn't be cut and cover. They'd have to bore it. But yeah, it'd be heckin' expensive even in the 70s.
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2021, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 07:10:51 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2021, 06:19:07 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on April 12, 2021, 01:52:17 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2021, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:56:50 AM
Tip O'Neill described the inner belt best:
"a China Wall dislocating 7,000 people just to save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore."
According to Bostonroads, federal requirements to provide replacement housing alone made the project infeasible.
Never knew that quote. Not that costing US taxpayers $25B to build a tunnel to "save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore" was a better idea, but hey he got his name on the boondoggle at least.
Tip O'Neill was correct about the Inner Belt, which would have bulldozed through his neighborhood. The Central Artery Tunnel project had an opposite effect. The project achieved the following outcomes:
- A new tunnel connecting the Massachusetts Turnpike to East Boston and Logan Airport
- An obsolete and dangerous highway, from Massachusetts Avenue north into Charlestown, was replaced with a tunnel and bridge system that is safer and able to handle significantly more traffic.
- The removal of the elevated structure in downtown Boston transformed the center of the city, replacing a barrier with a pleasant place to walk. The connection from Faneuil Hall to the North End is a particularly significant benefit for tourism in the city.
If they had proposed the Inner Belt as a tunnel instead of the Central Artery, might it have made it through?
It would have been much more expensive. And you'd have still needed to demolish thousands of homes for your cut and cover tunnel
It wouldn't be cut and cover. They'd have to bore it. But yeah, it'd be heckin' expensive even in the 70s.
Tunnel boring technology was in its infancy in the 70s. And they used cut and cover for the Tip O Neill tunnel.
I-105 in LA required the displacement of 25,000 people. But Caltrans ultimately got it through by agreeing to build replacement housing, reducing the number of general purpose lanes, and erecting sound barriers. That drove up the cost to $200 million per mile inflation adjusted, the most expensive interstate highway ever at that time. Caltrans was unwilling to give up on the Century freeway because it was much too important, relieving the 10 and 405 freeways of LAX-bound traffic. If MassDOT wanted the Inner Belt badly enough, they could've done the same.
Quote from: kurumi on April 08, 2021, 04:09:35 PM
https://alpha.mapjunction.com/?lat=42.3436004&lng=-71.1117688&clipperX=0.7296977&clipperY=0.5708245&map1=google.SATELLITE&map2=mosaic.mapwarperlayer488&zoom=14.2017655&mode=overlay&b=0.000&p=0.000
Above is a link to the 1962 Inner Belt freeway plan overlaying current aerial view of Boston, with a slider to compare. Pan and zoom work as they do in Google Maps. You can select other maps dating back to the 17th century.
Very interesting that the overlay also included the MA 2, US 3 extensions & connector as well as the would-be Southwest Expressway (original I-95). I would've loved to have seen a similar overlay for the proposed I-95 between Saugus & Peabody as well as the two Salem Connectors.
It appears that I-93 in the vicinity of the Inner Belt (I-695) interchange was actually built east of what was once proposed.
Quote from: Alps on April 09, 2021, 12:35:39 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 08, 2021, 11:34:50 PM
Interesting. If Route 3 were to stay on the Central Artery until the northern part of the loop, then follow the loop until it turns onto its own freeway, I trust at that point the entire "Route 3" could be switched to US-3
Does that also mean MA-2 would terminate all the way over where it meets US-3?
US 3 was never going to be extended beyond Boston. It would have been decades ago if so. MA 2 would have continued in probably to the Inner Loop and terminated simultaneously with US 3. MA 3 would either have been signed around 695 back to SE Expwy. or would have been truncated to I-95 (had everything been built); my guess is the former because MA never gets rid of anything.
A couple things worth noting:
1. As some here may know: prior to 1971, MA 3 went nowhere near Downtown Boston & didn't run along the Southeast Expressway north of Granite Ave./Neponset Circle (Exits 11 & 12 respectively). MA 203 was MA 3 prior to 1971.
2. Unlike Interstate routes, US & State Routes can continue beyond its freeway corridors utilizing non-freeway roads; provided that such roads can accommodate/allow for through-truck traffic for most of the way. Truck routes/detours would have to be signed for portions where truck traffic is restricted.
That said, one could see either US 3 and/or MA 2
piggybacking along I-695 up to either the proposed Mass Ave. interchange for MA 2 & Memorial Drive interchange for US 3.
Another possibility for US 3 would have had it exit off the MA 2 extension/connector at Alewife and follow its present routing south of the proposed highway corridor.
Looking at this again I'm reminded of how much it bugs me that you can't go from I-93 south to US 1 north anymore. IIRC that was the first change that was part of the Big Dig (1989-ish?), the removal of the ramp.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 15, 2021, 07:30:55 PM
Looking at this again I'm reminded of how much it bugs me that you can't go from I-93 south to US 1 north anymore. IIRC that was the first change that was part of the Big Dig (1989-ish?), the removal of the ramp.
First change, yes; but such was actually a separate, precursor project known as the Central Artery North Area (CANA) project.
The main two things, aside from cost, that bug me about the whole Big Dig project to this day is that the I-93 mainline tunnels between the Sumner/Callahan Tunnel (MA 1A) & the Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90) are
still only 6-lanes & the fact that both interchanges for the tunnels are not (no longer for the Sumner/Callahan) full-movement.
When the project was being promoted/touted during the late 70s/early 80s; it promised a wider I-93
for the entire length... 8-lanes minimum. It didn't take too long for that underground 6-lane stretch to become bottlenecks at both ends.
Redundant interchange ramps, even single-lane ones, at the tunnel interchanges would've certainly come in handy for when one of the tunnels is closed due to either an accident/incident or repairs/reconstruction. Both of these issues were very short-sighted IMHO.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2021, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:56:50 AM
Tip O'Neill described the inner belt best:
"a China Wall dislocating 7,000 people just to save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore."
According to Bostonroads, federal requirements to provide replacement housing alone made the project infeasible.
Never knew that quote. Not that costing US taxpayers $25B to build a tunnel to "save someone in New Hampshire 20 minutes on his way to the South Shore" was a better idea, but hey he got his name on the boondoggle at least.
Most city properties in Boston proper in the sixties could be bought for a song. Old brownstones and other older properties were not viewed as they are today. The problem with the Boston highway circulation was the "funneling" into the Central Artery (obsolete when it opened) of all the connector routes to it. They connected the Turnpike to it (circa '65) and then I-93 (reluctantly in '73). The Belt would have dispersed a lot of the traffic, instead of concentrating it towards and directly on the Artery. Yes they should have built the Inner Belt, and depressed as much as possible of it. Later scenarios showed "tunneling" under the Fens, and the Charles River, where earlier plans had it all elevated. So yes, personally believe a major mistake was made by Sargent in 1970.
Nah. Taking that money from all those unbuilt freeways and putting it towards The Big Dig was a good thing.
Do not believe any unspent funds from circa '70 plans were used on the "Big Dig". They were used on transit spending in the seventies. Remember the replacement Boeing Green Line articulated cars that replaced the smaller, single unit trolleys the green line had. The older ones had class and nostalgia. The Boeing LRV's were sterile in comparison.
Quote from: DJStephens on December 03, 2022, 11:00:24 AM
Do not believe any unspent funds from circa '70 plans were used on the "Big Dig". They were used on transit spending in the seventies. Remember the replacement Boeing Green Line articulated cars that replaced the smaller, single unit trolleys the green line had. The older ones had class and nostalgia. The Boeing LRV's were sterile in comparison.
It was definitely the argument put forward in Congress to secure federal funds for The Big Dig.
I seriously doubt MA made such a huge federal transfer of FHWA funding to FTA/MBTA, come to think of it. Even NY hasn't transferred anywhere close to that kind of amount cumulatively over the years. It is not a simple matter to just shift highway to transit funding, especially going all the way back then.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2021, 07:29:04 PM
As some here may know: prior to 1971, MA 3 went nowhere near Downtown Boston & didn't run along the Southeast Expressway north of Granite Ave./Neponset Circle (Exits 11 & 12 respectively). MA 203 was MA 3 prior to 1971.
I know this was a rather old post, but what exactly was the Southeast Expwy designated before 1971? That's right when I got my license and started driving that road, although I had been on it countless times with Mom & Dad. I vaguely remember 3 exiting at Granite Ave, but did the remainder of the road have a route number? That predated I-93 by several years and US-1 by two decades. If it was unnumbered, it would have been the only unnumbered major freeway since the Mass Pike got its number in 1965.
Quote from: DJStephens on December 03, 2022, 09:48:34 AM
Most city properties in Boston proper in the sixties could be bought for a song. Old brownstones and other older properties were not viewed as they are today. The problem with the Boston highway circulation was the "funneling" into the Central Artery (obsolete when it opened) of all the connector routes to it. They connected the Turnpike to it (circa '65) and then I-93 (reluctantly in '73). The Belt would have dispersed a lot of the traffic, instead of concentrating it towards and directly on the Artery. Yes they should have built the Inner Belt, and depressed as much as possible of it. Later scenarios showed "tunneling" under the Fens, and the Charles River, where earlier plans had it all elevated. So yes, personally believe a major mistake was made by Sargent in 1970.
What do you mean by "reluctantly"?
Referring to the closure of the NE expressway due to the gravel truck incident. That was probably still I-95 then (1973). The closure of the Tobin Bridge due to that incident prompted the Mass DPW to "open" the NW expressway (I-93) to the High Bridge over the Charles River. It was already finished, but not open. The thinking then among certain officials was that instant gridlock would be created, and in a sense, it did occur. Everything fed directly into the Artery. Remember sitting on the Artery in the eighties, and it was a mess. The Inner Belt would have dispersed quite a bit of that traffic.
Quote from: DJStephens on December 07, 2022, 07:09:04 AM
Referring to the closure of the NE expressway due to the gravel truck incident. That was probably still I-95 then (1973). The closure of the Tobin Bridge due to that incident prompted the Mass DPW to "open" the NW expressway (I-93) to the High Bridge over the Charles River. It was already finished, but not open. The thinking then among certain officials was that instant gridlock would be created, and in a sense, it did occur. Everything fed directly into the Artery. Remember sitting on the Artery in the eighties, and it was a mess. The Inner Belt would have dispersed quite a bit of that traffic.
Must've been a LOT of spillage. Was the accident that bad? Your profile has you living now in New Mexico but I assume you grew up in the Boston area.
It was more than spillage. The bridge itself partially collapsed and was closed for two months. The truck driver was killed in the accident.
https://www.wgbh.org/news/post/greater-boston-video-1973-tobin-bridge-collapse
Quote from: pderocco on December 05, 2022, 01:05:26 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2021, 07:29:04 PM
As some here may know: prior to 1971, MA 3 went nowhere near Downtown Boston & didn't run along the Southeast Expressway north of Granite Ave./Neponset Circle (Exits 11 & 12 respectively). MA 203 was MA 3 prior to 1971.
I know this was a rather old post, but what exactly was the Southeast Expwy designated before 1971? That's right when I got my license and started driving that road, although I had been on it countless times with Mom & Dad. I vaguely remember 3 exiting at Granite Ave, but did the remainder of the road have a route number? That predated I-93 by several years and US-1 by two decades. If it was unnumbered, it would have been the only unnumbered major freeway since the Mass Pike got its number in 1965.
When the Southeast Expressway & Central Artery were fully completed in 1959; neither were assigned a route number. Such is one reason why traffic reporters & others used those terms for many years if not decades.
The first stetch of the Southeast Expressway to receive a
relocated MA 3 designation was from the Braintree split to Granite Ave. (then MA 3/3A) circa 1962 when the
new MA 3 (Pilgrims Highway) was fully completed. Note: the northern piece of the latter was initially a southern extension of MA 128 until the entire length of the Pilgrim's Highway was completed.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 16, 2023, 07:03:02 PM
Quote from: pderocco on December 05, 2022, 01:05:26 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2021, 07:29:04 PM
As some here may know: prior to 1971, MA 3 went nowhere near Downtown Boston & didn't run along the Southeast Expressway north of Granite Ave./Neponset Circle (Exits 11 & 12 respectively). MA 203 was MA 3 prior to 1971.
I know this was a rather old post, but what exactly was the Southeast Expwy designated before 1971? That's right when I got my license and started driving that road, although I had been on it countless times with Mom & Dad. I vaguely remember 3 exiting at Granite Ave, but did the remainder of the road have a route number? That predated I-93 by several years and US-1 by two decades. If it was unnumbered, it would have been the only unnumbered major freeway since the Mass Pike got its number in 1965.
When the Southeast Expressway & Central Artery were fully completed in 1959; neither were assigned a route number. Such is one reason why traffic reporters & others used those terms for many years if not decades.
The first stretch of the Southeast Expressway to receive a relocated MA 3 designation was from the Braintree split to Granite Ave. (then MA 3/3A) circa 1962 when the new MA 3 (Pilgrims Highway) was fully completed. Note: the northern piece of the latter was initially a southern extension of MA 128 until the entire length of the Pilgrim's Highway was completed.
Based on a newspaper article I found, the last section of what they refer to as the Southeast Expressway between Hanover and Duxbury opened on Dec. 12, 1963. It was at that time that what was MA 3 between Quincy and Duxbury became MA 53. The Mass. state map for 1963 still shows that section as under construction, while it is shown as complete in the 1964 version.
Sorry for a somewhat belated post:
In response to ixnay on 12/7/2022, about the "gravel truck incident": The overloaded truck made a direct hit on one of the posts supporting the Tobin's upper deck, collapsing the deck above. There was relatively little spillage.
The entire area has changed drastically since then. The highways have been completely reconfigured and all of them have been rebuilt, first in the CANA project (completed 1994) and then the Big Dig (opened 2003). Many of the surface streets have also changed. The only recognizable highway today is the Tobin Bridge itself, although its approaches are different now. So don't look at a modern map and try to figure out what was where.
This was on the ramp connecting the northbound Central Artery with the Tobin Bridge. The Central Artery High Bridge over the Charles was double deck, and the Tobin is double deck. The northbound lanes were on the upper level of the High Bridge, but on the lower level of the Tobin.
The ramp made a tight S-curve on a downgrade in order to transition to the Tobin's lower level. The first bend of the S-curve was at the bottom of the downgrade, and then it became an upgrade. The truck was heavily overloaded, lost control on the downgrade, and hit the post square on. Part of the upper level dropped by several feet. Southbound cars had to jam the brakes to avoid going over the edge. Luckily it was very early rush hour, before 6:00 am.
The truck was hauling gravel from a quarry south of Boston, to fill in new land for Logan Airport. The Massachusetts Port Authority, which controls the airport, wanted the job done quickly; according to some reports, they "encouraged" the trucking company to fill its trucks as full as possible.
At that time the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority controlled the Sumner and Callahan Tunnels, and apparently the turnpike people didn't want the Port Authority's overloaded trucks in their tunnels. So the trucks were instead routed via the Tobin -- which at that time was also controlled by the Port Authority. That was a longer route, and used more local streets, but that was the Port Authority's wish.
(At that time the Central Artery was under the jurisdiction of the Mass. Dept. of Public Works, and nearby Storrow Drive was under the Metropolitan District Commission. So you had 4 different state agencies controlling different highways within a half-mile radius. And that doesn't count local streets under city jurisdiction. Oh yes, the Port Authority and the MDC had their own police forces, separate from the State Police.)
The Central Artery, the Tobin Bridge, and the Northeast Expressway were officially designated as part of Interstate 95 at that time, but they weren't signed for I-95. That's because it was a relatively short, isolated section of I-95, and wasn't connected to any other parts of the Interstate. Indeed, the connecting links to I-95 were never built at either end -- neither the Southwest Expressway, nor the I-95 segment through Saugus and Lynn.
The Central Artery and Southeast Expressway were signed for Mass. Route 3. Interstate 93, built but not yet opened, was designated to end at the Central Artery-Tobin junction (where it would have met I-95). The circumferential highway around Boston was simply Route 128; it didn't have any Interstate designation.
The decision not to build those connecting links of I-95 had just been finalized the previous November, and no new highway route designations had yet been made.
In fact, highway route designations through downtown Boston have a very complicated history, especially in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. At one point in time there was a U.S. Route 1, a state Route 1A, and a state Route C-1, plus several other "C-" routes (C-9, C-28, C-37, etc.). And even where the route numbers were designated, there were very few wayfinding signs. It was very easy to get lost if you weren't a local.
I have a 1963 Boston and Vicinity map that I found online -- H. M. Gousha/Sunoco. It appears to be an inset of a larger map, maybe one of Massachusetts. The Southeast Expressway, Central Artery, Tobin Bridge, and Northeast Expressway, none of them have any route designation. The Mass. Pike is shown as under construction. I-93 is open from Route 60 (Salem St., Medford) north, and under construction as far south as Mystic Avenue. U.S. Route 1 used mostly parkways through Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville, but local streets in Everett and Malden. Even though the Northeast and Southeast Expressways had been opened for 4 or 5 years, none of the numbered highways had been relocated to use them.
Very good information. This is a convoluted, complicated history, with all the competing jurisdictions, "fiefdoms" and political intrigue. The route numbers have changed over time as well.
The basic Tobin Bridge structure has remained unchanged, although the Charlestown southern end was reconfigured under the CANA project. The I-93 double decker weathered steel structure also has not substantially changed, either, since it's construction circa very early 1970's. It's connection points to the Artery changes with the "big dig" as well. Have to wonder, was any other possible configurations considered for that final piece of I-93 segment, mainly a ground level cross section?? It would have been far less visually obtrusive if at ground level.