I am aware of the moratorium on freeways inside 128, and how I-93 was not included due to already being under construction, but why couldn't I-95 be signed there after the fact? In fact, the current alignment of I-93 makes no sense to me. Why would it start at I-95, in the middle of nowhere relatively speaking, before going through Boston and crossing I-95 once again? Would it not be more logical to start it at its second interchange with I-95 letting the the long distance through route enter Boston, the way I-80 lets it go through New York City? If it was really important, for some reason, to make it enter Boston, then why wouldn't it just end at I-90 the way I-87 ends at I-278 in New York City? Was I-93 supposed to go further south toward a more important destination?
The only similar example I can think of is I-76 entering New Jersey for no apparent reason before ending at I-295, but at least it doesn't do so at the expense of another through route.
I sometimes wonder this myself. Have I-93 run along with MA Route 128 instead? It would've made for confusion at the current I-93/I-95 interchange north of Boston though!
As for I-80, it ends about 4 miles west of the George Washington Bridge in Teaneck, NJ.
Actually, I-95 was signed through Boston at one point. Originally, I-95 was to continue north from Dedham/Canton/128 (present Interchange 12) and meet up with present I-93 at the Mass Ave interchange just south of the Mass Pike. This was to be the Southwest Expressway. In the interim years, before the SW Expressway got cancelled, I-95 ran on I-93's present route from Dedham/128 up to the Charles River crossing, then on what is presently US 1, across the Tobin Bridge, and up to Revere circle, though this was signed as "TO I-95 NORTH" for some years. From that point, an expressway would've connected the Revere Circle to 128 in Peabody, but because of wetlands, it was cancelled. When it became apparent that there would be no "exit route" for I-95 from Revere, we got the present route of 95, cosigned with 128 from Dedham up to Peabody.
I agree that the present route of I-95 is ridiculous and that the Revere-Peabody section of the Northeast Expressway should've been built. US 1 between those points is heavily trafficked and dangerous, especially with all the driveways that dump out onto a high speed roadway. There's only one traffic light on the route at the north end, but wouldn't be considered interstate-ready.
There's zero chance of an expressway being built in this area today because of the Lynn Woods preserve and the wetlands in Revere. If not for those obstacles, I'm sure I-95 would've been signed on "128" to Braintree, then up to Boston, across the Tobin, and up to Peabody to meet up with its present route. I-93 would've begun at the north end of what is now the Zakim Bridge, or I would have it cosigned with I-95 down to Braintree, then down to the Cape Cod Canal via what is now MA 3.
Hope that makes some sense.
As for I-93 with 128, that would be even more confusing. As it is right now, traffic reports refer to the I-95/MA 128 multiplex solely as 128, even on the section between Dedham and Braintree that isn't even signed as 128 anymore. Old habits die hard in New England. Only way something like that would work is having I-93 begin at the Woburn interchange, but then 95 would still be multiplexed with 128 for part of the way. At least if the NE Expy was built, I-95 would have a route of its own for most of the way, vs piggybacking on 128.
Thanks for the info.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 03, 2013, 05:40:35 PM
As for I-80, it ends about 4 miles west of the George Washington Bridge in Teaneck, NJ.
I know. My point was to use that as an example of a major interstate ends before reaching its primary destination and allowing a more important through route (I-95) to do it instead, and that I-93 could do the same thing.
Quote from: shadyjay
As for I-93 with 128, that would be even more confusing. As it is right now, traffic reports refer to the I-95/MA 128 multiplex solely as 128, even on the section between Dedham and Braintree that isn't even signed as 128 anymore. Old habits die hard in New England. Only way something like that would work is having I-93 begin at the Woburn interchange, but then 95 would still be multiplexed with 128 for part of the way. At least if the NE Expy was built, I-95 would have a route of its own for most of the way, vs piggybacking on 128.
I am not very familiar with traffic reports from that area. NYC traffic reports, for example, never mention highways by number in the first place, making them useless for those unfamiliar with the area, so I suspect they could swap 95 with 87 or 278 with 495, or whatever, and nobody would notice.
Quote from: bzakharin on March 03, 2013, 06:31:12 PMI am not very familiar with traffic reports from that area. NYC traffic reports, for example, never mention highways by number in the first place, making them useless for those unfamiliar with the area, so I suspect they could swap 95 with 87 or 278 with 495, or whatever, and nobody would notice.
Boston traffic reports make it seem like I-95 exists only south of Dedham/Canton and north of Peabody. They refer to the section that is cosigned with 128 as solely 128, in addition to the section from Braintree to Canton which was once 128, but was stripped of that designation some 20 years ago. Today its I-93/US 1. The problem though is with exit numbers, which 128 technically has two sets of exits numbered 12-29. MassHighway/MassDOT has tried several times to completely remove the 128 designation from the section that is also I-95, but everyone calls it 128 more than 95.
There's a thread on here which we talked about the 128 designation in detail. Many think the 128 designation should be removed once and for all. I think an I-128 would be kinda cool, a la I-238 in California.
See: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7654.0
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 03, 2013, 05:40:35 PM
As for I-80, it ends about 4 miles west of the George Washington Bridge in Teaneck, NJ.
Yes, but those 4 miles are referred to by traffic reporters as 80/95 as is it was a multiplex, even though it's officially not. It is signed as I-95 TO I-80 on the southbound side, though.
Quote from: dgolub on March 03, 2013, 07:33:34 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 03, 2013, 05:40:35 PM
As for I-80, it ends about 4 miles west of the George Washington Bridge in Teaneck, NJ.
Yes, but those 4 miles are referred to by traffic reporters as 80/95 as is it was a multiplex, even though it's officially not. It is signed as I-95 TO I-80 on the southbound side, though.
Rand McNally still incorrectly labels I-80 and I-95 as a multiplex between Teaneck and the GWB.
Quote from: dgolub on March 03, 2013, 07:33:34 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 03, 2013, 05:40:35 PM
As for I-80, it ends about 4 miles west of the George Washington Bridge in Teaneck, NJ.
Yes, but those 4 miles are referred to by traffic reporters as 80/95 as is it was a multiplex, even though it's officially not. It is signed as I-95 TO I-80 on the southbound side, though.
This happens probably in large part because the exit numbers on that section appear to continue from I-80.
That's not actually where the numbers come from, though - they're I-95 mileage from if the Somerset Freeway had been built, and the fact that they're almost the same as what I-80's numbers would be there is coincidence.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 03, 2013, 09:12:46 PM
This happens probably in large part because the exit numbers on that section appear to continue from I-80.
That's not actually where the numbers come from, though - they're I-95 mileage from if the Somerset Freeway had been built, and the fact that they're almost the same as what I-80's numbers would be there is coincidence.
Why did they do that anyway? The Somerset Freeway would have come in far south of there, so why the abrupt change in the exit numbering scheme? It seems to only confuse drivers.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on March 03, 2013, 09:08:32 PM
Rand McNally still incorrectly labels I-80 and I-95 as a multiplex between Teaneck and the GWB.
No surprise there. A lot of commercial maps have errors on them somewhere.
Quote from: shadyjay on March 03, 2013, 05:44:20 PMIn the interim years, before the SW Expressway got cancelled, I-95 ran on I-93's present route from Dedham/128 up to the Charles River crossing, then on what is presently US 1, across the Tobin Bridge, and up to Revere circle, though this was signed as "TO I-95 NORTH" for some years.
IIRC, other than Rand McNally maps & atlases from the early-70s, neither the Central Artery nor the Southeast Expressway ever had I-95 (or TO I-95) signs on them. The only
TO SOUTH 95 trailblazer sign I saw was posted along the long-gone on-ramp from Storrow Drive to the Artery. It was mounted on the right vertical post of the gantry that had the BGS that originally read
CALLAHAN TUNNEL - DOCK SQUARE; a newer BGS would read
Callahan Tunnel - Logan Airport.
While there were
TO 95 NORTH BGS' along the Mystic/Tobin Bridge, there were indeed some BGS' that had the ramps at the original I-93/Central Artery/Northeast Expressway interchange signed as I-95 until about 1975. There were also some early 70s-vintage BGS' (and a couple infamous LGS paddles) that had I-95 shields near the City Square area.
One older BGS (50s or 60s vintage) that was signed as
95 SOUTH existed at the Charlestown exit until the late 1980s. It was mounted right at the exit ramp split and it was a split-type BGS; left-hand side was for through traffic, the right-hand side for the exit. The replacement BGS' from the 80s featured a like-sized sign featuring an updated
93 North & South legend and was short-lived due to the Central Artery North Area project of the late 80s/early 90s; a precursor to the Big Dig.
Until a few years ago, a small MDC-spec'd green square sign simply reading
RTE. 95 with a right-arrow still was present along MA 16 Eastbound just before the on-ramp to US 1 North (old 95 North).
It is worth noting that there was one plan to widen the US 1 corridor between Cutler Circle in Revere/Saugus and where the I-95 North ramp in Peabody (just south of the Lowell St. exit off US 1, I-95 South's Exit 46) and make the road dual-corridor highway a la the upper end of the New Jersey Turnpike (in set-up not necessarily function). The inner-corridors would be I-95 and would basically be an express corridor between Peabody and Saugus/Revere) while the outer corridors would be US 1 serving local traffic. Needless to say, that concept outside of Exit 46 (which was originally planned to feature opposite of its current movements) never became reality.
Quote from: shadyjay on March 03, 2013, 05:44:20 PMI agree that the present route of I-95 is ridiculous and that the Revere-Peabody section of the Northeast Expressway should've been built. US 1 between those points is heavily trafficked and dangerous, especially with all the driveways that dump out onto a high speed roadway. There's only one traffic light on the route at the north end, but wouldn't be considered interstate-ready.
See above-reply, the dual carriage I-95 Express Corridor sandwiched inside US 1 would've taken out that jughandle signal.
I agree with you that I-95 through Lynn
should've been built. Being a North Shore native, I have a personal bias in favor of such.
Quote from: shadyjay on March 03, 2013, 05:44:20 PM
There's zero chance of an expressway being built in this area today because of the Lynn Woods preserve and the wetlands in Revere.
Actually, for many decades there was indeed an embankment in
Saugus (not Revere BTW) from the US 1/MA 60 Cutler Circle interchange to just south of the Lynn border. This embankment was essentially the mainline I-95 roadbed. Much of the embankment fill was
only removed just a few years ago. There would've been a turnpike-style (trumpet w/connector road) interchange w/MA 107 (Lynn Marsh Road) somewhere between Cutler Circle & Lynn where the embankment was closest to MA 107.
That said, the only real obstacle w/that stretch of would-be I-95 was the Lynn Woods section; which the highway alignment was slated to encroach the western boundaries. The closest point to downtown Lynn where I-95 would have been was the more southern stretch near the GE plant & Lynn-Saugus border. Heck, the DPW could've just built that Saugus segment to Lynn and designated the Tobin Bridge and the whole Northeast Expressway as I-393.
Quote from: shadyjay on March 03, 2013, 05:44:20 PMIf not for those obstacles, I'm sure I-95 would've been signed on "128" to Braintree, then up to Boston, across the Tobin, and up to Peabody to meet up with its present route. I-93 would've begun at the north end of what is now the Zakim Bridge, or I would have it cosigned with I-95 down to Braintree, then down to the Cape Cod Canal via what is now MA 3.
Hope that makes some sense.
It does although I don't see the state planning on designating MA 3 from I-93 to Sagamore as an Interstate; especially if they're exploring the idea of making that road a tolled facility.
Quote from: shadyjay on March 03, 2013, 05:44:20 PM
As for I-93 with 128, that would be even more confusing. As it is right now, traffic reports refer to the I-95/MA 128 multiplex solely as 128, even on the section between Dedham and Braintree that isn't even signed as 128 anymore. Old habits die hard in New England. Only way something like that would work is having I-93 begin at the Woburn interchange, but then 95 would still be multiplexed with 128 for part of the way. At least if the NE Expy was built, I-95 would have a route of its own for most of the way, vs piggybacking on 128.
IMHO, the only reason why the DPW decided to use 128 as an alternate for I-95 (something that existed in their back-up master plan circa 1970-71) was that I-93 inside 128 was already established and such a redesignation would've meant that the Woburn cloverleaf would have to be redesigned to have fly-over ramps carrying through-I-95 traffic. The above-measure that's only (with additional fly-over ramps) now becoming a construction project some 3-1/2 to 4 decades later.
The mid-70s modification of the Canton interchange (from a full cloverleaf w/one fly-over ramp to the present trumpet), would've had better I-95 through traffic movements had 95 been designated along the southern leg of YDH/128.
Does it look like flyovers are a factor here?
http://goo.gl/maps/o7Lv7
Quote from: dgolub on March 04, 2013, 08:30:36 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 03, 2013, 09:12:46 PM
This happens probably in large part because the exit numbers on that section appear to continue from I-80.
That's not actually where the numbers come from, though - they're I-95 mileage from if the Somerset Freeway had been built, and the fact that they're almost the same as what I-80's numbers would be there is coincidence.
Why did they do that anyway? The Somerset Freeway would have come in far south of there, so why the abrupt change in the exit numbering scheme? It seems to only confuse drivers.
The same reason I-87 and I-90 have odd numbers in NY: the Turnpike's numbers dominate over I-95's.
Quote from: deanej on March 04, 2013, 11:53:09 AM
Does it look like flyovers are a factor here?
http://goo.gl/maps/o7Lv7
That's the Canton interchange (I-95's Exit 12/I-93's Exit 1) that was originally built as a 4-way interchange w/I-95 & MA 128 in the mid-60s. The entire interchange w/the flyover ramp was constructed but not all of it was opened/used. It was converted to the current trumpet interchange when it became clear that I-95 north of there was NOT going to be built. Those fly-over ramps, when present, were never opened to vehicular traffic.
The interchange I was referring to is the I-95 (MA 128) interchange w/I-93 in
Woburn, Exit 37. As I stated earlier, the state's only
now proposing fly-over ramps for this interchange.
Looking through my archives...
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 04, 2013, 09:56:59 AM
While there were TO 95 NORTH BGS' along the Mystic/Tobin Bridge, there were indeed some BGS' that had the ramps at the original I-93/Central Artery/Northeast Expressway interchange signed as I-95 until about 1975.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8386%2F8529527092_59c8f53223_z.jpg&hash=3cc3bc16d16226b9f006ac51a0710d20e108947c)
And three more at http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 04, 2013, 09:56:59 AM
One older BGS (50s or 60s vintage) that was signed as 95 SOUTH existed at the Charlestown exit until the late 1980s. It was mounted right at the exit ramp split and it was a split-type BGS; left-hand side was for through traffic, the right-hand side for the exit.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8365%2F8528478413_978ba00027_m.jpg&hash=6f1e721f7951f0457f79f7cdb128fea7dca86a1f)
Quote from: NE2 on March 04, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
Looking through my archives...
Thanks for posting those. I remember seeing those I-93 interchange photos elsewhere several years back.
It's worth noting that the 70s-vintage BGS' for I-95 South at that interchange had the I-95 shields replaced w/MA 3 shields than later those MA 3 shields were replaced w/I-93 shields in a about a 3-year period.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 04, 2013, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: deanej on March 04, 2013, 11:53:09 AM
Does it look like flyovers are a factor here?
http://goo.gl/maps/o7Lv7
That's the Canton interchange (I-95's Exit 12/I-93's Exit 1) that was originally built as a 4-way interchange w/I-95 & MA 128 in the mid-60s. The entire interchange w/the flyover ramp was constructed but not all of it was opened/used. It was converted to the current trumpet interchange when it became clear that I-95 north of there was NOT going to be built. Those fly-over ramps, when present, were never opened to vehicular traffic.
The interchange I was referring to is the I-95 (MA 128) interchange w/I-93 in Woburn, Exit 37. As I stated earlier, the state's only now proposing fly-over ramps for this interchange.
And the point is, if a flyover is such a concern at one of the northern interchanges, why is it not here? If MassHighway cared at all, they would have used the other cloverleaf quadrant at Canton. Obviously flyovers for continuity of interstates through interchanges does not matter in MA (or NY, for that matter...).
Quote from: deanej on March 04, 2013, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 04, 2013, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: deanej on March 04, 2013, 11:53:09 AM
Does it look like flyovers are a factor here?
http://goo.gl/maps/o7Lv7
That's the Canton interchange (I-95's Exit 12/I-93's Exit 1) that was originally built as a 4-way interchange w/I-95 & MA 128 in the mid-60s. The entire interchange w/the flyover ramp was constructed but not all of it was opened/used. It was converted to the current trumpet interchange when it became clear that I-95 north of there was NOT going to be built. Those fly-over ramps, when present, were never opened to vehicular traffic.
The interchange I was referring to is the I-95 (MA 128) interchange w/I-93 in Woburn, Exit 37. As I stated earlier, the state's only now proposing fly-over ramps for this interchange.
And the point is, if a flyover is such a concern at one of the northern interchanges, why is it not here? If MassHighway cared at all, they would have used the other cloverleaf quadrant at Canton. Obviously flyovers for continuity of interstates through interchanges does not matter in MA (or NY, for that matter...).
Money.
In all seriousness though there are projects to rebuild both 93/95 interchanges, they're just currently unfunded.
Besides funding issues, the Woburn flyover project has been strongly opposed by the NIMBYs in Reading (neighborhood in the northwest quadrant of the interchange) since the initial public hearings were held over a decade ago.
Quote from: roadman on March 04, 2013, 07:45:39 PM
Besides funding issues, the Woburn flyover project has been strongly opposed by the NIMBYs in Reading (neighborhood in the northwest quadrant of the interchange) since the initial public hearings were held over a decade ago.
It's not just the NIMBY's in Reading. That interchange would actually impact portions of three towns: Reading, Stoneham and Woburn. The biggest worry of the abutters (not to mention the Commonwealth) is land- and home-takings. No matter which plan is finally adopted, it looks as if at least some homeowners will lose their homes and will need to be compensated for that. Real estate is not exactly cheap in those suburbs, and condemnation costs alone could run into several billion dollars.
Quote from: SidS1045 on March 05, 2013, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 04, 2013, 07:45:39 PM
Besides funding issues, the Woburn flyover project has been strongly opposed by the NIMBYs in Reading (neighborhood in the northwest quadrant of the interchange) since the initial public hearings were held over a decade ago.
It's not just the NIMBY's in Reading. That interchange would actually impact portions of three towns: Reading, Stoneham and Woburn. The biggest worry of the abutters (not to mention the Commonwealth) is land- and home-takings. No matter which plan is finally adopted, it looks as if at least some homeowners will lose their homes and will need to be compensated for that. Real estate is not exactly cheap in those suburbs, and condemnation costs alone could run into several billion dollars.
The need for takings has been grossly overstated by both the NIMBYs and others. Depending upon the alignment they use, the worst case involves takings in either Woburn or Reading, but not both. And it's certianlly not the 150 to 175 houses in Reading the NIMBYs are claiming will need to be destroyed.
And, there would be takings in Stoneham (six houses at most) only if they went with the "full build" option, which includes full C/D roads on both sides of I-95 from south of Washington Street to north of Route 28. But the C/D road option is not necessary to construct the flyover ramps themselves.