Extend I-93 South over MA 24? ... And other Options.....

[southshore720]

Off topic, but the subject of my e-mails was several old overhead signs at the Washington St on-ramp to I-93 in Braintree that were not replaced during the MA 3 sign replacement project. He said there had been problems with the soil where the new support posts would have been placed. He said the plan was to put new signs on the old sign supports and then work on putting in new supports once funds were found. However, nothing has been done at all, the old signs and structures are still there (along with a North 128 sign that he said would be removed 'immediately') and my e-mail was back in January 2010.

Those oldies are certainly ugly!  I always wondered why they were left out of the contract.  And then there's the infamous "SOUTH TO 93, Dedham" sign which probably was supposed to read "SOUTH 93 TO 95, Dedham."  Not to mention, Canton replaced Dedham as the control city on the MA 3 stretch of signage.  Maybe they will be included in the I-93 replacement?  (That's a whole separate thread.)

[southshore720]

I say keep I-93 as it is and make MA 24 a spur (I-193, e.g.) from I-93 to I-195.  However, this would require several costly upgrades that the MA DOT cannot afford.  However, if a casino is built in Taunton off of Exit 12 on MA 24, there may be some forced upgrades occurring with the developers chipping in for traffic improvements.  So maybe we will see this...one day...in the very FAR future.

I've changed my mind...if I had my way I would continue the "I-193" mentioned above on the entire MA 24 alignment and have I-193 extend into RI and end at the current terminus with RI 114.  Make it a true highway to Newport.  Then federal funds could help pay for bridge maintenance instead of installing a toll on the Sakonnet River Bridge.

[kurumi]

...
First, then-Governor Romney caved in to the "Keep Route 128 forever" contingent by making a public statement that the Route 128 designation would not be removed south of Peabody.
...

Good news for I-93: Romney now favors eliminating Route 128 entirely

[Henry]

I'd like to see MA 3 become part of I-93.  It does seem unlikely, as I'm sure it would be hard to justify any significant cost needed to upgrade to I standards.

But what I never understood is why MA 3 isn't part of US 3.  Since everyone just calls the whole thing "Route 3" anyway, it makes sense to me for it to continue with a single (US) designation.  With the number of MA 6, MA 7, MA 20, MA 202, etc. signs I've seen over the years, maybe it can be designated as US 3 at no cost, and all those white square 3's can be errors like the rest...  Apologies if I am just dredging up an old topic.

I, too, was under the impression that what is now MA 3 was once part of US 3. It's better to sign it as a single designation than break it into two. But I don't think the residents of Boston/Cape Cod would care, as long as it's Route 3.

As for I-93, I'm torn between whether it should extend to Cape Cod (via MA 3) or Fall River (via MA 24).

I'd like to see MA 3 become part of I-93.  It does seem unlikely, as I'm sure it would be hard to justify any significant cost needed to upgrade to I standards.

But what I never understood is why MA 3 isn't part of US 3.  Since everyone just calls the whole thing "Route 3" anyway, it makes sense to me for it to continue with a single (US) designation.  With the number of MA 6, MA 7, MA 20, MA 202, etc. signs I've seen over the years, maybe it can be designated as US 3 at no cost, and all those white square 3's can be errors like the rest...  Apologies if I am just dredging up an old topic.

That one's an oddity, because as long as there were US highways, US 3 ended in Boston and MA 3 continued to Cape Cod. Never was any thought given to bringing it down to US 6, which would have made a lot of sense. May have to ask someone retired from Mass DPW (if any are left).

Guess on my part (and I stated similar in another thread), but DPW's reasoning for not continuing the US 3 designation to Cape Cod was probably due to their not wanting to have an odd US (1/2-di) route extend east of US 1.  Seems a bit silly, especially since all of US 13 is located east of US 1 and much of US 17 in VA is located east of US 1 as well, but that seems to be the only possible explanation.

The location of the current US-MA 3 handoff in Cambridge dates back to when US 1 went along Memorial Drive (prior to 1971).  When US 1 was moved to what was the old MA C1 corridor; the US 3 designation was never extended to reflect that despite the fact that the Boston segment of MA 3 was realigned to run along the Central Artery and all of the Southeast Expressway.  The old alignment of MA 3 was multiplexed w/the pre-1971 US 1 and then ran along the current MA 203 to the Expressway (current I-93) at Exits 11 & 12.

Let's not forget US 6, which has higher-numbered routes north of it (US 20, for one). Also, US 44 and US 46 are well north of US 40. So, as seen from these examples, the US Highway Systems have been out of place long before the Interstates ever were.

[PHLBOS]

Guess on my part (and I stated similar in another thread), but DPW's reasoning for not continuing the US 3 designation to Cape Cod was probably due to their not wanting to have an odd US (1/2-di) route extend east of US 1.  Seems a bit silly, especially since all of US 13 is located east of US 1 and much of US 17 in VA is located east of US 1 as well, but that seems to be the only possible explanation.

Let's not forget US 6, which has higher-numbered routes north of it (US 20, for one). Also, US 44 and US 46 are well north of US 40. So, as seen from these examples, the US Highway Systems have been out of place long before the Interstates ever were.

Again, let me remind you that my earlier-posted reasoning was indeed listed as a guess and I also stated that the reasoning seemed silly especially when there are other examples of US routes (be it even or odd) crossing each other, and hence, be somewhat out of sequence grid-wise for a bit; all when one considers US 13 in the Mid-Atlantic region. 

I was just merely stating that the DPW possibly did not want another odd-numbered US route in their state to continue east of US 1; the lowest possible number on the US highway system. 

[roadman]

But what I never understood is why MA 3 isn't part of US 3.  Since everyone just calls the whole thing "Route 3" anyway, it makes sense to me for it to continue with a single (US) designation.

Design standards are the reason.  Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea.  Had the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressway projects been completed, then Route 3 would have eventually been signed as a US route all the way from Tyngsborough to Cape Cod.

The only way that would happen now is if you re-located US 3 between Burlington and Boston from its present alignment to follow I-95 between Burlington and Woburn, and then follow I-93 from Woburn to Boston.  You could then sign most of curretn US 3 as MA 3A.

Which might not be such a bad idea, were it not for the fact it would make the Woburn interchange even more of a cluster than it is already.

[NE2]

Design standards are the reason.  Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea.

US 1 used those until about 1990. There's no reason US 3 couldn't have overlapped US 1 to JP and then followed Routes 203-3A-53-3A to Cape Cod, on what instead became State Route 3 in 1926-27.

[Alps]

Design standards are the reason.  Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea.  Had the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressway projects been completed, then Route 3 would have eventually been signed as a US route all the way from Tyngsborough to Cape Cod.

Everything in this paragraph is wrong.

[roadman]

Design standards are the reason.  Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea.  Had the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressway projects been completed, then Route 3 would have eventually been signed as a US route all the way from Tyngsborough to Cape Cod.

Everything in this paragraph is wrong.

I'm only repeating what MassDPW engineers told me when I first posed the question "why two Route 3s" to them in 1984.  Since that time, I've done some further research and still have yet to find anything that contradicts those statements.

Now, if you have actual evidence to the contrary, perhaps you could share it with us.

[NE2]

Now, if you have actual evidence to the contrary, perhaps you could share it with us.

Perhaps I already did.

[Jim]

Design standards are the reason.  Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea.  Had the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressway projects been completed, then Route 3 would have eventually been signed as a US route all the way from Tyngsborough to Cape Cod.

Everything in this paragraph is wrong.

I'm only repeating what MassDPW engineers told me when I first posed the question "why two Route 3s" to them in 1984.  Since that time, I've done some further research and still have yet to find anything that contradicts those statements.

I have no reason to doubt that that's what they told you, but do they really have higher design standards for US routes than state routes?  Are there no tight curves and low clearances on the rest of the US highways in Massachusetts?

[bob7374]

Design standards are the reason.  Even in the 1930s, it was recognized that, due to the truck traffic, running a US route on roads with tight curves and low clearances (i.e. the Cambridge and Boston parkways) probably wasn't a good idea.  Had the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressway projects been completed, then Route 3 would have eventually been signed as a US route all the way from Tyngsborough to Cape Cod.

Everything in this paragraph is wrong.

I'm only repeating what MassDPW engineers told me when I first posed the question "why two Route 3s" to them in 1984.  Since that time, I've done some further research and still have yet to find anything that contradicts those statements.

I have no reason to doubt that that's what they told you, but do they really have higher design standards for US routes than state routes?  Are there no tight curves and low clearances on the rest of the US highways in Massachusetts?

Currently, for a state to designate a highway a US route it must submit plans to AASHTO indicating it follows that organization's established design standards among other things. It is probable there were established standards in the 1920s that MA officials thought Route 3 east of US 1 might not meet when applying for the first US routes.

I agree that if you wanted to establish US 3 all the way to Cape Cod today, you would need for the highway to follow freeways. I don't believe altering the US route would lead to too much of a traffic increase. I doubt people living in the Nashua area, for example, follow US 3's routing all the way, they probably already use I-95 in Burlington to go north to I-93 or south following '128' all the way to Braintree. If routing it down I-93 would cause problems given the current Woburn interchange, why not route it down I-95 south then I-93 to Braintree. Yes, this would create another wrong-way concurrency from Canton to the Split, but it would be only about 1 mile longer than if US 3 was routed the wrong way from Burlington to Woburn.

Either of these plans would also affect the routing of MA 3A. I wouldn't route it over 3's old routes. Most of them currently are concurrent with other routes, or the highway they are on are known more by name (Mem Drive). For the I-93 option, just end it where it is now in Burlington. For the '128' option perhaps it the northern route could just get on I-95 and end at the US 3 exit. For the southern portion, route it over the new Quincy Concourse route between existing MA 3A and the Burgin Parkway/Washington St exit in Braintree. MA 53 could be extended to cover the old 3A route north to Neponset Circle.

[NE2]

Currently, for a state to designate a highway a US route it must submit plans to AASHTO indicating it follows that organization's established design standards among other things. It is probable there were established standards in the 1920s that MA officials thought Route 3 east of US 1 might not meet when applying for the first US routes.

Given some of the other U.S. Highways in the 1920s and on (Ridge Route on US 99, La Bajada Hill on US 66, US 2 being ferried across Glacier National Park on the railroad), it's probable that there were no minimum standards. Certainly nothing that the Boston parkways didn't meet (remember, US 1 used those same parkways until about 1990, and US 3 still does at its south end).
http://www.schlichtman.org/mahighways/bosmap37.gif

[agentsteel53]

US 2 being ferried across Glacier National Park on the railroad

really?  I had heard that the railroad segment of US-2 was between Williston, ND and Shelby, MT.  (US-85 to US-91, basically)

but I cannot remember where I read that.

do you have a citation for Glacier being the railcar ferry segment?  I'd love to know for sure.

[NE2]

do you have a citation for Glacier being the railcar ferry segment?  I'd love to know for sure.

http://www.broermapsonline.org/members/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/NorthernRockies/Montana/unitedstates1926ra_068.html

[agentsteel53]

thanks!

and now I know.

interesting to note that Montana did not have a state route system in 1926.

[NE2]

interesting to note that Montana did not have a state route system in 1926.

Neither did:
Delaware
California (signed)
Maryland
Idaho (they had lettered routes that were apparently not assigned by the state)
Arizona
Alaska
Hawaii
Moon Base
and probably a few more states.

[agentsteel53]

add Oregon to that list.

Moon Base had moon routes that were in a numeral system of their own devising.

[NE2]

add Oregon to that list.

Right. (Like California they had an unsigned system but nothing signed yet.)

[yakra]

...Moon Base?

[southshore720]

Bringing this thread back to Rte 24...here's a recent article about the safety conditions on the highway:
http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x1681146184/Accidents-fatalities-on-Route-24-up-in-2010