Will I-95 in Canton, Massachusetts ever get "fixed"?

[kramie13]

I have a bone to pick about Interstate 95 in Canton, Massachusetts.  Whoever designed it must be the most boneheaded people in the WORLD!

If you are traveling north on I-95 in this area, just before you reach I-93 (exit 26), the highway becomes 4 lanes.  The leftmost 2 lanes are clearly marked for traffic choosing to stay on I-95 north, while the right 2 lanes are clearly marked for traffic exiting onto I-93 north.

But here is where it gets completely ridiculous.  Those "exiting" I-95 to get on I-93 travel on a rather gentle curving, 2-lane ramp.  But for those "continuing" on I-95 north, the two lanes IMMEDIATELY merge into one, and you have a single lane, 270 degree loop ramp.  Yes, you read right.  I-95 north, the most important road on the East Coast of the United States, is only 1 lane.  This is a violation of Interstate Highway Standards.  And because of this, there is always a chronic bottleneck at most times of the day for those "not exiting/just staying on I-95 north".

Got a headache already - wait, THERE'S MORE!  If you are traveling on I-95 South in this area, you have 4 lanes approaching the interchange with I-93.  While I-95 has a 2-lane "ramp" when it switches roadbeds in this area, one of those lanes doesn't "generate" until just before the interchange, as a continuation of the on-ramp from Exit 27, University Ave.  Therefore, traffic choosing to "stay" on I-95 south MUST force themselves into the right-most of 4 lanes.  The other 3 lanes all default onto I-93 north.

Does MassDOT hate I-95 for some reason?  They also don't do a good job with control city signage for this route compared to other Bay State interstates, but that's a different topic.  More importantly, will this traffic flow ever be corrected so that I-95 is at Interstate Highway Standards before, during, and after its interchange with I-93?  (Most specifically, not drop to 1 lane?)  Navigating this area has become very stressful in recent years.

[TheDon102]

I agree with you that the interchange needs to be re-done to allow at least 2 through lanes to continue on I-95 North.

Over a decade ago a T-Interchange was proposed at this location. https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/2013/07/12/canton-interchange-timeline/                                                 

Also funny enough I-95 south only has 1 through lane in the Bronx when I-95 changes from the Bruckner Expressway to the Cross Bronx Expressway.

[kphoger]

This is a violation of Interstate Highway Standards.

That's not true.  Just because the 'top part of the T' isn't one continuous number, that doesn't mean I-95's movement is anything more than just the loop ramp of a trumpet interchange.  No standard requires a ramp to have more than one lane.  See I-35 @ I-335 at Emporia, KS.

[vdeane]

I-95 was supposed to continue through downtown Boston on a freeway that would have extended north from the Canton interchange (which was supposed to be a cloverleaf like Woburn), meet I-93 south of downtown, overlap I-93 to the US 1 interchange, follow the US 1 freeway, and then continue on to the northern I-95/MA 128 interchange.  The southern freeway portion was cancelled first, with I-95 rerouted onto what is now I-93 and the Canton interchange modified accordingly.  Then the northern freeway from the US 1 circle interchange to the northern I-95/MA 128 interchange was cancelled as well, forcing MA to reroute I-95 onto MA 128 on the western side of Boston, resulting in the one lane loop for I-95 north that exists today.

[pderocco]

As to the main question, I always say, "Massachusetts has a toy road department." I remember when I learned to drive on those roads in 1971, and 128 was six lanes from route 24 up to Highland Ave. I longed for the widening of the road, but it took until 2019 to finish that job. So, yes, it will be fixed, by 2050 if you're lucky.

[southshore720]

https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=87790
This project has been essentially "dead" since 2014 per the MassDOT Projects page.  It's a miracle that they constructed the Dedham St. piece of the initial overhaul, and even that took forever!

[pderocco]

https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=87790
This project has been essentially "dead" since 2014 per the MassDOT Projects page.  It's a miracle that they constructed the Dedham St. piece of the initial overhaul, and even that took forever!

Done? To most people that only looks half done.

[DJStephens]

It should have been "fixed" with a T directional, in the mid seventies.  Following the cancellations.  But the department went on to ignore other thorns in the state system.  Route 2 in Lincoln and Concord remained a highway of death for an additional twenty years, before center barriers were finally installed.   Reformatory Circle was never torn out and replaced with an interchange, as it should, and needed to be.  US 6, on the Cape, was never double barrelled between Dennis and the Orleans Rotary.   Much of state route 9, was never modernized from it's early thirties state.  The state Route 25 extension to the Bourne Bridge was tied up for literally decades.   The 95 final connection to 128 in Peabody also dragged out to close to fifteen years.   There was never a T directional built at US 3 and 128.  The 128 "add a lane" between Route 9, and 24, took close to FORTY years.  There was grading, and provisions made in the median, on 128 in the early seventies, in a few places S of 135 for an eventual fourth GP lane that wound up taking decades to finally complete.   And they haven't fixed the 93/128 cloverleaf (Woburn), or added the extra needed GP lane on 128 in that area.    So the general ignorance of the Canton interchange, dovetails into the less than optimum outlook of the agency.   

[pderocco]

Yeah, something tells me that the only reason the Big Dig ever got done was that it was a different group of people doing it.

[Rothman]

Yeah, something tells me that the only reason the Big Dig ever got done was that it was a different group of people doing it.

Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation was still in charge of it.

[pderocco]

Yeah, something tells me that the only reason the Big Dig ever got done was that it was a different group of people doing it.

Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation was still in charge of it.

Sure, but the work was done mostly by Bechtel, not MassDOT. And there's nothing wrong with that: use outside companies to do significant construction projects, and use MassDOT for maintenance and small projects. Perhaps the problem is with the politicians who just seem to want the status quo to be maintained at a modest price, rather than coughing up big bucks for major improvements. The only way the Big Dig got built was that the rest of the country paid for most of it.

[Rothman]

Yeah, something tells me that the only reason the Big Dig ever got done was that it was a different group of people doing it.

Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation was still in charge of it.

Sure, but the work was done mostly by Bechtel, not MassDOT. And there's nothing wrong with that: use outside companies to do significant construction projects, and use MassDOT for maintenance and small projects. Perhaps the problem is with the politicians who just seem to want the status quo to be maintained at a modest price, rather than coughing up big bucks for major improvements. The only way the Big Dig got built was that the rest of the country paid for most of it.

Dude, contracting out has been the practice of DOTs for decades.  Most jobs are and have been since before The Big Dig.  That's why we talk about contract lettings...

[Ted$8roadFan]

I think Big Dig fatigue has had a chilling effect on other transportation projects (like both 95/93 interchanges). Combined with the inevitable local opposition/concerns and the process that will be dragged out from that and other sources, it's not surprising that little has happened in spite of the obvious need.

[pderocco]

Dude, contracting out has been the practice of DOTs for decades.  Most jobs are and have been since before The Big Dig.  That's why we talk about contract lettings...

I didn't say anything to contradict that. The point is that Mass seems not to do very much of that (and the Big Dig was unusual), compared to all the impressive stuff I constantly see in California. All I see when I go back to Mass is dinky little maintenance projects probably done by MassDOT.

[Rothman]

Dude, contracting out has been the practice of DOTs for decades.  Most jobs are and have been since before The Big Dig.  That's why we talk about contract lettings...

I didn't say anything to contradict that. The point is that Mass seems not to do very much of that (and the Big Dig was unusual), compared to all the impressive stuff I constantly see in California. All I see when I go back to Mass is dinky little maintenance projects probably done by MassDOT.

That's total baloney, though.  The idea that most transportation projects are done in-house by MassDOT is totally absurd.

https://www.mass.gov/massdot-highway-construction-contract-bidding

[pderocco]

So you're saying that in Massachusetts, simple jobs like repaving, striping, guard rail repair, drainage, signage, etc. are not done by MassDOT? I could have sworn they had their own trucks and other heavy equipment and construction workers. I never realized the agency was just a general contractor.

[Henry]

The abandoned stub end to the north is still there, so I don't see this problem getting fixed anytime soon. And those Bostonians ought to be glad that the Big Dig got done!

[Rothman]

So you're saying that in Massachusetts, simple jobs like repaving, striping, guard rail repair, drainage, signage, etc. are not done by MassDOT? I could have sworn they had their own trucks and other heavy equipment and construction workers. I never realized the agency was just a general contractor.

Not all, no.  DOTs have an in-house operations side and then what they contract out (capital projects).  In-house maintenance and operations are quite limited to spot jobs and/or running around band-aiding areas there just isn't funding for a capital project yet. However, capital project funding typically and greatly exceeds in-house operations/maintenance.

DOTs do have cyclical pavement marking contracts, bridge washing, bridge painting, bridge deck and joint repairs, guide/guardrail/SAFETAP contracts and even, sometimes to the capital side's chagrin, mowing/cleanup contracts.  DOTs also have a variety of emergency response or other "JOC" (job order on contract) contracts at their disposal.

So, no, MassDOT is not just a mass general contractor, but the majority of funding is contracted out and not funding maintenance/operations crews.

(There's once again something to be said on the roadgeek tendency to jump to conclusions based upon limited observation here as well...)

[jeffandnicole]

So you're saying that in Massachusetts, simple jobs like repaving, striping, guard rail repair, drainage, signage, etc. are not done by MassDOT? I could have sworn they had their own trucks and other heavy equipment and construction workers. I never realized the agency was just a general contractor.

I won't speak for every state, but this isn't unusual. NJ contracts out much of this stuff also, often in multiple bids for different areas of the state. 

[pderocco]

So you're saying that in Massachusetts, simple jobs like repaving, striping, guard rail repair, drainage, signage, etc. are not done by MassDOT? I could have sworn they had their own trucks and other heavy equipment and construction workers. I never realized the agency was just a general contractor.

Not all, no.  DOTs have an in-house operations side and then what they contract out (capital projects).  In-house maintenance and operations are quite limited to spot jobs and/or running around band-aiding areas there just isn't funding for a capital project yet. However, capital project funding typically and greatly exceeds in-house operations/maintenance.

DOTs do have cyclical pavement marking contracts, bridge washing, bridge painting, bridge deck and joint repairs, guide/guardrail/SAFETAP contracts and even, sometimes to the capital side's chagrin, mowing/cleanup contracts.  DOTs also have a variety of emergency response or other "JOC" (job order on contract) contracts at their disposal.

So, no, MassDOT is not just a mass general contractor, but the majority of funding is contracted out and not funding maintenance/operations crews.

(There's once again something to be said on the roadgeek tendency to jump to conclusions based upon limited observation here as well...)

Thanks for the info. You're certainly the expert here, not me. I still wish, though, that Massachusetts would spend more money on highways. It always feels like I'm going back to the last century when I visit there. Living in California has spoiled me.

[vdeane]

To add, you can still see a DOT vehicle at the job site even if the job is contracted out, because DOT construction inspectors oversee the work the contractor does.

[webny99]

Does MassDOT hate I-95 for some reason? 

I don't know if MassDOT does, but it's probably safe to say the city of Boston does...

[PColumbus73]

Not from the area, but I imagine if you were to reconfigure the southern I-93/95 interchange, at a minimum, would involve reworking the interchanges between US 1 and MA 24.

As a general observation, it looks like much of the interstate system in the Northeast hasn't been rebuilt since the original interstate system was enacted / funded. Which is great if you admire mid-century era highway infrastructure, not so much if you're running into problems in the present-day.

[The Ghostbuster]

Good luck getting Massachusetts to do any upgrades at all! Look at the stink Cape Coders gave when it was proposed to change US 6's exit numbers to mileage-based. I doubt any improvements will ever come to either Interstate 93/Interstate 95 interchange.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Not from the area, but I imagine if you were to reconfigure the southern I-93/95 interchange, at a minimum, would involve reworking the interchanges between US 1 and MA 24.

As a general observation, it looks like much of the interstate system in the Northeast hasn't been rebuilt since the original interstate system was enacted / funded. Which is great if you admire mid-century era highway infrastructure, not so much if you're running into problems in the present-day.

Massachusetts has made some big changes - widening the Mass Pike, 95 and the Big Dig, of course - but generally you're correct. In the last four decades, there's been a lot of growth in the Boston area without an increase in the road capacity, and that isn't going to change due to cost, lack of funding and land, and community opposition.