MA Turnpike Improvements?

[bluecountry]

New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia all have made improvements to there long distance roads.
I am puzzled that in Massachusetts needed improvements have not been made.
Most glarringly to me is

1) The I-84 interchange.  This is a high volume interchange like the terminus of the NJTP at I-295.
Delaware fixed there flawed toll booth on I-95 and yet I hear of nothing in MA where this interchanged would be expanded to accomodate high speed traffic like the NJTP or Delaware tolls.

2) Widening.  Not so much lane additions, but better medians and fewer curves so I-90 is more up to freeway standards.

3) 390/495/95 interchanges.
-Do I have to say anything?  Again Maryland has upgraded the 95/695 interchange, I don't understand why Massachusetts has let these outdated interchanges remain instead of doing a re-build like Delaware did at Christinia.

MA is a pretty progressive current state so I'm surprised they have lagged far behind their counterparts.

[mass_citizen]

While there are plans for state wide electronic high speed tolling within a couple years, don't count on any major interchange improvements or widening anytime soon. As you stated, MA is "progressive" which brings along with it the NIMBY's and environmentalists who will never, EVER let you widen anything. The current trend is actually to take away vehicle travel lanes in favor of bike lanes, wider sidewalks, etc. ("Complete Streets").  After the Big Dig and US 3, there is so much anti major road work sentiment around here that the 128/95 Add-a-lane will probably be the last major widening we'll see for a long, long time. They've been analyzing the 93/95 interchange in Woburn for over a decade now and still no ground breaking.

Yet if you poll the daily commuters, I'm sure they'd be in favor of it. However the progressive folks that live AND work in the city will out voice those that simply just work in the city. Their favorite argument is "if you build it they will come" ;  in other words, adding a lane to a freeway will somehow magically create a proportionate amount of additional volume leading to the same traffic jams. This straw man only has credibility if one assumes there will be that many additional jobs created solely because of an additional lane and it will generate that many additional trips. It also assumes that there's that much room for people to move to the suburbs, which thanks to these same progressives that want to keep their "town feel", housing expansion is slow to nonexistent and prices are still through the roof despite the economy.

But I digress....

[PHLBOS]

Yet if you poll the daily commuters, I'm sure they'd be in favor of it. However the progressive folks that live AND work in the city will out voice those that simply just work in the city. Their favorite argument is "if you build it they will come" ;  in other words, adding a lane to a freeway will somehow magically create a proportionate amount of additional volume leading to the same traffic jams. This straw man only has credibility if one assumes there will be that many additional jobs created solely because of an additional lane and it will generate that many additional trips. It also assumes that there's that much room for people to move to the suburbs, which thanks to these same progressives that want to keep their "town feel", housing expansion is slow to nonexistent and prices are still through the roof despite the economy.

The above is one reason why it is important to show up at the polls at every election and not just the presidential and gubernatorial campaigns if one's a registered voter. 

Many of these decisions & policies originate on the smaller, local, representive level.  If your local or State Rep. and State Senator are pandering to the NIMBYs; you vote for their primary and/or general election opponent.  If they're running unopposed; you either write in a candidate of leave that part of the ballot blank. 

An unopposed candidate receiving only say 52% of the general votes tallied will send a strong message for them to either shape up or they'll be gone in the next go-around should a challenger arise.

[shadyjay]

1) The I-84 interchange.  This is a high volume interchange like the terminus of the NJTP at I-295.
Delaware fixed there flawed toll booth on I-95 and yet I hear of nothing in MA where this interchanged would be expanded to accomodate high speed traffic like the NJTP or Delaware tolls.

Yes, the interchange can get backed up, but with the "all-electronic tolling" on the horizon, the toll plaza on the ramp will go away.  The heaviest-congested ramps (Pike WB to I-84 and I-84 to Pike EB) are already two lanes.  Get rid of the toll plaza and you won't have the backups associated with it, including the frantic "find the correct lane" before and the "20 lanes merge into 3" after said plaza.

2) Widening.  Not so much lane additions, but better medians and fewer curves so I-90 is more up to freeway standards.

The only delay I've encountered on the pike itself has been EB approaching 128.  Again, toll plaza related.  See above.  Once you get west of I-84, the traffic dies down.  I've never encountered any traffic delays west of Springfield.

3) 390/495/95 interchanges.

Yes, the I-495 interchange and the I-95 interchange can both be a cluster[you know].  Perhaps way down the road something will get done to replace the outdated trumpet-trumpet connections.  Again, after the pike goes all electronic, you won't need trumpets.  Would flyovers be nice?  Yes.  But let's first get rid of the toll plazas and see how traffic moves.  Then there's the trumpet-trumpet-trumpet between the 'pike and I-91, which I would think could get redone at some point.  But again, I've never really encountered a delay more than a minute or so, and that was just in line waiting for my ticket or paying my toll.

Overall, the 'pike is pretty descent.  Traffic moves along pretty well.  It helps that there are few interchanges so there's less points of traffic entering/exiting.  Long term, I can see some interchange improvements (especially the I-395/I-290/20 cluster and at I-495) but as far as widening, I can't see it in the cards.

Of course, I'm talking about the original pike, the section west of 128.

[shadyjay]

On a "semi-related" note:

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/main/tabid/1075/ctl/detail/mid/2937/itemid/359/Western-Turnpike-Toll-Collection-Resumes-October-15--2013-Between-Interchanges-1-and-6.aspx

Tolls fund roadway improvements, but the press release doesn't call for any major projects, outside of general "state of good repair" work.  I thought an interesting tidbit in the release said that funds cannot be used for any turnpike work east of I-95/128.   This is the "Boston Extension" that was constructed in the 1960s.

[Alps]

Now that Mass Pike is under the aegis of Mass Highway, don't expect anything to happen. They have a LONG time before getting any Federal money thanks to the Big Dig. I don't know how the revenue from the tolls is spread around, but with the state so handicapped, my guess is that it pays for anything remotely tangentially related to the Mass Pike.

[SignBridge]

Can someone summarize for me the actual reason(s) the Mass. Turnpike Authority was abolished? I've not seen this done in any of the other northeastern states with toll roads. Though I don't remember what agency in Connecticut collected tolls on I-95 and the Merritt Pkwy. back when they had tolls.

Also, why can MassPike tolls not be used for improvements on the Boston Extension? That section is tolled too, right? 

[vdeane]

People in western MA didn't want to pay for stuff in Boston.  The reason why the tolls went away in the first place is because they didn't want to pay for the Big Dig (which was actually a Turnpike Authority project despite not being on the Turnpike).

[mass_citizen]

Can someone summarize for me the actual reason(s) the Mass. Turnpike Authority was abolished? I've not seen this done in any of the other northeastern states with toll roads. Though I don't remember what agency in Connecticut collected tolls on I-95 and the Merritt Pkwy. back when they had tolls.

Also, why can MassPike tolls not be used for improvements on the Boston Extension? That section is tolled too, right?

The Boston Extension was constructed after the original turnpike which was from 128 to NY. Because of this it has different bond holders and therefore the pots of toll money are kept separate. The Boston Extension has all gated toll plazas whereas the Western Turnpike has plazas off the mainline.

[froggie]

Their favorite argument is "if you build it they will come" ;  in other words, adding a lane to a freeway will somehow magically create a proportionate amount of additional volume leading to the same traffic jams. This straw man only has credibility if one assumes there will be that many additional jobs created solely because of an additional lane and it will generate that many additional trips.

Not entirely true on your latter point.  If there's enough latent demand that isn't being met (common with major urban areas), that extra capacity will fill up even if there isn't additional job growth in the area.

[SidS1045]

Not entirely true on your latter point.  If there's enough latent demand that isn't being met (common with major urban areas), that extra capacity will fill up even if there isn't additional job growth in the area.

Job growth (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it.  In situations where people see roads being built or improved, and mass transit stagnant and neglected, their impulse is to stop using mass transit and switch over to driving.  It was proven repeatedly in New York City, in the era when Robert Moses was paving over significant portions of the city with new highways, always promising the PTB that the new roads would relieve congestion on the old roads.  It never happened.  The new roads were congested within days of opening and the old roads were just as congested as before.

[deathtopumpkins]

Can someone summarize for me the actual reason(s) the Mass. Turnpike Authority was abolished? I've not seen this done in any of the other northeastern states with toll roads.

The Turnpike Authority was folded into MassDOT in 2006 as part of a larger effort to streamline state government. It was viewed as unnecessarily redundant to have both.

NH did similar - their Turnpikes are administered by the Bureau of Turnpikes, which is an office within NHDOT, if I understand correctly. Any work crews or maintenance vehicles you see though will be NHDOT.

[mass_citizen]

Not entirely true on your latter point.  If there's enough latent demand that isn't being met (common with major urban areas), that extra capacity will fill up even if there isn't additional job growth in the area.

Job growth (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it.  In situations where people see roads being built or improved, and mass transit stagnant and neglected, their impulse is to stop using mass transit and switch over to driving.  It was proven repeatedly in New York City, in the era when Robert Moses was paving over significant portions of the city with new highways, always promising the PTB that the new roads would relieve congestion on the old roads.  It never happened.  The new roads were congested within days of opening and the old roads were just as congested as before.

MBTA ridership has been growing rapidly over the last few years-mainly due to the increase in rush hour traffic as well as rising fuel prices. If the widening of certain roads leads to the same traffic jams, the MBTA people will continue to use public transit. And if they continue to use MBTA then who is left to fill up the roads?

I understand your point but to use a traffic engineering term, trips have to be "generated". Usually this is a new shopping mall, restaurant, casino, etc. The fact is widening a road does increase capacity and level of service. This is why US 3 was widened and it in fact has improved traffic flow. When it was 2 lanes the traffic would be stopped from Burlington to Nashua-grid locked. While you still have traffic now with 3 lanes, the backups don't nearly extend as far as they used to. This is also why NHDOT is widening I-93 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. To sum my point: if widening had a negative effect and wouldn't solve traffic problems, DOT's wouldn't be undertaking these widening projects. Any widening project is supported by a traffic engineering study which, if done right, will also look at impacts on public transit, local streets, and the environment. More often than not these studies indicate that additional capacity will improve level of service.

[roadman]

Can someone summarize for me the actual reason(s) the Mass. Turnpike Authority was abolished? I've not seen this done in any of the other northeastern states with toll roads.

The Turnpike Authority was folded into MassDOT in 2009 as part of a larger effort to streamline state government. It was viewed as unnecessarily redundant to have both.

Corrected the date for you.  And, with respect, abolishing the Turnpike Authority had very little to do with streamlining state government - if that were the case, it still doesn't explain why the MBTA and Massport (the two other large state quasi-government transportation agencies) were allowed to remain independent.  The common "justification" given for this is because of bondholders and other financial complexities - which (IMHO) is total BS, because the Turnpike had exactly the same types of issues that MBTA and Massport still do.

When you get past the "official" reasons and justifications, the real truth is that the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was abolished for purely political reasons - simply to appease Howie Carr and the Boston Herald, who had what they labeled a "patronage haven" in their sights for years.

[deathtopumpkins]

Can someone summarize for me the actual reason(s) the Mass. Turnpike Authority was abolished? I've not seen this done in any of the other northeastern states with toll roads.

The Turnpike Authority was folded into MassDOT in 2009 as part of a larger effort to streamline state government. It was viewed as unnecessarily redundant to have both.

Corrected the date for you.  And, with respect, abolishing the Turnpike Authority had very little to do with streamlining state government - if that were the case, it still doesn't explain why the MBTA and Massport (the two other large state quasi-government transportation agencies) were allowed to remain independent.  The common "justification" given for this is because of bondholders and other financial complexities - which (IMHO) is total BS, because the Turnpike had exactly the same types of issues that MBTA and Massport still do.

When you get past the "official" reasons and justifications, the real truth is that the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was abolished for purely political reasons - simply to appease Howie Carr and the Boston Herald, who had what they labeled a "patronage haven" in their sights for years.

I was giving the more PC answer 

But when it comes to roads, yes, it did streamline everything. The newly formed MassDOT included MassHighway, plus the Turnpike Authority, and also assumed control of all Massport roads (Tobin Bridge), and many DCR roads (not sure on the specifics regarding the DCR transaction though).

Also, MassDOT does have an oversight role when it comes to the T. The MassDOT Rail Division is responsible for planning and oversightof both the T and freight rail statewide.

Finally, thank you for correcting the date. 6's and 9's are easy to mix up.

[SidS1045]

The newly formed MassDOT included MassHighway, plus the Turnpike Authority, and also assumed control of all Massport roads (Tobin Bridge), and many DCR roads (not sure on the specifics regarding the DCR transaction though).

Let's hope we start to see improvements in the gawd-awful DCR signage along the way.  I never quite figured out the logic behind signing rotaries as simple intersections.

[roadman]

The newly formed MassDOT included MassHighway, plus the Turnpike Authority, and also assumed control of all Massport roads (Tobin Bridge), and many DCR roads (not sure on the specifics regarding the DCR transaction though).

Let's hope we start to see improvements in the gawd-awful DCR signage along the way.  I never quite figured out the logic behind signing rotaries as simple intersections.

MassDOT took over snow removal and maintenance activities on many DCR roads.  However, design and construction of roadway improvements (including signing) on these roads is still overseen by DCR, and not MassDOT Highway Division.  And, as DCR roads are considered to be "historic" parkways, there's a whole list of special dos and don'ts that have to be followed - see

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/manuals/HPguidelinesfinal.pdf

In other words, don't expect the (&^%%! DCR signing to be replaced any time soon.

Also, MassDOT does have an oversight role when it comes to the T. The MassDOT Rail Division is responsible for planning and oversight of both the T and freight rail statewide.

You are correct.  However, Rail and Transit's oversignt role of the MBTA is very limited.  For one thing, the MBTA still has a separate general manager, and retains an independent board of directors.

[PHLBOS]

Since this thread concerns the Mass Pike; it's worth pointing out that new BGS' were erected along I-90 Westbound at the I-95/MA 30/(128) interchange (Exit 15).  I saw it this past weekend.

As expected, the BGS for I-95 no longer has a MA 128 shield mounted on the panel. 

The selected control destinations are Waltham and Providence, RI.  IMHO, I would have used the more-distant Providence, RI southbound destination for the Eastbound BGS panels (and use Portsmouth, NH for the northbound destination) and use Dedham for the Westbound panel.  It would've made for a narrower BGS panel.

The new pull-through BGS for I-90 West still includes the Mass Pike Pilgrim Hat shield and lists Worcester and Albany, NY as control destinations.

Unlike the previous BGS for Exit 15, there's no reference to MA 30 and Weston on the new BGS panel.  I'm assuming that a supplemental 30 Weston USE EXIT 15 BGS or equivalent will be erected in the near-future once all the remaining approach BGS for Exit 15 are replaced.

[roadman]

Execellent observations PHLBOS.  As I noted in another thread, the BGS panels and structure westbound at Exit 15 were replaced owing to flaws found in the existing sign structure (which was one of the last aluminum structures on the Pike).  The remaining signs and structures eastbound and westbound are scheduled to be replaced under one of the pending MassPike sign replacement contracts scheuduled for advertisement in 2015.

Your comment about revising sign legends is noted.  However, this would be inconsistent with FHWA policy regarding consistency of sign messages on both approaches to an interchange.

Lastly, IIRC, the original panel design for the replacement I-95 sign at IC 15 did include the MA 30 information, which was separated from the I-95 information with a vertical divider.  Haven't yet had a chance to check out the new sign installation to verify this.

[PHLBOS]

Your comment about revising sign legends is noted.  However, this would be inconsistent with FHWA policy regarding consistency of sign messages on both approaches to an interchange.

Fair enough, maybe it's just the North Shore part of me that associates the 95/Waltham/Providence, RI BGS with I-95 South between Peabody/Lynnfield and Lexington.

Lastly, IIRC, the original panel design for the replacement I-95 sign at IC 15 did include the MA 30 information, which was separated from the I-95 information with a vertical divider.  Haven't yet had a chance to check out the new sign installation to verify this.

The BGS I'm referring to is the one just prior to the gore read:

            EXIT 15
       95
   Waltham         ^
Providence, RI    /

Pardon my attempt of showing an angled right-arrow.

[SignBridge]

That's a real shame that they don't even co-sign I-95/Ma.128 anymore. They can call it I-95 if they want, but to us old school highway buffs it will still be Route-128.

I don't quite agree with the westbound destinations on I-90 from Boston.  I would have thought Springfield would be a better target city than more distant Albany. 

[agentsteel53]

That's a real shame that they don't even co-sign I-95/Ma.128 anymore. They can call it I-95 if they want, but to us old school highway buffs it will still be Route-128.

that's a bit silly of a reason to ask that it be signed.  I call I-110 "bear 11" but I don't expect the designation to ever show up again.

[SignBridge]

Well, LOL there's no real reason to retain button-copy either nowadays, but I like it, and wish it's use would have been continued. Looks like you're something of a traditionalist too (chuckle!)

[mass_citizen]

Lastly, IIRC, the original panel design for the replacement I-95 sign at IC 15 did include the MA 30 information, which was separated from the I-95 information with a vertical divider.  Haven't yet had a chance to check out the new sign installation to verify this.

There is a new sign Westbound prior to the toll booths with the 30 designation and vertical divider.

[PHLBOS]

Your comment about revising sign legends is noted.  However, this would be inconsistent with FHWA policy regarding consistency of sign messages on both approaches to an interchange.

I meant to ask this earlier, is the above an actual mandate or suggested guidance?

If it's the former, then will the new Exit 14 BGS for I-90 Eastbound also contain the MA 30 info. on the same panel?  The current panels do not, although there is a supplemental BGS that lists such.  The reasoning for such is due to the previous exit (Exit 13) is also for MA 30.

Personally, I would recommend adding a supplemental BGS along for MA 16 since there is no Exit 16 (for MA 16) along eastbound I-90.  Is that in the works?

While I agree in principle with consistent legends for exit signs in both directions of a highway; there are cases where it's not always appropriate & applicable to do such. 

Example: the exit panels for the PA Turnpike (I-76/276) Valley Forge interchange is an example of such: the I-476 shield was recently removed from the westbound exit signs (and replaced w/a US 422 shield) because there exists a direct exit from I-276 to I-476 South several miles beforehand.  Consistency in this case created an unnecessary redundancy. 

Most Providence-bound motorists coming from Boston and points east aren't going to use I-90 West to I-95 South; they'll likely use I-93 South to I-95 South (barring a major traffic jam).  That's why I suggested the use of Dedham for the southbound control city.   If legend consistency's an issue, then the Waltham/Dedham combo could also be used for the eastbound exit signage because most NH or RI bound drivers from the Pike (at least west of Framingham) will use either I-495 or MA 146 for such.

Personally, I would use Waltham/Dedham for westbound exit signage and Portsmouth, NH/Providence, RI exit signage for the eastbound signage with supplemental signage for the local destinations.  But that's just me. 

Side bar: I would personally alternate the I-95 exit destination legends at the I-93 (Woburn) and MA 2 interchanges as well.  But that's another subject for another thread.