Massachusetts

[mariethefoxy]

Question about the pre-big dig configuration. How did things work with the HOV lane on the lower level on 93 heading towards the older Zakim bridge which had only three lanes across? Looking at old footage where people get onto 93 from the Tobin they loop around and that lane becomes the rightmost lane where there are only two lanes on 93 south approaching that merge, then those three lanes go over the old double decker Zakim bridge.

Also that segment itself is a bit strange, was all that extra space for more lanes in the double decker segment in Somerville supposed to tie into the unbuilt I-695 if it was built?

[5foot14]

Question about the pre-big dig configuration. How did things work with the HOV lane on the lower level on 93 heading towards the older Zakim bridge which had only three lanes across? Looking at old footage where people get onto 93 from the Tobin they loop around and that lane becomes the rightmost lane where there are only two lanes on 93 south approaching that merge, then those three lanes go over the old double decker Zakim bridge.

Also that segment itself is a bit strange, was all that extra space for more lanes in the double decker segment in Somerville supposed to tie into the unbuilt I-695 if it was built?

The HOV lane didn't exist back then. It was added as an environmental mitigation as a part of the big dig. Yes the extra space would've facilitated the merge from I-695 had it been built. Also the old double decker bridge over the Charles River was named The Charlestown High Bridge. It was never referred to as the Zakim Bridge.

Interestingly, before the loop ramps your referring to were built, ramps to the Tobin Bridge (US 1) connected at a Y Interchange directly north of the High Bridge on the EAST side. Before US 1 was relocated onto the Central Artery, US 1 traversed the Tobin Bridge and continued to Storrow Drive. This meant than anyone who wanted to continue on US 1 South would merge on to the High Bridge in the left lane, have to merge over 2 lanes of heavy traffic to exit to US 1 Storrow Drive on the right, all within the 1/4 mile or so of the High Bridge. The same would apply to those entering North from Storrow Drive and wanting to continue North to US 1 and the Tobin Bridge.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Question about the pre-big dig configuration. How did things work with the HOV lane on the lower level on 93 heading towards the older Zakim bridge which had only three lanes across? Looking at old footage where people get onto 93 from the Tobin they loop around and that lane becomes the rightmost lane where there are only two lanes on 93 south approaching that merge, then those three lanes go over the old double decker Zakim bridge.

Also that segment itself is a bit strange, was all that extra space for more lanes in the double decker segment in Somerville supposed to tie into the unbuilt I-695 if it was built?

The HOV lane didn't exist back then. It was added as an environmental mitigation as a part of the big dig. Yes the extra space would've facilitated the merge from I-695 had it been built. Also the old double decker bridge over the Charles River was named The Charlestown High Bridge. It was never referred to as the Zakim Bridge.

Interestingly, before the loop ramps your referring to were built, ramps to the Tobin Bridge (US 1) connected at a Y Interchange directly north of the High Bridge on the EAST side. Before US 1 was relocated onto the Central Artery, US 1 traversed the Tobin Bridge and continued to Storrow Drive. This meant than anyone who wanted to continue on US 1 South would merge on to the High Bridge in the left lane, have to merge over 2 lanes of heavy traffic to exit to US 1 Storrow Drive on the right, all within the 1/4 mile or so of the High Bridge. The same would apply to those entering North from Storrow Drive and wanting to continue North to US 1 and the Tobin Bridge.

The old Y with US-1 and I-93 was white knuckle driving indeed. So much so that the loop ramps were opened to the old High Bridge in 1994 as part of the Central Artery Nirth Area project. This was nearly a decade before the Zakim itself opened.

[Great Lakes Roads]

MassDOT is holding a public meeting on Thursday 10/26 regarding its proposed reconstruction and widening of the Bowker Overpass that takes traffic to and from the Fenway to Storrow Drive over the Mass Pike and railroad tracks:
https://www.mass.gov/event/boston-bowker-overpass-bridge-superstructure-replacement-and-new-bridge-construction-2023-10-26t180000-0400-2023-10-26t193000-0400

Hopefully, this will include the removal of the remaining signs that still refer to Storrow Drive East as US 1 more than 30 years after the route was rerouted along I-93.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn1v6XjjBow

Virtual meeting of the said project... The project entails the removal of the ramps to and from Commonwealth Avenue and reconfigures the intersection of Boylston Street to include a fourth leg alongside a new (and wider) bridge to accommodate traffic and pedestrians to and from Commonwealth Avenue.

[roadman]

Question about the pre-big dig configuration. How did things work with the HOV lane on the lower level on 93 heading towards the older Zakim bridge which had only three lanes across? Looking at old footage where people get onto 93 from the Tobin they loop around and that lane becomes the rightmost lane where there are only two lanes on 93 south approaching that merge, then those three lanes go over the old double decker Zakim bridge.

Also that segment itself is a bit strange, was all that extra space for more lanes in the double decker segment in Somerville supposed to tie into the unbuilt I-695 if it was built?

The HOV lane didn't exist back then. It was added as an environmental mitigation as a part of the big dig. Yes the extra space would've facilitated the merge from I-695 had it been built. Also the old double decker bridge over the Charles River was named The Charlestown High Bridge. It was never referred to as the Zakim Bridge.

Interestingly, before the loop ramps your referring to were built, ramps to the Tobin Bridge (US 1) connected at a Y Interchange directly north of the High Bridge on the EAST side. Before US 1 was relocated onto the Central Artery, US 1 traversed the Tobin Bridge and continued to Storrow Drive. This meant than anyone who wanted to continue on US 1 South would merge on to the High Bridge in the left lane, have to merge over 2 lanes of heavy traffic to exit to US 1 Storrow Drive on the right, all within the 1/4 mile or so of the High Bridge. The same would apply to those entering North from Storrow Drive and wanting to continue North to US 1 and the Tobin Bridge.

Actually, the HOV lane on the Lower Deck existed almost from the opening of the roadway in September, 1973 (the day after Georges Tonka Toy wiped out a support bent on the Charlestown side - note that the Upper and Lower decks didn't receive the I-93 designation until late 1974.).  The left lane served as both the exit to the northbound Tobin Bridge and the HOV lane.  When the lane was being enforced, people without the minimum number of occupants (it was originally 3+) who tried to slip back into the mainline lanes would be pulled over into the gore area, ticketed, and then directed to take the ramp to the Tobin Bridge.  There used to be a right-side slip ramp into City Square northbound just before the start of the bridge, but many people weren't aware of this or were unable to cross over to use it, with the result they ended up in Chelsea.   When work began on the Zakim Bridge/Big Dig, the lane wound up being significantly shortened, and would no longer had an "enforcement" area.  Originally, MassDPW wanted to eliminate the lane completely, but the EPA rejected the idea.   Instead, the start of the lane was extended to just after the Mystic Avenue exit, and a new "enforcement area" was constructed midway along the HOV lane where the road widens at the stub ramp that was supposed to come from the I-695 'clockwise' direction.

[mariethefoxy]

Question about the pre-big dig configuration. How did things work with the HOV lane on the lower level on 93 heading towards the older Zakim bridge which had only three lanes across? Looking at old footage where people get onto 93 from the Tobin they loop around and that lane becomes the rightmost lane where there are only two lanes on 93 south approaching that merge, then those three lanes go over the old double decker Zakim bridge.

Also that segment itself is a bit strange, was all that extra space for more lanes in the double decker segment in Somerville supposed to tie into the unbuilt I-695 if it was built?

The HOV lane didn't exist back then. It was added as an environmental mitigation as a part of the big dig. Yes the extra space would've facilitated the merge from I-695 had it been built. Also the old double decker bridge over the Charles River was named The Charlestown High Bridge. It was never referred to as the Zakim Bridge.

Interestingly, before the loop ramps your referring to were built, ramps to the Tobin Bridge (US 1) connected at a Y Interchange directly north of the High Bridge on the EAST side. Before US 1 was relocated onto the Central Artery, US 1 traversed the Tobin Bridge and continued to Storrow Drive. This meant than anyone who wanted to continue on US 1 South would merge on to the High Bridge in the left lane, have to merge over 2 lanes of heavy traffic to exit to US 1 Storrow Drive on the right, all within the 1/4 mile or so of the High Bridge. The same would apply to those entering North from Storrow Drive and wanting to continue North to US 1 and the Tobin Bridge.

Actually, the HOV lane on the Lower Deck existed almost from the opening of the roadway in September, 1973 (the day after Georges Tonka Toy wiped out a support bent on the Charlestown side - note that the Upper and Lower decks didn't receive the I-93 designation until late 1974.).  The left lane served as both the exit to the northbound Tobin Bridge and the HOV lane.  When the lane was being enforced, people without the minimum number of occupants (it was originally 3+) who tried to slip back into the mainline lanes would be pulled over into the gore area, ticketed, and then directed to take the ramp to the Tobin Bridge.  There used to be a right-side slip ramp into City Square northbound just before the start of the bridge, but many people weren't aware of this or were unable to cross over to use it, with the result they ended up in Chelsea.   When work began on the Zakim Bridge/Big Dig, the lane wound up being significantly shortened, and would no longer had an "enforcement" area.  Originally, MassDPW wanted to eliminate the lane completely, but the EPA rejected the idea.   Instead, the start of the lane was extended to just after the Mystic Avenue exit, and a new "enforcement area" was constructed midway along the HOV lane where the road widens at the stub ramp that was supposed to come from the I-695 'clockwise' direction.

During that time when the older High Bridge was still in use and the Tobin ramps were reconfigured to the right side, where did the Carpool lane end? Since I imagine it would have merged into the two main lanes, since the on ramp from the Tobin according to videos I watched added a lane, so then you had three lanes over the High Bridge, the right most lane was an exit only for the Storrow Dr Exit then the onramp right after that Exit made the third lane for the elevated artery

[Ted$8roadFan]

Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

[JWF1959]

Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

It's hard to believe that after all this time, at one of the major interchanges in MA, that the Mass Pike ramps to 95N and 95S are both only two lanes each.  The former toll booth area is huge where the traffic converges, but it all funnels down to two outrageously out-of-date on ramps to I  95.

[Pete from Boston]

Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

Does anyone have a good link to a plan of work for this project? I have seen overviews of the roadways involved in the work, but not specifics about which bridges will be rehabbed and which ones will be replaced.

It's hard to believe that after all this time, at one of the major interchanges in MA, that the Mass Pike ramps to 95N and 95S are both only two lanes each.  The former toll booth area is huge where the traffic converges, but it all funnels down to two outrageously out-of-date on ramps to I  95.

When tolls were removed, I always assumed that as these interchanges were worked on, they would be reconfigured in a way more rational to a non-toll road situation, like the one at 495.

However, my guess is this project would be vastly more expensive and take much longer to get off the ground if they did that, particularly with the number of site constraints and abutters. It's a shame because it is, as you point out, kind of a disaster.

[bob7374]

Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

Does anyone have a good link to a plan of work for this project? I have seen overviews of the roadways involved in the work, but not specifics about which bridges will be rehabbed and which ones will be replaced.

It's hard to believe that after all this time, at one of the major interchanges in MA, that the Mass Pike ramps to 95N and 95S are both only two lanes each.  The former toll booth area is huge where the traffic converges, but it all funnels down to two outrageously out-of-date on ramps to I  95.

When tolls were removed, I always assumed that as these interchanges were worked on, they would be reconfigured in a way more rational to a non-toll road situation, like the one at 495.

However, my guess is this project would be vastly more expensive and take much longer to get off the ground if they did that, particularly with the number of site constraints and abutters. It's a shame because it is, as you point out, kind of a disaster.

Here is the MassDOT project webpage. They describe it as simply a bridge replacement and rehabilitation project, they do not mention any changes to the ramps in the interchange:
"A series of eight bridges at the I-90/I-95 (Route 128) interchange on the Newton/Weston border are in need of replacement and rehabilitation. The bridges are currently safe but aging and deteriorating. Included in these bridges is I-90's crossing over the Charles River. Of the eight bridges, five will be replaced, one will be rehabilitated, and two will have their superstructure replaced."
https://www.mass.gov/newton-weston-bridge-replacement-and-rehabilitation-at-i-90i-95

[Ted$8roadFan]

Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

Does anyone have a good link to a plan of work for this project? I have seen overviews of the roadways involved in the work, but not specifics about which bridges will be rehabbed and which ones will be replaced.

It's hard to believe that after all this time, at one of the major interchanges in MA, that the Mass Pike ramps to 95N and 95S are both only two lanes each.  The former toll booth area is huge where the traffic converges, but it all funnels down to two outrageously out-of-date on ramps to I  95.

When tolls were removed, I always assumed that as these interchanges were worked on, they would be reconfigured in a way more rational to a non-toll road situation, like the one at 495.

However, my guess is this project would be vastly more expensive and take much longer to get off the ground if they did that, particularly with the number of site constraints and abutters. It's a shame because it is, as you point out, kind of a disaster.

It would be great to see a more modern I-90/I-95 interchange, given its regional significance. As you point out though, unlike I-495, it would be much more complex due to significant site constraints and suspicious neighbors that would make any improvements prohibitively expensive. The area has gotten better with the removal of the toll booths and the elimination of the horrible merge from I-90W yo I-95. That, plus the bridge improvements, are the best we can hope for in the foreseeable future.

[Rothman]

Although I spent much of my life in Massachusetts, I have grown tired of its lousy signage.  Yes, SGSes trigger a fair amount of nostalgia with me, but usually such signage did not cover all route movements at New England's quirky intersections or even traditional intersections where concurrencies split or merged.  It's better for drivers when they're replaced by trailblazers, despite the lack of distance information to nearby communities.

On a recent trip to Boston, I found myself annoyed at their random placement of trailblazers, especially "TO" ones with straight arrows, but no further guidance down the road.  TO MA 2A, straight on Boylston.  Are we going to tell you where to turn left to actually get onto MA 2A?  Of course not.  TO I-90 West, straight arrow.  We're just not wanting you to ignore a no left turn restriction, but then will not give you any further guidance to the I-90 west on-ramp.

I've said for years that it is impossible to follow state routes through Holyoke, MA, especially MA 116, so it's not restricted to the Boston area.

Add on top of that the fact that you can ride the T for free if the right drivers are operating/not enforcing the on-train fare collection/card reader is broken and the startling incompetence seems to affect all areas.  And why the freak can you not use the CharlieCard for the T-operated ferries?

There is a lot to like about Massachusetts, but transportation wayfinding is just not one of them, much to my chagrin.

</rant>

[vdeane]

Speaking of route signage, I don't like how the western part of the state has the MassPike logo up top.  The blue directional banner clashes with the white shield.  The way they appear out east with the interstate shield on top looks much nicer.

In other issues, is there something in the road near the I-290/I-395 interchange?  When I was there this morning, I must have seen 4-5 cars off the side of the road in the span of a couple miles, all with flat tires.

[SectorZ]

In other issues, is there something in the road near the I-290/I-395 interchange?  When I was there this morning, I must have seen 4-5 cars off the side of the road in the span of a couple miles, all with flat tires.

Flat tires have been an apparent scourge of late for a lot of people. I drove 95 from Burlington to Canton Friday morning and there was a vehicle pulled over every 1-2 miles with a flat. All driver's side too which can't be fun to replace. Not a single vehicle pulled over with a flat doing the N/B drive back.

[kramie13]

Speaking of route signage, I don't like how the western part of the state has the MassPike logo up top.  The blue directional banner clashes with the white shield.  The way they appear out east with the interstate shield on top looks much nicer.

Even more annoying, the western part of the Mass Pike has overhead exit signs now when they used to be ground-mounted.  East of I-84 the overheads are okay, since the highway is 3 lanes in each direction.  But west of that interchange they should be ground-mounted.  It creates a more intimate road setting, and overhead signs on 2-lane highways can ruin the view!

[Rothman]

Speaking of route signage, I don't like how the western part of the state has the MassPike logo up top.  The blue directional banner clashes with the white shield.  The way they appear out east with the interstate shield on top looks much nicer.

Even more annoying, the western part of the Mass Pike has overhead exit signs now when they used to be ground-mounted.  East of I-84 the overheads are okay, since the highway is 3 lanes in each direction.  But west of that interchange they should be ground-mounted.  It creates a more intimate road setting, and overhead signs on 2-lane highways can ruin the view!

Pfft.  As someone who spent many years in Western MA, there are very good reasons why MassDOT has opted to convert to overhead signage.  Greater and more reliable visibility being only one of them.  MA 9 on I-91 NB's ground mounted signage was hanging on by its fingernails by the time it was replaced.  MA 116 on I-91 SB had sign go completely down.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I actually think the signage has actually gotten better in the state overall.

[Rothman]

I actually think the signage has actually gotten better in the state overall.

But it was so bad to begin with that even the small improvement there has been seems significant.

Give a man a penny who had a penny and his income doubles...

[Pete from Boston]

Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

Does anyone have a good link to a plan of work for this project? I have seen overviews of the roadways involved in the work, but not specifics about which bridges will be rehabbed and which ones will be replaced.

It's hard to believe that after all this time, at one of the major interchanges in MA, that the Mass Pike ramps to 95N and 95S are both only two lanes each.  The former toll booth area is huge where the traffic converges, but it all funnels down to two outrageously out-of-date on ramps to I  95.

When tolls were removed, I always assumed that as these interchanges were worked on, they would be reconfigured in a way more rational to a non-toll road situation, like the one at 495.

However, my guess is this project would be vastly more expensive and take much longer to get off the ground if they did that, particularly with the number of site constraints and abutters. It's a shame because it is, as you point out, kind of a disaster.

Here is the MassDOT project webpage. They describe it as simply a bridge replacement and rehabilitation project, they do not mention any changes to the ramps in the interchange:
"A series of eight bridges at the I-90/I-95 (Route 128) interchange on the Newton/Weston border are in need of replacement and rehabilitation. The bridges are currently safe but aging and deteriorating. Included in these bridges is I-90's crossing over the Charles River. Of the eight bridges, five will be replaced, one will be rehabilitated, and two will have their superstructure replaced."
https://www.mass.gov/newton-weston-bridge-replacement-and-rehabilitation-at-i-90i-95

Thanks. I've seen this and it's typically short on detail, no plan of work or specifics.

[Pete from Boston]

Does anyone know of plans to rehabilitate or replace the Mass. 129 overpass over I-93 in Wilmington? It looks awful and there are already a few band-aids on it.  (Google Street View images)

[SectorZ]

Does anyone know of plans to rehabilitate or replace the Mass. 129 overpass over I-93 in Wilmington? It looks awful and there are already a few band-aids on it.

https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=608703

Work begins summer 2025. I don't know if you've been on the bridge, but part of the westbound side is closed off, with all traffic squeezing over to the eastbound and a bit of the westbound side. It's as rough looking on top of it.

[Pete from Boston]

Does anyone know of plans to rehabilitate or replace the Mass. 129 overpass over I-93 in Wilmington? It looks awful and there are already a few band-aids on it.

https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=608703

Work begins summer 2025. I don't know if you've been on the bridge, but part of the westbound side is closed off, with all traffic squeezing over to the eastbound and a bit of the westbound side. It's as rough looking on top of it.

I guess it's good news that it's planned, but man is it scary it's going to be in this state another year and a half. I have been on top. It's kind of jarring how much the whole thing has been allowed to deteriorate.

[southshore720]

Does anyone know of plans to rehabilitate or replace the Mass. 129 overpass over I-93 in Wilmington? It looks awful and there are already a few band-aids on it.

https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=608703

Work begins summer 2025. I don't know if you've been on the bridge, but part of the westbound side is closed off, with all traffic squeezing over to the eastbound and a bit of the westbound side. It's as rough looking on top of it.

I guess it's good news that it's planned, but man is it scary it's going to be in this state another year and a half. I have been on top. It's kind of jarring how much the whole thing has been allowed to deteriorate.

It took 5 years for them to replace Dedham St. bridge over I-95 in Canton, so good luck to Wilmington and the Red Sox on this one!

[bob7374]

Good news. A MassDOT former Twitter post tonight indicates lanes will be closed overnight starting this week on US 3 between Burlington and Tyngsboro for sign replacement work.

The bad news is that the text says the work should last through the summer. Not a record breaking pace, to say the least.

[kramie13]

Good news. A MassDOT former Twitter post tonight indicates lanes will be closed overnight starting this week on US 3 between Burlington and Tyngsboro for sign replacement work.

The bad news is that the text says the work should last through the summer. Not a record breaking pace, to say the least.

Perhaps US 3 can get its mile posts recalibrated too?  For example, the MA 129 overpass over US 3 is at mile 80.7, but the exit number is 79.  Also going north on US 3, you have a "mile 87" marker just before the exit for MA 40, which is signed exit 86.