Danvers, MA Police Chief calls Route 128 interchange a "Horrible Design"

[PHLBOS]

Article's in reference to the MA 62 (Exit 22) diamond interchange that replaced the tight partial cloverleaf interchange before it.  The nearby MA 35 (Exit 23) interchange is mentioned (in the Comments section) as well.

Danvers chief calls Route 128 interchange a 'horrible' design

DANVERS – The state's $23 million project meant to make the interchange of Route 128 at Route 62 safer appears to have only made things worse, according to Danvers police.

A meeting with the Board of Selectmen is planned Tuesday night to address what the police chief calls "a horrible intersection."  

Police Chief Patrick Ambrose described the problem as, "Too much traffic coming through such a small intersection with so many lights."

The diamond-shaped reconstruction of the interchange removed the clover leaf design of some on- and off-ramps, and closed access to and from Route 128 on State Road and Liberty Street. The old configuration was known to cause rear-end crashes on Route 128 as traffic tried to merge onto the highway.

Police data, which does not reflect accidents on Route 128 handled by the state police or minor crashes handled with paper exchanges, shows there were 47 accidents at the interchange in 2010, the year the state Department of Transportation started work on the intersection.

But in 2012, there were 95 crashes and in 2015, there were 109. The new ramp configurations opened in June 2012.

...

Trask said the state created the new diamond configuration to reduce fatalities and crashes on Route 128. While that may be the case now, Trask said, the state also created the situation on Elliott Street.

The increased volume of accidents is putting a strain on town resources, he said, as the town responds to crashes with a police officer, an ambulance and a fire engine.

"The town is suffering with the state's architecture of this,"  Trask said.

Is the cure worse than the disease?

[The Ghostbuster]

Well, the non-interstate portion of Route 128 obviously does not meet interstate standards. Could the non-interstate portion be upgraded without demolishing too many homes or businesses?

[CtrlAltDel]

Could someone pinpoint where these interchanges are. For whatever reason, I'm hopelessly lost.

[jeffandnicole]

Article's in reference to the MA 62 (Exit 22) diamond interchange that replaced the tight partial cloverleaf interchange before it.  The nearby MA 35 (Exit 23) interchange is mentioned as well.

Danvers chief calls Route 128 interchange a 'horrible' design

DANVERS — The state’s $23 million project meant to make the interchange of Route 128 at Route 62 safer appears to have only made things worse, according to Danvers police.

A meeting with the Board of Selectmen is planned Tuesday night to address what the police chief calls “a horrible intersection.”

Police Chief Patrick Ambrose described the problem as, “Too much traffic coming through such a small intersection with so many lights.”

The diamond-shaped reconstruction of the interchange removed the clover leaf design of some on- and off-ramps, and closed access to and from Route 128 on State Road and Liberty Street. The old configuration was known to cause rear-end crashes on Route 128 as traffic tried to merge onto the highway.

Police data, which does not reflect accidents on Route 128 handled by the state police or minor crashes handled with paper exchanges, shows there were 47 accidents at the interchange in 2010, the year the state Department of Transportation started work on the intersection.

But in 2012, there were 95 crashes and in 2015, there were 109. The new ramp configurations opened in June 2012.

...

Trask said the state created the new diamond configuration to reduce fatalities and crashes on Route 128. While that may be the case now, Trask said, the state also created the situation on Elliott Street.

The increased volume of accidents is putting a strain on town resources, he said, as the town responds to crashes with a police officer, an ambulance and a fire engine.

“The town is suffering with the state’s architecture of this,” Trask said.

Is the cure worse than the disease?

I don't know the specifics, but maybe the town doesn't need to send an ambulance & fire engine to every accident. Sounds like they wanted to create themselves relevant...and now they're too relevant.  I see accidents on the highway nearly daily where they're exchanging info and going, much less getting the entire town's resources involved.

[bob7374]

Could someone pinpoint where these interchanges are. For whatever reason, I'm hopelessly lost.

Here's the Google Maps Street View image approaching the MA 62 exit on MA 128 North:
https://goo.gl/maps/WoZrWbXAz6R2

[Alps]

Strikes me as a poorly conceived project without a proper crash analysis done. Especially since the cross street is a state highway, the state should have been considering both and making the results known. The state should also have been seeking input from the town. They may have done that, but without a proper crash analysis there would have been no reason for the town to complain.

[PHLBOS]

It's worth noting (those who are from the area and/or been on this forum know this but for those unfamiliar) that the previous interchange layout did have two left-turn movements: From 128 South to MA 62 (such was previously done using State Rd., today such is a separate ramp closer to 128) & from 62 East to 128 South (using the fore-mentioned State Rd.).

Both of the above-described left-turn movements do not require going underneath 128 prior to making the left turn.

The elephant in the room (in this case in the interchange) is the old arched-cement overpass (carrying 128) opening.  While the arch is wide enough to accommodate 4 lanes of roadway (MA 62/Elliott St.) plus sidewalks on both sides, the very close location of the interchange ramps with respect to the overpass doesn't allow for sufficient left-lane cueing.  Additionally, the fore-mentioned arch opening can't accomodate 2nd left-turn lanes to be constructed.

That said, one relatively simple fix would be to bring back at least one of the cloverleaf ramps; the one from 62 East to 128 North.  The exit ramp from northbound 128 would need to return to its previous layout with a modification at the end (to allow for left-turn movements for 62 West).  Such could be a challenge given the surroundings.  Another option, though it would require additional land-takings and building/house demolitions) would be to align the northbound exit ramp to Liberty St. just south of MA 62/Elliott St.  62-bound traffic (from the ramp) would then turn left onto Liberty and proceed to Elliott St.

Strikes me as a poorly conceived project without a proper crash analysis done. Especially since the cross street is a state highway, the state should have been considering both and making the results known. The state should also have been seeking input from the town. They may have done that, but without a proper crash analysis there would have been no reason for the town to complain.

In Massachusetts, not all roadways that are designated as state routes/highways are state-owned/maintained roads.  Many of the state routes are actually County-owned (in this case, Essex County) roads.  County-owned roads are maintained by the town(s) such traverse through.

IIRC, Elliott St., even in this area is a county road... at least beyond 128's overpass limits; such may explain why some of the previous access ramps were actually connecting streets (at least Liberty St. served as access ramps to/from 128 North from/to 62 West).

[froggie]

I have to wonder if roundabouts were considered.  Seems like a roundabout on the west side of 128 would address the close spacing between the southbound ramp signals and the signal at State Rd.  This also would've allowed a dual-"left turn lane" for the WB 62 to SB 128 movement.  The left turn crash issue mentioned in the article (specifically EB 62 to NB 128 if you read through the article) could've been addressed by retaining the northbound on-ramp from Liberty St.

[PHLBOS]

I have to wonder if roundabouts were considered.  Seems like a roundabout on the west side of 128 would address the close spacing between the southbound ramp signals and the signal at State Rd.  This also would've allowed a dual-"left turn lane" for the WB 62 to SB 128 movement.

Maybe Roadman could shed some light on such.  One needs to remember, although such are different; most Bay Staters equate roundabout to rotary.  Further north/east at Exit 19; a roundabout was recently retrofitted at the Sohier Road part of the interchange.  If one scrolls down through the article comments; the reaction to that interchange modification has been negative as well.

The left turn crash issue mentioned in the article (specifically EB 62 to NB 128 if you read through the article) could've been addressed by retaining the northbound on-ramp from Liberty St.

Guess on my part, but those residences along Liberty St. (between 62 & 128 North) are probably glad that ramp traffic (to/from 128) is no longer on their street.   

I don't know the specifics, but maybe the town doesn't need to send an ambulance & fire engine to every accident. Sounds like they wanted to create themselves relevant...and now they're too relevant.  I see accidents on the highway nearly daily where they're exchanging info and going, much less getting the entire town's resources involved.

If there are injuries among those involved; an ambulance is summoned.  If one needs the jaws of life to get out of their vehicle post-accident; the fire department is usually summoned.

While not in Danvers, MA (but just south of Ambler, PA); I was involved in a 3-car accident just over 3 months ago (such totaled my '97 Crown Vic).  And while nobody was seriously injured (my passenger sustained some internal injuries due to his being closest to the 2nd hit); the fire department and ambulance(s) were indeed summoned.  The former to cut the roof off my car (those on FB saw photos of the aftermath) in order to extricate my friend out and the latter to take him (I went along with him) to hospital so he could be examined and undergo tests.  Thankfully, he was released some 2 to 3 hours later.  For all one knows, maybe accidents at this location (62 at 128) have had similar levels of severity.

It's also noted that the listed reported accidents along MA 62 do not include minor ones that don't involve injuries nor fire departments showing up.

FYI, the Town of Danvers has its own fire department; such is not an independent/volunteer fire company.

[The Ghostbuster]

Forget just this one interchange. The entire corridor should probably be brought up to modern design standards. I do realize it probably won't happen.

[PHLBOS]

Forget just this one interchange. The entire corridor should probably be brought up to modern design standards. I do realize it probably won't happen.

True.  A few posts back, I made reference to the proverbial elephant in the room; the elephant here, is the MA 128 corridor itself... especially the old cement-arch overpasses.  Such are wide enough for only 4 travel lanes and that's it... no shoulder lanes at all.  As a result, and the main reason why the cloverleaf ramps were dropped at the MA 35 & 62 interchanges, merging and exiting off the highway is very abrupt (and has lead to the described-merger-related fender-benders over the years if not decades).

This stretch, north/east of Exit 28, is one of the oldest stretches of 128/Yankee Division Highway out there; most of it was constructed during the late 40s/early 50s and hasn't really changed all that much in terms of pavement width and alignment.  Those cement-arch overpasses may be aesthetically attractive; but are a liability in terms of today's traffic demands due to their narrow widths.

Had the overpasses themselves been replaced with wider ones (containing shoulders); the cloverleaf ramps could've remained.

Buried in the Salem News link is a 2013 MassDOT Road Safety Audit of the Route 62/128 interchange.  Two listed long-term solutions are: replacing the 128 overpass with a wider structure (*duh*) and reconfiguring MA 62/Elliott St. at 128 into a DDI (not too sure about this).

[Duke87]

Buried in the Salem News link is a 2013 MassDOT Road Safety Audit of the Route 62/128 interchange.  Two listed long-term solutions are: replacing the 128 overpass with a wider structure (*duh*) and reconfiguring MA 62/Elliott St. at 128 into a DDI (not too sure about this).

My initial reaction to this story was to wonder if they had considered something like a SPUI in the initial planning but ended up building a conventional diamond due either to a need to keep the cost down or to community opposition to a more robust alternative.

Either a SPUI or a DDI would eliminate the left turns crossing paths twice, although the former would require replacing the overpass.

[mass_citizen]

IIRC, Elliott St., even in this area is a county road... at least beyond 128's overpass limits; such may explain why some of the previous access ramps were actually connecting streets (at least Liberty St. served as access ramps to/from 128 North from/to 62 West).

You are correct that the state owns the portion of Elliott St within the interchange/overpass limits however Massachusetts does not really have county roads anymore. In this case Elliott St. beyond the interchange limits would be maintained by the town of Danvers.

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/MapsDataandReports/Maps/InteractiveMaps.aspx

[Roadrunner75]

This seems like a signal timing headache - especially for those exiting 128 SB to 62 WB, where they could get a green light making the right turn only to barrell through a red light immediately afterward at State Road.  I could definitely see some accidental red light running here, depending on the timing of the signals.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5657096,-70.9232006,3a,66.8y,266.4h,86.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sqyzdJ-C-wMYMpX3iDF5dkA!2e0?force=lite

[PHLBOS]

My initial reaction to this story was to wonder if they had considered something like a SPUI in the initial planning but ended up building a conventional diamond due either to a need to keep the cost down or to community opposition to a more robust alternative.

Cost of replacing the overpass was the likely reason why the current diamond design was chosen.  As far as community opposition is concerned; the only issue I see would've the traffic control, particularly along 128 itself while the overpass would be worked on.  The present overpass has no shoulder lanes so there's no room to shift the lanes over while part of the overpass is being worked on.

IIRC, Elliott St., even in this area is a county road... at least beyond 128's overpass limits; such may explain why some of the previous access ramps were actually connecting streets (at least Liberty St. served as access ramps to/from 128 North from/to 62 West).

You are correct that the state owns the portion of Elliott St within the interchange/overpass limits however Massachusetts does not really have county roads anymore. In this case Elliott St. beyond the interchange limits would be maintained by the town of Danvers.

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/MapsDataandReports/Maps/InteractiveMaps.aspx

Thanks for the info.  I should've clarified, by county road, I was referring to the ownership of the right-of-way, not necessarily who maintains it.  I've since modified my earlier post to reflect such.

Historical note: the reason why I know that Elliott St. in that area is a county layout/right-of-way is, back in the 80s when I worked for Hancock Survey Associates between college semesters, one short-lived project I worked on was a proposed subdivision along the parcel of land where the new 128 south on-ramp stands today.  Even then, I mentioned to my supervisor that the land would be better suited for a highway on-ramp.  Although he agreed, the client wasn't the then-MassDPW.  Fast forward some 25 years and, lo and behold, someone heard my suggestion... at least with respect to the onramp to 128 South.   

[froggie]

Given the close proximity of the State Rd and Liberty St intersections (especially State Rd), I don't see how a DDI would work here.

[Sykotyk]

This seems like a signal timing headache - especially for those exiting 128 SB to 62 WB, where they could get a green light making the right turn only to barrell through a red light immediately afterward at State Road.  I could definitely see some accidental red light running here, depending on the timing of the signals.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5657096,-70.9232006,3a,66.8y,266.4h,86.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sqyzdJ-C-wMYMpX3iDF5dkA!2e0?force=lite

That is ridiculous. Which would require the right turn lane to always be synced with State Rd to avoid it. Which means State Rd becomes gridlocked with the through movement of 62 AND the turning 128 SB traffic heading to 62 WB.

[Gnutella]

128 : Boston :: 376 : Pittsburgh