Boston's Big Dig

[cpzilliacus]

IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.

I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.

[PHLBOS]

IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.

I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.

Another thing to keep in mind that since the I-93 portion was replacing an existing Interstate (though grandfathered) corridor; federal regulations that existed at the time prevented that stretch from being tolled despite the improvements/upgrades.  The Ted Williams Tunnel received a toll because it was a brand new facility that previously did not exist.

That said, I would personally recommend placing a toll gantry at I-93 southbound prior to the Leverett Circle Connector (MA 3 North & MA 28) interchange, a toll gantry at I-93 northbound prior to the I-90 interchange and convert the existing Allston/Brighton/Cambridge toll plaza along I-90 to a one-way eastbound toll.  Charge a base toll rate of $2.50 for those plazas/gantries as well as the existing harbor crossing plazas/gantries (the latter would be a cheaper toll than the current rate) and be done with it.

If you were suggesting congestion-pricing in your quote; such wouldn't work in Boston because all the I-93 interchanges with the harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge (US 1), Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) and Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90)) are not full/complete movement interchanges.  As mentioned earlier, one has to exit off I-93 and navigate through local streets in order to reach an alternate crossing in most instances.

[Pete from Boston]

IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.

I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.

Another thing to keep in mind that since the I-93 portion was replacing an existing Interstate (though grandfathered) corridor; federal regulations that existed at the time prevented that stretch from being tolled despite the improvements/upgrades.  The Ted Williams Tunnel received a toll because it was a brand new facility that previously did not exist.

That said, I would personally recommend placing a toll gantry at I-93 southbound prior to the Leverett Circle Connector (MA 3 North & MA 28) interchange, a toll gantry at I-93 northbound prior to the I-90 interchange and convert the existing Allston/Brighton/Cambridge toll plaza along I-90 to a one-way eastbound toll.  Charge a base toll rate of $2.50 for those plazas/gantries as well as the existing harbor crossing plazas/gantries (the latter would be a cheaper toll than the current rate) and be done with it.

If you were suggesting congestion-pricing in your quote; such wouldn't work in Boston because all the I-93 interchanges with the harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge (US 1), Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) and Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90)) are not full/complete movement interchanges.  As mentioned earlier, one has to exit off I-93 and navigate through local streets in order to reach an alternate crossing in most instances.

The Big Dig was built a few years too soon to capitalize on modern tolling technology.  To me, it remains the project's most glaring failure that folks on the Mass Pike pay for it, but not those on 93.  This prompted boneheaded decisions like selling the land under the Beacon Park interchange and rail yard to Harvard to cover short-term debt.

[jeffandnicole]

IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.

I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.

Doing so would probably create gridlocked conditions on the surface streets, to the point where the average drive would take longer overall just trying to reach the tunnels. 

Free-flow pricing is fine when there's a reasonable alternative nearby, or even a set variable pricing to try to encourage traffic to use the highway during off-peak hours.  Some traffic will already avoid a toll road.  But variable pricing that just forces congestion on those just trying to drive a short distance and who would have no use for the toll road anyway may be pushing it a little too far.

[Pete from Boston]

IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.

I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.

Doing so would probably create gridlocked conditions on the surface streets, to the point where the average drive would take longer overall just trying to reach the tunnels. 

Free-flow pricing is fine when there's a reasonable alternative nearby, or even a set variable pricing to try to encourage traffic to use the highway during off-peak hours.  Some traffic will already avoid a toll road.  But variable pricing that just forces congestion on those just trying to drive a short distance and who would have no use for the toll road anyway may be pushing it a little too far.

It would help shunt through traffic onto 128.

[PHLBOS]

IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.

I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.

Doing so would probably create gridlocked conditions on the surface streets, to the point where the average drive would take longer overall just trying to reach the tunnels. 

Free-flow pricing is fine when there's a reasonable alternative nearby, or even a set variable pricing to try to encourage traffic to use the highway during off-peak hours.  Some traffic will already avoid a toll road.  But variable pricing that just forces congestion on those just trying to drive a short distance and who would have no use for the toll road anyway may be pushing it a little too far.

It would help shunt through traffic onto 128.

Such only/already happens for traffic outside that beltway.  Not so much nor practical for traffic O&D-ing closer to Boston/well inside 128 and/or trying to get to/from Logan.  The cancelled I-695/Inner Belt would've accomplished such.

[Pete from Boston]

IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.

I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.

Doing so would probably create gridlocked conditions on the surface streets, to the point where the average drive would take longer overall just trying to reach the tunnels. 

Free-flow pricing is fine when there's a reasonable alternative nearby, or even a set variable pricing to try to encourage traffic to use the highway during off-peak hours.  Some traffic will already avoid a toll road.  But variable pricing that just forces congestion on those just trying to drive a short distance and who would have no use for the toll road anyway may be pushing it a little too far.

It would help shunt through traffic onto 128.

Such only/already happens for traffic outside that beltway.  Not so much nor practical for traffic O&D-ing closer to Boston/well inside 128 and/or trying to get to/from Logan.  The cancelled I-695/Inner Belt would've accomplished such.

Correct.  I have no idea what percentage of users have origins and destinations outside 128, nor how many would be dissuaded by a nominal fee.

[roadman]

how many lanes were before the Big-Dig and how many are there now?

Looking at a comparison of photos on Flickr, the tunnels are 8-laned:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rene-germany/15571970/

The old Central Artery was only 6 lanes:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28175182@N07/3550274150/

Old elevated highway - 3 through lanes northbound - 3 through lanes southbound
New underground highway - 3 through lanes northbound - 3 through lanes southbound

New underground highway has more lanes at certain portions, but these serve as glorified C/D roadways without physical separation.

[PHLBOS]

Old elevated highway - 3 through lanes northbound - 3 through lanes southbound
New underground highway - 3 through lanes northbound - 3 through lanes southbound

New underground highway has more lanes at certain portions, but these serve as glorified C/D roadways without physical separation.

When this project was marketed (mid 70s through the 80s); it mentioned several times that it was going to be wider/8 (4 each way) lanes wide (one report even mentioned 10, at least for a portion) all the way through.  I guess there should have been an asterisk next to the 8 in those reports/articles.

Talk about deception.

[Pete from Boston]

In fairness, it's wider, the entrances and exits are much more graceful, and it's overall less harrowing even in heavy traffic.  I do think there should be more emphasis on telling through traffic to stay left, but really, the flow is markedly better. 

[vdeane]

The NMA isn't too impressed.  Not surprisingly, they weren't happy with the mitigation projects.
https://www.motorists.org/blog/ten-years-later-did-the-big-dig-deliver/

[noelbotevera]

I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.

[Pete from Boston]

I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.

"We can all" judge for ourselves, particularly those of us familiar with the before snd the after.

Traffic flow is much better thanks to smarter road geometry and consolidated exits. 

The Mass Pike and 93 will always have traffic jams until it is decided that in the name of not having traffic jams we are going to level as much of Boston as is necessary to keep traffic moving at full speed.  And drive less.  Compare the numbers sometime on cars on the road before and after the Big Dig and let me know what a viable (in political, economic, and engineering terms) "successful" way to keep up with that demand is.

As you mentioned, there is a third harbor tunnel now, a direct Interstate connection to Logan.  This has been a tremendous improvement to many, many people.

And though it is not the focus of assessment of "success" here, Boston has an enormous amount of fertile public space it didn't used to have, one of the primary goals of the project.  Slowly but surely, this is growing into a very important part of the city.

[The Nature Boy]

I'm not familiar with the before but from what I've read about the Central Artery, it seems like an incredible success. I wish that more cities were able to bury their interstate highways actually. The current arrangement in most cities not only breaks up neighborhoods but is terribly unsightly.

[Zeffy]

The current arrangement in most cities not only breaks up neighborhoods but is terribly unsightly.

I only feel like elevated highways are unsightly if anything. Sunken freeways aren't an eyesore, but I can see how some people view elevated viaducts (like I-84 in Hartford) as ugly.

[The Nature Boy]

I know that in some cities, the freeway did cause neighborhoods to be wiped out and changed the fabric of a lot of neighborhoods. If you bury the interstate then you might be able to build on top of that, which might do a lot for neighborhood unity (or the recreation of neighborhoods altogether. There's also the possibility of lakefront parks in areas like Cleveland where the interstate takes up a significant portion of lake front real estate.

This is all but a pipe dream sadly because of the expense involved.

[jeffandnicole]

I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.

Highways within cities will never be congestion-free.  You can reduce the amount, the length, and the timing of the congestion, but no real agency out there will say "OK, in 25 years, we expect this highway in the downtown part of the city will still be congestion free. 

If it is, then you have a Detroit-like situation.

[Jim]

I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.

As someone who doesn't get to Boston that often, but has been there before, during, and after the Big Dig, I would have a hard time calling it a failure.  At least in my experience, it is a significant improvement both in traffic flow and the fact that the ugly elevated highway is gone.  Worth the price tag?  I don't know.  But a failure?  Not to me.

[bob7374]

I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.

As someone who doesn't get to Boston that often, but has been there before, during, and after the Big Dig, I would have a hard time calling it a failure.  At least in my experience, it is a significant improvement both in traffic flow and the fact that the ugly elevated highway is gone.  Worth the price tag?  I don't know.  But a failure?  Not to me.

Have to agree with most of the follow-up comments. A complete failure, no. Cost too much, yes. Did some of the mitigation agreements have a role in this increased cost, yes. As someone living on the South Shore though the Ted Williams Tunnel makes it much easier to reach Logan. I'd much rather have the open space downtown than an interstate. 

Traffic jams along I-93 now are caused more by the number of lanes available north and south of the city. Are there solutions to that? Fewer cars obviously, but how to do this. The city tried freezing the amount of public parking spaces in the 1970s, but the cap didn't apply to private owners who built new structures with underground garages, so the traffic increased. Tolling in theory might work, but it would make sense to put them up in the suburbs outside Boston to discourage driving before reaching the city. But how many suburbs would want the increased traffic from those travelling through their towns to avoid the tolls?

[Pete from Boston]

I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.

As someone who doesn't get to Boston that often, but has been there before, during, and after the Big Dig, I would have a hard time calling it a failure.  At least in my experience, it is a significant improvement both in traffic flow and the fact that the ugly elevated highway is gone.  Worth the price tag?  I don't know.  But a failure?  Not to me.

Have to agree with most of the follow-up comments. A complete failure, no. Cost too much, yes. Did some of the mitigation agreements have a role in this increased cost, yes. As someone living on the South Shore though the Ted Williams Tunnel makes it much easier to reach Logan. I'd much rather have the open space downtown than an interstate. 

Traffic jams along I-93 now are caused more by the number of lanes available north and south of the city. Are there solutions to that? Fewer cars obviously, but how to do this. The city tried freezing the amount of public parking spaces in the 1970s, but the cap didn't apply to private owners who built new structures with underground garages, so the traffic increased. Tolling in theory might work, but it would make sense to put them up in the suburbs outside Boston to discourage driving before reaching the city. But how many suburbs would want the increased traffic from those travelling through their towns to avoid the tolls?

The tolls would have to be tweaked to get it right.  As anyone who has tried circumventing 93 traffic in the morning rush knows, the payoff is very limited.  If you play your cards right, develop a knowledge of which lanes move where, and put a lot of effort in to a lot of turns... sometimes you come out ahead. 

In other words, a lightly-tolled 93 will still win out over the various shunpikes.  People are not abandoning the Mass Pike in the morning (it's heavy inbound anytime after 6-6:30am), and it has several parallel, lousy alternatives. 

I think the most shortsighted mitigation left off the table was completing the mass transit routes out to 128.  This was a key component of 1970-ish regional planning, resulting only in adding the Red Line capture point at Braintree to the existing Riverside park-and-ride (and arguably a functional capture point at Alewife, though not at 128).

Plans for a Red Line to Lexington were allegedly scrapped amid "Those people will ride out here and steal our TVs" hysteria, and logical Orange Line runs to Needham and Reading similarly never happened.  These are where meaningful benefits against highway overcrowding in the core might have been realized.

[cpzilliacus]

Traffic jams along I-93 now are caused more by the number of lanes available north and south of the city. Are there solutions to that? Fewer cars obviously, but how to do this. The city tried freezing the amount of public parking spaces in the 1970s, but the cap didn't apply to private owners who built new structures with underground garages, so the traffic increased. Tolling in theory might work, but it would make sense to put them up in the suburbs outside Boston to discourage driving before reaching the city. But how many suburbs would want the increased traffic from those travelling through their towns to avoid the tolls?

I respectfully disagree.

Tolls at the entrances to the Big Dig tunnels could be implemented rather easily, and set high enough to assure free-flow conditions, and maximize traffic though the entire project.

[cpzilliacus]

The Big Dig was built a few years too soon to capitalize on modern tolling technology.  To me, it remains the project's most glaring failure that folks on the Mass Pike pay for it, but not those on 93.

I agree.  Forgot to mention the equity issue, but I am glad you did.

This prompted boneheaded decisions like selling the land under the Beacon Park interchange and rail yard to Harvard to cover short-term debt.

Not being from Massachusetts, I am not familiar with that boneheaded decision.

[jakeroot]

If you were suggesting congestion-pricing in your quote; such wouldn't work in Boston because all the I-93 interchanges with the harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge (US 1), Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) and Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90)) are not full/complete movement interchanges.  As mentioned earlier, one has to exit off I-93 and navigate through local streets in order to reach an alternate crossing in most instances.

The idea with congestion pricing is not necessarily to divert traffic to other routes. I believe the idea is to get people out of their cars altogether (thus providing alternate routes isn't really a big deal). People going from the south of Boston to the north of Boston would not use the main artery through Boston, but rather a bypass road such as the 95.

[cpzilliacus]

If you were suggesting congestion-pricing in your quote; such wouldn't work in Boston because all the I-93 interchanges with the harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge (US 1), Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) and Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90)) are not full/complete movement interchanges.  As mentioned earlier, one has to exit off I-93 and navigate through local streets in order to reach an alternate crossing in most instances.

The idea with congestion pricing is not necessarily to divert traffic to other routes. I believe the idea is to get people out of their cars altogether (thus providing alternate routes isn't really a big deal). People going from the south of Boston to the north of Boston would not use the main artery through Boston, but rather a bypass road such as the 95.

No, the idea is to manage traffic so that it does not reach the point at which flow breaks-down (level-of--service "E" and definitely level-of-service "F").  In other words to maximize use of what is already there.

[Duke87]

the 95.

* Duke87 slooowly backs away from the ticking bomb