I-93/I-95 Additional lane opens

[roadman]

From the MassDOT blog:

November 13, 2012
Randolph to Westwood: I-93/I-95 New Lane to Open
Beginning at 5:00 AM tomorrow morning, Wednesday, November 14 through Friday, November 16, construction crews will open portions of the newly constructed fourth travel lane on the section of interstate roadway between Randolph and Westwood.

The work is part of a $53.7 million project to widen a 5.5 mile section of Route I-93/Route I-95/Route 128 between Randolph and Westwood to provide an additional travel lane in each direction.
The 5.5 mile project extends from Randolph on I-93 at the interchange with Route 24 (Exit 4) west, toward Canton Junction where I-93 ends and the roadway becomes I-95, continuing along I-95 to Route 109 (Exit 16) in Westwood.

The new travel lane opening schedule follows:

I-93 North between I-95 (Exit 1) in Canton and Route 24 (Exit 4) in Randolph will open tomorrow at 5:00 AM, Wednesday, November 14.

I-95 South between University Avenue (Exit 13) and I-93 North (Exit 12) in Canton will open at 5:00 AM on Thursday, November 15.

I-95 South between a point just south of Route 109 (Exit 16) and University Avenue (Exit 13) will open at 5:00 AM on Friday, November 16th. The above schedule is subject to change in case of inclement weather.

With the opening of the new fourth travel lane, authorized use of the breakdown lane for travel during weekday peak commuting periods will be discontinued within those segments.

Drivers should use extreme caution and pay particular attention to posted warning and regulatory signs when travelling within the above segments.

I like the reference to Canton Junction, which is NOT the location of the southern I-95/I-93 interchange.  Rather, it's a railroad station near the Canton/Norwood/Stoughton line and well south of the highway interchange.

[massroadpatriot]

Thanks for the update

[PHLBOS]

If I'm reading this correctly; the I-93/95 segments in question will now have 8 lanes rather than 6.  Such practice of allowing travel in the breakdown lane/shoulder during rush hours had been permitted along this stretch of road since the 1980s.

Are there any plans to widen I-95 from MA 109 (Exit 16A-B) to MA 9 (Exit 20A-B) in the foreseeable future?  That's the only stretch of Yankee Division Highway (128) south of the Pike (I-90) that will still be only 6 lanes.

[roadman]

If I'm reading this correctly; the I-93/95 segments in question will now have 8 lanes rather than 6.  Such practice of allowing travel in the breakdown lane/shoulder during rush hours had been permitted along this stretch of road since the 1980s.

Are there any plans to widen I-95 from MA 109 (Exit 16A-B) to MA 9 (Exit 20A-B) in the foreseeable future?  That's the only stretch of Yankee Division Highway (128) south of the Pike (I-90) that will still be only 6 lanes.

That project, which is referred to as the Needham to Wellesley section and is the last portion of the "Add-A-Lane" project, is in final design and tenatively scheduled to be advertised for bids in early to mid 2013.  Besides widening the I-95 mainline to 8 lanes, the work under this section will include constructing a new interchange at Kendrick Street and reconfiguring the interchanges at Route 9 and Highland Avenue.

For the record, peak-hour breakdown lane travel between Randolph and Wellesley began in late 1984.

[PHLBOS]

Besides widening the I-95 mainline to 8 lanes, the work under this section will include constructing a new interchange at Kendrick Street and reconfiguring the interchanges at Route 9 and Highland Avenue.

At present, the MA 9 & Highland Ave. interchanges are full cloverleafs; how will those be reconfigured?  I hope MassDOT isn't planning to turn those into diamond interchanges w/signals; that would be a very big mistake IMHO... especially along MA 9.  Added Collector-distributor lanes along I-95, MA 9 and even Highland Ave. to the existing cloverleafs would be the way to go.

Will the new interchange at Kendrick St. be a full interchange or a partial interchange movementwise?

Additionally, will it be completed either during or after I-95's exit numbers changeover to mileage-based?

I'm assuming that it will be Exit 34 mileage-based (18A sequential).

[roadman]

Besides widening the I-95 mainline to 8 lanes, the work under this section will include constructing a new interchange at Kendrick Street and reconfiguring the interchanges at Route 9 and Highland Avenue.

Will the new interchange at Kendrick St. be a full interchange or a partial interchange movementwise?

At present, the MA 9 & Highland Ave. interchanges are full cloverleafs; how will those be reconfigured?  I hope MassDOT isn't planning to turn those into diamond interchanges w/signals; that would be a very big mistake IMHO... especially along MA 9.  Added Collector-distributor lanes along I-95, MA 9 and even Highland Ave. to the existing cloverleafs would be the way to go.

Additionally, will it be completed either during or after I-95's exit numbers changeover to mileage-based?
I'm assuming that it will be Exit 34 mileage-based (18A sequential).

Route 9 will be turned into a partial cloverleaf with signals on Route 9 for entry to I-95.  However, I-95 mainline access to Route 9 will remain as separate off-ramps for each direction of Route 9.  Highland Avenue will remain a cloverleaf, except that it will be served by C/D roads instead of the I-95 mainline - the SB C/D road will also serve Kendrick Street.

The new Kendrick Street interchange will have full access to I-95 south, and partial access to I-95 north (from Kendrick Street westbound only.  If you look at the design plans, you'll understand why.

75% design plans and other information can be found at:   http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/128_95_addLane&sid=about

As far as exit numbering, the new numbers will be sequential (Kendrick Street will be Exit 19A and Highland Ave will become Exits 19B-C), but the tabs will be designed to allow future conversion to reference-based numbers.  MassDOT's re-numbering plan is to wait until all signs within a specific corridor are updated, and then convert numbers on a route-by-route basis over the next ten years or so.

[PHLBOS]

Thanks for the info.  It's interesting that MassDOT is planning to shift the southbound mainline lanes further away from the northbound mainline.

Nonetheless, I still think that converting the full cloverleaf MA 9 interchange to a partial one w/signals is major mistake given the traffic volumes along MA 9.  Even if the MA 9 viaduct over under I-95 is widened to carry 2 addtional left-turn lanes; I can still see the possibility of traffic backing up onto the MA 9 through lanes during rush and/or heavy shopping hours.

[roadman]

Thanks for the info.  It's interesting that MassDOT is planning to shift the southbound mainline lanes further away from the northbound mainline.

Nonetheless, I still think that converting the full cloverleaf MA 9 interchange to a partial one w/signals is major mistake given the traffic volumes along MA 9.  Even if the MA 9 viaduct over I-95 is widened to carry 2 addtional left-turn lanes; I can still see the possibility of traffic backing up onto the MA 9 through lanes during rush and/or heavy shopping hours.

One clarification, MA 9 goes under I-95, not over.  That will not change under the new configuration.

[PHLBOS]

One clarification, MA 9 goes under I-95, not over.  That will not change under the new configuration.

Brain freeze on that one.  I've since corrected my original post.  It was never my intent to insinuate that the over/under crossing would be reversed.

[roadman]

Brain freeze on that one.  I've since corrected my original post.  It was never my intent to insinuate that the over/under crossing would be reversed.
[/quote]

No problem.  Brain freezes happen.

[bob7374]

It appears the fourth lane heading the other way, between Randolph and Westwood is opening this week. Driving on I-93/US 1 South by the MA 24 exit on Saturday there was a VMS indicating breakdown lane travel will no longer be permitted as of this Friday, 11/30. Assuming the same staggered opening schedule as in the other direction, they may have the new lane open on I-95 north of the I-93 interchange Wednesday morning (weather permitting). They still need to reconfigure the lanes near MA 138 for all lanes to be open from MA 24 to I-95.

[roadman]

Updated info from the MassDOT blog regarding opening the forth lane in the other direction:

MassDOT construction crews this week will open the remaining sections of the new 4th travel lane on I-93 and I-95 between Randolph and Westwood.

The work is part of a $53.7 million project to widen a 5.5 mile section of Route I-93/Route I-95/ Route 128 between Randolph and Westwood to provide an additional travel lane in each direction.

The project stretches from Randolph on I-93 at the interchange with Route 24 (Exit 4), west toward Canton Junction where I-93 ends and becomes I-95 (Route 128), and continues along I-95 to Route 109 (Exit 16) in Westwood.

This week's new travel lane scheduled openings are listed below:

I-95 (Route 128) North between East Street (Exit 14) and just south of Route 109 (Exit 16) will open at 5:00 AM on Tuesday, November 27th.

I-95 (Route 128) North between the point where the on ramp from I-95 North ties in and East Street (Exit 14) will open at 5:00 AM on Wednesday, November 28th. 

I-93 South between Route 138 (Exit 2) and the point where I-95 (Route 128) North begins will open at 5:00 AM on Thursday, November 29th.

I-93 South between Ponkapoag Trail (Exit 3) and Route 138 (Exit 2) will open at 5:00 AM on Friday, November 30th.

I-93 South between Route 24 (Exit 4) and Ponkapoag Trail (Exit 3) will open at 5:00 AM on Saturday, December 1st. 

The schedule is subject to change if inclement weather occurs and delays the completion of required work items.

With the opening of the new fourth travel lane, the authorized use of the breakdown lane for travel during weekday peak commuting periods will be discontinued to enhance driver safety and provide emergency vehicle access.

[PHLBOS]

Nonetheless, I still think that converting the full cloverleaf MA 9 interchange to a partial one w/signals is major mistake given the traffic volumes along MA 9.  Even if the MA 9 viaduct under I-95 is widened to carry 2 addtional left-turn lanes; I can still see the possibility of traffic backing up onto the MA 9 through lanes during rush and/or heavy shopping hours.

Sidebar to the above: While heading eastbound along MA 9 last Friday night, I noticed one BGS that MassDPW/Highway/DOT never replaced; the one-mile advance BGS for MA 128 (I-95).  It's still the old early-to-mid 70s-vintage that predates the I-95 designation.  It reads 128 Dedham Gloucester EXIT 1 MI..  This particular BGS is not in the best condition; it's still in better shape than the much-discussed early-80s vintage I-95 North pull-through BGS at MA 2A.

Although it was late at night when I passed through this interchange; I have to wonder what the MassDOT traffic engineers were thinking with regards to the proposed plans to remove the two MA 9 to I-95 cloverleaf ramps in favor of left-turn movements w/traffic signals.  Did they ever drive this road?  Is there still time to modify the plans to keep the interchange as a full cloverleaf while still widening I-95?

[KEVIN_224]

Is the sign you're referring to similar to this outdated monstrosity?

http://goo.gl/maps/h5pMv

[PHLBOS]

Is the sign you're referring to similar to this outdated monstrosity?

http://goo.gl/maps/h5pMv

In type & vintage, yes; the actual BGS (& its condition) I saw, no.  In case, you don't already know, that particular BGS along MA 9 East is now long gone/replaced.

Interestingly, the all the other approach BGS' along MA 9 seem to be newer than the actual interchange BGS' (the latter feature button-copy I-95 numerals in the shields which are of 90s-vintage).  Even more odd is the selection of local/closer control cities for the interchange BGS'; Peabody for I-95 North/Canton for I-95 South rather than the more logical Waltham for I-95 North and Dedham for I-95 South.

Taking your Google Maps post and moving it back a bit; one sees the BGS in question (in its better days circa 2008).

Note: I was able to move the view back, but I was not able to set the link up to "stay" in postion (showing the 1 mile advance BGS).

[MVHighways]

I-95 (Route 128) North between the point where the on ramp from I-95 North ties in and East Street (Exit 14) will open at 5:00 AM on Wednesday, November 28th. 

THE RIGHT WAY TO LABEL 95 AND 128 FOR THE LOCALS AND VISITORS/ROADGEEKS, FOR ONCE!

If you listen to ANY Boston radio/TV traffic report you will hear what I mean. They go on and on with "128", "128", "128", blah, blah, blah, no 95's or 93's unless it's up in the Merrimack Valley (luckily where I live) which they RARELY cover. 128 got the lower designation YEARS ago when 93 and 95 came along. The signs have said 95 and 93 for years too and people STILL call it 128?? And plus I still wonder why they (locals/reporters) still use 128 for parts of 93 which was dropped as an alternate designation years ago by MassHighway/MassDOT. With the big 93/95 signs up there for years I wonder why they still have not stopped calling it 128. I think MassDOT should slowly drop the 128 designation from 95.

[shadyjay]

Traffic-reporting wise, yes, they should refer to it as I-93 and I-95, especially on the portion from Braintree to Dedham.  (the 2013 Rand McN atlas finally removed the 128 designation from said section, btw).

Personally, I think 128 should live on with I-95.... but in order to satisfy both the "tourists" and the locals, I'd prominently put Route 128 on all guide signs which feature I-95 shields.  Not stand-alone signs, but on the primary sign.  That way, they both get prominence.   

[roadman]

The reason 95 and 128 shields don't appear together on BGS panels any more is because, about 1990, FHWA made removal of the '128' designation from signs a requirement for obtaining Federal money to replace the signs (and despite some erroneous LGS panels on recent - and privately designed and funded - projects that have both shields, the requirement is still in effect).  The addition of independent route assemblies at on-ramps and on the mainline was a compromise FHWA reluctantly agreed to in order to stave off a war between MassHighway, the Legislature, and the business community.

One of these days, I suspect FHWA is eventually going to mandate that the independent assemblies be removed as well, unless MassDOT actually decides to do it first.  IMO, converting the exit numbers along I-95 to mileage-based would be the perfect time to eliminate the 128 designation south of Peabody once and for all.

Unless (and I hope this doesn't happen, but part of me feels it's inevitable) there's a big wreck in the meantime resulting in fatalities because the responders went to - say - "Route 128 Exit 25" in Peabody instead of "Route 128 Exit 25" in Weston - thus forcing the change earlier due to the indignant outroar from the same Legislature that's thwarted the change in the past.  I've heard rumors from reliable sources that this type of confusion has already happened on ocassion with AAA dispatchers sending tow trucks to the wrong breakdowns.

[NE2]

The reason 95 and 128 shields don't appear together on BGS panels anymore is because, about 1990, FHWA made removal of the '128' designation a requirement for obtaining Federal money to replace the signs (the requirement is still in effect).

I've heard this said many times, but it has the feel of an urban legend. On the other hand, it would explain why US 1 and Route 3 are missing from most guide signs on I-93. If so, it's a horrible precedent.

[bob7374]

The reason 95 and 128 shields don't appear together on BGS panels anymore is because, about 1990, FHWA made removal of the '128' designation a requirement for obtaining Federal money to replace the signs (the requirement is still in effect).

I've heard this said many times, but it has the feel of an urban legend. On the other hand, it would explain why US 1 and Route 3 are missing from most guide signs on I-93. If so, it's a horrible precedent.

A then MassHighway official explained the lack of US 1 and/or MA 3 shields put up on some of the newer guide signs along I-93 from Boston south was that, when these signs were designed, the MA guide sign policy stated that only the most significant route should be displayed in the case of a 2 or more route concurrency, and the interstate route, by definition, is always the most significant. A few years ago, however, the policy was relaxed so that two shields could be put up. This allows for I-93 and US 1 shields to be put up on new overhead signs, such as with the new signs in Canton and Randolph. When new overheads are put up at the junction with MA 3, Exit 7 NB, the plan is to add North MA 3 signs to the support poles. This is what was done for the South MA 3 signs along US 1 as it is merging with I-93 in Charlestown.

[Alps]

The reason 95 and 128 shields don't appear together on BGS panels anymore is because, about 1990, FHWA made removal of the '128' designation a requirement for obtaining Federal money to replace the signs (the requirement is still in effect).

I've heard this said many times, but it has the feel of an urban legend. On the other hand, it would explain why US 1 and Route 3 are missing from most guide signs on I-93. If so, it's a horrible precedent.

A then MassHighway official explained the lack of US 1 and/or MA 3 shields put up on some of the newer guide signs along I-93 from Boston south was that, when these signs were designed, the MA guide sign policy stated that only the most significant route should be displayed in the case of a 2 or more route concurrency, and the interstate route, by definition, is always the most significant. A few years ago, however, the policy was relaxed so that two shields could be put up. This allows for I-93 and US 1 shields to be put up on new overhead signs, such as with the new signs in Canton and Randolph. When new overheads are put up at the junction with MA 3, Exit 7 NB, the plan is to add North MA 3 signs to the support poles. This is what was done for the South MA 3 signs along US 1 as it is merging with I-93 in Charlestown.

Well Massachusetts is dumb, but that's hardly news. All routes should be displayed.

[bob7374]

I-95 (Route 128) North between the point where the on ramp from I-95 North ties in and East Street (Exit 14) will open at 5:00 AM on Wednesday, November 28th. 

THE RIGHT WAY TO LABEL 95 AND 128 FOR THE LOCALS AND VISITORS/ROADGEEKS, FOR ONCE!

If you listen to ANY Boston radio/TV traffic report you will hear what I mean. They go on and on with "128", "128", "128", blah, blah, blah, no 95's or 93's unless it's up in the Merrimack Valley (luckily where I live) which they RARELY cover. 128 got the lower designation YEARS ago when 93 and 95 came along. The signs have said 95 and 93 for years too and people STILL call it 128?? And plus I still wonder why they (locals/reporters) still use 128 for parts of 93 which was dropped as an alternate designation years ago by MassHighway/MassDOT. With the big 93/95 signs up there for years I wonder why they still have not stopped calling it 128. I think MassDOT should slowly drop the 128 designation from 95.

The Boston.com traffic blogger has translated the MassDOT press release above regarding lane openings into Boston traffic 'reporterese' (without references to I-93 or I-95). You can take a look for yourself through this link:
http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/2012/11/even_more_lanes_on_128_and_haverhill_line_hangups.html

[PurdueBill]

Taking your Google Maps post and moving it back a bit; one sees the BGS in question (in its better days circa 2008).
Note: I was able to move the view back, but I was not able to set the link up to "stay" in postion (showing the 1 mile advance BGS).

Steve's MA 9 page has a pic of the sign you're talking about.

[SidS1045]

Unless (and I hope this doesn't happen, but part of me feels it's inevitable) there's a big wreck in the meantime resulting in fatalities because the responders went to - say - "Route 128 Exit 25" in Peabody instead of "Route 128 Exit 25" in Weston...

Doubtful.  State Police would be responding from two different regions, Troop A for Peabody (station A-6 in Danvers) and Troop H for Weston (station H-2 in Framingham).  There would be no logical reason to send someone from A-6 to Weston or H-2 to Peabody.  Fire department and ambulance response would be from the nearest towns.

[PHLBOS]

Unless (and I hope this doesn't happen, but part of me feels it's inevitable) there's a big wreck in the meantime resulting in fatalities because the responders went to - say - "Route 128 Exit 25" in Peabody instead of "Route 128 Exit 25" in Weston...

Additionally, Massachusetts is not New Jersey nor Connecticut.  Accidents/traffic jams near or at an interchange is practically never mentioned by exit number by reporters/newscasters/etc.  Typically, the reference is given by the street name or route number.

The fore-mentioned Exit 25 in Peabody & Weston examples is normally mentioned as Route 128 at (Route) 114 for the former and Route 128 at the Pike (or Mass Pike) for the latter.

In the case of the US 1, US/MA 3 & MA 28 crossings; the town location is given as well... Route 1 in Peabody or Dedham, Route 3 in Burlington or Braintree and Route 28 in Reading or Randolph.  Yes, I'm aware that the southerly MA 3 & MA 28 interchanges (Braintree & Randolph) are w/I-93 that was stripped of its MA 128 identity shields over 2 decades ago.

The only time, I've ever heard or seen exit number references given (outside of MapQuest or GPS directions) are in written and televised business advertisements.  Some car dealers do indeed include I-95 or I-93 references in their newspaper advertisements; although, for obvious reasons, the 128 dealership enterprises in Wakefield still do not.  IIRC, Dave Dinger Ford in Braintree was one of the first dealerships to list their directions as Exit 6 off I-93 back in the late 80s.

Steve's MA 9 page has a pic of the sign you're talking about.

Thanks for the link.  I didn't have time to search over there when I'm posting.

The reason 95 and 128 shields don't appear together on BGS panels anymore is because, about 1990, FHWA made removal of the '128' designation a requirement for obtaining Federal money to replace the signs (the requirement is still in effect).

I've heard this said many times, but it has the feel of an urban legend. On the other hand, it would explain why US 1 and Route 3 are missing from most guide signs on I-93. If so, it's a horrible precedent.

A then MassHighway official explained the lack of US 1 and/or MA 3 shields put up on some of the newer guide signs along I-93 from Boston south was that, when these signs were designed, the MA guide sign policy stated that only the most significant route should be displayed in the case of a 2 or more route concurrency, and the interstate route, by definition, is always the most significant. A few years ago, however, the policy was relaxed so that two shields could be put up. This allows for I-93 and US 1 shields to be put up on new overhead signs, such as with the new signs in Canton and Randolph. When new overheads are put up at the junction with MA 3, Exit 7 NB, the plan is to add North MA 3 signs to the support poles. This is what was done for the South MA 3 signs along US 1 as it is merging with I-93 in Charlestown.

Typically, the only places where additional (lower-level) route shields along a multiplexed are displayed on BGS' are at locations where at least one of the routes veer off the corridor.  The US 1 shields along the I-95 North & I-93 South BGS' at the Canton interchange (along the Yankee Division Highway stretch only) are only there because the corridor changes its major (Interstate) route number there.

At the US 1 interchange in Dedham, there's an I-95 Southbound pull-through BGS that has a US 1 shield in it as well because this location is where US 1 South veers off the Yankee Divsion Highway and back onto its own corridor (VFW Highway/Providence Turnpike).

Similar scenarios exist along the O'Neill Tunnel & north of the Zakim Bridge where MA 3 and US 1 exit off I-93.

One could also include the Braintree Split (I-93/US 1/MA 3) in that mix as well.

Well Massachusetts is dumb, but that's hardly news. All routes should be displayed.

Massachusetts isn't the only state that doesn't display all route shields in its multiplexes.  I-84 west of Danbury, CT is multiplexed not only w/US 6 (its multiplexed w/this route at several locations throughout CT) but w/US 7 & 202 as well.  While the through-BGS' have US 7 shields w/the I-84; there are no US 6 & US 202 shields present.  Heck, until recently; there were no trailblazer US 6 & US 202 shields along this stretch of I-84 at all.

In Philly, US 30 multiplexes w/I-76 for a few miles but shields on BGS' only appear at where US 30 enters & exits off the Schuylkill Expressway.  IMHO, the only reason why US 30 shields are on all exit BGS' for I-676/Vine Expressway (between 30th St. & the Ben Franklin Bridge) are because those were all designed prior to 1990.

The upshoot: Massachusetts is not unique in doing this.  The only thing unique here is the fact that the road identity in question is strongly based on its original route number for a considerable distance.

Back to the Bay State:

The Boston.com traffic blogger has translated the MassDOT press release above regarding lane openings into Boston traffic 'reporterese' (without references to I-93 or I-95). You can take a look for yourself through this link:
http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/roads_and_rails/2012/11/even_more_lanes_on_128_and_haverhill_line_hangups.html

In other news; Dung don't flow uphill.  FYI, another thread exists regarding this blogger's use of the 128 moniker.

One of these days, I suspect FHWA is eventually going to mandate that the independent assemblies be removed as well, unless MassDOT actually decides to do it first.  IMO, converting the exit numbers along I-95 to mileage-based would be the perfect time to eliminate the 128 designation south of Peabody once and for all.

IMHO, as long as there's an Amtrak station in Canton and several dealerships in Wakefield that still have Route 128 or 128 in their name; the designation will still live on, signs or no signs.