Braintree Split) Operational Assessment and Potential Improvements

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Braintree Split) Operational Assessment and Potential Improvements I-93/Southeast Expressway/Route 3 (Braintree Split) Operational Assessment and Potential Improvements A report produced by the Central Transportation Planning Staff for the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization ADVISORY TASK FORCE Town of Braintree Massachusetts Highway Department Susan Kay, Executive Secretary Robert Boone, District 4 Robert Campbell, Town Engineer Joseph Onorato, District 4 Timothy G. Egan, former member of Board of Selectmen Hasmukh Patel, Highway Design Peter LaPolla, Planning Director Greg Prendergast, Environmental Stephen O’Donnell, former District 4 Highway Director Town of Quincy Patricia A. Leavenworth, District 4 Highway Director Jay Fink, former Commissioner Department of Public Works Stanley Wood, Highway Design Roy C. LaMotte, former Traffic Engineer Richard Meade, former Planning Director Executive Office of Transportation William J. Phelan, Mayor Adriel Edwards, Office of Transportation Planning Robert Frey, Office of Transportation Planning Town of Milton Walter Heller, Town Engineer Metropolitan Area Planning Council Aaron Henry, Town Planner William Clark, Transportation Planner James G. Mullen, Jr., Board of Selectmen James Gallagher, Transportation Planner David Owen, former Town Administrator Barbara Lucas, Chief Transportation Planner Town of Weymouth South Shore Chamber of Commerce Georgy Bezkorovainy, Traffic Engineer Terry Fancher, South Shore Chamber of Commerce Paul Halkiotis, Economic Development Planner Ron Zooleck, South Shore Chamber of Commerce To request additional copies of this document or copies in an State Legislators South Shore Coalition accessible format, contact: Bruce J. Ayers, Massachusetts State Representative Paul Halkiotis, Chairman Joseph R. Driscoll Jr., Massachusetts State Representative Ann Burbine, Vice Chairman Seth Asante, Project Manager Frank M. Hynes, Massachusetts State Representative Central Transportation Planning Staff Brian A. Joyce, Massachusetts State Senator 10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150 Ronald Mariano, Massachusetts State Representative Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Michael W. Morrissey, Massachusetts State Senator Walter F. Timilty, Massachusetts State Representative (617) 973-7098 Stephen A. Tobin, Massachusetts State Representative (617) 973-8855 (fax) (617)-973-7089 (TTY) Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority [email protected] Joseph Cosgrove, Director of Planning I-93/Southeast Expressway/Route 3 (Braintree Split) Operational Assessment and Potential Improvements Project Manager Seth Asante Project Principal Efi Pagitsas Project Analysts Lourenço Dantas Paul Reim Data Collection Thomas Nixon Hiral Gandhi Geographic Information Systems Kathy Jacob David Knudsen Mark Scannell Paul Reim Cover Photography Carol Bent Cover Design Jane M. Gillis The preparation of this document was supported by the Massachusetts Highway Department and Federal Highway Administration through MassHighway SPR Highway Planning Contracts #33097 and 31049. Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MPO is composed of state and regional agencies and authorities, and local governments. March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................3 6.2.3 South Weymouth Naval Air Station .....................30 3 Braintree Split: External Problems ..............................................9 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................7 6.2.4 Route 3 South Transportation Improvements.......30 4 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes.........................................10 2 INVENTORY OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ............................8 7 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS.......................................33 5 2003 AM Peak Period: Balanced Traffic Volumes..................11 2.1 Internal Problems................................................................8 7.1 Safety Improvement Package ...........................................33 6 2003 PM Peak Period: Balanced Traffic Volumes ..................12 2.2 External Problems...............................................................9 7.1.1 Improvements at Location #1 ...............................33 7 2003 AM and PM Peak Period Levels of Service....................13 3 CURRENT TRANSPORTATION ........................................10 7.1.2 Improvements at Location #2 ...............................33 8 2003 AM Peak Hour Travel Times ..........................................14 3.1 Highways..........................................................................10 7.1.3 Improvements at Location #3 ...............................33 9 2003 PM Peak Hour Travel Times...........................................15 3.1.1 Highway System...................................................10 7.1.4 Improvements at Location #4 ...............................33 10 High-Crash Locations (Based on 1997–1999 crash data)........16 3.1.2 Traffic Volumes....................................................11 7.2 Traffic Flow Improvement Package .................................33 11 MBTA Bus Service in the Study Area .....................................17 3.1.3 HOV Lane Traffic Volumes .................................11 7.2.1 Improvement at Location #5.................................33 12 Southeast Massachusetts Transit Service Map.........................18 3.1.4 Traffic Queues......................................................12 7.2.2 Improvements at Location #6 ...............................34 13 Southeastern Massachusetts Park-and-Ride Lots.....................19 3.1.5 Levels of Service...................................................12 7.2.3 Improvement at Location #7.................................34 14 Total Journey-to-Work Trips by Town of Residence ..............23 3.1.6 Travel Time...........................................................14 7.2.4 Improvement at Location #8.................................34 15 Percentage of Drive-Alone Trips by Town of Residence ........23 3.1.7 Crashes..................................................................16 7.2.5 Improvements at Location #9 ...............................34 16 Percentage of Transit Trips by Town of Residence .................24 3.2 Transit ...............................................................................17 7.2.6 Improvements at Location #10 .............................34 17 Percentage of Carpool Trips by Town of Residence................24 3.2.1 Bus........................................................................17 7.2.7 Improvements at Location #11 .............................34 18 Planned and Proposed Transit Projects ....................................27 3.2.2 Rapid Transit (Red Line) ......................................18 7.3 Traffic Simulation Model .................................................39 19 Planned and Proposed Highway Projects.................................32 3.2.3 Commuter Rail......................................................18 7.4 Measures of Effectiveness ................................................39 20 Safety Improvement Package...................................................35 3.3 Park-and-Ride Lots...........................................................19 7.4.1 No-Build Option ...................................................39 21 Traffic Flow Improvement Package.........................................37 4 SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS...............................................22 7.4.2 Build Option..........................................................40 22 AM Peak Hour Travel Speeds and Times (2025 No-Build) ....41 4.1 Population.........................................................................22 7.5 Summary...........................................................................45 23 PM Peak Hour Travel Speeds and Times (2025 No-Build).....41 4.2 Household.........................................................................22 7.5.1 AM Peak Period Benefits of the Build-Option.....45 24 AM and PM Levels of Service (2025 No-Build) .....................42 4.3 Employment......................................................................22 7.5.2 PM Peak Period Benefits of the Build-Option......45 25 AM Peak Hour Travel Speeds and Times (2025 Build) ..........43 4.4 Growth Impacts.................................................................22 7.5.3 Transit Improvements ...........................................45 26 PM Peak Hour Travel Speeds and Times (2025 Build) ...........43 5 TRAVEL PATTERNS ............................................................23 7.5.4 Next Steps .............................................................45 27 AM and PM Peak Period Levels of Service (2025 Build) .......44 5.1 Drive-Alone Trips.............................................................24 8 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS............................48 28 Travel Speed Change and Travel Time Savings (AM) ............46 5.2 Transit Trips......................................................................24 8.1 Recommendations.............................................................48 29 Travel Speed Change and Travel Time Savings (PM).............46 5.3 Carpool and Vanpool Trips...............................................25 8.2 Implementation Process....................................................49 5.4 Future Traffic Volumes.....................................................25 TABLES 5.5 Summary...........................................................................25 APPENDIX A – Public Participation ............................................50
Recommended publications
  • David Mohler Signature
    Massachusetts Division 55 Broadway, 10th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 January 15, 2021 (617) 494-3657 (617) 494-3355 www.fhwa.dot.gov/madiv In Reply Refer To: HDA-MA David J. Mohler Executive Director Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116-3969 Subject: FY 2021-2025 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Amendment #2 Dear Mr. Mohler: Thank you for your letter received on January 5, 2021. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has reviewed the Fiscal Years (FY) 2021-2025 STIP with the following amendments and adjustments received from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and endorsed by the relevant Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): Action Organization MPO Endorsement Date 1.01 Berkshire MPO December 22, 2020 1.02-1.05 Boston MPO December 17, 2020 1.06-1.08 Merrimack Valley MPO December 30, 2020 1.09-1.10 Pioneer Valley MPO December 22, 2020 1.11 Southeastern Mass MPO December 9, 2020 Our review consisted of ensuring that the FY 2021-2025 STIP Amendment #2 and associated FY 2021- 2025 TIP Amendments adopted by the MPOs are based on a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative transportation planning process that substantially meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 23 CFR 450. The actions listed above do not require an air quality determination. Changes called for in this STIP amendment maintain financial constraint as required under 23 CFR 450.218. Additionally, our approval of the FY 2021-2025 STIP was subject to the resolution of one corrective action. On December 29, 2020, we received an action plan update addressing the corrective action and a number of recommendations, indicating that all self-certifications have been updated and completing the corrective action.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Plan
    About the Cover Photo The photo on the cover of this report was taken on December 17, 2010, around 8:00 AM. The view is from the Savin Hill Avenue overpass and looks almost directly south. This overpass is shown in Figure 3-3 of the report, and the field of view includes land shown in Figure 3-2. At the right is the recently completed headhouse of the Savin Hill Red Line station. Stopped at the station platform is an inbound Red Line train that started at Ashmont and will travel to Alewife. The station is fully ADA-compliant, and the plan presented in this report requires no modification to this station. Next to the Red Line train is an inbound train from one of the three Old Colony commuter rail branches. There is only one track at this location, as is the case throughout most of the Old Colony system. This train has a mixed consist of single-level and bi-level coaches, and is being pushed by a diesel locomotive, which is mostly hidden from view by the bi-level coaches. Between the two trains is an underpass beneath the Ashmont branch of the Red Line. This had been a freight spur serving an industrial area on the west side of the Ashmont branch tracks. Sections A-2.3 and A-2.4 of this report present an approach to staging railroad reconstruction that utilizes the abandoned freight spur and underpass. The two tracks to the left of the Old Colony tracks serve the Braintree Red Line branch.
    [Show full text]
  • A Roxbury Review: Conglomerates of Greater Boston
    C2-1 A ROXBURY REVIEW by Margaret D. Thompson, Department of Geosciences, Wellesley College Anne M. Grunow, Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University INTRODUCTION Conglomerate throughout the Boston Basin in eastern Massachusetts (Fig. 1) has long been called after the Roxbury district of Boston (early references in Holmes, 1859 and Shaler, 1869) and subdivided into three members typified by strata in the encircling communities of Brookline, Dorchester and the Squantum section of Quincy, MA (Emerson, 1917). NEIGC field trips, beginning with one led by W.O. Crosby in 1905, and also GSA-related field trips have provided regular opportunities for generations of geologists to debate the depositional settings of all of these rocks, particularly the possible glacial origin of the Squantum "Tillite". It appears, however, that none of these outings has ever included a stop in Roxbury itself (Table I and lettered localities in Fig. 1). A main purpose of this trip will be to visit the nominal Roxbury type locality in a section of the historic quarries where recent re-development includes the newly opened Puddingstone Park. Other stops will permit comparison of type Roxbury Conglomerate with other rocks traditionally assigned to this formation and highlight geochronological and paleomagnetic data bearing on the ages of these units. Table I. Forty Years of Field Trips in the Roxbury Conglomerate Stop locations Trip leader(s)/year Title (listed alphabetically; (abbreviations below) Caldwell (1964) The Squantum Formation: Paleozoic Tillite or
    [Show full text]
  • The Hub's Metropolis: a Glimpse Into Greater Boston's Development
    James C. O’Connell, “The Hub’s Metropolis: Greater Boston’s Development” Historical Journal of Massachusetts Volume 42, No. 1 (Winter 2014). Published by: Institute for Massachusetts Studies and Westfield State University You may use content in this archive for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the Historical Journal of Massachusetts regarding any further use of this work: [email protected] Funding for digitization of issues was provided through a generous grant from MassHumanities. Some digitized versions of the articles have been reformatted from their original, published appearance. When citing, please give the original print source (volume/ number/ date) but add "retrieved from HJM's online archive at http://www.wsc.ma.edu/mhj. 26 Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Winter 2014 Published by The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 7x9 hardcover, 326 pp., $34.95. To order visit http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/hubs-metropolis 27 EDITor’s choicE The Hub’s Metropolis: A Glimpse into Greater Boston’s Development JAMES C. O’CONNELL Editor’s Introduction: Our Editor’s Choice selection for this issue is excerpted from the book, The Hub’s Metropolis: Greater Boston’s Development from Railroad Suburbs to Smart Growth (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2013). All who live in Massachusetts are familiar with the compact city of Boston, yet the history of the larger, sprawling metropolitan area has rarely been approached as a comprehensive whole. As one reviewer writes, “Comprehensive and readable, James O’Connell’s account takes care to orient the reader in what is often a disorienting landscape.” Another describes the book as a “riveting history of one of the nation’s most livable places—and a roadmap for how to keep it that way.” James O’Connell, the author, is intimately familiar with his topic through his work as a planner at the National Park Service, Northeast Region, in Boston.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 93 Web052305
    INTERSTATE 93: A MODEST PROPOSAL by J. Mark Lennon Interstate 93 needs to be widened. Soon. Now. It is tough to believe that thousands of commuters – or anyone else – will get out of their cars to take a train. It is tough to believe, even with high-and-getting-higher gas prices, that thousands of commuters will carpool. It is tough to believe that hundreds of companies will institute flex time to spread out the morning and evening commute. Or that thousands of commuters would take advantage of the flexibility if they had it. It is tough to believe that weekend skiers or hikers or boaters or snowmobilers will do something other than herd north en masse on Friday nights, and herd back south Sundays. Interstate 93 needs to be widened. But eight lanes, at a cost of $440 million and up to ten years of construction, are a dumb idea. Eight lanes will turn New Hampshire’s tree-lined threshold into a bleak, Jerseyesque eyesore. Take a drive through Secaucus for a glimpse of this future. Four hundred forty million dollars will consume, for a decade or more, practically every bit of highway money in the state. Dozens of other projects, equally needed to accommodate growth and enhance safety, will be pushed aside. Most disturbing, a widened I-93 will bring rapid growth to 50 or 60 communities in southern and central New Hampshire, but the $440 million price tag will preclude or delay dozens of local highway improvements needed to accommodate the growth. The result, once you leave the interstate, will be more congestion, more delays, and less safety.
    [Show full text]
  • Route 128 / Interstate 95 Woburn, Massachusetts
    LOCATION More than 550 feet of unprecedented frontage on Route 128/I-95. Superb access to Route 128 / I-95, I-93, Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90), Route 3, Route 2, and Route 1. Route 128 / I-95 access via both Exits 34 and 35. Route 128 / Interstate 95 11 miles to downtown Boston and Woburn, Massachusetts Logan International Airport. Minutes from Interstate 93 and Anderson Cummings Properties announces the Regional Transportation Center–home development of TradeCenter 128 – to Logan International Airport Shuttle 400,000 SF of unprecedented first-class and MBTA Commuter Rail. space fronting Route 128 / I-95 in Woburn, minutes from I-93. With nearly 40 years experience in commercial real estate, developer Cummings Properties has earned a long-standing reputation for operations and service excellence. Cummings Properties has designed and built hundreds of specialized facilities including, cleanrooms, biotech labs, and operating rooms, as 781-935-8000 cummings.com well as thousands of office, retail, warehouse, and R&D spaces. 400,000 Square Feet • 7 Stories • Covered Parking • Abutting Route 128 / I-95 This flagship property offers the finest quality corporate lifestyle with the amenities of a central business district. It is the largest single building ever developed by Cummings Properties and will receive the best of our nearly 40 years of experience. A 3-story drive-through gateway welcomes patrons to TradeCenter 128. DESIGN Energy efficient design and construction means Up to 63,000 SF per floor. Wide-open floor reduced operating costs, healthier and more plans provide maximum flexibility in layout. productive occupants, and conservation of natural resources.
    [Show full text]
  • M a S S a C H U S E T T S EXISTING ITS DEVICES in DISTRICT 5 and TURNPIKES October 1, 2021
    Installed ITS Devices Roadways MAP E CCTV )" Patrol Sheds Interstate 89 DMS Interstate 93 MVDS Interstate 293 " VSL Interstate 393 Existing Devices District 5 & Turnpikes Everett Turnpike October 1, 2021 RWIS NH 101 0 2.25 4.5 9 US Routes Miles State Routes LACONIA BROOKFIELD DANBURY HILL SANBORNTON GILFORD 28A SPRINGFIELD DISTRICT 2 «¬ «¬106 DISTRICT 3 MIDDLETON TILTON BELMONT WILMOT 93 ALTON 11 NEW DURHAM ANDOVER FRANKLIN ¨¦§ «¬ 11 GILMANTON «¬140 MILTON «¬ ¤£4 NORTHFIELD NEW LONDON 103A SALISBURY «¬ FARMINGTON CANTERBURY BARNSTEAD SUTTON «¬129 «¬127 BOSCAWEN LOUDON NEWBURY «¬132 2 WEBSTER 103 PITTSFIELD T «¬ STRAFFORD C I 126 WARNER R ¤£3 «¬ T 89 CHICHESTER S ¨¦§ I 93 ¨¦§ 4 D CONCORD ¤£ BRADFORD EPSOM NORTHWOOD HOPKINTON WASHINGTON DISTRICT 6 202 PEMBROKE HENNIKER ¤£ HILLSBOROUGH «¬43 ALLENSTOWN 152 BOW DEERFIELD «¬ WINDSOR NOTTINGHAM DUNBARTON DEERING WEARE 156 «¬149 «¬77 HOOKSETT «¬ CANDIA ANTRIM EPPING 101 «¬ RAYMOND 101 GOFFSTOWN «¬ BENNINGTON «¬47 FRANCESTOWN 136 114A 293 «¬ «¬ ¨¦§ «¬28A AUBURN FREMONT HANCOCK NEW BOSTON BRENTWOOD MANCHESTER CHESTER GREENFIELD 13 «¬ 102 BEDFORD «¬ SANDOWN DISTRICT 4 121 DANVILLE 28B «¬ 6 «¬ T LYNDEBOROUGH C DUBLIN MONT VERNON I R 111 137 PETERBOROUGH 31 DERRY ¬ T «¬ «¬ « LONDONDERRY HAMPSTEAD S AMHERST I D MERRIMACK 28 NEWTON LITCHFIELD 128 «¬ «¬ ATKINSON WILTON JAFFREY TEMPLE SHARON MILFORD 3A «¬ WINDHAM 123 45 «¬ «¬ 101A «¬ SALEM 122 HUDSON «¬ FEE ¬ 111 GREENVILLE « «¬ HOLLIS RINDGE NEW IPSWICH MASON BROOKLINE NASHUA «¬38 ¬130 PELHAM 1«¬23A « M A S S A C H U S E T T S EXISTING ITS DEVICES IN DISTRICT 5 AND TURNPIKES October 1, 2021 DIRECTION OF MILE DEVICE NAME CITY/TOWN ROUTE LOCATION DESCRIPTION TRAVEL MARKER NH Route 101 Eastbound slope of the Meetinghouse RD/US 101 E 53.8 CCTV AX 5 Bedford NH 101 Eastbound 53.8 Route 3 intersection between US 3 and the Route 101 Eastbound on ramp.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program and Air Quality Conformity Determination: Federal Fiscal Years 2012–15
    Transportation Improvement Program and Air Quality Conformity Determination Federal Fiscal Years 2012–15 BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DETERMINATION: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2012–15 ENDORSED BY THE BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Staff Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is composed of the: MassDOT Office of Planning and Programming Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Advisory Board MassDOT Highway Department Massachusetts Port Authority Metropolitan Area Planning Council City of Boston City of Newton City of Somerville Town of Bedford Town of Braintree Town of Framingham Town of Hopkinton Federal Highway Administration (nonvoting) Federal Transit Administration (nonvoting) Regional Transportation Advisory Council (nonvoting) The MPO fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. The MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, English proficiency, income, religious creed, ancestry, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation, or military service. Any person who believes herself/himself or any specific class of persons to have been subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI or related statutes or regulations may, herself/himself or via a representative, file a written complaint
    [Show full text]
  • NRPC White Paper on the Nashua-Hudson Circumferential
    NASHUA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CIRCUMFERENTIAL HIGHWAY “WHITE PAPER” September 17, 2003 NASHUA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CIRCUMFERENTIAL HIGHWAY “WHITE PAPER” September 17, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Nashua Regional Planning Commission is currently evaluating the proposed Hudson-Nashua Circumferential Highway project. Due to a number of factors, NRPC feels that it is prudent for the affected municipalities (Hudson, Litchfield, Merrimack and Nashua) and the general public to take a step back and reassess to this project. 1) The project has been moved out of the first ten years of the State’s Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan (“Ten Year Plan”) due to state transportation funding constraints. 2) The most expensive part of the project is the portion that connects Route 3/DW Highway in Merrimack with the Everett Turnpike (which is within the Pennichuck Watershed). 3) Political support for the project is unclear. 4) The permitting process has been long and ongoing, and is not resulting in closure on this controversial project. 5) The project as proposed is likely to hit stiff opposition from environmental groups and from communities within the Pennichuck Brook Watershed, as a portion of the highway will be built within that watershed. 6) Central Hudson and downtown Nashua continue to experience significant traffic congestion, and a viable relief is needed. 7) There have been major changes to the region’s transportation plans since the project was originally conceived. 8) The NHDOT has acquired right-of-way for the partial build, and Hudson, Litchfield and Merrimack have included the alignment in their master plans. Development proposals are required to accommodate the right-of-way.
    [Show full text]
  • I−93 Boston Hazardous Cargo Tunnel Detour Routes
    Rutherford Ave. To I−93 I−93 Boston Assembly Square On−Ramp Hazardous Cargo Tunnel Detour Routes Leverett Connector From I−93 All Hazardous Cargo ("HC") and Exit 26 Cargo Tankers are prohibited from the Boston Tunnels (new underground highway system). Hazardous Cargo must exit Interstate 93 North at Exit 18 and Interstate 93 South at Spaulding Exit 26. There are HC trailblazers Rehab through the City of Boston to direct HC off Interstate 93 North Commercial Street and South prior to entering the Tunnels and back on to Interstate 93. Causeway Street Southbound I−93 Boston Hazardous Cargo Tunnel Mass. General Detour Route −Take I−93 Southbound to Exit 26 (Storrow Drive/North Station) −From Exit 26, take right onto Nashua Street inbound (towards TD Banknorth Garden) −From Nashua Street, take left onto Lomasney Way −From Lomasney Way, take left onto Causeway Street −Follow Causeway Street and continue straight onto Commercial Street Purchase Street −Follow Commercial St. and continue straight until Cross St. Atlantic Avenue −At Commercial Street and Cross St., take left onto Surface Rd. southbound −Follow Surface Rd. southbound to Purchase Street −Continue on Purchase Street until it New England Medical Ctr. becomes Surface Rd. again −Continue straight on Surface Rd. −At Surface Rd. and Kneeland Street, proceed south onto I−93 Southbound Northbound I−93 Boston Hazardous Cargo Tunnel Detour Route −Take I−93 Northbound to Exit 18 (Mass. Ave) −From Exit 18 continue north on Frontage Rd. to the intersection of Frontage Rd. and Broadway −Proceed north onto the South Station Kneeland Street on−ramp Features Frontage Road −At end of ramp, proceed straight onto Atlantic Avenue northbound Hospitals −Follow Atlantic Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Braintree Split Area and Gives the Processes by Which Proposed Transportation Improvements May Be Summary of Recommendations Implemented
    8 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS This chapter summarizes this study’s recommendations regarding transportation improvements in the TABLE 9 Braintree Split area and gives the processes by which proposed transportation improvements may be Summary of Recommendations implemented. Location Proposed Improvement(s) Estimated Cost 8.1 Recommendations • Lengthen existing deceleration lane to provide more storage room and sufficient length for #1 exiting vehicles to change lanes. $1.0 million Table 9 summarizes the recommended improvements and estimated costs of each improvement. Their • Install signs on the Route 3 South connector instructing motorists exiting onto Route 37 to be in locations are indicated in white on the accompanying map, which also give location numbers. The numbers the rightmost lane. are consistent with the numbers used to designate these locations throughout this report. For detailed • Restrict the existing on-ramp to traffic that is heading to Route 3 South, the Burgin Parkway, or descriptions of the recommended improvements, please see Chapter 7. Washington Street. • Construct a double left-turn bay at the signalized ramp–arterial junction for use by traffic $1.5 million #2 Overview Map proceeding to the Expressway to access the south side on-ramp. • Install new signs or modify existing signs on Route 37 to guide motorists to the appropriate ramps. • Install real-time sensors for queue detection, and overhead variable message signs to inform and #3 warn motorists to reduce speed in advance of the downstream traffic queue that is obscured by $0.5 million the horizontal curvature of the roadway. • Move the Burgin Parkway and Washington Street northbound on-ramp connector to the Expressway further south.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail and Transit Assessment Report State Project #13742
    Interstate 93 Bow Concord Improvements Rail and Transit Assessment Report State Project #13742 Prepared for: Federal Highway Administration & New Hampshire Department of Transportation October 5, 2018 101 Arch Street Suite 301 Boston, MA 02110 857-453-5450 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Description of Project Area and Current Planning ............................................................... 2 2.1 Bow – Concord I-93 Project Area ........................................................................................ 2 2.2 Summary / Classification Report ......................................................................................... 4 2.3 New Hampshire State Rail Plan .......................................................................................... 4 2.4 New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail & Transit Alternative Analysis .................................. 4 3.0 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Concord Railroad History ..................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Railroad Right-of-Way and Ownership/Lease Descriptions ................................................. 7 3.3 Railroad Physical Plant ........................................................................................................ 9 3.4 New England Southern
    [Show full text]