Rick Macomber shows us the scene on the ramp from 128 north to the turnpike, where a tractor trailer rolled over before 5 a.m. and kept the ramp shut until around 8:15. State Police report the driver suffered minor injuries.
Same place, different truck in May.
Why hasn't it been a priority to redesign and replace this interchange if this is a frequent problem? Or at least provide radar linked speed/warning signs at the ramp alerting trucks they are at risk.
It's a tight spot with multiple interstates (I90/95), a state route (30) and local roads (Recreation Road in Weston, Grove Street in Newton) connected by ramps. The main east-west train line runs through there too (same line that handles Commuter Rail to Worcester). Then there's the Charles River running smack dab through the middle of everything - that curvy bit where the rollover occurred is partially suspended over the river.
Bottom line there's no easy way to relocate this ramp or smooth out the curve without a massive engineering effort and accompanying disruption. At some point they may have no choice as those suspended ramps over the Charles are about 50 years old and not in great shape but my guess is they'll do piecemeal repairs for as long as possible.
Well, they did just move the very dangerous 90W -> 95 ramp. I was surprised to find it was all different one day. https://goo.gl/maps/SbUDLHfXQRp
The new ramp from the mass pike westbound to I95 is awful.
If you are trying to take MA-30 going west, the whole ramp is backed up with people trying to sneak onto I95 and skip the actual I95 exit. Before there was a separate exit lane for MA-30 on the inside of the I95 traffic.
Moving the ramp does not give that much more time to merge if you are going to I95 north.
$172 million dollars of work: your toll money!
But they're only going to build the Turnpike mainline. Instead of a whole scale reimagining of the interchange, which doesn't need as much of a web of ramps since there are no longer tollbooths, they're taking a piecemeal approach, which will cost more money in the long run. And this ramp, which is one of the oldest parts of the interchange (it dates to the late 1950s when the Pike ended in Weston and 128 was two lanes each way) isn't part of it. So when that comes up for replacement, it won't be designed to mesh with any changes to the mainline of the Turnpike, and probably be kludgy, costly or both.
Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish. (Wait is that Baker's campaign slogan?)
I never understood why they don't just increase the bank on tight ramps?
You can only change the lateral slope of a road so much per unit of length, based on the speed of travel, and you need to change it back too. I don't remember the actual numbers, and I don't know if that's the issue here, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of the issue.
I don't understand why people don't slow down on tight curves. Or on city streets, but that's another matter.
Why don't they move the sign that marks the speed drop to 35 MPH further away from the curve. It does kind of sneak up on you, and since the whole area is an offramp, putting it by the bridge over the Charles River shouldn't affect much.
I don't know highways well, but it would give unsuspecting but otherwise conscientious truck drivers time to react.
Would be doing no more than 35 mph at that point anyway.
I was once in a truck that rolled over - in the sleeper, not driving. My partner was turning on to the on ramp, took the turn too fast, and rolled us on to the side. I woke up in mid air - not pleasant. In that case, there was no problem with road design - he just went too damn fast from road to on ramp. You can never fool-proof anything - they fools will always find a way to beat you.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy