Route 2 Cambridge breakdown lane made into exit lane?
Route2 driver
be turning the breakdown lane between the Lake St. on ramp and the
Alewife T station exit into a merge/exit lane.I know the striping
there now is only temporary but it indicates they are eliminating the
breakdown lane.
David Z Maze
From my limited experience driving there during the morning rush hour,
it could also be described as "formalizing existing practice".
--dzm
Jimmy
Drivers are using the new right lane to skip the backup in the two
left lanes. It slowed down my bus a little, but it was still a
reasonably quick trip for the tail end of the evening rush, and much
quicker than when some bus drivers would refuse to use the shoulder
under the 2-lane configuration.
Of course it doesn't help that the ban on entering Whittemore Avenue
now lasts until 7 pm instead of 6. The backup on northbound Alewife
Brook Parkway approaching Mass Ave used to start to shrink after 6, as
people used that shortcut. Now it's perpetually backed up to the
Alewife light and back onto Route 2.
Jimmy
Route2 driver
The lane has been permanently striped now, but multiple "travel
prohibited in breakdown lane" signs remain up. Someone from Mass
Highway should also review the one mile and 1/2 mile signs for the
Lake St. exit that indicate "exit only",I don't think they get the
right message across.
Jimmy
> Someone from Mass
> Highway should also review the one mile and 1/2 mile signs for the
> Lake St. exit that indicate "exit only",I don't think they get the
> right message across.
Why shouldn't Lake Street be signed as exit only? Route 2 is 4 lanes
before that exit. Before this change, the right lane was in fact an
exit only lane, and afterwards the second-to-right lane ended, to form
2 lanes, with no warning signs.
Is it now 3 lanes after the exit? If so, then the on-ramp would have
no acceleration lane.
My big peeve with Massachusetts expressway striping, which persists
after all the recent construction, is the lack of lane dashes on
acceleration and deceleration lanes.
Jimmy
Route2 driver
I agree the right lane should be "exit only",the problem is the sign
is centered over the 2 right lanes and says "exit only" instead of
"right lane exit only"
Yes the on ramp has no acceleration lane.I remember back when Mass
DPW widened Route 2 through Arlington-Belmont there was a lot of
debate about the Lake St. on ramps. I believe Mass DPW wanted a median
along Lake St. so southbound traffic would be forced to use the loop
ramp to Route 2 eastbound (the one that nobody uses.)This ramp is
obviously a much safer merge.Part of the problem was access to the MDC
ice rink that used to be there.
Massachusetts has very poor warning signs at the end of lanes, at many
locations it is non-existent.
David Chesler
> Massachusetts has very poor warning signs at the end of lanes, at many
> locations it is non-existent.
I was near Sturbridge and very happy to see arrows in a left lane
telling drivers to merge before the lane ended.
I'm frustrated on I-93 with lanes that become exit only, or HOV,
without a clear indication how far drivers should go before merging into
the unrestricted lane.
The lanes are striped instead of solid or double solid too far before
the split at places like the end of Route 3 southbound at 128, or in the
C/D part of the Ted Williams Tunnel that goes to I-93 north or south.
No need to have anything bigger than a rumble strip, in case there is a
breakdown, but there's no reason not to be in the appropriate lane way back.
It's the same pool of drivers, but the zipper action on the 128
Cloverleaf in Reading (I-93 northbound, entering from 128 NB and exiting
to 128 SB) always seems well disciplined, but in Somerville there is too
much lane jockeying.
And while I'm complaining, I'll mention again that 128 SB to 3 NB in
Burlington should have its own lane, with only 2 lanes coming from 128 NB.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
New York's home, but it ain't mine no more
mapson51
> And while I'm complaining, I'll mention again that 128 SB to 3 NB in
> Burlington should have its own lane, with only 2 lanes coming from 128 NB.
I agree, it seems to be an obvious rookie mistake on the part of the
traffic engineer. Or is there some subtlety that I'm missing?
As it's currently configured the traffic from 128 SB merges into the
right lane on 3 NB, which is usually standard. The confusing part is
that this is the spot where Rt 3 widens from 2 lanes to 3, and instead
of having the merge begin the new lane the engineer instead chose to
create a new lane out of thin air on the left side of the highway. So
instead of the existing 2 lanes continuing on uninterrupted and the
traffic from 128 SB joining 3 NB in a new 3rd lane on the right
without having to merge, the 2 existing lanes now have to shift left
to avoid the incoming merging lane from 128 SB. Or is this one of
those schemes to force people to slow down by causing havoc?
Paul Anderson
<28f6ee3b-d6c3-4cf5...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
mapson51 <maps...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:48�pm, David Chesler <ches...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > And while I'm complaining, I'll mention again that 128 SB to 3 NB
> > in Burlington should have its own lane, with only 2 lanes coming
> > from 128 NB.
>
> I agree, it seems to be an obvious rookie mistake on the part of the
> traffic engineer. Or is there some subtlety that I'm missing?
I would also like to hear an explanation of this odd configuration. It
would certainly increase safety and traffic flow if the two lanes from
I-95/MA 128 northbound and the one lane from I-95/MA 128 southbound all
had their own lanes instead of forcing an unnecessary merge.
Paul
Route2 driver
> In article
> <28f6ee3b-d6c3-4cf5-a58e-c3e862f1c...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> mapson51 <mapso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 9:48 pm, David Chesler <ches...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > > And while I'm complaining, I'll mention again that 128 SB to 3 NB
> > > in Burlington should have its own lane, with only 2 lanes coming
> > > from 128 NB.
>
> > I agree, it seems to be an obvious rookie mistake on the part of the
> > traffic engineer. Or is there some subtlety that I'm missing?
>
> I would also like to hear an explanation of this odd configuration. It
> would certainly increase safety and traffic flow if the two lanes from
> I-95/MA 128 northbound and the one lane from I-95/MA 128 southbound all
> had their own lanes instead of forcing an unnecessary merge.
>
> Paul
These are the same engineers who gave us the terrible diagrammatic
signs on Route 3 northbound at 495. There are 3 signs in a row showing
a diagram that really does not represent the exit for 495 south very
well. Then there is an arrow pointing to a lane for "495 SB" that if
you follow you end up missing the exit.
John S
Traffic engineer? Really? C'mon, you're talking about Massachusetts.
You know how it works... The credentials of the "engineer" consist of
being related to a state Senator or similar.
The surprising thing is that the sign has the proper color. That's
probably a requirement of federal grants though.