Does this make sense to anyone?

Because to me, closing a lane on 93 to fight the upcoming DNC-related gridlock seems counterintuitive.
And here’s some of the underlying logic:

“We’re restricting it down to two lanes because if, God forbid, nobody pays attention to us and that road turns into a parking lot, we’ll have fewer cars to worry about,” said State Police Major Michael Mucci, who is coordinating the convention-related road closures that have been prompted by security concerns.

Right, and the drivers who were intent upon driving that road, despite the constant warnings of apocalyptic traffic nightmares, will surely now decide to make alternative plans.

3 Comments so far

  1. mk (unregistered) on July 14th, 2004 @ 3:54 am

    What they don’t seem to realize is that this is just going to move the traffic elsewhere. It’s going to spill over to local routes and the Pike and local roads, probably making the traffic terrible on back roads and the town centers and whatnot.
    Staying home isn’t an option for everyone, and I’m still not clear on what the security risk actually is to keep all the lanes open on 93. Is it a car bomb thing?

  2. mk (unregistered) on July 14th, 2004 @ 3:55 am

    Also, this: “Transportation planners, worried about gridlock during the Democratic National Convention, plan new restrictions on Interstate 93 as part of an effort to persuade drivers to use Route 128 instead.” drives me crazy. Are they aware of the massive amount of traffic that already exists on 128 on a regular weekday? Why should the people who live and work in the suburbs have to suffer for this tomfoolery?

  3. smeg (unregistered) on July 14th, 2004 @ 4:37 am

    I am *so* glad I’m staying at home that week … I can’t imagine getting from JP to Lynnfield and back for work :(

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.