FirstAlerts

Flooding Shuts Lanes of Interstate 93 in Massachusetts as Boston Flash Flood Warning Runs to 11:15 a.m.

Massachusetts State Police reported floodwater inundating I-93 as forecasters warned of rainfall rates up to 2 inches per hour on July 10.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Jul 10, 2025, 9:10 a.m. ETWritten Aug 11, 2026, 2:48 a.m. ET

More on this incident

Floodwater inundated Interstate 93 in Massachusetts, according to Massachusetts State Police, as heavy rain fell across the Boston area on July 10, 2025. A "considerable" covering Boston and areas to the south was in effect until 11:15 a.m. local time, ABC News reported. Forecasters cited rainfall rates reaching up to 2 inches per hour, with 4 to 6 inches of rain falling in Canton, Quincy and North Scituate, according to the same report. The carried a warning-level alert. No injuries or further road closures were described in the available reporting.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 111 Aug 2026, 06:56current

    First published.

  2. Version 111 Aug 2026, 06:48current

    First published.

  3. Version 111 Aug 2026, 06:42current

    First published.

  4. Version 111 Aug 2026, 06:51current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble β€” all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources β€” accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements β€” and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld β€” a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them β€” and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.