Bill Russell Bridge | North Washington St.

real_EthanHunt said:
not for a kid and nothing to do with the temporary bridge 'costing a life'.
Click to expand...
Interesting. There's a picture of a kid hanging up on the fence. The delay in this project will absolutely cost lives. Aside from the obvious dangers having bikers inches from cars on blind turns, watch emergency responders try to get through there. Total bullshit.
 
A more conventional design, not requiring unconventional welding, should have been developed. I hope this is a lesson learned for the city and state for future bridge projects.
 
I'm not sure that's the lesson. By that lesson, the Zakim bridge was a mistake as its design was also unnecessary for its purpose. And was a bunch of other bridges that used novel designs at the time it was built.

Granted this is just a local bridge and not a cornerstone of a massive project, a grand entrance to the city, or a large engineering feat. Maybe it is better if a functional and boilerplate is preferable - not to mention functional does not have to look that ugly though it would be hard to make it look that special.

When they presented the plan to the public, they wanted something a little prettier after decades of just allowing the old bridge to decay. Once this thing finally gets done, it should last decades and future generations probably won't think about the pain and will appreciate that the bridge will look pretty cool (assuming they stick to the design, for all we know, they could be considering to ditch the design and just build something mundane at this point).

On that other hand, it does suck for us dealing with this. And personally for me, I miss the underpass. I used to use it whenever I bike to work that is located the North End. And since I currently live in Somerville, I look forward to using the GLX bike path. If everything is done, I should be able to bike from Somerville to all the way to the North End all-but completely removed from any motor vehicle traffic - except I have to deal with crossing North Washington Street, which is the hardest part by far of anywhere I bike - even compared to the mess at Union sq. With this setback, that underpass won't be back anytime soon. And given how long people typically stay at companies, it will probably be too late for me.
 
Charlie_mta said:
A more conventional design, not requiring unconventional welding, should have been developed. I hope this is a lesson learned for the city and state for future bridge projects.
Click to expand...
The Zakim, although a pretty design that satisfied the people was an over cost project that will come back to haunt future generations. North Washington just following in its footsteps.
 
ant8904 said:
I'm not sure that's the lesson. By that lesson, the Zakim bridge was a mistake as its design was also unnecessary for its purpose. And was a bunch of other bridges that used novel designs at the time it was built.

Granted this is just a local bridge and not a cornerstone of a massive project, a grand entrance to the city, or a large engineering feat. Maybe it is better if a functional and boilerplate is preferable - not to mention functional does not have to look that ugly though it would be hard to make it look that special.

When they presented the plan to the public, they wanted something a little prettier after decades of just allowing the old bridge to decay. Once this thing finally gets done, it should last decades and future generations probably won't think about the pain and will appreciate that the bridge will look pretty cool (assuming they stick to the design, for all we know, they could be considering to ditch the design and just build something mundane at this point).

On that other hand, it does suck for us dealing with this. And personally for me, I miss the underpass. I used to use it whenever I bike to work that is located the North End. And since I currently live in Somerville, I look forward to using the GLX bike path. If everything is done, I should be able to bike from Somerville to all the way to the North End all-but completely removed from any motor vehicle traffic - except I have to deal with crossing North Washington Street, which is the hardest part by far of anywhere I bike - even compared to the mess at Union sq. With this setback, that underpass won't be back anytime soon. And given how long people typically stay at companies, it will probably be too late for me.
Click to expand...
I'm all for innovative and aesthetically pleasing bridge designs. They just need to be vetted during design for constructability, identify potential risks, and make the design to keep those risks at an acceptable level.
 
Does anyone have any pics of any of the proposals that were submitted for the Zamkin Bridge or was there the only one??
 
The engineer, Benesch, is headquartered in Chicago, and designs bridges all across the U.S. I just wonder if this design reflected the location of this low-slung bridge in a marine environment with rising sea levels and a concern about future maintenance and corrosion. This should be a 100-year design.
 
Of course, we all know that the Zakim Bridge as part of the Big Dig, a mult-billion-dollar project that took maybe 16 or so years to build. It was a nightmare & a headache in & of itself. Other cities had thought about doing it, but they changed their minds, probably because of the massive cost overruns & mismanagement of the whole thing. :unsure: :eek:
 
Last edited:
guitarguynboston said:
Does anyone have any pics of any of the proposals that were submitted for the Zamkin Bridge or was there the only one??
Click to expand...
Try searching for "Scheme Z", I tried but didn't have much luck except this The Harvard Crimson article from 1991.

Scheme Z: How to Kill a Bridge Plan | News | The Harvard Crimson

When the state's plan for a mammoth 11-story highway interchange--the infamous "Scheme Z"--surfaced more than two years ago, Cambridge pundits
www.thecrimson.com www.thecrimson.com
Articles say it would have been an eleven story high interchange. I seem to remember Zakim was projected to be $1 Billion more than "Z". I don't know what the final difference in cost ended up at.
 
Last edited:
reno said:
Try searching for "Scheme Z", I tried but didn't have much luck except this The Harvard Crimson article from 1991.

Scheme Z: How to Kill a Bridge Plan | News | The Harvard Crimson

When the state's plan for a mammoth 11-story highway interchange--the infamous "Scheme Z"--surfaced more than two years ago, Cambridge pundits
www.thecrimson.com www.thecrimson.com
Articles say it would have been an eleven story high interchange. I seem to remember Zakim was projected to be $1 Billion more than "Z". I don't know what the final difference in cost ended up at.
Click to expand...

Not for nothing, but that article at one point says "Z" was going to cost $47 million (though given how far off the estimates of a lot of Big Dig stuff were, who knows if that would have held), and then says that the alternative (i.e. the Zakim) would be $840 million, which it calls "almost twice" "Z's" price tag. One of those things has to be a typo. (I suspect either they meant $84 million for Zakim vs. $47 million for Z, or else $840m for Zakim vs. $470m for "Z", because there's no way Zakim would have been built if it was nearly 20 times the cost of Z.)
 
The initial Central Artery Big Dig plan in the late 1980s - known as Scheme Z - was a sprawling plan, calling for a multi-level spaghetti interchange on the Charlestown side of the bridge (see first photo below), required because all the ramps connecting Storrow Drive to the Central Artery and Tobin Bridge would have been pushed over to that side of the river. Also the Central Artery bridge crossing the river was cable stayed, but bulkier looking. Also, the Storrow Drive (Leverett Connector) bridge crossings of the Charles River would have been double-deck. The final design as built of the whole complex was revised to be much more compact with half the Storrow ramps that connect to the Central Artery moved to the Boston Side, the main bridge over the Charles having less obtrusive towers, and the Storrow Drive (Leverett Connector) bridge reduced to one level and flush with the main bridge.

Scheme Z interchange on the Charlestown side of the river (looking east toward City Square):

52255256204_19bdd3064f_b.jpg


Scheme Z design for the Central Artery bridge and Storrow Drive (Leverett Connector) bridge crossings of the Charles River:

52254992438_3fcddd969d_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Aw man I hate when they do two opposed single tower bridges side by side like that. They did this recently in Queens as well. Always looks awkward and lopsided. Thank god we didnt get that here.
 
stick n move said:
Aw man I hate when they do two opposed single tower bridges side by side like that. They did this recently in Queens as well. Always looks awkward and lopsided. Thank god we didnt get that here.
Click to expand...
Well, you can thank the City of Cambridge for blocking it.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Some discussion upthread. They went with a highly unconventional design here, presumably for aesthetic reasons. Notice how the quad sets of pylons at each pier location are all independent from one another (a 'typical' bridge has a thick lateral concrete beam tying them together before the longitudinal roadway beams are installed on top). These 'independent' pylons required the beams to have huge flexure diaphrams between them and the pylons. I believe this unusual configuration then drove the need for some significant amount of welding between the flexure diaphrams and the beams, but welding can be a challenge when you're trying to weld something large in the middle of something absolutely enormous because the enormous thing is a huge heat sink, sucking the heat away from the weld. And if the weld can't get hot enough (& cool slowly enough), it can fail to meet spec (i.e., prone to cracking). So the issue is that there's nothing to "drop into place" as a replacement here because (presumably) they haven't figured out how to solve the design issue yet. Solving the design issue was probably also delayed by an up front effort to figure out who was responsible.
Click to expand...

Not to kill the intended design (and I didn't do well in physics) but I don't think it would be bad if they found a way to introduce lateral steel between the pylons just below the trusses to meet the lateral forces and take the forces off the welds. I picture the steel connections between the concrete pylons to look something like this.
DSCN3181_resize.jpg
DSCN3121_resize.jpg
 
Charlie_mta said:
The initial Central Artery Big Dig plan in the late 1980s - known as Scheme Z - was a sprawling plan, calling for a multi-level spaghetti interchange on the Charlestown side of the bridge (see first photo below), required because all the ramps connecting Storrow Drive to the Central Artery and Tobin Bridge would have been pushed over to that side of the river. Also the Central Artery bridge crossing the river was cable stayed, but bulkier looking. Also, the Storrow Drive (Leverett Connector) bridge crossings of the Charles River would have been double-deck. The final design as built of the whole complex was revised to be much more compact with half the Storrow ramps that connect to the Central Artery moved to the Boston Side, the main bridge over the Charles having less obtrusive towers, and the Storrow Drive (Leverett Connector) bridge reduced to one level and flush with the main bridge.

Scheme Z interchange on the Charlestown side of the river (looking east toward City Square):

52255256204_19bdd3064f_b.jpg


Scheme Z design for the Central Artery bridge and Storrow Drive (Leverett Connector) bridge crossings of the Charles River:

52254992438_3fcddd969d_c.jpg
Click to expand...
I was hoping someone would have an image or two of Scheme Z. Excellent!
I can't help but think that we got most of this in what was actually built -- though the Zakim looks way cooler. I was also wondering why we didn't send a lane of Route 1 straight into a tunnel to Storrow Drive instead of (onto a high loop and a long ass double-back ramp. It could have gone under the rail, under that section of Cambridge, under The Charles, and under Leverett Circle.
TunnelsAreHard.jpg
 
For the same reason the whole thing wasn't in a tunnel: the Orange Line is in the way.
 
BeyondRevenue said:
I was hoping someone would have an image or two of Scheme Z. Excellent!
I can't help but think that we got most of this in what was actually built -- though the Zakim looks way cooler. I was also wondering why we didn't send a lane of Route 1 straight into a tunnel to Storrow Drive instead of (onto a high loop and a long ass double-back ramp. It could have gone under the rail, under that section of Cambridge, under The Charles, and under Leverett Circle.
View attachment 26860
Click to expand...
Thanks. The first photo is one I personally took of the Big Dig scale model that was in a MassDOT office in the South Station building in the late 1980/early 90s. The second photo is a scan from the Big Dig newsletter I used to get during that time period. There is virtually nothing on line anymore that illustrates Scheme Z.
Regarding the orange route you show, there was one design option explored that would have had a northbound-only tunnel in the location you drew, but was dropped due to expense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top