Northern Avenue Bridge Fort Point Channel

AmericanFolkLegend said:
+1.
The other thing that kills me is when the city pays cops to direct traffic so we don't end up with gridlock (i.e., cars stuck in the middle of the intersection after the lights change). Those cops should be giving out tickets, not directing traffic. Let the signals do their job - if morons aren't stuck in the middle of the intersection they work just fine.
Click to expand...

I fucking hate this.

And theres not one city in the country that does it right.

Block the box? Should be a $1,000 fine. Have a cop posted on foot at every corner, have them walk up to every car thats blocking the intersection, and tell them to pull over and get their checkbook out.

Honking? $150 per honk. Its the biggest quality of life issue and our police departments would rather fondle their assholes than enforce the noise/honking laws.
 
jass said:
Honking? $150 per honk. Its the biggest quality of life issue and our police departments would rather fondle their assholes than enforce the noise/honking laws.
Click to expand...

Honking is "the biggest quality of life issue"? Really? Do you trust a cop to distinguish when a honk is out of safety/warning and when it's out of frustration/assholery?
 
whighlander said:
BNeo -- no one is going to raise the bridge and then use it for vehicular traffic

For the FP Channel to remain navigable the bridge would need to be raised about 10' and besides the support structures required -- that would necessitate massive ramps on both sides

Not going to happen if the bridge is raised-up on new piers then there will only be pedestrian access with Wheelchair accessible ramps {probably switchback] much as the Pedestrian Bridge over the Commuter Tracks at North Station
Click to expand...

Why does the bridge need to be raised when it works just fine? I watched it open and close the last time I was at the Barking Crab. Its structurally deficient and needs to be rebuilt, but the opening mechanism works fine. They spent all the money to rebuild the Summer St Bridge, so its not like it's unheard of.

Even if it did need to be raised - the fixed Seaport Blvd bridge doesn't have massive ramps, and has nearly the same amount of running room. Only the center span of the Northern Ave bridge would have to be raised to full height as well, the approach spans could be rebuilt on an angle, or eliminated altogether in favor of a modern structure.


I can't see traffic being affected in anyway but positive either. Northern Ave dumps onto a one way, so it would have to be right on/right off, it wouldn't even need a signal. It just lets people going north on Atlantic Ave not have to wait in line with the 95N, Oliver and Purchase Street traffic. Coming from Atlantic Ave it helps too, you no longer have to make a left off of Seaport Blvd to get to Fan Pier, the ICA or the Courthouse.


Also, the lighting looks awesome.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Honking is "the biggest quality of life issue"? Really? Do you trust a cop to distinguish when a honk is out of safety/warning and when it's out of frustration/assholery?
Click to expand...

If vehicles are stopped at an intersection, there is 0 chance the honk was legal. Zero.

And yes, its a huge issue. Its an assault on every pedestrian in the area. It can startle people on bikes causing them to crash. It puts people on edge, resulting in road rage.

It needs to stop. 50 years ago.
 
I suspect the Section 106 Memorandum of Understanding, of which the Federal Department of Transportation was one of the signatory parties, spells out what can be done to the bridge from a rehabilitation or repair standpoint. It is likely the MOA prohibits demolition or substantial alteration of the bridge. It was enough to stop Menino and the BRA in their tracks when they solicited proposals in the prior century.

For those unfamiliar with Section 106,
http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html

Here is a Section 106 MOA (recent) for a bridge in Chatham.
http://www.chatham-ma.gov/Public_Do...ll_river_drawbridge_replacement moa may12.pdf
 
davem said:
Why does the bridge need to be raised when it works just fine? I watched it open and close the last time I was at the Barking Crab. Its structurally deficient and needs to be rebuilt, but the opening mechanism works fine. They spent all the money to rebuild the Summer St Bridge, so its not like it's unheard of.

Even if it did need to be raised - the fixed Seaport Blvd bridge doesn't have massive ramps, and has nearly the same amount of running room. Only the center span of the Northern Ave bridge would have to be raised to full height as well, the approach spans could be rebuilt on an angle, or eliminated altogether in favor of a modern structure.


I can't see traffic being affected in anyway but positive either. Northern Ave dumps onto a one way, so it would have to be right on/right off, it wouldn't even need a signal. It just lets people going north on Atlantic Ave not have to wait in line with the 95N, Oliver and Purchase Street traffic. Coming from Atlantic Ave it helps too, you no longer have to make a left off of Seaport Blvd to get to Fan Pier, the ICA or the Courthouse.


Also, the lighting looks awesome.
Click to expand...

Davem -- remember that the reason for the Moakley Bridge was to replace the Northern Ave. Bridge with a fixed span that could admit quite large vessels without the need to open and close. The original plan was to demolish the Northern Ave Bridge to provide a section of the channel with even greater clearance. All of the above was in the enabling legislation at the Federal Level which led to the building of the Moakley.

The only way to retain the Northern Ave:
1) permanently open with some open-able small pedestrian bridges -- preferred alternative
2) permanently closed but jacked-up to permit at least Moakley clearance at high tide
3) retained as a openable draw bridge -- least desirable alternative

In almost none of the alternatives are there any needs for anything except pedestrian crossing
 
stellarfun said:
I suspect the Section 106 Memorandum of Understanding, of which the Federal Department of Transportation was one of the signatory parties, spells out what can be done to the bridge from a rehabilitation or repair standpoint. It is likely the MOA prohibits demolition or substantial alteration of the bridge. It was enough to stop Menino and the BRA in their tracks when they solicited proposals in the prior century.

For those unfamiliar with Section 106,
http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html

Here is a Section 106 MOA (recent) for a bridge in Chatham.
http://www.chatham-ma.gov/Public_Do...ll_river_drawbridge_replacement moa may12.pdf
Click to expand...

Stel -- actually the funding for the Moakley was for a fixed span designed to replace the Northern Ave -- it was going to be history -- until people protested the loss of the convenient pedestrian connection

The key aspects of the MOU are with the Army Corps. of Engineers about navigable water for small sea-going vessels in the Fort Point Channel past the Moakley [about 15 feet at high tide]
 
Yep, I recall the original working name of the Moakley Bridge was "New Northern Avenue Bridge", implying that it would entirely replace the old one.
 
highlander, Section 106 involves historic preservation, not navigation of navigable waters. The Section 106 process is administered by the [Federal] Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

http://www.achp.gov/
 
stellarfun said:
highlander, Section 106 involves historic preservation, not navigation of navigable waters. The Section 106 process is administered by the [Federal] Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

http://www.achp.gov/
Click to expand...

Stel -- not arguing about that

My point as also mentioned by Ron -- was that the Moakley was to be the New Northern Ave. Bridge -- the implication was that the old Northern Ave. Bridge was not just to be replaced -- it was to be demolished

You have to put this into context Joe was still very much alive and one of the two or three most powerful members of the U.S. House [he was Chair of the Rules Committee] -- He wanted this bridge to memorialize his late wife Evalyn and he didn't want any "competition" from the old bridge
 
I had not seen this before. As Davem said, it does open.

Now I hope it wasn't just for this Boston Harbor Cultural Connector boat. It has 4 trips a day for 20+m at a time up fort point channel. I would guess it removes the pedestrian usage of the bridge for 30m at a time. It's weird the boat is low height, but at high tide it does not look like it fits under the North. Ave bridge.

Maybe an open bridge with pedestrian crossing is needed after all. And hopefully not the current harbor plan of auto access.

But it was cool to see the bridge open and close.

gK4Xp9d.jpg


1Hapl9K.jpg


G3t2S3O.jpg
 
Must be some sweet giant gears working to turn that thing
 
The bridge is to be replaced with one exactly like it, said Jayasinghe, but when that will happen is not determined. Challenges are the cost and design, which must allow tall boats to pass beneath. Jayasinghe wants to raise the bridge since maintaining the swinging portion would be too expensive and disruptive to traffic. Jaysinghe said the bridge probably won’t qualify for federal funding without being designed for cars.
Click to expand...


http://northendwaterfront.com/2014/10/downtown-view-the-bridges-of-suffolk-county-2/


I always thought that it was inevitable that it would be open to traffic someday. It must drive the judges in the court house crazy to have to drive so far out of their way!!!!
 
Last edited:
Yeah...preservation's getting to be a lot more trouble than it's worth with all the convoluted and expensive proposals that have to get thrown around to keep it there at all. There's nothing to sift through in these proposals that isn't fundamentally very awkward to pull off.


I mean...I get it, people are attached to it. It's uniquely Boston.

But as swing bridges go...it's not a very unique piece of civil engineering. Lots of road swings were built to the same general design. Summer St.'s actually a lot rarer a historical bird structurally. And the bascule on Congress a little more ornately done up (plus that new floating Tea Party Museum right in the middle is not something you see every day).


I'm not sure sentimentality alone is gonna float nearly enough of the justification. We learned to let go on the Washington St. bridge that's coming down. Maybe we just haven't yet hit a price quote realistic--with brutality--enough to learn to let go here.
 
The Summer St bridge was rebuilt to look similar to the original working sliding span design re-using much of the original structure in 1998. It does not and will never slide again. The bascule bridge on Congress is much the same, many of the same parts, but no more counterweight...
 
Why are they so eager to open it back up to cars? They built the Seaport Blvd Bridge right next to it and it has plenty of extra capacity. Keep the Northern Ave bridge for bikes and peds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top