Grounding the McGrath

Badusername said:
If planned vehicle speeds are high enough to require a guard rail for feeder streets, we are leaving a lot to be desired with this design. It doesn’t seem logical to protect the frontage road while leaving only the curb for the cycle lane on the other side. The impression from the neighborhood meeting was that it is potentially a fence to prevent jaywalking.
Click to expand...
I mean, I think discouraging jaywalking on a major corridor is generally an ok objective in service of deconfliction and especially so in the vicinity of a playground. Something like a low fence, wall or guard rail isn't particularly visually intrusive, and while it can be hopped, that's usually enough to deter. I'd also personally read "protect the frontage road" as "stop SUV drivers from seeking a convenient shortcut by driving over the median to the frontage street." Example from the Casey Overpass project, where they similarly protected the frontage street with a low wall.

Looking at the render, it's shown as a fairly low and unobtrusive fence akin to that surrounding the playground.
1000038707.jpg
 
Definitely worth getting clarification - the "what if" render with the ADA ramp (not proposed) has a different looking fence. Maybe this is because of the pedestrian bridge, but maybe it's the intended fence:

1744200130770.png


I can appreciate a 2-3 ft fence, but if this is the intent it definitely introduces some unwanted visual separation.

There are also guardrails shown in other renderings. They're subtly included in the aerials.

The good news is that we're still developing the 25% design. Talk about an elongated design process...
 
Badusername said:
So I never noticed this in the presentation but it was pointed out in the GSNC meeting yesterday, the barrier in the median is not something we’ve seen before. The neighborhood council could not get confirmation from MassDOT or Rep Connolly as to the nature of the barrier. Could be an 8ft chain link fence or a highway median crash barrier. Either option is counterproductive to the mission of connecting the community.View attachment 61713
Click to expand...
Given it's a conceptual plan and not an actual design one, I cannot confirm this for fact. But that symbol they use (in AutoCAD) there often is used to indicate a wood fence.

If it was intended to be guardrail, it would be right along the edge of the curb and not set back like that.
 
Charlie_mta said:
In the current political climate, this project should not be marketed to the Feds as a road diet. It should be marketed as removing a structure (the highway overpass) that is functionally obsolete and has met the end of its useful life. After all, the lanes really are not being diminished by this project through the overpass area. There will still be 2 thru lanes for general traffic plus turn lanes. If the segment of McGrath Hwy without the the overpass (north of Cross Street) has to be deleted, then at least keep the segment (Cross Street to the Fitchburg Div RR) that has the overpass, so that it can be removed.
Click to expand...
At the meeting it was said that the federal grant is just a supplement and that there is backup funding if it gets taken back.
 
In the current political climate, this project should not be marketed to the Feds as a road diet. It should be marketed as removing a structure (the highway overpass) that is functionally obsolete and has met the end of its useful life. After all, the lanes really are not being diminished by this project through the overpass area. There will still be 2 thru lanes for general traffic plus turn lanes. If the segment of McGrath Hwy without the the overpass (north of Cross Street) has to be deleted, then at least keep the segment (Cross Street to the Fitchburg Div RR) that has the overpass, so that it can be removed.
 
To be fair, this particular project budget hasn't ballooned yet into insanity - it's programmed at ~$90M in total costs. Yes $43M in RCP Grant money makes a difference, but I believe the plan up until that award was to rely on TIP formula federal funds which aren't under threat at the moment. That said, it's not a massive lift for the state to come up with that amount of money to either spend it taking it down or maintaining it.
 
cubbe8 said:
But it’s still a good chunk of the cost that might now have to come from other projects.
Click to expand...

Yea that's the crux of the problem. A project here or there MA can cover but the way the Feds are acting the goal is to bankrupt blue states by a thousand cuts.

MA needs to get serious about increasing tax revenue by building more housing and encouraging more people to live here. Tax underutilized land as well.
 
393b40 said:
Yea that's the crux of the problem. A project here or there MA can cover but the way the Feds are acting the goal is to bankrupt blue states by a thousand cuts.

MA needs to get serious about increasing tax revenue by building more housing and encouraging more people to live here. Tax underutilized land as well.
Click to expand...
Seems like congestion pricing for MA may have to start being talked about sooner rather than later if theres going to need to be a new stream of income for transit/road projects that has to come from somewhere.
 
To keep this project viable, how about keeping the segment that the overpass removal is on, and drop the northern segment (north of the bridge over the GLX Tufts branch)? That would at least still accomplish the heart of the project.
 
Last edited:
Transportation for America doesn't actually cite McGrath as being under threat: https://t4america.org/2025/04/29/re...nder-threat-here-is-whats-at-stake-and-where/

Assuming that the Federal money is at risk (and you have to assume it is, given the context), F-Line is right that $43 million is not do-or-die. It's about a third of the overall project cost, and an amount that municipalities around here regularly spend on things, to say nothing of the state. Somerville High cost $260 million, and the going rate for an elementary school is $50 million or more. Somerville and Cambridge together pledged $75 million for GLX that was ultimately returned - not that Somerville put its share away in a sock.

If MassDOT is saying they can pay for this regardless, I think they probably can. Allston is probably dead until Democrats take back control, but that's the cost of inaction.
 
Longfellow said:
The mayor should cone off the highway tomorrow and start knocking out support columns
Click to expand...
Curtatone wanted to do pretty much exactly that a few years ago when it turned out to need a bunch of repairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top