93 Bridges

jass said:
So I recently saw this picture on another website, and I immediately though BOSTON NEED THIS.

4308027109eb769cd92ao.jpg


Walking over highways SUCKS and there are three major problems this addresses.

-Wind, GONE
-Noise, DIMINISHED

and almost as important...

SNOW.

Nobody shovels the same sidewalks on bridges because theres no abutting property. Put a little roof over it AND NO MORE SNOW!
Click to expand...


Jass -- you and eye live in different universes wih apparently different laws of physics -- wind and snow still have access -- just not from the side where the Plexiglass is located -- in fact I'm willing to bet that under faily common conditions the wind and snow could be far worse with a wall to constrain things

Noise reduction -- perhaps -- I think the real reason for the Plexi is mainly to protect the drivers below from people dropping stuff on them

somewhat off topic -- I've never understood why the T doesn't put plexi roofs over the rebuilt outdoor stations such as Charles / MGH or the current rebuild of Science Park-- it would certainly make waiting for a train on a february evening much more pleasant
 
whighlander said:
Jass -- you and eye live in different universes wih apparently different laws of physics -- wind and snow still have access -- just not from the side where the Plexiglass is located --
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with the I-93 bridges? None have pedestrian access. Perhaps this needs to go in a different post.
 
But I don't think that bridge is being replaced as part of this project. Only bridges where I-93 goes over another road (or the Mystic River).
 
Ron Newman said:
But I don't think that bridge is being replaced as part of this project. Only bridges where I-93 goes over another road (or the Mystic River).
Click to expand...

I dont know which bridges are being included, but when I made the post about pedestrians crossing OVER the highway, I was referring to locations like that one. MassDot decided to use fencing, which provides absolutely no shelter to the pedestrian, unlike plexiglass.

Id also bet that that specific bridge(s) was built at the same time as all the rest, so I wonder why theyre not being replaced?
 
Possibly it is less worn-out because it carries a lot less traffic.
 
jass said:
I dont know which bridges are being included, but when I made the post about pedestrians crossing OVER the highway, I was referring to locations like that one. MassDot decided to use fencing, which provides absolutely no shelter to the pedestrian, unlike plexiglass.

Id also bet that that specific bridge(s) was built at the same time as all the rest, so I wonder why theyre not being replaced?
Click to expand...

The bridge being replaced on 93 are.......... on 93, not over.
They are 14 structurally deficient bridge that carry upwards of 250,000 cars per day.

I can see the attraction to the plexiglass panels to protect pedestrians, but that might be better serves in an area that has a LOT of pedestrians.
Like a connecting bridge to and from a train station or a sports arena or a school. The rotary bridge OVER 93 has so little pedestrian traffic protecting the few that cross it per day too much cost per capita.

Also have you considered the implications of the visual impact of the plexiglas awning over a busy interstate?

1) the glare/reflections that would be caused by adverse lighting conditions, setting/rising sun, highway traffic

2)Snow load: Sure...it would protect the 1-2 pedestrian walked from Medford Sq to the Fellsway in the event of a blizzard, but what happens when there is a freezing rain that coats the plexi and then a 6-8 inch snowfall that builds on top of canopy that they in the midday sun decides to 'let go'. Where does it fall? Down. Onto busy 93 North South Traffic, into windshields, onto roadway, causing accidents and chaos.

These plexiglas canopies have no place in the ares you describe. They are best to protect half-drunk pedestrians from melting in the rain while crossing a busy street in Las Vegas tyring to get to the next casino...
 
EarthRockHill said:
The bridge being replaced on 93 are.......... on 93, not over.
They are 14 structurally deficient bridge that carry upwards of 250,000 cars per day.

I can see the attraction to the plexiglass panels to protect pedestrians, but that might be better serves in an area that has a LOT of pedestrians.
Like a connecting bridge to and from a train station or a sports arena or a school. The rotary bridge OVER 93 has so little pedestrian traffic protecting the few that cross it per day too much cost per capita.

Also have you considered the implications of the visual impact of the plexiglas awning over a busy interstate?

1) the glare/reflections that would be caused by adverse lighting conditions, setting/rising sun, highway traffic

2)Snow load: Sure...it would protect the 1-2 pedestrian walked from Medford Sq to the Fellsway in the event of a blizzard, but what happens when there is a freezing rain that coats the plexi and then a 6-8 inch snowfall that builds on top of canopy that they in the midday sun decides to 'let go'. Where does it fall? Down. Onto busy 93 North South Traffic, into windshields, onto roadway, causing accidents and chaos.

These plexiglas canopies have no place in the ares you describe. They are best to protect half-drunk pedestrians from melting in the rain while crossing a busy street in Las Vegas tyring to get to the next casino...
Click to expand...

There are many highway crossings thats ee thousands of pedestrians. Not on 93, but over the mass pike, like by kenmore or back bay station.

I dont think glare is an issue. Plexiglass is common along european highways, and they have sun too.

Obviously the shelter would have to be designed so that snow wouldnt stick on it.

The plexiglass in las vegas (again, note the lack of glare issue) doesnt provide a roof, just side walls.
 
jass said:
There are many highway crossings thats ee thousands of pedestrians. Not on 93, but over the mass pike, like by kenmore or back bay station.

I dont think glare is an issue. Plexiglass is common along european highways, and they have sun too.

Obviously the shelter would have to be designed so that snow wouldnt stick on it.

The plexiglass in las vegas (again, note the lack of glare issue) doesnt provide a roof, just side walls.
Click to expand...

Really, they have the same sun? That big ball of fire 90-million miles away sun?
I was just citing the use of the awning over the 93 bridge to which this thread came into play with.
I've been on many roads in Europe over the last 25 years, they all do things a LOT differently that for sure.
Like for example do you know that those wicked fast roads where we test our Corvettes between Dusseldorf and Nuremberg aren't built anything like our superhighways of the interstate system. Instead merely laying a layer of asphalt over compacted soil and crushed stone the base of their vastly superior autobahn is 3-6 feet of reinforced concrete.

I'd say the cost of installation alone for one bridge to have a plexi awning might be upwards of $100,000. Carry an umbrella.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plexiglass would be good for, let's say, the Mass Ave bridge, maybe. I don't see a need for anything less than 200 feet.
 
No no no! I like the unobstructed view of the Charles from the sidewalks and the bike lanes.
 
Ron Newman said:
No no no! I like the unobstructed view of the Charles from the sidewalks and the bike lanes.
Click to expand...

When he said "Mass ave bridge" I instantly thought of crossing the highway by Hynes. So terrible when there's wind.
 
The plexiglass would get dirty and scratched up in about two seconds.
 
What's that stuff that someone proposed building a dome over Dallas with? I think it was Dallas, can't recall... And I can't recall what the material was, but AFAIK it was clear and sturdy and easy to clean. Obviously the city dome idea is completely out of here, but how would that work for a bridge sidewalk?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top