Bill Russell Bridge | North Washington St.

It would also look like the old flavor of the dark green paint color like the T used to have on the vintage trains before they changed to the color scheme in the early '60s.
 
Beton Brut said:
Could they at least paint the trellis black or dark green? The renderings look like Miami.
Click to expand...

Given that it basically runs alongside the Zakim, I think bright and modern is appropriate.

goldenretrievers said:
new-charlestown-bridge-plans-4-1508896450.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Beton Brut said:
Could they at least paint the trellis black or dark green? The renderings look like Miami.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, visually but also from a historical context. This locale, including the existing bridge, has always had an industrial grittiness. How about a nod to the history and feel of the area?
 
Last edited:
^ Exactly! If we have to have this ridiculous Fauxlatrava Venus flytrap trellis, give it some gravitas.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Totally agree, visually but also from a historical context. This locale, including the existing bridge, has always had an industrial grittiness. How about a nod to the history and feel of the area?
Click to expand...

+1.
 
RandomWalk said:
The T switched to the “rip the bandaid off” full station closure model with Government Center. Given the slog that the Longfellow turned into, the DOT should look at that approach for this project.
Click to expand...

If we are ever going to keep up with even just replacing our crumbling infrastructure then we need to re-figure out how to build and rebuild bridges like this at least an order of magnitude faster and cheaper.

I mean these are solved engineering and construction problems... but our Massachusetts government needs to figure out how to plan and contract out projects like this better.

A complete closure and demolition should be much faster and less expensive. And an even overall less disruptive approach if you consider that the lane reductions and closures will halve the capacity of the bridge for about 4 years. Looking at the phasing of this there will be lane disruptions for 4 full years of the construction and then there will be additional work before and after those 4 years which could cause intermittent disruptions.

This just seems like another ass backwards project where the stakeholders predictably ask to minimize lane closures and keep at least some lanes open 24/7 for the duration of the project and you end up with a long drawn out disruption as a result of over engineering around a stupid requirement and you still end up with cumulative closures of days or weeks because of all the extra complexity.

In China a bridge like this could be a weekend project... and I am only slightly exaggerating. And even in the US there are plenty of examples of much faster bridge replacement projects.
 
Jahvon09 said:
Don't you mean that it gave rise to even MORE traffic headaches & crappy conditions, along with ridiculously long traffic delays? Cause that it exactly what happens. Try driving on it in the afternoon.

I avoid going that way at all costs!! all they did was take all the damn problems that were upstairs & put them downstairs!!:mad:
Click to expand...

Sir/Madam, if you're pining for the days of the elevated Central Artery/Sumner Tunnel vs. the O'Neil and the Ted, then you have a stunningly faulty memory.

.
 
Last edited:
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Tangent, I'm all for accelerated construction (up the street the Callahan Tunnel was demolished and rebuilt in 70 days of 24/7 work!). But I'm wondering if that wasn't an option here given the bridges importance as a pedestrian connection. Close down the bridge for a year and it will be a nightmare for cars but drivers will adjust by using I-93 SB or Route 1 north and then turning around and heading through Logan or on I-90 WB. Can't really put pedestrians on the Interstate or Route 1.

EDIT: I kind of forgot about the Charles River Dam pedestrian crossing that shoots down my pedestrian argument.
Click to expand...

My suspicion is that the plan is designed to make sure you maintain emergency vehicle access to Charlestown as much as possible. Close the North Washington Street bridge for an extended period, and emergency access is going to get really dicey. Only close access is the Gilmore Bridge, and that will be slammed, or the long way around to the north.
 
On the subject of emergency access, an ambulance from anywhere in Charlestown currently has 2 routes to the MGH ED on Fruit Street. North Washington, Causway, Staniford and zig zag thru the West End or Prison Point/ Gilmore and go Cambridge off Storrow or go straight off Martha Road and zig zag. Losing access via N. Washington would potentially be a problem for a person having a stroke in parts on Charlestown
 
Scott said:
On the subject of emergency access, an ambulance from anywhere in Charlestown currently has 2 routes to the MGH ED on Fruit Street. North Washington, Causway, Staniford and zig zag thru the West End or Prison Point/ Gilmore and go Cambridge off Storrow or go straight off Martha Road and zig zag. Losing access via N. Washington would potentially be a problem for a person having a stroke in parts on Charlestown
Click to expand...

They could also go to Whidden in Everett for an emergency.
 
OEMS protocol governs the point of entry plan for different medical issues. Sometimes a small ED is not an "appropriate healthcare facility"
 
Scott said:
OEMS protocol governs the point of entry plan for different medical issues. Sometimes a small ED is not an "appropriate healthcare facility"
Click to expand...

Exactly.

MGH is a Level I Trauma Center for both adults and peds.

Whidden (CHA Everett) ED is not even rated a Trauma Center.
 
shmessy said:
Sir/Madam, if you're pining for the days of the elevated Central Artery/Sumner Tunnel vs. the O'Neil and the Ted, then you have a stunningly faulty memory.

.
Click to expand...


The TWT is ok, but the C/A is a motorist's worst nightmare!! :eek:
 
I drove in Boston in 1988 and I do in 2018. It is not nearly the same place in many many ways
 
Google Maps seems to think ``Charlestown'' (it picks a point a bit beyond the Bunker Hill Monument) to MGH Fruit St Boston is 12 minutes right now via either the N Washington St Bridge or the Leverett Circle Connector.

We might need a congestion toll to get sane travel times on the Leverett Circle Connector during rush hour, but that just becomes another argument for hurrying up with the implementation of the congestion toll.
 
Also, how many strokes happen in Charlestown during a 2 to 3 year bridge closure, and how much does keeping the bridge open to ambulances cost? It's quite possible that saving one or two Charlestown stroke patients is using transportation safety funding that could be saving a half dozen or more lives somewhere else instead if it we were more careful about calculating cost per life saved in each case.

Temporary pedestrian bridges are probably a lot cheaper than temporary vehicle bridges if your focus is pedestrian access.
 
Charlestown is accessible from basically 3 points: Sullivan Square, the Gilmore Bridge and the North Washington St Bridge. (Well, and the Rte 1/I/93 ramps.) I can easily see where shutting down one of the access points entirely was not deemed an acceptable solution.
 
Gilmore bridge to Cambridge during rush hour is a nightmare. One of the worst bottlenecks in Boston.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top