Bill Russell Bridge | North Washington St.

Why not erect an adjacent temporary span like they did during this project:

20070920__8-bridges-20~p2.jpg


Here are some neat in-process photos of the temporary span construction.

Installation of a temporary river span will allow repairs to landmark Tyngsboro Bridge.

Work crews installed a 650-foot temporary bridge across the Merrimack River as part of a Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) effort to repair the Tyngsboro Bridge, a 70-year-old landmark near the New Hampshire border.

Atlantic Bridge & Engineering Inc., Salisbury, Mass., assembled a Mabey Panel Bridge on the east side of the [site]. The bridge will rest on a temporary abutment and four piers built by the $4.75-million project's general contractor, SPS New England, also of Salisbury.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Scott said:
I drove in Boston in 1988 and I do in 2018. It is not nearly the same place in many many ways
Click to expand...

+1.

I have no idea what movie Jahvon09 is watching, but it isn't the same one anyone who has driven Boston in both eras has experienced.

My guess it that he/she is a Gen-Z who has absolutely no clue what the elevated Central Artery was like.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Why not erect an adjacent temporary span...
Click to expand...

On the southern end of the span, it's really tight for an adjacent temporary bridge. I do think a one-lane temporary bridge for emergency vehicles only could fit in, and is necessary given the jammed-up traffic on the other open routes.
 
Charlie_mta said:
On the southern end of the span, it's really tight for an adjacent temporary bridge. I do think a one-lane temporary bridge for emergency vehicles only could fit in, and is necessary given the jammed-up traffic on the other open routes.
Click to expand...

It seems it would maybe/possibly fit on the side with the tennis courts (def. not the other side)? Of course the project would temporarily have to commandeer land there and probably at the parking lot of the residence inn on the other shore. I just think it's worth exploring (and maybe it has been) given the egregious time currently slated for this bridge re-build to take. It is, of course, a totally different context than the tyngsboro example (e.g., urban vs. totally not urban), but the example case was a non-trivial 650' span across the merrimack. The construction/break-down of the temp bridge went really smoothly there...they even demolished the temporary concrete piers and abutments afterwards.
 
Last edited:
bigpicture7 said:
It seems it would maybe/possibly fit on the side with the tennis courts (def. not the other side)? Of course the project would temporarily have to commandeer land there and probably at the parking lot of the residence inn on the other shore. I just think it's worth exploring (and maybe it has been) given the egregious time currently slated for this bridge re-build to take.
Click to expand...

I say, why not rebuild the old Beverly St bridge over the Dam first, as a permanent span, and then re do the NW bridge. Once that's done the Bev bridge can turn into a pedestrian-only crossing. And maybe the bus lane. #crazypitches
 
shmessy said:
+1.

I have no idea what movie Jahvon09 is watching, but it isn't the same one anyone who has driven Boston in both eras has experienced.

My guess it that he/she is a Gen-Z who has absolutely no clue what the elevated Central Artery was like.
Click to expand...

Yup, kids these days they don't value a dollah. Don't like chewing but they sure can swallah

Seriously, I didn't intend to diminish another members' opinion but to express my opinion that driving in Boston today is actually easier than before the Big Dig. However the Big Dig was not and is not without its flaws.
I like the design for the new NW bridge and I don't see any other reasonable alternative for replacing the old one.
 
Scott said:
Yup, kids these days they don't value a dollah. Don't like chewing but they sure can swallah

Seriously, I didn't intend to diminish another members' opinion but to express my opinion that driving in Boston today is actually easier than before the Big Dig. However the Big Dig was not and is not without its flaws.
I like the design for the new NW bridge and I don't see any other reasonable alternative for replacing the old one.
Click to expand...

Amen. Does it have flaws? Sure.

But I challenge anyone to seriously state it wasn't worth every (bloated) penny.

21st century Boston is not 21st century Boston without it. This city would have been angling downward. The traffic choke would have suffocated any possible development by this point.

Blessings to this new NW Bridge. We need more stent procedures to keep the heart of Boston pumping and thriving.
 
shmessy said:
Amen. Does it have flaws? Sure.

But I challenge anyone to seriously state it wasn't worth every (bloated) penny.

21st century Boston is not 21st century Boston without it. This city would have been angling downward. The traffic choke would have suffocated any possible development by this point.

Blessings to this new NW Bridge. We need more stent procedures to keep the heart of Boston pumping and thriving.
Click to expand...

If Boston spent half of what they did and turned I93 into a Blvd and created a NSRL with more frequent transit service i'd argue that economic growth would be even better then it is today.

San Francisco tore down their elevated highway and they're certainly not hurting economically.
 
tysmith95 said:
If Boston spent half of what they did and turned I93 into a Blvd and created a NSRL with more frequent transit service i'd argue that economic growth would be even better then it is today.

San Francisco tore down their elevated highway and they're certainly not hurting economically.
Click to expand...

That's because their elevated freeway was a spur route that basically functioned as an onramp. Try tearing down I-80/US-101 and see what happens there.

...but we've had this argument many, many times.
 
Equilibria said:
That's because their elevated freeway was a spur route that basically functioned as an onramp. Try tearing down I-80/US-101 and see what happens there.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. In SF they tore down a stub freeway that went nowhere. In contrast, Boston's Central Artery is the sole north-south expressway through the city, tying together several expressways into it.
 
Imagine a world where the Central Artery was a surface road. Just off the top of my head, the waterfront would be blocked off for generations the traffic lights would be enough to bring the region to it's knees and a good bit of the Bulfinch Triangle would still have to be a ramp to the Charles River crossing
 
Overnight Off-Peak Lane Closures for N. Washington Street Bridge Begin in October

MassDOT is reminding the public that work-related activities, including utility operations, are beginning this month on the N. Washington Street bridge connecting the North End and Charlestown. This utility work will involve overnight off-peak lane closures.
Click to expand...

Major construction will begin in Spring 2019. At that time, it is expected that motorists will have access to two travel lanes in the inbound direction toward the North End, and one outbound lane toward Charlestown, and pedestrian and cyclist access will be maintained. This excludes periods when there will be one lane in each direction, to allow the crews to demolish a portion of the main truss span and replace it with a temporary span.
Click to expand...
 
2 in 1 out is effectively how it operates now anyways.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Why not erect an adjacent temporary span like they did during this project:

20070920__8-bridges-20~p2.jpg


Here are some neat in-process photos of the temporary span construction.
Click to expand...

Hah, apparently these project planners read aB to get ideas (jk!!)

New Globe article today:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...his-new-fix/qxwrqOtm6b45frxO30RrMM/story.html

...now state officials say they will build a temporary, three-lane bridge over the Charles River, next to the existing century-old structure, beginning early next year. The “no-frills” structure will take about one year to build, said John McInerney, director of the highway department’s Boston region, and will allow the state to always maintain at least three lanes of traffic throughout the entire construction period.
Click to expand...
 
^ because building a new set of piers in the ocean for a very, very long span is extremely difficult and expensive. Plus, the LI closure was urgent/immediate.

Here: calmer, shallower waters...shorter span...more reasonable to erect temporary bridge.

Also, according to the Globe article, they're using a neat hybrid approach for North Washington:
Most likely, the temporary structure will merge into the existing bridge on the downtown side of the Charles, McInerney said. That will allow the contractor to accelerate work on the old bridge, cutting the overall construction time by six months. Crews have already begun working to remove and replace the utilities across the old bridge, and will dismantle and replace the bridge in stages, beginning next year.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top