Bill Russell Bridge | North Washington St.

We basically got scheme Z; I think all that was lost was a 93 South exit to the Tobin. You have to use the Callahan thru Eastie. The southbound exit would have spanned over the Gillmore bridge and that would have been the offramp that would be noticeable at 110 feet in the air. The ironic thing is the current off ramp from 93 north to the Tobin is almost that high. And this in turn led to the decision to have the Storrow Drive extensions go under Gillmore thru Boston Sand and Gravel instead of also flying over at 110 feet.
 
dhawkins said:
We basically got scheme Z; I think all that was lost was a 93 South exit to the Tobin. You have to use the Callahan thru Eastie. The southbound exit would have spanned over the Gillmore bridge and that would have been the offramp that would be noticeable at 110 feet in the air. The ironic thing is the current off ramp from 93 north to the Tobin is almost that high. And this in turn led to the decision to have the Storrow Drive extensions go under Gillmore thru Boston Sand and Gravel instead of also flying over at 110 feet.
Click to expand...
I think the rationale for eliminating the SB 93 to Tobin Bridge ramp was that traffic could take the I-93 SB Sullivan Square exit and go down Rutherford Ave to the onramp at City Square to the Tobin. That rationale was perfect when there was an overpass over Sullivan Square, since demolished. But in any case, I think it was good to eliminate the ramp which reduced the size of the interchange.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
Thanks! Some good images in there.
Click to expand...

My pleasure. I'm always looking for anything I can find relating to the CA/T project and felt like I struck a goldmine when I found that site! So, I'm glad to be able to share!

(You'd think there would be plenty more online resources on the topic. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places?!)
 
dhawkins said:
We basically got scheme Z; I think all that was lost was a 93 South exit to the Tobin.
Click to expand...
The biggest difference between Scheme Z and what was built is under Scheme Z, all traffic between the Central Artery tunnel and Storrow Drive crossed the river and looped back around. That was replaced by the two tunnels that run under the North Station tracks.
 
I'm confused. I'm glad they are working on this agaain but it doesn't seem like any of this work addresses the structural issues that caused the shut down in the first place. Or maybe I'm not understanding it correctly?
 
KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) I can't wait until the media get's a hold of this.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Latest I heard is that this is looking like a $40-$50M screw up and they'll be going after E&O insurance to cover it.
Click to expand...
But which firm is responsible: the design engineers? the general contractor? a subcontractor/fabricator? And did not the Commonwealth approve the design and plans?
 
stellarfun said:
But which firm is responsible: the design engineers? the general contractor? a subcontractor/fabricator? And did not the Commonwealth approve the design and plans?
Click to expand...
If they think they have a claim against an Errors & Omissions policy then I would guess it's the design engineer. I wouldn't expect the other parties to have an E&O policy.
 
At that magnitude loss, this is going to be in courts for years, perhaps a decade.

We'll be luck is we see this bridge completed in our lifetime.
 
JeffDowntown said:
At that magnitude loss, this is going to be in courts for years, perhaps a decade.

We'll be luck is we see this bridge completed in our lifetime.
Click to expand...
I agree the money dispute will have a lengthy litigation timeline, but the bridge itself will be completed seperate from that, for political expediency. The state and city will have to pony up with the additional funds and get reimbursed later.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I agree the money dispute will have a lengthy litigation timeline, but the bridge itself will be completed seperate from that, for political expediency. The state and city will have to pony up with the additional funds and get reimbursed later.
Click to expand...
Charlie is right. They'll be a fight with the insurance company but the bridge will get built in the meantime. Standing pat just increases everyone's exposure.
 
am I missing something? why the post from an old announcement on work that is already done?
 
westend said:
Probably because the last post before this one was from 9/1 and the link shows the only work done since then?
Click to expand...

Right, if the only thing to report is doing repairs to temporary bridge, then this project is going no where fast.

I did notice that it looks like they have painted the steel that is in place, but I never saw an update on that. Maybe it's been painted for awhile and I just noticed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top