General Infrastructure

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
6,404
Reaction score
1,273
With these situations right of way falls to who was there first. Since the water was there first they have right of way. I found this out reading about the portal bridge on the northeast corridor that has to also raise for boats and backs up the trains. Thats why in that case theyre building a taller fixed bridge.
Dot Yacht's got moorings for 160+ boats, which is a pretty substantial amount of traffic. Way more than a "few dozen members". While most of the boats are slim-profile enough to slip under the bridge in the closed position making openings not too frequent a traffic snarl, on utilization there's no way you can look Day Basin maritime traffic in the face and say the draw is unnecessary or needs to go for the betterment of car traffic. If that isn't a busy enough waterway to traffic-share an inlet, what is?

And it's not like you can raise Morrissey all that much more to make for a fixed bridge. There's already a plenty stiff upgrade coming out from under the 93 overpass. Going taller may be in the realm of feasibility, but the end result would be one hella steep hill with a high-speed offramp merge at its steepest slope so there are a whole lot of other road-design problems with this stretch of MDC-era dysfunctionway more pressing for troubleshoots as first order of business than prioritizing a maximally fugly kludge around the draw.
 

JeffDowntown

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,108
Reaction score
268
It is also federal law (33 U.S. Code § 499. Regulations for drawbridges) that the water based traffic has the right-of-way. Basically boats were plying navigable waters before cars were on roads, so the boat traffic was viewed as more important than land vehicles when the US code was written. (You think of the drawbridge as an impediment to your car trip, but the US Code views the road over the navigable water as an impediment to important marine traffic; perhaps archaic, but you need to get the law changed to fix it.)

The Coast Guard is allowed to make accommodations in schedule to try to minimize the disruption of the land traffic, but the water based traffic always wins the argument.
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
4,468
Reaction score
581
Basically boats were plying navigable waters before cars were on roads, so the boat traffic was viewed as more important than land vehicles when the US code was written.
It works the same way with railroads and streets: whichever "was there first" is generally not responsible for the costs and trouble that the other mode incurs in crossing.
 

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
149
Reaction score
29
I still don't get why MassDot is shooting themselves in the foot re: East-West rail. It's an incredibly cheap project (at the "minium build" end) that has the possibility to score them huge political points in the state legislature, a place where they need all the votes they can get (especially with more big highway projects in Boston coming up).

Why on earth are they sandbagging a project that seems like it could be such a big political win for them? Am I misunderstanding the situation here?
Charlie Baker has no vision.
 

chmeeee

Active Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
302
Reaction score
30
The top left corner of the image is a serious problem. Theres no deflection, and none of them are yielding
I think the alignment problem is substantially worsened by the interim construction markings with a single wide lane, which masks the geometry. The final design with two lanes will have significantly more deflection (and hopefully clearer yield line markings).
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
6,404
Reaction score
1,273
I'd never seen these posted before on the MBTA site, they now have some pretty comprehensive design guidelines posted for the public for all different modes, I figured some of us armchair (and real) engineers in here would be interested: https://www.mbta.com/engineering/design-standards-and-guidelines
CR design standards is a good one, because that includes all the specs about vertical/horizontal clearances, allowable ascent/descent grades, and treatment of the protected freight clearance routes on the system. This is the one I ref whenever citing geometric constrictions on a (Crazy or devil-in-details Not Crazy) Purple Line Transit Pitch.

CR stations/parking design standards is also a good one for enumerating the accessibility requirements of all aspects of a station...including things like egress slope and parking/sidewalk-area accessibility that, in real terms, end up causing more non-accessibility violations than the actual platforms that take up lion's share of attention. Also contains the actual verbiage (see p. 2.6) that sets the T's 800 ft./9-car default standard platform length (oft-cited for aB postings), amongst other standards.

The accessibility stuff is crucial because the Mass Architectural Board holds the line on some of the toughest state-level accessibility regs in the country, going well beyond the Federal ADA. Those docs spell out all the places where MA supersets the fed rules.
 

North Shore

Active Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
145
Reaction score
41
I'd never seen these posted before on the MBTA site, they now have some pretty comprehensive design guidelines posted for the public for all different modes, I figured some of us armchair (and real) engineers in here would be interested: https://www.mbta.com/engineering/design-standards-and-guidelines
I have copies of these in my office. I needed to recreate some Commuter Rail wayfinder signs for a roadway project was I working on and my contact at the T physically mailed me a copy of the 77 standards. Couldn't have been nicer to deal with.
 

Top