Grounding the McGrath

[Stlin]

If planned vehicle speeds are high enough to require a guard rail for feeder streets, we are leaving a lot to be desired with this design. It doesn’t seem logical to protect the frontage road while leaving only the curb for the cycle lane on the other side. The impression from the neighborhood meeting was that it is potentially a fence to prevent jaywalking.

I mean, I think discouraging jaywalking on a major corridor is generally an ok objective in service of deconfliction and especially so in the vicinity of a playground. Something like a low fence, wall or guard rail isn't particularly visually intrusive, and while it can be hopped, that's usually enough to deter. I'd also personally read "protect the frontage road" as "stop SUV drivers from seeking a convenient shortcut by driving over the median to the frontage street." Example from the Casey Overpass project, where they similarly protected the frontage street with a low wall.

Looking at the render, it's shown as a fairly low and unobtrusive fence akin to that surrounding the playground.

 

[stefal]

Definitely worth getting clarification - the "what if" render with the ADA ramp (not proposed) has a different looking fence. Maybe this is because of the pedestrian bridge, but maybe it's the intended fence:

I can appreciate a 2-3 ft fence, but if this is the intent it definitely introduces some unwanted visual separation.

There are also guardrails shown in other renderings. They're subtly included in the aerials.

The good news is that we're still developing the 25% design. Talk about an elongated design process...

 

[North Shore]

So I never noticed this in the presentation but it was pointed out in the GSNC meeting yesterday, the barrier in the median is not something we’ve seen before. The neighborhood council could not get confirmation from MassDOT or Rep Connolly as to the nature of the barrier. Could be an 8ft chain link fence or a highway median crash barrier. Either option is counterproductive to the mission of connecting the community.View attachment 61713

Given it's a conceptual plan and not an actual design one, I cannot confirm this for fact. But that symbol they use (in AutoCAD) there often is used to indicate a wood fence.

If it was intended to be guardrail, it would be right along the edge of the curb and not set back like that.

 

[KCasiglio]

I just hope the previously awarded Federal funding is still available.

I'm sure if they can find a way to claw it back, they will. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2025/04/03/us-dot-doesnt-want-to-fund-road-diets-anymore

 

[cubbe8]

In the current political climate, this project should not be marketed to the Feds as a road diet. It should be marketed as removing a structure (the highway overpass) that is functionally obsolete and has met the end of its useful life. After all, the lanes really are not being diminished by this project through the overpass area. There will still be 2 thru lanes for general traffic plus turn lanes. If the segment of McGrath Hwy without the the overpass (north of Cross Street) has to be deleted, then at least keep the segment (Cross Street to the Fitchburg Div RR) that has the overpass, so that it can be removed.

At the meeting it was said that the federal grant is just a supplement and that there is backup funding if it gets taken back.

 

[Charlie_mta]

In the current political climate, this project should not be marketed to the Feds as a road diet. It should be marketed as removing a structure (the highway overpass) that is functionally obsolete and has met the end of its useful life. After all, the lanes really are not being diminished by this project through the overpass area. There will still be 2 thru lanes for general traffic plus turn lanes. If the segment of McGrath Hwy without the the overpass (north of Cross Street) has to be deleted, then at least keep the segment (Cross Street to the Fitchburg Div RR) that has the overpass, so that it can be removed.

 

[Stlin]

To be fair, this particular project budget hasn't ballooned yet into insanity - it's programmed at ~$90M in total costs. Yes $43M in RCP Grant money makes a difference, but I believe the plan up until that award was to rely on TIP formula federal funds which aren't under threat at the moment. That said, it's not a massive lift for the state to come up with that amount of money to either spend it taking it down or maintaining it.