Grounding the McGrath

It does need a diet but it's also shockingly badly maintained, the weed and garbage covered median, the broken street lights, derelict lots that dot the sides. From Highland to Mystic is like something from a developing country. MassDOT don't give a crap about these secondary roads they are supposed to manage.
It took about 3 months to get them to put a gate in to the new Foss park fence where a crosswalk went to nowhere.
They inspire no confidence.
 
Ruairi said:
It does need a diet but it's also shockingly badly maintained, the weed and garbage covered median, the broken street lights, derelict lots that dot the sides. From Highland to Mystic is like something from a developing country. MassDOT don't give a crap about these secondary roads they are supposed to manage.
It took about 3 months to get them to put a gate in to the new Foss park fence where a crosswalk went to nowhere.
They inspire no confidence.
Click to expand...

There is an opening, show them how its done! (sarcasm)
Highway Operations Internship

images

Mass Dept of Transportation
Boston, MA
 
Ruairi said:
It does need a diet but it's also shockingly badly maintained, the weed and garbage covered median, the broken street lights, derelict lots that dot the sides. From Highland to Mystic is like something from a developing country. MassDOT don't give a crap about these secondary roads they are supposed to manage.
It took about 3 months to get them to put a gate in to the new Foss park fence where a crosswalk went to nowhere.
They inspire no confidence.
Click to expand...

I would note that it's not MassDOT's job to maintain the derelict lots. The road itself is in basically the same shape as any other minor urban highway in the US.
 
Equilibria said:
I would note that it's not MassDOT's job to maintain the derelict lots. The road itself is in basically the same shape as any other minor urban highway in the US.
Click to expand...
yea, I know but part of the reason these lots are empty is due to the mess of a road they front on to. It doesn't encourage development.
Yea, they're a mess. I'm not even sure why they're not managed by cities who receive state funding.
Let MassDOT run the interstates or what ever.
'Cant turn the water on at the foss park splash pad because it's under state control' is a stupid sentence I hear every year.
I'm coming across as grumpy here but sometimes the lack of co-ordination between groups like MassDOT, the MBTA and cities is really frustrating and leads to projects that take decades and get tied up in bureaucracy while existing infrastructure rots.
 
Ruairi said:
yea, I know but part of the reason these lots are empty is due to the mess of a road they front on to. It doesn't encourage development.
Yea, they're a mess. I'm not even sure why they're not managed by cities who receive state funding.
Let MassDOT run the interstates or what ever.
'Cant turn the water on at the foss park splash pad because it's under state control' is a stupid sentence I hear every year.
I'm coming across as grumpy here but sometimes the lack of co-ordination between groups like MassDOT, the MBTA and cities is really frustrating and leads to projects that take decades and get tied up in bureaucracy while existing infrastructure rots.
Click to expand...

You have a point, but the benefit of having this owned by the State is that when it's time to ground it, there's a lot more money available.
 
Stlin said:
Grounding. It's budgeted at 102M, and given the likely complexity of the work, I don't actually think 2027 is a bad timeframe. $100 million isn't something that is queued up on short notice - even in 2019 when they announced the end of the project development phase they were noting funding would be available in 2026 or later. Further, given the amount of detail design work that still needs to be done... I'm ok with it.

View attachment 24632
Click to expand...
Are we sure they are still doing this? Some of new infrastructure they have recently changed on the flyover looks pricey and permanent.
 
Last edited:
Random comment, I've been going through the new intersection in JP where the Casey Overpass was removed. It's a disappointing outcome--it was designed for high speed, moving lots of cars (which is an important par of it's job) but it's made crossing dangerous for bikes and peds. The huge paved areas at the corners, which I assume are for car visibility, encourage speeding and make that area even more unfriendly and dangerous for other users.

I was and am a big supporter of taking down the Casey, but the final result is just not appropriate for a city neighborhood.

Maybe lessons to be learned for Somerville
 
In addition, the pedestrian signal timing is abysmal. They clearly only looked at car delay when timing the signals. If you follow the multi-stage crossings for peds and bikes, it takes FAR too long to get across the street.

MassDOT really needs to learn that slapping on sidewalks and bike lanes is not enough to make something ped/bike friendly. It needs to be thought through comprehsensively.
 
statler said:
Are we sure they are still doing this? Some of new infrastructure they have recently changed on the flyover looks pricey and permanent.
Click to expand...
Grounding the McGrath is one of those ever-receding horizon types of fantasy project. IMO, it will never happen. I'd like to see it, because I think it would help the redevelopment of the area, spurred on by the new GLX transit access nearby, but I don't think MassDOT has the will to do it.
 
statler said:
Are we sure they are still doing this? Some of new infrastructure they have recently changed on the flyover looks pricey and permanent.
Click to expand...
I assume you're referring to the resurfacing / road diet / Squire Bridge work? As I understand it, that work is basically preservation and "early action," intended to last only as long as it takes to get to the grounding. There's a whole series of interlocking projects here: The Route 28 / Route 38 (McGrath/Mystic/93) Intersection, the I93 Viaduct Preservation, McGrath Resurfacing. McGrath resurfacing is the one that's currently under construction and reducing the number of lanes from 6 to 4, and adding bike lanes, and why the Union Branch will be shut down soon for substructure replacement to Squires Bridge. That bridge, or something very similar, specifically is likely to remain even post grounding thanks to the need to cross the Fitchburg Line/ Union Sq branch and Grand Junction.

Keep in mind that the 2013 study on Grounding was actually proposing ~6 lanes through the area, and reducing it on the current McGrath to 4 means they are likely to reduce if not eliminate the demand for the grounded McGrath to carry 6 lanes as well. In fact, despite the budget for FFY27 increasing by 15 million, the overall project is expected to cost less - likely as a result of reduced scope, and it continues to feature in the TIP. In fact, that $15M is specifically included with a note to accelerate the project timeline. Ultimately though, its a 4 year project (presumably including design, permitting and bidding) starting in FFY27 probably CY28, I would expect what they're building now to be used at least through the end of the decade.

1694109051049.png
,
1694110121324.png
 
Last edited:
Mostly I was referring to the rather substantial new concrete walls that line the flyover. I would have assumed that regular jersey barriers would have sufficed if they knew it was all coming down in <10 years. But perhaps it is a regulations thing.

Edit: Or it could be an engineering thing. There could be some reason that jersey barriers wouldn't have worked here, even temporarily.
 
Last edited:
www.bostonglobe.com

Meeting scheduled to update residents about grounding the elevated portion of McGrath Highway - The Boston Globe

The long-awaited grounding of a portion of the McGrath Highway will be discussed at a public information meeting Feb. 13.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

Plans to remove the overpass and replace it with “McGrath Boulevard,” a tree-lined, pedestrian-friendly roadway at ground level, will be discussed at a virtual public hearing to update residents on the project’s status. The meeting is set to take place Feb. 13, at 6:30 p.m.

At the meeting, officials from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the project’s lead, plan to “provide the public with the opportunity to become fully acquainted with the proposed roadway reconstruction project,” which is slated to break ground in the next three years.
Click to expand...
According to an announcement promoting the upcoming meeting, which Connolly shared on social media this week, the project is advancing into the 25 percent design phase.
Click to expand...

The link to the meeting:

Somerville - Roadway reconstruction project on McGrath Hwy (Route 28)

A Live Virtual Public Informational Meeting will be hosted to present the design for the proposed Roadway Reconstruction project on McGrath Hwy in Somerville, MA.
www.mass.gov www.mass.gov
 
LexSEDotVille said:
www.bostonglobe.com

Meeting scheduled to update residents about grounding the elevated portion of McGrath Highway - The Boston Globe

The long-awaited grounding of a portion of the McGrath Highway will be discussed at a public information meeting Feb. 13.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com




The link to the meeting:

Somerville - Roadway reconstruction project on McGrath Hwy (Route 28)

A Live Virtual Public Informational Meeting will be hosted to present the design for the proposed Roadway Reconstruction project on McGrath Hwy in Somerville, MA.
www.mass.gov www.mass.gov
Click to expand...
The meeting flyer says 25% design by the end of the year.
I hope MassDOT picks up the pace after that. 🙄
 
I was able to attend the meeting. A big question that arose for me was: why fill the existing right-of-way with more road infrastructure (medians, verges, parallel frontage/local access roads, and long driveway access cuts) just cause there's the space to?

A lot of what was shown seems to aim to keep the existing width of the corridor, doing little to stitch back together the urban fabric it tore through upon construction. Why not cede some of the remaining space after the road diet + bike lanes + bus infra. to development that's better in scale with the scale of the McGrath corridor? Upzone abutters and yield some of the corridor to create space for development. Development along the corridor (of a denser variety) would help shield the surrounding quiet neighborhoods from traffic noise and direct exhaust, while better framing the wide Blvd., and would help stich together the surrounding neighborhoods.

The presenters highlighted the new 'green space' that was being created, but... it's still going to be alongside or in the middle of regular McGrath traffic volume and speeds...

Here are the main 'design' slides I captured from the meeting:
Screenshot 2024-02-13 at 18.53.09.png

Screenshot 2024-02-13 at 18.55.42.png

Screenshot 2024-02-13 at 19.00.13.png

Screenshot 2024-02-13 at 19.04.14.png

Screenshot 2024-02-13 at 19.06.24.png
 
LexSEDotVille said:
I was able to attend the meeting. A big question that arose for me was: why fill the existing right-of-way with more road infrastructure (medians, verges, parallel frontage/local access roads, and long driveway access cuts) just cause there's the space to?

A lot of what was shown seems to aim to keep the existing width of the corridor, doing little to stitch back together the urban fabric it tore through upon construction. Why not cede some of the remaining space after the road diet + bike lanes + bus infra. to development that's better in scale with the scale of the McGrath corridor? Upzone abutters and yield some of the corridor to create space for development. Development along the corridor (of a denser variety) would help shield the surrounding quiet neighborhoods from traffic noise and direct exhaust, while better framing the wide Blvd., and would help stich together the surrounding neighborhoods.

The presenters highlighted the new 'green space' that was being created, but... it's still going to be alongside or in the middle of regular McGrath traffic volume and speeds...

Here are the main 'design' slides I captured from the meeting:
View attachment 47604
View attachment 47605
View attachment 47606
View attachment 47607
View attachment 47608
Click to expand...
Funny how you mentioned bus infrastructure, because it looks like bus lanes are entirely missing from this design. Especially when the T plans to introduce a BRT route SL6 that runs via this section of McGrath, citing the redesign process as part of the consideration, and said "almost the entirety of this alternative would operate on dedicated bus lanes".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top