- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
If you want to continue our convo about figuring out how to eliminate the River Roads, click here.
Politically shutting down the Pike for any extended time is a non-starter, even during summer. You'd have an easier time getting the Worcester Line shut down.
If you want to continue our convo about figuring out how to eliminate the River Roads, click here.
HUH??? -- have you ever seen the traffic reports on the Pike in the winter?Just going to address the part that involves this project. Not eliminating the road, but eliminating a lane in either direction would help with the space limitations. Throw in an on and off ramp to a newly grounded Mass pike and I think you can divert traffic away from Soldiers Field Rd. Just go down to one lane West of the BU bridge and work out an overpass ramp configuration so people driving west can get on the pike and people driving east from the Pike can get on Storrow.
Looking at it again, I'm not sure as to why SFR even needs to be touched at all, unless that's part of the staging.
I agree with this. I think DOT has an obligation to be sensitive about the closure time, but it is certainly not the only variable to be optimized on. There is probably some balancing space the has reasonable project cost, reasonable project duration and low but not minimum closure time. It does not feel like that is being solved for.I think in all the plans they are assuming that minimizing the closures is a much higher priority than overall project time and overall cost. In which case you probably have to build temporary elevated highways because there isn't enough room to build a permanent structure.
I disagree with this approach when dealing with confined spaces and elevated structures, and the DOT approach in general, because to save X number of months of closures you are adding hundreds of millions to the overall cost and at least doubling the overall project time which itself increases the risk of extended disruptions every time you have to switch over to a new temporary road configuration.
If you eliminate the requirement to minimize closures and instead focus on minimizing costs and minimizing overall project time then I think you get to a much lower project cost and a much shorter project.
To me that should be your baseline project and only then should you see what you can do to minimize disruptions and examine that trade space.
I think in all the plans they are assuming that minimizing the closures is a much higher priority than overall project time and overall cost. In which case you probably have to build temporary elevated highways because there isn't enough room to build a permanent structure.
Cancelled? The viaduct needs to be replaced one way or another.
JeffDowntown -- I think there are plenty of creative solutions -- that might appear highly disruptive for a time -- But could substantially reduce the overall cost and time devoted to constructionI agree with this. I think DOT has an obligation to be sensitive about the closure time, but it is certainly not the only variable to be optimized on. There is probably some balancing space the has reasonable project cost, reasonable project duration and low but not minimum closure time. It does not feel like that is being solved for.
Another update/set of commentary in the first half of today's FMCB/MassDOT meeting today. (Starts around the 1:30 mark)
I got a pretty firm sentiment watching it that they are committed to sticking with their plan of keeping everything open throughout the project, including having the temporary SFR in the river.
Some of the slides and discussion regarding the scope of the utility relocations involved in this are worth looking over, as well as the cross-sections about the grade changes.
Comment deadline for the Federal Highway review of this project is Thursday. Comments can be emailed to I-90Allston@dot.state.ma.us
what is a handout to BU?
where in Pioneer's comment are they proposing a handout to BU?