Longfellow Bridge update

Red Line shutdowns posted for this weekend & next weekend. Looks like the cutover to the new inbound trackbed & shoo-fly on inbound roadway will be happening shortly.
 
Surprised no one has posted anything about this yet, the contractor is proposing combining the stage 4 (outbound MBTA track) and stage 6 (downstream roadway & sidewalk). This will mean all modes of travel are being shifted to the upstream side of the bridge. The roadway will remain one way towards Boston from Cambridge which was put into effect earlier this month. Inbound bicycles will use the new bike lane, outbound bikes will use the upstream sidewalk which will be shared with pedestrians. The contractor estimates this will save 3 months of construction and will now be able to have "full beneficial use" by June 2018 which is ahead of the September 2018 schedule announced earlier this year.
 
matredsoxfan said:
Surprised no one has posted anything about this yet, the contractor is proposing combining the stage 4 (outbound MBTA track) and stage 6 (downstream roadway & sidewalk). This will mean all modes of travel are being shifted to the upstream side of the bridge. The roadway will remain one way towards Boston from Cambridge which was put into effect earlier this month. Inbound bicycles will use the new bike lane, outbound bikes will use the upstream sidewalk which will be shared with pedestrians. The contractor estimates this will save 3 months of construction and will now be able to have "full beneficial use" by June 2018 which is ahead of the September 2018 schedule announced earlier this year.
Click to expand...

MassDOT has confirmed Stage 4 & 6 will be combined:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation...ge-construction-stages-combined-to-save-time/

MassDOT and its contractor, White-Skanska-Consigli (WSC), are combining Stages 4 and 6 of Longfellow Bridge Project construction in August 2016 to complete the project sooner. MassDOT began the multimodal shifts to accommodate the combined stages following relocation of the Red Line trains in mid-July. All bridge users will use the upstream side to make this acceleration possible.

Under this plan, WSC will simultaneously rehabilitate the bridge under the MBTA outbound track (Stage 4) and reconstruct the downstream roadway and sidewalk (previously planned for Stage 6). With this modification, the contractor anticipates having all modes of travel in their final configuration by June 2018. This is a three-month improvement to the date that was announced in May. Stage 5 will be performed after the combined Stages 4 & 6.

View the Stage 4 & 6 Graphic for travel space configuration along the Longfellow Bridge. Learn more about Stage 4 & 6 in the Construction Updates section of the project website.

Travel Shift

To accommodate the combined construction phase, all modes of travel will use the upstream side of the bridge. The bike and pedestrian shift is scheduled for Monday, August 29.

Inbound vehicles were shifted to the upstream roadway on August 1, including adjustments to the crossover in Cambridge.
Pedestrians will use the upstream sidewalk for travel in both directions.
Inbound bicyclists will have a new 5-foot wide designated bike lane on the upstream roadway.
Outbound bicyclists will share the upstream sidewalk with pedestrians. The new upstream sidewalk is 8 feet 9 inches wide and can accommodate one bike lane and pedestrians.
While outbound cyclists may ride their bikes on the sidewalk, MassDOT asks that cyclists and pedestrians use caution and respect the rights of everyone to use public infrastructure in this temporary shared configuration.
MBTA and emergency response access across the bridge will be maintained at all times.
Visit the project website to learn more about the Stage 4 & 6 bike routes and to view the bike route maps for the Boston Approach and the Cambridge Approach.

Red Line Configuration

The construction of the temporary inbound Red Line track (called a “shoo-fly”) was completed over a series of weekends in July. The inbound trains were shifted to the shoo-fly track on the upstream roadway and the outbound trains were shifted to the newly constructed, future inbound track. This shift allows WSC to rehabilitate the bridge under the current location of the MBTA outbound tracks.

The Cambridge-bound detour remains in place using the existing signed route from Charles Circle following Charles Street to Leverett Circle, Monsignor O’Brien Highway (Route 28)/Charles River Dam Road and Land Boulevard.
Click to expand...

70gnIDk.png
 
^If they had used this approach from the start, could all the work have been done in two phases?
 
So the work on the upstream side of the bridge superstructure is complete?
 
JumboBuc said:
^If they had used this approach from the start, could all the work have been done in two phases?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. You can put all that load on the one side of the bridge now because that side is all new, reconstructed.

Try to do this with the old bridge in dilapidated condition, you are asking for a catastrophic failure. At minimum it would have been a very imprudent engineering move with all the uncertainty about the real state of the structure (you only really find out how bad something is once you tear into it for reconstruction).
 
chmeeee said:
Road and sidewalk, yes. Tracks, no (thus the temp track on the upstream side).
Click to expand...

Although the temporary tracks are on top of the new permanent substructure that will support part of the roadway in the final configuration.
 
http://www.wbur.org/morningedition/2016/09/15/longfellow-bridge-delay

But while the process may be quieter, it’s still time consuming. Rebuilding all the visible parts of the Longfellow Bridge using the historically correct technology turned out to be a big job.

And the delays in the project have led some observers in Boston to wonder whether it would have been easier just to demolish the Longfellow Bridge and start over.

“I think sometimes we sort of fetishize historical accuracy and let that impede progress,” says Tom Keane, a former Boston city councilor. “Quite frankly we could have built a brand-new bridge and done it much more quickly and it would be up and running right now.”

Keane points to the Zakim Bridge just a mile down river from the Longfellow. That cable-stayed span became an instant icon of Boston when it opened in 2003.

"You could have made a beautiful bridge that might be more reflective even of what Boston looks like now, rather than just trying to replicate the past,” says Keane, who represented Back Bay and Beacon Hill. “And that’s really what we are doing, is replicating the past.”

Sullivan, at the Cambridge Historical Commission, acknowledges that using the old fashioned riveting method did slow things down. Even though engineers recently shaved about three months off the project by closing the sidewalk on the bridge’s downstream side — giving construction crews room to work faster — the projected June 2018 completion date is still almost two years behind the original schedule.

“It’s taken longer than we expected,” Sullivan says. “But it’s just marvelous to see this thing come back together. And the engineering that’s gone into it has been really first-class.”

Sullivan predicts that when the work is over, the people of Boston and Cambridge will once again appreciate the glory of their 109-year-old bridge.

“It was nothing to be proud of for the last 50 years. It was something to be ashamed of,” Sullivan says. “But I think when it’s done, they will be proud of it.”
Click to expand...
 
I like this Keane fellow. Imagine, for example, if we'd kept the salt n pepper granite towers and just re-installed them after a new span was built.

One of the reasons "The Chinese" and "other countries" build infrastructure fast and cheap is that they're unsentimental about rusted old stuff (see also Northern Avenue Bridge)

I'm not saying we shouldn't preserve some history (or even lots of it) but we shouldn't kid ourselves: there are only two ways to do historic preservation: either be very rich and make a Disneyland/Potemkin Village of your past (eg Longfellow Bridge) or be too poor to change anything (eg Bruges Belgium 1500 - 1970)
 
Arlington said:
I like this Keane fellow. Imagine, for example, if we'd kept the salt n pepper granite towers and just re-installed them after a new span was built.

One of the reasons "The Chinese" and "other countries" build infrastructure fast and cheap is that they're unsentimental about rusted old stuff (see also Northern Avenue Bridge)

I'm not saying we shouldn't preserve some history (or even lots of it) but we shouldn't kid ourselves: there are only two ways to do historic preservation: either be very rich and make a Disneyland/Potemkin Village of your past (eg Longfellow Bridge) or be too poor to change anything (eg Bruges Belgium 1500 - 1970)
Click to expand...

How would one build a new Longfellow without disrupting Red Line service for years? It's not like you can build an adjacent bridge while keeping the old one, then demoing the old one. The alignment 70 ft. to the left or right doesn't work. Rehab of the pre-existing span was pretty much the only valid option. Ditto BU Bridge with the complexity of doing major surgery above a whole separate railroad bridge.

Boston doesn't habitually lose its damn mind over things like this. N. Washington St. bridge is coming down. Chelsea St. bridge is brand spanking new. Mass Ave./Harvard Bridge in-situ replacement was so extensive there's nothing remaining of the original span except the piers. The iconic Rolling Bridge at South Station got replaced with that ultra-utilitarian rail bridge with only a small section of the old bridge cut up and preserved in the new park as a piece of abstract art. None of the Neponset Reservation bridges have gotten any particular special treatment as they've been overchurned. The Northern Ave. histrionics are the over-the-top Disneyland exception to the rule.
 
Arlington said:
I like this Keane fellow. Imagine, for example, if we'd kept the salt n pepper granite towers and just re-installed them after a new span was built.

One of the reasons "The Chinese" and "other countries" build infrastructure fast and cheap is that they're unsentimental about rusted old stuff (see also Northern Avenue Bridge)

I'm not saying we shouldn't preserve some history (or even lots of it) but we shouldn't kid ourselves: there are only two ways to do historic preservation: either be very rich and make a Disneyland/Potemkin Village of your past (eg Longfellow Bridge) or be too poor to change anything (eg Bruges Belgium 1500 - 1970)
Click to expand...

The third option is just to take care of the shit you already have. You don't even need to be rich to do it because it's cheaper. If there's been any maintenance at all in the last 50 years there's be no issue.

And the fourth option is to rebuild/rehab in a way that's aesthetically faithful but with modern materials and methods. E.g rebuild the spandrel a with the same spcingn and dimensions, but use I beams instead. Maybe you even use some rubbercement to put rivetlike dimples on the things. And do some non-load bearing crisscross iron work with visual consistency. There are huge arguments to be had here, of course, not least about how much you can deviate/innovate until you pass a threshold and are no longer being historically faithful - but I'll admit that it doesn't seem self-evident to me that resurrectingg long-dead construction methods for this project was the best use of time and public funds? ( what if for example MassDOT took this opportunity to support the development of heavy additive manufacturing /3D printing capabilities among Boston-area contractors, which might pay dividends for years across a number of projects, rather than paying someone to invest in a low-volume f*cking riveting shop?)

And in fact a lot of those kind of choices are already included in this project. Eg the endstate lane layout (with 1 road lane Kendall-bound) has never been seen on this bridge before; and the lighting poles, I believe, will be 'inspired by' the originals, but will not be simulacra. And you can bet your ass they'll be led instead of gas mantles...

...so maybe the simplest questions that matter here are 1) how did we let this get so far gone in the first place and (b) who decided that the rivet work in the spandrels should be historically exact, when so many other things are changing? (And I think part of the answer to that is that they didn't anticipate having to do so many, and didn't do a full reconsideration of the approach as the scale was becoming clear...)
 
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley said:
How would one build a new Longfellow without disrupting Red Line service for years? It's not like you can build an adjacent bridge while keeping the old one, then demoing the old one. The alignment 70 ft. to the left or right doesn't work. Rehab of the pre-existing span was pretty much the only valid option. Ditto BU Bridge with the complexity of doing major surgery above a whole separate railroad bridge.

Boston doesn't habitually lose its damn mind over things like this. N. Washington St. bridge is coming down. Chelsea St. bridge is brand spanking new. Mass Ave./Harvard Bridge in-situ replacement was so extensive there's nothing remaining of the original span except the piers. The iconic Rolling Bridge at South Station got replaced with that ultra-utilitarian rail bridge with only a small section of the old bridge cut up and preserved in the new park as a piece of abstract art. None of the Neponset Reservation bridges have gotten any particular special treatment as they've been overchurned. The Northern Ave. histrionics are the over-the-top Disneyland exception to the rule.
Click to expand...

Well, no - the original refusal of the state to draw the bike path under the River and Western Ave Bridges was under the auspices of "these bridges are historic and must be preserved" and they're both piece of shit early 20th spans that are nothing special. Granted, the excuse is bullshit as it was undoubtedly about the money, but in a state where DCR threw a fit about preserving a crappy, inornate iron fence around Chestnut Hill Reservoir just because it's old, it appeals to many. I mean, the Anderson Bridge is a piece of shit, and shouldve been rebuilt with more lanes... just having a few cement flourishes and bricks doesnt add historic value. The N Wash Bridge is an exception to the rule of the Basin bridges, probably since it's truly nothing special. The rest have all been rebuilt so far - and will continue to be - to look the same as before.
 
Yeah agreed. I think part of the issue though is that so much of what is built new now is so trully shitty. Northern avenue bridge is nothing special for its time, but compared to the moakley? Likewise river and western are unremarkable for their time period but also pretty elegant by any standard - the Anderson however is actually pretty fugly.

I.e. Worth saving not because old and distinctive, but because they actually have elegance and character that is exceedingly rare in contemporary production. I think a lot of people fear that anything new would either be trite and faddish and mass produced and shitty. How many people wanted to keep the chestnut hill fence because they expected that the alternative would be a chain link fence that started to fall over in five years?

Oh and also fwiw the weeks bridge is fucking gorgeous and must never change.
 
The irony of Keane, who represented Beacon Hill, complaining about fetishizing historical accuracy.
 
FK4 said:
Well, no - the original refusal of the state to draw the bike path under the River and Western Ave Bridges was under the auspices of "these bridges are historic and must be preserved" and they're both piece of shit early 20th spans that are nothing special. Granted, the excuse is bullshit as it was undoubtedly about the money, but in a state where DCR threw a fit about preserving a crappy, inornate iron fence around Chestnut Hill Reservoir just because it's old, it appeals to many. I mean, the Anderson Bridge is a piece of shit, and shouldve been rebuilt with more lanes... just having a few cement flourishes and bricks doesnt add historic value. The N Wash Bridge is an exception to the rule of the Basin bridges, probably since it's truly nothing special. The rest have all been rebuilt so far - and will continue to be - to look the same as before.
Click to expand...

The North Washington Bridge is also an exception because it's outside the basin. The other bridges are an inherent part of one of Boston's great aesthetic and tourism resources. River and Western might be no great shakes from a car, but they enhance the experience from the banks and from the water.

With that said, the River St. bridge is going to need a serious rehab within the next ten years (I'm not sure whether it's better or worse to align that with the interchange work), and I'm not sure MassDOT will preserve that one.
 
chmeeee said:
I would disagree with that. I think a modern replacement that is well designed to be more than just functional could be an improvement over the aesthetics of the existing bridges.

https://goo.gl/maps/62guRyKLV8q

https://goo.gl/maps/mgXVm6MJwx82
Click to expand...

FWIW, a modern bridge wouldn't have arches. That's part of the riverscape - it's not like London, where you can build any cool thing because Tower Bridge established an unattainable level of tacky (and awesome). With the exception of Mass. Ave, the low Charles Basin bridges share an aesthetic, and we'd never build that now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top