North Station, Charles River Draw, & Tower A

[Stlin]

Would it even be that bad if someone refused to listen? Given its a vertical lift, worst case they get a elevator ride.

 

[GW2500]

So is that style of draw bridge cheaper to construct and maintain?

 

[JeffDowntown]

So is that style of draw bridge cheaper to construct and maintain?

Vertical Lift Draws are generally considered cheaper to design and construct. I am not sure of the maintenance aspects (all draws have a lot of maintenance concerns).

Vertical Life Draws are particularly preferred for rail draw bridges, because it is easier to design for the heavy load of rail traffic.

 

[HenryAlan]

This is something all of us on here anecdotally understand but its good to see it spelled out through the research. We see the exact same thing with every single project in this city having to go through years and years of community review, cutting off floors, reducing units, more community review, lawsuits…etc. It all adds up. Since the days of no community review weve gone waaaaay too far in the other direction and its absolutely jacking up the cost of every single thing we try to build in this country.

Perhaps we've gone too far, but it's worth re-quoting this portion of the article:

“There have been many good impacts of this, in the 1960s the U.S. bulldozed neighborhoods, they were often low-income neighborhoods, in ways that were very destructive,” Liscow told CT Insider. “Now we have a different regime with its own costs.”

My interpretation with this (and I agree), is that we didn't properly account for the costs back in the day. Big projects that are significantly disruptive should go through a lengthy (and expensive) review and approval process, which is preferable to running roughshod over less fortunate stakeholders.

 

[bigpicture7]

Perhaps we've gone too far, but it's worth re-quoting this portion of the article:

My interpretation with this (and I agree), is that we didn't properly account for the costs back in the day. Big projects that are significantly disruptive should go through a lengthy (and expensive) review and approval process, which is preferable to running roughshod over less fortunate stakeholders.

^Yes, 100%, but: what goes hand-in-hand with that is properly framing the project's real scope for the public. It is, frankly, irresponsible to refer to it simply as: "replacing a bridge: $1billion"

To this day, as a quasi-layperson here, I am still trying to figure out what the heck this project meaningfully does/doesn't include. Substantive environmental mitigation and climate resiliency measures? Lots of new track, switches, etc, throughout the North Station terminal district? A bunch of associated electronics? Enabling more concurrent train berthing at NS? Some work laying the groundwork for other future improvements? Does it improve compatibility with network electrification? It is not just: swap out rusty old bridge for functionally equivalent drop-in replacement.

Don't get me wrong, I am not excusing irresponsible scope bloat (which is its own topic). I am just saying that there's almost no effort here to frame the holistic value of the project for the public, which is inexcusable since, regardless of what one's political orientation is, a 10-figure public works project has substantial public informedness obligation to it. This is what people hate about technocracy: the hubris of "trust me, it's a big, expensive project, you wouldn't understand the details..."