North Station, Charles River Draw, & Tower A

Would it even be that bad if someone refused to listen? Given its a vertical lift, worst case they get a elevator ride.
 
So is that style of draw bridge cheaper to construct and maintain?
 
GW2500 said:
So is that style of draw bridge cheaper to construct and maintain?
Click to expand...
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.
 
stick n move said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.”
Click to expand...
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.
 
HenryAlan said:
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.
Click to expand...
^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..."
 
Last edited:
-Good news overall, but a few things wont be making it.

“An MBTA spokesperson confirmed that the federal funds committed on Monday will give the T enough money T to replace the drawbridge, but other elements of the project – including signal upgrades, the replacement control tower, and new station tracks at North Station – still need additional funding.”

“MBTA officials say that the new bridge likely won't include a new pedestrian crossing to connect North Bank Park in Cambridge to Nashua Street Park in Boston – an idea that dates to the 1995 "New Charles River Basin Master Plan."”

https://mass.streetsblog.org/2024/0...rant-for-north-station-drawbridge-replacement
 
I am still not convinced that this project rounds up to half a billion dollars.
 
stefal said:
$1.1 billion
Click to expand...
As discussed upthread: a complete failure of leadership communication.
Any project proposed in that ballpark ought to be accompanied by a detailed inventory of what's included, with extensive graphics. Hell, it's the digital age, post a link to shittons of details. In this day and age, there is no excuse for saying "give me a billion" sorry I'll explain later. Throw it at people, and if they don't get it, so what. At least you're respecting what you're asking for and holding yourself accountable.

For instance, from The Globe yesterday:
[The bridge] will also be made more climate resilient by raising it above projected sea-level rise.
Click to expand...

What is that? Is it raising the entire trackbed and dozens of switches all around the bridge? Or somehow just the bridge itself? Could ya share a freaking annotated sketch. We're actually multiple years into this project, you cannot tell me there isn't at least sketch of whatever that is. How is it not relevant to helping the public understand how you're going to spend a billion?
 
Sadly, they don’t publish books of plans (or their PDFs) like they did with the Big Dig. Some combination of design/build and “security” concern did that in.
 
RandomWalk said:
Sadly, they don’t publish books of plans (or their PDFs) like they did with the Big Dig. Some combination of design/build and “security” concern did that in.
Click to expand...
They still do, for things that the public wants to get deep into and generate public debate - see the thousand page PDFs that were published for GLX, or the extensive documentation that's so far been generated for SCR, Allston Multimodal and the Cape Bridges, or even concepts like Red-Blue or NSRL. It's just these "smaller" "maintenance" projects don't draw public attention the same way, even as they cost an eye watering amount of money. The Big Dig on the other hand is basically synonymous with megaproject, and it generated vast amounts of debate and analysis, while No one other than transit nerds or government efficiency advocates (us) really cares about something like Draw 1, Tower 1 or a billion dollars in bridge, tunnel, power and other infrastructure work beyond how it'll affect their own commute.

For Draw 1, I sincerely doubt they got much of an audience at their June public hearing for example. I suspect we'll only see outline drawings as part of required filings and public notice, but we'll get more details as it moves through the permitting process - most of those big dig plans were generated as part of EIS filings, after all.
 
Last edited:
Yes but...
I'm not referring to detailed technical information, or even quasi-technical hundred page pdfs. I'm referring to a basic set of layperson-legible graphics that outlets like the Globe can post in their stories. What limited graphics/video they have posted do not do a good job explaining the scope of the project to the public. This is a leadership issue, not a technical issue. For projects like this, someone with an eye for public communication needs to recognize there's an understanding gap here, and take steps to mitigate it. I agree that the public doesn't care much about under-the-radar maintenance projects, but this is not that. Even just the fact that it is being referred to in headlines as a drawbridge replacement project (when clearly it is more than that) is a PR misstep. Where's the robust press kit?
 
bigpicture7 said:
Yes but...
I'm not referring to detailed technical information, or even quasi-technical hundred page pdfs. I'm referring to a basic set of layperson-legible graphics that outlets like the Globe can post in their stories. What limited graphics/video they have posted do not do a good job explaining the scope of the project to the public. This is a leadership issue, not a technical issue. For projects like this, someone with an eye for public communication needs to recognize there's an understanding gap here, and take steps to mitigate it. I agree that the public doesn't care much about under-the-radar maintenance projects, but this is not that. Even just the fact that it is being referred to in headlines as a drawbridge replacement project (when clearly it is more than that) is a PR misstep. Where's the robust press kit?
Click to expand...
Expanding on this a bit, just from reading the news stories and press releases, I can't even really tell why they're replacing the bridges. Everyone says the bridges are old, but I can't find why that's a problem. I'd think this might shave minutes off a typical CR trip, but maybe not, and no one is saying either way. The T is saying this increases capacity at North Station, but no one is saying capacity is a problem. This opens up a couple platforms at North Station, but no explanation how that improves anyone's commute. I'd believe this is required for Regional Rail, but again, maybe not. I'm not doubting the bridge replacement is necessary, but I wish they were more clearly communicating, really practically, how this improves transit for people. I really want someone to clearly say "When the bridges are replaced, we can and will run more trains."

But someone here ought to know. Why are we replacing the bridges? How does this help?
 
ritchiew said:
Expanding on this a bit, just from reading the news stories and press releases, I can't even really tell why they're replacing the bridges. Everyone says the bridges are old, but I can't find why that's a problem. I'd think this might shave minutes off a typical CR trip, but maybe not, and no one is saying either way. The T is saying this increases capacity at North Station, but no one is saying capacity is a problem. This opens up a couple platforms at North Station, but no explanation how that improves anyone's commute. I'd believe this is required for Regional Rail, but again, maybe not. I'm not doubting the bridge replacement is necessary, but I wish they were more clearly communicating, really practically, how this improves transit for people. I really want someone to clearly say "When the bridges are replaced, we can and will run more trains."

But someone here ought to know. Why are we replacing the bridges? How does this help?
Click to expand...
I believe I read on one of the old presentations that the machinery is obsolete and very hard to maintain in working condition
 
ritchiew said:
Expanding on this a bit, just from reading the news stories and press releases, I can't even really tell why they're replacing the bridges. Everyone says the bridges are old, but I can't find why that's a problem. I'd think this might shave minutes off a typical CR trip, but maybe not, and no one is saying either way. The T is saying this increases capacity at North Station, but no one is saying capacity is a problem. This opens up a couple platforms at North Station, but no explanation how that improves anyone's commute. I'd believe this is required for Regional Rail, but again, maybe not. I'm not doubting the bridge replacement is necessary, but I wish they were more clearly communicating, really practically, how this improves transit for people. I really want someone to clearly say "When the bridges are replaced, we can and will run more trains."

But someone here ought to know. Why are we replacing the bridges? How does this help?
Click to expand...
^Yes! What's the how-does-it-affect-Joe-Public narrative? What are the scope components of the project that improve our lives?

Longfellow said:
I believe I read on one of the old presentations that the machinery is obsolete and very hard to maintain in working condition
Click to expand...
^ I have read this too. But this overly simple reason is precisely what I am saying is an insufficient narrative here. It's not a basic drop-in replacement due to obsolescence. If that's all it were, the price tag is offensive to the public. For instance: why are they going to 3 spans instead of two? Six tracks instead of four? Why/how are they raising the elevation for climate resilience? What impact does it have to the surrounding trackage, and will it improve commute times/frequencies?

The "we're just replacing the old draw machinery" narrative really doesn't work / makes little sense.
 
The MBTA does a horrible job talking about this, but all the questions being asked about all the costs associated with the North Station Draw One replacement are discussed in the 12 pages of AB preceding this one.

Yes, you need the 6 track spans to get to Regional Rail frequencies (along with expanded platforms at North Station)
To make the 6 track spans work you need to do substantial work on the track and signal system on both sides of the spans.
To get to Regional Rail frequencies you need to consolidate yard control in a replacement for Control Tower A (totally out of service today).
To maintain current service levels you need to get a new span online ASAP so that you can start replacing the old spans without having to seriously curtail North Station service (2 track is not cutting it).
 
Last edited:
JeffDowntown said:
The MBTA does a horrible job talking about this, but all the questions being asked about all the costs associate with the North Station Draw One replacement are discussed in the 12 pages of AB preceding this one.

Yes, you need the 6 track spans to get to Regional Rail frequencies (along with expanded platforms at North Station)
To make the 6 track spans work you need to do substantial work on the track and signal system on both sides of the spans.
To get to Regional Rail frequencies you need to consolidate yard control in a replacement for Control Tower A (totally out of service today).
To maintain current service levels you need to get a new span online ASAP so that you can start replacing the old spans without having to seriously curtail North Station service (2 track is not cutting it).
Click to expand...
Yes, for sure; to clarify, my questions above were rhetorical. I know most of that from this forum. The rhetorical questions were meant to illustrate gaps in the public narrative about the project.
 
The detailed technical drawings are the necessary primary source material for knowledgeable reporters to digest into articles and infographics for laypeople. That they are useful to nerds in the general public is a secondary benefit.

Sadly, reporting these days consists of republishing press releases verbatim, or running them through LLM text extrusion apps.
 
bigpicture7 said:

Mass. wins $472 million in federal money for replacing North Station Draw One Bridge​

www.bostonglobe.com

Mass. wins $472 million in federal money for replacing North Station Draw One Bridge - The Boston Globe

The MBTA has won its largest federal award to date toward replacing the bridge that connects Boston and Cambridge.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
Click to expand...
I think it should have been made a tunnel. That way it would be the right elevation to form part of a future North-South Rail Link.

To make a drawbridge conflicts again with so called future MBTA promises. Like- Didn't the MBTA say in future they wanted to electrify?
In a tunnel they could have put in the provisions for that to be done cheaper down the line. But now as a drawbridge in future they'l have to add provision for overhead wires on a bridge that opens? Adding more complexity than necessary to the morning commute. They could have under-grounded all the switches and everything and gotten them out of the weather at the same time.

Oh well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top