North Washington St Bridge

dhawkins

Active Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
376
Reaction score
1,161
We basically got scheme Z; I think all that was lost was a 93 South exit to the Tobin. You have to use the Callahan thru Eastie. The southbound exit would have spanned over the Gillmore bridge and that would have been the offramp that would be noticeable at 110 feet in the air. The ironic thing is the current off ramp from 93 north to the Tobin is almost that high. And this in turn led to the decision to have the Storrow Drive extensions go under Gillmore thru Boston Sand and Gravel instead of also flying over at 110 feet.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
3,072
We basically got scheme Z; I think all that was lost was a 93 South exit to the Tobin. You have to use the Callahan thru Eastie. The southbound exit would have spanned over the Gillmore bridge and that would have been the offramp that would be noticeable at 110 feet in the air. The ironic thing is the current off ramp from 93 north to the Tobin is almost that high. And this in turn led to the decision to have the Storrow Drive extensions go under Gillmore thru Boston Sand and Gravel instead of also flying over at 110 feet.
I think the rationale for eliminating the SB 93 to Tobin Bridge ramp was that traffic could take the I-93 SB Sullivan Square exit and go down Rutherford Ave to the onramp at City Square to the Tobin. That rationale was perfect when there was an overpass over Sullivan Square, since demolished. But in any case, I think it was good to eliminate the ramp which reduced the size of the interchange.
 
Last edited:

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
3,072

fenwayboston

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Messages
7
Reaction score
3
Thanks! Some good images in there.
My pleasure. I'm always looking for anything I can find relating to the CA/T project and felt like I struck a goldmine when I found that site! So, I'm glad to be able to share!

(You'd think there would be plenty more online resources on the topic. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places?!)
 

ceo

Active Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
504
Reaction score
459
We basically got scheme Z; I think all that was lost was a 93 South exit to the Tobin.
The biggest difference between Scheme Z and what was built is under Scheme Z, all traffic between the Central Artery tunnel and Storrow Drive crossed the river and looped back around. That was replaced by the two tunnels that run under the North Station tracks.
 

statler

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
7,877
Reaction score
445
I'm confused. I'm glad they are working on this agaain but it doesn't seem like any of this work addresses the structural issues that caused the shut down in the first place. Or maybe I'm not understanding it correctly?
 

reno

New member
Joined
Apr 1, 2021
Messages
61
Reaction score
83
KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) I can't wait until the media get's a hold of this.
 

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,417
Reaction score
966
Latest I heard is that this is looking like a $40-$50M screw up and they'll be going after E&O insurance to cover it.
But which firm is responsible: the design engineers? the general contractor? a subcontractor/fabricator? And did not the Commonwealth approve the design and plans?
 

AmericanFolkLegend

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
166
But which firm is responsible: the design engineers? the general contractor? a subcontractor/fabricator? And did not the Commonwealth approve the design and plans?
If they think they have a claim against an Errors & Omissions policy then I would guess it's the design engineer. I wouldn't expect the other parties to have an E&O policy.
 

JeffDowntown

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,777
Reaction score
1,416
At that magnitude loss, this is going to be in courts for years, perhaps a decade.

We'll be luck is we see this bridge completed in our lifetime.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
3,072
At that magnitude loss, this is going to be in courts for years, perhaps a decade.

We'll be luck is we see this bridge completed in our lifetime.
I agree the money dispute will have a lengthy litigation timeline, but the bridge itself will be completed seperate from that, for political expediency. The state and city will have to pony up with the additional funds and get reimbursed later.
 

AmericanFolkLegend

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
166
I agree the money dispute will have a lengthy litigation timeline, but the bridge itself will be completed seperate from that, for political expediency. The state and city will have to pony up with the additional funds and get reimbursed later.
Charlie is right. They'll be a fight with the insurance company but the bridge will get built in the meantime. Standing pat just increases everyone's exposure.
 

real_EthanHunt

Active Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
200
am I missing something? why the post from an old announcement on work that is already done?
 

C-Town_Jeff

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Messages
37
Reaction score
69
Probably because the last post before this one was from 9/1 and the link shows the only work done since then?
Right, if the only thing to report is doing repairs to temporary bridge, then this project is going no where fast.

I did notice that it looks like they have painted the steel that is in place, but I never saw an update on that. Maybe it's been painted for awhile and I just noticed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Top