Northern Avenue Bridge Fort Point Channel

[whighlander]

What's wrong about a street over water for people who are not in cars? for people in cars it's just not very useful. For people on foot it offers great connections; for people on bikes it has an opportunity (if Boston ever builds some separated bike facilities on Atlantic) to offer a great connection to the Connect Historic Boston cycle track on Commercial St to help get people to the North End, North Station and perhaps beyond. No need to rebuild an 80' wide bridge just for pedestrians and cyclists - the North Bank bridge is only 15' wide.

Comparing "Old Northern Ave" to Dorchester Ave is just plain idiotic - Dot Ave is 5 continuous miles from Dorchester lower mills to Summer St, Old Northern Ave is just a 1/3 mile long dog leg off of Seaport Boulevard.

RandomGear -- the length of a street is not the relevant factor

Old Northern Avenue happens to be the address of the US District Court, the principle route to Vertex Pharmaceuticals, the principal access to/from the Fan Pier Development, address of Goodwin Procter, and the principal access to the Pier 4 Development

I'd say that the above is a fairly important collection of nodes which are interconnected by Old Northern Avenue. Unfortunately, when you get to the Sleeper Street end -- all of that traffic has to make the left onto Sleeper and then a right to merge into the Seaport Blvd traffic flowing across the Moakley Bridge

The planners worry about "Resiliency" and things like some future Sandy-like storm -- but what they should concentrate on to insure successful growth of the district is Metcalfe's Law about Networks and the power of interconnections

A lot of the problems which are now front and center could have been nipped in the bud if the BRA, Mass DOT, etc., had done a bit more to insure that the new developments and the old street grid were interconnected.

Northern Ave, Seaport Blvd and the Piers as they were / are being developed should have had streets that extended from the water all the way to Congress Street:

Fan Pier Blvd should have continued across to Summer Street and connected with Thompson Place

Courthouse Way should have similarly continued through and connected with Farnsworth St.

But beyond this, you missed the major point about why I mentioned Dorchester Ave -- it has to be connected into the network at A Street through reopening the segment along the USPS facility

And just as importantly all future development of the old warehouse areas and parking lots over the coming decade have to be interconnected as if the area was a city not just a bunch of warehouses and parking lots

Note that maximizing interconnected streets will also improve the pedestrian and bicycle ethos as well as the automobile experience

 

[Randomgear]

Whiggy, I agree with you about Dot Ave. But olde Northern Ave absolutely not. I suspect Vertex and other companies knew that the existing bridge couldn't handle cars anymore and yet they still built there. And besides, if the highly profitable corporations along olde Northern Ave thought that an automobile bridge was needed so that they could be even more profitable they could easily build it themselves; Lord knows Mahty would let them do it for the promise of union jobs if nothing else.

 

[tangent]

Whiggy, I agree with you about Dot Ave. But olde Northern Ave absolutely not. I suspect Vertex and other companies knew that the existing bridge couldn't handle cars anymore and yet they still built there. And besides, if the highly profitable corporations along olde Northern Ave thought that an automobile bridge was needed so that they could be even more profitable they could easily build it themselves; Lord knows Mahty would let them do it for the promise of union jobs if nothing else.

Yes, there hasn't been a car bridge there for years. There are already 3 bridges over ft point channel and a tunnel. The Seaport is very well connected already.

 

[tysmith95]

^two tunnels if you include the Silver Line.

 

[CSTH]

Beside restoring Northern Avenue -- Dorchester Avenue needs to be opened and a connection across the various bridge streets [e.g.] Summer] all the way to Dorchester Ave needs to be established

Think of all the fucking FREEDOM we could have if we only had more streets over water

 

[falcon42]

What is the latest on this? The Coast Guard had been saying this was an imminent threat to collapse LAST WINTER...fast forward a year and its still standing and it does not look like its coming down before this winter.

 

[West]

What is the latest on this? The Coast Guard had been saying this was an imminent threat to collapse LAST WINTER...fast forward a year and its still standing and it does not look like its coming down before this winter.

I've been wondering if the media reported this correctly. I tried to find a link to the actual letter from the Coast Guard to the City saying "take it down". I'm wondering if they didn't actually say something along the lines of "remove it from over the two navigable waterways." That's what the USCG cares about in this situation: keeping waterways unobstructed, and they care about that with extreme prejudice. Yeah, even itty bitty little waterways with minimal traffic like this channel.

So now, the operable portion of the bridge is in the open position, which puts that operable section over a space of water that is mostly blocked off by pilings. Someone - USCG? City? - has installed additional orange barriers where pilings are missing. At this point, it looks like it'd be pretty hard to squeeze a sea kayak in under there.

Given how that operable span is constructed, I would estimate with some confidence that if it failed catastrophically, the remnants would fall into the blocked-off water directly below. Most likely failure would seem to be the longitudinal beams giving way, first one, then the others as stress is added to them. If one longitudinal beam failed, I'd expect to see all the others fail in rapid succession, perhaps looking damn near simultaneous to any observer not equipped with slo-mo replay. So it'd break in half and fall in two pieces, probably ending up at slant angles. This would cause no impedance to the waterways on either side. I can't see how it could fall over to the side into one of the waterways. Likewise, if the other two inoperable spans fell, I can't see how they'd do anything other than just sag straight down into the parts of the channel that the USCG doesn't care about (or doesn't care about as urgently).

So if the Coast Guard order was really along the lines of "remove it from above the waterways and keep it removed from there", then once the thing was cranked into full open position, and once the City had provided CG with appropriate assurances that it'd stay that way until relocated or demolished, I could imagine the Coast Guard fairly saying to itself "our job here is done."

Or alternatively, perhaps the Coast Guard did really say "remove the bridge entirely", then later the City convinced them that "look how it is here in the locked-open position, it couldn't fall into the waterways if it tried", and the Coast Guard said, in effect, "yeah, OK, that's good enough", and the media just never followed up.

Setting aside the media's reporting, as the thing now sits, I don't see a risk to the navigable waterways. If so, any pressure from the Coast Guard might be off. In which case we should all get accustomed to seeing it sitting there in the open position for a long time.

 

[stellarfun]

The Corps of Engineers is involved, as are other parties, public and private. From six months ago.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...-plan-limbo/Ha0q4r8phXb3DnzK9oL4TI/story.html

 

[West]

The Corps of Engineers is involved, as are other parties, public and private. From six months ago.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...-plan-limbo/Ha0q4r8phXb3DnzK9oL4TI/story.html

Ah, I missed that one in my scroll back through the pages. Thanks.

From how that article describes the wrangling, there seemed to be no updates on Coast Guard opinions after so many months of everyone else opining away. This makes it still seem to me like maybe the Coast Guard reached a point of being satisfied enough to see it in locked open position. Doesn't look like a "hazard to navigation" to me any more. And with all this intra-agency squabbling and public criticism, I can see the Guard looking at the Corps and saying "this one's all yours, have fun, we'll stay out of the way so long as it stays in open position!"

 

[TallIsGood]

Here is one of the letters.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...Guard-s-letter-on-old-Northern-Ave-Bridge.pdf

 

[West]

Here is one of the letters.

Great find, Tall, thanks for posting.

And as for the content, what a laugh riot.

First, contrary to recent news reports, it seems the chain of communication is not the US Coast Guard sending letters to the City, it's the USCG sending letters to the US Army Corps of Engineers. If I'm understanding the turfs correctly, the USCG has jurisdiction over the waterway and the USACE has jurisdiction over the bridge. I wonder why the Globe can't be arsed to clarify that correctly.

So, in 1989 - four years before Menino's term began !?!?!? - the USACE issues a Letter of Permission to the City to lock the operable span in the open position, and create a plan for preservation of the structure repair. Per this letter, locking it in the open position removed it from the USCG's jurisdiction, as I suspected.

Mayor Flynn had other things to do, never came up with a plan, Menino likewise managed to take a powder on a preservation plan for the entire near two decades of his term. Thanks, Tom. Per this letter, in February 2015 the City (under Walsh) locks it into closed position to relieve stress from snow loads. Makes structural sense, but one can imagine the USCG feeling like their toes had just gotten stomped on. [And as an aside, I thought it had been closed and available to pedestrians for more time than that. Am I mis-remembering?]

So, although the letter doesn't say so specifically, the City had placed the structure back into the USCG's jurisdiction, and had done so in a way that was pretty much guaranteed to piss them off: many years after having been ordered to devise a preservation plan, and having never done so, and after the City's own study showed its load rating to be "zero tons", and being locked shut due to concerns about snowfall burden (which amounts to many tons of snow in a big storm). If I were the USCG, I'd be pretty pissed off, too. So they send another letter, the one TallIsGood found, again to USACE (not City), and I find it unsurprising that this time they're saying "repair or demolish" and the center span should be removed "promptly".

But, I note that this letter is a request from the USCG to the USACE to remove the center span, not an order to either ACE or City. It seems to me the CG isn't in a position to order either the ACE or the City to remove it. I can easily imagine the ACE decided to direct the City to once again lock it in open position, with perhaps scarier threats if there were non-compliance this time, and the USCG once again decided it had been removed from their jurisdiction, like they apparently decided after the 1989 go-round. This 2015 could almost be read as a hint in that direction by the USCG.

So I perceive the ball to be out of the Coast Guard's court again and in the Army Corps of Engineer's court, on the federal side that is. Obviously it's the City that has to at some point decide that 27 years is enough time to have its thumb up its ass, and actually do something. I think demolition at this point is most likely, just because the accumulated neglect probably has it well into the realm of unsalvageable.

[on nomenclature, I'm following the Coast Guard's usage of "open" and "closed". "Open" means the center span is swung so that the waterway is maximally open, which means it's closed for pedestrian travel. "Closed" means it's swung so that pedestrians can walk across. A landlubber's perspective would reverse that, but my understanding is that for swing bridges and lift brides, and so on, the CG perspective trumps.]

 

[whighlander]

Great find, Tall, thanks for posting.

And as for the content, what a laugh riot.

First, contrary to recent news reports, it seems the chain of communication is not the US Coast Guard sending letters to the City, it's the USCG sending letters to the US Army Corps of Engineers. If I'm understanding the turfs correctly, the USCG has jurisdiction over the waterway and the USACE has jurisdiction over the bridge. I wonder why the Globe can't be arsed to clarify that correctly.

So, in 1989 - four years before Menino's term began !?!?!? - the USACE issues a Letter of Permission to the City to lock the operable span in the open position, and create a plan for preservation of the structure repair. Per this letter, locking it in the open position removed it from the USCG's jurisdiction, as I suspected.

Mayor Flynn had other things to do, never came up with a plan, Menino likewise managed to take a powder on a preservation plan for the entire near two decades of his term. Thanks, Tom. Per this letter, in February 2015 the City (under Walsh) locks it into closed position to relieve stress from snow loads. Makes structural sense, but one can imagine the USCG feeling like their toes had just gotten stomped on. [And as an aside, I thought it had been closed and available to pedestrians for more time than that. Am I mis-remembering?]

So, although the letter doesn't say so specifically, the City had placed the structure back into the USCG's jurisdiction, and had done so in a way that was pretty much guaranteed to piss them off: many years after having been ordered to devise a preservation plan, and having never done so, and after the City's own study showed its load rating to be "zero tons", and being locked shut due to concerns about snowfall burden (which amounts to many tons of snow in a big storm). If I were the USCG, I'd be pretty pissed off, too. So they send another letter, the one TallIsGood found, again to USACE (not City), and I find it unsurprising that this time they're saying "repair or demolish" and the center span should be removed "promptly".

But, I note that this letter is a request from the USCG to the USACE to remove the center span, not an order to either ACE or City. It seems to me the CG isn't in a position to order either the ACE or the City to remove it. I can easily imagine the ACE decided to direct the City to once again lock it in open position, with perhaps scarier threats if there were non-compliance this time, and the USCG once again decided it had been removed from their jurisdiction, like they apparently decided after the 1989 go-round. This 2015 could almost be read as a hint in that direction by the USCG.

So I perceive the ball to be out of the Coast Guard's court again and in the Army Corps of Engineer's court, on the federal side that is. Obviously it's the City that has to at some point decide that 27 years is enough time to have its thumb up its ass, and actually do something. I think demolition at this point is most likely, just because the accumulated neglect probably has it well into the realm of unsalvageable.

[on nomenclature, I'm following the Coast Guard's usage of "open" and "closed". "Open" means the center span is swung so that the waterway is maximally open, which means it's closed for pedestrian travel. "Closed" means it's swung so that pedestrians can walk across. A landlubber's perspective would reverse that, but my understanding is that for swing bridges and lift brides, and so on, the CG perspective trumps.]

West -- of course the real idiocy is the contention that either the Corps or the USCG should give a rat's patootie about that piece of the Fort Point Channel

Yes, Technically it is a navigable waterway -- But in practice the USS Gerald Ford

is not going to be navigating up the Fort Point Channel -- In fact its never really navigated save for the odd dragon boat race, or some private boater tieing up to the Barking Crab. Ever since the Moakley Bridge was installed there is insufficient clearance except at the lowest of water, to permit even a very low draft, very low freeboard, tourist boat to get to Congress Street.

 

[West]

West -- of course the real idiocy is the contention that either the Corps or the USCG should give a rat's patootie about that piece of the Fort Point Channel

Yes, Technically it is a navigable waterway -- But in practice the USS Gerald Ford is not going to be navigating up the Fort Point Channel -- In fact its never really navigated save for the odd dragon boat race, or some private boater tieing up to the Barking Crab. Ever since the Moakley Bridge was installed there is insufficient clearance except at the lowest of water, to permit even a very low draft, very low freeboard, tourist boat to get to Congress Street.

I just won a bet with myself!! I bet myself that you'd respond with some big-ass straw man - er, straw ship?* - example of something that wouldn't fit under the Moakley.

The bridges over Seaport (the Moakley), Congress, and Summer Streets are all high enough clearance to bring construction barges under them. And I have seen such construction barges upstream of them. This may be an infrequent use of the navigable waterway, but it's way more important than the private boat usage. With all the many potential projects that might happen up that channel, and with all the traffic nightmares within the Seaport and the thru-traffic blockages on the South Street Station side of the channel, it would be monumentally stupid to give up that waterway. It's an outstanding access path for construction equipment and possible floating staging zones for a whole bunch of stuff we all want to see built.

And thinking the Coast Guard will give up any navigable of any utility at all is like expecting them to ignore calls for help from sinking Gloucester fishing boats: if the CG isn't going to rescue fishermen and keep useful waterways unobstructed, what do they exist for?

OK, I'm going to go treat myself to that nice cuppa cappuccino that I just "won".

*OK, calling the USS Gerald Ford a straw ship is inapt, I confess that.

ETA: nice pic

 

[stellarfun]

The Fort Point Channel is a navigable water of the United States; i.e., owned by the United States.

Inasmuch as the town of Lexington would object and resist an attempt by one of its citizens to close a town road and appropriate the road for his/her personal benefit, so too do certain instrumentalists of the United States object to actions (or lack thereof) that close a navigable water of the United States, and preclude its beneficial use.
_________________
In other news of the day, overlooked perhaps by the prescient seer(s) on this board, the recorded temperature at the North Pole today was 32F, OC.

 

[whighlander]

I just won a bet with myself!! I bet myself that you'd respond with some big-ass straw man - er, straw ship?* - example of something that wouldn't fit under the Moakley.

The bridges over Seaport (the Moakley), Congress, and Summer Streets are all high enough clearance to bring construction barges under them. And I have seen such construction barges upstream of them. This may be an infrequent use of the navigable waterway, but it's way more important than the private boat usage. With all the many potential projects that might happen up that channel, and with all the traffic nightmares within the Seaport and the thru-traffic blockages on the South Street Station side of the channel, it would be monumentally stupid to give up that waterway. It's an outstanding access path for construction equipment and possible floating staging zones for a whole bunch of stuff we all want to see built.

And thinking the Coast Guard will give up any navigable of any utility at all is like expecting them to ignore calls for help from sinking Gloucester fishing boats: if the CG isn't going to rescue fishermen and keep useful waterways unobstructed, what do they exist for?

OK, I'm going to go treat myself to that nice cuppa cappuccino that I just "won".

*OK, calling the USS Gerald Ford a straw ship is inapt, I confess that.

ETA: nice pic

West -- make it a nice Holiday Cap perhaps with a bit of ginger and nutmeg and of course cinnamon

You are of course right about construction barges and even police patrol boats

However, its typical creeping Federal [aka National] as opposed to Federalism [aka let the States do it] to apply the same criteria to the Fort Point Channel as to President Roads where the Gerald Ford can freely sail even at low tide.

The truth of the FPC is that had Gillette not needed access to cooling water for the making of razor blades -- it probably would have been filled all the way from the South Bay to Summer St. leaving only a vestigial stub.

Interestingly -- upon further review most of the Fort Point Channel is not considered to be part of the Boston Harbor Navigtion Project by the USACE
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Navigation/Massachusetts/Boston-Harbor/

My reformatting and highlighting

NEW ENGLAND DISTRICT
Boston Harbor Navigation Project
Boston Harbor is the largest seaport in New England and the principal distributing point for regional commerce.

More than 87 percent of Boston Harbor commerce is the receipt and shipment of petroleum products. Principal commercial traffic consists of the import of distillate petroleum products, residual fuel oil, sugar, limestone, and lumber; the receipt and shipment of other petroleum products; and the export of iron and steel scrap.

Initial work in Boston Harbor began shortly after the Civil War. The most recent improvement work was completed in May 1966.

The current project includes the harbor proper and four access channels: the Chelsea River, the Fort Point Channel, the South Boston Reserved Channel, and the Weir River at Nantasket Beach. They are described below.
The Harbor Proper
Work completed by the Corps in the harbor proper consists of:
A six-mile-long, 40-foot-deep main channel extending from Massachusetts Bay, through Broad Sound, to the entrance of Mystic and Chelsea Rivers. The channel is 900 -1,100 feet wide from the sea, through Broad Sound, to President Roads. The channel is 600 feet wide from President Roads to the entrance of Mystic and Chelsea rivers.....

Fort Point Channel The Fort Point Channel extends from Boston Harbor to the Northern Avenue Bridge in South Boston, a distance of about 1,000 feet. It is 23 feet deep and 175 feet wide....

Planned Improvements
The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 passed by Congress authorized a $26.2 million Navigation Improvement Project for Boston Harbor. The project proposes deepening the Mystic River and the Reserved Channel from the existing 35 foot depth Mean Low Water (MLW) to 40 feet and the Chelsea River from 35 feet to 38 feet. In addition, the Inner Confluence, which provides access to the Mystic and Chelsea rivers, and a widened maneuvering area at the entrance to the Reserved Channel would be dredged to 40 feet. The size of the President’s Roads Anchorage will be increased by almost 70 acres at no cost by establishing new channel limits that would extend into naturally deep areas.
The deepening of the channels would primarily benefit local petroleum product importers and scrap exporters, who together account for about 93 percent of all shipping in the Port of Boston. Project benefits would be realized through reduced tidal delays for larger vessels and the capability of Boston Harbor to receive and ship larger cargos.

As an aside -- things associated with the USACE Boston Navigation Project seem to proceed at a Glacial pace

 

[West]

However, its typical creeping Federal [aka National] as opposed to Federalism [aka let the States do it] to apply the same criteria to the Fort Point Channel as to President Roads where the Gerald Ford can freely sail even at low tide.

What the hell? This is silly. I do not see one shred of evidence that the federal government is applying the same criteria to Fort Point Channel as they apply to President Roads. Yes, the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers want the FPC navigable waterway to stay open, but no, there’s not a shred of evidence that they want it accessible to the Gerald Ford at any tide. There’s no creeping Federal action here. If there was any creeping action, it was by the City, when they reneged on that 1989 agreement to keep the bridge in the open position, and did so without providing a preservation plan, as they had apparently been obliged to do. The feds were pushing back to the previously stipulated status quo, and fairly so. And not so the Gerald Ford could sail there.

The truth of the FPC is that had Gillette not needed access to cooling water for the making of razor blades -- it probably would have been filled all the way from the South Bay to Summer St. leaving only a vestigial stub.

That’s interesting. I’ll happily assume it’s the truth, and reply with, so what? Per your history, Gillette did need access to cooling water, and hence FPC was not filled in. And various maritime users have been using it – see pictures of the construction of the Tea Party Museum for just one example – and now the City has all sorts of plans for the area. Some of those plans could easily require repair or replacement of sections of the sea wall, for another example – best done from barges. So your point about how it could’ve been filled in is moot. It wasn’t. The Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers sure as hell won’t let it get filled in by a bridge falling down because the City of Boston cannot remove head from ass.

Interestingly -- upon further review most of the Fort Point Channel is not considered to be part of the Boston Harbor Navigation Project by the USACE

OK, so they’re not planning to dredge FPC, 23 feet deep is enough for construction barges and pleasure craft. So? What does that have to do with keeping it open? Oh, and you are in this part of your post quoting a Corps of Engineers web page that very explicitly treats FPC differently than President Roads. So what was that earlier bit you were saying about creeping federalism applying the same criteria to them both?

Continuing with your thing about the alleged creeping federalism. Your proposed solution to that creeping federalism is …… ? Let the City do what they want with this bridge? The same City that has handled this bridge oh so professionally, and handled the Long Island Bridge oh so professionally? We'd perhaps end up with FPC blocked off to all maritime usage because of neglect, lethargy, and entropy. And someone might get hurt or killed in the process. That's a remarkably stupid way to take a maritime channel out of service, even if it is a channel that sees very light use. Or maybe we could have the feds turn FPC over to MassDOT, they don’t have anything on their plate at all, do they?

I’d love to see something interesting done with the Northern Ave bridge; my vote would be for no motorized vehicles. If the current bridge can be saved at a sensible price, save it. If not, an architecturally adventurous replacement gets my vote (rather than a replica), but I won't be manning any barricades if it gets replaced by a replica. But I see no real energy or funding commitment from the City, I suspect the Coast Guard no longer cares now that it’s back in locked-open position, and as you note, the Army Corps is slow as sludge, and they have no incentive to move faster on this thing if the CG is satisfied with return to status quo. Creeping federalism is not the blocking point here. Local inertia is.

 

[chmeeee]

WHARRGARBL

Confused old man hates Government. News at 11.

 

[CSTH]

1. From the BBJ archives (really):

Historic bridge to remain open during construction
Oct 19, 1998, 12:00am EDT

It's halfway to Halloween and if you've traipsed across the Northern Avenue Bridge recently, you have probably noticed the electronic display signs, one on each end of the bridge, that warn:

NORTHERN AVENUE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION TO START IN OCTOBER.

Fear not, intrepid bridge travelers and workers at the newly opened Federal Courthouse. Your daily footpath to and from the Financial District is not about to be impeded as had been planned.

According to Kelly Quinn, press secretary for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city had planned on closing the nearly century-old landmark span at some point this month for engineering work on the bridge's undercarriage. That would have left courthouse employees and people who park in one of the lots on the bridge's south side to either walk the extra yardage to cross the new Evelyn Moakley Bridge, or take a dive and swim across the Fort Point Channel to the Financial District.

Ah, but Mayor Thomas Menino has come through and broken the latest controversy surrounding the bridge.

"The mayor decided closing the bridge was ludicrous," Quinn said. "It will remain open to all foot traffic during the work process."


2. Apparently the bridge became a city landmark only as recently as 1999, which must have been a nail in the coffin wrt getting anything done.



I find it very hard to believe that 'incompetence & indifference' are the answer to "how is it possible that nothing was done to resolve the bridge issue for 25 years?". Im temperamentally inclined to believe that the real story must be much more interesting than that - even if the story is a case study in good intentions being stymied by jurisdictional complexity, rather than a story of corruption, cross-linked negotiation, etc.

I'm enjoying the mystery, at least for now.

 

[CSTH]

From http://the-bac.edu/Documents/Depart...C 194 Northern Avenue Bridge Study Report.pdf

The role of Northern Avenue Bridge as a resource on the historic Boston waterfront has been under examination since the 1970s, when the U.S. Coast Guard claimed the old Northern Avenue Bridge was an obstruction to navigable waters and the City of Boston proposed a replacement for Northern Avenue Bridge. In 1977, Massachusetts Historical Commission reviewed a proposal for replacement of Northern Avenue Bridge and requested
a historic preservation plan from the City of Boston. In 1978, MHC found construction of a new Northern Avenue Bridge to have no adverse effect on old Northern Avenue Bridge as the plan called for the bridge to be retained. On July 23, 1981, a Congressional Hearing granted the consent of Congress to construct a new fixed bridge 150' to the south of the existing bridge which "will allow the [Northern Avenue] bridge to remain open permanently
to serve as a historic sea-oriented museum and landing area."xxiii
In 1989, as plans for the new bridge were again coming to the fore, Massachusetts Historical Commission repeated their findings of no adverse affect for the old bridge. MHC attached specific conditions, included a preservation plan, HAER recording, MHC consultation for design of the new bridge and repairs for the fenders of the old bridge allowing for a new
consultation procedure if the conditions were not met. A HAER Report was prepared by McGinley Hart & Associates for STV/ Seelye Stevenson Value and Knecht in 1989. Jane Carolan prepared a historic preservation plan for the old Northern Avenue Bridge for Fay Spoffard Thorndike, Inc. and the Boston Public Works Department in 1998.

The first request for proposal for the re-use of the old Northern Avenue Bridge, developed by the City of Boston and Boston Redevelopment Authority, was issued in August 1995. The new Northern Avenue Bridge, named Evelyn Moakley Bridge, was opened to traffic in 1997 and the old Northern Avenue Bridge was closed to vehicular transit and left for pedestrian and bicycle passage. The request for proposals was re-issued in 1999, no longer requiring retention of Northern Avenue Bridge.

Six proposals were submitted in response to the 1999 RFP. Three of these proposals retain the bridge, two restoring and redeveloping the bridge, the third simply secures the bridge in the open position. Of the two plans that redevelop the bridge, one raises the swing span and structurally secures it at 16' above mean high water, one fixes the bridge in the open position and adds a pedestrian walkway. Three proposals remove the bridge: one of these
proposals retains the exterior structure of the draw tender's house as the shell for a restaurant, and the machinery from the drawtender's house for "interpretive sculpture", two completely remove Northern Avenue Bridge. The proposal put forth by Forest City Enterprises, which does not retain Northern Avenue Bridge, was tentatively chosen by a vote of the BRA with two attached phases:
• 180 days to work with the staff of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Public Works Department and Boston Landmarks Commission to 1) reduce the density of the development and 2) explore options for retaining elements of the old bridge

• 180 days, subsequent to the above period, to 1) submit final working drawings and specifications 2) demonstrate financial commitments and 3) enter a development schedule.

If the revisions are not found satisfactory to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, or submissions do not occur, the Director of the BRA is allowed to rescind the tentative designation of Forest City as the developer.

A Landmark Petition to designate the old Northern A venue Bridge was received by the Boston Landmarks Commission from Boston citizens on June June 11, 1999 and accepted for further study by vote of the Commission on June 22, 1999.

 

[whighlander]

What the hell? This is silly. I do not see one shred of evidence that the federal government is applying the same criteria to Fort Point Channel as they apply to President Roads. Yes, the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers want the FPC navigable waterway to stay open, but no, there’s not a shred of evidence that they want it accessible to the Gerald Ford at any tide. There’s no creeping Federal action here. If there was any creeping action, it was by the City, when they reneged on that 1989 agreement to keep the bridge in the open position, and did so without providing a preservation plan, as they had apparently been obliged to do. The feds were pushing back to the previously stipulated status quo, and fairly so. And not so the Gerald Ford could sail there.

...Some of those plans could easily require repair or replacement of sections of the sea wall, for another example – best done from barges. So your point about how it could’ve been filled in is moot. It wasn’t. The Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers sure as hell won’t let it get filled in by a bridge falling down because the City of Boston cannot remove head from ass.

...So what was that earlier bit you were saying about creeping federalism applying the same criteria to them both?

Continuing with your thing about the alleged creeping federalism. Your proposed solution to that creeping federalism is …… ? Let the City do what they want with this bridge? The same City that has handled this bridge oh so professionally, and handled the Long Island Bridge oh so professionally? We'd perhaps end up with FPC blocked off to all maritime usage because of neglect, lethargy, and entropy. And someone might get hurt or killed in the process. That's a remarkably stupid way to take a maritime channel out of service, even if it is a channel that sees very light use. Or maybe we could have the feds turn FPC over to MassDOT, they don’t have anything on their plate at all, do they?

I’d love to see something interesting done with the Northern Ave bridge; my vote would be for no motorized vehicles. If the current bridge can be saved at a sensible price, save it. If not, an architecturally adventurous replacement gets my vote (rather than a replica), but I won't be manning any barricades if it gets replaced by a replica. But I see no real energy or funding commitment from the City, I suspect the Coast Guard no longer cares now that it’s back in locked-open position, and as you note, the Army Corps is slow as sludge, and they have no incentive to move faster on this thing if the CG is satisfied with return to status quo. Creeping federalism is not the blocking point here. Local inertia is.

West -- As usual the typical reaction to my posts is to look at the postmark instead of the contents of the envelope

My point is that --- its Creeping National Governmentalism aka the Feds need to be involved and in charge of EVERYTHING

its definitely not Creeping Federalism that is the problem -- its the antithesis of Federalism -- try reading the Federalist Papers -- Federalism is letting the 10th amendment actually be in full force [my highlights]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The key is that President Roads and the main Boston Harbor Channel is a National Military Asset [if for nothing else than the USS Constitution a commissioned US Naval Vessel occasionally sails those waters]

However -- Nothing of a National Nature is involved with the Fort Point Channel except for:

• the privately sanctioned Tourist recreation of the Tea Party,
• razor blades made by the Gillette Div of P&G used by the military,
• when there is a ship on R&R in port in Boston -- some of the officers and crew might visit the Children's Museum, or more likely the Barking Crab
• and by a huge stretch -- the future view from Jeff Immelt's office [as CEO of GE and hence uber boss of one of two suppliers of military Jet Engines] is likely to include the Fort Point Channel
• can't come up with another one though I'm sure the readers will find one

So why does the Army Corps of Engineers and / or the US Coast Guard get involved in influencing or meddling in what Boston and Massachusetts chose to do or not do with the Northern Avenue Bridge??? As long as any collapse or restructuring of the Bridge doesn't block the Shipping Channel in Boston Harbor there should not be any National Issue.


ref:

About the Tenth Amendment

“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment......

It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.

When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.

Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.