Seaport Transportation

CSTH said:
Let's take a moment here to reflect on the grotesque spectacle of another piece of perfectly functional infrastructure neglected completely as it is left to rot in place, to the point that it becomes an imminent public hazard.

What a shame.
Click to expand...
Perfectly functional? I don't think there was ever a moment in the last 60 years where it was perfect to its tasks. At the peak of the auto-craze, it had tight clearances. Then we built the Big Dig and reconfigured all roads and built a full replacement (the Moakley bridge), leaving it, for a brief time, walkable, but rotten. And, unlike the Summer St bridge (which lost its movability but kept its industrial dress) the Northern Ave Bridge *did* need to function as a movable span.

It was fun to walk, but, as with the new Washington/Rutherford bridge, we'll be happy to have a purpose-built replacement.
 
60 years is, what ... 12 coats of paint and a couple barrels of grease?
 
CSTH said:
60 years is, what ... 12 coats of paint and a couple barrels of grease?
Click to expand...
Yes, but since the Big Dig planning (and new street grid) was finalized (1990?) the plan was to remove it in favor of the Moakley bridge (sufficient clearance under, no height limit, full sidewalks, and on the new grid). Bridges get replaced.

The real "crime" here is that the Moakley is so bad for pedestrians (and pedestrians were such an afterthought) that it surprised them that people might prefer a flat walk to the Moakley Courthouse and the Barking Crab.
 
Arlington said:
Bridges get replaced.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. People from 1908 would think we're crazy to rehab this instead of building something new. The question is: Can the need to economize on the new structure prevent the City from building for cars?
 
Equilibria said:
Exactly right. People from 1908 would think we're crazy to rehab this instead of building something new. The question is: Can the need to economize on the new structure prevent the City from building for cars?
Click to expand...
I have to believe that the politics and budget will kill it if the engineers don't (it offers no congestion relief) Politically there are enough hotshot execs downtown to kill the idea that Seaport execs get to cut in line in front of them on Atlantic ave (it isn't a net political win)

A pedestrian drawspan for the Harborwalk like the ped draw going in at the Museum of Science is just too sweet a spot of value for money.
 
Equilibria said:
Exactly right. People from 1908 would think we're crazy to rehab this instead of building something new.
Click to expand...

In 1908 the Harvard (Mass Ave. Bridge) was 17 years old, and the Longfellow bridge was 8 yo. And the Weeks and BU / Cottage farm bridges are only about 20 years younger. Salt water vs. fresh water, yes, and movable span, yes - but maintenance works...as long as you actually do it.

People from 1908 (or people from anytime before about 1965) would think we were crazy for letting this rot in the first place. Maintenance>rehab>replace.
 
Options, at least as they existed a year ago.

http://imgur.com/119opDa

Note that demo alone cost ~$15M, and nearly all the rehab options are (or were) less expensive than the replace options.

(Yes, granted, maybe higher risk / variance ... but still, bottom line is that today's news is a deeply sub-optimal outcome)
 
CSTH said:
In 1908 the Harvard (Mass Ave. Bridge) was 17 years old, and the Longfellow bridge was 8 yo. And the Weeks and BU / Cottage farm bridges are only about 20 years younger. Salt water vs. fresh water, yes, and movable span, yes - but maintenance works...as long as you actually do it.

People from 1908 (or people from anytime before about 1965) would think we were crazy for letting this rot in the first place. Maintenance>rehab>replace.
Click to expand...

Well, the Mass Ave (Harvard) Bridge was totally replaced in the 80's (using the old piers). The Longfellow Bridge is being totally reconstructed now. We are not talking maintenance activities, but total replacements. I am not sure how this shows how maintenance works????
 
CSTH said:
In 1908 the Harvard (Mass Ave. Bridge) was 17 years old, and the Longfellow bridge was 8 yo. And the Weeks and BU / Cottage farm bridges are only about 20 years younger. Salt water vs. fresh water, yes, and movable span, yes - but maintenance works...as long as you actually do it.

People from 1908 (or people from anytime before about 1965) would think we were crazy for letting this rot in the first place. Maintenance>rehab>replace.
Click to expand...

At 108 years old, it's time to replace most things. I'm not saying that they've maintained this well, nor am I saying that there aren't some historic structures (like the Longfellow) that are so important that we don't keep rehabbing and renewing them. I just don't think that this has ever been one of those structures for the City of Boston.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Well, the Mass Ave (Harvard) Bridge was totally replaced in the 80's (using the old piers). The Longfellow Bridge is being totally reconstructed now. We are not talking maintenance activities, but total replacements. I am not sure how this shows how maintenance works????
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe not a clear example - it's another example of the high cost of neglect:

"Between 1907 and 2011, the only major maintenance conducted on the bridge had been a small 1959 rehabilitation project and some lesser repairs done in 2002." (link)

The point i'm trying to make is that landmark or not, its almost always less expensive in the long run just to properly maintain things like this. That's what's infuriating. I happen to think it's beautiful in its own right and also means a lot to the character of the area, but that's the frosting on the cupcake.

Bottom line: Two bridges in this town (will soon) have been demolished urgently within the span of about a year. That just shouldn't be acceptable.
 
Equilibria said:
At 108 years old, it's time to replace most things. I'm not saying that they've maintained this well, nor am I saying that there aren't some historic structures (like the Longfellow) that are so important that we don't keep rehabbing and renewing them. I just don't think that this has ever been one of those structures for the City of Boston.
Click to expand...

I don't think you realize what you're saying - if structures includes buildings, then you're talking about a sizable proportion of the city - and even a good portion of the structures in the state. If those all need to be replaced at 100 years, we are all profoundly fucked.

By contrast, does anyone know any homeowners who choose to go 50 years between major maintenance expenditures? Of course not.

At the risk of coming across as arrogant - I think I'm arguing an obvious point here. You clean the gutters every fall. You replace the roof every 20 years. Maybe you do a functional rehab every 30-50. But if you do that, there can be someone living in the house for ... centuries.

SO if you want to argue that what's needed here is a bridge that can carry high volumes of heavy auto and truck traffic, with no risk that it might have to open from time to time to let ...something .... through on the water, then fine - I agree this bridge couldn't reasonably be adapted to play that role. I disagree that that's what the area needs, but the point is that's a different argument.


Friends; diligent maintenance is less expensive in the long run than neglect. And yes, of course I acknowledge that if you plan on replacing an asset at some point soon, then you let it depreciate. But you only need to replace it if...you need to replace it. Anyone want to challenge any of that?
 
Last edited:
Are we over-reacting? They didn't say "demolish". They didn't say "replaced with new".

What if March's "dismantling" just lifts the swing span [or all 3 spans] and puts it [them] on a barge and tows it to a shipyard/refab site?
 
Arlington said:
Are we over-reacting? They didn't say "demolish". They didn't say "replaced with new".

What if March's "dismantling" just lifts the swing span and puts it on a barge and tows it to a shipyard/refab site?
Click to expand...

...well then that would be good news and then yes, I would be over-reacting.


(But we'd still be neck-deep in a gargantuan, continent-spanning deferred-maintenance crisis....[/rant])
 
CSTH said:
Yeah, maybe not a clear example - it's another example of the high cost of neglect:

"Between 1907 and 2011, the only major maintenance conducted on the bridge had been a small 1959 rehabilitation project and some lesser repairs done in 2002." (link)

The point i'm trying to make is that landmark or not, its almost always less expensive in the long run just to properly maintain things like this. That's what's infuriating. I happen to think it's beautiful in its own right and also means a lot to the character of the area, but that's the frosting on the cupcake.

Bottom line: Two bridges in this town (will soon) have been demolished urgently within the span of about a year. That just shouldn't be acceptable.
Click to expand...

This I completely agree with.

Proper maintenance could clearly have allowed the Northern Avenue Bridge to last longer (essentially none has been done for 1/2 a century).

Proper maintenance could also have prevented the need to totally rebuild the Longfellow Bridge at what $300 million plus!

The Harvard bridge in the 80's was not so much maintenance as a design flaw uncovered (same expansion joint issue as the I-95 Mianus River Bridge that collapsed in Connecticut in 1983). Not that it was in great shape, but the expansion joint problem meant it had to be replaced before a similar collapse.
 
I don't think the Moakley Bridge is so bad for pedestrians. The sidewalks are VERY wide. Yes, the arch of the bridge makes it more annoying than the Northern Ave Bridge, which is flat, but it's not terrible.

But I would like to see a flat bike/ped drawbridge where the Northern Ave Bridge is now. There needs to be one if we want the Harborwalk to be continuous there. Building a bridge that allows cars there is also silly because you have to turn right onto Atlantic Ave, which is already totally jammed up at rush hour anyway. It wouldn't solve anything in terms of traffic.
 
CSTH said:
I don't think you realize what you're saying - if structures includes buildings, then you're talking about a sizable proportion of the city - and even a good portion of the structures in the state. If those all need to be replaced at 100 years, we are all profoundly fucked.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what I'm saying. Bridges over saltwater aren't like other structures. It's not unusual for public buildings to be constructed with a service lifespan in mind - for bridges, it is literally the only thing that ever happens. A planned service lifespan exists for every bridge built.

On a bridge, concrete and steel support elements are exposed to degradation in a way that just doesn't happen when you coat those elements in cladding, insulation, climate-controlled interior temperatures, etc. Even when you perform required maintenance, after 108 years you're experiencing diminishing returns, and if the structure isn't a critical piece of history, it's not efficient to keep repairing it vs. starting over.
 
Equilibria said:
I know exactly what I'm saying. Bridges over saltwater aren't like other structures. It's not unusual for public buildings to be constructed with a service lifespan in mind - for bridges, it is literally the only thing that ever happens. A planned service lifespan exists for every bridge built.

On a bridge, concrete and steel support elements are exposed to degradation in a way that just doesn't happen when you coat those elements in cladding, insulation, climate-controlled interior temperatures, etc. Even when you perform required maintenance, after 108 years you're experiencing diminishing returns, and if the structure isn't a critical piece of history, it's not efficient to keep repairing it vs. starting over.
Click to expand...

I think what burns me about the two bridges in question (Long Island and Northern Avenue) is not that they need to be replaced. I get your point about bridges over salt water are super exposed, and need to be replaced at design life +/-.

But the real issue is we should know this and plan for this, rather than having an emergency Coast Guard order force demolition, and a new corporate HQ deal force a replacement. We (as a society) behave so stupidly about infrastructure. There is never a rational adult in the room.
 
Its all about an allocation of limited resources. People don't argue we should properly maintain infrastructure, but when its a choice between that and some other priority, the other priority usually wins because it is more visible. One year of rust on a steel bridge doesn't sell well to the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top