Tobin Bridge Relocation/Replacement

[dhawkins]

They should look at a totally new route, push the 93 and Rt 1 exchange north, build over the industrial areas.

This area over the T bus yards.

Then the oil tank area and make an off ramp system to the casino. No crazier than what is being proposed at Allston Landing.

And reduce the Chelsea curves as they are known. Maybe even tunnel this portion of area to connect the Chelsea and Everett neighborhoods.

 

[Java King]

https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/09/20/massdot-starts-planning-for-tobin-bridge-replacement

This is pretty cool. In my dream, it would contain:

• Wide Biking and Walking infrastructure
• Several Viewing platforms for pedestrians
• Iconic - City defining architecture/engineering (Such as Golden Gate Bridge in SF)
• Space for transit such as an Orange line spur to Chelsea? Light rail? .......just something better than a bus.

I've always thought this location would be an amazing tourist attraction/destination for a bridge climb like in Sydney. I climbed the Sydney Harbor Bridge while visiting Australia, and it was one of my favorite and most memorable experiences!
BridgeClimb Official Site | Climb The Sydney Harbour Bridge

 

[BeyondRevenue]

They should look at a totally new route, push the 93 and Rt 1 exchange north, build over the industrial areas.

This area over the T bus yards.
View attachment 42880

Then the oil tank area and make an off ramp system to the casino
View attachment 42881

And reduce the Chelsea curves as they are known. Maybe even tunnel this portion of area to connect the Chelsea and Everett neighborhoods.
View attachment 42882

Something like these would work. I’m wondering if it would be substantially cheaper to build something closer to at-grade if we made everything north of the Tobin inaccessible to tall ships. If the state buys the scrapyard and the concrete plant, what else needs that kind of clearance? While it’s cute to keep that waterway adherent to +100 year old coastal waterway law, it might be a lot cheaper to dial back our expectations for international Port of Chelsea.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I always assumed it was just navigating around the gaps between the big hills in Chelsea and Everett (Powderhorn, Washington, and Fennos).

Back when the Feds let "planned to be Interstates" do that amount of curving (today the standards require you to cut through with more gentle curves).

 

[ritchiew]

Something like these would work. I’m wondering if it would be substantially cheaper to build something closer to at-grade if we made everything north of the Tobin inaccessible to tall ships. If the state buys the scrapyard and the concrete plant, what else needs that kind of clearance? While it’s cute to keep that waterway adherent to +100 year old coastal waterway law, it might be a lot cheaper to dial back our expectations for international Port of Chelsea.

I agree it's unlikely the Port of Chelsea makes a grand comeback. But it does remind me of all the disused railroad ROWs in decades past, which few at the time thought would ever be useful again. We're lucky that a bunch got saved. Building over some of ROWs now looks obviously short sighted. Saving the port in Chelsea seems like kind of the same thing. Worth saving just in case, especially because no one really knows what climate-change induced flooding in the Port of Boston is going to look like in 50 years.

 

[Equilibria]

The new bridge absolutely needs to have a separate ped/bike path, a wide one. Also I'm thinking an exclusive busway, strong enough to convert to light rail in the future, for an LRV to Chelsea.

It should simply be unthinkable to do this without a rail component, or at least a provision for one. Salvucci screwed this up on the Ted Williams Tunnel and we shouldn't be planning to do it again.

They should look at a totally new route, push the 93 and Rt 1 exchange north, build over the industrial areas.

This area over the T bus yards.
View attachment 42880

Then the oil tank area and make an off ramp system to the casino
View attachment 42881

And reduce the Chelsea curves as they are known. Maybe even tunnel this portion of area to connect the Chelsea and Everett neighborhoods.
View attachment 42882

That's probably one of my favorite bonkers crayon drawings ever... like, who cares that Sullivan Square Redevelopment or the Everett Lower Broadway District dreams exist! Screw 'Em!

 

[dhawkins]

Back when the Feds let "planned to be Interstates" do that amount of curving (today the standards require you to cut through with more gentle curves).

True, but just call the new portion a "connector" or ramp system and it can be as curvy as the ramp system over Boston Sand & Gravel.

 

[dhawkins]

It should simply be unthinkable to do this without a rail component, or at least a provision for one. Salvucci screwed this up on the Ted Williams Tunnel and we shouldn't be planning to do it again.



That's probably one of my favorite bonkers crayon drawings ever... like, who cares that Sullivan Square Redevelopment or the Everett Lower Broadway District dreams exist! Screw 'Em!

I made it with two colors just to try and sell it a little bit easier! No crazier than what is being proposed at Allston Landing.

 

[Equilibria]

The challenge here is that you don't really want the transit and the highway to run parallel. The highway should be through the undeveloped/underdeveloped Everett/Chelsea border to eliminate the curves and minimize impacts, while the transit should be basically where the highway is now. That's what I've drawn.

 

[jklo]

So you want to replace the Tobin with the Orange Line? Ballsy.

 

[dhawkins]

So you want to replace the Tobin with the Orange Line? Ballsy.

Yes, relocate the highway interchange and replace with rapid transit. I can get behind that!

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

If they would ever go so far to bury the Tobin, they would build the transit component along the same route, not a separate one.

 

[Equilibria]

If they would ever go so far to bury the Tobin, they would build the transit component along the same route, not a separate one.

Would, yes. Should, no.

 

[Equilibria]

I made it with two colors just to try and sell it a little bit easier! No crazier than what is being proposed at Allston Landing.

Actually, what you proposed is virtually the same as what RIDOT did to I-195 in Downtown Providence.

Downside is that the area around Boston Sand and Gravel is being developed to accommodate a very tight ramp system that has already been built at great expense. Sullivan Square has different aspirations.

I'm not really sure I see how eliminating the ramp loop at North Point would help urbanism in the area very much, since the rail line and Zakim already prevent much urban development there. You could build, like, a couple more Cambridge Crossing block buildings. By contrast, Sullivan Square could be a real neighborhood, including the parcels you've used for ramps.

But any solution to this situation needs to (a) get rail transit to Chelsea and (b) eliminate the Chelsea Curves.

 

[Charlie_mta]

They should look at a totally new route, push the 93 and Rt 1 exchange north, build over the industrial areas.

This area over the T bus yards.
View attachment 42880

In this I see a strong resemblance to the old City Square when the elevated Central Artery used to run over it.
Slicing and dicing this Sullivan Square area with elevated highways would ruin any chance of developing it into a walkable human scale urban neighborhood.

 

[BosMaineiac]

I think what we’re most likely to see is a bridge built directly adjacent to the Tobin, maybe lanes on either side. Then the existing Tobin alignment will be reserved for bus lanes (hopefully with provisions for heavier rail) which will be built after the new lanes are active. It may be difficult to tie the new lanes with the old approaches but I really don’t see another cost effective option here.

Any other alignment will be extremely cost prohibitive and will likely be met with stiff pushback from abutting properties, regardless if those properties are residential or commercial.

 

[Delvin4519]

I think what we’re most likely to see is a bridge built directly adjacent to the Tobin, maybe lanes on either side. Then the existing Tobin alignment will be reserved for bus lanes (hopefully with provisions for heavier rail) which will be built after the new lanes are active. It may be difficult to tie the new lanes with the old approaches but I really don’t see another cost effective option here.

Any other alignment will be extremely cost prohibitive and will likely be met with stiff pushback from abutting properties, regardless if those properties are residential or commercial.

Wouldn't the existing bridge need to be removed before the new bridge can be built? I would think the whole ROW is essentilly filled to the max like such,

 

[BosMaineiac]

Wouldn't the existing bridge need to be removed before the new bridge can be built? I would think the whole ROW is essentilly filled to the max like such,

We shall see what solutions are proposed, but I’m guessing there will have to be a bridge that is built very close to it while the Tobin remains active. Maybe some sort of open tower like the zakim that goes around the bridge? Whatever’s decided on will be challenging, talking Big Dig level complexity, but I will bet money that the new crossing is over the Mystic in the same general location as the existing. I think we’ll see a tunnel preferred (with all the challenges that would bring) before an alignment along the Eastern branch north of Sullivan.

 

[Equilibria]

We shall see what solutions are proposed, but I’m guessing there will have to be a bridge that is built very close to it while the Tobin remains active. Maybe some sort of open tower like the zakim that goes around the bridge? Whatever’s decided on will be challenging, talking Big Dig level complexity, but I will bet money that the new crossing is over the Mystic in the same general location as the existing. I think we’ll see a tunnel preferred (with all the challenges that would bring) before an alignment along the Eastern branch north of Sullivan.

Well, none of this is actually going to happen, so it's a matter of what should happen. The Tobin, for all its magestic height and presence, doesn't actually bridge much of a gap. The Mystic at that point is about 1,400 across, not much different than the Alford Street Bridge or other forgettable ones around. The Sumner, Callahan, and Ted Williams tunnels all traverse much greater channels. The reason the Tobin is so enormous is that it needs to get high enough to clear the shipping channel. Overbuilding another bridge there makes the same amount of sense as building one from the Seaport to the Airport did: none. Not to mention that if you wanted to put rail over the bridge you'd need even longer grades and shallow approaches (the old "why can't you run the Red Line down the median of Route 2" problem).

Also, The Secretary has made it her first order of business to envision dumping a tall bridge with bus lanes, so I don't think she's looking for a vision for another, on the same alignment.

Taking into account that the rail may need to tunnel alongside the highway, here's my second attempt at a concept. New twist this time: incorporate Route 16. Rebuild the Mill Creek interchange between RB Parkway and Route 1 to merge the Parkway in instead of crossing over. Downgrade Route 16 through Everett to a 4-lane multimodal boulevard (Massachusetts has no Route 16A at present, so I used a shield from Prince Edward Island). Cut Sweetser Circle down to size since the 16/99 intersection is now closer to the casino in no-one's land. Now you've built an alternative route to/from Boston for all I-93 traffic originating from south of Medford, in addition to Fellsway/McGrath.

North of the Mystic, the highway doesn't even need to be tunneled - it could be in a trench. As in Allston, much cheaper to trench (or even build at-grade with sound walls) than to have a viaduct, particularly in life cycle costs.

I still prefer the T (which I've colored blue here but probably would still be the Orange Line) to take the current US-1 alignment to this one, but I'm surrendering to Van's logic.

 

[BosMaineiac]

Well, none of this is actually going to happen, so it's a matter of what should happen. The Tobin, for all its magestic height and presence, doesn't actually bridge much of a gap. The Mystic at that point is about 1,400 across, not much different than the Alford Street Bridge or other forgettable ones around. The Sumner, Callahan, and Ted Williams tunnels all traverse much greater channels. The reason the Tobin is so enormous is that it needs to get high enough to clear the shipping channel. Overbuilding another bridge there makes the same amount of sense as building one from the Seaport to the Airport did: none. Not to mention that if you wanted to put rail over the bridge you'd need even longer grades and shallow approaches (the old "why can't you run the Red Line down the median of Route 2" problem).

Also, The Secretary has made it her first order of business to envision dumping a tall bridge with bus lanes, so I don't think she's looking for a vision for another, on the same alignment.

Taking into account that the rail may need to tunnel alongside the highway, here's my second attempt at a concept. New twist this time: incorporate Route 16. Rebuild the Mill Creek interchange between RB Parkway and Route 1 to merge the Parkway in instead of crossing over. Downgrade Route 16 through Everett to a 4-lane multimodal boulevard (Massachusetts has no Route 16A at present, so I used a shield from Prince Edward Island). Cut Sweetser Circle down to size since the 16/99 intersection is now closer to the casino in no-one's land.

North of the Mystic, the highway doesn't even need to be tunneled - it could be in a trench. As in Allston, much cheaper to trench (or even build at-grade with sound walls) than to have a viaduct, particularly in life cycle costs.

I still prefer the T (which I've colored blue here but probably would still be the Orange Line) to take the current US-1 alignment to this one, but I'm surrendering to Van's logic.

View attachment 42924

True, I’m forgetting we are in design a better Boston, but I am definitely speaking to what I see as the most realistic replacement option. I’m not saying there can’t be a creative option mentioned here with those parameters. I’m just saying that plopping a greenfield highway ROW less than 3 miles from the core of Boston is approaching God Mode today. I do like this alignment that you’ve proposed