Twenty20 @ Northpoint | 20 Child Street | Cambridge

Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

Thanks for the updates. I had not seen these pictures before. Building Twenty/20 is by no means a small building but it is such a small part of what will eventually be developed at NorthPoint. The bird's eye view of the site shows how much vacant land is available.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

dqg7GNr.jpg
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

Thanks Arborway. That was easy.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

Tango said:
The bird's eye view of the site shows how much vacant land is available.
Click to expand...

You can get a good feel for the site from the elevated ramps on 93 just north of the Zakim. I just looked at it today. It's an absolutely enormous plot of land.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

http://
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

Pierce said:
There are stairs and a plaza, and how. They are blocked by the building in that view of the model, but if you scroll about 1/3 down the page below you will see some pretty delicious renderings of it all:

http://landworks-studio-boston.tumblr.com/
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...the stairs are better than nothing. However, I would have preferred to see a deck connecting the sidewalk to the 3rd (?) floor along the whole Charlestown Ave. side of the building. I realize this would have called for some type of 3rd floor lobby, but it would have given a much better pedestrian experience to the fair amount of pedestrian traffic the Gilmore Bridge gets.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

Toonie29 said:
Hmmmm...the stairs are better than nothing. However, I would have preferred to see a deck connecting the sidewalk to the 3rd (?) floor along the whole Charlestown Ave. side of the building. I realize this would have called for some type of 3rd floor lobby, but it would have given a much better pedestrian experience to the fair amount of pedestrian traffic the Gilmore Bridge gets.
Click to expand...

It's a good idea, but unfortunately, I don't think we're ever going to see Gilmore Bridge morph into anything other than the overpass that it is.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

BussesAin'tTrains said:
It's a good idea, but unfortunately, I don't think we're ever going to see Gilmore Bridge morph into anything other than the overpass that it is.
Click to expand...


Speaking of that bridge...is there any way to make it more pedestrian friendly? Any plans on the way from the state? Getting off at Community College and crossing that bridge to East Cambridge is a headache and very unpleasant.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

armpitsOFmight said:
Speaking of that bridge...is there any way to make it more pedestrian friendly? Any plans on the way from the state? Getting off at Community College and crossing that bridge to East Cambridge is a headache and very unpleasant.
Click to expand...

That was the thought behind my original post. It would have been fantastic if every building built along side the bridge had a Gilmore Bridge "street level" presence, the bridge would feel less like a highway overpass and a LITTLE bit more like a city street. It would be much nicer to walk by a series of thoughtfully designed building entrances with trees, planters, etc., instead of guardrails and jersey barriers and the only thing you have to look at is random bits of trash and cigarette butts.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

Toonie29 said:
That was the thought behind my original post. It would have been fantastic if every building built along side the bridge had a Gilmore Bridge "street level" presence, the bridge would feel less like a highway overpass and a LITTLE bit more like a city street. It would be much nicer to walk by a series of thoughtfully designed building entrances with trees, planters, etc., instead of guardrails and jersey barriers and the only thing you have to look at is random bits of trash and cigarette butts.
Click to expand...

I'm down if they just make that sidewalk wider. I'm not voting to take a travel lane, more as in extend the bridge outward to hold more sidewalk. Ideally, wide enough to add a cycle track too.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

ant8904 said:
I'm down if they just make that sidewalk wider. I'm not voting to take a travel lane, more as in extend the bridge outward to hold more sidewalk. Ideally, wide enough to add a cycle track too.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a much bigger infrastructure project than it sounds?
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

Well, if the buildings will be that close to the bridge, then perhaps the building can just extend out some sidewalk with the barrier removed.

Ignoring that thought, usually widening the bridge means making a bigger deck which is a huge project. It is just that I always feels like there has to be a easier engineering approach to the problem. A way to extend out the sides (trestles under with some suspension above?) without such an involved way.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

ant8904 said:
I'm down if they just make that sidewalk wider. I'm not voting to take a travel lane, more as in extend the bridge outward to hold more sidewalk. Ideally, wide enough to add a cycle track too.
Click to expand...

Gilmore's got almost nada for shoulder to claim: http://goo.gl/maps/Zqz3h.

This would be doable if each direction ran 1 lane from its start to the center of the bridge then picked up a lane from the halfway point to the end. A -1 overall lane reduction with a 'handoff' in the middle on who gets the second lane. In other words, grabbing the same amount of extra space for pedestrians as the Longfellow is in its rehab, but doing it with synchronous traffic flow (unlike Longfellow, which'll be 2 on the inbound side, 1 on the outbound) so no one direction gets over-punished on capacity loss.

I've never seen that bridge locked at-capacity end-to-end. It's always off to the races from one end, and then if it's crush-load traffic the queues start backing up after the midpoint. And midpoint is being generous, as there is probably no harm in zapping the second lane to the two-thirds point of each direction.


I hope they can study this, because if Rutherford Ave. is being downsized and McGrath is being downsized the volumes are going to drop quite a bit here over the next few years.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

I've seen it backed up to BHCC heading to Cambridge during evening rush a few times, but yeah, after downgrading the McGrath and Rutherford, you wonder what will happen. It's definitly not a nice walk (although fun if your an infrastructure nut), and will probably get a lot more foot traffic once North Point is built out and Rutherford is redeveloped.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

F-Line to Dudley said:
Gilmore's got almost nada for shoulder to claim: http://goo.gl/maps/Zqz3h.

This would be doable if each direction ran 1 lane from its start to the center of the bridge then picked up a lane from the halfway point to the end. A -1 overall lane reduction with a 'handoff' in the middle on who gets the second lane. In other words, grabbing the same amount of extra space for pedestrians as the Longfellow is in its rehab, but doing it with synchronous traffic flow (unlike Longfellow, which'll be 2 on the inbound side, 1 on the outbound) so no one direction gets over-punished on capacity loss.

I've never seen that bridge locked at-capacity end-to-end. It's always off to the races from one end, and then if it's crush-load traffic the queues start backing up after the midpoint. And midpoint is being generous, as there is probably no harm in zapping the second lane to the two-thirds point of each direction.


I hope they can study this, because if Rutherford Ave. is being downsized and McGrath is being downsized the volumes are going to drop quite a bit here over the next few years.
Click to expand...

I seen it backed up to BHCC more than a few times. I learn to avoid that bridge during evening rush hours a long time ago if I was in a car. And honestly, I been on it a large number of times but I used a scooter to get pass everything.

If it does calm down after the downgrading the McGrath and Rutherford, then removing a lane on this bridge is something I would feel comfortable. Without that, it just feels like adding fuel to the conservative complaint of trying to reduce driving by making it suck more than the other modes. I should also note I think a lot of the traffic can be remedied if there was more connections. North of Charles, there's Cambridge-Washington St. and this bridge. Everything East-West have to be funnel to these two or have to go even more North or go through Boston.

One thought though, I mention trestles. Bridge expansion always talk about a bigger deck. But can adding supports form under work? My understanding of physics that doesn't sound impossible, but I never seen the suggestion and shooting down by experts (and when I read the idea suggested sometimes by a commentators in online sites, no one ever counter why one cannot engineer it).
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

ant8904 said:
I seen it backed up to BHCC more than a few times. I learn to avoid that bridge during evening rush hours a long time ago if I was in a car. And honestly, I been on it a large number of times but I used a scooter to get pass everything.

If it does calm down after the downgrading the McGrath and Rutherford, then removing a lane on this bridge is something I would feel comfortable. Without that, it just feels like adding fuel to the conservative complaint of trying to reduce driving by making it suck more than the other modes. I should also note I think a lot of the traffic can be remedied if there was more connections. North of Charles, there's Cambridge-Washington St. and this bridge. Everything East-West have to be funnel to these two or have to go even more North or go through Boston.

One thought though, I mention trestles. Bridge expansion always talk about a bigger deck. But can adding supports form under work? My understanding of physics that doesn't sound impossible, but I never seen the suggestion and shooting down by experts (and when I read the idea suggested sometimes by a commentators in online sites, no one ever counter why one cannot engineer it).
Click to expand...

It can be done, but it's such a pain in the ass to maintain as a thin bolt-on deck that it's best to avoid unless it's a water crossing or something where you have literally no choice. Say, if the Bourne or Sagamore needed a real grade-separated sidewalk...that's where you'd do it and put up with the pain of long-term maintaining an overhang deck. The Gilmore isn't worth the extra complication being over reclaimed land with alternate routes.

I would like to see what the traffic loads are going to look like post- Rutherford and McGrath removals. That would change the prevailing traffic direction on it to majority/plurality straight-thru from Land/Memorial rather than majority turning traffic. Unfortunately none of the current plans for either road factor the Gilmore in because it's beyond the project areas for both, so it risks falling through the cracks as an over-capacity anachronism after both those projects are finished. But I do think the only way you can get a sidewalk wide enough for two of those SUV-sized urban-warrior mom strollers to pass each other is with a lane drop from 4 to 3 and shifting the jersey barrier. Physically there's nothing else you can tart it up with that'll buy as much as a few inches of breathing room. So the task is extrapolating load reduction data from the McGrath and Rutherford project aftermaths that achieves that comfort zone for allowing a lane drop to the midpoint from each direction without doing more harm than good.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

I'm no structural engineer but I seriously question the Gilmore bridge structure. Go through Northpoint sometime and have a look at the columns. They are falling apart, rusted rebar poking through, concrete rubble all over the ground. The underside of the deck does not look too swell either. Anyone know how the Gilmore has fared in bridge evaluations? If they were forced to repair it, they might have the opportunity to upgrade the pedestrian situation.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

abdinoor said:
I'm no structural engineer but I seriously question the Gilmore bridge structure. Go through Northpoint sometime and have a look at the columns. They are falling apart, rusted rebar poking through, concrete rubble all over the ground. The underside of the deck does not look too swell either. Anyone know how the Gilmore has fared in bridge evaluations? If they were forced to repair it, they might have the opportunity to upgrade the pedestrian situation.
Click to expand...

Gilmore is listed as "Functionally Obsolete"

http://nationalbridges.com/

Search:
State: MA
Facility Carried: Austin St

State: MA
Place Name: Boston
County: Suffolk
NBI Structure Number: B161794F6DOTNBI
Route Sign Prefix: Local Road
Facility Carried: HWY AUSTIN ST
Feature Intersected: COMB I 93 RMP&MBTA&ORNG
Location: .1 M. W OF RUTHERFORD ST
Year Built: 1974
Status: Functionally Obsolete
RecordType: Roadway is carried ON the structure
Level of Service: Mainline roadway
Owner: State Highway Agency
Highway Agency District: 06
Maintenance Responsibility: State Highway Agency
Functional Class: Principal Arterial - Other, Urban
Service On Bridge: Highway-pedestrian
Service Under Bridge: Highway-railroad
Latitude: 42 22 21.19 N
Longitude: 71 04 14.56 W
Material Design: Steel
Design Construction: Stringer/Multi-beam or Girder
Approach Material Design: Prestressed concrete *
Approach Design Construction: Stringer/Multi-beam or Girder
Structure Length (m): 556.3
Approach Roadway Width (m): 19.8
Lanes on Structure: 4
Lanes under Structure: 4
Average Daily Traffic: 39200
Year of Average Daily Traffic: 2005
Design Load: M 18
Bridge Railings: Meet currently acceptable standards.
Historical Significance: Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
# of Spans in Main Structure: 1
# of Spans in Approach Structures: 23
StructureFlared: Yes
Transitions: Does not meet currently acceptable standards.
Approach Guardrail: Does not meet currently acceptable standards.
Approach Guardrail Ends: Does not meet currently acceptable standards.
Navigation Control: Not Applicable
Structure Open?: Open, no restrictions
Deck: Satisfactory Condition
Superstructure: Fair Condition
Substructure: Fair Condition
Structural Evaluation: Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is
Sufficiency Rating (%): 60.1

http://nationalbridges.com/index.ph...s&query=8&lqm_id=267992&&format=raw&&Itemid=2
Click to expand...
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

Functionally obsolete is not dangerous. It just means that the traffic engineers are itching to add more lanes to it.
 
Re: NorthPoint Cambridge (The one that was train yards, the big plan.)

Matthew said:
Functionally obsolete is not dangerous. It just means that the traffic engineers are itching to add more lanes to it.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they be somewhat restricted in how many lanes they could add? (Not that I'm arguing that more lanes are needed.) The existing four lanes, plus the sidewalk, seem to fill the entire arch underneath the Green Line bridge at the intersection with Rt 28.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top