• North Bank Bridge Discussion (Tower A)

  • Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.
Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: sery2831, CRail

  by Arlington
 
The bike/pedestrian bridge opened on July 13 (yesterday)
Here is the Boston Globe story and the post on the state's transportation blog
Image
Image
  by ST214
 
This looks like it is worth a ride to one of these days..... :)
  by Arlington
 
ST214 wrote:This looks like it is worth a ride to one of these days..... :)
Tricky bit: bike ride (over the bridge) vs train ride (under and for distance viewing). Until there's a better way from North Station to either Charlestown or Cambridge, it is "hard" to both ride the train and cross the bridge. Word is that the reason the shoreline path comes right up to (but ends at) the drawbridge (on both of the "upstream" banks) is that one day there will be an "outrigger" footpath on the drawbridge.
  by sery2831
 
There was going to be three more bridges, but funding was killed. Then some Obama money was given to this project and is the only reason why this bridge got built. They are doing work for at least one more bridge to cross the Charles. None of the pedestrian crossings will be part of the Tower A Railroad bridges.
  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
lkitch wrote:There is a good graphic showing the previously-planned pedestrian bridges (brown lines) at
http://patricetodisco.files.wordpress.c ... ur-035.jpg
Oh thank God...they're planning to put back the Leverett Circle/Science Park ramps. That'll probably recoup its own construction cost through elimination of the hours upon hours of police OT directing traffic at the crosswalks for Garden events and summer weekends on the Esplanade.
  by lkitch
 
PREVIOUSLY-planned. I don't know which, if any, of these will really ever happen now.
  by Ron Newman
 
I don't see any reason to put pedestrian bridges back into Leverett Circle. The crosswalks are just fine, similar to Charles Circle which doesn't miss its pedestrian bridges at all.
  by TrainManTy
 
Ron Newman wrote:I don't see any reason to put pedestrian bridges back into Leverett Circle. The crosswalks are just fine, similar to Charles Circle which doesn't miss its pedestrian bridges at all.
As someone who crosses Leverett Circle twice a day, four times a week, I agree. The crosswalks are just fine, only getting iffy during some PM rush hours when the auto traffic gridlocks and cars block the crosswalks. Even then, you can cross through the stopped cars with little threat to life as long as you're careful.

Drifting off-topic...
  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Ron Newman wrote:I don't see any reason to put pedestrian bridges back into Leverett Circle. The crosswalks are just fine, similar to Charles Circle which doesn't miss its pedestrian bridges at all.
Cops directing ped traffic in those crosswalks. Every summer weekend. Every Garden event.

The city apparently doesn't think the crosswalks are "just fine", and so that intersection chews up a couple hundred hours of police OT every year. Give it enough years and the labor comes out comparable to the cost of new footbridges. It's a farce. If the crosswalks are "just fine" there shouldn't be a need at all to have cops directing traffic at them when there's event ped traffic.
  by GP40MC1118
 
Thank God they scrapped the crazy notion of attaching footbridges to the railroad drawbridges.
What a nightmare for the drawtender, dispatcher, boats in regards to openings and safety. The folks
who come up with these type of ideas have no clue...

D
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8