Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Enough with the bicycles.
Enough with the bicycles. Cars aren’t going away.
Enough with the cars.
Enough with the cars. Bicycles aren't going away.
Enough with wheeled vehicles
horseback riding isn't going away.
Spoken like a true Mountie
Spoken like a true Mountie
No horsing around!
Walking has been a thing for tens of thousands of years!
That's unfortunate about cars
But neither will bikes. They were here before and they'll be here long after.
If you want a lame car
If you want a lame car centric life then stick to the suburbs. No one will miss you and your noise and air pollution.
This bridge looks great. If it makes selfish car nuts like you throw a temper tantrum then even better.
Tesla
Shirley you don't mean me, as I own a Tesla, which is relatively quiet and no air pollution.
We’re not the ones throwing
We’re not the ones throwing the tantrums.
Your first comment
Speaks for itself, hon.
Carmella doesn't speak
for this 'car nut'.
And while I'm ok with the idea of a ped bridge, I hate all three of AECOM's proposed designs.
Of course not
That's why they can already drive over Congress Street to get to the Seaport.
I get it
I get why they want to do this but come on folks.
We have bigger fish to fry. The T caught fire the other day, our infrastructure is broken and failing, and we want to build a bridge that serves no real purpose than having people avoid walking a 1/2 block to the moakley
Like I said, I get the movement behind this bridge but lets focus our money where it really needs to be spent. Sorry this isn't one of them.
This is fixing broken
This is fixing broken infrastructure.
Yes, who needs new signals on
Yes, who needs new signals on the T when we can renew a bridge that hasn't been used in years now.
Not for toddlers
Grownups can walk and chew gum at the same time. Toddlers shouldn't be telling grownups what they can and can't do.
yeah, didn't the army corps
yeah, didn't the army corps of engineers warn that the existing (non functioning) bridge is nearly imminent risk of collapse?
*fun fact - my wife and had wedding photos taken on the bridge just hours before it was finally closed to the public for being a severe safety risk. glad we didn't fall into the channel on our wedding day
Yeah
So why wasn't it torn down? right because for decades they have been try to push this plan.
The only people who have to blame are the community groups who are pushing for this thing. If it falls, its all on them for keeping a bridge up that should have been demo'd about 20 years ago after the moakley opened.
Spare me the "historic" aspect. It's not, and if it was, the Washington Street bridge would have much better 'historic' value than the Northern Ave.
No, its not.
This bridge was REPLACED by the Moakley. It has not been in use for almost 20 years. It is not critical to be redone at this point.
If there was no other bridge nearby you'd have a point but the Moakley is
This isn't fixing infrastructure. We've lived 20 year without it, we'll survive another few years without it.
Now the MBTA on the other hand..... all hell breaks loose when it dies.
But the moakley is a motor
But the moakley is a motor vehicle bridge (albeit it does have pretty wide wide walks)
This new bridge would be only bikes and pedestrian
ideal situation: open this
ideal situation: open this bridge, take the sidewalks off the moakley, use that space to institute BRT or *gasp* trolleys
Walking
Huh. I distinctly recall using this bridge just a few years ago.
we've lived for 5 years without it
it was closed, universally in 2014.
Proposals look great
The 3 proposed designs they show in the article all look really cool. I think it's exciting anytime we can get a new modern, pedestrian oriented space.
You People
All of you, make me much happier in retrospect. Opa!
Correct me if I'm wrong
But wasn't the whole point of this project in the first place to preserve the existing bridge?
The "double arch" design looks hideous
The "double arch" design looks hideous. Like a giant laundry basket one buys in the dollar store. The "girder truss" is a classic look and close to way the old bridge looks now. It fits with the area and I vote for that one.
Fits with the area?
Good lord people, we can't ever try anything different here? Not even a pedestrian foot bridge?
And its a London Millennium Bridge rip-off
They smashed together the Millennium Bridge with a cable stayed bridge concept and a "keep the current bridge frame" concept. Ugly
Looks expensive
The double arch one looks like it would cost more than a plain one. I'm no structural engineer but I did watch Modern Marvels bridge edition on the History channel.
If you look at the mock up of the one w arches over the park.
There is open space right underneath that just scream Homeless Shanty-Town. Can't wait.
Maybe it's just me
But it looks like a vagina.
I think it's a fairly common
I think it's a fairly common architectural motif
Bikes first, screw public transit
An entire bridge devoted to pedestrians and bikes and that excludes public transit is a waste of money. Is it really needed? The 250 rush hour cyclists that would traverse this structure can pedal over the Moakley bridge. A design that would allow buses would actually do some good. It never ceases to amaze me how transportation policy is distorted by bike advocates. "People first" really means "people who ride bikes first."
Let’s go back to streetcars.
Let’s go back to streetcars. I’d like that.
They work well in many areas
They don't work well where private cars block their progress. I loved the extensive street car system in Basel, where large areas have street car service, but no cars allowed.