Dumbass with truck blocks Storrow Drive

Truck on Storrow Drive

Tommy Von was among the motorists who had to just sit there as State Police cleared a path for a truck driver to slowly back his stupid truck off the road shortly after 10 a.m. But on the bright side, at least the guy didn't splatter the contents of his truck all over the road by slamming into a bridge or something.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

You know what would help?

By on

If they had a sign by the onramp that had, in white on a red background "DANGER" and beneath that in black on a yellow background "LOW CLEARANCE AHEAD 11' 0"."

Perhaps as an added aid, they could put a bumper at about 11 feet that said "CARS O LY".

EDIT- and a sign 5 feet high that said, in graphical form, no trucks.

up
37

News Flash - There's nothing to prevent

By on

MUTCD-compliant signs from being made larger than the standard sizes. Most highway agencies do that when necessary for emphasis.

The plain fact is that most signing on DCR roads is either the minimum size, or smaller than minimum size, called for in the MUTCD standards. Why, because some self-appointed "experts" decided that real highway signing is inappropriate for these "parkways" because they would be "asethetically incompatible" with the landscape.

up
17

Please. Stop it!

By on

Your excuses for idiots driving with their heads up their asses are getting as tiresome as Markk's excuses for idiots driving with their heads up their asses.

up
26

He's not making "excuses", he

He's not making "excuses", he's offering suggestions for how Boston might actually be able to reduce the number of incidents like this, based on standards that have been shown to work around the world. I'm sure it gives you a great feeling of moral superiority to sit in front of your computer and snort "Boy, are those fuckin truck drivers dumb or what?" but some people would actually like to try to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.

up
12

He's got a point

By on

Look, I've argued and argued with him about this. In fact, I'm a bit sad he was only the second person to go after me on this, but he has points. He is not excusing their activity. My counter, and why I jumped to comment on this one, is that even though the signs are not to MUTCD standards, look at them.

Now, to get back on the other side, look at the signs. They are not ambiguous. How people miss them is beyond me.

But heck, since I'm in a touchy feely mood, I will even give the trucker credit and theorize that he saw the signs too late and in fact began to back up at the point where the photo was taken. Now, the people who are photographed at the Grand Junction Bridge, where the signs are not visible for comparison, are true idiots.

up
12

It is a general decline

..of cognitive skill because we have our heads up a bunch of devices and our own personal noise track in our ears for the imaginary movie in our minds that we are the stars of.

People no longer look at signs.

I have a deep fondness for those old souls who still have innocent faith in the things.

I love the cognitive.

Seeing and hearing the world around me rocks but it is falling out of favor.

I don't know what will replace signs. Proximity switches tied to lasers with megaphones blaring?

"Hey Asshole..Cars Only!!!"

That would be cool but probably won't please the various aestheticians..

Selective broadcasts

When you are within x feet of y hazard, you get an overriding signal that blanks out your soundtrack and says WARNING.

Blocks your soundtrack,

By on

Blocks your soundtrack, interrupts your cell phone call and sends you a text message. Of course, if it were some of my family, they still wouldn't get the message even if the freaking phone were right next to them!

But I digress...

you know what would help even more?

By on

Ever notice that no matter what happens with a driver, the excuse made for them is that they "didn't see it"?

Gee officer, I didn't see than 30 foot wide sign that says "DANGER NO TRUCKS" because it wasn't an international standard. Sorry.

What would help even more: if people didn't excuse a driver failing to follow a very clear, understandable, unmistakable warning sign because it doesn't follow some "national" or "international" standard.

up
34

Red sign = read this

By on

Attention should be drawn by the giant DANGER part of the sign. Just saying.

Seriously, though, it is the photo itself that brought me out today.

up
17

I knew that was coming

By on

Though I thought someone else was going to beat you to it.

First, since we had a rare photo of a truck and the signs the truck ignored, I had to point them out.

Second, the no trucks sign obscured by the black car is MUTCD compliant. Therefore, in addition to the very visible, though nonstandard, sign, we had a standard sign that did just as well as the others.

As sign is a sign. A warning is a warning. Why would people think that, just because a sign is not MUTCD compliant, it can be ignored? Is there something about driving a truck that keeps you from looking 12 feet from the ground?

up
21

While the No Trucks sign

By on

may be MUTCD compliant, the placement isn't very good. If you have a vehicle restriction, you should really post that loud and clear BEFORE the truck enters the ramp to Storrow, not after they've already committed to entering the highway.

up
11

Problem with the location

By on

Trucks are, and have to be, allowed on the onramp. It's the only way to access Houghton Chemical.

Of course, the other areas where trucks and buses get stuck cannot be tied to this one onramp. On the other side, trucks and buses should see the signs and take the right to Houghton before this crap happening.

up
11

No Trucks except Houghton Chemical

That would be a very non-standard sign, but perhaps useful to put at the beginning of the on-ramp?
And then, at the turnoff for the chemical company, ALL TRUCKS MUST TURN RIGHT ?

up
14

Know what would REALLY help?!

Upgrade all of Storrow Drive/Soldiers Field Road to US Highway standards, at least as far as clearances go: repave all of the underpasses to at least 13'6" clearances. Crazy, I know, but let's consider:

1) The Robert Moses days are over--America's love affair with the automobile, at least as far as taking a leisurely drive down a tree-lined parkway in the Northeast is over and done with.

2) Even if those days weren't over, there never is, never will be, and probably never was, anything leisurely or majestic about Storrow Drive/Soldiers Field Road--they're strictly arterial. After Science Park, it's not like there are points where you can pull over and enjoy the scenery and then hop back in your car and take off (yeah, I know there are a few pull-offs where the Staties sit, but all they're really good for is if you're disabled).

3) As someone who works in the commercial truck and bus industry, opening up Storrow Drive/Soldiers Field road to both would alleviate volumes of delays on numerous city streets from Brighton to the West End that through trucks and buses not already on the Turnpike have to use. What little bit you lose in trucks and buses on the now-highway you gain tenfold by alleviating now-congested urban streets.

4) Did I mention no more hitting overhead bridges and/or having to get backed off the parkways?

up
13

Good Luck

By on

Upgrade all of Storrow Drive/Soldiers Field Road to US Highway standards, at least as far as clearances go: repave all of the underpasses to at least 13'6" clearances. Crazy, I know, but let's consider:

Don't you think this has been thought of already?!? Seriously... everyone always suggests this, and if it was viable it would be done already.

Keep in mind a few things

1. Storrow Drive borders some pretty pricey condos on Beacon Street. Good luck on getting Storrow Drive upgraded to a highway by that neighborhood (as is, most over there would LOVE storrow to be gone all together)

2. Storrow is almost all land fill. To build any more tunnels any lower would just be asking for a gazillion leaks. Look at the existing tunnel, it leaks due to the water table and poor construction. So any 'upgrading' would have to be at surface level, and see #1 how well that would go thru.

3. It would cost a FORTUNE to do so. Almost as much as building a brand new highway thru there. Between raising bridges (like the longfellow and the Mass Ave bridge) it would make the big dig look fairly cheap. The entire roadway would have to be ripped up entirely to be upgraded. Its a bit more than just 'fixing a few bridges'

What SHOULD have happened was I-695. If 695 was built, people wouldn't be using Storrow as a crossways to get from 93 to Brighton without using the Pike or Storrow. Oh well, the NIMBYs didn't want 695, so the traffic had to go somewhere...

up
21

Yeah that would fix everything!

By on

I-695 Also known as bulldozing dense urban areas full of poor minorities so affluent suburbanites could commute faster.

up
27

once again

By on

You're missing my point. I never said anything about that.

All I said was, if 695 was built, it would be the crosstown expressway, rather than what Storrow is today. I didn't say anything else. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

typical...

Well, they should use 90.

By on

Well, they should use 90. Storrow was changed from parkland with a local road to the highway it is now before 90. Now that we have 90, complete with extension all the way to the airport and connections to 93, drivers should be using it. Just because they want to save a little money from tolls is not a good reason to spend hundreds of millions to billions to make storrow a full highway with higher overpasses. We just spent billions upgrading 90 and 93, use them.

up
20

People don't use Storrow

By on

People don't use Storrow rather than the Pike because they want to "save a little money from tolls".

People use Storrow rather than the Pike because access to the Pike within Boston is very limited. There are no westbound offramps or eastbound onramps between the South Bay interchange (93) and the Allston/Brighton tolls. People who come from, say, Fenway aren't going to go west over to Allston to get on the Pike eastbound, they're going to use the Charlesgate entrance to Storrow.

Especially not if they are destined for the Tobin, since then one does not even need to use 93 at all, just Storrow - Leverett - Tobin

Similarly, people coming from Watertown or Arlington are going to stay on Storrow rather than hop on the Pike at Allston/Brighton because it's easier and faster (the Pike involves exiting at Western Ave, passing through the signal, then taking almost a mile worth of slow-speed ramps, including a toll plaza, before being given the choice of a whopping ONE intermediate offramp (Prudential/Copley/Huntington Ave) before reaching 93.

In short, Storrow was built to carry the local intra-Boston traffic, and traffic from the inner suburbs into and out of Boston, whereas the Pike was built to carry traffic into Boston from the outer suburbs, and through traffic to 93 and the airport. Planners and engineers never intended for the Pike to be used for intra-Boston travel.

up
13

huh?

By on

That's dumb. All points of the city accessible via Storrow are accessible via the Pike and 93. No need to destroy the parkways.

up
14

How would you drive from Back

By on

How would you drive from Back Bay (or Kenmore or Kendall) to 93? You can't get on the eastbound Pike once you're east of the Allston entrance.

It's too bad that a now-abandoned policy to feed all Pike traffic through the Allston tolls forces so much traffic onto Storrow and local roads.

Normally I'd never go to South Station by car, and if I had to, I'd take Storrow to 93. But recently, for various complicated reasons, I found myself in a taxi heading there on Kneeland Street. Even though there were very few cars on the road, it still took forever to get down Kneeland Street because of the terribly timed traffic lights.

up
11

How about we get rid of the

By on

How about we get rid of the roads entirely and make everyone use the Mass Pike? Otherwise what was the point of building the highway?

up
17

open Storrow Drive to trucks and buses?

What a great idea to improve traffic! Have five or six large buses and trucks in line to exit Storrow at Fenway, Copley, and Charles St. Do you seriously think that's a good idea? Or just more expedient for the trucks and buses?

up
19

Me! Me! Me!

Yes, lets spend hundreds of millions of dollars, take away open space, narrow the walking paths along the river, and turn the parkways into travels lanes for 18 wheelers and buses to serve your interest.

Since your post is all about self serving interests, would you support my plan to replace all the water bubblers in the city with free Guinness dispensers?

Take your truck down the Pike and leave my parkways alone, or like the distributors to all the 7-11's, CVSs, Cosi Restaurants, etc. should be forced to do, buy smaller trucks suited for an urban environment.

up
26