Hey, there! Log in / Register

Don't look for any more Westwood PD bridge crash videos

By Dave on Wed, 01/04/2017 - 5:01pm

Westwood police will no longer post videos of bridge that eats trucks


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

By Ari O on Wed, 01/04/2017 - 5:43pm.

Because it's constantly hit by illiterate drivers.

Now the bridge may need to be repaired anyway, and the T is actually pretty good at quick, presto-changeo bridge replacements. But why should the T, which has its bridge hit by overheight trucks through no fault of its own, be responsible for paying to lower the bridge? Shouldn't that come out of, say, the gas tax? (Some of the height differential may be solved with a shallower structure depth, but you can only take that so far. In this case, it's already pretty minimal, so it is probably a question of inches, not feet.)

It's like saying that pedestrians should pay for Storrow bridge damage every time some numbskull in a U-Haul hits a bridge.

Suggestion: to minimize costs, the T should build some big protective bars on either side of the bridge (like they have in North Carolina) so any driver unable to read a big sign damages the bar, but not the bridge. Or go for a handout to the MassHighway side of 10 Park Plaza if they want it lower.

up
Voting closed 0

By roadman on Wed, 01/04/2017 - 6:08pm.

overheight vehicles hitting a bridge, then wouldn't the proper solution be to RAISE the bridge rather than lower it. Unless they're thinking about totally eliminating the bridge and replacing it with an at-grade crossing, which then creates the potential for other sorts of issues - as recently documented on these pages.

And while the MBTA is pretty good at replacing bridges in "quickie" fashion, I concur that the highway side of MassDOT is even better at it (witness the "Fast 14" project in 2011).

up
Voting closed 0

By SwirlyGrrl on Wed, 01/04/2017 - 6:52pm.

You probably know and forgot this, but you can't just raise a railway bridge without regrading the entire setup.

Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.

http://11foot8.com/faq/

up
Voting closed 0

By markk on Wed, 01/04/2017 - 7:49pm.

And also depress the roadway.

From the same Globe article:

Officials from the MBTA, which owns and manages the overpass, plan to solicit bids in April for construction on the bridge and road that runs beneath it.

Joe Pesaturo, a spokesman for the transit agency, said the work is “planned for completion” by the end of 2018. The T is still working on the final design, he said.

Pesaturo said in a statement that the bridge replacement project would include raising the railroad tracks and existing structure; lowering the roadway; and widening the street.

“The new bridge will provide increased vertical [and] horizontal roadway clearances to improve safe passage,” he said.

up
Voting closed 0

By Kinopio on Thu, 01/05/2017 - 9:28am.

So T users will pay for construction costs because idiot drivers can't be bothered to read signs? Example #343545668 of dangerous drivers being spoiled while responsible users of public transit get screwed.

up
Voting closed 0

By DTP on Thu, 01/05/2017 - 9:11am.

The article does specifically say they are going to do a combination of raising the bridge and lowering the road. That's possible here because the nearest other structures are 1500 ft to the north, and 2300 ft to the south. Plenty of room.

The 11foot8 bridge in Durham, however, is merely 400 ft from an at-grade crossing one block away, which itself is adjacent to Durham's Amtrak station platform. Raising the bridge would potentially impact both of those, whereas in Westwood, eh, so what if they have to regrade.

up
Voting closed 0

By O-FISH-L on Wed, 01/04/2017 - 6:16pm.

In my experience, whenever a truck or car wiped out a guard rail, traffic light or other government property, and the driver was found at fault, their insurance would cover the damage. Raising the bridge or whatever the plan is, would seem to be more of an overdue infrastructure expense borne by all taxpayers.

On a side note, how does withholding video affect the situation? Do they think truckers are intentionally hitting the bridge to get on video? I knew of a suburban police chief who banned the portable trailers that show your speed because he thought teen driver's might speed up to get the highest speed.

up
Voting closed 0

By Rob on Wed, 01/04/2017 - 9:51pm.


In my experience, whenever a truck or car wiped out a guard rail, traffic light or other government property, and the driver was found at fault, their insurance would cover the damage. Raising the bridge or whatever the plan is, would seem to be more of an overdue infrastructure expense borne by all taxpayers

The hits are mostly to the side structure of the bridge - causing some dents & deformation, destroying paint, disrupting road & rail traffic while inspectors make sure the bridge is still safe, and probably the accumulated damage shortens the useful life of the bridge. You can put a cost on cleanup & inspections fairly easily. Putting a dollar figure on how much each owes is a bit tougher. As you say, it's more an infrastructure move to (a) stop the nuisance & recurring expense, (b) prevent future hits which will eventually accumulate enough damage to cause major personal injury and/or an involuntary shutdown of the bridge in uncontrolled circumstances.

up
Voting closed 0

By DTP on Thu, 01/05/2017 - 9:14am.

On a side note, how does withholding video affect the situation? Do they think truckers are intentionally hitting the bridge to get on video? I knew of a suburban police chief who banned the portable trailers that show your speed because he thought teen driver's might speed up to get the highest speed.

Read the article. They weren't posting the video to be entertaining, they were doing it to raise awareness at the state that this is a problem. Now that the state has announced it is doing something about it, there is no longer any reason to post the videos.

up
Voting closed 0

By Felicity on Wed, 01/04/2017 - 8:02pm.

I hadnt heard of the Lobsterpocalypse
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sxUUUaE1O9o&ebc=ANyPxKr7NCM5jNPvx-Kzq1JnUw...

up
Voting closed 0

By eekanotloggedin on Wed, 01/04/2017 - 9:54pm.

http://11foot8.com/13-crashes-in-13-months/

up
Voting closed 0

By GROVER on Thu, 01/05/2017 - 8:41am.

The bridge is not being replaced because it's damaged. It's being replaced because it's too low It will take 2-3 weekends to do it.

up
Voting closed 0

By bostnkid on Thu, 01/05/2017 - 8:55am.

I bet someone got yelled at when the Medway firetruck crashed into the bridge and it got posted. you would think those guys would be aware of this type of thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMg5HiLHHt0

up
Voting closed 0

By Gary C on Thu, 01/05/2017 - 11:17am.

The Medway truck was returning from the repair shop and was following another shorter Medway FD vehicle when the truck hit the bridge. He SHOULD have read the signs, but you can see, given the circumstances, where that could easily happen.

up
Voting closed 0

By bostnkid on Thu, 01/05/2017 - 1:22pm.

if you are licensed to drive that truck you should be very aware of any height restrictions. this should not happen "easily" with a public safety vehicle.

up
Voting closed 0

By Dave on Thu, 01/05/2017 - 9:51am.

Here's the plan formulated in 2016 for raising the bridge and lowering the roadway.

It's interesting that they propose lowering the road at that point, since it's already at a low spot and tends to flood in heavy rain.

up
Voting closed 0