Uber driver does his part to prevent major storrowing

Marcela Garcia watched the events unfold today.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

First time for everything

By on

Thanks to ride sharing my morning commute has ten fold the a**holes who drive like taxis.

up
Voting is closed. 1

And how exactly did the Uber driver prevent this?

By on

All I see in the video is a an empty gravel truck backing up. Presuming the driver was heading for Boston Sand and Gravel to pick up a load, it's entirely possible he realized he was in the wrong lane - this interchange can be a cluster to navigate - and stopped.

up
Voting is closed. 1

When all else fails

Watch the video. It appears the Uber driver got out of his vehicle to flag and direct the truck driver.

up
Voting is closed. 1

Fair point.

By on

However, presumably the driver did that AFTER the truck had stopped. Sorry, but that's not the same as "preventing a Storrowing", as the tweet states happened. But I guess "assisted trucker in correcting error" isn't nearly as attention-grabbing.

up
Voting is closed. 2

I almost for two seconds had

By on

I almost for two seconds had a slightly incorrect understanding of a situation which matters to absolutely nobody. Thank you for knowing all of the facts from your computer chair and shedding light on this important violation of the public trust.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Phrasing

the tweet states that the Uber driver prevented a "Storrowing mess" not the actual Storrowing, suggesting the aftermath could have been more nightmarish, traffic-wise, had the driver not intervened.

up
Voting is closed. 0

The operative word here being "prevented"

By on

Unless the Uber driver cut the truck off to prevent it from entering the underpass (which likely didn't happen based on the positions of "Mr Hero" and the backing truck in the video), or shouted into a CB "GRAVEL HAULER DRIVER STOP IMMEDIATELY", he did NOTHING to prevent a Storrowing. But let's overdramatize the event on Twitter to grab attention.

And I merely provided a likely scenario of events (he was in the wrong lane for his intended destination) based on my review of the video and my knowledge of the traffic flows (including actual personal experience) through the ramps at this location.

up
Voting is closed. 0

You are...

By on

...belaboring the point about something totally unimportant.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Since is when correct and accurate use of language

By on

"totally unimportant." Perhaps you should look up the meanings of "single-handledly", "prevented", and "Storrowing" (the latter's in the Urban Dictionary), and compare those definitions against what actually happened here - as verified by the person who actually took the video.

And if, after that, you still don't understand the importance of the point I'm trying to make, go talk to a middle school English teacher. Perhaps they can explain it to you.

up
Voting is closed. 1

hey there. I filmed the video

By on

hey there. I filmed the video. This is what happened: the truck was clearly trying to back up but no one was actually reacting, everyone was just sitting there (long line of cars). My Uber driver figured it out pretty quickly, drove up and got out of the car to direct cars ad traffic to move and allow the truck to back up and re-join 93. He told me he's a truck driver and totally relates to the situation. He said people get fired for storrowing, pay high fines, etc.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Thank you for the additional information

By on

And I say kudos to the Uber driver for recognizing the situation and taking action to prevent a potentially serious traffic problem from developing.

However, and with respect, it was obviously the truck driver who, despite making an error, was alert enough to realize his mistake and prevented a Storrowing.

up
Voting is closed. 1

It looks like the driver got

By on

It looks like the driver got out to warn the guy. You see him come back to the vehicle towards the end of the vehicle. The camera zoom while the truck was moving confused me as well. Looked like the car was moving with no one driving.

up
Voting is closed. 1

Hoooo boy

By on

That would have destroyed a bridge. Truck like that ain't gonna crumple.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Storrow Drive is an embarassment

By on

The underpasses should be dug deep enough to avoid clearance problems. The fact that "storrowing" keeps happening despite all the signs and what not is an indication that the road is badly engineered.

Presumably the reason it hasn't been fixed after so many decades is that no one wants to pay for it, just as no one wants to pay for the T or any other essential service.

up
Voting is closed. 2

Yes, But ...

By on

Yes, Storrowing is an embarrassment. It's more than an embarrassment.
But, 'we' -- meaning those managing the road (DCR?) -- should try 'intelligent solutions' first. Say:

  • Overhanging signs -- 'If you hit this sign, you will hit the overpass. EXIT NOW.'
  • Followed by 'electronic beam breakers' and flashing lights
  • Followed by audio warnings
  • Harsh fines (also announced by signs)
up
Voting is closed. 0

Storrow Drive is not for trucks

By on

It's for pleasure vehicles only, and the history back in the 1940s is that basically the MDC (now DCR) realized there was more patronage money in building roads than maintaining parks, so they got in to the road building business. Imagine how nice the river would be if, instead of the constant hum of cars whizzing by, you added trucks jake braking through the backups. Yes, sign me up. (Another option would just be to turn the park in to an actual park, but people driving would be inconvenienced, so that couldn't ever happen.)

If a driver is too dense to read 12 signs, then they deserve to hit the bridge.

up
Voting is closed. 2

If a driver is too dense to

By on

If a driver is too dense to read 12 signs, then they deserve to hit the bridge.

We seem to go through this argument every time Adam reports on a Storrowing. It's NOT ENOUGH to just have a gazillion signs, but to have signs that are written, sized, and placed to effectively communicate their messages to the driver. And that's why we have established standards for all those parameters. But for decades, the MDC/DCR have snubbed their noses at doing things "by the book" in favor of "innovative" solutions which obviously haven't worked.

And, as I've noted countless times before, a "LOW CLEARANCE" sign that doesn't tell the driver the actual clearance, or a tiny "NO TRUCKS" sign that a driver might see out of the corner of their eye while busy turning their rig onto an entrance ramp, is NOT SUFFICIENT warning to people.

Lastly, the continued occurrence of these types of incidents and near incidents, and the DCR's response with "band-aid" solutions and general refusal to consider following established standards in doing so, is just one more argument in favor of having MassDOT take full control (they already are responsible for winter maintenance) of Storrow and Memorial Drives and Solider's Field Road. Because, like it or not, the reality is that these are ARTERIAL ROADS, and not "recreational' parkways.

up
Voting is closed. 2

Question for you Roadman

Can you show us a road where there are low clearances and proper signage that doesn't have these incidents on a comedically regular basis?

We keep reading your screeds over and over - show us the counterfactual reality in situ!

up
Voting is closed. 0

Never meant for trucks

Also, in a flood plain that will get sloshed in a Cat 2 surge - or a Superstorm Cat 1.

There is no DOT interest in doing anything to an already substandard and likely doomed facility.

Trucks can go on I-90. There is no way that Storrow can be made reasonable for them without completely destroying the Esplanade in a fit of retrograde exhaust addled stupidity EVEN IF THEY RAISED OR LOWERED THINGS. The curves are wrong, the lane width is wrong. Considering that it should never have been built in the first place ...

up
Voting is closed. 0

Much ado about nothing

By on

Notice how there aren't any huge NO TRUCKS signs hanging down above the roadway there? That's because the clearance is 13'3". Trucks aren't supposed to go through the Leverett Tunnel, but they won't shear off their roof if they do. (The height limit in Mass for trucks is 13'6", but signage like this has somewhat of a margin of error to allow for things like new layers of pavement.)

Once you get to the Longfellow Bridge ramp is where all trucks have to exit before you get to the Longfellow (10'6") and other footbridges (as low as 10'0").

A couple of years ago I was walking across Broad Canal on Land Blvd/First St/Mem Drive (whatever it happens to be there, officially) and a truck driver saw the no trucks sign before the Longfellow Bridge exit and thought it pertained to the counterweight on the Broad Canal bridge. He began to back up and I waved for him to keep going and take a right on to Main Street, and he cleared the counterweight by plenty, which was better than backing up on a crowded roadway. Better safe than sorry, I guess, but let's not paint this guy a hero.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Great point!

By on

The driver is a professional driver, as in his job, and it's part of his job to ensure the roads he's driving on are rated for the vehicle he is driving. This includes clearances. No excuse for a professional driver to make this mistake. This is why the driver of a commercial bus or a semi tractor trailer driver gets harsher fines and punishment (including loss of license) when they violate. Trying to avoid traffic on 90 is not a valid excuse for ending up on Storrow in his case.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Legal maximum height for trucks in Massachusetts

By on

without a permit is 13'-6". So, any maximum clearance below that (actually any clearance below 14'-6" per Federal standards) must be posted.

Also note that the overhead signs in the video, as well as the advance overhead signs approaching the entrances to this tunnel (exit ramp from I-93 NB and ramp from Leverett Connector, have both "CLEARANCE 13'-3"" and "NO TRUCKS" banners. While the design of the signs IMO could be improved (the "NO TRUCKS" banners are a tad too small given the overall sign size and percentage of green background), the signs at this location are still much better than what the majority of entrances to Storrow Drive have.

up
Voting is closed. 1