Fiery, fatal crash on the Zakim shuts 93 north
An 18-wheeler collided with a taxi on the Zakim northbound shortly after 5:30 a.m..
The cabbie, a 54-year-old Chelsea oman driving a Malden taxi, died, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
The DA's office says State Police are investigating exactly how the truck, registered in Hartford, CT and driven by a 46-year-old man, crashed into the taxi.
Jim Porter inched his way past the conflagration.
The crash and fire led police to shut both sides of the bridge; the northbound side remained completely shut until 9 a.m., when one lane was reopened.
Josh Wardell says based on the debris strewn across the bridge, the truck was caryring apples:
Ad:
Comments
Traffic differences between Zakim Bridge and Leverett Connector
a) How is it that some traffic leave Boston end up on the Zakim Bridge and other cars leave Boston end up on the Leverett Connector Bridge?... Is it arbitrary? Is there a choice? Does it depend on how drivers interpret signs?
b) How could the Zakim and Connector traffic pattern geography be described better for folks new to the area? How could signage be improved?
c) What's number and name of the first exit leaving Boston via Leverett Connector?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverett_Connector
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakim_Bridge
Stay tuned for an upcoming short movie about traffic phenomena on and around the Zakim Bridge and Leverett Circle Connector Bridge.
Answers
a) The Zakim is connected to the Big Dig tunnels. You get there by driving north or south on 93 and staying on 93.
The Leverett Connector bridge is for getting onto (north) or off of (south) 1 or 93 from Storrow or 28 at the Leverett Circle.
There's no way onto the Zakim from Storrow and there's no way across the Leverett Connector bridge that gets you into the Big Dig tunnels. Interpretation has nothing to do with it.
b) The signage is fine. If you can't figure out how to drive in that area, it's because you aren't paying attention.
EDIT: Last answer I'm giving you. c) There are no exit numbers on Storrow. Using the Leverett Connector to get from Leverett Circle onto 93N or 1N, there isn't any "first exit". Every exit getting onto the Connector bridge is essentially at the same point: the circle. And the connector bridge going north only exists to put you on one of 2 highways leaving Boston.
The only thing you could say is when coming east on Storrow, there's an express option to get onto 1N/93N using the connector bridge from the left lane instead of entering the Leverett Circle first. But even if you don't take that ramp under the circle, you can still get onto the ramp from the circle too (which is the only way to get onto the connector bridge from 28S).
shorter answer
Traffic is made up of cars and other vehicles which are operated by live humans who presumably can direct where the vehicles go.
For c), I think Don's asking
For c), I think Don's asking what the first accessible exit is after you merge from the northbound Leverett Connector onto 93 northbound. It's not totally obvious.
You can't get to exit 28 (Sullivan Square) from the Leverett northbound. The first accessible exit is exit 29 (28 - Fellsway).
If you need to get from Storrow to Sullivan, you either take local roads the whole way, or you get off at exit 29 and take a U-turn to head south again.
Fair enough
It's obvious if you follow the bridge all the way until it actually merges with the left lanes of 93N but you might be right on your interpretation.
If so, the first exit on 1 that I can recall is Beacon St in Chelsea after you cross the Tobin (again, no exit number).
Yes, it's obvious if you do
Yes, it's obvious if you do it, and see that you're physically prevented from getting to exit 28. You can also figure it out if you play around with Google Maps.
But it's not obvious in advance for first-time users. Normally when you get on a road, you can get off at the next exit. But not so in this case, since you're stuck on a separate parallel roadway for a mile and a half before you merge into the mainline.
Isn't this something you could find out at the BPL?
[Ducks].
Why not [Chickens]?
Silly rabbit, snark is for us unwashed polloi up here in the cheap seats, not for you august periwig-pated personages in positions of preeminence.
Is the Bike/Ped Bridge Underneath Closed, Too?
I wasn't planning on driving today, and planned an easterly biking route to avoid Marathonia ... does anybody know if the bridge that runs underneath the Zakim is shut, too? It may have to be if debris is coming down or firefighters have to move equipment in there.
North Bank Bridge
North Bank Bridge, see also
http://broadwaybicycleschool.com/news/the-north-bank-bridge-get-ready-to...
Perhaps
There was an engine positions under the bridge south of the river, but the actual fire was north of the river. So that may be a bit of a mess, but I couldn't see it.
The little bridge is our
The little bridge is our friend too !
maybe Jim can respect the law, and UHub too...
It's against the law to be operating a cell phone or using twitter while driving.
Adam: stop posting/enabling/encouraging shots obviously taken by drivers!
Drivers who are standing still
Yes, it is against the law to operate a phone for non-phone purposes in a car in a road, even when that car is not moving. In practical terms, somebody who is standing still in traffic is not jeopardizing anybody. And we don't know that the driver actually posted that photo to Twitter while driving, as opposed to when parked.
But, yes, people, don't do anything stupid out there.
"Yes, it is against the law
"Yes, it is against the law to operate a phone for non-phone purposes in a car in a road, even when that car is not moving. In practical terms, somebody who is standing still in traffic is not jeopardizing anybody. "
Who says the car wasn't moving? And since when did the UHub community develop a sense of sympathy for road users breaking laws in ways that don't hurt anybody else?
I see photos posted here all the time where it's clear traffic was still moving. And I seriously doubt that people wait until they're at the office to tweet pictures like that.
assumptions
Perhaps you are not aware of this, but cars are able to carry passengers in addition to drivers. Passengers have no such restrictions on their use of cell phone. Drivers are also able to take pictures with non-phone cameras, which is stupid but not explicitly illegal (although it can fall under general impairment-type offenses).
It's illegal to read, write,
It's illegal to read, write, or send a text while driving. I wouldn't interpret that to ban taking photos with a phone camera.
Wow...
Someone was killed in that accident and you're all concerned with yourselves...
It's what they do.
Winning is all that matters.
The funny part is when they are handed the withered booby prize of Thompson era fame.
You took the words...
... right off of my fingertips. Prayers to all involved with the incident.
Half the comments
Half of the comments were posted before it was even revealed that anyone was killed.
Yes, original post has been rewritten throughout the day
Originally, all I knew was it was a truck on fire (even though now, looking at the photo, you can see the cab as well).
And the other half?
...
You are not helping anybody
Except, maybe, yourself.
And what can we do about that?
Except stay out of the way of the responders? Ask each other "can I get there this way?" in order to not contribute to any delays in aid?
Wow, look at how this gave you a great opportunity to administer a rather self-satisfying moral scolding! Could it be ... SATAN?
As Adam and others have also pointed out, the death was not immediately announced, either. Very sad, indeed.
I said what needed to be said...
Nothing more. I could easily criticize you for your display of righteous indignation, but I won't.
And, what good did that do?
For anybody but you?
No idea...
Don't really care, to be completely honest.
Lead by example
Rather than chastising people, how about you lead by example? In fact, your post is itself only concerned with what others are saying/doing and not with the people involved.
Furthermore, who was involved? We don't know yet. How did it happen and who was at fault for the death? We don't know yet. Did they die in the crash or the fire? We don't even know that definitively yet.
So, what would you like us to talk about in regards to this incident? It happened. We know very little. I guess we could just say absolutely nothing...what, in reverence for the dead? They're dead. They don't care whether we discuss other related topics or not. This isn't their obituary page.
In fact, if a discussion about the safety of taking pictures while driving over the bridge helps prevent someone else from having an accident as a result, then the discussion serves more purpose than revering the fact that someone died today in a car accident.
But thanks for your concern about everyone else's moralities.
Huh?
I glazed over after the first sentence. What were you saying?
Uh huh
Attempting to discuss something substantively tends to have that effect on trolls.
Not fair, Kaz
MatthewC is a registered and makes on-point posts (even if I often disagree with the contents of his posts).
Thanks, Michael...
In years past the definition of a "troll" was one who intentionally spreads hate and discontent on a website. Today, a troll is one who someone else disagrees with.
Neither of those
Trolling is exactly what it sounds like. Tossing out bait in the hopes of a bite on the hook. Your reply to me had no intention except to get a response from me by mocking what I wrote and not furthering the direction of that discussion.
Trolling doesn't require hate, discontent, or even disagreement. It's just baiting for the sake of baiting. The result is often to derail discussion off-topic.
(And I deigned a response which is my fault as we're now discussing what the meaning of "trolling" is instead of the original point or even your secondary point of chastising people for not sticking to the original point...congratulations, do you see how pointless and/or hypocritical you are?).
You didn't have to respond in the first place...
I made one comment about the self centered behavior of some of the commenters and you chose to make an issue out of it. I consider this "discussion" over. Reply if you wish, however.
Concern trolling
Is still concern trolling, regardless of your registration on the site, even if you do contribute substantively in other areas.
Sorry, but your indignation is not helping anybody. Your demands of others and scolding are irrational and ridiculous, particularly given the timing of comments and emerging news.
Seriously?
I've supported your posts on here before and usually agree with you. Perhaps you should turn your attention to action "anon" trolls and leave me alone. I made one statement about the apparent self centered behavior of certain posters here. That's all. It's not worthy of a federal case.
Would it be trolling ...
to remind people that bicycles don't burst into flames, since nobody seems to have brought that up yet?
Yes, it would
Because it has absolutely nothing to do with a horrible, fatal crash. And I'm only partly saying that because I'm thoroughly sick of anon bicycle-hating trolls trying to wreck pretty much every single discussion that has nothing to do with bicycles (like, say, my post today about the re-enactment of the William Dawes ride).
Non sequitur
Those facts don't prevent him from being a troll in this case. Posting to say you didn't read the post you're responding to is just trolling. It adds nothing of use to the discussion.
Nope, not trolling...
I would have said the same thing to you if we were face to face. That's just my way.
I do think you are being....
... stubborn in a way that doesn't aid communication -- but there's a lot of that going around lately.
;~{
How am I being stubborn?
I'm not going to back down simply because someone gets upset with comments I make.
QED
You wanted to make this about you, and you aren't going to stop making it about you.
No I didn't...
For the umpteenth time: I made one comment. If you took exception with that then it is what it is. You are obviously bent on arguing for arguments sake, so I leave the last word to you. You apparently need it.
I just don't care...
...to discuss this issue substantively. I said what I had to say.
And yet...
You keep posting about it and responding to every response you get in overtly curt and pretentious ways as if to say "aha, I got the last word even though I refuse to talk about it".
QED, trolling.
Pot meet kettle
I believe it is you who keeps feeling the need to perpetuate this silly back and forth. Time to put this one to rest. Have the last word if you want. I don't need it.
Everybody Chill
Based on the time stamp, there was a whooping 10 posts. Memory say the number was even lower. Not to mention there was a real high probability all posters read long before adamg noted anyone dying and did not see the update.
While no one said any condolences in those 10-ish posts. I would bet there would have been some as more became aware of the update. Now with great irony, now this has become a 35-ish comment flame war instead.
Bascule Bridges?
Are Bascule Bridges still there?... between Leverett Circle Connector Bridge and Craigie Bridge indicated at
http://broadwaybicycleschool.com/news/the-north-bank-bridge-get-ready-to...
Yes
The Charles River Draw bridges, for the commuter rail? Yes, they're still there. But they're slated for replacement, right after they replace the Gloucester Draw.
Yes
Otherwise, North Station would be useless.
Those railway bridges connect North Station with every rail line north of the city.
Those things are great.
http://youtu.be/jLb6YZ8SMfQ
That is all.
Entry ramp numbering, ramp naming entering Zakim Bridge?
Leaving Boston what're the numbers and names of the entry ramps for Zakim Bridge?...
Sorry, Adam
I didn't mean to feed the mogwai after midnight.
EDIT: mogwais
This is what MatthewC was talking about
I think.
Okay, Don, I'll give you the first one, I don't know whether it was posted before or after Adam noted the fatality, but the last 2? Come on. A lady died. That's someone's relative. How would you like it if your spouse, mother, daughter, or friend died in a fiery crash, and someone was obsessing about the bridges in the area and how they are utterly unable to figure out, using any map out there, how to navigate the area.
Swirly's comment, it should be noted, is different regardless of when posted in relation to the news of the fatality. She was inquiring about traffic conditions based on the accident. Obsessing about the area bridges, well, at least acknowledge that someone died today.
And yes, I've played the geography game with shootings, but I haven't taken the opportunity to ask about area eateries when the blood is still fresh.
Not a Boston taxi
The taxi involved in the accident was a Malden cab, not a taxi from Boston.
Sad, nonetheless, and may the driver rest in peace.
Leaving Boston via Zakim number and name of first exit?
Leaving Boston via Zakim Bridge what's the number and name of the first exit?
What is your point
Seriously, what is your goal? And are you incapable of using Googles Maps and it's accompanying streetview?
The first exit after crossing the Zakim Bridge is Exit 27 - Tobin Bridge, and is on your left. The next one is Exit 28 - Sullivan Square, on your right.
Are we all set now? Do you need me to tell you the first signalized cross street on Washington St inbound after leaving Forest Hills?
His point is twofold
First, he is noting that he is utterly unable to read maps.
Second, he is doubling down on not caring about the dead cab driver.
The best part of the first point, there is a map right at the bottom of this post.
How is the crash related to bad signage, confusing entry ramps?
How is the crash related to the bad signage, confusing entry ramps around the area of the Zakim Bridge?
Screw you Saklad
Ask them at the wake.