Oopsies: Globe acknowledges the T is not tearing down a brand-new bridge

Remember the other day when the Globe reported on what seemed to be Yet Another Only at the MBTA Moment, i.e., that the T would have to tear down a brand-new bridge on the brand-new Greenbush line?

Today, the Globe ran the following:

Because of a reporting error, an article in Friday’s City & Region section about a bridge that needed to be replaced as part of the Greenbush commuter rail line project incorrectly reported the bridge's age. The bridge being rebuilt in Scituate is more than 100 years old and is downstream from a three-year-old rail-crossing bridge.

|
Read more about:

A Bridge Too Far

By bobmetcalf | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 9:52am

Wow--that's a pretty egregious "reporting error".

Maybe they should stick to front page life-style reporting,
where they can make things up with a lot less likelihood
of getting bagged.

So, what does this bridge have to do with the Greenbush line?

By Ron Newman | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 9:55am

if it isn't even on the line?

But it is part of the line

By SwirlyGrrl | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 10:16am

From the Globe's correction, it seems to be that this bridge is part of the Greenbush line, but the bridge the Globe thought it had been was over the railroad line. Or something like that.

This is from the MBTA's Project Description (emphasis mine):

Nine existing single span railroad bridges will be reconstructed with new ballast deck superstructures and new or rehabilitated abutments and wing-walls. Work will be performed on two existing roadway bridges over the right-of-way: one (1) bridge will be replaced in its entirety and the other will be repaired.

So we are left with two choices

By anon (not verified) | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:10pm

this reporter Noah Bierman:

a) is very stupid

b) chose to ignore the facts, and write a story that would impress his editors and attract attention

Or c)

By adamg | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:24pm

He made a mistake.

Granted, a rather large, embarrassing mistake, but it happens. One data point isn't really enough to conclude he's an idiot or Jayson Blair Jr.

Hard to believe

By anon (not verified) | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:49pm

that any intelligent, objective, and professional journalist
could confuse a brand new bridge with an old bridge over 100 years old.
isn't this the same reporter who wrote a whole story based on one woman's complaint (ONE WOMAN) that her ass was slipping on the seats in the new Blue Line trains?

Junior Reporters

By SwirlyGrrl | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:20pm

Junior reporters don't get to pick their assignments. They get sent out with or without a photographer to find people who have sliding arse problems on the blue line, or write a quick story about a bridge. Deadline, yesterday.

He's not a junior reporter, though

By adamg | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:22pm

He's Fred Garvin Transportation Reporter Noah Bierman.

I'll go with "a"

By jdj (not verified) | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:54pm

I understand that these junior reporters are under deadline pressure, but to get the main point of the story completely wrong is pretty damning.

To me, the story should be about the fact that the T is forced to spend $5M to alleviate one inch of flooding during a "big storm" (I assume 100-year storm). Doesn't seem like a good use of the T's limited capital improvements budget. (This assumes that the Globe got these facts correct)

More than you probably want to know about bridges in Scituate

By adamg | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:17pm

Boston Daily pulls up the aerial images to explain Globe sloppiness.

new bridge

By anon (not verified) | Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:42pm

The connection is that the Country Way bridge is slightly downstream from the railroad bridge, and since the MBTA had to build a new rail bridge upstream, the Army Corps then required the MBTA to improve the bridge downstream.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.