Hey, there! Log in / Register

Fiery, fatal crash on the Zakim shuts 93 north

Truck fire on the Zakim bridge

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:

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


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

Comments

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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).

up
Voting closed 0

Traffic is made up of cars and other vehicles which are operated by live humans who presumably can direct where the vehicles go.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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).

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

[Ducks].

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

The little bridge is our friend too !

up
Voting closed 0

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!

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

"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.

up
Voting closed 0

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).

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Someone was killed in that accident and you're all concerned with yourselves...

up
Voting closed 0

Winning is all that matters.

The funny part is when they are handed the withered booby prize of Thompson era fame.

up
Voting closed 0

... right off of my fingertips. Prayers to all involved with the incident.

up
Voting closed 0

Half of the comments were posted before it was even revealed that anyone was killed.

up
Voting closed 0

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).

up
Voting closed 0

...

up
Voting closed 0

Except, maybe, yourself.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Nothing more. I could easily criticize you for your display of righteous indignation, but I won't.

up
Voting closed 0

For anybody but you?

up
Voting closed 0

Don't really care, to be completely honest.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

I glazed over after the first sentence. What were you saying?

up
Voting closed 0

Attempting to discuss something substantively tends to have that effect on trolls.

up
Voting closed 0

MatthewC is a registered and makes on-point posts (even if I often disagree with the contents of his posts).

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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?).

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

to remind people that bicycles don't burst into flames, since nobody seems to have brought that up yet?

up
Voting closed 0

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).

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

I would have said the same thing to you if we were face to face. That's just my way.

up
Voting closed 0

... stubborn in a way that doesn't aid communication -- but there's a lot of that going around lately.

;~{

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not going to back down simply because someone gets upset with comments I make.

up
Voting closed 0

You wanted to make this about you, and you aren't going to stop making it about you.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

...to discuss this issue substantively. I said what I had to say.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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...

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Otherwise, North Station would be useless.

Those railway bridges connect North Station with every rail line north of the city.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

Leaving Boston what're the numbers and names of the entry ramps for Zakim Bridge?...

up
Voting closed 0

I didn't mean to feed the mogwai after midnight.

EDIT: mogwais

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

The taxi involved in the accident was a Malden cab, not a taxi from Boston.

Sad, nonetheless, and may the driver rest in peace.

up
Voting closed 0

Leaving Boston via Zakim Bridge what's the number and name of the first exit?

up
Voting closed 0

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?

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

How is the crash related to the bad signage, confusing entry ramps around the area of the Zakim Bridge?

up
Voting closed 0

Ask them at the wake.

up
Voting closed 0