Hey, there! Log in / Register

It's always Labor Day weekend on Storrow Drive

Scrams was among the many people who wanted to have a word or two with the illiterate driver of this rental truck around 6:30 p.m.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


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

Comments

But it needs to be repeated.

Entering Storrow Drive and, to a lesser extent, Memorial Drive, drivers see a sign indicating "Danger Low Clearance." Unfortunately, there's a critical piece of information missing from this sign - What is the actual low clearance? So none of us should be surprised that drivers routinely choose to take a gamble. Especially when, if they decided to exercise caution instead, they would have to back down the entrance ramp, blocking traffic both trying to enter the highway and the adjacent intersection. This can be very dicey, especially with an 18 wheeler.

Same logic applies for the poorly placed "No Trucks" signs (where they actually exist), and the idiotic homemade looking "Cars Only" rubber baby buggy bumper signs that bear NO resemblance to real traffic signs, which can only be seen after a driver has committed to entering the highway.

Want to greatly reduce the instances of Storrowings and near-Storrowings? Then provide drivers adequate warning of the low clearances and truck restrictions BEFORE they have a chance to turn onto the entrance ramps. But that would mean - gasp - actually putting up signs that are located and large enough for people to read. For starters, the No Trucks and Low Clearance information should be provided on the advance guide signs directing drivers to these roads. It's not that difficult at all. But, sadly, idiotic "neighborhood" associations have decided we can't have any of that in our precious "historic" districts.

And, with respect to Swirls and the other deniers out there, while it is all well and good to say "but the driver is ultimately responsible for paying attention to signs", the reality here remains that the information being provided to drivers entering these roads, currently being flawed in both design and presentation, encourages said drivers - especially the non-professionals driving these rental trucks - to take risks.

Lastly, for the inevitable "But look at the trestle in Durham, NC" crowd, I will point out that the cost difference between poorly designed and placed signs, and properly designed and placed ones, is virtually negligible. And no, I have never asserted that providing properly designed, sized, and placed signs, will totally eliminate 100% of such incidents. However, the current countermeasures the DCR and City of Boston have chosen to take are woefully inadequate at preventing Storrowings and near-Storrowings. We should be demanding better from our government - and we can start from transferring control of Storrow and Memorial Drives from the DCR to MassDOT. The concept that these roads function as "recreational parkways", and not the key arterial roads people actually use them as on a daily basis, is sorely outdated.

up
Voting closed 0

The way I see it is that if Storrowing was very uncommon, like a couple times a year, then it's fair to lay all the blame on the drivers. But when it happens several times a month, then the blame shifts to the road and sign designers for not meeting the limits of the users.

up
Voting closed 0

How difficult would it be to raise the bridge in the photo and how much would it help? There are more bridges at that "low" level on Storrow and Memorial Drives, correct? I'm sure someone will point it out if I am wrong.

up
Voting closed 0

Hundreds of millions to replace all the bridges which include not just pedestrian walkways but some auto bridges as well.

The river roads are parkways designed for small passenger vehicles, not highways for trucks. There is no reason to expand these roads simply because a tiny number of truck drivers can't read.

up
Voting closed 0

I didn't know if there were 4 bridges/overpasses or 24, not having driven on these roads.

up
Voting closed 0

I count 10 pedestrian bridges over Storrow. At $13 million each (the cost of the new bridge near Longfellow) it would cost $130 million to replace all ten. Some of them would need additional land to support ADA compliance which will add to the cost.

Then you have things like the Rail Road bridge near the BU bridge. Figure 100 million (?) to raise that. The BU bridge itself has limited clearance at the outer lanes so if you had to replace that it would be what, $500 million? Then add in the Longfellow, the Mass Ave (Harvard) Bridge, the tunnel, etc.

For some of these would be cheaper to lower Storrow instead of replacing the overpass. So lets figure to make the entire roadway compliment for 16' vehicles it would run around a billion dollars plus maybe 10-15 years of planning and construction during which time the road would be closed often. All so that a few dipshits each month wouldn't cause a day when they ignored the sign.

Is that money well spent to you?

up
Voting closed 0

I won't disagree with you. I guess I am just too stupid.

up
Voting closed 0

Except it's not a "tiny number" of truck drivers. Storrowing is not rare.

up
Voting closed 0

Just get rid of Storrow Drive and put the money saved into exits from the MassPike.

up
Voting closed 0

It doesn't even have to be eliminated. Return it to a parkway with fewer lanes and lower speeds and intersections and bring the Esplanade back into the fold of the city with bike lanes and more access from the neighborhoods.

up
Voting closed 0

drivers are also responsible for paying attention to the signs. They'd have to be totally blind not to notice them.

up
Voting closed 0