Submitted by LivingMemento t3_119wfpe in boston
Comments
WinsingtonIII t1_j9oi558 wrote
Well, that and the fact that the bridge needs to be replaced no matter what since it is part of Morrissey Boulevard, unless the plan is to shut down Morrissey Boulevard indefinitely.
I feel like people are interpreting this as $122 million of "unnecessary" spending that could be completely avoided, but there's no way to completely avoid this spending. Some portion of that spending would need to happen anyways even if the plan was to rebuild it as a standard bridge. Standard bridges do cost quite a bit of money themselves.
Edit: for reference, this is where the bridge is located, it's not a bridge specifically in place to access the yacht club (in fact, from what I can tell it isn't a good way to access the yacht club at all), it's part of a main road: https://goo.gl/maps/R2VNgSHWE6erXyqV6
lifeisakoan t1_j9olvzr wrote
If the removed the Dorchester Yacht club and decertified the navigable waterway designation they could build a cheaper bridge and wouldn't need to pay $100k a year for operators.
The Pleasure Bay at Castle Island is larger and isn't certified as navigable.
WinsingtonIII t1_j9ooma0 wrote
Sure, I am not saying otherwise. But the bridge will need to be replaced with at least a standard bridge at a minimum, and the article and some of the comments here did not seem to be considering that.
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j9omp1l wrote
It’s not a bridge that’s specifically to access the club.
It’s a bridge that’s unnecessarily expensive to allow the club to access Mass Bay.
Burnt_broccolini t1_j9oqcis wrote
It will never NOT be a navigable waterway. Even if the federal definition changes it will still be a navigable waterway by state law 310 CMR 9
Just_Assignment9246 t1_j9otq6n wrote
USACE, you mean??
Ordie100 t1_j9p25yr wrote
The bridges I know of or have worked with with have been under Coast Guard federal regulations like the Chelsea Creek Bridge and the Amtrak Portal Bridge but I'm no expert and I know the Army Corp is involved in it as well, don't personally know the specifics as to who says what, just that there are many lengthy documents on ecfr.gov about protecting drawbridges at all costs
Just_Assignment9246 t1_j9qgedy wrote
I think you’re right, the USCG is the lead for navigable hazards in the waterway….I don’t have experience with swing bridges but I’ve only dealt with USACE and USFWS for the 11 bridges that I’ve done. Both USCG and USACE are both involved when there are Navigable Waters of the US. Lift bridges, bascule, swing bridges, etc. (movable bridges) involve the USCG usually because of clearance issues. Usually the USACE are involved for Waterways of the US, under Rivers and Harbor Act and CWA (section 404) for any stream altering, erosion, fill, dredging etc. I think you’re right in this case Coast Guard is the prime agency but USACE and FHWA are definitely going to be involved with this one as well. I hope they do high clearance fixed bridge of sorts to minimize traffic, it would help triage jams along I-93. Has Massdot done a Bridge Type Selection study yet, and how do they have dollar figure for the cost of it without knowing the type of bridge and I don’t think they’ve released an RFP yet, I was looking and I couldn’t find anything online.
Icy-Neck-2422 t1_j9odhq1 wrote
It's Morrisey Boulevard. I've driven over that bridge hundreds of times and don't belong to / never been to the yacht club.
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j9olsz4 wrote
You’re missing the point.
The point is you could build a bridge for less than $112M if it didn’t have to open/accommodate boats coming and going, and DYC is responsible for 99.99% of the boats coming and going.
jtet93 t1_j9or96p wrote
How much less? I feel like that’s the key part of the story
themoistnoodler t1_j9p8xsb wrote
It's the main route for most UMass Boston students who drive to school too take
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j9od9j6 wrote
If a drawbridge anywhere is in need of repair there are two options. They can either repair it, or they can remove it. You can't just ignore something that can cause damage as well as being a danger to life.
Burnt_broccolini t1_j9or9pk wrote
This is one persons opinion masquerading as a news article. There is no magic fix to ‘decertify’ a navigable waterway or move the yacht club.
I’m also mad that they didn’t maintain the bridge and now the cost to replace it is outrageous. It literally has nothing to do with the yacht club, boats, or navigable waterway.
The guy who wrote this ‘article’ has his own agenda that doesn’t seem to be reliant on facts
sihtydaernacuoytihsy t1_j9pl4ac wrote
Dude, the headline starts with the word "Commentary." It's not masquerading as anything, OP just linked us to an editorial.
The author is quite clear on his "agenda", and musters many facts to support his position. That's how editorials work...
Burnt_broccolini t1_j9puug3 wrote
Agreed but looking at some of the comments, the fact that this is one persons opinion isn’t clear to everyone.
His “facts” are his interpretation of reality. This bridge is not a subsidy of the DYC pleasure boats. That’s untrue.
The way that he talks about ‘navigable waterway’ being the motive for a costly repair is also untrue. It’s the lack of maintenance that is causing a costly repair.
The yacht club does not create a need for a drawbridge. Several commenters are not understanding that. The water is a navigable waterway per federal AND state definition of what a navigable waterway is. Moving the yacht club does nothing for that definition.
I get that you can tell that he has an agenda, but a lot of people seem to be missing that.
TheColonelRLD t1_j9qggf4 wrote
I guess what hasn't been explained, why does the yacht club not create the need for the drawbridge. Reading the article, it sounds like the yacht club is the only public space the bridge is connected to. Are there other properties aside from the yacht club that the bridge is connecting to?
Like if the yacht club were 'moved', and the bridge was disassembled and removed, would there be other things that are now disconnected?
Because the article does make it sound like the bridge literally leads to a yacht club and that's it. Like a small island with one property on it or something.
-CalicoKitty- t1_j9qkkdm wrote
People don't drive across the bridge to get to the yacht club, they drive their boats under it. The bridge needs to be replaced either way, but the argument is that it would be cheaper if it wasn't a draw bridge. Sounds like it's not that simple though, because even if the yacht club didn't exist, the bay is considered navigable by state and federal law.
Burnt_broccolini t1_j9qlnrp wrote
Using Google maps it looks like it also leads to Malibu beach and Savin hill beach.
The alternative to a drawbridge is just a higher bridge that boats can go under without an operator. Removing the bridge and having no bridge is not an option, it’s also a street that cars go over. It’s Morrissey boulevard. The yacht club does not create the need for the drawbridge nor does it change the fact that a new bridge might be needed due to lack of maintenance. The author of the ‘article’ is just putting out his opinion mixed with misinformation.
**edited to remove my opinion and stick to the facts
BeefCakeBilly t1_j9qwy11 wrote
TIL There’s a Malibu beach in Boston
johnmcboston t1_j9og6th wrote
Yacht club almost doesn't matter unless they can get the lagoon decertified as a 'navigable waterway'.
Funktapus t1_j9ok0ih wrote
Yup. It’s against federal law to block navigable waters with low bridges. Don’t blame the yachters.
This is far from the most egregious example of this effect. They’ve probably spent billions of dollars keeping the upper Hackensack river in NJ navigable, and almost nobody uses it anymore.
brufleth t1_j9omfjg wrote
They're finally working on the Saugus River Bridge. That drawbridge just enables this tiny little lagoon to access the ocean. Shit is fucking stupid.
tacknosaddle t1_j9olxyz wrote
I think it does matter "in addition" to the navigable waterway requirements.
I saw something in some of the proposed plans that said something about the original building of the parkway including specific assertions to the yacht club that they would always have access to the harbor from there.
So even if the navigable water restriction was worked out the yacht club would be in a good position to take actions in court that could delay the project for years.
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j9omvxy wrote
Even if that was the case, the existing bridge is classified as a Draw Bridge, of which the USCG has oversight.
May be a bit of a “what came first, the chicken or the egg?” Scenario as to which has to happen first: it’s decertified as a water way and then declassified as a drawbridge or vice versa.
michael_scarn_21 t1_j9oirbp wrote
It's almost like this is what happens when you neglect to maintain infrastructure for decades.
powsandwich t1_j9osn4x wrote
Right. Blaming the yacht club for chronic deferred maintenance by the city and state is pretty ludicrous.
Burnt_broccolini t1_j9ou761 wrote
Agreed, the yacht club has nothing to do with it
SmogTheScienceDragon t1_j9oew8j wrote
Rebuild the Long Island Bridge first.
IDCFFSGTFO t1_j9ok9e6 wrote
No. NO. Rebuild the bridge that used to exist between Victory rd in Marina Bay and Victory rd in Dorchester. So the half of the South Shore coming down Southern Artery/Quincy Shore Drive can take that right at the Dunks instead of squeezing on to the Neponset bridge with literally everyone else coming from the south side of the Neponset river.
Check the maps. You can see the streets on both sides of the water line up perfectly. It used to be a trolley line. Make it a bridge, and put another on-ramp to 93 in while you're at it, to take a chunk out of Neponset circle's traffic.
Down the line it would also relieve traffic from the Granite ave bridge and that part of Gallivan. It would improve sooo many commutes.
ObservantOrangutan t1_j9or56x wrote
Really interesting. I never realized there was a bridge there. Good luck getting Marina Bay to ever cope with that amount of traffic though
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j9onck0 wrote
Holy shit that’s a great idea.
That would relieve soo much pressure off of other exits on 93NB SE Expressway.
hemingwai t1_j9ouq0u wrote
Lol so instead of having them drive over the 3 lane quincy bridge, they should drive the 1 lane driveway through marina bay and over another navigable waterway (which would also require a drawbridge, to access the neponset river)? What are you talking about?
IDCFFSGTFO t1_j9qnlee wrote
It doesn't require a drawbridge, there was once a trolley line going across there. Presumably that was built high enough to not impede the waterway. The Neponset river bridge doesn't impede the river traffic and that's not a drawbridge either. You could also totally bypass Marina Bay with a whole new road that joins up with Commander Shea blvd. somewhere.
hemingwai t1_j9qowhe wrote
It would require a bridge that allowed a sailboat to get under it. The bridge that used to be there was a temporary bridge used to trolley military supplies back-and-forth between the Dorchester Armory, and the now defunct Squantum airfield. It was destroyed soon after World War II. Squantum airfield is now known as Squantum point park so that’s another thing that would make your idea impossible, creating a new roadway through a park would be in violation of mass general laws, article 97, which prohibits construction in designated Parkland, without special legislation.
IDCFFSGTFO t1_j9sybhr wrote
>impossible... without special legislation
If the political will is there, it's very possible.
hemingwai t1_j9tbnh4 wrote
But why would there be political will? Youre proposing a smaller, redundant bridge, through a less convenient area, that would ruin a park. Not sure what benefit you see.
IDCFFSGTFO t1_j9thi2y wrote
Re-read my first comment?
Due-Studio-65 t1_j9ookm2 wrote
I wouldn't put another on or off ramp, just keep it for people going local.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j9oxipr wrote
yes, this makes sense....build the bridge that will handle 10 buses a day vs one that carries 1/3 the traffic coming out of the city. (both at the same cost....) /s
[deleted] t1_j9oidqe wrote
[deleted]
bacon_and_eggs t1_j9ojib5 wrote
I would really like it if they just finished the fucking north washington st. bridge.
Dukeofdorchester t1_j9scajw wrote
What a mess that turned into...probably looking at 5 years for that now
ineedscissor t1_j9ol1x5 wrote
That seems like a pretty long, straight stretch of road. Wouldn’t it make sense to use the space to create a taller bridge so that most of the boats can fit underneath it without any sort of mechanism? It would also save future operating costs as well.
The town of Naples, Maine did that when they replaced their swing bridge in the early 2010’s, even though some boats wouldn’t fit.
johnmcboston t1_j9op3nq wrote
It would have to be a super tall bridge - the water is close to the lower deck of the bridge at high tide, so you would need a bridge tall enough to accommodate the tallest sailboat...
Plus the southern approach just went under 93, so not that much room to build a high bridge from that perspective.
ineedscissor t1_j9r71qi wrote
I don’t drive there that often , so I didn’t realize how much clearance there was. What is the current schedule for the bridge opening? Would altering it to low tide be much different?
oogaboogaaa2 t1_j9opss7 wrote
Naples is on an inland lake. The sailboats are inherently smaller.
hemingwai t1_j9oud4s wrote
What a foolish article. Didnt this guy run for mayor and get like 2% of the vote? Why does he have a newspaper column?
[deleted] t1_j9p3ebl wrote
[deleted]
ElectricMayham t1_j9q7uzk wrote
The article fails to mention that the Dorchester Yacht club has been there since 1870.
ABakedRooster t1_j9r1wnd wrote
Morrissey Blvd should just be raised and the bridge should be high enough to let most boats thro. As someone who operated the granite ave bridge and would turn off the radio to the other bridges because of how many requests would come thro for that bridge(some time 2-5 mins apart from each other). Also most boat residents frankly feel cool when they call the bridge to have it opened when a majority of the time it’s their antenna that need to be lowered to fit under… Simply why block traffic to hundred of people at a time for one small marina!
Bluestrues t1_j9p7m09 wrote
I think the guy that wrote ran for Mayor of Boston once
drtywater t1_j9pga67 wrote
This article's author is a fool. The issue is that its navigable waterway and the USCG takes enforcement seriously. If you have a problem with it take it up with them and your federally elected officials.
Dukeofdorchester t1_j9scjjt wrote
Bill's a good dude...and I'd cut off 3 fingers if it turned out you were smarter than him.
drtywater t1_j9tfo4k wrote
He might be a good dude but he could have done a 30 second Google search to learn about navigable waterways and see why its not a trivial thing to maintain ie even if the boat club went away the state would still need to maintain the draw bridge unless the feds reclassified it.
Dukeofdorchester t1_j9turkm wrote
Yeah, and you could've gone to Harvard, founded a non-profit health clinic, ran for mayor and become president of a hospital.
drtywater t1_j9u1ywl wrote
Doesn't matter what school you went to if you aren't researching some basic information when writing something. There are plenty of people that went to an Ivy school and ran for a political office that don't research statements before releasing them.
RogueInteger t1_j9q2bk3 wrote
For everyone reading this, if that bridge is deprecated and cars reroute from Morrissey, our worst traffic in the world will multiply from the south shore.
I guess having it as a drawbridge is unique to support the club, but I wonder what the savings are for non-drawbridge and financial compensation and relocation and build costs for the club?
It's an agreed through way so you can't really walk that back.
AboyNamedBort t1_j9p6etv wrote
Put a toll on the bridge. One for boats, one for cars. The bridge should be paid for by the people who use it.
Dukeofdorchester t1_j9scmj1 wrote
Ok buddy
BasilExposition75 t1_j9ph18q wrote
The Yacht club was there for almost 60 years before they built the bridge.
I think they have the right the keep the water way navigable seeing how they were there first.
AnyRound5042 t1_j9og2ir wrote
Why do they need a bridge if they have boats
WinsingtonIII t1_j9ohssr wrote
The bridge is for cars driving on Morrissey Boulevard, it does not provide access to the yacht club.
The bridge needs to be replaced no matter what as otherwise there will be a break in Morrissey Boulevard, I am guessing the complaint is that it has to be rebuilt as a more expensive drawbridge so the boats can leave the inlet as opposed to a less expensive standard bridge.
But there would need to be a bridge there either way, even if the yacht club didn't exist. So it's pretty misleading to present this as a cost that could be completely avoided, the bridge does need to be replaced. Yes, part of the cost could be avoided if it weren't drawbridge, but standard bridges still cost significant money to replace as well.
alohadave t1_j9oi4t4 wrote
> The bridge needs to be replaced no matter what
Maybe the state will tie it in with the planned rehab of that section of Morrissey (that has been in the works for years).
jtet93 t1_j9oh475 wrote
It’s a drawbridge. They need to go under it. Kind of a non story because the bridge also serves drivers. I guess it’s more expensive to replace a drawbridge but I feel like it always costs a shit ton to replace/repair a bridge regardless.
[deleted] t1_j9oh1wk wrote
[deleted]
tacknosaddle t1_j9oo2yk wrote
You can see the boats from the highway, it's more "weekend warrior" boating. I don't think the bridge could even allow most megayachts to enter (a lot of the boats there are resting on mud at low tide).
[deleted] t1_j9oih20 wrote
[deleted]
Ordie100 t1_j9oh9ov wrote
It's a nice headline but the real problem is that the area is considered a 'navigable waterway' which means it has very strong federal protections from the USCG. It's hard to get those overturned