47 replies to this topic

[mental757]

PROJO:  "Pawtucket hotel developer cites traffic flow"

http://www.projo.com...v9.26cd433.html

[brick]

mental757, on Jan 3 2008, 12:06 PM, said:

PROJO:  "Pawtucket hotel developer cites traffic flow"

http://www.projo.com...v9.26cd433.html

I don't know how the pad is going to be laid out, but count me in the "Carpionato is full of crap and looking for more money from the state" crowd.

The access to the hotel from Division St. Westbound would be a nightmare anyway, I doubt the city was planning on letting them do that.  The Division St./Water St. light is only 100 feet away and anyone taking a left turn into the hotel or pad could back traffic up through the intersection and effectively block the box on three cross streets (Water, School, and Prospect).  It would make a ton more sense if the access to the hotel was on Water St. which has some capacity for more traffic.

With access on Water St., Division would only need to be westbound up to Water St., which the city could easily accomodate.

[Cotuit]

Why is the George Street ramp closed? Just to keep trucks from Route 1 off of Route 95? I would think a "No Trucks" sign would suffice, I mean they didn't need to close Route 95 to keep trucks off, they did it with signs.

I think the question needs to be, with the 295 and 146 detours, is a Pawtucket detour of this magnitude needed? Through traffic should be using 295 or 146, traffic on this section of 95 should only be bound for, or originating in Pawtucket. So do we need this massive disruption to the traffic patterns in Pawtucket to move through trucks that shouldn't even be on this section of Route 95 in the first place?

Quote

“The bridge repairs are scheduled to require five years to complete. This time period coincides with the opening years of the hotel’s operations,” Carpionato said in the letter.

On what planet does it take 5 years to build and open a 200 room hotel (that was scheduled to begin construction 3 years ago)?

[brick]

Cotuit, on Jan 3 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

Why is the George Street ramp closed? Just to keep trucks from Route 1 off of Route 95? I would think a "No Trucks" sign would suffice, I mean they didn't need to close Route 95 to keep trucks off, they did it with signs.

The George St. ramp is closed for two reasons I assume.  First is that it complicated the intersection of Division and George which in its former state would not allow trucks to use the detour.  Second is that the entire ramp is part of the bridge in question and typically cues 8-10 cars during rush hour due to the difficulty merging onto 95.  Frankly it was an ill-conceived on-ramp in the first place which was probably put on as a band-aid to too much traffic going over the Division St. bridge.

I do think some detour is necessary.  However, I also think that they have made it a little too easy and that trucks will start using the street detour instead of the 146-295 detour which will add time to their trip.

[Cotuit]

brick, on Jan 3 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

I do think some detour is necessary.  However, I also think that they have made it a little too easy and that trucks will start using the street detour instead of the 146-295 detour which will add time to their trip.

Exactly. I drove the detour on Christmas Day and it was super easy (granted it was Christmas Day). We've completely thrown the local traffic patterns in Pawtucket into chaos (not that they weren't already chaos), to allow trucks that aren't supposed to be through-routing on 95 in the first place, to easily through-route.  

I'm not super familiar with the streets in Pawtucket, but a quick look at the map and I think from the north; Central > Cross > Broad > Goff > Pine > Pine/Garden should be an adequate truck route for trucks that are not even supposed to be through-routing Pawtucket to begin with. Put Division Street back the way it was an ban trucks from it (the way it was), and put some staties down their to write tickets until the truckers understand that they should be taking 146/295.

Oh, and I know we are in a budget crisis rivaling the Parking Crisis, but let's put Sheldon and Jack to work and get some cash to get that 95 bridge replaced sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, trucking is key to our economy, and Route 95 is a vital link for the entire region, the Feds need to cough up some cash.

[Jenks]

As far as I've seen, the Staties have been pretty hardcore about pulling rigs over that seem to have bypassed the detour.

[frymasterspeck]

Cotuit, on Jan 3 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

Why is the George Street ramp closed?

It's a good reason. Of course, by 'good' I mean it's because previous stupidity forced this last hope solution to keep the bridge from going entirely Mianus River/Greenwich, CT. The on-ramp/off-ramp shared lane is way to the outer edge of the bridge - that is, the part that's really disintegrating.

So DOT closed the ramp to reduce the load on that critical outer lane. Also, it was an accident magnet - as the new header photo on The Bucket Blog attests.

The scary part: this is all supposed to last at least 3 or 4 years before any serious work could be accomplished.

But let it be known that DOT is all f-in over this bridge. I feel for the workers on days like today.

[brick]

With all apologies to the families of the dead and whatever other disclaimer makes me look like less of a dink.

The Feds will not come in with money unless the Minnesota thing happens again.  The Feds and especially this administration have an approach to infrastructure which is "let a disaster happen and then try to look like heroes with the relief" instead of the more practical and better for everyone "let's put some money into preventing these disasters."  Maybe we could say there is a terrorist threat with the bridge in its current condition and get TSA money.  

If the Pawtucket bridge had collapsed and killed a few dozen people, the feds would be all over it.  Because it only has the potential to do so, it will be ignored.  However, the State absolutely should not ignore it, because as Cotuit mentions, trucking is important to the state.  And I, for one, am intrigued by the idea of short haul coasting shipping finding a place in RI.  But if truckers all complain about RI's accessibility because of that bridge, then that could be the straw that breaks the camels back.

[Cotuit]

Maybe we can blow up the bridge and throw some mannequins in the river and stand on the edge and cry. The Feds aren't smart enough to see through that ruse.

[Magellan98]

Seems the DOT never expected the citizens of Pawtucket would demand an aesthetically pleasing new bridge to replace the derelict overpass currently spanning the Blackstone River.  I think its fantastic that a group of concerned, educated, creative citizens has emerged in Pawtucket.  They aren't going to settle for the status quo.

http://www.projo.com...16.348a8e5.html

[Cotuit]

There's a good write-up on The Bucket Blog about this too:
http://thebucketblog.com/?p=86

[frymasterspeck]

Thanks, man.    I do feel that my story has more meat than the Projo or the P-Times, although Castellucci seems like good people.

Also, I was really impressed with Richard Blockson, GM of the Times. I feel like I want to try to 'build a bridge' there, as it were.

I think everybody gets high marks for the meeting. Pawtucket came across as engaged and not too kooky, which is how I might characterize some other meetings I've seen.

Today is so lovely that I walked the long way and got some shots from Taft St and I'ma tryan Photoshop in what this preposterous retaining wall is going to look like. That should be interesting...

Magellan98, on Feb 6 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

I think its fantastic that a group of concerned, educated, creative citizens has emerged in Pawtucket.  They aren't going to settle for the status quo.

The revolution will be blogged.

[frymasterspeck]

Here's some views I Photoshop'd real quick to show the space they're talking about filling on the west side of the river. On the right is looking north on Taft, river to your right. Vice versa the other.

There's also fill on the east side that I'll get some day it's not sleeting.

[Cotuit]

You know its kind of 6 of one half a dozen of the other. The space under bridges are just dead. If they washed the wall with some interesting light, put some pattern or artistic relief into the face of the concrete... did anything to dress it up, it actually may feel less sinister under the bridge then it does with that ramp arrangement. Keeping it clean, lit, and maintaining a good pedestrian environment on either side is key with any underpass like this.

There's no dearth of artists and designers in the Bucket who could take a crack at dressing this up.

[frymasterspeck]

You're right, of course. I wanna see enormous graffiti murals. Or terraced with plants. It's gonna be frickin' huge.

The truth: I always had dreamed of a Burnside-style skate park in that location. The drop is epic.

[Cotuit]

frymasterspeck, on Feb 7 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

The truth: I always had dreamed of a Burnside-style skate park in that location. The drop is epic.

That's what I think should happen under the iWay ramps at Allens Avenue.

[brick]

Being a Troll, I always thought that would be kind of a cool place for a residence.

I agree with cotuit, the existing space under that bridge is awful.  We aren't losing much going to a culvert style.  But, a skate park would be cool.

[Lowerdeck]

A big bump and a bit off topic.  

It seems like the weight limit on the 95 bridge in Pawtucket goes down a couple of tons every few months.  Last night when I went into Providence I saw the signs saying it was down to 18 tons.  I recall a couple months ago it was 22 tons.

Is this bridge really getting that much worse?  Has anything been learned from Mianus River or I-35W in Minneapolis?  Would it be a smart idea to for a couple of years switch I-95 with I-295?  (It's been done before in Wilmington, Del.)

[brick]

Lowerdeck, on Jul 6 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

A big bump and a bit off topic.  

It seems like the weight limit on the 95 bridge in Pawtucket goes down a couple of tons every few months.  Last night when I went into Providence I saw the signs saying it was down to 18 tons.  I recall a couple months ago it was 22 tons.

Is this bridge really getting that much worse?  Has anything been learned from Mianus River or I-35W in Minneapolis?  Would it be a smart idea to for a couple of years switch I-95 with I-295?  (It's been done before in Wilmington, Del.)

It would be nice if they had some more movement forward on this. I understand things take time, but this really does affect that area of Pawtucket as with the price of diesel fuel truckers seem to be willing to deal with the aggravation of getting off the highway as opposed to adding  miles to their trip.  Every morning I use Division St. and there is a queue of 3-6 trucks every morning.  Additionally, I am worried about the division st. bridge, especially now that there is 2 way traffic again, is going to deteriorate.  That is a nice bridge and should be preserved instead of used as a stopgap to a situation which should not have occurred in the first place.  Instead they will let the always overweight truckers smash that to pieces as well and we can get two boring pieces of crap put in place 5-10 years from now.

[Griswald]

In response to the question about the weight limit reduction - I noticed the same thing, and at first it sounded extremely sketchy. How do you determine exactly how many tons can be supported? What if there is a traffic jam where the entire bridge is bumper to bumper cars, and everyone has a full load?  I drive on this bridge every day and I don't want to end up going for a swim on my way to work....
I realized however, that when they reduced the weight limit from 22 tons to 18 tons, it was right after they added all of the jersey barriers narrowing the lanes.
By the way, has anyone else noticed how many trucks get pulled over by the state troopers for going over the bridge? I usually see a few a day.