Ordie100 t1_j9oh9ov wrote on February 23, 2023 at 1:12 PM

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

WinsingtonIII t1_j9oi558 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 1:20 PM

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 on February 23, 2023 at 1:51 PM

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 on February 23, 2023 at 2:12 PM

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 on February 23, 2023 at 1:57 PM

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 on February 23, 2023 at 2:25 PM

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 on February 23, 2023 at 2:51 PM

USACE, you mean??

Ordie100 t1_j9p25yr wrote on February 23, 2023 at 3:47 PM

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 on February 23, 2023 at 8:59 PM

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.