Hey, there! Log in / Register
Truck driver realizes that, hey, those CARS ONLY signs are serious
By adamg on Fri, 05/22/2015 - 10:38am
Lenny Rowe watched a Storrowing that wasn't shortly after 10 a.m. today. But don't worry, traffic-jam fans: Police still shut down the road to let the trucker back up and find another way to head towards 93.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Comments
The driver stopped. Well
The driver stopped. Well done.
That patio
looks like a ideal spot to just sit, relax, read a book and listen to the traffic whiz by -life is good.
Adding tolls to storrow drive
Adding tolls to storrow drive would help prevent all these trucks trying to avoid using 90 to go east/west while also providing revenue.
Of Course, There Should Be Tolls On Storrow Drive ...
... the Southeast Expressway, I-93, Route 2, Route 3 from NH, and all the other portals into the urban core.
This should be implemented before they even think about raising fares on the Ⓣ.
Bad signage
On westbound Beacon St., this sign, partially hidden by a tree, directs people to take a right to get to I-93. There's no "NO TRUCKS OR BUSES" indication. If we're going to direct traffic to 93 from Beacon St., there should be a sign indicating a truck route as well.
Sort of similar for Berkeley
Not much warning until you get to Back Street. You can see it in the distance, but a earlier warning would help.
Drivers should be warned
about the "No Trucks or Buses" and low clearance restrictions (which should include the actual minimum clearance) well before they even begin to turn onto Storrow Drive, and not after they've entered the ramp. The proper way to do this is by incorporating appropriate banners onto the advance guide signs - similar to the recently installed guide signs on the Expressway northbound for Morrissey Boulevard.
And yes, it would be desirable to post signed truck routes as well - although the CIty would have to gain the political courage to tell the neighborhood associations to STFU when they inevitably raise the selfish "but you can't route trucks through OUR 'historic' neighborhood" protests.
So you think semis should be
So you think semis should be driving through historical neighborhoods with notoriously narrow and winding city streets where they would never be able to make necessary turns and would therefore get stuck? That makes absolutely no sense.
Way to totally miss my point
Obviously, a truck route should be signed only on streets that can properly accommodate the large trucks.
But the local neighborhood associations are likely to protest designating truck routes on ANY street that goes through their neighborhood, even if the streets in question are entirely suitable of handling large trucks. And stating the City should not allow large trucks on such streets simply because they're a "historic" district (which is an all too common tactic to block otherwise sensible and legitimate plans) is an insult to every legitimate historical preservation effort out there.
Why wouldn't they protest?
Can you really blame people for not wanting big trucks rambling down their residential streets 24 hours a day? I guess I don't know anyone who would like that. The trucks make a lot of noise especially when they hit a bump or pothole.
So, to satisfy the purely selfish logic
of "quality of life" (the biggest liberal crock going), you obviously would rather truckers continue to get Storrowed instead of providing them with a properly signed through truck route on a street or road that was designed to handle through traffic.
This is one of the principal reasons that so many truckers don't heed the prohibitions on Storrow Drive - because selfish "OMG, I don't like trucks on the street" types like yourself force politicians to enact heavy commercial vehicle restrictions on streets and roads that are perfectly capable of handling heavy trucks. And why, because of idiotic rationale like "OMG, trucks make NOISE" or "They didn't have heavy trucks on this street in 1775 - lets get a phony baloney "historic district" designation so we can keep the trucks off the street now."
And if you don't want extra traffic on your street that was designed and built to accommodate THROUGH traffic because you're unwilling to accept a bit of extra noise, even though noise is an expected part of urban life, what's your solution to the problem? Hint - an arbitrary "keep out of my neighborhood for no legitimate reason" is not an acceptable option.
Truck routes
Of course there should be well-signed truck routes. I never said there shouldn't be.
The routes don't have to go through residential areas. There are other options.
Too many truck drivers avoid the truck routes to take the shortest route even when it is on one of the parkway roads. They know most of the time they won't get caught. And no, not all urban roads are built for truck traffic.
Why isn't the issue with drivers of trucks who don't make any effort to figure out their proper route. Isn't that part of their job?
I don't even hear the normal urban noise, never mind complain about it. We're used to it. Trolleys, buses, ambulances, sirens, motorcycle clubs, you name it. I just happen to think that a neighborhood should be designed for its residents, and not for the convenience of people driving through.
Are you serious??? Please,
Are you serious??? Please, never drive in Boston!
For the record
I avoid driving in Boston as much as possible (although the lack of adequate signing has very little to do with that decision). With all the issues I have with the MBTA, it mostly does a reasonable job of getting me around day to day.
trucks
All they need is a few farmers to tell truckers: "Can't get tha-ya from he-ah." The city is a nightmare for truckers, who are only trying to do their jobs. Many of the deliveries can be handled by smaller trucks, but the city really should make navigation possible for large trucks. I think the answer lies in careful study of possible routes, and making sure that information is loaded into all navigation systems.