Hey, there! Log in / Register
Lagrange Street in West Roxbury is the stupidest street in all of Boston, thanks to Boston Public Works and the MBTA
By adamg on Thu, 12/24/2015 - 2:17pm
Yes, we all get a good chuckle whenever a trucker wedges his vehicle under the bridge on Lagrange Street.
But it's frickin' stupid. Because unlike Storrow Drive, which has warning signs at the on ramps, and that bridge in Westwood that has multiple warning signs and flashing lights, and even the bridge over VFW Parkway in West Roxbury that has height signs a full 20 feet before the bridge, this bridge has nothing, except for a small "Low Clearance" sign right on the span itself - a bit too late for somebody who's just made a delivery at Blanchards or however it is he's found himself heading north on Lagrange (since it always seems to be trucks heading north).
God forbid somebody put up a frickin' warning sign (play Where's Signo). This is Boston, we don't need no frickin' signs!.
A couple months ago, somebody actually filed a 311 complaint about how trucks keep getting stuck under the bridge and how maybe somebody should put up signs with the bridge's height before the bridge, like where a truck could somehow turn around (like, say, the Blanchards parking lot).
Here's the city's response:
Case Closed. Case Noted. PWD Bridge Dept contacted the MBTA who informed pwd that they do not post for height due to legal ramifications. If you would like to contact the MBTA their customer services number is 617-222-3200. Thank you Anne.
So until the T actually replaces the bridge sometime next year and increases the height under it, the street is going to keep getting tied up, along with the Boston Police officers who have to shut off the road, because the T would apparently rather have to keep sending out an inspector to check the bridge every time it gets hit and the city can't think of why it might want to post warning signs on the road it controls on either side of the bridge.
Bah, humbug!
H/t Brendan for finding that 311 complaint.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What legal responsibility
What legal responsibility does the MBTA assume by posting the clearance height of a bridge? It does seem like common sense has been outlawed these days...
The legal responsibility to put up signs
Signs are so nanny-state. It should be the personal responsibility of every red-blooded American driving a vehicle to carry a tape measure and stop to measure the clearance before they proceed under the bridge. Nobody ever gets Storrowed in libertarian fantasy-land.
Good point
And while we're at it, roads are too nanny-state too! Why back in my day, we trudged through the wilderness, fifteen miles, uphill, both ways! And we liked it! Oh wait. This is Boston. There's still no roads!
Vigilante signage
Can't someone (or some community group) go out and put a sign in the right place?
I know they shouldn't have to, but it might just save everyone trouble.
Low Clearance Underpass on Lagrange and VFW Parkway, Use..
Truck drivers need a heads-up before they chose a route with a low clearance underpass, such as...
Low Clearance Underpass on Lagrange and VFW Parkway, Use Corey or Baker.
This is what a lack of leadership looks like
A well-run agency would have someone in a position of responsibility to give the order to put up the damn sign anyway, and have management up the chain have his or her back in the rare event that said "legal ramifications" which are just administrative bullshit and laziness masquerading as a real obstacle to getting work done come home to roost in some way.
Instead, you have some low-level flunkie saying effectively, "we can't, because," and getting rewarded for time on the job instead of being punished for failing to take initiative to improve life for city residents and taxpayers.
You know how you'd be able to tell if Baker or his predecessors, or their successors are doing their jobs? You'd see a lot more out-of-work state and municipal employees fired for incompetence and a lot of freshly-minted state and municipal employees hired to replace them.
made complaint after another Lagranging
Brendan/@curseddiamonds here. I think I made the 311 complaint a day or 3 after this happened.
http://www.universalhub.com/2015/truck-storrows-west-roxbury
Call your state reps
If the city is passing the buck to the T, call your state rep and senator, and see if they can light a fire under the T.
VFW Parkway bridge has height signs, too
Looks like 13'6" northbound and 13'0" southbound. Isn't this also an MBTA bridge?
What I don't see, however, are "NO TRUCKS" signs on southbound VFW at Baker Street, which is the last opportunity to avoid the underpass.
Yes, it's even the same train line, but ...
VFW Parkway is a DCR road, not a city road. Still, it's pretty frickin' stupid to have the height signs like 20 feet from the bridge, where it's too late for a truck to turn around.
Trucks on VFW PKWY?
One reason there may not be a "no trucks" sign at the bridge is that VFW Parkway is a no truck route and signed as such, so trucks shouldn't be there to begin with.
A 4th street intersects both Lagrange St. & Park St. W. Roxbury?
What's a 4th street intersecting both Lagrange Street and Park Street !?... a puzzle that can amuse/entertain West Roxbury friends. There is a fourth street besides Robin St, Martin St, Centre St and it's something of a surprise.
I'll bite
What are the first 3 streets?
Re: What's a 4th street intersecting both Lagrange St & Park St?
What's a fourth street intersecting both Lagrange Street and Park Street!?... There is a fourth street besides Robin St, Martin St, Centre St and it's something of a surprise, a puzzle that can amuse/entertain West Roxbury friends
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lagrange+St+Boston
Corey St
Corey Street is the 4th street that intersects Park and LaGrange.
I thought
He was trying to be clever and was going to say Tremont.
LAGRANGE STREET BRIDGE
Nothing prevents the City from posting warning signs. Town of Westwood has done it for years. Usual City Cop Out.
Not really understanding the "can't..." logic here....
I can sort of understand why the MBTA can't put a clearance warning sign on city property ahead of said bridge...maybe...if I squint real hard.
But why can't the city put a clearance warning sign on city property ahead of the bridge??
And I'm going to have to admit to having a huge case of the stupid today, but can someone please educate me why anyone putting up a warning sign has more dire "legal ramifications" than being sued by the owner of a now-damaged truck who would have presumably (for legal ramifications only**) avoided trying to drive under said bridge in the first place if there was any chance said truck would not make the clearance...?
**We all know that having a warning sign will not prevent stupid people from exercising their right to be stupid. I just always thought having a warning sign protected public and/or private entities from being sued for negligence when trucks/cars/etc get damaged by the stupid actions. And possibly gives the property owner the right to sue truck drivers/owners etc. for ignoring said warnings and causing damage to said structure that now needs (possibly expensive) repairs.
Once you reach this level of
Once you reach this level of stupidity with government agencies, it's time to call an elected official who can scream at people until this gets fixed. Which city councillor or state rep from the area would be willing to make the effort?
I think we should be
I think we should be applauding the MBTA here instead of denigrating them. They're starting to demonstrate some appreciation of the taxpayer.
After all, if they decided to put signs on the road they would have to hire sixty consultants to do a 36 month public meeting process, file two 50,000 page Environmental Impact Statements (one for the state, one for the feds) and borrow $200 million for a contractor to put up signs by 2050, who will then submit a bill for $4 billion, resulting in the project being canceled after just 10 years of process.