We'll be driving this Friday morning from Logan airport to Springfield, via the Mass Pike. Any ideas on how the recent collapse will affect us? How long possible detours/delays will take? Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated, and thanks.

Deleted - Wideman has much better inforamtion than I got by going to the Turnpike's traffic conditions site, but here is the Mass Turnpikes link for alternate routes http://www.masspike.com/user-cgi/news.cgi?dbkey=232&type=Press%20Release&src=news

It will likely take you an extra 15-45 mins, depending on traffic.

Click here for driving directions from Logan to the Mass Pike (http://www.boston.com/news/local/startsandstops/blog/2006/07/detour_update_m.html)


Click here for a map of the detour (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/11/commuting_map/)

(Edited to add that the previous post by OBone seems 100% wrong to me; I-90 is very definitely closed in both directions just west of the TW tunnel.)

(Edited to add that the previous post by OBone seems 100% wrong to me; I-90 is very definitely closed in both directions just west of the TW tunnel.)

yeah, I got my info by going to the Turnpike's traffic conditions which had that information on it.

So who will pay for this? The contractors? The tax payers?

So who will pay for this? The contractors? The tax payers?

Possibly you, in part. Lots of federal funds went into the Big Dig construction, and I've heard some folks say that to fix this disaster more money will be coming from the fed gov't. Yay.

Possibly you, in part. Lots of federal funds went into the Big Dig construction, and I've heard some folks say that to fix this disaster more money will be coming from the fed gov't. Yay.So when a company is a federal government contractor, if its net product fails, then the company isn't held responsible to fix it? The gov't must pay for it? Who are these idiotic government lawyers who would write contracts like that? :confused: Those who graduated from Bubba & Billy Bob's School of Law?

It will likely take you an extra 15-45 mins, depending on traffic.

Click here for driving directions from Logan to the Mass Pike (http://www.boston.com/news/local/startsandstops/blog/2006/07/detour_update_m.html)


Click here for a map of the detour (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/11/commuting_map/)
Looking at the "official" detour, it's clear to me that they intentionally avoided directing anyone through downtown Boston. But it seems to me that, in addition to being circuitous, this detour directs one into the heart of the morning rush hour. I'm curious as to people's thoughts on the route I would take: although this route takes one into the financial district during the morning rush, my experience is that these roads tend to move well. Also, it seems a good idea to me to take a route different than the route everyone else will be taking.

I would take the same exit -- Exit 25/South Boston -- as directed by the official detour (this likely is where you will encounter the most traffic, as everyone will need to get off I-90 at this exit). Follow the traffic out of the tunnel, but instead of taking a left at the first set of lights, as directed by the official detour, go straight to the next set of lights and go left on Seaport Boulevard (if this route is blocked, you can take a right at these lights, a left at the next set of lights, and a left again at the next set of lights to get on Seaport Boulevard). Seaport Bouleveard will end in about 3/4 of a mile. Go right (staying to the right; do not get on I-93 North), but then get in the left lane and take the next left (there is a sign directing you to I-93 South), and a left again on Surface Road (you essentially will have just made a U-Turn so that you will be traveling south on Surface Road rather than north). Continue straight, and a few blocks up, at Congress Street, you will see an onramp to I-93 South (you bear slightly to the left to get on I-93 South). This will take you into a tunnel, and the first exit on the right will be I-90 West.

So when a company is a federal government contractor, if its net product fails, then the company isn't held responsible to fix it? The gov't must pay for it? Who are these idiotic government lawyers who would write contracts like that?

It may depend on whether the contractor followed the specifications that the government signed off on. If someone in the government approved the great idea of suspending 1 ton concrete slabs held up with wires glued (OK, epoxied) into the ceiling, and the contractor glued them up as specified, they met their contract.

It may depend on whether the contractor followed the specifications that the government signed off on. If someone in the government approved the great idea of suspending 1 ton concrete slabs held up with wires glued (OK, epoxied) into the ceiling, and the contractor glued them up as specified, they met their contract.I wonder if this will be disclosed to the public.

It may depend on whether the contractor followed the specifications that the government signed off on. If someone in the government approved the great idea of suspending 1 ton concrete slabs held up with wires glued (OK, epoxied) into the ceiling, and the contractor glued them up as specified, they met their contract.

Question will be, was it a fundamental design flaw, workmanship issue, or materials that did not meet specs? My DH is a self-employed professional engineer (not civil) -- one of his major business expenses is professional liability insurance (that's with no claims, ever). Once those forensic engineers figure out what caused the problem, liability and insurance will have to come into the picture.

With absolutely NO knowledge of what really caused the failure, have to say that the epoxy-6-ton-panels-over-the-travel-lanes idea would fail my Duh! test right away. :td:

the great idea of suspending 1 ton concrete slabs held up with wires glued (OK, epoxied) into the ceiling

Didn't I hear that they knew about this as a possible problem back in 1999? :confused: :eek:

Didn't I hear that they knew about this as a possible problem back in 1999? :confused: :eek:
The Massachusetts Attorney General is reporting that he has seen documents showing that there was a debate as early as 1999 as to whether this process would work. Apparently he has not yet discovered what the outcome of that debate was at the time (although we now know the real answer).

The Massachusetts Attorney General is reporting that he has seen documents showing that there was a debate as early as 1999 as to whether this process would work. Apparently he has not yet discovered what the outcome of that debate was at the time (although we now know the real answer).
one thing to remember is that the Massachusetts Attorney General is running for Governor of Massachusetts, and it's in his interest to bring things to light that make him look good and others look bad.

I didn't vote for Mitt, but Tom Reilly's tactics are (unsurprisingly) very politically motivated.

one thing to remember is that the Massachusetts Attorney General is running for Governor of Massachusetts, and it's in his interest to bring things to light that make him look good and others look bad.

I didn't vote for Mitt, but Tom Reilly's tactics are (unsurprisingly) very politically motivated.
So are Mitt's. Unfortunately it seems impossible to remove the politics from this situation: Mitt is running for president and Tom is running for governor, so both are acting in furtherance of their political ambitions.

I would take the same exit -- Exit 25/South Boston -- as directed by the official detour (this likely is where you will encounter the most traffic, as everyone will need to get off I-90 at this exit). Follow the traffic out of the tunnel, but instead of taking a left at the first set of lights, as directed by the official detour, go straight to the next set of lights and go left on Seaport Boulevard (if this route is blocked, you can take a right at these lights, a left at the next set of lights, and a left again at the next set of lights to get on Seaport Boulevard). Seaport Bouleveard will end in about 3/4 of a mile. Go right (staying to the right; do not get on I-93 North), but then get in the left lane and take the next left (there is a sign directing you to I-93 South), and a left again on Surface Road (you essentially will have just made a U-Turn so that you will be traveling south on Surface Road rather than north). Continue straight, and a few blocks up, at Congress Street, you will see an onramp to I-93 South (you bear slightly to the left to get on I-93 South). This will take you into a tunnel, and the first exit on the right will be I-90 West.
I just did this today, and although I have no idea whether it was faster or slower than the official detour route, it worked fine. When I emerged from the Ted William Tunnel, however, the police had blocked off access to Seaport Boulevard. So I had to go around the block to get on Seaport Boulevard to follow this route. I have edited my original post to reflect this detour if access to Seaport Boulevard is blocked. Also, when on Seaport Boulevard it is important that you ignore the signs directing you to I-90, as this will just lead you to the section that is closed.

As usual, there was no traffic on Seaport Boulevard. When I got into downtown, I did experience moderate traffic, but it moved reasonably well.

[Edited to add: It is now 4:00pm, and looking out the window of my office, I can see the Seaport Boulevard is significantly backed up. So my route clearly would not be a good option at this time of day.]

Ted Williams tunnel is now closed to all but busses going eastbound only.

Nuts I say!

The T is insanely crowded and delays are common. It is a nightmare according to my roommate who rides daily.