I just read Lance Reynolds’ article regarding the proposed replacement of the Tobin Bridge and felt compelled to comment. The present Tobin Bridge is functionally obsolete, with only six lanes available, and no breakdown lanes or high-speed shoulders. In addition to the structural issues that result from the age of the Tobin Bridge, the incredibly dangerous 4th Street exit on the lower deck Northbound is an accident waiting to happen, and should be permanently closed as part of any replacement project.
Any replacement span should have the necessary breakdown lanes and shoulders, and add at least two additional travel lanes in each direction, for a total of ten lanes in total, five lanes Northbound and five lanes Southbound, and possibly three additional lanes (6) lanes Southbound. These are my recommended minimum requirements, to allow for future growth in traffic over the life span of the new bridge. In addition, US Route 1 should be widened to match and upgraded to Interstate standards at least as far north as the Route 99 Interchange on the Saugus-Malden line, and possibly as far North as the I-95/Route 128 interchange in Peabody.
Finally, may I suggest re-routing Route 1 to eliminate the vicious “Chelsea Curve” that seems to exist for no reason other than to torture out of town drivers and is yet another accident waiting to happen. US Route 1 was already carrying traffic volumes double its design limits of 75K cars per day (150Kk) when Gov. Frank Sargent cancelled I-95 in 1972, now the Saugus-Peabody section of Route 1 carries 250K cars per day, over three times its design limits because I-95 was never built. Upgrades to Route 1 to support those traffic volumes will be increasingly critical to prevent a choke point for Northbound traffic coming off of the new bridge.
With all of that said, however, let me propose an alternative to a new bridge that offers significant additional benefits, albeit at a higher construction cost. How about replacing the Tobin Bridge with an immersed tube tunnel? Each tube (one northbound and one southbound) could be floated into place on either side of the Tobin Bridge’s existing support piers, keeping the Tobin in service until the new tunnel is ready. It would allow the existing Route 1 to be buried at least as far North as the Cutler Circle (Route 60) interchange, and possibly as far North as the Route 99 interchange on the Saugus-Malden line. It would also eliminate the steep grades on both approaches to the existing bridge, which may exceed the maximum 7% grade allowed on Interstate highways. There’s no reason that an immersed tube tunnel has to have a circular cross-section (like the Ted Williams Tunnel), but could be built using a rectangular cross-section, allowing for a wider cross-section with room for as many lanes as required. I offer these suggestions for consideration before a new bridge is built, so that MassDOT doesn’t make the same mistake they always do, failing to allow for future growth that yields infrastructure that is at capacity and obsolete the day it opens.
Robert G. Atkinson, Jr.
North Reading
