Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Into the Mystic: Boston.com readers really want a Tobin Tunnel
"Even if tunnel construction is more costly the net benefits may be well worth it."
Color us surprised: We figured that a Greater Boston population that had to soldier through 25 years of Big Dig mishegos would be hesitant to dive into another tunnel project. But apparently, when it comes to replacing the increasingly rickety Tobin Bridge, they think sinking the whole shebang under the Mystic River is exactly what the doctor ordered.
“Less disruptive and more efficient,” declared Bill from Southborough of the tunnel option, echoing the opinions of most of the more than 350 readers who responded to our poll. In total, 75% put their hand up for a tunnel rather than a new bridge.
Would you like to see a tunnel replace the Tobin Bridge?
Yes
75%
No
23%
Other
2%
And don’t worry about the difficulty of the job. “Constructing a tunnel now is completely different than it was when the Big Dig was being planned,” wrote Rob N. from Reading. “Boring machines can make the work mostly happen underground and it would not disrupt daily life for years like the Big Dig.” We’ll take his word for it.
Advertisement:
Another possible money saver: “Set the very bright engineering students at the area’s colleges on this task as a thesis and undergrad real-life project to keep costs down,” suggested Susan from Boston, who we suspect has never gotten her hair cut at the local vocational school. We’re saying it’s a risk.
On the other hand, the 23% who were against a tunnel were REALLY against it. “I have ZERO faith that they will be able to do it on budget or on time,” wrote John B. of Roslindale. “We have all the proof we need in how the Big Dig went. No matter what they choose to build it will not be on budget or on time, that is the Massachusetts way.”
Advertisement:
And a small but vocal group says we should be doing both a bridge and a tunnel, so that, for example, the new Tobin could accommodate bikes and pedestrians alongside cars, while public transportation runs under the river. As Laura from Lynnfield wrote: “Chelsea could be the new Brooklyn, WOW!”
See a sample of readers’ responses below:
Yes, make it a tunnel
“A tunnel would be more secure against human and natural threats. In the long run, it would entail less maintenance and upkeep. It would clear the river of a navigation hazard and a visual obstruction.” — Gabriel C., Salem
“It could be MUCH less of a negative impact on the landscape, neighborhoods, businesses, etc., and would allow continued functioning of the existing bridge until the tunnel is available. Even if tunnel construction is more costly the net benefits may be well worth it. — Robert F.
“The bridge needs to be incredibly tall because of the giant cargo ships that pass underneath. It’s incredibly exposed to weather and as a result I can’t remember a time when it wasn’t under construction. The upper deck constantly leaks water onto the lower deck roadway, and traveling on it, like many of us on the North Shore must, is a miserable experience. The Big Dig was an incredibly trying experience, but give us a tunnel.” — Geoff, Salem
“As a Rhode Island transplant (born and raised in Belmont and Watertown, Massachusetts), I live in the land where our bridges fail miserably and end up ruining businesses and lives … Hand me a shovel — I’m ready to start digging on behalf of the residents in and around Charlestown.” — Simon M., Little Compton, RI
“Get that traffic underground! Constructing a new bridge would be far more disruptive than a tunnel since I would think a new bridge would have to be built parallel to the old bridge, so even assuming another double decker to save space, I can’t see them making the final connections on either side without a lot of eminent domain and demolition.” — M.O., Everett
“If they can do it with sound engineering that reestablishes healthy underwater aquatic habitat and simultaneously builds in sustainable coastline re-forestation to mitigate climate change drought and sea level rise, and do not destroy existing wild lands with soil removal like they did at [Mount] Hood Melrose during the Big Dig, I know it will be a better option than the bridge.” — Susan, Boston
“Just find a way to connect it to the existing City Square tunnel and you can remove all that elevated roadway that cuts Charlestown in half. Another greenway with land to build some apartments sounds nice. And while they’re already doing a couple of tunnels, why not add another one for a subway along Route 1? Then you can ease congestion in your nice new tunnels.” — J.C.
No, stick with a bridge
“The Commonwealth doesn’t need a massive construction project to support friends and families of our politicians.” — Dave, Taunton
“I think the Tobin Bridge should be replaced with another landmark bridge, just like the Zakim Bridge is a new landmark. Also the cost of the tunnel would be too much and take too long.” — Harry J., Woburn
“Mass is incapable of managing a tunnel build. The unions triple the labor costs and build time, and the permitting is insane. Move the bridge to the left or right of its current location and build it higher. See the Ravenal Bridge, stretching from Charleston, South Carolina, to Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina.” — Dave D., Milford
“The Big Dig was a failure. Traffic has only gotten worse and the tunnels are closed half the time anyway. Plus, God forbid you miss your exit, it’ll take you an extra 30 minutes to get to where you need to go.” — Susan, Brookline
“Stupid idea that will balloon to obscene amounts of overruns, will do nothing to alleviate the traffic, and will create massive disruptions for decades as it slowly creates one obstacle after another, lowering the quality of life in the metro area and saddling Mass. with debt for the remainder of the century. Find the guy that came up with this and make him haul the buckets of seepage out of the current Big Dig by hand for the rest of his life to set a salutary example for his friends.” — J., Salem
How about both?
“How about a new tunnel and a bridge! Renovate the Tobin, then keep it open while you build the tunnel. Then once the tunnel is done, you can run the Tobin for buses, first responders, and trucks. Easy!” — Sean, Dorchester
“Yes, a tunnel makes sense for motor traffic! But we should still hang onto the Tobin. Think how we could convert it to a mass transit passage either for bus, light rail, or even — if we can swing it — aim the Blue Line up and over to Chelsea and Saugus! In addition, open up a cycleway as well.” — Dan J., Charlestown
“Imagine having a bridge that opens for container ships and then closes to allow people to bike and walk into the city, like the Brooklyn Bridge. And imagine if we could also have a tunnel with a train running through like the Chunnel connecting London to Paris. With the tunnel underground people could enjoy the waterfront and hop on their bikes or walk over the bridge along with the cars: Chelsea could be the new Brooklyn, WOW! But we are a car-dependent nation and therefore totally stuck having a multiple-lane, tall bridge.” — Laura, Lynnfield
Or neither?
“Let’s not replace it at all, and instead enhance the commuter rail, Silver Line, ferry, and bus connections to world-class service with super high frequencies. Let’s not make the same mistake as we did in the ’90s. We need to get people off the roads and onto the rails. How many hundreds of millions, if not billions, will we spend on car infrastructure? How much more will motorists be subsidized by everyone else? How many more people have to die in car accidents? This would be yet another generational mistake. Have we learned nothing?” — Benjamin L.
Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com