|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Longfellow Bridge article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Why "Salt and Pepper Bridge"?
When I read the part about the locals calling it the "Salt and Pepper Bridge", I immediately wondered why they would call it that. This would be a good thing to include in the article. Also, great pictures, kudos to whoever took them. EdGl 03:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
When was the bridge renamed?
The article states that the bridge was originally known as the Cambridge Bridge and renamed the Longfellow bridge. Does anyone know when this was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-23, 19:08
Seems to me this article should be assessed as WikiBridges "Mid" importance. How do these articles get assessed? Denimadept 16:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Burned through the "roof" of the bridge?
What does this mean? Did it burn through the bridge deck from below? This is not a covered bridge, so it has no roof. - Denimadept 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Blue Line/Red Line: Possible confusion in article
The article states that the current Blue Line (of the MBTA subway system) runs across the Longfellow and into the tunnel system, this should read the current Red Line (I know for a fact that it's currently the Red Line, but I can't even find a reference to what is now the Blue Line ever running as far as the Longfellow Bridge). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- You need to read it more carefully. It says that this was the case until 1952, and cars were brought across the bridge afterwards until the Blue Line got its own yard. - Denimadept (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
My referenced edit about the bridge being the inspiration for Gillette Stadium's signature entrance was [deleted here. The edit summary said it was "trivia." This article is amazingly dry for a beloved iconic bridge. It's a shame -- especially when the item was referenced (even if the link was broken (because of the pay for archive thing) - the Boston newspaper article was valid). Americasroof (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting that this information be kept out, but that as it stood as a single-sentence paragraph following the long lead paragraph that it was out of place and that the Gillette Stadium mention is going to be obscure to non-football fans and persons outside the U.S. Also, the reference link provided is broken, resulting in a redirection to the main page of the Globe website.
- What was written was: "The bridge is a Boston icon. The bridge entrance to Gillette Stadium is modeled on it." The only thing to support that paragraph is the reference used on the Gillette Stadium page, which links to a blog. Blogs are generally considered not verifiable and therefor not reliable sources. You would need to find a much better source to support the statement (both sentences) that was reverted. As for the first part, from having lived in or near Boston for several years I can tell you that the Longfellow is not nearly as much an "icon" as the Zakim these days. The Gillette Stadium logo is not a depiction of the Longfellow but of the stylized interpretation of it next to a stylized lighthouse at the stadium entrance. I'm not saying Robert Kraft didn't mention the Longfellow as the inspiration for that part of the stadium at the dedication; he did.
- Regarding the dryness of the article, it is a bridge article and in my experience (more active bridge article editors may want to add to this), bridge topics are primarily civil engineering and transportation related, and the symbolism of the Longfellow has a limited amount of well-cited material for inclusion here but it probably should be detailed in a well-referenced section somewhere outside the lead. Sswonk (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's "dry". It covers the topic pretty well, though it might be expanded similarly to how I did the next bridge upstream. If you're not interested in the bridge, you likely won't be reading the article. We don't need to mention Teletubbies and Britney Speers in this article. - Denimadept (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Downstream vs. upstream. Yes and no. I decided last evening to actually walk on the downstream side. (That's the side facing more towards the Museum of Science). One thing that I'd note is on the Boston shore of the Charles you literally have about a 1 foot span of sidewalk leading onto the Bridge. Then you have to step onto the curb's edge to literally get around a light pole or step down into the side of the street (or "gutter") of Rte 3. The downstream side I would not-- recommend for anyone in a wheelchair capacity. I've always walked on the upstream side. (Facing more towards the Prudential, Esplanade, and Back Bay.) I don't recall having to step out into the street to get around light poles there? So basically in some parts I believe the upstream sidewalk could be more narrow as well. CaribDigita (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The Boston globe published a recent (8/22/10) article about traffic volumes. It specifically calls out this articles inaccurate data. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/22/for_future_of_the_longfellow_task_force_crunching_the_numbers/?page=full —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash575 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Consider the source was the Boston Glob, according to reference 3. If you have a good source of such data, please feel free to update this value and include your reference. - Denimadept (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. The source specified does not contain this data. Let's see... - Denimadept (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. The reference #3 mentioned above is now reference #4. - Denimadept (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Ironwork theft section
- I think it's a significant note, which affects the historical authenticity of the Longfellow Bridge reconstruction project. I see no reason to suppress mention of this unpleasant but factual occurrence. Reify-tech (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now having updated and reorganized the section, I think the theft incident is even more relevant, as evidence of how profound the neglect of the bridge had become. As of 2013, it is not clear whether or not the stolen ironwork has been reproduced; it hasn't been reinstalled to replace the chainlink fence. Presumably, it will be reinstalled after structural bridge rehab has been completed, but who knows if this will actually happen some years from now?
- Also, there is currently no mention of the original plans for bridge rehab, and the vigorous objections of some citizen groups to this original scheme, which retained 4 lanes of motorized traffic and neglected the needs of bicyclists. After considerable discussion, MassDOT changed the design to 3 lanes of traffic, and wider bicycle and pedestrian lanes. I may eventually get to documenting this, but would be happy if somebody more familiar with the details does it first. Reify-tech (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've further reorganized the section, to present a more coherent historical narrative. I've accepted the suggestion that the ironwork theft doesn't need its own heading, and integrated the coverage into the description of just how bad things had become. The narrative still needs the story of the redesign to accommodate improved bike lanes. Reify-tech (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Cambridge Bridge Commission report p.33 contains a committee report on the bill S.2882 from March 15, 1900 to allow a draw-less bridge. P.37 describes a temporary bridge built for the duration of construction with two draws, one in line with the then-current bridge draw, and one in line with the new bridge's main channel.