Traffic is key to plan for store

Traffic is key to plan for store

There are 10 comments on the Lowell Sun story from Dec 7, 2010, titled Traffic is key to plan for store. In it, Lowell Sun reports that:

Developers presented to the city Planning Board last night preliminary plans for a third pharmacy at the busy corner of Middlesex and Wood streets.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lowell Sun.

2x UML Grad

United States

#1 Dec 7, 2010
How about instead of another freakin pharmacy the state buys those lots, consolidates them as well, and builds a proper bridge, a proper intersection, and a proper light cycle design that can alleviate a lot of the congestion in that area. The bridge should have two lanes into the wood street intersection and two out with official turning lanes on the bridge and Middlesex street.
Doc

Maynard, MA

#2 Dec 7, 2010
Obviously, the developer is clueless as far as the real cause of the congestion in that area. The cause IS NOT the length of the Middlesex lanes at the light! The cause, particularly in the evening, is Rourke Bridge. Traffic backs up on the three other sides of the light because of traffic being backed up for the whole length of Rourke Bridge (including the approach). There is nothing that can be done to the streets that will fix that! Improving the computer for the traffic light won't help - traffic is at a standstill ON THE BRIDGE, which is past the light.

In the morning, the backup results from the light that is a block away from the Middlesex intersection. Improving those lights might make a difference as far as congestion in the morning.

The thing nobody is thinking about is what happens when Rourke Bridge eventually needs to be replaced (after all, it is a temporary bridge regardless of how many decades it has been there - my family in upstate NY laughs when I tell them about having to take a temporary bridge that was built in the mid-80's)! After building a Walgreens, will there be anyplace left to build a second temporary bridge while the original bridge is replaced?

My advice is to first replace Rourke Bridge with a four-lane bridge (which appears to be the original intent for the bridge). Only after that should the lot for the proposed Walgreens be developed.

Or, better yet, consider building your Walgreens on Old Ferry Rd (someone else had suggested this in comments to a separate article). I think people in Pawtucketville would frequent a major pharmacy that we could get to without having to go over Rourke Bridge, and Walgreens would take more business by having a location that was more convenient for a sizable portion of the community (we would probably move our prescriptions from CVS to Walgreens if it were in a more convenient location to us, but there is no improvement in convenience if it is right across the street from the CVS).
STFU

Boston, MA

#3 Dec 7, 2010
There are 4 walgreens, 6 CVS pharmacies and 1 hannafords and 2 market baskets in a 6 mile radius. We really need another fing pharmacy.
call me crazy

Washington, DC

#4 Dec 7, 2010
I have sat through the light at Middlesex and Wood St, heading towards Pawtucketville, too many times to count, when I am the third, eventually second and finally first car at the light. Often no cars or only one cars is able to advance to the bridge at one time. In my experience traffic that has turned right from Middlesex has basically filled the bridge, leaving no room for traffic to advance once the light changes for the other direction. Adding additional traffic to the northeast quadrant of that intersection, without increasing the capacity of the bridge is only going to make the situation worse for traffic coming from route 3 or the businesses on Drum Hill and Wood St. It is likely to flood traffic onto side streets between Westford St and Middlesex as cars because cars can get into the right-hand turn lane at the dump --bridge traffic is backed up past that point --cut through side streets, turn left onto Middlesex and then right to go over the Rourke Bridge. Traffic is not going to be alleviated until the capacity of the bridge is improved. There is only one fire station on the north side of the river --vehicles over 4 tons cannot travel over the bridge at University. Congestion on the bridges has become a safety hazard for Centerville and Pawtucketvill residents, businesses, and the University. The planning board and city council need to do some long range planning and not take what appears to be an easy solution --a private company paying for a right turn lane, that will actually make the situation worse.
P-ville Res

Haverhill, MA

#5 Dec 7, 2010
If I were Caufield,Mercier x 2, Elliot and the rest of the city gov't officials I would try to listen for once for whats right of the city residents who live in this city versus thinking of the almighty dollar. No matter what this traffic engineer says they can do, I bet they don't sit in the traffic like most of us city residents do at any of the bridges at commmuter traffic time. The city bickers amongst themselves and the city resident gets the tax bill...
My wang is a 10 incher

Stoneham, MA

#6 Dec 7, 2010
Isn't this all stuff the city should have been doing in the first place? We have to have a Walgeens come in to get this shiz done?
Maggie

Haverhill, MA

#7 Dec 7, 2010
I watched a little of the hearing last night and gave up in total disgust. All we need is another bunch of cars on Middlesex St at rush hour. Right now it is just past 4 and the traffic on Middlesex in already backing up. My guess would be that the only city councilors that are really familiar with the traffic in this area are Caulfield. Elliott and possibly Murphy. The others live over in Belvidere and don't have to deal with it. The sad thing is - that when this first came up , resodents of Pawtucketville did want to know why they couldn't have it on their side of the bridge. If they ever do build a new bridge I hope they take the Walgreen's or better yet - my house- so I can get the heck out of Lowell.
The Outlook

United States

#8 Dec 7, 2010
P-ville Res wrote:
If I were Caufield,Mercier x 2, Elliot and the rest of the city gov't officials I would try to listen for once for whats right of the city residents who live in this city versus thinking of the almighty dollar. No matter what this traffic engineer says they can do, I bet they don't sit in the traffic like most of us city residents do at any of the bridges at commmuter traffic time. The city bickers amongst themselves and the city resident gets the tax bill...
You're talking to the deaf people. They CAN'T hear (don't want to hear you). Simple as that.
The Outlook

United States

#9 Dec 7, 2010
Whatever they decide to do, but DO NOT hire an idiot who re-designed the traffic circle on Lord Overpass. If you're driving on that street for the first time, you need to look at the street to know which lane you should be on, and then don't forget to look at the traffic lights above because it's only about 30 to 50 feet from the first traffic lights. On top of that, you need to watch out for pedestrians who are frequently crossing the street; especially in the morning when kids walk to school.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#10 Dec 9, 2010
The Outlook wrote:
Whatever they decide to do, but DO NOT hire an idiot who re-designed the traffic circle on Lord Overpass. If you're driving on that street for the first time, you need to look at the street to know which lane you should be on, and then don't forget to look at the traffic lights above because it's only about 30 to 50 feet from the first traffic lights. On top of that, you need to watch out for pedestrians who are frequently crossing the street; especially in the morning when kids walk to school.
Judging from the number of police cars on the Overpass handing out tickets, the redesign was done primarily to ensure that most motorists will make at least one wrong lane change or miss one light and become yet another contributor to the police overtime budget for the City of Lowell. Any change in the number of accidents, or any improvement in traffic flow was purely coincidental.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Andover Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Section 8 Fraud (Sep '08) 21 hr Kim 339
Do you remember???? (Jun '08) Wed popabob 18,032
News Woman Sues Over Having To Buy 2 Plane Seats (Feb '06) Sep 27 Disturbed 314
lowell crime stories as remebered by residents (Jul '08) Sep 24 Lisa7776 777
Poll When did NEM-PIT start ?? (Feb '12) Sep 16 usa 4
Review: A&J Heating (Mar '15) Sep 15 Catherine M 3
News Arrest made in double murder (Dec '09) Sep 13 Lowell king 46

Andover Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Andover Mortgages