Tag: Boston

Comments on New Brighton Landing EENF MEPA #49909

Comments on New Brighton Landing EENF MEPA #49909

By |

July 20, 2012

Secretary Richard Sullivan
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: New Brighton Landing Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) MEPA # 49909

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the EENF for the New Brighton Landing proposal. The potential improvements that this project will be able to bring to the area are substantial. The pedestrian aspects of the proposal are likely to play an important role in the way in which the project functions and relates to the surrounding neighborhood and nearby public buildings.

The core of the project is a series of new buildings on a campus focused on a new headquarters building for New Balance Corporation. A hotel, offices and a new sports center are included, along with open space and wide sidewalks that will add pedestrian amenities to the area.

We do have concerns that the surrounding area will be impacted greatly and that, so far, the project proponent has specified very little about what changes will be made to the neighborhood streets that will bear the brunt of the access into this site, including the changes that will be made to sidewalks and street crossings for those who choose to walk to the site. In May, we submitted comments to the BRA regarding this project, and had hoped that the proponent would address our comments in this filing. There are many questions remaining, and we repeat our comments to the City below.

The New Brighton Landing Master Plan includes a major indoor sports facility to be shared with neighborhood residents. It includes new office buildings that will house many new workers on the site and small retail facilities to serve people coming to the site. The proposed sports facility is an exciting addition to the neighborhood’s recreation resources and will be a major attraction for the surrounding community, and pedestrians will need access to and from the site from many directions. We have a number of suggestions for the streets that surround the site.

North Beacon Street
Bounding the south side of the site, North Beacon Street will serve as a collector for pedestrian access into the site from several local streets including Etna, Dustin, Murdock (connecting directly to Brighton High School), Gordon and Saunders Streets.

Pedestrian improvements suggested for this portion of North Beacon Street:

  1.  Pedestrian signals and signs should be placed at the intersections where most pedestrians are likely to cross North Beacon Street for access into the site: Life/Etna Streets and Arthur Street.
  2. Wayfinding signs should be added at these locations to help residents find the new facility.

The Mass Pike splits the development site from the North Brighton/North Allston community and pedestrians from that neighborhood must access the site via either Everett Street (along the eastern edge of the site) or Market Street/Birmingham Parkway (along the western side of the site). Both of these streets need improvements to provide good access for walkers.

Everett Street
Everett Street connects North Beacon Street to Western Avenue and Soldiers Field Road via a bridge over the Turnpike. The street has sidewalks along its entire length, but they are of poor quality: most are asphalt that is indistinguishable from the roadway surface and may thus be dangerous to walkers. No curbs separate sidewalks and vehicular traffic lanes.

Pedestrian improvements suggested for Everett Street:

  1. Everett Street is so important to neighborhood walking and for access to the river that its sidewalks should be totally rebuilt for pedestrian safety – widened and separated from road traffic by a curb where none now exists.
  2. Crosswalks should be added at all major intersections on Everett Street, including North Beacon Street and Soldiers Field Road.
  3. Cut-through traffic should be discouraged and pedestrian safety should be considered along streets where traffic diversions are predictable, such as Franklin Street.
  4. Wayfinding signs on Everett Street should be added at intersections to help local residents and visitors find the proposed site. Wayfinding signs should also be provided to help pedestrians find the Telford Street pedestrian overpass across Soldiers Field Road. This is the only place where there is pedestrian access from Allston to the river that does not require crossing at least four lanes of relatively high-speed roadway.

Market Street/Birmingham Parkway
On the west side of the site, Market Street and Birmingham Parkway form a continuous straight route that links North Beacon Street to Soldiers Field Road. Sidewalks exist on both sides of Market Street and on the east side of Birmingham Parkway between Lincoln Street and Western Avenue. Birmingham Parkway may be unique in the city; for more than one-half mile – between Western Avenue and its intersection with Soldiers Field Road near Watertown – it has no pedestrian crosswalks of any kind, although there are traffic signals where crosswalks might be located.

Pedestrian improvements suggested for Birmingham Parkway and Market Street:

  1. The sidewalk on the east side of Birmingham Parkway will provide the primary pedestrian access route between the proposed development and the North Brighton/ North Allston neighborhood and is also the primary access route to the parks along the Charles River for on-site workers. Given New Balance’s product line and work force we anticipate that there will be a significant number of runners who will seek to reach the Charles River’s world famous running paths.
  2. Birmingham Parkway between Lincoln Street and Western Avenue is very wide. North of Lincoln the Parkway has two southbound traffic lanes and four northbound, this widens to five lanes between Lothrop Street and Western Avenue. This wide street provides an opportunity: one lane of northbound Birmingham Parkway plus the existing sidewalk should be converted into a combined bicycle-pedestrian greenway between the New Brighton site and the river.
  3. Pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian countdown signals should be added at the intersection of Western Avenue and Birmingham Parkway (where signals already exist) to allow walkers to safely gain access to the riverside parklands.
  4. The sidewalk along the east side of Market Street connects via a crosswalk at Lincoln Street to the sidewalk on the east side of Birmingham Parkway. Pedestrian countdown signals may be appropriate at this location as traffic may increase as a result of the proposed development.

Suggestions for future walkways in the area

  1. A master plan for pedestrian and bicycle access between this site, its surrounding neighborhoods and the river should be considered. There are presently no high quality connections and there are great opportunities to link the existing and proposed residential and commercial uses to the wonderful open space resources that are nearby.
  2. The portion of Birmingham Parkway between Lincoln Street and North Beacon Street is an access road to just a few adjacent properties, and provides “back-door” access to Soldiers Field Road businesses via Wexford Street. It appears to have low traffic volumes and would seem to be a candidate for a ‘greenway’ toward the west where it meets the river. This portion of Birmingham Parkway should be examined to see if its vehicular use could be reduced in speed by physical reconstruction of lanes to a narrower width, and whether the road could be reconfigured into a greenway comprised of major walking and biking routes to the river.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Please feel free to contact us with questions you may have. We look forward to hearing how our suggestions are addressed in subsequent revisions to the plan.

Sincerely

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc: Keith Craig, Project Manager
Harry Mattison, Allston/Brighton North Neighbors Forum
Herb Nolan, Solomon Fund
Guy Busa, Howard/Stein-Hudson

Comments on Tremont Crossing Environmental Notification Form

Comments on Tremont Crossing Environmental Notification Form

By |

June 8, 2012

Secretary Ian Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office
Deirdre Buckley MEPA # 4900
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Tremont Crossing Environmental Notification Form

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the ENF for the Tremont Crossing proposal in Roxbury. We are impressed with the potential improvements that this project will be able to bring to the area. The pedestrian aspects of the proposal are likely to play an important role in the way in which this project functions and relates to the surrounding neighborhood and nearby public buildings.

The Tremont Crossing project includes 500,000 square feet of development with small shops and boutiques along Tremont Street, a large retail space set back from Tremont Street, 200,000 square feet of office space, an 11-story apartment building with 240 units, and a new museum for the National Center for Afro-American Artists. The development will also include a large public plaza and a multi-level parking garage with 1,700 spaces.

The site of Tremont Crossing is pivotal, as it forms a link between Madison Park Technical Vocational High School, the John O’Bryant School of Math and Science, Northeastern University, the Boston Police Department main headquarters, and the Southwest Corridor Park. The central focus of neighborhood activity and pedestrian trips is the MBTA Ruggles Station with subway, bus and commuter rail connections through the Southwest Corridor. The development site, physically separated from many of these facilities, directly adjoins Madison Park High School and the John O’Bryant School.

The proposed pedestrian facilities in the development include two wide sidewalks the full length of the site. One sidewalk will be immediately adjacent to the curb along Tremont Street, and the other sidewalk is interior to the site parallel to Tremont Street and separated from it by a very short distance.

The proposed layout at this critical location suggests the following possibilities:

  1. A considerable number of the Madison Park High School and O’Bryant School students will use the sidewalks through the site for daily access to transit at Ruggles Station. Depending on the kinds of retail incorporated into the site, students may also visit the site to shop. The school already has strong business partnerships – clinical rotations and internships with industry partners. This movement of people might be the basis for a connection between the project site and the schools, as the site could benefit from a close relationship with students. The proponent could reflect this movement and take advantage of the pedestrian activity as a basis for a physical realignment of the sidewalks toward the access ways leading to the schools.
  2. It is not clear why two parallel sidewalks are needed to serve the site. The interior sidewalk serves the backs of the retail outlets facing Tremont Street, yet provides the principal point of access to the large retail outlet and to the parking garage. It is unlikely that small retail shops will want to have two entrances – one facing Tremont Street and one facing an interior sidewalk. This may result in an unused edge of the stores – which would be unattractive and possibly create an unsafe interior corridor. We think that this two-sidewalk design is unfortunate and may generate walking patterns that are neither safe nor complementary to the proposed development. Perhaps the two sidewalks could be reduced to one along Tremont Street that serves people more directly including, of course, plazas for sitting and eating along the way, and an entrance to the large retail space that is deeper into the development.
  3. The proposed museum and cultural center is a unique feature of the development. Will it be closely related to the two adjacent schools? Will students from both schools be provided opportunities at the museum and cultural center and should there be special attention to pedestrian access from the schools? How will the Museum be “announced” to visitors who approach on foot?
  4. The major pedestrian crossings of Tremont Street will take place at intersections with Ruggles/Whittier Street, South Drive and Prentiss Street. The major crossing is likely to be at Ruggles/Whittier Street, because of the direct access it provides to the Ruggles MBTA Station. Care should be taken to provide for significant numbers of people wanting to cross Tremont Street at this location. Analysis should be performed to ascertain which crosswalk directions will work best for moving pedestrians safely. Analysis should also be undertaken to determine if a crosswalk is needed at South Drive, in view of the nearby Prentiss Street crossing.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Please feel free to contact us with questions you may have, and we look forward to hearing how our suggestions are incorporated into subsequent revisions to this plan.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Comments on Longfellow Bridge Project file No. 604361

Comments on Longfellow Bridge Project file No. 604361

By |

March 21, 2012

Pamela S. Stephenson, Division Administrator (Att: Damaris Santiago)
Federal Highway Administration, 55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142

RE: Longfellow Bridge, Project File No. 604361

Dear Pamela Stephenson,

We would like to take this opportunity to provide comments on the Longfellow bridge design (Project No. 604361) as presented in the Environmental Assessment and the MassDOT presentation at the March 1 public meeting.

We appreciate MassDOT’s steps forward on Longfellow Bridge Reconstruction. The Environmental Assessment includes many significant improvements:

  • Thinking about how people use the bridge, and not just focusing on the structure
  • Adding improved pedestrian connections to both sides of the river, including a new bridge to the Esplanade
  • Acknowledging the reduced width of the bridge at the Boston pinch points
  • Involving the public in the process to date; the creation of the Longfellow Task Force
  • Making significant changes on the outbound side toward Cambridge; especially the one travel lane, wide sidewalk and buffered bicycle lane

We are particularly pleased with the “Purpose and Need” as described in the Longfellow Bridge Restoration’s Environmental Assessment (p.11) which includes these goals:

  • “Provide a flexible layout of user space over the bridge deck to best accommodate future changes in volume and user types”
  • “Provide adequate space for pedestrians to pass each other on the walkways”
  • “Provide bicycle facilities that address the needs of experienced and less experienced cyclists”

We ask that you try to include the following changes to the plan:
THE INBOUND DESIGN
MassDOT’s proposed location and dimensions of the sidewalk and bike lane, particularly at the pinch points, do not meet the project goals. Below are the dimensions of the MassDOT proposed cross section on the upstream side (inbound to Boston).

MassDOT “Preferred Alternative” Cross-Sections

The narrow sidewalk and the bike lane adjacent to fast-moving traffic do not significantly improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, and lack the flexibility to meet existing and potential foot and bicycle traffic on the bridge. This cross-section element does not adequately meet the stated ‘Purpose and Need.”

We are united in our belief that there is a different solution that can provide a proper sidewalk and bike lane in both the short- and long-range. It requires a different location for the crash-barrier.

The long-term solution we have often stated provides for a single vehicle lane and a buffered bicycle lane that can also be used as a breakdown/emergency vehicle lane, a crash-barrier, and a pedestrian promenade (with benches!). This vision—supported by most participants in the Task Force—is illustrated in a rendering developed by WalkBoston:

A SHORT-TERM STRATEGY THAT WILL ACHIEVE THIS LONG-TERM VISION:
To achieve this long-term vision for the future, the MassDOT preferred alternative should be changed with a short-term plan that would make this world-class future possible.

The crash barrier should be located ADJACENT to the 2 travel lanes. The current MassDOT Preferred Alternative places the crash-barrier between the bike lane and the sidewalk. Our short-term plan puts the crash-barrier between the cars and the bicycles. The resulting bicycle track will be safer for all, especially less experienced cyclists, and yields a more generous sidewalk for the considerable pedestrian traffic. Bikes and pedestrians can be separated by a buffer—striping or flexible bollards.

The short-term plan we suggest has the following cross-section:

The long-term vision has the following cross section (as shown in the rendering):

The single most important suggested change is the placement of the crash-barrier. This results in a protected space which would accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians in the short term, and for the future it retains the potential to become the generous promenade envisioned in the above rendering. This can all be accomplished within the existing time frame for project approvals and construction. The purpose and need would be at that point be satisfied.

Thank you for considering our suggestions. If you have any further questions/comments, please contact Jackie Douglas of LivableStreets Alliance who will serve as our point of contact. Jackie can be reached at 617.621.1746 and jackie@livablestreets.info.

Thank You,
Jacqueline Douglas, Director, LivableStreets Alliance

On behalf of:
Wendy Landman, Executive Director, WalkBoston
David Watson, Executive Director, MassBike
Pete Stidman, Executive Director, Boston Cyclists Union
Renata Von Tscharner, Executive Director, Charles River Conservancy
Christopher Hart, Director of Urban & Transit Projects, Institute for Human Centered Design
Rafael Mares, Staff Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation
Andre Leroux, Executive Director, MA Smart Growth Alliance

CC:
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Acting Chief Engineer, MassDOT Highway Division, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116, Attention: Kevin Walsh, Project File No. 604361.

City of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino
City of Boston Transportation Commissioner Thomas Tinlin
City of Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy
Massachusetts Department of Conversation and Recreation Commission Ed Lambert State Representative Marty Walz

Comments on the Environmental Assessment and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Longfellow Bridge Project

Comments on the Environmental Assessment and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Longfellow Bridge Project

By |

March 20, 2012

Pamela Stephenson
Division Administrator, FHWA
FHWA Massachusetts Division
55 Broadway, 10th Fl.
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142

Thomas Broderick
Acting Chief Engineer
Mass DOT Highway Division
Ten Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116

RE: Comments on the Environmental Assessment and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Rehabilitation and Restoration of the Longfellow Bridge, January 2012

Dear Ms. Stephenson and Mr. Broderick:

WalkBoston is pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Environmental Assessment for the Longfellow Bridge. We have been involved in the planning for the reconstruction of the bridge from its initiation and throughout the lengthy public process, as a member of the Bridge Task Force, and at the recent public hearing.

To reiterate our May 2009 comments, we believe that MassDOT and FHWA should take the opportunity of this very important and expensive (approximately $300m) bridge reconstruction project to make significant improvements to pedestrian and bicycle service on the Bridge and its approaches. As an overarching comment, we believe that the time is right to think about our future urban transportation network with a greater focus on transit, pedestrian and bicycle access, and a reduced focus on private auto use.

We applaud the fact that since 2009 MassDOT has made very significant positive changes to the proposed reconstruction of the bridge, very specifically incorporating major improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access on the outbound side of the bridge, major improvements in access to the riverfront on both the Boston and Cambridge sides of the bridge, and more modest pedestrian improvements on the inbound side of the bridge.

We also applaud MassDOT’s commitment to engaging with the advocacy community and the public during the planning and environmental review of the project.

WalkBoston’s most basic comments and request for further change in the design (by moving the crash barrier on the inbound side of the bridge to provide a wider space that can accommodate both pedestrians and one-way bicyclists) are contained in the handout provided by a group of advocacy organizations at the public hearing on March 1, 2012 and attached to this letter.

Our additional, more detailed, comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) are provided below.

General Comments
The EA includes a welcome recognition of the historic role of the bridge; the parkland context of the Esplanade and river; a clear summary of the two key elements of Section 4(f) requirements to demonstrate no feasible and prudent alternative to damage to parkland and historical resources and the requirement to undertake “all feasible planning to minimize harm…” to the parkland and historic resources, and that the project will have a net benefit on these parkland resources (pp 23, 77). The EA recognizes that restoration of key historic park features is part of the purpose and need for the project and in order to do so provides clear commitments to move the eastbound Storrow off-ramp to Mugar Way, to remove a portion of Mass Eye & Ear parking from parkland, and to replace the pedestrian and bicycle bridge to the Esplanade. The EA also makes a commitment to reducing the number of outbound lanes on the bridge and adding significant walking and bicycling space. Finally, the EA also recognizes the value of the Task Force in improving the project.

One technical issue that we request to be remedied in future MassDOT environmental documents and that has confused the analysis of pedestrian impacts is the insufficient provision of dimensions on some of the drawings. The design process has resulted in confusion about the location of the crash barriers in many drawings. We note that the crash barriers are clearly shown in the midspan options (e.g. Fig. 4-7) and not shown in the pinch point options (e.g., Fig. 11-2). This brings difficulties to the analysis as we are not certain if the crash barriers at pinch points are located within the sidewalk dimension.

We have itemized our comments below for ease of reference and response.

Outbound Comments
A. Outbound sidewalks. Sidewalks in the outbound direction are proposed in the EA to be a generous 13-foot width at midspan, narrowing to a minimum 8½-foot sidewalk at Pinch Point 1. This is achieved by limiting vehicles to one lane outbound, and including an 8-foot space for a bicycle lane. The sidewalk becomes narrower at the pinch points but it unclear whether the 8½’ sidewalk width and other estimates of sidewalk widths represent clear and unobstructed distances and do not contain crash barriers.

B. Lane widths outbound. The EA calls for one vehicular lane outbound and another parallel lane of 6’-0” reserved for cyclists and protected by a 2’-0” buffer strip. The width of the bike lane is constrained due to the unfortunate combination of a 12’-0” roadway lane width and shoulders that vary from 3’-3” to 4’-0” on the MBTA side of the vehicular lane. This configuration will result in total vehicular roadway widths of from 15’-3” to 16’0” – clearly encouraging high speeds in the traffic moving toward Cambridge. (It replicates the same mistake made on the inbound side of the bridge a number of years ago when at least one of the lanes was widened to 15’-0” thus encouraging fast traffic.) Bicyclists will be endangered by high speeds; they would be better served by a wider bike path and and a wider buffer, narrower shoulders and a vehicular lane reduced to 11’. Providing an ample and comfortable bicycle lane will also benefit pedestrians on the inbound side of the bridge because it would encourage cyclists to use this outbound facility and decrease the appeal of attempting to ride a bicycle toward Cambridge on the sidewalks of the bridge (either the upstream or downstream sidewalks).

C. Shy distances (shoulders) outbound. The report states that “design exceptions” to allow 1′ rather than 3′ shy areas in the outbound direction are not warranted, even though the use of the 1′ dimension for a shy area is proposed for the inbound direction. The extra width can and should be applied where sidewalks are narrow – particularly at the pinch points – and especially to the narrow bike lane and buffer on the outbound side.

D. Crash barriers outbound. The EA calls for crash barriers between the sidewalk and the bicycle lanes, which we support. However, the crash barrier widths are not shown at the pinch points, suggesting that the crash barriers are located directly on the sidewalk and will diminish its width. This would reduce the sidewalk width significantly, and is unacceptable.

E. Bridge intersection at Charles Circle. The intersection where the southbound ramp from Storrow Drive meets the bridge has been redesigned by Mass DOT rather dramatically – with a reduced curvature of the turn between the ramp and onto the bridge. This change allows several improvements including new parkland, removal of the existing ‘pork chop’ islands, providing a narrower street to cross and construction of a safer, more obvious path for the pedestrian and cyclist crossing. We believe that pedestrians crossing at the intersection should be protected by a signal to replace the current flashing yellow light that does little for pedestrian safety.

Inbound Comments
A. Inbound sidewalks. If a configuration similar to outbound were to be used in the inbound direction (with one lane for vehicular traffic), there could be a 9-foot sidewalk at pinch point #1, widening to 13 feet for the midspan. This is clearly a far more appropriate restoration for the most significant pedestrian element of the bridge, and is an appropriate measure to satisfy the Section 4f requirement of federal law that “all feasible planning to minimize harm” to this historic feature be taken. Unfortunately, the proposed design, which would continue to provide two slightly wider auto lanes at Pinch Point 1, results in a 5’6” sidewalk, and as shown in the preferred alternative is an inadequate “restoration,” that will not serve the many pedestrians, joggers, picture-takers, baby strollers and walking commuters adequately.

B. Crash barrier relocation. A proposal that many advocacy groups agree on is the placement of the inbound crash barriers between the vehicular travel lanes and a combined sidewalk/cycle track. This is far from an ideal solution for pedestrians at the pinch points, but offers the hope that in the future cyclists could have a safe lane of their own outside the crash barrier. Meanwhile, it is important to assure that the cycle track be clearly separated from the pedestrian area inside the crash barrier. Following construction, the sidewalk/cycle track should be evaluated for use and safety patterns. We also recommend strongly that MassDOT carry out the experiment of a single inbound lane, opening to two lanes at Charles Circle at the conclusion of the bridge reconstruction. We believe that traffic will adapt to the long construction period by shifting away from the Longfellow Bridge and that a post-construction test will reveal that a one-lane inbound configuration (with a wide bicycle lane that can also serve as an emergency lane) operates reasonably well for vehicular traffic.

C. Lane widths inbound will encourage traffic to speed. The pavement area provided for inbound vehicles in the EA include two 11-foot lanes, a 1-foot wide shoulder and a bicycle lane, which acts in part as an additional shoulder. This will result in a very wide pavement (28’-6”), which will encourage traffic to move very fast, possibly endangering cyclists. At Pinch Point 1, the travel lanes are narrowed to one 11-foot lane and one 10’-6’ lane, and a 4’-6” bicycle lane, still resulting in a wide pavement of 26’-0”.

D. Lane widths inbound for emergency vehicles to pass. The stated purpose of the two 11-foot lanes is purportedly to allow for the widths of emergency vehicles, yet it seems improbable that one emergency vehicle will be overtaking another (an ambulance passing an ambulance? A bus passing a bus?) With a shoulder, if the paved vehicular lanes were 10’-6”, emergency vehicles could readily pass one another on the rare occasions they might need to do so. The same holds for buses.

E. Lane widths inbound and prior agreements with citizens. Lane widths of 10’-6” were agreed to by former Commissioner Luisa Paiewonsky and former Chief Engineer Frank Tramontozzi during the citizen participation process. We think that commitment should be honored, especially since inbound lanes are currently much narrower than that near Charles Circle, where emergency vehicles now manage, without apparent difficulty, to pass other vehicles.

F. Shy distances (shoulders) inbound. The shy distance on the MBTA side of the inbound traffic lanes is 1’-0” but takes space from the narrow sidewalks that result at the pinch points. Perhaps the shy distance could be narrower to add space to reflect the needs of pedestrians on the sidewalk, while also slowing traffic for safety as it approaches Charles Circle for safety.

G. Crash barriers inbound are clearly shown, with widths, in the EA Preferred Alternative at the midspan, but not at the pinch points. Since the sidewalks at the pinch points may be as narrow as 5’-6” there is no room for them to include the crash barriers. To do so is to reduce the clear width at the pinch point to 4’-0” – a clearly unacceptable result.

H. Lane widths over the bridge.

  •  The EA shows that one lane on the midspan of the bridge is feasible and provides traffic operations that are nearly identical to the EA’s proposed two lanes whether it leads into two lanes or three at the entrance to Charles Circle. Since Longfellow Bridge traffic has historically carried approximately 10,000 daily vehicles less than the BU Bridge (22,000 v. 33,000 ADT), we request that MassDOT document why two lanes are needed over the full length of the Longfellow when one lane over the BU Bridge in both directions has been constructed and found to be satisfactory.
  • The solution to the queuing problem is not to provide extra queue space in a second auto lane on the Longfellow Bridge. One queue lane inbound plus the auxiliary/bicycle lane is far superior, and provides head of the line accessibility for emergency vehicles, which would not be available if the lane were occupied by queue storage. The appropriate improvement to Charles Circle operations is to shorten the cycle time, so that queues will not block the intersections. This same strategy is being used in the proposed signal timing to avoid gridlock from excessive queues on the reconstructed Anderson Bridge, and MassDOT should use the same technique here. We request that the changes in timing be tested now, before reconstruction begins.

I. Lane widths inbound at Charles Circle.

  • Estimates of traffic on the inbound side of the bridge do not warrant three lanes for vehicular traffic entering Charles Circle. We would like an analysis of what Table 4-2 on p. 47 of the EA indicates: that 1 lane widening to either 2 or 3 lanes entering Charles Circle has the same volume/capacity ratio as 2 lanes entering the circle on 2 or 3 lanes. This data seems not to support the EA estimates of queue lengths backing up on the bridge (shown in the same table).
  • Inbound traffic reaching Charles Circle. The report describes, but does not deal with, the traffic and safety problems in Charles Circle that lead to gridlock and delay causing a big problem for ambulances destined for MGH from either direction of Storrow Drive. Ambulances can be stuck in the gridlock trying to go to the main MGH entrance on Cambridge Street which is backed up for two blocks into Charles Circle. Another part of the problem is the short storage distances for turning traffic and expressway access under the MBTA station.
  • Since there is already too much traffic within the Circle, it does not seem prudent to continue three lanes into the Circle from the Longfellow, especially considering that the other entrances parallel to the bridge (from either direction of Storrow Drive) have only two lanes entering into the Circle. We request an analysis of anticipated traffic volumes from the bridge compared with volumes coming from the east or west on Storrow Drive to clearly explain why three lanes are essential from the bridge.
  • One lane leading inbound from the bridge into two lanes entering Charles Circle has not been presented in the EA to show how it might perform. Such an assessment could help reviewers understand its viability and should be provided.
  • Shown by CTPS (but not included in the EA) is that a dramatic increase in traffic would result from the EA proposal of two lanes widening to three at Charles Circle, and that it would result in traffic increases on Charles, Beacon, Arlington, and Herald Streets. There has been no analysis presented of how the city streets can tolerate the loads shown by C TPS. An analysis of these traffic impacts is essential.

J. The existing pedestrian underpass near the Boston end of the Bridge should be maintained as it could become an option for future pedestrian connections.

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD CONSIDERATIONS

K. The proposed construction period interim traffic pattern may increase difficulties for pedestrians in adjacent neighborhoods.

  • The proposal for Longfellow to operate one-way towards Boston shifts Cambridge-bound traffic through the severely-congested Leverett Circle and Craigie/Prison Point intersections. (See Figure 4-3) We do not believe this should be allowed to happen, as it would drive the Cambridge-bound traffic into the East Cambridge residential neighborhood. All such moves have potential impacts on pedestrians using sidewalks along these streets.
  • A two-way operation would be more consistent with the desire to provide an evacuation route, would avoid exacerbating the badly-congested Leverett Circle and Prison Point intersections, and avoid spillover traffic into Cambridge and Boston neighborhoods. For the essential need to provide ambulance access to MGH, one lane should be provided in each direction throughout construction. (Since both inbound and outbound sides of the bridge have roadways of about 30’ in both directions, it is not clear why there is no room for two-way auto and bicycle lanes during construction, by continuing to tolerate the existing skimpy sidewalk and bike lanes for three more years during construction, perhaps with a 20-mph speed limit.)
  • Any proposal to limit Red Line closing to weekends, with bus service from Park Street to Charles Street to Kendall, ignores the lack of a lane for the Cambridgebound buses over the Longfellow, so implicitly involves routing the buses via Leverett Circle and Craigie Bridge on their way to Kendall. Bus stops for this proposal would be critical for adequate access by pedestrians.
  • There is no mitigation proposed for the 3-year constraint of Longfellow to one lane. Yet the nearby Green Line is supposed to provide 3-minute frequency (double the current schedule) by 2014. That service could be improved earlier, and connected to Kendall with a frequent shuttle. Proper mitigation of the 3-year constraint on auto use is essential to public safety and access to MGH, and would permanently reduce the auto demand on the bridge. We would like to see an analysis of how these issues are to be addressed and how MassDOT intends to measure the impacts of vehicle diversions. Since roughly two-thirds of Longfellow Bridge users come from the Red Line catchment area, it would be beneficial to try to capture drivers displaced during the construction as riders permanently using the Red and Green lines.

L. The MassDOT decision to use a design-build approach to construction affords some interesting possibilities. One is that the very difficult rebuilding of the structural support for the roadway and the Red Line approaching Charles Street Station requires interference with both lanes of Storrow Drive and the adjacent pedestrian paths in the Esplanade. The procedure should allow the contractor to suggest ways that might allow experimentation with the Eye & Ear parking lot and with the potential closures of Storrow Drive in one direction or both during construction.

M. Reconvening the Task Force is appropriate to inform an expeditious design-build process and to review interim and final access plans, particularly regarding an improved pedestrian overpass and transit and roadway mitigation measures to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and auto flow in Charles Street Circle. This can be done in parallel with the restoration of the bridge structure, to avoid delay.

N. Traffic counts of vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles should be closely monitored throughout the construction period to determine impacts on patterns of use.

O. The EA for the Longfellow project omits a meaningful description of the construction period impacts on Storrow Drive and the Esplanade, and any restoration of the historic park that the bridge occupies. Given the significant work required to provide structural integrity to the Longfellow Bridge directly over Storrow Drive, significant disruption of Storrow Drive and the Esplanade land will occur during the construction process. When Storrow Drive was built in its current configuration, it displaced a key element of the Esplanade, specifically the use of the land under the first archway adjacent to the Charles River as an essential connection between large portions of the Esplanade to either side of the Longfellow Bridge. The resulting roadway with its reverse-curved alignment (especially in the westbound direction) is unsafe. This is due to off-ramps and on-ramps in the westbound direction connecting to the Storrow Drive high-speed lane. This can all be corrected if Storrow Drive is relocated below the single arch of the bridge as proposed in the Esplanade 2020 Vision.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. We would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Sincerely

Wendy Landman                               Robert Sloane
Executive Director                             Senior Planner