Tag: sidewalk width

Comments on the Design for Commonwealth Avenue Phase 2A

Comments on the Design for Commonwealth Avenue Phase 2A

By |

2 July 2014

Commissioner Jim Gillooly
Boston Department of Transportation
1 City Hall Square, Room 721
Boston, MA 02201-2026

Vice President Robert Donahue
Boston University Government & Community Affairs
121 Bay State Road
Boston, Massachusetts 02215

Re: Design for Commonwealth Avenue Phase 2A

Dear Commissioner Gillooly and Vice President Donahue:

We appreciate you taking the time to meet on Wednesday, June 25 to review the plans and process for Commonwealth Avenue Phase 2A. The redesign is an exciting opportunity to build a model street that will help achieve our collective goals for safety, enhanced user experience, and multi-modal transportation. These goals are in line with mode-shift, climate change, and public health goals set forward in Boston’s Complete Streets Guidelines, Bike Network Plan, and Climate Plan, MassDOT’s goals to triple biking, walking and transit mode share, and the goals set out in the Boston University Master Plan. The project provides a key opportunity to re-build Commonwealth Avenue to protect the needs of the area’s growing population of people who bike and walk, and address the decline of car traffic on the street and in the city.1

Unfortunately, the current designs for the project do not achieve these admirable project goals. Widening street lanes and adding fences encourages cars to move faster, making the street less safe and less comfortable for people. The plan to narrow the already overcrowded sidewalks does not serve the thousands of people who walk on Commonwealth Avenue every day. The current bike lane, which has been the site of many injuries and at least one fatality, is not significantly improved in the design, though there is a clear opportunity here to prevent more tragedies from occurring.

The safety of our community and the student population of Boston University and many other institutions in the area demands that the plans for Commonwealth Avenue Phase 2A be redesigned to protect people and meet the project objectives.

  • Increase the comfort and safety of pedestrians
    o  Minimize sidewalk narrowing to maintain adequate width for pedestrian volumes and allow businesses to maintain outdoor café seating
    o  Make crosswalks and curb ramps as wide as sidewalk walking zones
    o  Minimize tripping hazards from curb ramps, for example at the corner of Pleasant and Commonwealth Ave.
    o  Add curb extensions at all intersections
    o  Time the walk signals to allow for a single-stage crossing of Commonwealth Ave
    o  Make all walk signals automatic
    o  Add a mid-block crosswalk at Alcorn St/Naples Rd
  • Protect people biking and encourage more people to bike
    o  Explore all options to add cycle tracks (protected bike lanes) without narrowing sidewalks
    —   Parking-protected one-way cycle tracks
    —  Center-lane one-way cycle tracks (similar to those used on Commonwealth Ave in the Back Bay)
    o  Add bike boxes at intersections (traditional and two-stage turn queue boxes for those waiting to turn left)
    o Incorporate bike signals and leading bicycle phasing at intersections
  • Keep transit moving
    o  Add transit signal priority for Green Line trains and buses
    o  Add curb extensions at bus stops
  • Design for safe and steady traffic speeds
    o  Green Wave: coordinate traffic signals to bike speed (15 MPH)
    o  Make all travel lanes no wider than 10.5’ (MassDOT regularly approves this)

We understand that project funding depends on final designs by FY15. However, funding a design that does not meet the objectives of the City, the University, or Boston citizens is not a win for anyone and public controversy slows the process more than would design changes.

These designs have not had a true public process; LivableStreets Alliance, MassBike, and many other advocates and citizens submitted comments at the 25% design meetings, but heard no response and received no follow up information on the project. To redesign such an important and heavily-used street without an inclusive process is contrary to the City’s guidelines and goals.

We urge the City to engage in an inclusive public process to move plans from 25% to 100% design in order to build a street that we can all support. Past projects (including Connect Historic Boston) illustrate that the City can develop 0 to 100% design plans in less than a year.

We ask you to please respond to this letter by Wednesday, July 9, 2014 to let us know how you intend to address these concerns.

Sincerely,

Jamie Maier
Campaign Coordinator, LivableStreets Alliance

Pete Stidman
Executive Director, Boston Cyclists Union

David Watson
Executive Director, MassBike

Wendy Landman
Executive Director, WalkBoston

 

CC:
Nicole Freedman, Boston Bikes
Mike Wasielewski, BETA
Merrick Turner, BETA
Bill Conroy, Boston Transportation Department
Michelle Consalvo, Boston University
Ken Ryan, Boston University
Bill Egan, Boston Public Works Department

Attachments:

  • Comment Letter on Design for Commonwealth Avenue Phase2A
  • Marked up plans for Commonwealth Avenue Phase2A
  • Photo example of curb ramp/crosswalk as wide as sidewalk to meet high volumes
  • Photo example of cycle track
  • Bike Network Plan

Other Materials

Footnotes

 

1 Bike use has increased as much as 135% since 2007, pedestrian volumes have increased 80% since 2001, and car volumes have decreased as much as 31% since 1987 in the project area, according to the Boston University Master Plan (sections 8.5.1-8.5.6)

Comments on Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project

Comments on Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project

By |

January 8, 2013

Gerald Autler

Boston Redevelopment Authority
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201-1007

RE: Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project
Expanded Project Notification Form
Submitted Pursuant to Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code

Dear Mr. Autler:

WalkBoston has reviewed the EENF for the Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project in Allston. This project is a first step in a major redevelopment of the surroundings of the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western Avenue, and thus will set the stage for many additional improvements in the vicinity. Our comments reflect the aspects of the proposal that most affect pedestrians, as these components are likely to play an important role in the way in which the project functions and relates to its surroundings.

  •  The area is planned to become the principal focus of North Allston
    Preliminary plans for this site are generally following the consensus presented in the 2005 North Allston Strategic Framework for planning and in Harvard’s Institutional Master Plan from 2012. Both plans call for intensive retail and other development at the intersection. The site of this proposal is but one of several sites that will comprise the North Allston activities. Considering only the north side of Western Avenue, plans call for 200,000 square feet at the Charlesview site, 45,000 square feet on the site of this proposal, and, on the arena site, 60,000 square feet for the arena and 140,000 square feet for the office/retail structure that encloses the basketball court. This totals 445,000 square feet altogether – a number that suggests a need for intensive analysis of the vehicular and foot traffic that will be utilizing all of the sites, including the one that is currently being analyzed. Any proposal for a center that will include at least 400,000 square feet should provide for carefully-considered pedestrian interconnections between its parts.
  • The proposed basketball arena/office building
     The Institutional Master Plan of the Allston campus recently distributed by Harvard introduces a combination of a 3,000-seat basketball arena and 140,000 square feet of retail/office/residences on land immediately north of the project site. The arena will attract many people to games during the basketball season, and perhaps, depending on uses of the facility, in other months as well. What it means in terms of future pedestrian or vehicular traffic is not at all clear from this EENF. The scale of the arena project warrants consideration of its effects on this site. For example, retail activities on the proposed site might benefit from consideration of additional retail on the street level under the arena to make the retail functions of the intersection more prominent.
  • The sidewalk in front of the arena
    The arena site is nearly a mile from Harvard Square. People coming to the area will be largely on foot (they will be discouraged from driving because of the paucity of nearby parking spaces). Large numbers of people will be attracted to the basketball arena for games and perhaps for other uses that may be scheduled there, but the volume of visitors has not been described in the EPNF. Many people will walk from Harvard Square, the Yard and from residence halls north of the river, and most will arrive via the west side of North Harvard Street. These walkers should be provided with a very wide sidewalk along the full length of North Harvard Street (currently shown as a wide sidewalk in front of the existing building but not along the stadium or this development proposal). We would recommend that it be wider than the standard 10’ – 12’ width for multi-use paths, something on the order of 20’ would be appropriate.
  • Extending the sidewalk to the south
    A wide sidewalk along North Harvard Street should not end at the arena, but should provide access to the intersection of Western Avenue and the North Allston activity center. This wide sidewalk would pass directly along the North Harvard street side of this project, and connect to the 45,000 square feet of retail activities that occupy most of the ground floor of this proposal.
  • The Charlesview site
     This site on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Harvard and Western has been planned for retail activity and some residential or office development. The current plan estimates 200,000 square feet for the building complex. Access between sites will take place at the intersection, where crosswalks should be redesigned to more directly connect the two sites.
  • The parks at the North Allston Center
     Two potential sites for parks touch directly on the intersection. The existing grove of trees in front of the Charlesview development and the triangle occupied by the gas station are potential assets to the retail center and should be further developed as landmarks within this center. Either of the two sites could become intensively used by walkers as outdoor spaces to get fresh air, to sit, to read or have a picnic. Pedestrian access to either or both of the sites should be carefully considered as a part of developing the network of sidewalks and street crossings.
  • Crosswalk redesign
    The layout of the existing crosswalks at the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western Avenue maximizes the crossing distances for walkers because all the crosswalks have been laid out as diagonals. This layout makes pedestrian crossings unnecessarily long and require walkers to stay in the street longer than they would if the crosswalks were perpendicular to the streets they cross. One example on Western Avenue shows that the existing crosswalk is nearly 80 feet long, while a perpendicular crossing would be approximately half that length. As part of the intersection improvements associated with this project, crosswalks should be redesigned for the safety of pedestrians. Removal of the refuge island on the Charlesview corner should also be considered as part of the project’s efforts to improve the North Harvard Street/Western Avenue intersection.
  • A new pedestrian crosswalk on North Harvard Street
    Access to the proposed arena and to the site of this proposal will require pedestrian access across North Harvard Street. This is particularly important for people arriving by northbound transit, currently served by bus stops at the north and south ends of the Charlesview site. The existing pedestrian crosswalk at Western Avenue may need to be supplemented by an additional crosswalk at the intersection of North Harvard Street and Smith Field Drive Extension, which is more than 500 feet from Western Avenue, suggesting that a new crosswalk at that location would be convenient and well used. It is made particularly important because it does not make sense to have a crosswalk at Grove Street, because the distance between Western and Grove is very short.

Uses of land within the site
The relatively small size of the site and the need for specific services results in relatively constrained pedestrian access.

  • Vehicle uses
    Almost one-quarter of the parcel will be devoted to vehicle access and surface parking because of the proposed new streets. Vehicular access to the site is one-way northbound from Western Ave. on Smith Field Drive, and two-way on Grove Street between Smith Field Drive and North Harvard Street. The description of vehicular access needs (particularly on-site loading and unloading requirements) implies that a further extension of Smith Field Drive will be constructed soon – perhaps in conjunction with this project, to allow full site access in- and out-bound from its intersection with North Harvard Street. Three streets are to be devoted to providing access to a 2.74 acre site. This may be excessive, unless they are necessary to serve the proposed arena, either temporarily or permanently
  • Parking on the site
     The proposal calls for 180 below-grade parking spaces and 41 surface private spaces, making a total of 221 spaces on-site. These spaces will serve the 325 residences proposed for the site, and potentially some of the retail uses as well. A question remains of whether the underground parking could be reached from Smith Field Drive rather than Grove Street, which seems destined to be degraded by many autooriented uses.
  • New on-site street – Grove Street
    Grove Street is primarily a service street designed to provide truck access to the buildings, access to the below grade garage, and 23 surface parking space. The EPNF does not discuss whether service for the arena (potentially including loading/unloading access for trucks and access to underground parking) will also be provided on the street. The combination of service uses could compromise the character of the street and the street-facing residential units as well. In terms of pedestrian use, Grove Street was designated as a “pedestrian trail” in the university’s Institutional Master Plan. This suggests continuity between Charlesview and Smith Field via Grove Street, which would need a crosswalk located midway between Western Avenue and the Smith Field Drive Extension. Such a crossing – likely to be unsignalized – could be dangerous for pedestrians and drivers alike.
  • A bulky arena as a neighbor
     Depending on its design, the proposed arena may loom dramatically over the site of the current proposal. The project design fort his site actually calls for residential units along Grove Street, along with an irregularly shaped sidewalk and major vehicular access for loading and parking. While the vehicular portions of the proposal for this side of the site are not affected by the neighboring arena, the residential units may well be. Although the dimensions of the proposed arena are unknown, its height may reach more than half of the proposed dwellings on the proposal’s site. The prospect of a looming building also affects the proposed sidewalk, where vehicular impacts are major, and where proposed street trees or wider sidewalks will do little to mitigate the impacts of a large building.
  • New on-site street – Smith Field Drive and Smith Field Drive Extension
     Smith Field Drive and its extension have been designed as a major service way for both this project and the proposed basketball arena. It may have operating difficulties when the arena is in use. A convergence of vehicles and pedestrians would be expected, and traffic control on either has not been discussed.
  • Open space
    Roughly 3,600 square feet of the site’s land has been designated as street-level open space. The two parcels are located at the two corners of the buildings – one facing N. Harvard Street and the other on Western Avenue – and both serve to enhance the entrances to the residences. Additional open space of about 8,000 square feet is provided on the second level above the retail uses, and will only be accessible to residents of the site.
  • Sidewalks
    Sidewalks surround the buildings on all sides and are of irregular widths to accommodate building entrances, potential sidewalk cafes, retail entrances and the vehicular entrances to the building. The proposal for a wide sidewalk on the west side of North Harvard Street suggests the possibility of an overhanging building or a street-level colonnade.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Bob Sloane
Senior Project Manager

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