Tag: storrow drive

WalkBoston comments on Craigie Dam/Bridge Design Alternatives

WalkBoston comments on Craigie Dam/Bridge Design Alternatives

By |

Date: January 2, 2019

To: Secretary Stephanie Pollack, Administrator Jonathan Gulliver, Andy Paul, Jackie Douglas,
James Kersten, MassDOT, Commissioner Leo Roy, Jeff Parenti, Dan Driscoll, DCR

Re: WalkBoston comments on Craigie Dam/Bridge Design Alternatives

We are relieved that MassDOT and DCR are committed to acting to improve the safety of people walking and biking on this critical roadway segment.

We have reviewed the options that were presented to the community on December 18th and have several comments that are detailed below. However, we do not think that the relatively modest improvements that are planned for Spring 2019 are adequate to providing truly safe walking and biking conditions, and we urge MassDOT and DCR to develop more significant plans for safety for the Charles River bridges.

One approach that WalkBoston would like to see explored is the adoption of a pilot 20 MPH speed limit on all the Charles River Bridges from Harvard Square to the Craigie Dam/Bridge that would test an automated speed enforcement protocol. Over the last month we have attended meetings regarding safety and operations for the BU Bridge, the Longfellow Bridge and the Craigie Dam/Bridge. In each case, the completely fixed and limited right-of-way does not allow for the provision of protected bike accommodations within the roadway right-of-way without reducing the number of vehicle lanes. WalkBoston was distressed to hear suggestions by community members at one of these meetings to dedicate one of the sidewalks to bicycles rather than pedestrians in order to free up roadway space for vehicles (a suggestion that we were pleased was simply given, but then not taken up or discussed by any of the state or municipal staff).

MassDOT has already expressed its interest in adding automated enforcement to the state’s safety tools and we urge MassDOT to vigorously support a pilot program for the bridges. Setting and then enforcing a 20 MPH speed limit on all the bridges would significantly increase the safety of bicyclists using on-street bicycle lanes while at the same time allowing the number of vehicle lanes to remain as they are today.

Comments on Design Options A and B

Craigie Dam/Storrow Drive Intersection –

Take the following steps to minimize conflicts between people walking, biking and driving:

  • For turns from Craigie into Storrow Drive put in place (and enforce) a permanent No Right on Red regulation and include the permanently illuminated NRTOR sign
  • Set the vehicle for Craigie Dam traffic approaching Leverett Circle stop line back from the intersection (with Don’t Block the Box markings and enforcement) to allow bikes to queue in a bike box ahead of traffic
  • Provide marked bike lanes from Craigie to Martha Way through Leverett Circle
  • Tighten the turning radius of the corner from Craigie onto Storrow Drive and provide a bike ramp to the Paul Dudley White Path at the corner rather than having bikes get on the sidewalk before reaching the intersection. The very tight sidewalk space should be reserved for pedestrians.

Museum of Science Driveway and Museum Way/Craigie Intersection

  • Add crosswalk striping across the Museum of Science driveway.
  • Narrow the driveway to the greatest extent possible given the truck and bus movements needed for Museum of Science operations.
  • Consider signalizing the driveway entrance to the Museum of Science in coordination with the Museum Way signal.
  • Eliminate the conflicting left turn arrow across the WALK signal at the Museum Way crosswalk across Craigie.
  • Improve the street lighting of the crosswalk across Craigie at Museum Way

Craigie/Land Boulevard/Gilmore Bridge Intersection

Configure the signal timing at the Land Blvd/Craigie/Gilmore Bridge intersection to allow safe pedestrian and bike movements. A detailed description is provided below of the maneuver needed to ride a bike safely through the intersection under current conditions. This is in urgent need of improvement.

  • “At the intersection with Edwin H Land Blvd/ Gilmore Bridge, to feel safe as a bicyclist I will often violate traffic signals. The problem is that, whether traveling either inbound or outbound, if you wait for the light to change, traffic builds up next to you. When the light turns green, you are forced into the middle of a pack of fast-moving traffic, with cars and trucks rapidly accelerating and changing lanes.

    The situation is particularly dangerous when traveling outbound and making a left on Cambridge Street (a route most bicyclists take, as Route 28 gets faster and more dangerous beyond the Cambridge St. intersection). As a bicyclist, if you leave the Gilmore intersection with vehicle traffic, you then have to work your way across 2 lanes of fast-moving traffic to get into your left turn, and then must hold your ground in the middle of four lanes of outbound traffic in order to end up on the right-hand side of the two lane Cambridge St. turnoff. You can also hug the left-hand side of the road by the median strip, but traveling on the left side of the road can be dangerous too.

    I have found navigating the Science Bridge is actually safer when breaking the traffic signals. For example, when traveling outbound, if I hit the red light at the Gilmore intersection, there is a break in the signal when I usually run the red light on my bike. The break occurs between the green light for vehicles coming from Charlestown towards Cambridge, and the following green light for traffic moving inbound on 28. Taking the light this way has dangers too – at least one or two vehicles coming from Charlestown almost always speed through their red light (committing their own traffic violation), and you need to be absolutely sure those vehicles have stopped. Nevertheless, this method still allows me to make my way over to the Cambridge St turnoff without needing to cut across vehicle traffic, and feels much safer to me.”

Cc:
State Senator Joe Boncore
State Senator Sal DiDomenico
State Representative Jay Livingstone
State Representative Mike Connolly
Joe Barr, Cara Seiderman, Cambridge
Chris Osgood, Vineet Gupta, Charlotte Fleetwood, Boston
Becca Wolfson, Eliza Parad, Cyclists Union
Stacy Thompson, Steve Miller, LivableStreets Alliance
Galen Mook, Tom Francis, MassBike
Nate Fillmore, Cambridge Bike Safety

Comments on Allston – The I-90 Massachusetts Turnpike Interchange Project, Evaluation Criteria

Comments on Allston – The I-90 Massachusetts Turnpike Interchange Project, Evaluation Criteria

By |

August 6, 2014

Mike O’Dowd
Project Manager, MassDOT
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116

Re: Allston – The I-90 Massachusetts Turnpike Interchange Project, Evaluation Criteria

Dear Mike:

Thank you and the project team for providing the opportunity to provide comments on the evaluation criteria for the I-90 Turnpike Interchange Project. Rather than focus on the detailed design and environmental criteria that will be used, WalkBoston feels that it is important to set out big-picture performance standards for the project. Thus far the broader community-building implications of what this project can achieve – beyond its roadway connections to the Turnpike – have not been fully laid out.

The following performance standards should help define the project more completely. We suggest that they be considered as part of the minimum requirements for a successful reconstruction of the interchange.

1. Soldiers Field Road/Storrow Drive – The project should result in the expansion of open space along the Charles River. Based on the alternatives we have been shown to date this is likely to be accomplished through the relocation of some or all of Soldiers Field Road/Storrow Drive under the Turnpike viaduct. Existing rail lines would likely need to be altered or relocated as part of the reconstruction. Thus, all final rail alignments and viaduct supporting members should be designed to make room for this riverside highway relocation.

2. Cambridge Street Bypass – Separate local and regional traffic operations should be evaluated. Multiple lanes of traffic (6 to 8 minimum) will likely be necessary for Cambridge Street to accommodate traffic movements. The number of lanes should be defined as soon as possible so that the neighborhood can comment on whether MassDOT should explore a two-street option that provides for a residential district on both sides of a narrowed Cambridge Street, plus a New Cambridge Street to provide connections to the Turnpike ramps, Stadium Way/East Drive and the River Street Bridge. (See attached diagrams of several conceptual possibilities.)

3. Connecting roads north of Cambridge Street All alternatives should include the construction of both Stadium Way and East Drive as integral links in the access pattern of the study area. Without the construction of these two roadways, Cambridge Street and North Allston will be swamped with traffic.

4. Turnpike ramps Alternatives for the Turnpike’s new alignment should be based on a minimum of retained fill (embankments) between the viaduct and ground level, as suggested in Alternatives 3-D and 3-G. This will allow for over-Turnpike connections to access ramps and to West Station.

5. West Station access All alternatives should include convenient and attractive access to both Cambridge Street and Commonwealth Avenue for pedestrians, bicycles, and buses (perhaps with separate bus access from the north and the south) to the West Station headhouse.

While we think that none of the alternatives presented to date meet these standards, we look forward to MassDOT’s development of alternatives that demonstrate how these standards can be realized.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman              Robert Sloane
Executive Director            Senior Planner

Bridge Project Management, Project File No. 606475 (Allston / I-90 Massachusetts Turnpike Interchange Improvement Project)

Bridge Project Management, Project File No. 606475 (Allston / I-90 Massachusetts Turnpike Interchange Improvement Project)

By |

April 24, 2014

Patricia Leavenworth, P.E., Chief Engineer
MassDOT
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116

ATTN: Bridge Project Management, Project File No. 606475
Delivery via email to dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us

Dear Ms. Leavenworth,

WalkBoston is pleased to provide comments on the Allston I-90, Massachusetts Turnpike Interchange Improvement Project and the April 10, 2014 public meeting. We are also pleased to have been invited to participate in the project advisory group.

We write to note the issues that we hope will be addressed by the project, some of them to be included in long-range planning and others to be included in project design – but all of them will contribute to the successful reclamation of a large and important piece of the City that has for too long been disregarded as a part of the surrounding community.

1. Project scope – The scope of the project needs to extend far enough along the Turnpike to look at bigger picture auto circulation, including access between the Longwood Medical Area, the Fenway, Back Bay and the Turnpike and relief of traffic at the Bowker Overpass and on Storrow Drive. Addressing these major vehicular demands will potentially provide significant opportunities to enhance the regionally important open space, walking, running and bicycling assets along the Charles River.

2. Pedestrian access throughout the project – Scoping of the project should include guidelines for designs to facilitate pedestrian travel through the project and into surrounding neighborhoods.

3. Air rights development – Intensive use of the air rights above the rail yards and the Turnpike can be foreseen as part of any long-range plan. Ramps and access roads, the mainline of the Turnpike and the commuter rail yards should be designed to accommodate development of the air rights.

4. Land uses in the newly available land – The needs of the community and adjacent institutions should guide development, rather than the needs of traffic to and from the Turnpike. Traffic needs should not limit the explorations of the potential uses of the land.

5. Affordable housing for residents of Allston – Housing goals should be outlined early to permit inclusion in all aspects of the study.

6. Minimize the impacts of regional traffic on neighborhood streets – The alignment and connections of turnpike on and off-ramps should be designed to minimize cut through traffic and to protect the integrity of residential areas.

7. Rail Yards – The design for reconstruction of the rail yards should minimize the number of required tracks (possibly looking at other locations to provide some of the necessary rail yards) and provide footprints for the supporting columns that enable air rights development above them.

8. Commuter rail station – The design of a new West Station should be advanced to a point where its location and likely dimensions are known, to allow for planning its access to proceed as part of this project. Station access should be provided for both sides of the rail tracks between North Allston and Commonwealth Avenue.

9. Reconnecting Packard’s Corner area and North Allston – An impenetrable wall of rail tracks and the Turnpike will separate the two parts of this neighborhood forever, unless provision for crossing is planned from the beginning, either with air rights or with bridges, or both.

10. Transit access – Bus, commuter rail and other modes of public transportation should be considered as part of the overall design at a very early date.

11. Turnpike main line – The lanes in the new portion of the Turnpike between Agganis Way and Cambridge St. should be separated sufficiently to allow for the construction of supporting columns for new uses on air rights above the Turnpike.

12. Turnpike access ramps – Access ramps should be designed in spare and efficient ways that afford the maximum use of the land for non-transportation purposes. Short tunnels should not be excluded from consideration.

13. Storrow Drive Alignment – A long-range plan for the area should include relocation of a portion of Soldiers Field Road away from the river. All access to and from the Turnpike and Cambridge Street should take this into consideration and not preclude potential options for connections.

14. A new park along the river – Relocation of Storrow Drive away from the river allows expansion of the adjacent parkland, which is now very narrow and constrained.

15. Connecting the area with the Charles River – Alternatives should be examined for connections between development in this area and the river for both pedestrians and bicycles.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the project.

Best regards,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Bob Sloane
Senior Project Manager