Tag: Cambridge

Comments on Charles River Basin Connectivity Study

December 16, 2013

Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Dan Driscoll
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Charles River Basin Connectivity Study

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Charles River Basin Pedestrian and Bicycle Study for Pathways and Bridges, the so-called Connectivity Study. Our comments arise from the document and from the recent presentation of the study to the public.

The Connectivity Study is very exciting work, as it assembles the issues of movement along the basin very effectively, and points out the possibilities for positive changes in the paths, walkways and running facilities along the River. DCR should be very proud of this feat, and should proceed into implementation of priority aspects of the planning effort as soon as possible.

We were particularly heartened by the Study’s general recommendations for the Basin: “DCR should strive to develop a 10’-wide paved path with a parallel soft-surface trail or shoulder for runners (emphasis added) where possible….. In “pinch point” conditions, a minimum 8’ paved path, with 3’ shoulder on one side, should be incorporated.”

This acceptance of separate paths for runners and joggers – and also pedestrians – is a very important aspect of the planning and represents continuity with past planning efforts.

In the 2002 Master Plan for the Basin a stated goal was to provide safe and continuous bicycle, skating, and pedestrian access along the entire length of the Basin, with a “separation of footpaths and bike paths where doing so will not create excessive pavement near the shoreline.” The master plan also called for reducing congestion and minimizing conflicts on the paths (presumably conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians).

In 2005, users were surveyed to discern attitudes about the river facilities. The survey asked respondents to list and rank how they used the Basin. The top twelve responses were, in order of frequency:
• Walking for pleasure
• Attending concerts or events
• Relaxing in the park
• Driving on the parkways
• Running or walking for exercise
• Biking
• Using Riverbend Park in summer
• Picnicking
• Enjoying the outdoors with children
• Inline skating
• Walkathons
• Informal sports

More than sixty percent of those surveyed used the Basin more than once a week for strolling, relaxing, attending concerts or attending special events. Eighty-six percent asked for easier and safer pedestrian access to the Basin, and an equal proportion recommended separating pathways by user types. Users also frequently called for more benches and places to sit, more wildlife areas, more park rangers, and more convenient parking.

If the Continuity Study can be regarded as an update to the Master Plan, we think it may be leaving out some of the emphasis that the authors of the two planning documents clearly stated. In particular, the separation of bicycle and pedestrian paths does not seem to be as important an aspect of the plan as the users of the park suggested to be of high importance. WalkBoston believes that path separation should be integral to all elements of the plan, as it will help deal with the many problems inherent in an area that is so heavily used with so many potential conflicts between users.

We urge consideration of the following:
1. The elimination of conflicts between users of the paths should be uppermost as a safety precaution. Conflicts arise where bicycle traffic is moving rapidly through areas where pedestrians are strolling, causing dangerous situations for all. The conflicts are particularly difficult for commuting cyclists, some of whom are loath to slow down.

2. An expansion of the definition of ‘multi-use path’ would open options that are not clearly included at the moment. Multi-use pathways in the Basin should have an element – probably a parallel, separate path – that would cater to slow-moving walkers, runners and joggers. The foot traffic path could be built entirely separated from the paved path or built as a non-cambered shoulder.

3. Multi-use paths are appropriate for areas where there is low density of use by walkers, runners and cyclists, but should not dominate planning for the heart of the very heavily used park system in the center of Boston. Instead, the overriding goal should be provision of facilities in which space is plentiful for all park users and potential conflicts between users are minimized using methods that are appropriate to each location.

4. Existing multi-use paths should be expanded all along the river to meet the definition of separation between paths based on user needs.

5. Recognition of what runners and joggers show about their desires for facilities would help in planning new paths. Narrow dirt paths that exist informally alongside many of the paved paths in the Basin demonstrate a clear desire for a softer surface preferred by runners. The softer surfaces can also be used by pedestrians and will clearly help separate cyclists from people on foot.

6. A demonstration of the path separation is included in the proposal for the Greenough Boulevard narrowing. The effects on users would be an important element to explore.

7. Path separation in the near term may only be possible on one side of the river. The Greenough Boulevard proposal and the Memorial Drive narrowing between the Eliot and Anderson Bridges point in the direction of path separation as a major feature on the north bank. Continuation of path separation both west and east of these two segments would be a next logical step. Except at intersections, parkland seems to be available for new or modified paths.

8. An unfortunate aspect of all path planning along the river is the intersections with streets at the bridges. The narrow paths that exist at many of the bridges will be a major feature of riverfront paths for a long time, but should not preclude path separation away from the bridge intersections.

9. As long-term improvements, underpasses at bridge intersections are appropriate and important options that will enhance the recreational and transportation options for many Basin users.

We appreciate your consideration of our comments and look forward to your responses to them. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman Bob Sloane
Executive Director Senior Project Manager

Cc Nicole Freedman, Boston Bikes
Cara Seiderman, City of Cambridge
Steve McLaughlin, MassDOT
Margo Levine Newman, The Esplanade Association
Renata von Tscharner, Charles River Conservancy
Herb Nolan, Solomon Fund
Jackie Douglas, LivableStreets Alliance
Pete Stidman, Boston Cyclists Union
David Watson, MassBike
Tom Grilk, Boston Athletic Association

Boston: Charles River/North Station Map

The pedestrian/bicycle bridge linking the Charles River Basin and Boston Harbor is the centerpiece of the new riverside park system near North Station. WalkBoston played a critical role in galvanizing support to assure its construction. When hope for construction by the Central Artery Project was failing in 2005, WalkBoston led a walk with community and agency leaders highlighting that the riverside trails to the new parks would dead-end without a bridge over the rail tracks. The walk led to Globe and Herald editorials that revitalized widespread interest and encouraged the state to seek funding. The bridge was completed in 2012.

The banks of the Charles River between the Museum of Science and Boston Harbor were once heavily industrialized with a landscape of railyards, polluted drainage ditches, wharf warehouses, and no walking access to the river. Dubbed the “Lost Half Mile” by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, the construction of the Central Artery’s Zakim Bridge and its ramps high above the river brought an opportunity for a new riverfront, with 40 acres of new parks, a skate park, two housing towers, and the U.S. headquarters for the Education First company.

The reclaimed Half Mile is the site of a beautiful new walking facility: the North Bank Bridge, a 690-foot pathway that curves under the Zakim Bridge and over the MBTA commuter rails that used to be an impassable barrier. The bridge is one of three that are planned. The second will be a walkway attached to the MBTA rail bridge over the river into North Station. The third, a South Bank Bridge, will connect Charles River walkways along the Boston side of the river to the HarborWalk in a richly historic and highly visited area.

Click for “Charles River/North Station Walking Map” PDF

Click for “Charles River/North Station Walking Map” on Google Maps

Comments on Cambridge Common

September 25, 2012

Secretary Richard Sullivan

Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

MEPA Office

100 Cambridge Street

Boston, MA 02114

RE: Environmental Notification Form for Cambridge Common/Flagstaff Park improvements

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the ENF for the Cambridge Common/Flagstaff Park improvements in Harvard Square. We heartily agree with the proposed changes because of the potential improvements they bring for pedestrians. The proposed improvements include:

Reconstruct all pathways in bituminous concrete with brick edging, an especially useful sorting of materials that considers the specific needs and comfort of people with wheelchairs or baby carriages and for those with high heels.
Realign formal pathways along informal pedestrian routes through Cambridge Common, which makes sense because they indicate desire lines for missing walkways.
Improve pedestrian access to Cambridge Common at entryways, around the Civil War monument, and around the Washington Elm monument – all improvements that appear to be essential for a fully adequate pedestrian network on the Common.
Remove excess paving, outdated planters and benches, and unused utility poles; install new street furniture; improve signage and lighting – all improvements have been designed to serve pedestrians better. Planting of new trees is of great interest to pedestrians because of the shade provided and the esthetic improvement they bring to the park.

We do have one specific concern about the design with respect to the new multi-use path planned to be constructed adjacent to the west side of Flagstaff Park. This portion of the project is clearly designed to provide a method for bicyclists to circumvent the tunnel connection for vehicles between the Harvard Square bicycle lanes and northbound Massachusetts Avenue.

The proposed path might seem to be attractive for walkers until it reaches the northernmost portion of Flagstaff Park – the intersection where Cambridge Street, Massachusetts Avenue and the bus tunnel converge. At this location we are worried about pedestrians crossing the multi-street intersection. We suggest that the new path be specifically marked that it is only a bicycle route and that it is NOT a route for pedestrians because of the difficulties and danger at this street crossing. Signs might be posted saying that it is a bicycle route, and is not a walking route. The signs might direct people across the street to the Cambridge Common side for a slightly less direct, but much safer walking route.

If the City is committed to the use of this path by pedestrians, we believe that better provisions are needed to create a safe foot crossing at the intersection. These should include at minimum: larger islands for pedestrian refuge from the heavy traffic; and, signalization that permits the infirm, elderly or other slow walkers to pass safely across the multiple streets. While a cyclist may be able to cross the street in a matter of a few seconds, it is much more difficult for prospective pedestrians to complete the same trip that fast and in a safe manner. Because of the many vehicular lanes passing through the intersection, it is a very complicated intersection to intelligently signalize for pedestrians.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this project, and we look forward to a significantly improved pedestrian environment around the Cambridge Common.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman

Executive Director

Comments on Longfellow Bridge Project file No. 604361

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

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