DCR Allston-Brighton Riverfront Parks and Parkways

There's also an idea floating around from the BPDA to disconnect N. Beacon from this rotary by running it through to SFR via the McDonalds property or the adjacent strip mall parking lot.

That change might simplify this intersection by getting eastbound Brighton-to-the-river traffic out of the way (and maybe also removing some neighborhood traffic off of Parsons Street), but it's probably also contingent on redevelopment on one of those properties.
 
Longfellow said:
Apologies if this has been posted already and I don't have a photo, but I got to use the new bike lanes on Memorial Drive around the BU bridge. They are awesome! I wish I had them when I was regularly using that stretch of road. It is too bad someone had to give their life to build them.
Click to expand...
That is almost always the only thing that brings change. I'm afraid this will continue to be the process until a true consensus for complete streets develops.
 
RandomWalk said:
When I lived in the area, I hated negotiating the circle as a pedestrian. It always felt needlessly overbuilt and encouraged stupid behavior by drivers.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely insane trying to bike through there unless you are already on the river path.
 
stick n move said:

DCR Will Present New Plans to Improve Chaotic Riverfront Traffic Circle in Brighton​


An aerial view of the N. Beacon St - Soldiers Field Road rotary in Brighton, with the Charles River in the upper left corner and Mass. Pike along the bottom edge. An overlay illustration shows a new roadway with two intersections – one on the left, near the N. Beacon St. bridge over the river, and one on the right, where Parsons St. meets N. Beacon – that could replace the large traffic circle that takes up most of the center of the image.


A 2021 conceptual design for the North Beacon Street-Soldiers Field Road intersections in Brighton would have replaced the existing rotary with two signalized intersections to create about 2.3 acres of accessible riverfront parkland. Courtesy of the Mass. DCR.


“The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) will hold a public hearing later this month to present a new design for the chaotic riverfront rotary where several of its riverfront highways converge on the banks of the Charles River in Brighton.

The virtual public hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, April 17th, from 6 to 7:30 p.m. (Zoom registration link).

"The purpose of this meeting is to present the updated Soldiers Field Road and North Beacon Street intersection design," according to a DCR press release issued Friday……”

https://mass.streetsblog.org/2025/0...chaotic-riverfront-traffic-circle-in-brighton
Click to expand...
Interested to see what this new design is on 4/17. The image seems to imply that eastbound traffic would be diverted to North Beacon/Leo M Birmingham versus existing SFR? But oddly, they've kept SFR as a four lane road? Or would SFR still exist as-is while they expect traffic to queue in a single left turning lane? The latter sounds like a nightmare.

I'm hoping that they turn SFR into essentially a two-lane access road (would love it to be eliminated entirely, but it's unfortunate all of the existing development is oriented facing it). To the east, align SFR to flow into the current intersection of Arsenal/Western/Leo M Birmingham and give all of that land taken up by the current interchange as new parkland.

Something like this:
Screenshot 2025-04-12 at 10.31.48 PM.png
 
Possibly something that has been asked, but could the two-signal sequence of SFR/N Beacon/Nonantum be worked into an actual "peanut" roundabout? Or is the daily vehicle volume too large for this? The idea would be to completely eliminate the traffic signals altogether.
1744650604031.png

1744650716426.png

Kelley Square in Worcester implemented one and it helped alleviate one of the worst intersections I have ever had to drive through (and drive through quite often). It is designed for two lanes and the lane markings are very obvious.
1744650918937.png
 
CBCArch61 said:
Possibly something that has been asked, but could the two-signal sequence of SFR/N Beacon/Nonantum be worked into an actual "peanut" roundabout? Or is the daily vehicle volume too large for this? The idea would be to completely eliminate the traffic signals altogether.
View attachment 61972
View attachment 61973
Kelley Square in Worcester implemented one and it helped alleviate one of the worst intersections I have ever had to drive through (and drive through quite often). It is designed for two lanes and the lane markings are very obvious.
View attachment 61974
Click to expand...
Would this work much better with a Charles River Bike Path underpass under North Beacon? I’m imagining that the crosswalk would have a steady flow of cyclists and other micromobility users at many hours,
 
stick n move said:

DCR Will Present New Plans to Improve Chaotic Riverfront Traffic Circle in Brighton​


An aerial view of the N. Beacon St - Soldiers Field Road rotary in Brighton, with the Charles River in the upper left corner and Mass. Pike along the bottom edge. An overlay illustration shows a new roadway with two intersections – one on the left, near the N. Beacon St. bridge over the river, and one on the right, where Parsons St. meets N. Beacon – that could replace the large traffic circle that takes up most of the center of the image.
Click to expand...

The meeting tonight was essentially a variation on this design. The meeting presentation should get shared in the next day or two, but some main takeaways:
  • 6-lane(!) cross section in between the two intersections
  • Slip lanes in a number of locations, notably two lanes for the right turn off of Nonantum and two lanes for the right turn off of SFR
  • A shared-use path is provided to both the North and South of the area between intersections
  • However, the cycling/pedestrian connection over the N Beacon St bridge is essentially unchanged, and the connections across other intersections are not pretty
  • Designs are using the new 2-lane configuration for North Beacon to the east, but still see a 4 or 5-lane intersection
  • No consideration made of reducing lanes on SFR
  • Left turns are removed from Brooks St. Otherwise, access to and from Brooks and Parsons Streets stays the same
  • Signals were timed for a pedestrian-exclusive phase, but did not seem to be long enough for people to make diagonal crossings. This seemed particularly egregious and after being called out, it seems likely that LPIs will be used instead
  • I believe all public feedback was asking for improved cycling and pedestrian safety, even if it contributed to increased congestion here
 
Why make North Beacon Street have 2 lanes at the intersection when it only has one lane after to the east?
Click to expand...

Intersection with different numbers of lanes on each side of the intersection were MDCs signature design feature. I think it's nice that DCR is paying homage to that.

Realistically, it's probably to maximize the amount of cars that can queue at the traffic signal without backing up to the earlier intersection, but that's purely a guess.
 
fatnoah said:
Intersection with different numbers of lanes on each side of the intersection were MDCs signature design feature. I think it's nice that DCR is paying homage to that.

Realistically, it's probably to maximize the amount of cars that can queue at the traffic signal without backing up to the earlier intersection, but that's purely a guess.
Click to expand...

Not specifically endorsing the design, but yes. Increasing capacity at the intersection to avoid a long queue causing a cascade of disruption is a pretty common tactic.
 
KCasiglio said:
Not specifically endorsing the design, but yes. Increasing capacity at the intersection to avoid a long queue causing a cascade of disruption is a pretty common tactic.
Click to expand...
Which works well in locations where drivers know how to zipper merge -- which is not Boston.
 
KCasiglio said:
Not specifically endorsing the design, but yes. Increasing capacity at the intersection to avoid a long queue causing a cascade of disruption is a pretty common tactic.
Click to expand...
This was pretty explicitly stated at the meeting. Queue lengths (primarily between Nonantum and SFR) seemed to be the driver of additional intersection lanes
 
Also, maybe I am missing something here, but would turbo roundabouts (or something similar) work here? They don't have the poor safety record of multi-lane roundabouts and can operate just fine without signalization. And from my understanding, capacity on these is significantly higher than on traditional single-lane roundabouts. The traffic engineer at the meeting said the peak hour flow between Nonantum and SFR they were concerned about is "in excess of 1000 pcu/h." However, even the smallest turbo roundabouts should provide capacity in the 2200 - 3000 pcu/h range. Turbo roundabouts are also well-suited for imbalanced traffic flows, exactly like what exists between SFR/Nonantum and the other connecting streets.

I'm referring to the two FHWA documents linked below for information because I couldn't find anything better in English. That being said, some examples shown (like Figure 12 below) seem pretty reasonable for this context.
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-06/fhwasa20019_0.pdf
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-06/fhwasa19027_0.pdf
1744994337423.png
 
I agree. The existing setup at least has green space interspersed among the roadways. This new design is like one vast expanse of asphalt pavement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top