Allston-Brighton Infill and Small Developments

Couple of notes: for a "TOD" he still built several hundred parking spaces, 1:1; not as ambitious as others have been.

And the project is older; I believe Mt Vernon is the third to take a crack at it. Kudos for getting something done, at least. Now if only smaller fish could develop too, if not for today's insanely out of control regulatory bureaucracy.
 
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...-year_10m_project.html?comments=all#aComments

They're going to rebuild the Cambridge Street bridge over the Pike. $10 million, 2 year project. Will reduce the number of travel lanes from 3 each way down to 2 and add in bike lanes.

I had wondered why cement barriers had been up for a couple of years blocking a lane on one side, turns out part of the bridge is in an advanced state of deterioration.
 
Yea, one of the officials says its been in the pipeline for over 18 months but for some reason kept getting pushed back. The concrete barriers are to provide a sidewalk because the actual sidewalk on that side is cantilevered and in bad shape.

I'm really happy to hear they are going down to 4 lanes without a fight. The bridge makes zero sense with 6 lanes, it just becomes a nasty speedway. The feeder road, Cambridge Street, has only 2 lanes, so it quickly goes from 2 to 6, a recipe for trouble.

For a six-month phase of construction, Linden Street between Cambridge Street and Pratt Street will become a one-way southbound, reversing its current configuration as a one-way street northbound. During that period, northbound traffic on Linden Street will be rerouted to Harvard Avenue.
Click to expand...

That should be interesting...
 
The lane reduction is great. I wish in addition they would reconnect Lincoln, Mansfield and Royal Streets to Cambridge St on the other side of the bridge. It would decrease the highway feel even further, and open up three perfect lots for development.
 
Not sure how they would do that. The grade is too steep. Improvements to the footpath is probably best.
 
Matthew said:
Not sure how they would do that. The grade is too steep. Improvements to the footpath is probably best.
Click to expand...

How it was.

There are ~33 stairs at Mansfield St. If the rise is 6.5" that's about a 18' elevation difference. Let's say 20' to be safe. There is roughly 100' between the current far sidewalk edge of Lincoln St and the sidewalk edge of Cambridge St.

That's roughly the same grade as Eleanor Street in Brighton, which while steep is hardly a challenging grade, or anything close to Mission, or even Corey Hill.

Only Mansfield and Royal Streets would have a steep ending anyway. Lincoln has nothing on either side of it so it could have a long, gentle climb up to Cambridge St, and by the time you get down to where Mayflower Street was its at grade.

I'm mostly interested in this because it would allow that hill of weeds to be developed and help to knit together the two sides of Allston.
 
I wouldn't mind a connection there, and even better, a crosswalk over Cambridge Street at Mansfield St. Instead we're getting a fence. But, that hill could be developed even without the road, it's not that wide a distance. I think there's other barriers to development there.

BTW, what about the connection between Lincoln and Cambridge at the light, by the auto body shop?
 
I have way too much time on my hands...

CambridgeSt_zpsf2ea46d7.png

Link to a .pdf

Edit: after reviewing their plans, I really dont get the DOT. First, they are putting up a fence in the median. The jay walking is a chronic issue there because there are not a sufficient amount of pedestrian crossings. Rather then addressing this issue, they are constructing a barrier...

Second, the traffic lanes are 11'. I see no reason why a local road needs anything wider than 10', especially when there are two lanes in each direction.

Third, Allston has a chronic parking problem, and yet they are wasting the opportunity to add 40 something spaces. I've never understood why there isn't parking on that bridge, and it makes less sense now.


So basically, they are building a limited access freeway. With bike lanes!
Nothing about this design discourages speeding, in fact with that 3' buffer between the bike lanes, guard rails and no parallel parking, it encourages it. At the very, very least I would like to see a signalized crosswalk at "the stairs". But really, I would like to see an in depth study of how to construct an actual urban street here, instead of a DOT textbook example of automobile throughput with a token bike lane.
 
Last edited:
Would parked cars on a bridge add to the load it needs to carry? I assume that's why some other bridges have No Parking signs on both sides.
 
Adding more parking to Allston? Let's give the addicts more heroin too. Paying for more deck at a cool few million, for free storage of cars? I can think of better uses for money.

The DOT puts up fences because that's the way they think. We're the animals, they cage us. Same reason Comm Ave has a fence down the middle.
 
Matthew, I can't agree with your sentiment. While I can believe DOT likely have a mentality neither of us like, I doubt the analogy to cage animals is a fair analogy.

Like it or not, crossing at-will everywhere, even at BU is not a reasonable balance. I did just fine keeping to the crosswalks, and I feel it is a fair compromise to traffic needing to use Comm Ave too. Meanwhile the street-feel at the area feels just fine over the 4 years (well, not 2007 when it was all rubble). My largest criticism is largely that walk signals does not parallel to the red lights, and thus every BU student took to never even look at it (myself included). Well, GSU and the GCB area, that was a long stretch too.

In implication, this means the fence should be there. There should be more openings to cross instead rather than no fence. And the ability to cross like not is not necessary to build a good street experience. I rather let cars be able to travel easier. I remembered that you stated your view is roughly a city-wide pedestrian zone, correct me if my interpretation is incorrect/exaggerated. To say it now, I don't view the trade off as worthwhile. The gains street experience doesn't outweigh the increase suck for cars. Many areas of Boston feel great as-is without it, I rather keep expanding that.

The second part, I definitely cannot agree is your comparison parking to heroin addict. It is definitely lines like that that makes me suspect a view just a biased against cars as Markk against bikes. I remember you keep a strong concern to parking as you tend to lean that it will lead to many cities in the West and South (which many keep point no one is going to knock down buildings to parking lots), but this suggestion is street parking. Fitting street parking where there is space is absolutely cool with me. Heck, I can see it as an second usefulness as it can be used to block off the bike lane (I guess that makes it a cycle track) Of course, if it means millions more, then of course not. However, do you actually know that it actually add to cost? Bridge tend to be structures able to hold lots of weight anyways, maybe the structure will be strong enough by default.

If the bridge is able to hold at no cost and there's the space, then why not add parking spots? I certainly would not argue against it by comparing it to a heroin addict. That just sounds needlessly hostile against cars. If I go against the idea, then it is either about space or cost to make the space.
 
The proposal is 1,400 feet without a crosswalk. The problem will be "solved" with a fence. I do not anticipate any eagerness on the part of MassDOT to install any additional crossings.

I say the parking is a problem because the DOT will not give up two lanes for parking (reducing to two travel lanes) and therefore parking lanes will require expansion of the deck; that's really expensive.

And secondly, because more parking = more traffic; and we already have tons of asphalt in Allston. It's high time it gets managed properly. Smart parking policy is needed, not additional parking which will get abused just as badly as the existing.
 
Matthew said:
The proposal is 1,400 feet without a crosswalk. The problem will be "solved" with a fence. I do not anticipate any eagerness on the part of MassDOT to install any additional crossings.
Click to expand...

Of course they probably won't. My point is you seem to be comparing to Comm Ave as if it is a bad thing. I dissent because Comm Ave would be a good model for Cambridge St. For one thing, there would not be a 1,400 feet fence between crossings.

Matthew said:
I say the parking is a problem because the DOT will not give up two lanes for parking (reducing to two travel lanes) and therefore parking lanes will require expansion of the deck; that's really expensive.
Click to expand...

While DaveM is mentioned the bridge specifically, the much of the 40 space growth is outside of the bridge too (if going by the picture). As I said above, if there's space, why not put it in. The picture seem to indicate 40 much his number is outside the bridge.

Matthew said:
And secondly, because more parking = more traffic; and we already have tons of asphalt in Allston. It's high time it gets managed properly. Smart parking policy is needed, not additional parking which will get abused just as badly as the existing.
Click to expand...

Keeping Allston as the context, your link to the professor's idea does not argue against utilizing street parking if it is available to be utilized. For example, Cambridge St. near the Pike side (north side of the bridge) is currently 3 lanes of traffic then virtually an island median with the other side virtually a street that is used. There's plenty to set a lane-lane-parking-cycle track-sidewalk setup. Everybody wins! And nowhere does your link seem to imply to me that's a bad idea. And I don't thinking adding such side with parking will increase traffic. What I see is a way to get proper bike lane, more parking, and streamlined road if that was done.

Implementing variable meter parking as you linked doesn't preclude increaing supply as well and raising price to curb demand (and there's some issue as this north of the Pike is a lot more residential than commercial which would apply better below the Pike long Harvard St and etc).
 
Parallel parking wouldn't add an inch to the bridge. Median is 6', the buffers are another 6', and reducing the travel lanes from 11' to 10' gives you another 4'. Same footprint, but you have 7' bike lanes and 7' parking stalls instead of buffers and medians.

Parallel parking has a larger effect than just storage of cars. It creates a visual buffer between the sidewalk and the street. With narrow travel lanes, it slows traffic due to the fear of someone pulling out. It also just feels more urban. Without parallel parking, it just feels like a suburban arterial to both pedestrians and the drivers who go faster. Warren St is a good example of this. I see people do 40, 50 MPH on the section without parking, only to crawl around 20 though the narrow part with cars. Same with Cambridge Street between Brighton Center and Union Square.

As for concerns as to adding some spaces adding to traffic, I don't think it will be so. These spots are not comfortably close to any existing housing aside from Linden St. 2 hour, metered, resident only overnight parking spots would allow these spaces to be used only by people coming to Allston for shows and dinner or whatnot. It gets cars parked BEFORE they get to Harvard Ave and contribute to that clusterfuck. Plus, if any development does occur in the adjacent area, it may eliminate the need for off street parking, which I do have a large issue with. Even if development doesn't happen, if the Jack Young Co ever sells those buildings, you would have one large and two medium apartment buildings alongside eight or so retail spaces coming online for the first time in 30 years.
 
Last edited:
ant8904 said:
Of course they probably won't. My point is you seem to be comparing to Comm Ave as if it is a bad thing. I dissent because Comm Ave would be a good model for Cambridge St. For one thing, there would not be a 1,400 feet fence between crossings.
Click to expand...

Comm Ave is a bad thing. It's in terrible shape. Compare to Beacon Street. Brookline would not put up with fences like that. Fences are anti-urban because they prevent permeability - by design. Blocked access to Green Line platforms is a real big problem. ADA would not allow these platforms to be constructed as they are today: 2 egresses are required. Most have only one, thanks to fences.

Miss a few trains because you have to go the long way around the fence to get to the platform, and you will start to get really, really annoyed.


Keeping Allston as the context, your link to the professor's idea does not argue against utilizing street parking if it is available to be utilized.
Click to expand...

It doesn't but I would like to see some evidence of intelligence at BTD before we start pumping more parking spaces into the neighborhood.

All the complaints about parking availability in Allston Village stem to the complete mismanagement of parking there, not lack of supply. There are over 400 on-street commercial-oriented spaces in the Allston Village area, and about 64 off-street city owned spaces. There's a whole bunch more in Packard's Corner and the other way further up Comm Ave as well.

During the day, when 2-hour parking is enforced, there are almost always spaces available.

The crunch happens after 6 p.m. when enforcement ends, and the dinner rush occurs. The smart thing to do would be to continue enforcement until 9 p.m. If that is not sufficient to open up 15% vacancy (as Shoup suggests) then we need to start charging money to encourage turnover of spaces. Once we have a properly managed parking market then we can discuss whether it is appropriate to add more supply, or whether it is even needed. We could even take an approach like SFPark, where the further away spaces cost less -- although that happened naturally through dynamic adjustment.

Instead we have effectively unregulated parking during the hours when parking regulation is needed most. I've learned that this is due to Marc Kadish who pushed for removal of meters years ago because he believes that the city should go out of its way to grant his alcohol-serving business as much free parking as he desires, without any regard for whether this actually helps his or other businesses in the area.
 
davem said:
Parallel parking wouldn't add an inch to the bridge. Median is 6', the buffers are another 6', and reducing the travel lanes from 11' to 10' gives you another 4'. Same footprint, but you have 7' bike lanes and 7' parking stalls instead of buffers and medians.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is an option. Look at the diagrams. The median exists because it covers a split-level joint. Also remember how weirdly sloped it is when you walk on it? I don't think they're doing a full replacement of the bridge which might open up these possibilities. But that would cost closer to $100 million, not $10 million.

It also just feels more urban. Without parallel parking, it just feels like a suburban arterial to both pedestrians and the drivers who go faster
Click to expand...

I have some philosophical issues with this, although I understand where you're coming from. But think back to when most of our streets were designed, in the 19th century or before. Did they have parallel parking? No... cars didn't exist. Were the streets of Boston proper less urban because they didn't have cars parked on them? If anything, they were more urban than now, post-urban renewal.

The idea that parked cars = urban is an aspect of the kind of Stockholm Syndrome relationship we have with cars. We jammed cities with cars, and now we identify them together, even though cities existed long before cars.

But what really makes or breaks an urban place is whether there are people around, and that's mostly determined by what's built there. And there's nothing around the Cambridge Street overpass, once you pass the Allen building, it's all empty air space over the highway. And a line of parked cars isn't going to change that. There's plenty of suburban arterials with parked cars, this will just be another one.

I do like the idea of reconnecting the streets (THAT is definitely an urban attribute) but I can only wince when imagining the cost estimates.
 
Last edited:
davem said:
I have way too much time on my hands...

CambridgeSt_zpsf2ea46d7.png

Link to a .pdf

Edit: after reviewing their plans, I really dont get the DOT. First, they are putting up a fence in the median. The jay walking is a chronic issue there because there are not a sufficient amount of pedestrian crossings. Rather then addressing this issue, they are constructing a barrier...

Second, the traffic lanes are 11'. I see no reason why a local road needs anything wider than 10', especially when there are two lanes in each direction.

Third, Allston has a chronic parking problem, and yet they are wasting the opportunity to add 40 something spaces. I've never understood why there isn't parking on that bridge, and it makes less sense now.


So basically, they are building a limited access freeway. With bike lanes!
Nothing about this design discourages speeding, in fact with that 3' buffer between the bike lanes, guard rails and no parallel parking, it encourages it. At the very, very least I would like to see a signalized crosswalk at "the stairs". But really, I would like to see an in depth study of how to construct an actual urban street here, instead of a DOT textbook example of automobile throughput with a token bike lane.
Click to expand...

Woah, is this straight up photoshop or are you using some sort of traffic engineering program?
 
Now would be a good time for the Harvard Ave bus tunnel to be completed
 
Yes indeed - but I've always wondered what the pushback would be from small residential Franklin St which would turn overnight into a major bus artery?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top