Bowker Overpass replacement?

[underground]

And as most of continental Europe plunges into economic oblivion and irrelevance one lone fuckwit in Boston still sings their praises.

Just like it was "plunging into oblivion" in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 70s, and 80s? I'm sure I'm missing a handful of other decades people claimed Europe was "plunging into oblivion" too. Wake me up when it actually happens.

 

[Equilibria]

I can't tell if you intentionally miss this point, but you ALWAYS miss it with your pro-auto posts. No one said the population shouldn't increase. No one said, the workforce shouldn't increase. But if we didn't build highways, can you imagine, just for a second, in an alternate universe, where cars weren't kings and highway lanes weren't currency, that the growing population might have settled in a different geographic pattern?

Hint: Europe.

But that isn't what happened. Cities grew tremendously in the 1940s-1960s and this was the growth pattern we created. It isn't realistic to then assume that you can simply bail on all of the people in the suburbs in the hope that they'll "see the light" and move back to the Fenway and Cambridge. When infrastructure decisions were made in 1945, they were directing new settlement. Now, they're attempting to adequately serve a pre-built city.

You make an excellent argument for not building new ring roads and massive highway capacity in the outer suburbs - we should be densifying what we have around transit lines both existing and new. That same argument does not support removing existing pavement.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

we should be densifying what we have around transit lines both existing and new. That same argument does not support removing existing pavement.

Totally agree.

 

[Matthew]

You make an excellent argument for not building new ring roads and massive highway capacity in the outer suburbs - we should be densifying what we have around transit lines both existing and new. That same argument does not support removing existing pavement.

It's not about removing existing pavement. It's already a goner -- requiring many hundreds of millions of dollars to replace it. I don't see why we should be on the hook to blow hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild exactly what was there before, not without a seriously hard look at what we're doing.

Kahta and you seem to be missing this point. We're not talking about going in to remove freshly built highways (well, I'm not, anyway). We're talking about rickety, deteriorating, end-of-life structures that will cost an already cash-strapped state an unbelievable amount of money to replace.

I don't think it's worthwhile to duplicate what was done in the past.

 

[kenmoreResident]

It's not about removing existing pavement. It's already a goner -- requiring many hundreds of millions of dollars to replace it. I don't see why we should be on the hook to blow hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild exactly what was there before, not without a seriously hard look at what we're doing.

Kahta and you seem to be missing this point. We're not talking about going in to remove freshly built highways (well, I'm not, anyway). We're talking about rickety, deteriorating, end-of-life structures that will cost an already cash-strapped state an unbelievable amount of money to replace.

I don't think it's worthwhile to duplicate what was done in the past.

Speaking as someone who lives in the city and currently does not own a car, in an ideal world (for someone like me), there would be no Storrow Drive, or it would be replaced with a quiet, slowed down Storrow Drive. But the real world is frequently about compromise. I think Storrow serves two populations pretty well. The Esplanade is a very heavily used and enjoyed park (I am a frequent jogger there), despite being on the edge of busy Storrow Drive. People still use this parkland and love it and its access to the Charles. As for cars, Storrow is a generally effective road for getting people into and out of town, esp to/from the near-in western edges of the city.

But Matthew makes a good point about the cost to rebuild expensive infrastructure. I am all for making Storrow less busy, and removing the expensive to rebuild/expensive to maintain Bowker, esp. if Pike access can be improved to compensate. In that same spirit, perhaps it is not worth the expense of rebuilding the Storrow tunnel, even if it means a less car friendly Storrow. If we can get more cars off Storrow and onto the Pike that is a good thing for the city. At the same time, let Storrow be traffic friendly, even if that is reduced somewhat by NOT rebuilding expensive things like the Bowker and Storrow tunnel.

 

[kenmoreResident]

I plan to submit these images to the state DOT. Some of these proposed Pike ramp changes are NOT in their current list of ramp ideas, but I hope that they are worth consideration, in light of the goal to remove the Bowker. Any input is appreciated...

Close up of ramp relocation/addition:

Larger view of the Kenmore/Fenway area with these changes:

Regarding the Bowker overpass, I know the state is concerned about handling the traffic if the Bowker is removed (especially to/from the Longwood area), while most area residents would like to see the Bowker gone. The following suggestions would make using the Pike to get to Longwood easier, thus reducing the need to use Storrow to get to Longwood, and thus reducing the need for the Bowker. Perhaps some of these ideas could be considered by the state, the city, and area residents?

In the interest of compromise, with everyone giving up a little...

* The state replaces the Bowker with surface level streets, with the exception of a new Bowker providing elevated access over the Pike/Ipswich street/railroad tracks only.
* The city and area residents agree to new/relocated Pike access on Newbury Street near Kenmore, and optionally considers making Brookline Ave between Kenmore and the Landmark Center one-way outbound, allowing for easy access to the Longwood area from a new westbound Mass Pike exit feeding onto a reconnected Newbury Street (on-ramp placed east of the Bowker and connecting Pike traffic to Newbury westbound with no break in Newbury where the Bowker now breaks it). Alternatively, leaving Brookline Ave a two-way would still work, though a traffic light would be required at Newbury/Brookline Ave. If timed appropriately to favor Longwood bound traffic during peak times, this could be workable. Current Brookline Ave traffic could self-divert to other roads (Boylston, Beacon, rebuilt Bowker) to avoid waiting at the Longwood-favored light on Brookline Ave at Newbury. A 'smart' traffic light could perhaps change to green for MBTA buses/ambulances/police cars on Brookline Ave.
* The state replaces Newbury resident parking spaces lost due to Pike ramps by agreeing to build street level, but off-street, Kenmore resident parking, placed either over the existing sunken parking lot a bit east of Kenmore Street, and/or above the partially sunken large lot that exists behind Hotel Commonwealth. Any extra spaces, beyond resident-only-Newbury-replacement-spaces added to this parking deck could be gifted for the use of the property owner (very valuable during Red Sox games) in lieu of compensation for the air space taken by the parking deck. Local residents should be able to access these lots via Kenmore Street, in addition to Newbury Street, thus avoiding having to deal with any traffic on Newbury Street.
* The furthest west block of Newbury that is awkwardly two way now (between Brookline Av and Kenmore Street) would be made one way, in the same direction as the rest of Newbury Street.

Additionally, I would also propose considering the following...

* Close the westbound Pike ON-ramp at Mass Av and Newbury (a replacement is described below). This makes it easier to add the westbound Pike OFF-ramp described above to this area.
* Further down Newbury, somewhere behind the Commonwealth Hotel or before, add an ON-ramp to the Mass Pike westbound (I know space is tight here - enough room for a merge lane via the removal of on street parking? Newbury here is about 3 lanes wide if you consider on-street parking, so there is space on Newbury that could be repurposed as a Pike merge lane, though the neighborhood would hate to give up that parking (which is why I suggest the state could build a street level deck above either of the two submerged existing lots that exist on this section of Newbury).
* As part of the replacement Bowker over the Pike, include an exit from the northbound Bowker down to Newbury street, allowing straight-forward access to the relocated Pike westbound on-ramp (and from there to the Pike u-turn, about 1 mile away, to get to the Pike inbound for those heading east).
* Make the loop around the northern Fens ONE WAY in a counter-clockwise direction. Thus, the small portion of Boylston/Park Drive that sits between the Bowker to the north and Boylston Street to the south is one way southbound. Traffic coming off of Boylston FROM Longwood must then turn right at Park Drive and head south to Agassiz Rd, then north on Fenway and then up to Boylston, where they can optionally connect to the new Bowker ramp leading down to Newbury street (and from there they can get onto the westbound Pike). Traffic coming off the Bowker southbound and wanting to head to Boylston inbound would have to head south on Park Drive, cross over at Agassiz Rd, and then head North on Fenway to Boylston eastbound. The short section of Boylston between the Bowker and the Fenway would be one way westbound.

What all this does...

Moving the current Mass Ave/Newbury Pike on-ramp toward Kenmore allows easier on-ramp access to the Pike westbound for traffic from the Longwood area, via the rebuilt Bowker. This traffic would no longer have to go thru the busy Boylston/Mass Ave and Mass Ave/Newbury intersections (and across oncoming traffic in both places) to get to a Pike on-ramp. Traffic coming inbound on Comm Av from the West could now take a right onto Charlesgate West to get to the Pike westbound on-ramp. Traffic from the Back Bay, that uses this onramp in its current location, could still use it but would have to travel down Newbury just a short bit further to access the onramp. This reduces congestion on Mass Ave, Boylston St, and Comm Ave by taking away cars that are now bound for the current Pike on-ramp location (and in most cases gets this Pike bound traffic off of city streets, and onto the Pike, more quickly). Instead of access from one direction (Mass Ave at Newbury) the relocated Pike onramp can be accessed from 3 directions: from the south (the Fens) via the Bowker, from the north and west via Comm Ave to Charlesgate West, and from the east (Back Bay) via Newbury Street.

Making the loop around the northern Fens ONE WAY in a counter-clockwise direction allows for a shortened light cycle at the intersection of Boylston and Fenway, allowing more traffic from Longwood to get to the Pike more quickly. Also traffic eastbound from Boylston now has a 'right on red' situation and there is no longer a need (or possibility) to go northbound here, again reducing traffic waits at the Boylston/Park Drive intersection. The Fenway at Westland traffic light could be eliminated I would think. Boylston Street, from where it meets Fenway and around the west end of the loop down to Park Drive could be narrowed from four to two lanes. Pedestrian/bike access to/from the Fens is thus improved, as people only have to deal with traffic from one direction, not two, and cross only two lanes instead of four.

This does put more traffic onto Agassiz Rd but consider this: transforming Agassiz into the bottom of a one way loop around the northern Fens allows you to remove a couple of lanes from Boylston at the north and west side of the loop. I think it is a good trade-off even if you might have to add a 2nd lane to Agassiz Road... total paved lanes would be decreased and both traffic flow and pedestrian access would be improved. The loop does add a small amount of distance in driving thru the area in some cases, but there would likely be a reduction in time and gas used due to less idle time waiting at red lines that are currently handling travel in both directions. Quite apart from the Bowker issue, i think this configuration has the potential for some advantages over the current two way flow.

Please also consider the possibility of an on-ramp from the Pike inbound onto the outbound Brookline Av. This ramp could be built somewhere in the vicinity of the empty parking lots and Yawkey station in that area; or perhaps incorporated into the design of the new building and parking being built here. Railroad tracks may have to be shifted but there is some room here to maybe do so, perhaps allowing for a new Pike off-ramp from the eastbound Pike to Longwood via Brookline Av.

If (optionally) Brookline Ave were one way between Kenmore and the Landmark Center there would be no need for a new traffic light at the Brookline Av/Newbury street intersection, as traffic coming off Newbury from the Pike could now have its own Longwood bound merge lane onto Brookline Ave. A one-way Brookline Ave to Landmark would also reduce wait cycles at both the busy Kenmore intersection and Landmark Center intersection due to Brookline Ave traffic only going one way now, not two. The solution described here, however, does not require a one-way Brookline Ave.

Removal of the bulk of the Bowker should pay dividends in reduced rebuilding costs as well as future maintenance costs to the state for this elevated structure.

What is missing from the above: easy access to the Mass Pike inbound from the Longwood area. Perhaps though, the additions of new access (in both directions) FROM the Mass Pike to Longwood, and improved westbound access from Longwood is enough to allow for the removal of most of the current elevated Bowker. Inbound Pike traffic could travel the Pike westbound to the Pike U-turn ramp about 1 mile away to access the Pike inbound.

 

[Ron Newman]

I don't see why you need to make Brookline Ave. one-way in order to add that ramp from the Pike to it.

It's not a good idea to push huge amounts of traffic onto little Agassiz Road in the middle of the Fens park.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Turning Brookline Avenue one-way - turning any existing road into a one-way road is a horrible idea under any and all circumstances. If you really care about vehicular access to an area, then shutting off access from one direction on a pretty central thoroughfare is counterproductive.

If you're trying to spite the Longwood Area, it's a great plan to do that - but I'm not sure why you'd want to. I've been assured that people are actually quite smart and can see when you're trying to screw them under the guise of helping them, so this would be a fast way towards making a whole lot of enemies in that region. Noisy enemies.

And make no mistake, that's a textbook screw job... especially since you're negatively impacting more than just vehicle traffic. Five bus lines utilize that road, and I'm fairly certain bicyclists do as well. And take a look at what's being served by the part of the road you want to cripple - a good section of the Medical Area, Simmons/Wheelock/Emmanuel Colleges, and, oh, some old little "Fenway Park" venue. I'm sure that place is hardly worth much consideration re: traffic impacts.

Whatever merit your proposals have is entirely canceled out by trying to make Brookline Avenue one-way. Sorry. I'm not going to mince words, that's a terrible proposal.

Please don't submit it to MassDOT. I'm afraid they might actually consider it.

 

[davem]

Since I got a whiff of the Bowker replacement long ago I've been fiddling with a design to link the pike into Charlesgate akin to my Beacon Park plans, and its infuriating. That plan above has a few good ideas, but its wholly inadequate for the traffic patterns in that area. Besides just finding room for on and off ramps plus merging lanes on the pike proper, you've got the issue of tying it into the fenway, comm ave, park drive and boylston to serve the four distinct destinations in the area, plus local traffic.

I planned on posting more about it in a separate thread in Design a Better, but watched three seasons of Always Sunny instead...

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Since I got a whiff of the Bowker replacement long ago I've been fiddling with a design to link the pike into Charlesgate akin to my Beacon Park plans, and its infuriating. That plan above has a few good ideas, but its wholly inadequate for the traffic patterns in that area. Besides just finding room for on and off ramps plus merging lanes on the pike proper, you've got the issue of tying it into the fenway, comm ave, park drive and boylston to serve the four distinct destinations in the area, plus local traffic.

I planned on posting more about it in a separate thread in Design a Better, but watched three seasons of Always Sunny instead...

If it's any consolation, I enjoyed your suggestion to deck the Pike with a boulevard.

As for a new Pike offramp... why wouldn't either of these work? Mind you, crossing over the B&A Main Line would be something of a challenge but it's hardly an engineering impossibility. Either way offers pretty direct access to Fenway/Kenmore and Longwood.

 

[kenmoreResident]

I don't see why you need to make Brookline Ave. one-way in order to add that ramp from the Pike to it.

It's not a good idea to push huge amounts of traffic onto little Agassiz Road in the middle of the Fens park.

Thanks for the feedback. The only reason for the one way Brookline Ave is it allows easy Pike access heading toward the Longwood direction ... one of the concerns of the state that they want addressed to remove the Bowker is reducing the need for Longwood traffic to get/to from Storrow.

If Brookline Ave remains two ways, I guess there could be a traffic light where Newbury meets Brookline Ave allowing for a left turn there on green, or traffic could be forced right, in the wrong direction toward Kenmore Square. In that case, at the Kenmore intersection I suppose they could turn left at the light and down Beacon Street and get to Longwood that way. If Brookline Ave remains two ways, a new traffic light at Brookline and Newbury would be the best of those two alternatives.

As for pushing traffic onto little Agassiz Rd, consider this: transforming Agassiz into the bottom of a one way loop around the northern Fens allows you to remove a couple of lanes from Boylston at the north and west side of the loop as well. I think it is a good trade-off even if you might have to add a 2nd lane to Agassiz Road... total paved lanes would be decreased and I bet both traffic flow and pedestrian access would be improved (people access to the Fens would now only have to deal with traffic from one direction, not two, at crossings). The loop does add a small amount of distance in driving thru the area, but I bet there would be a reduction in time and gas used due to less idle time waiting at red lines that are currently dealing with travel in both directions (esp at the Bowker interchange and Boylston/Park Drive). Quite apart from the Bowker issue, i think this configuration has the potential for some real advantages over the current two way flow in that area.

 

[kenmoreResident]

Since I got a whiff of the Bowker replacement long ago I've been fiddling with a design to link the pike into Charlesgate akin to my Beacon Park plans, and its infuriating. That plan above has a few good ideas, but its wholly inadequate for the traffic patterns in that area. Besides just finding room for on and off ramps plus merging lanes on the pike proper, you've got the issue of tying it into the fenway, comm ave, park drive and boylston to serve the four distinct destinations in the area, plus local traffic.

I planned on posting more about it in a separate thread in Design a Better, but watched three seasons of Always Sunny instead...

When you put out what you are thinking, maybe you could give a heads up over here! Would like to read of your thoughts. Good point about the tight merge lanes for any ramps in the Charlesgate area. Newbury here is about 3 lanes wide if you consider onstreet parking so there is space on Newbury that could be repurposed as Pike merge lanes, though the neighborhood would hate to give up that parking (which is why I suggest the state could build a street level deck above some (or one) of the two submerged existing lots that exist on this section of Newbury).

 

[davem]

If it's any consolation, I enjoyed your suggestion to deck the Pike with a boulevard.

As for a new Pike offramp... why wouldn't either of these work? Mind you, crossing over the B&A Main Line would be something of a challenge but it's hardly an engineering impossibility. Either way offers pretty direct access to Fenway/Kenmore and Longwood.

My biggest issue is that for its flaws, the flow of traffic through charlesgate works really well at distributing the load off the east-west mainline onto the Olmstead roads. I drive through there pretty regularly, and traffic flows rather freely because of the multitude of routing options you are given to get to any one place.

Any design replacing Storrow with the Pike needs to have near direct access to/from Comm Ave, the Fenway, Boylston Street and Park Drive to continue this pattern of success.

An EB exit at Audubon Circle would be nice in addition to an interchange at Charlesgate, but stand alone it wouldn't cut it. You have traffic dumping onto a local two lane street versus a multitude of four lane parkways. The bigger issue is that Audobon itself is already near capacity, and with the C line there you can't put in a Park Drive underpass, despite ample room for ramps. Even if you could, the intersection in front of the Landmark Center is gridlocked during non rushhours typically, and now all the former Longwood-bound Storrow traffic would be cramming through there as well. While Beacon Street between Audubon and Kenmore is drastically underused, Kenmore is also a mess, which Charlesgate also avoids. And then try to find an efficient route for traffic from your exit to the Symphony area of the back bay...

The easiest solution would be a diamond interchange at Charlesgate. But that wouldn't work as it requires two signals and dedicated left turn lanes: I do not believe there is sufficient room for the length that would be required at rush hour for those lanes, and if they backed up through Boylston or Comm Ave it would cascade through the area.

I think there is promise in a SPUI, but as the article mentions pedestrian and bike traffic would have issues getting through the intersection, and clearing it of snow would be difficult. The current design isn't exactly friendly to pedestrians or bikers either however, so it may be a good solution.

Ultimately I believe the best way would be to lower either one direction of the pike or the B&A below grade. The pike would probably be better as the grades are less of an issue than with a railroad, and this would open up a ton of space for merging lanes as well as dedicated ramps for north and southbound traffic. It would also have the fabulous side effect of opening up some more room for the B&A to be restored to three or even four tracks through this section. Building an aqueduct for the Muddy and constructing around an active interstate however would be uber $$$, and there are still issues getting the same or better connectivity of the current charlesgate.

When you put out what you are thinking, maybe you could give a heads up over here! Would like to read of your thoughts. Good point about the tight merge lanes for any ramps in the Charlesgate area. Newbury here is about 3 lanes wide if you consider onstreet parking so there is space on Newbury that could be repurposed as Pike merge lanes, though the neighborhood would hate to give up that parking (which is why I suggest the state could build a street level deck above some (or one) of the two submerged existing lots that exist on this section of Newbury).

Newbury as the on and off ramps for EB traffic would be the preferred option, the issue is in getting the traffic to/from newbury back across the pike to merge with the parkways in an efficient manner with as few left turns as possible.


If you're interested here is my plan for re configuring Beacon Park (Allston Tolls) to eliminate Storrow between there and the Hatch Shell.

And the complimentary project linked by CBS above for decking over the pike in Bay Village and providing an interchange there as well.

Charlesgate is the last stickler in my grand scheme plan.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Ultimately I believe the best way would be to lower either one direction of the pike or the B&A below grade. The pike would probably be better as the grades are less of an issue than with a railroad, and this would open up a ton of space for merging lanes as well as dedicated ramps for north and southbound traffic. It would also have the fabulous side effect of opening up some more room for the B&A to be restored to three or even four tracks through this section. Building an aqueduct for the Muddy and constructing around an active interstate however would be uber $$$, and there are still issues getting the same or better connectivity of the current charlesgate.

If we'd had any measure of success whatsoever with air rights on the Pike up to this point, I honestly think there'd be a good case for sinking the Pike between Charlesgate and Beacon Park.

Unfortunately... that's not what's happened.

 

[bbfen]

Nothing will ever happen on the Newbury Extension. Parcel 11 will never be decked over. The Pike will never be touched (sunk even deeper into the water table or anything else) between the Kenmore ramps and the Mass Ave overpass. The westbound ramp at Mass Ave will never be removed. The parking lots on outer Newbury will never be built on.

See also: Fenway Studios.

 

[davem]

Nothing will ever happen on the Newbury Extension. Parcel 11 will never be decked over. The Pike will never be touched (sunk even deeper into the water table or anything else) between the Kenmore ramps and the Mass Ave overpass. The westbound ramp at Mass Ave will never be removed. The parking lots on outer Newbury will never be built on.

See also: Fenway Studios.

The Fenway Studios own the rights to northern diffuse light. I'm not seeing how that is effects any of your other points. If you elaborated I might have, but you went with snark... or something. I'm also not understanding the water table issue you mention. I'm not proposing anything further down then the basements that already exist, or this sunken alleyway, or the green line subway. Don't forget the area around Mass Ave used to be Gravelly Point, so it is solid land for the most part, unlike the rest of the Back Bay proper. Even if it wasnt though, somehow people have been managing to build basements in the water table for a few hundred years now...

 

[bbfen]

The hysteria surrounding anything that may affect the "northern diffuse light" up to and including a deck with a park over the Pike, new shrubbery along Ipswich to disguise the railroad tracks, potential construction projects across the Pike on outer Newbury, adjustments to the westbound ramp, have all been shot down.

I'm not sure how the Fenway Studios managed to "own the rights to the northern diffuse light" (you words), but it's an apt description. As a result they control development or progress or really anything in the area of Parcel 11 and it will be a scar for decades to come.

As for Gravelly Point, its northeastern point was approximately block of south of Boylston near the Dunks at Mass Ave meaning the Pike itself runs over fill in the former Full and Receiving Basins. Given the issues already with the water table in this area why propose a massive project that would require a complete redesign to groundwater recharge? I mean, quite obviously people have been managing to build basements in the water table. That's different than disrupting an area where the water table is several feet above the subbasement level of buildings along Boylston at Mass Ave and the infrastructure keeping these districts stable survives in a delicate balance. As recently as last month Boston Water was doing smoke tests on Hemenway Street trying to figure out why sewage and water weren't going where they were supposed to. As recently as last week they were out digging up St. Cecilia St yet again trying to figure out why the roadway keeps sinking. So let's not make it worse.

 

[kenmoreResident]

Turning Brookline Avenue one-way - turning any existing road into a one-way road is a horrible idea under any and all circumstances. Please don't submit it to MassDOT. I'm afraid they might actually consider it.

Thanks for the input. A one-way Brookline Ave is not required so I did rephrase my proposal to reflect that (and so edited my original post above).

I still see more pluses than minuses for making Boylston/Park Drive from the Boylston/Fenway intersection to the Park Dr/Boylston intersection around the Fens one way (and also making the Fenway one way northbound in this area).

I have also proposed making the last block on the western end of Newbury one-way, like the rest of Newbury Street.

Before I submit this to MassDOT please let me know why you think these one-ways would be bad ideas since "turning any existing road into a one-way road is a horrible idea under any and all circumstances". If you are convincing I will modify my proposal. Thanks.

And to everyone who has commented, thank-you all. I have updated my write-up and image based on the input.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Thanks for the input. A one-way Brookline Ave is not required so I did rephrase my proposal to reflect that (and so edited my original post above).

I still see more pluses than minuses for making Boylston/Park Drive from the Boylston/Fenway intersection to the Park Dr/Boylston intersection around the Fens one way (and also making the Fenway one way northbound in this area).

I have also proposed making the last block on the western end of Newbury one-way, like the rest of Newbury Street.

Before I submit this to MassDOT please let me know why you think these one-ways would be bad ideas since "turning any existing road into a one-way road is a horrible idea under any and all circumstances". If you are convincing I will modify my proposal. Thanks.

And to everyone who has commented, thank-you all. I have updated my write-up and image based on the input.

Thanks for responding, despite my being perhaps overly harsh towards your initial proposal.

Essentially, the "benefits" to having a one-way street, as I see them, are as follows:

• Twice the amount of capacity for the prevailing direction of traffic over a one-way street of equivalent width.
• Cancels out the need to plan for any traffic movements in the opposite direction along the road, thereby simplifying traffic phases (esp. where multiple roads can be configured to be one way such as the only movements ever possible are 'straight on' or 'right-in/right-out'

Compared to the drawbacks of one-way streets:

• Expansion of capacity for prevailing directional traffic comes at the direct expense of any capacity for opposite directional traffic, which is either forced onto adjacent streets or simply reduced to 0
• Shutting off directional traffic movements overly complicates some traffic patterns: see the traffic around Boston Common for an example of this in action
• Reduces the number of possible avenues for arrival, thus canceling some trips and funneling all others onto the remaining avenues - artificially increasing the demand on them
• Attendant to the previous point, reduces the number of existing points of failure such that anything which goes wrong is that much more likely to result in a cascade of problems up and downstream.
• Absent a full complementary street grid, the benefit to simplifying traffic movements cannot be fully realized - i.e., cannot establish right-in/right-out only outside of the street grid area
• In addition to the negative impacts on personal vehicle traffic, harmful to bicycle and transit traffic unless contraflow infrastructure for one or both is included (e.g. cycle track, contraflow bus lane) - further diminishing the available capacity versus a conventional two-way street

Essentially, most of the benefits to having one-way streets only exist when you have a full grid of one-way streets - and that grid must be an ordered, logical grid. Similarly, several of the drawbacks to one-way streets are mitigated by the presence of an ordered, logical grid.

Boylston fits nicely into the logical grid that exits between it and Park Drive, so I wouldn't be as concerned with that street going one-way as I would be with Brookline Avenue, for which no grid exists. As does Newbury Street for the Back Bay Grid, which is why I don't pitch a fit over the one-way streets in that neighborhood.

My real concern, and the thing that got me to lash out, is what would happen to Kenmore/Fenway if you shut off one direction of Brookline Avenue - you'd be well on your way to creating a similar traffic patterning nightmare as what exists already downtown, around the Common, and on Beacon Hill. Seriously, you don't even need to try driving around there yourself - just go over to Tremont Street sometime (preferably during a heavy commute period), grab a seat in the Dunkin' Donuts on the corner of Tremont and Boylston and watch the chaos unfold. Walking around the edges of the Common or riding the 43 works, too.

Seriously, it's a nightmare, and not one I'm particularly eager to see replicated elsewhere in the city.

 

[kenmoreResident]

Thanks for responding, despite my being perhaps overly harsh towards your initial proposal.

Essentially, the "benefits" to having a one-way street, as I see them, are as follows:

• Twice the amount of capacity for the prevailing direction of traffic over a one-way street of equivalent width.
• Cancels out the need to plan for any traffic movements in the opposite direction along the road, thereby simplifying traffic phases (esp. where multiple roads can be configured to be one way such as the only movements ever possible are 'straight on' or 'right-in/right-out'

Compared to the drawbacks of one-way streets:

• Expansion of capacity for prevailing directional traffic comes at the direct expense of any capacity for opposite directional traffic, which is either forced onto adjacent streets or simply reduced to 0
• Shutting off directional traffic movements overly complicates some traffic patterns: see the traffic around Boston Common for an example of this in action
• Reduces the number of possible avenues for arrival, thus canceling some trips and funneling all others onto the remaining avenues - artificially increasing the demand on them
• Attendant to the previous point, reduces the number of existing points of failure such that anything which goes wrong is that much more likely to result in a cascade of problems up and downstream.
• Absent a full complementary street grid, the benefit to simplifying traffic movements cannot be fully realized - i.e., cannot establish right-in/right-out only outside of the street grid area
• In addition to the negative impacts on personal vehicle traffic, harmful to bicycle and transit traffic unless contraflow infrastructure for one or both is included (e.g. cycle track, contraflow bus lane) - further diminishing the available capacity versus a conventional two-way street

Essentially, most of the benefits to having one-way streets only exist when you have a full grid of one-way streets - and that grid must be an ordered, logical grid. Similarly, several of the drawbacks to one-way streets are mitigated by the presence of an ordered, logical grid.

Boylston fits nicely into the logical grid that exits between it and Park Drive, so I wouldn't be as concerned with that street going one-way as I would be with Brookline Avenue, for which no grid exists. As does Newbury Street for the Back Bay Grid, which is why I don't pitch a fit over the one-way streets in that neighborhood.

My real concern, and the thing that got me to lash out, is what would happen to Kenmore/Fenway if you shut off one direction of Brookline Avenue - you'd be well on your way to creating a similar traffic patterning nightmare as what exists already downtown, around the Common, and on Beacon Hill. Seriously, you don't even need to try driving around there yourself - just go over to Tremont Street sometime (preferably during a heavy commute period), grab a seat in the Dunkin' Donuts on the corner of Tremont and Boylston and watch the chaos unfold. Walking around the edges of the Common or riding the 43 works, too.

Seriously, it's a nightmare, and not one I'm particularly eager to see replicated elsewhere in the city.

I appreciate the feedback. Thanks. I understand your points about Brookline Ave. I have to admit to being a bit selfish on this point, as I don't have a car and i overlook the Bowker, so I guess i am a bit more motivated than most to see it taken down, but not at the expense of creating the "nightmare" you envision (and which I don't feel qualified to predict would come true or not). Still the point about the T buses running there is an excellent one and for that reason alone the one way Brookline Av would be problematic.