Eliminate the River Roads?

Koopzilla24 said:
Storrow and Memorial would be fine to exist if they were slow waterfront boulevards with actual development on either side and more signalized pedestrian crossings/intersections instead of mini highways. Storrow could be redesigned with a wider median (potential tram reservation) and narrower lanes. The highway-esque interchanges can be removed and turned into normal flat intersections or roundabouts while some, like the Charles/MGH mess, can be removed entirely (the Beacon Hill streets would be complete intersections).
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying, but at that point we're just tearing up Storrow and building a whole new road. Why bother? When a new road wouldn't be good at being a highway or a local road, what purpose would it serve, and why should taxpayers spend tens or hundreds of millions on its construction?

You're right, Brighton and Watertown are hugely car dependent. But no alterations to the roads will change that. The single solution is new transit projects, and one of the best ways to build a new transit project is to have a clear ROW.
 
All this (good and very accurate) discussion about car-dependency of Brighton and surrounding areas highlights the elephant in the room:

Allston, Brighton, Newton Corner and Watertown all need vastly better transit options compared to today.

And it's not an easy problem to solve at all, because good ROWs are close to non-existent.
  • The 57 bus corridor is optimal in density, but the narrow roads mean that the only way to get more than running in mixed traffic - a very low bar - is to eliminate all street parking. With the current political climate, that simply won't fly. (Even if you can, you're still subject to all the traffic signals, which are hard to mitigate in pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.)
  • The Fitchburg ROW is the easiest and cheapest with 15-min Regional Rail, but it misses most of Brighton to the north. (I'd argue that even Boston Landing's and West Station's locations are not ideal, as they skip Union Square Allston inbetween.)
  • Tunneling under the 57's route? Good luck.
  • Tunneling under Fitchburg (such as a BLX) is probably more doable, but once again runs into issues with ROW placement.
So... I don't know if there's a good answer.

(Mods: Feel free to move this to Crazy Transit Pitches or somewhere else.)
 
Teban54 said:
All this (good and very accurate) discussion about car-dependency of Brighton and surrounding areas highlights the elephant in the room:

Allston, Brighton, Newton Corner and Watertown all need vastly better transit options compared to today.

And it's not an easy problem to solve at all, because good ROWs are close to non-existent.
  • The 57 bus corridor is optimal in density, but the narrow roads mean that the only way to get more than running in mixed traffic - a very low bar - is to eliminate all street parking. With the current political climate, that simply won't fly. (Even if you can, you're still subject to all the traffic signals, which are hard to mitigate in pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.)
  • The Fitchburg ROW is the easiest and cheapest with 15-min Regional Rail, but it misses most of Brighton to the north. (I'd argue that even Boston Landing's and West Station's locations are not ideal, as they skip Union Square Allston inbetween.)
  • Tunneling under the 57's route? Good luck.
  • Tunneling under Fitchburg (such as a BLX) is probably more doable, but once again runs into issues with ROW placement.
So... I don't know if there's a good answer.

(Mods: Feel free to move this to Crazy Transit Pitches or somewhere else.)
Click to expand...
Shrink Mass Pike from 4 to 3 lanes, so there is more space for rail.

That gives the space hopefully to run rail to at least Back Bay station.

We can also reroute bus routes to like Mass Pike & Cambridge St, or Market St.. That would shorten the bus ride, by shifting the transfer from Kenmore to Lower Allston or Brighton. It would also increase connections to Cambridge. Increase frequecy for all the routes.

Map of rerouted routes:
1698375531699.png
 
Last edited:
Teban54 said:
All this (good and very accurate) discussion about car-dependency of Brighton and surrounding areas highlights the elephant in the room:

Allston, Brighton, Newton Corner and Watertown all need vastly better transit options compared to today.

And it's not an easy problem to solve at all, because good ROWs are close to non-existent.
  • The 57 bus corridor is optimal in density, but the narrow roads mean that the only way to get more than running in mixed traffic - a very low bar - is to eliminate all street parking. With the current political climate, that simply won't fly. (Even if you can, you're still subject to all the traffic signals, which are hard to mitigate in pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.)
  • The Fitchburg ROW is the easiest and cheapest with 15-min Regional Rail, but it misses most of Brighton to the north. (I'd argue that even Boston Landing's and West Station's locations are not ideal, as they skip Union Square Allston inbetween.)
  • Tunneling under the 57's route? Good luck.
  • Tunneling under Fitchburg (such as a BLX) is probably more doable, but once again runs into issues with ROW placement.
So... I don't know if there's a good answer.

(Mods: Feel free to move this to Crazy Transit Pitches or somewhere else.)
Click to expand...
With a focus on 'BRT Lite' or light rail service, Watertown isn't hard, it has wide streets like Mt Auburn and Arsenal. Newton Corner can also be done via Watertown along Galen St. Brighton/Allston though, those are tough. Here's some options:
  • Restore the A branch to Oak Sq and pedestrianize Washington St through central Brighton
  • Remove street parking and widen N Harvard St, then connect it to a hypothetical riverfront line
  • Operate service through Brighton as a loop with westbound buses/trams running along Faneuil/Arlington/Sparhawk Streets and eastbound buses/trams running along Washington St
  • A short cut and cover tunnel with one or two stations between Oak Sq and Cambridge St
  • Take street parking from Chestnut Hill Ave/Market St and run a new service there
  • Continue along Cambridge/River Streets to Central rather than meet the B Branch at Packards Corner
I think it goes without saying that frankly, none of these options are great. They would all (To some degree) involve taking something away from residents, be it parking, the ability to use the street at all, or just having the area torn up and messy for several months or years. If I had to pick one I'd pick the first option, but that would also require efforts to build up the area to be more like Centre St in JP rather than the boring suburban main street it is today.
 
Teban54 said:
Tunneling under the 57's route? Good luck.
Click to expand...
Is there a specific reason this would be difficult? Or is it just that tunneling in general is expensive? The roads are pretty wide up to at least to Oak Square. Only the stretch through Newton seems tight, but still doable.

In discussions of where the Blue line might go past Kenmore, it's seemed obvious to me to send it along this path. The route of the old A line. Like you say, a lot people still live there. It's like vestigial density along the missing rail line.
 
ritchiew said:
Is there a specific reason this would be difficult? Or is it just that tunneling in general is expensive? The roads are pretty wide up to at least to Oak Square. Only the stretch through Newton seems tight, but still doable.

In discussions of where the Blue line might go past Kenmore, it's seemed obvious to me to send it along this path. The route of the old A line. Like you say, a lot people still live there. It's like vestigial density along the missing rail line.
Click to expand...
It's probably just the archBoston spirit getting to me, since many people on this board seem to have a mindset that any tunnel other than C&C under a road with known utilities (or even without utilities) is expensive as hell, if not a total non-starter.

While that's certainly not a bad mindset (and sadly a rather realistic one), it's far more restrictive than what I see among transit fans discussions in other cities. NYC for example often sees a lot of people suggesting subways that are not under existing ROWs and complex underground flying junctions, regardless of whether they have any chance of materializing.
 
Teban54 said:
It's probably just the archBoston spirit getting to me, since many people on this board seem to have a mindset that any tunnel other than C&C under a road with known utilities (or even without utilities) is expensive as hell, if not a total non-starter.

While that's certainly not a bad mindset (and sadly a rather realistic one), it's far more restrictive than what I see among transit fans discussions in other cities. NYC for example often sees a lot of people suggesting subways that are not under existing ROWs and complex underground flying junctions, regardless of whether they have any chance of materializing.
Click to expand...
Well. the tunnel proposal under the 57 right-of-way is 5 miles of tunnel under 2 centuries plus of unknowable utilities....
 
TheRatmeister said:
I get what you're saying, but at that point we're just tearing up Storrow and building a whole new road. Why bother? When a new road wouldn't be good at being a highway or a local road, what purpose would it serve, and why should taxpayers spend tens or hundreds of millions on its construction?

You're right, Brighton and Watertown are hugely car dependent. But no alterations to the roads will change that. The single solution is new transit projects, and one of the best ways to build a new transit project is to have a clear ROW.
Click to expand...
A boulevard. Not a highway. This is already how Comm Ave is in Brighton. I should clarify I was also referring to all of Soldier’s Field Rd. and Storrow as just “Storrow” for simplicity but the section I was commenting on was Soldiers Field Rd. as there isn’t room for additional development on the actual Storrow Dr. without the expense of waterfront parkland. The point of making the full expressway into a boulevard is to reconnect the city to the waterfront and reduce the horrendous noise pollution the current configuration brings. On SFR there wouldn’t need to be a local access avenue on both sides like Comm Ave but only on the Allston side as that’s where there’s room to replace some parking lots with housing. The Comm Ave single local road and tram reservation configuration can fit within 110’ with room to play with medians, buffers, sidewalk/lane width, and bike infra to fit into even less area.
street.png

That's about the same width as Soldier's Field Road from outermost tree to tree. With this configuration, all of the road infra could fit within the existing pavement of SFR with only lane marking alterations to shift traffic to the curbs and free up the median area for rail. If no rail (rail should be a priority) but just maintaining most of the existing median, it becomes a whole lot easier to narrow lanes or shift them towards the center by shrinking the median slightly and freeing up space for a local access lane. The cost would come from doing rail and what kind of buffers or the extent of buffers used for separation. Adding more intersections at places like Telford or one of the parking lot access roads in conjunction with narrowing lanes and slowing speeds will allow more and easier pedestrian access to the Charles River Waterfront. This kind of transformation of the road would make it a road used for people to access and enjoy Lower Allston rather than the polluting Pike-alternative Allston passthrough it is today.

The ultimate effect of altering SFR to not be an expressway would be a reduction of traffic at N. Harvard, Western Ave., and Arsenal due to the road not being a skip to downtown that draws in traffic which would in turn improve bus service on 3 of the highest ridership and key buses in the T and the 64. Alterations to roads DO affect and reduce traffic when done in a way to discourage use by those who don't need to be there. Road changes can also induce transit use. If the drive along SFR to get to Cambridge is no longer faster than taking the 86, 64, or 70, then more people would be encouraged to take the bus instead. On the other hand, more people would take the bus to access the waterfront park if it was more convenient to walk to from Western Ave. than to drive to the big parking lot.
 
bip05 said:
NYC did it/does it. Why can't we?
Click to expand...
NYC is utterly incapable of doing anything within cost. They have the highest construction costs in the world by a wide margin because of their complete inability to manage projects. And it's inhibiting their ability to construct anything, including Second Ave. Subway which is barely at the starting gates of Phase II because of cost blowouts. They have a long list of burning expansion needs they're not attending to because the cost projections are so insane.

They're actually the single worst comparison out there for attempting any non-boondoggle C&C tunneling under old city streets.
 
bip05 said:
NYC did it/does it. Why can't we?
Click to expand...
You are really playing the "NYC does it" card for subway projects? Really?

OK, using the 2nd Avenue Subway as the point of comparision, the 5 miles of under the 57 route is a $12 billion plus project. You really think you can demonstrate cost-benefit for that expenditure?
www.bloomberg.com

How NYC’s Second Avenue Subway Became the World’s Most Expensive Line

The Manhattan transit expansion’s multibilllion-dollar price tag reflects the spiraling complexity of US construction practices, a team of NYU researchers says.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
 
Koopzilla24 said:
A boulevard. Not a highway. This is already how Comm Ave is in Brighton. I should clarify I was also referring to all of Soldier’s Field Rd. and Storrow as just “Storrow” for simplicity but the section I was commenting on was Soldiers Field Rd. as there isn’t room for additional development on the actual Storrow Dr. without the expense of waterfront parkland. The point of making the full expressway into a boulevard is to reconnect the city to the waterfront and reduce the horrendous noise pollution the current configuration brings. On SFR there wouldn’t need to be a local access avenue on both sides like Comm Ave but only on the Allston side as that’s where there’s room to replace some parking lots with housing. The Comm Ave single local road and tram reservation configuration can fit within 110’ with room to play with medians, buffers, sidewalk/lane width, and bike infra to fit into even less area. View attachment 43907
That's about the same width as Soldier's Field Road from outermost tree to tree. With this configuration, all of the road infra could fit within the existing pavement of SFR with only lane marking alterations to shift traffic to the curbs and free up the median area for rail. If no rail (rail should be a priority) but just maintaining most of the existing median, it becomes a whole lot easier to narrow lanes or shift them towards the center by shrinking the median slightly and freeing up space for a local access lane. The cost would come from doing rail and what kind of buffers or the extent of buffers used for separation. Adding more intersections at places like Telford or one of the parking lot access roads in conjunction with narrowing lanes and slowing speeds will allow more and easier pedestrian access to the Charles River Waterfront. This kind of transformation of the road would make it a road used for people to access and enjoy Lower Allston rather than the polluting Pike-alternative Allston passthrough it is today.

The ultimate effect of altering SFR to not be an expressway would be a reduction of traffic at N. Harvard, Western Ave., and Arsenal due to the road not being a skip to downtown that draws in traffic which would in turn improve bus service on 3 of the highest ridership and key buses in the T and the 64. Alterations to roads DO affect and reduce traffic when done in a way to discourage use by those who don't need to be there. Road changes can also induce transit use. If the drive along SFR to get to Cambridge is no longer faster than taking the 86, 64, or 70, then more people would be encouraged to take the bus instead. On the other hand, more people would take the bus to access the waterfront park if it was more convenient to walk to from Western Ave. than to drive to the big parking lot.
Click to expand...
But just looking at SFR, keeping that ~110ft width means it still takes up basically all of the Charles River Reservation. From the BU Bridge to the Elliot Bridge there is essentially no park space in the park. If you want less traffic, take out three travel lanes from that diagram, at least. Take out the parking lane. I'm skeptical the light rail makes sense but I do love the idea and want it to work, so whatever, keep it. How's this for a riverfront?

street (2).png
 
ritchiew said:
But just looking at SFR, keeping that ~110ft width means it still takes up basically all of the Charles River Reservation. From the BU Bridge to the Elliot Bridge there is essentially no park space in the park. If you want less traffic, take out three travel lanes from that diagram, at least. Take out the parking lane. I'm skeptical the light rail makes sense but I do love the idea and want it to work, so whatever, keep it. How's this for a riverfront?

View attachment 43918
Click to expand...
The SFR-Storrow distinction is so confusing. My whole life I’ve always considered everything from Cambridge St to Downtown as Storrow.

From Elliot Bridge to Cambridge St 110’ ROW would actually reduce the highway width and add to the Charles Reservation or keep it as-is (google earth measurement so give or take a few). That’s including sidewalks and a separated bike path within that 110’. Approaching Western Ave and then to the River St Bridge SFR widens to 120’ then 140’. For the section of SFR from there to BU Bridge I would just scrap the whole thing and return it to the Charles Reservation. It serves no purpose other than basically being additional lanes to I-90 with no tolls.

The main intent was to address the cost question by trying to change as much about SFR to make it better with as little demolition or new construction as possible. If the cost of the project isn’t a concern (which to me returning parkland to the Charles is always worth the cost to do so) then I’m 100% with you to reduce lanes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top