Eliminate the River Roads?

[F-Line to Dudley]

Who's going to advocate for reserving that for BRT? Doesn't seem like it would be freeway drivers who might want new ramps, or people who want to open up the waterfront, or most of the transit advocates who probably would prefer LRT.

It is one of the two primary build Alternatives for the UR, and was actually the slightly favored one in the 2005 DEIR because that was back in the "BRT fever" days. The state's taken no subsequent action on the UR, so the '05 DEIR is still the most up-to-date corridor document. You can't make assumptions of final-pick mode choices until they dust it off for a modern look. As of today we're still frozen-in-time at the DEIR with both options in-play. So the Mountfort hillside has an incumbent project conflict on the books for doodling ramps setups. Any which way that conflict doesn't get resolved until something UR-related gets a second look.

And St Marys St freeway ramps have BRT potential in the form of Kenmore Sq Logan Express, if the Newbury St I-90 westbound on ramp just to the west of Mass Ave was moved far enough west that traffic using it would still merge onto the I-90 mainline before crossing the Muddy River, but making room for a new off ramp between Mass Ave and that newly relocated on ramp. The bus would exit the freeway just after Mass Ave, stop at Kenmore, then get back on the freeway eastbound at the St Marys St on ramp to go to Logan.

Well, you don't know that unless it's buildable. Right now the Mountfort hillside isn't going to be under consideration for as long as the Urban Ring is in a deep-freeze, so plotting umpteen steps ahead to other speculative EB ramps and what services you're going to run on them isn't realistic speculation. Have to solve the logjam that opens *any* of these ramps up for consideration first before you can draw 2D BRT routes on a map. I would also caution that Pike Expresses are probably not going to be a big mode share once Riverside-turning Urban Rail service on the Worcester Line starts running. Most of the existing 5xx routes are going to immedately go away except for maybe a residual route re-draw or two that scratches some itch the B&A spine doesn't. Much of what your speculative offramp-hopping BRT route serves is going to get a crack at Boston Landing, West, Lansdowne, and Back Bay every 15 minutes on the train schedule with less iffy OTP than the bus in Interstate traffic. Of all the things driving the need for offramps transit is barely going to rate on the list after the 5xx's get their audience majority-subsumed by the Urban Rail schedules.

Finally...St. Mary's??? Ick. That is an absolutely terrible side street for trying to take on any high-capacity volumes, being a one-way and de facto pedestrian plaza in front of the BU Photonics building. I could see if it were a direct ramp onto Mountfort and then traffic gets picked off piecemeal on each successive block, but Town of Brookline and BU are going to take a hard pass at dumping out on one of their side streets. Honestly, there are limits to squeezing blood from stone here. Pickings are limited on what can geometrically be reached on the grid coming out of the Comm Ave. underpass, so if the only physical way to direct-access here is to throw an absolute dumpster fire of an exit queue onto St. Mary's...just stop. Doing literally nothing is better than the damage that would cause. Keeping Soldiers Field Rd. EB as strictly a long Kenmore connector is hands-down better traffic flow than making exiters bang multiple turns around the block from a side street choked with pedestrians.

For I-90 westbound, we might want to build an on ramp and off ramp just to the west of the BU Bridge which would connect to a one lane in each direction road that would go under the BU Bridge exactly where eastbound Storrow/SFR currently does, and connect to University Rd. We probably could build a flyover ramp west of the BU Bridge to feed into that as an eastbound I-90 to University Rd off ramp as well, although I think a potential major concern with this is that we probably don't want University Rd overwhelmed with high speed traffic. (Maybe 10' lanes on University Rd and a 20 MPH posted speed limit would help if we don't let freeway engineers redesign University Rd to be as freeway like as possible?) And a University Rd to I-90 westbound on ramp keeps traffic out of the heart of the BU Bridge / Commonwealth Ave intersection, whereas any off ramps feeding into there have potential to bring too much traffic to an intersection that may already be strained.

I don't geometrically see how this is possible. You've got a solid wall of building massing on Comm Ave. starting at the BU Fine Arts building, a tight riverbank where the curvature of a loop ramp would be bugfuck tight, and an only realistic insertion point for a ramp mere couple dozen feet from the BU Bridge intersection meaning it takes crazy cross-cutting and uey-throwing to get on it in the first place. Same with St. Mary's queue dump...if it makes bad traffic at this busy intersection way, way worse because the only possible geometric exit design is bad geometry....it's not blood the least worth it to try to squeezing from that stone. Leave alone and just move on. When Beacon Park's street grid is infilled (hopefully before the heat death of the universe), there'll be an additional spanning street up in the Babcock area breaking up the currently 2-mile distance between Charlesgate and Harvard Ave. for getting across the Pike. Plus the post-straightening Allston exit being staggered across frontages that can distribute it to spanning streets. So the access problem is not going to be the same as present-day with the new options to get across to the foot of the Allston interchange from BU West. You still need Soldiers Field Rd.'s asynchronous EB load-bearing to reach Kenmore, but even that necessary remainder is not going to be quite so traffic-brittle in the future as it is today with the new grid options infilled around BP.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I'm just going to hop over to this thread since the Red-Blue Connector thread has turned into "let's dogpile on how bad Storrow is" (Very)

Anyways, I'll be focusing on all of Storrow Drive from Leverett Circle to the BU Bridge, and Soldiers Field Rd from the BU bridge to the Eliot Bridge. I think this section of roadway has the strongest case for removal.

Preface:

• The best traffic volume data I can find on Storrow and Soldiers Field is from 2006, but seeing as the road hasn't fundamentally changed since then I think the general proportions and conclusions are still relevant, though the actual numbers probably are not. Here's the data if you'd like to have a look.
• I'm going to call it all Storrow Drive for simplicity's sake. Sorry not sorry Soldier's Field Rd.

Reasons for removal:

1. Storrow Drive mainly serves East-West traffic from the North end to Allston. We already have a road that's even better at doing that: It's called I-90 (And some of 93)
2. The data suggests that most Storrow Drive users are travelling between approximately 3 major places: Watertown and west, the Charlesgate interchange and the fens, and Leverett Circle and I-93/Rt 1. Most other interchanges and intersections along Storrow have significantly less daily traffic volume. Many drivers are likely using Storrow to avoid tolls along I-90, not necessarily because they need to.
3. The Bowker Overpass is falling apart and needs to be either rebuilt, removed, or replaced in the near future. This would allow for a new exit to be build along I-90 instead, reducing the amount of roadway necessary and allowing for the bulk of the overpass to be eliminated, something that local residents have long sought.
4. The I-90 Allston project would be a lot easier (And smaller) if it just needed to be a highway exit rather than... whatever it is currently.
5. And last but not least, the amount of land we've given up for Storrow is frankly staggering. Let's explore what we could do with the area currently taken up by pavement.

Land-use possibilities:

• New apartment complexes near Science Park/West End on the GL
• A large parcel newly available north of the Longfellow Bridge, currently taken up by an interchange and smaller sports facilities. The area could be used for a massively expanded MGH campus or as the ground for a new sports/concert venue (My preference) The sports fields would need to be relocated, but luckily we're not particularly short on space now.
• A massively expanded esplanade park with features such as new gardens, playgrounds, paths, plazas, sports facilities and other public spaces.
• An improved Charlesgate Park centered around the Muddy River and connecting to the Emerald Necklace
• More space for BU dorms and housing
• Improved facilities for BU's rowing team and for the Regatta
• Facilities to return swimming to the Charles River. (Dirty water no more) Let's turn the BU "Beach" into a real beach
• Space for transit along the river. This could be in the form of a busway, tramway, or who knows, maybe even a boat service.
• More space for a new neighborhood made possible by the I-90 project in Allston
• Space for new Harvard facilities

Or literally all of the above, that's how much space we're talking about. It would be a total transformation of over 170 Acres of some of the best land in Boston.

The elephant in the room: Where are those cars going?

• While many trips could be made along I-90, many trips would need to be converted to walking, cycling, or transit. Regional-Rail-ification of the Framingham/Worcester and Fitchburg Lines would likely take a significant number of trips from both I-90 and Storrow while providing parking outside of the city. In addition, we now have a lovely linear corridor that's great for modes such as walking and cycling, and would allow for a new surface light rail or bus alignment, potentially relieving the central subway.
• Traffic and congestion would potentially increase along I-90, but with good transit options the added time cost of driving would result in fewer trips made by car, reducing it again.
• Additional incentives such as congestion pricing could further reduce the number of vehicles in the city if necessary, although this is more of a seperate issue and also assumes the transit system, you know, works.

 

[Stlin]

I'm just going to hop over to this thread since the Red-Blue Connector thread has turned into "let's dogpile on how bad Storrow is" (Very)

Anyways, I'll be focusing on all of Storrow Drive from Leverett Circle to the BU Bridge, and Soldiers Field Rd from the BU bridge to the Eliot Bridge. I think this section of roadway has the strongest case for removal.

Preface:

• The best traffic volume data I can find on Storrow and Soldiers Field is from 2006, but seeing as the road hasn't fundamentally changed since then I think the general proportions and conclusions are still relevant, though the actual numbers probably are not. Here's the data if you'd like to have a look.
• I'm going to call it all Storrow Drive for simplicity's sake. Sorry not sorry Soldier's Field Rd.

Reasons for removal:

1. Storrow Drive mainly serves East-West traffic from the North end to Allston. We already have a road that's even better at doing that: It's called I-90 (And some of 93)
2. The data suggests that most Storrow Drive users are travelling between approximately 3 major places: Watertown and west, the Charlesgate interchange and the fens, and Leverett Circle and I-93/Rt 1. Most other interchanges and intersections along Storrow have significantly less daily traffic volume. Many drivers are likely using Storrow to avoid tolls along I-90, not necessarily because they need to.
3. The Bowker Overpass is falling apart and needs to be either rebuilt, removed, or replaced in the near future. This would allow for a new exit to be build along I-90 instead, reducing the amount of roadway necessary and allowing for the bulk of the overpass to be eliminated, something that local residents have long sought.
4. The I-90 Allston project would be a lot easier (And smaller) if it just needed to be a highway exit rather than... whatever it is currently.
5. And last but not least, the amount of land we've given up for Storrow is frankly staggering. Let's explore what we could do with the area currently taken up by pavement.

Land-use possibilities:

• New apartment complexes near Science Park/West End on the GL
• A large parcel newly available north of the Longfellow Bridge, currently taken up by an interchange and smaller sports facilities. The area could be used for a massively expanded MGH campus or as the ground for a new sports/concert venue (My preference) The sports fields would need to be relocated, but luckily we're not particularly short on space now.
• A massively expanded esplanade park with features such as new gardens, playgrounds, paths, plazas, and other public spaces.
• An improved Charlesgate Park centered around the Muddy River and connecting to the Emerald Necklace
• More space for BU dorms and housing
• Improved facilities for BU's rowing team and for the Regatta
• Facilities to return swimming to the Charles River. (Dirty water no more) Let's turn the BU "Beach" into a real beach"
• Space for transit along the river. This could be in the form of a busway, tramway, or who knows, maybe even a boat service.
• More space for a new neighborhood made possible by the I-90 project in Allston
• Space for new Harvard facilities

Or literally all of the above, that's how much space we're talking about. It would be a total transformation of over 170 Acres of some of the best land in Boston.

The elephant in the room: Where are those cars going?

• While many trips could be made along I-90, many trips would need to be converted to walking, cycling, or transit. Regional-Rail-ification of the Framingham/Worcester and Fitchburg Lines would likely take a significant number of trips from both I-90 and Storrow while providing parking outside of the city. In addition, we now have a lovely linear corridor that's great for modes such as walking and cycling, and would allow for a new surface light rail or bus alignment, potentially relieving the central subway.
• Traffic and congestion would potentially increase along I-90, but with good transit options the added time cost of driving would result in fewer trips made by car, reducing it again.
• Additional incentives such as congestion pricing could further reduce the number of vehicles in the city if necessary, although this is more of a seperate issue and also assumes the transit system, you know, works.

I do think you're missing at least one major piece, which is that from Eliot Bridge inbound Soldiers Field, in combination with Fresh Pond and Alewife Brook Parkways, serves as a major arterial connector providing Route 2 and points northwest with a connection to downtown. In my experience, Rt 2 drivers heading downtown stay on Storrow not because it's not got a toll, but because it gets you downtown just about as quickly. The only reason I'd see to make the switch currently is if you wanted to get to S. station or Seaport, as even Logan is better accessed via the Sumner/Callahan. Basically, I'm not sure that's a realistic ask to cause a highway to dead end into Cambridge and force that traffic onto Memorial Dr, which would just become the next storrow. It already is a relief road in many ways to that traffic demand. The Rt 2 connection would be very poorly served by that, or earlier diversions onto the already heavily burdened Waltham section of 95 and Newton Section of 90, so in my view you'd have to maintain some form of trunk roadway from at least Eliot Bridge to I90.

Granted, any future build could provide that capacity in the form of a new roadway that runs through or under Harvard property to open up the riverfront - something like the following if you ignore the fact that I've plowed straight through a brand new engineering building, and that it would just create a brand new urban highway chasm through the neighborhood.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I do think you're missing at least one major piece, which is that from Eliot Bridge inbound Soldiers Field, in combination with Fresh Pond and Alewife Brook Parkways, serves as a major arterial connector providing Route 2 and points northwest with a connection to downtown. In my experience, Rt 2 drivers heading downtown stay on Storrow not because it's not got a toll, but because it gets you downtown just about as quickly.

In the long-term should we even care about Rt 2 drivers going downtown? With a functional transit system it's hard to imagine driving downtown being a rational choice for basically anyone who doesn't need a car to move a couch or something. Again, congestion pricing can further drive down demand if necessary.

 

[ritchiew]

Reasons for removal:

Great list. I'll add a few more

• The tunnel by the the Hatch Shell needs to be replaced. I can't find the most recent estimates, but I've seen the projected cost ballooning into the $100s of millions. Between this, the Bowker replacement, and the added cost to Allston project, keeping Storrow in roughly it's current functioning state will cost most of $1billion.
• For long stretches there isn't enough room for even the most basic park activities like walking, jogging, and biking. Especially around the BU or Mass Ave bridges, on any relatively nice day, the small path is packed with people. That's technically the Paul Dudley White Bike Path, but on nice days I dismount and walk because it seems rude to bike through that. Meanwhile we've given a 60 foot right of way to cars. In an f'n park.
• The park is pretty inaccessible because of Storrow. When the new pedestrian bridge by Charles/MGH was built, I saw the architect describe it as the "most accessible" way to get to the Esplanade. Which got me wondering if any of the other pedestrian bridges are ADA compliant. Not sure but I think the answer is no. Regardless the ADA standards, anecdotally I've gone to the Esplanade with people who had a rough time getting over one of the older bridges, and I don't think would ever want to go back, in part because of that.
• For lots of reasons we should be discouraging the use of personal vehicles, but that's the only mode of transportation Storrow even allows. Can't even put a bus on it because of the low clearances.
• The noise
• The pollution

Most importantly, though, I think the argument is simply this: We don't want to use our precious riverfront space for a mini-highway. There are questions of traffic planning and construction costs, but I fundamentally see that as besides the point. It's like if someone came up with a fix for traffic and all we need to do is put six lanes through Boston Common and the Public Gardens. Even if their plan would work, guaranteed, I would still say no. I wouldn't need to look at projected traffic reports. It's a simple no, because that's just a special place for lots of reasons, and putting a road through it is fundamentally at odds with its use a public gathering spot. I know the Esplanade doesn't have the history or importance of the Common, but I'd put it in that same category. We've only got one Charles River waterfront. It is a special place people want to congregate. An arterial road leaves little usable space for people actually do that and so it shouldn't be there, regardless the repercussions on car traffic...... I feel like I'm inarticulately dancing around my point, but it's in there somewhere....

 

[Charlie_mta]

There are questions of traffic planning and construction costs, but I fundamentally see that as besides the point. It's like if someone came up with a fix for traffic and all we need to do is put six lanes through Boston Common and the Public Gardens. Even if their plan would work, guaranteed, I would still say no. I wouldn't need to look at projected traffic reports. It's a simple no, because that's just a special place for lots of reasons, and putting a road through it is fundamentally at odds with its use a public gathering spot.

That's exactly how I see the Bowker overpass as well as Sorrow Drive. Thanks for articulating this point so well

 

[TheRatmeister]

Between this, the Bowker replacement, and the added cost to Allston project, keeping Storrow in roughly it's current functioning state will cost most of $1billion.

This really elevates it to a no-brainer, especially with the value of the land. Selling even ~1/3 of it to developers would net somewhere in the range of $220 MILLION of revenue. I agree, there are definitely traffic concerns, but at minimum I would say $220 million would go quite a ways towards solving them, even ignoring all of the other benefits and reduced costs. Should the land be used for something like new housing or a stadium, now there's additional tax revenue coming in to the mix as well. The more I learn about this the more I'm convinced the economics are completely against keeping Storrow at all.

 

[eber]

I also like this whole thing. Makes me smile just thinking about it all.

Or literally all of the above, that's how much space we're talking about. It would be a total transformation of over 170 Acres of some of the best land in Boston.

The elephant in the room: Where are those cars going?

About some traffic concerns towards downtown:

Would removing Storrow Dr (eastbound) in the Back Bay to Beacon Hill (Longfellow Bridge) area necessitate using/modifying Back St at all? I assume it's just used for Back Bay people's garages or back entrances, but I'm not sure.

Or at least, I assume at least there would be a northbound road where the ramps for Storrow are in Beacon Hill. The one-way of Charles St going south until the Common would probably necessitate a small road going north along where onramps/offramps are from the Hatch Shell pedestrian overpass and the Charles/MGH pedestrian overpass. Otherwise there's no way to get up into the Longfellow Bridge/Charles Circle area unless you go from government center due to the one-ways.

At least we'd have a one-lane, one-way street in those areas instead of 5 lanes of ~40mph traffic.

 

[Justbuildit]

I really like this idea and it would do so much to add to the urban experience. Adding surface running transit on 1.5 of the existing lanes would also be a massive boon.

One pain point I see is coming from Logan and Southie/Seaport into back bay or Beacon Hill. Using Logan-Copley as a dummy route Google maps is suggesting an out-back through the Mass Pike U-Turn or via 93-N, Storrow, and onto Mugar Way at Beacon/Arlington. With Storrow out of the picture is the U-turn the best we have? Maybe exit in Seaport and take A along the channel or via South Station/Kneeland? Can't imagine there's capacity under Back Bay for a direct exit off the Pike but the two surface routes I just mentioned are a nightmare anytime near rush hour already.

 

[thepixelnation]

I also like this whole thing. Makes me smile just thinking about it all.

About some traffic concerns towards downtown:

Would removing Storrow Dr (eastbound) in the Back Bay to Beacon Hill (Longfellow Bridge) area necessitate using/modifying Back St at all? I assume it's just used for Back Bay people's garages or back entrances, but I'm not sure.

Or at least, I assume at least there would be a northbound road where the ramps for Storrow are in Beacon Hill. The one-way of Charles St going south until the Common would probably necessitate a small road going north along where onramps/offramps are from the Hatch Shell pedestrian overpass and the Charles/MGH pedestrian overpass. Otherwise there's no way to get up into the Longfellow Bridge/Charles Circle area unless you go from government center due to the one-ways.

At least we'd have a one-lane, one-way street in those areas instead of 5 lanes of ~40mph traffic.

You're mostly right with your understanding of Back St, but something tells me the houses on Back St may have more power over that strip than you'd think.

Based on my memory of how poorly that pothole-ridden road is taken care of to deter drivers from cutting, they may be in charge of the care of that street.

 

[ritchiew]

I really like this idea and it would do so much to add to the urban experience. Adding surface running transit on 1.5 of the existing lanes would also be a massive boon.

One pain point I see is coming from Logan and Southie/Seaport into back bay or Beacon Hill. Using Logan-Copley as a dummy route Google maps is suggesting an out-back through the Mass Pike U-Turn or via 93-N, Storrow, and onto Mugar Way at Beacon/Arlington. With Storrow out of the picture is the U-turn the best we have? Maybe exit in Seaport and take A along the channel or via South Station/Kneeland? Can't imagine there's capacity under Back Bay for a direct exit off the Pike but the two surface routes I just mentioned are a nightmare anytime near rush hour already.

I think for a trip from Logan to Copley, the preferred routing would be Blue to Green line, transferring at Government Center.

Seriously though, getting rid of Storrow would cause transportation problems for some people. The response shouldn't be to figure out new routes for people to drive. It should be to shift people to public transit by making it better. I mean, for the cost of new highway exits, you could build a people mover from the airport to the Blue line.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I also like this whole thing. Makes me smile just thinking about it all.

About some traffic concerns towards downtown:

Would removing Storrow Dr (eastbound) in the Back Bay to Beacon Hill (Longfellow Bridge) area necessitate using/modifying Back St at all? I assume it's just used for Back Bay people's garages or back entrances, but I'm not sure.

Or at least, I assume at least there would be a northbound road where the ramps for Storrow are in Beacon Hill. The one-way of Charles St going south until the Common would probably necessitate a small road going north along where onramps/offramps are from the Hatch Shell pedestrian overpass and the Charles/MGH pedestrian overpass. Otherwise there's no way to get up into the Longfellow Bridge/Charles Circle area unless you go from government center due to the one-ways.

At least we'd have a one-lane, one-way street in those areas instead of 5 lanes of ~40mph traffic.

If I were king, Back Street would stay mostly as is, kind of like an alley, and there would be a one way street running parallel with no street parking.

 

[Charlie_mta]

One pain point I see is coming from Logan and Southie/Seaport into back bay or Beacon Hill. Using Logan-Copley as a dummy route Google maps is suggesting an out-back through the Mass Pike U-Turn or via 93-N, Storrow, and onto Mugar Way at Beacon/Arlington. With Storrow out of the picture is the U-turn the best we have? Maybe exit in Seaport and take A along the channel or via South Station/Kneeland? Can't imagine there's capacity under Back Bay for a direct exit off the Pike but the two surface routes I just mentioned are a nightmare anytime near rush hour already.

It would be relatively easy to add an off-ramp from the WB Pike to Back Bay. Just replace the Cortes Street on-ramp with an off-ramp.
Existing and proposed aerials:

 

[Teban54]

We've only got one Charles River waterfront. It is a special place people want to congregate. An arterial road leaves little usable space for people actually do that and so it shouldn't be there, regardless the repercussions on car traffic......

Technically, there's another waterfront on the Cambridge side, but it's similarly blocked off by a semi-highway that's Memorial Drive - which can also use a road diet for equally convincing reasons.

• The tunnel by the the Hatch Shell needs to be replaced. I can't find the most recent estimates, but I've seen the projected cost ballooning into the $100s of millions. Between this, the Bowker replacement, and the added cost to Allston project, keeping Storrow in roughly it's current functioning state will cost most of $1billion.

This really drives home not only why taking down Storrow makes sense, but it even makes sense right now.

But let's be real here... There's a higher chance of $1 billion being spent on rehabilitating Storrow, than the same $1 billion being spent on improving transit, walking and biking facilities along the corridor (or even just fixing the T). Heck, Red-Blue Connector costs less than $1 billion, and already seems to face uncertainties in funding.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Technically, there's another waterfront on the Cambridge side, but it's similarly blocked off by a semi-highway that's Memorial Drive - which can also use a road diet for equally convincing reasons.

Memorial drive does need a road diet, but it's nowhere near as bad as Storrow, so I'm much more comfortable leaving it mostly as is, perhaps with some minor changes. Obviously if we can make one side of the river into a truly amazing urban place, I think we can afford to settle for "acceptable" on the other bank.

 

[Justbuildit]

I think for a trip from Logan to Copley, the preferred routing would be Blue to Green line, transferring at Government Center.

Seriously though, getting rid of Storrow would cause transportation problems for some people. The response shouldn't be to figure out new routes for people to drive. It should be to shift people to public transit by making it better. I mean, for the cost of new highway exits, you could build a people mover from the airport to the Blue line.

Absolutely agree and the city has given over too much to drivers already. Whether it’s emergency vehicle use, express buses for airport passengers or just an alternative path to get into the core it might make sense to have some redundancy with public transit…especially the MBTA of late.

 

[thepixelnation]

Absolutely agree and the city has given over too much to drivers already. Whether it’s emergency vehicle use, express buses for airport passengers or just an alternative path to get into the core it might make sense to have some redundancy with public transit…especially the MBTA of late.

Honestly express buses for airport passengers could be a sign for a good idea. Maybe adding bus lanes and a silver line along storrow could be a solution in a world where we just choke a couple of lanes out of Storrow. Or even work as a transition point/soft launch of building rail infrastructure in its place.

 

[ritchiew]

Honestly express buses for airport passengers could be a sign for a good idea. Maybe adding bus lanes and a silver line along storrow could be a solution in a world where we just choke a couple of lanes out of Storrow. Or even work as a transition point/soft launch of building rail infrastructure in its place.

The problem is buses don't fit on Storrow because of the low clearances. It is a road synonymous with ripping the roofs off of trucks.

Storrow as-is is really no good for public transportation. You could make the road dip further under Mass Ave and the Longfellow, fix up all the tunnel and all the underpasses along SFR. But at that cost, you should really just be looking at other existing streets to paint bus lanes on, I think.

 

[Charlie_mta]

It would cost billions to deepen the clearances of all the underpasses and tunnels on Storrow and SFR to accommodate busses. Also the perpetual flooding and pumping of the deepened tunnels and underpasses would be unworkable.

 

[Koopzilla24]

The elephant in the room: Where are those cars going?

• While many trips could be made along I-90, many trips would need to be converted to walking, cycling, or transit. Regional-Rail-ification of the Framingham/Worcester and Fitchburg Lines would likely take a significant number of trips from both I-90 and Storrow while providing parking outside of the city. In addition, we now have a lovely linear corridor that's great for modes such as walking and cycling, and would allow for a new surface light rail or bus alignment, potentially relieving the central subway.
• Traffic and congestion would potentially increase along I-90, but with good transit options the added time cost of driving would result in fewer trips made by car, reducing it again.
• Additional incentives such as congestion pricing could further reduce the number of vehicles in the city if necessary, although this is more of a seperate issue and also assumes the transit system, you know, works.

A big contributing factor to Storrow's traffic are commuters to and from Brighton, Watertown, and the Nonantum village of Newton. BPDA analysis of census data found that 49% of Brighton's population drive to work, or over 15,000 people. Of course not all take Storrow but the whole Oak Sq area, where almost half the neighborhood lives, has easier access to that than the Pike and there isn't a high-frequency and high-capacity alternative to downtown. There needs to be big transit improvements to cut down on driving there but would have a huge pay-off for a Storrow removal.

The separate more radical issue that a lot of people do not want to hear is that any downtown expressway shouldn't exist. The reason for all the traffic is having a mode that carries high-speed 6-digit car totals interface with city streets and intersections that can only handle numbers in the thousands per day smoothly. 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). The wider traffic issue itself would be mitigated if there weren't exits for private vehicles downtown. The Pike shouldn't have any exits within city limits for private autos other than the airport (obviously), the Seaport (industrial and full of parking lots), and a potential West Station exit but shouldn't be necessary if the station exists with a Grand Junction connection to Cambridge. The other exits that would remain for commercial and official vehicles only, or overnight general use, are Copley and South Station. The Allston exit would be a commercial vehicle exit if there's no West Station.
This is all assuming a future robust, frequent, and reliable public transit system.