General Infrastructure

[West]

I've been in touch with the project manager. The renders aren't actually renders at this point - just vague concepts of "look what we can maybe possibly do."

What would you like to see done here? Specifically, I mean.

What I really want is T tracks down the middle of the road and a fully re-thought entire plan with way greater emphasis for bikes. But that seems not on the cards for now.

Slide 12 has a note that “City project can progress and not preclude future MBTA station improvements”, to which my first reaction was “yeah right, fat chance.”

On further reading, maybe some of their ideas work for this. I’d love to see the T’s stations along there shift to shared platforms between the tracks. (Here come the brickbats flying at me from aB-ers who hate central platforms on a trolley line.) They propose shifting 6 feet of roadway on the inbound side of the T tracks from outbound street lanes to T ROW, while maintain the ballpark 3 feet of T ROW that extends into the carriageway on the outbound side. If the state ever came up with the cash for a modest B line upgrade – as opposed to the full-blown rethink - then the tracks at stations could flare out to the edges of the ROW as they approach stations and make for shared central platforms of 9.5 feet plus whatever space exists between trains now (2 feet at least I think, maybe 3?). That’d be enough, wouldn’t it? So their concept for now allows for wider T platforms without track realignment – an improvement, though there’d still need to be safety barriers between platform and street. Then later if the T has a bit of cash, they could do flare-outs at stations and have much wider and much safer central platforms.

Now I sit back and wait for one of the transit pros to school me on why I should not want shared central platforms. I am dug in on this, however ignorant I may be on rail knowledge.

I sort of like the elimination of the carriageway in the last block inbound before Harvard. Sort of a toss-in. If I owned one of those businesses I bet I’d hate it.

The bike lanes are better than the zilch that is clearly marked now. However, if the state is really not willing to do a full tear-out and re-build including rethinking the T ROW completely, then I think it’s the bike riders who get short changed the worst. With this far more minimal plan, they’re getting some modest improvements that are probably like table scraps as compared to what kind of feast they would get with a full re-think. So is it worth it doing this sort of tweaking around at all when all improvements are pretty modest? Or would energies be better spent turning the state around? The latter, I’d opine (though uncertainly).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

What I really want is T tracks down the middle of the road and a fully re-thought entire plan with way greater emphasis for bikes. But that seems not on the cards for now.

Slide 12 has a note that “City project can progress and not preclude future MBTA station improvements”, to which my first reaction was “yeah right, fat chance.”

On further reading, maybe some of their ideas work for this. I’d love to see the T’s stations along there shift to shared platforms between the tracks. (Here come the brickbats flying at me from aB-ers who hate central platforms on a trolley line.) They propose shifting 6 feet of roadway on the inbound side of the T tracks from outbound street lanes to T ROW, while maintain the ballpark 3 feet of T ROW that extends into the carriageway on the outbound side. If the state ever came up with the cash for a modest B line upgrade – as opposed to the full-blown rethink - then the tracks at stations could flare out to the edges of the ROW as they approach stations and make for shared central platforms of 9.5 feet plus whatever space exists between trains now (2 feet at least I think, maybe 3?). That’d be enough, wouldn’t it? So their concept for now allows for wider T platforms without track realignment – an improvement, though there’d still need to be safety barriers between platform and street. Then later if the T has a bit of cash, they could do flare-outs at stations and have much wider and much safer central platforms.

Now I sit back and wait for one of the transit pros to school me on why I should not want shared central platforms. I am dug in on this, however ignorant I may be on rail knowledge.

I sort of like the elimination of the carriageway in the last block inbound before Harvard. Sort of a toss-in. If I owned one of those businesses I bet I’d hate it.

The bike lanes are better than the zilch that is clearly marked now. However, if the state is really not willing to do a full tear-out and re-build including rethinking the T ROW completely, then I think it’s the bike riders who get short changed the worst. With this far more minimal plan, they’re getting some modest improvements that are probably like table scraps as compared to what kind of feast they would get with a full re-think. So is it worth it doing this sort of tweaking around at all when all improvements are pretty modest? Or would energies be better spent turning the state around? The latter, I’d opine (though uncertainly).

Yeah, this concept not only precludes moving the reservation...it precludes widening the outbound-side platforms to equal width as the inbound. Go to Harvard Ave. and look at all the people hanging off the railings of that overstuffed outbound side and loitering in the carriage road. Safety problem as well as capacity problem. That's not within scope of project goals? What are your project goals then?

Widened inbound platforms. OK, good. Still staring into the same kill-speed traffic requiring the same concrete-reinforced fencing constraining egress to the same scary crosswalks. But you want to open up the fencing a bit? How? It's the same speed trap. Safety problem as well as capacity problem. That's not within scope of project goals? Why? What are your goals if that's not within it.



I can accept that the B reservation is an immovable object. That's life in budget-constrained times. I'd like to hear them explain why they think it doesn't preclude a move without blowing up the roadway a second time, just because that is eyebrow-raising enough to demand further explanation. But I'll accept an "On second thought, maybe not so feasible. . ." as final answer.

I do not understand why everything B-related is hands-off. Platform access and safety of platform access defined by the roadway layout most definitely is part of the project scope. The road touches (or lackthereof) define that, not the immovable reservation and infrastructure within. So how is it not the road project's problem to address access that falls on the road project's side of the property line when T-specific infrastructure doesn't have to be touched to meaningfully enhance accessibility. Don't shrug that off; tell us how it makes the outbound Harvard Ave. platform safer by eliminating the problem of kids leaning over the railings over the carriage road. A problem set by the dimensions of the road.

They're going to get their asses handed to them in a wider-audience community meeting when they're presenting final alternatives if they keep ducking that question. Don't they know at this point after the rigors of Phases 1 & 2 how tough and opinionated a room B riders are when the subject is Comm Ave.'s future? Yikes. Know thy city, City Hall.

 

[metasyntactic]

On further reading, maybe some of their ideas work for this. I’d love to see the T’s stations along there shift to shared platforms between the tracks. (Here come the brickbats flying at me from aB-ers who hate central platforms on a trolley line.)

Isn't the lack of left-hand front doors on GL cars a problem here? Fare payment would be problematic unless the T also switches to POP with all-door boarding (which would be nice, but...).

The bike lanes are better than the zilch that is clearly marked now. However, if the state is really not willing to do a full tear-out and re-build including rethinking the T ROW completely, then I think it’s the bike riders who get short changed the worst.

Yeah, and I was wondering how these cycletracks would help cyclists who are turning at any of these intersections. Any hope of a protected intersection kind of setup?

 

[West]

Isn't the lack of left-hand front doors on GL cars a problem here? Fare payment would be problematic unless the T also switches to POP with all-door boarding (which would be nice, but...).

Yeah, I am presuming PoP for the left hand entry. But that's such a glaring no-brainer more generally that the optimist side of me keeps believing the T will have no choice but to remove head from ass and implement it. With a shared central platform at intersections, it's easy to have a small modestly priced roofed over set of turnstiles for the PoP. And yes, people could cheat around them easily enough, but no, not many people would actually be so inclined and yes, a few cameras and occasional undercover enforcers would dissuade that.

Yeah, and I was wondering how these cycletracks would help cyclists who are turning at any of these intersections.

Not at all as far as I can tell, on the current sketches. But they are meant to be prelim, so I guess something can get added in.

 

[West]

They're going to get their asses handed to them in a wider-audience community meeting when they're presenting final alternatives if they keep ducking that question.

That would be a good outcome for the short term goal of not shutting the door on a better fix.

I think you're right in other posts, though, the state is the entity that's really failing here.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Yeah, I am presuming PoP for the left hand entry. But that's such a glaring no-brainer more generally that the optimist side of me keeps believing the T will have no choice but to remove head from ass and implement it. With a shared central platform at intersections, it's easy to have a small modestly priced roofed over set of turnstiles for the PoP. And yes, people could cheat around them easily enough, but no, not many people would actually be so inclined and yes, a few cameras and occasional undercover enforcers would dissuade that.



Not at all as far as I can tell, on the current sketches. But they are meant to be prelim, so I guess something can get added in.

If you moved it to the center of the road and Beacon-ed all the asphalt on either side into orderly unity you wouldn't need to consider center islands at all. The center median would be so wide you would have room for full-spec width platforms and probably a grade-separated path too. Total street width is wider than Beacon/C, remember. That one I really wouldn't worry about, as it would take some design FUBAR'ing of epic proportions to center the reservation and lose all the room.

It's inferior boarding procedure for a streetcar or reservation line, anyway. You want front doors close to the crosswalk when possible so alighting doesn't create excessive conflict passing boarders in line on the platform. Skewing it to the back of the train while on an island that's got 1 line of boarders and people on the other-direction side just milling about waiting for their train is a mess. What works at a prepayment station with fare lobby to distribute passengers onto the platform doesn't work so well at street level. There's a reason why streetcars and buses with left-hand doors are such a rarity worldwide.


Not even necessary to go center island on a streetcar where a little stump of a traffic island may be the only landing spot at an intersection from centered street-running tracks. This is how San Fran does right-hand bus + trolley boarding platforms on a street barely as wide as South Huntington and 3 times as busy. Side boarding at street level is preferable everywhere from space-constrained asphalt to the ultra-wide Olmsteadian greenspaces.

 

[West]

My thing for center platforms on B Line is just to get passengers away from the street sides for safety in the unhappy event we can't get a proper rebuild. But clearly if the whole thing was done right, there'd be more than enough space to get safety without center platforms and I'd be happy as a pig in mud with side platforms.

I've not only seen those little islands on Market Street in SF that you linked to, I was living there in the 80s when they put many of them in (there had been a few trial ones installed before I lived there). The howls from drivers!! I've been there lately, everyone seems to have gotten over it just fine. I suppose most current SF residents weren't even born yet in the 80s.....

While on the subject of other space-constrained PoP streetcar systems, I was in Istanbul for the first time this past summer, and was extremely impressed with how well they've squeezed street car lines in on very tight streets and included mini-stations for PoP:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.008...fzi-9l0iRCUQnR7onA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I hope that link works right.

This is a very cramped street with lots of vehicular traffic aside from the rail cars. Unlike every other street in town, absolutely no double parking, no idling of taxis in the way, zero non-compliance on blocking the streetcars. Trains moved smoothly and at decent speed on about 3 or 4 minute intervals, they moved a hell of a lot of riders. Every other street in town was a wild chaos of traffic and double parking, so the enforcement on that street car line must be like a "knee-cap him first, then write the ticket" level of stringent. I also saw not one hint of cheating on the turnstiles, and one of the nights we were there was a Friday evening during Ramadan. Mobs of people out celebrating after sundown, super crowded platforms and tons of people crossing the streets beyond either end of the platforms. The cover for cheating was ample, but I didn't see any at all, and I was looking for it out of curiosity.

The streetcars themselves were pretty awesome too.

If a city sets its mind to it, these things work. Don't even get me started on Tokyo or I'll have to go get drunk from depression thinking how far we fall below that standard.

We've got this super-abundance of space to work with on Comm Ave, and yet we allow it to drift along in a situation where we have multiple potential fatalities up and down the B line every day. Makes me crazy and I don't even commute on that line more than a few times a year. I am amazed there aren't people getting whacked off the edges of those platforms constantly.

If the state won't cough up the money for a proper rebuild, I really despair of that if the city does something half-assed that still costs $100s of Millions, the state will grab the excuse to say "all fixed, yay!" But doing nothing leaves the multiple potential fatalities in play every day.

 

[whighlander]

If the state won't cough up the money for a proper rebuild, I really despair of that if the city does something half-assed that still costs $100s of Millions, the state will grab the excuse to say "all fixed, yay!" But doing nothing leaves the multiple potential fatalities in play every day.

West -- the State has no money for a "Cosmetic Rebuild" of Commonwealth Ave when there is $7B+ of deferred maintenance and other things that need to be done to improve performance, reliability and emergency robustness of the T

And you need't fear that Boston would ever consider doing a

$100s of Millions

infrastructure project -- especially one that would be very hard for the Mayor to "sign-off" on it

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Wait, Professor...I thought roads always paid for themselves in perfect chequebook-balancing harmony? Is there some matter-antimatter physics going on here with that 30 ft. wide gravel bed annihilating the adjoining self-paying pavement at the speed of light?

 

[whighlander]

Wait, Professor...I thought roads always paid for themselves in perfect chequebook-balancing harmony? Is there some matter-antimatter physics going on here with that 30 ft. wide gravel bed annihilating the adjoining self-paying pavement at the speed of light?

F-line --stick to the details on the T infrastructure and operations -- you provide a valuable information resource

No -- I never said that spending an unlimited amount of money on a road would be justified -- Its all about building the road to meet the requirements [local of course but also regional, etc for emergencies, etc.]

However, if you have the money -- sure feel free to splurge -- for example in the Emirates -- where they definitely have the money and also some built-in strange aspects for pricing of utilities --- there is very nice road from Dubai to Al Ain a major city [500k people] built on the site of an ancient Oasis in the desert*1 -- essentially the length of the Turnpike from Boston to Springfield [160 km]

This road is fully irrigated over its entire length with a garden median

This road is also fully lit over its entire length so that you don't need to use headlights even after midnight

No one could possibly justify such an expense on the MassPike


*1 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Ain

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-line --stick to the details on the T infrastructure and operations -- you provide a valuable information resource

No -- I never said that spending an unlimited amount of money on a road would be justified -- Its all about building the road to meet the requirements [local of course but also regional, etc for emergencies, etc.]

However, if you have the money -- sure feel free to splurge -- for example in the Emirates -- where they definitely have the money and also some built-in strange aspects for pricing of utilities --- there is very nice road from Dubai to Al Ain a major city [500k people] built on the site of an ancient Oasis in the desert*1 -- essentially the length of the Turnpike from Boston to Springfield [160 km]

This road is fully irrigated over its entire length with a garden median

This road is also fully lit over its entire length so that you don't need to use headlights even after midnight

No one could possibly justify such an expense on the MassPike


*1 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Ain

So...we have established that irrigating the Comm Ave. Allston Botanical Gardens with imported springwater and installing 1000 suns worth of lighting are beyond-scope of the project. Right-o. Thanks for contributing to the discussion of the actual design the City of Boston has submitted, what the project requirements actually are, and ways to improve therein. I think we can put a bow on this one.

 

[dwash59]

From attending the meeting, I can say:

(1) They seemed to emphasize the idea of restoring/preserving Olmsted's design. Whether there is some historic preservation requirement, or if they just think that would be nice is unclear

(2) Olmsted's design had greenery on both sides, but the T took over the outbound side. Left-side angled parking took out many parts of the inbound side. Eliminating left-side angled parking restores Olmsted's greenery on the inbound side

(3) Olmsted had good sidewalks, but right-side angled parking has given us skinny sidewalks many places, so changing that to parallel parking restore Olmsted's design.

(4) I believe the designers said this was the only place in the city where there was angled parking on a street, effectively creating parking lots on the carriage roads. They said the city is very much opposed to having angled parking on the streets.

(5) They would like to work with the MBTA, but it has become clear that the MBTA will not be making any improvements simultaneously to the stations in this corridor.

(6) The MBTA has said they want to consolidate stops, but they have not said where the stops will be, so the city cannot make any assumptions they will be in the same place or where they will be

(7) They can universally widen the ROW for the T out towards the main road because there is space. This will reserve the space for future ADA upgrades of stations

(8) They cannot universally widen the ROW towards the carriageway because there is not space for parking+cars+bike lane with a widened ROW. If/when the T redoes the stations, the ROW will be widened where necessary at that time.

(9) The T also makes it very difficult to build a plaza on the outbound side at Harvard Ave similar to what they've proposed on the inbound side. Cars could not return to the carriage lane using existing crossings until Allston Street. I'm speculating that adding an additional crossing at Spofford would require a stop sign like at Linden, which would be incredibly annoying.

(10) They seem to be far away from even 25% plans currently. I don't think they've even looked at the intersections of Warren Street (crazy signals + T crossing to center) or Allston Street (ridiculously high rate of crashes)

That's 9 points of my brain dump for now.

 

[Harry Mattison]

These are a lot of wonderful comments about Comm Ave. Comments are due by November 25 to zachary.wassmouth@boston.gov. The more people who care about this project and email Zach, the better it can be. Thanks.

 

[West]

From attending the meeting, I can say:

(1) .....

Thanks for relaying impressions from the meeting, that’s always helpful.

On your points 1 thru 3, the Olmstead related comments, so long as the T has its ROW skewed off to the side and the state isn’t ready to center it like they ought, it’s going to be damned hard to end up with something truly faithful to Olmstead’s ideal. Nice of the city planners to have it as a goal but it seems DOA due to the T.

On point 4, getting rid of angled parking is probably good.

On points 5 thru 8, especially 8, they seem to close the door too much on improving outbound existing T stops without having the city over-commit on spending now.

On the inbound side they’re talking about grabbing 6.5 ft of what is now roadway. Great, that at least gets the inbound platforms somewhat sane.

For the outbound platforms, they say (as you relayed it), “they cannot universally widen the ROW towards the carriageway because there is not space for parking+cars+bike lane with a widened ROW. If/when the T redoes the stations, the ROW will be widened where necessary at that time.” Well, hang on a sec, why would the ROW need to be widened “universally”? Just widen it at the existing platforms, take about half the current carriageway traffic lane for wider platforms, give the other half of the current carriageway travel lane over to the new bike lane, and eliminate the parking along those stretches. Do some street calming humps at crosswalks leading to platforms to force cars to slow, perhaps put some railing along the sidewalk since pedestrians would be losing the buffer of parked cars. At stations with parallel parking it looks like a loss of maybe 12 spots; more at Harvard St where there’s angled parking but they say they want to get rid of that anyway.

If the T ever got around to consolidating / relocating platforms within existing ROW, nothing would be changed on the inbound side so no money wasted there. On the outbound side, there’d be a few places where a previously widened platform would get chopped back and a newly widened platform would get installed, but that’s not massive bucks being wasted. And in the interim all the platforms, inbound and outbound, are widened, without anything precluding station consolidation / relocation.

All this is working within the conceptual framework of leaving the T ROW off center in that stretch and the city doing the best the city can within that constraint. I still think that’s just dumb overall, but maybe this is all that can be done and it would at least get improved cycling and improved platforms. If it did work out OK the T would probably declare victory and never ever consider moving the ROW.

Still a huge shortfall from the potential in a fully reworked scheme.

 

[Shepard]

If the tracks aren't moving, here's a template for what I'd like to see:

(Please ignore vestigial remnants from Google Earth 3D imagery in the road)

Inbound:
- Remove carriage lane completely. Build out 20' sidewalk-plaza, 15' protected path, one lane of parallel on-street parking, and two lanes of traffic with turn lane coming into the intersection.

Median: 15' landscaped median where not encroached by left-turn lanes

Outbound (south side of tracks): Expanded ROW for rail 15' beyond what currently exists. This becomes added platform on the inbound side, and landscaped traffic-calming everywhere else. Then, two lanes of traffic and left-turn lane at the intersection.

North-side carriage lane: 10' sidwalks.
On the stretch with the outbound platform (east side): eliminate all parking. Extend platform 15' beyond where it is currently. 10' remains for traffic; streetscape as a shared space ("woonerf").
On the west-side of the intersection: there's room for one lane of parallel parking plus a 5' buffer of landscaped traffic-calming.

Placemaking: I realize the suspended array of lights might look corny, but this is the kind of thing I had in mind when talking about placemaking earlier with F-Line. A visual definition for the intersection that's unique and also serves the purpose of making the area safer and more accessible.

 

[citylover94]

Kind of a streetmix cross section of Shepard's plan.

I don't know what I am messing up but when I measure the width of Comm Ave on google at Harvard Ave I get 200' and I can only seem to get your plan to fill 168' of that space. What am I doing wrong.

 

[Shepard]

Cool - I love streetmix. You're right that I'm missing some space - I always err on the side of caution if I'm doing something like this. Your streetmix isn't exactly what I outlined above - I have this at 180' total. Here's the breakdown:

Going south to north on the western end of the actual intersection itself I've allocated:
20' sidewalk
15' path
10' pedestrian landing, parking lane away from the intersection
30' two traffic lanes and left-turn lane
5' pedestrian landing (a 15' median when there's no left-turn lane)
20' two traffic lanes
15' pedestrian landing and platform for inbound B line
30' MBTA reservation
5' landscape buffer
10' parking lane (this and above become the outbound platform on the east side)
10' woonferf
10' sidewalk
--
180'

Majority of my cautionary error is unfortunately on the south side of the tracks, so I'd allocate it towards sidewalk and path. Whatever error is on the northside should go equally towards sidewalk and outbound platform (on the east side).

 

[cburns]

If the tracks aren't moving, here's a template for what I'd like to see:

(Please ignore vestigial remnants from Google Earth 3D imagery in the road)

Inbound:
- Remove carriage lane completely. Build out 20' sidewalk-plaza, 15' protected path, one lane of parallel on-street parking, and two lanes of traffic with turn lane coming into the intersection.

Median: 15' landscaped median where not encroached by left-turn lanes

Outbound (south side of tracks): Expanded ROW for rail 15' beyond what currently exists. This becomes added platform on the inbound side, and landscaped traffic-calming everywhere else. Then, two lanes of traffic and left-turn lane at the intersection.

North-side carriage lane: 10' sidwalks.
On the stretch with the outbound platform (east side): eliminate all parking. Extend platform 15' beyond where it is currently. 10' remains for traffic; streetscape as a shared space ("woonerf").
On the west-side of the intersection: there's room for one lane of parallel parking plus a 5' buffer of landscaped traffic-calming.

Placemaking: I realize the suspended array of lights might look corny, but this is the kind of thing I had in mind when talking about placemaking earlier with F-Line. A visual definition for the intersection that's unique and also serves the purpose of making the area safer and more accessible.

I immediately thought of Post Oak Boulevard on the west side of Houston when seeing this rough concept of suspended, structural lighting. Obviously, Houston is a different city and these sleek streetscape treatments would be out of place on Comm Ave, but this concept can and does work in other places.

 

[cden4]

One issue with this concept is that you potentially lose many mature trees in the existing wide median between the main lanes and carriage lane. This is one thing the City mentioned recently, that they want to preserve as many mature trees as possible.

 

[statler]

Anyone know what project is upcoming on Memorial Drive? Most of the trees are being protected, a ton of temporary wooden fencing has been erected, there are hay bales on the shore and booms in the water. Looks like a fairly sizable project but I can't find any information.