General Infrastructure

Charlie_mta said:
The above link Brick Top provided on another thread has an interesting proposal for Storrow Drive at Hatch Shell that I hadn't seen before. Looks like it would provide an at-grade uninterrupted pedestrian corridor from Beacon Street to Hatch Shell and the Esplanade:
52805086385_53cd74b3cb_o.jpg
Click to expand...

This is the most obvious statement to literally any Bostonian, but this would be a big improvement. The (recently "restored") Fielder footbridge is a pathetic main gateway from the Public Garden to the Esplanade, especially when compared to more recent designs like the Appleton bridge at Charles Circle. The corner intersection at Arlington and Beacon is still a problem with this design - a challenging bottleneck for pedestrians (including stranding people on the traffic island), a light signal with Beacon getting a green arrow at an unintuitive time, traffic flowing into Arlington simultaneously from both directions on Beacon leading to traffic conflicts, etc.

It would also be extremely beneficial as a public good if the tunnel was extended to the east from the at-grade deck pictured to well beyond the Hatch Shell. It's silly for a public music (and movie) venue to be at times inaudible due to general tire/traffic roar, emergency sirens, revving engines of motorcycles and sport cars, etc. You can even leave Mugar for surface access, just drop Storrow.

I've written elsewhere, either here on Universal Hub, about my dreams for a road-diet or outright elimination of much of Storrow, which would require strategic use of the the Pike for crosstown travel by adding new on/off-ramps, perhaps expanding Blue Line access from Charles/MGH down to Kendall (and beyond), as well as making the bitter pill of a Little Dig (which would largely benefit tony Back Bay and Beacon Hill residents) go down a bit easier by also adding a thin strip of rowhouses that could serve as (architecturally-contextual) affordable or mixed rental housing, provide space for public amenities for park users like restrooms and food venues, contain groundwater pump stations, as well as be designed as a berm for any rainwater-driven surges from the Charles.
 
Here's a General Infrastructure comment and question... we have a number of bridges over the Pike which have somewhat extreme grades. While basically ignorable in a vehicle, they present challenges for pedestrians and cyclists (particularly with disabilities), cause cars and trucks to accelerate which creates noise pollution, and blocks sight lines which increase the risk of accidents. I'm thinking in particular of:
I realize that these bridges have to make room for the legal highway heights PLUS the trains (often including catenary electric), and they also have to interface with legacy infrastructure that may have been built to that level (Clarendon St. at Back Bay Station for instance ties into the bus loop as well as the garage entrance), but is there anything that could be done to help reduce some of these "bridge hills" with future infrastructure work? Perhaps newer bridge techniques or materials that don't require such a thick platform?
 
MjolnirMan said:
Here's a General Infrastructure comment and question... we have a number of bridges over the Pike which have somewhat extreme grades. While basically ignorable in a vehicle, they present challenges for pedestrians and cyclists (particularly with disabilities), cause cars and trucks to accelerate which creates noise pollution, and blocks sight lines which increase the risk of accidents. I'm thinking in particular of:
I realize that these bridges have to make room for the legal highway heights PLUS the trains (often including catenary electric), and they also have to interface with legacy infrastructure that may have been built to that level (Clarendon St. at Back Bay Station for instance ties into the bus loop as well as the garage entrance), but is there anything that could be done to help reduce some of these "bridge hills" with future infrastructure work? Perhaps newer bridge techniques or materials that don't require such a thick platform?
Click to expand...
A bridge's superstructure (beams + deck) can be thinner with these types of bridges: truss, tied-arch, and cable-stayed. And, of course there is the other option of lowering the tracks and Turnpike a few feet. a much more expensive and disruptive way to fix the problem you cited.
 
MjolnirMan said:
Here's a General Infrastructure comment and question... we have a number of bridges over the Pike which have somewhat extreme grades. While basically ignorable in a vehicle, they present challenges for pedestrians and cyclists (particularly with disabilities), cause cars and trucks to accelerate which creates noise pollution, and blocks sight lines which increase the risk of accidents. I'm thinking in particular of:
I realize that these bridges have to make room for the legal highway heights PLUS the trains (often including catenary electric), and they also have to interface with legacy infrastructure that may have been built to that level (Clarendon St. at Back Bay Station for instance ties into the bus loop as well as the garage entrance), but is there anything that could be done to help reduce some of these "bridge hills" with future infrastructure work? Perhaps newer bridge techniques or materials that don't require such a thick platform?
Click to expand...

Clicking on your berkeley st link, what is this building?
IMG_8464.jpeg


At first I thought it was a vent building but looking at the aerial its not. Its connected to back bay station. Is it an old access point? Why not make it another entrance into the station from berkeley st?
 
So just messing around on Google, the address is 90-92 Berkeley St in Boston. Searches for that address and what comes up as Mott Iron Works. So while on satellite images the building is on top of the NEC rail line, my best guess is that this is a power substation. On the other hand, I got some interesting photos from the interwebs. The one that I attached is from an eBay sale.
eBay Link
s-l500.jpg
 
This comes up as the other side of the mott ironworks building. Im guessing this was demolished in order for the nec to be built and whatever is there now is some kind of substation or something.
1683427994837.jpeg
 
The only other information I can find is that the entire stretch from Columbus to Berkeley is Tax Parcel 0501004000 owned by the MBTA:
Screenshot 2023-05-07 at 11.03.51 AM.png


I also had always assumed it was some kind of power substation for the T/Amtrak. Nice brickwork and wooden door, though.
 
New news for streets in Boston:

www.nbcboston.com

More Speed Humps Coming to Boston in Major New Street Safety Initiative

Boston is set to ramp up the number of its streets with speed humps as part of a major new initiative to make the city safer for all, Mayor Michelle Wu announced Monday. Under the Safety Surge program, the city will no longer place speed bumps on streets where residents ask for them. Instead...
www.nbcboston.com www.nbcboston.com
 
Speed bumps always come across as lazy. Theres much better ways to slow down traffic, the main way is making the streets much less wide, designing curves, adding trees, making one way streets 2 way streets, on street parking, protected bike lanes, bus lanes, street cars etc. Hopefully this is just a temporary solution until more permanent solutions can be implemented.
 
stick n move said:
Speed bumps always come across as lazy. Theres much better ways to slow down traffic, the main way is making the streets much less wide, designing curves, adding trees, making one way streets 2 way streets, on street parking, protected bike lanes, bus lanes, street cars etc. Hopefully this is just a temporary solution until more permanent solutions can be implemented.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but one of the things that excites me about this announcement is that speed humps can be scaled up and deployed very quickly, even compared to other quick-build traffic calming interventions. The city's map for where they could do speed humps is extensive, too - would be great to see Boston keep this commitment and roll it out ASAP: https://www.boston.gov/making-neighborhood-streets-safer
 
stick n move said:
Speed bumps always come across as lazy. Theres much better ways to slow down traffic, the main way is making the streets much less wide, designing curves, adding trees, making one way streets 2 way streets, on street parking, protected bike lanes, bus lanes, street cars etc. Hopefully this is just a temporary solution until more permanent solutions can be implemented.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I consider myself a pretty anti-car, pro-transit and pro-safety dude. But even I usually just return to whatever speed I was at within 1min of slowing down for the hump.

I’d love to see data on the extent to which speed bumps actually reduce accidents in residential areas with already low speed limits. They come across as just annoying without much benefit; a lot like those radar signs that start blinking “slow down” when you reach 30-35mph.
 
Blackbird said:
Yeah. I consider myself a pretty anti-car, pro-transit and pro-safety dude. But even I usually just return to whatever speed I was at within 1min of slowing down for the hump.

I’d love to see data on the extent to which speed bumps actually reduce accidents in residential areas with already low speed limits. They come across as just annoying without much benefit; a lot like those radar signs that start blinking “slow down” when you reach 30-35mph.
Click to expand...

I'd take a dozen speed bumps interspaced with rumble packs on my street. Alas, it looks like it doesn't qualify even though people easily bump 50+ down it (25 mph "limit") and just blow through red lights like nothing - I'd love them if only for people like that to just bottom out and wreck their undercarriage. I say this as in my 8 years here so far I've had one dude cannonball into my retaining wall and somehow manage to drive away with no front end (I'd guess not sober, we were away and the tenants didn't get the plates). Another driver managed to launch into my neighbor's (across the street) front yard taking out a fence and shrubbery, hitting his tree I guess luckily instead of the house. Then there have been 5+ instances of the various stop lights (corner right next to us) being just demolished by drivers. It's pure insanity and absolutely no enforcement or care from the city.
 
Blackbird said:
Yeah. I consider myself a pretty anti-car, pro-transit and pro-safety dude. But even I usually just return to whatever speed I was at within 1min of slowing down for the hump.

I’d love to see data on the extent to which speed bumps actually reduce accidents in residential areas with already low speed limits. They come across as just annoying without much benefit; a lot like those radar signs that start blinking “slow down” when you reach 30-35mph.
Click to expand...

In general, the idea is that the road has multiple speed humps on it, designed (for example) for the humps to be crossed over at 15mph and spaced so that cars can only accelerate to around 25 mph before having to slow down for the next one (don’t remember exact numbers but I think it’s around every 300 feet or so). You’re right that a single speed hump won’t really do anything, but multiple will. Anecdotally, I often walk along a road that had a set of them installed recently and it does seem to work- the cars can’t get much above 25mph even if they tried before the next hump. I’d also be curious to see any data backing that up though.
 
Ideally I'd prefer if private motorcars never had any oppertunity to get above 20 MPH, and for these metal boxes to stay under the European standard of 30 KM/H. 25 MPH still seems uncomfortably high. It would be best for the speed humps to be placed in a manner that gaz guzzlers can never go above 20 MPH. Of course, making streets into a complicated obstacle course, like they are in many European cities, would be even better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top