Grounding the McGrath

[Vagabond]

Maybe you're an east-sider?

I'm just so tired of all the late night noise from the people racing up to the overpass. Every foot to the east helps create better conditions for trees and also reduces how much noise makes it to my home. :|

What we really need are more Highland-size potholes to slow them down. /s

 

[ritchiew]

What we really need are more Highland-size potholes to slow them down. /s

Sarcasm, but also, yeah. If speeding cars are the problem, that can be fixed with different road designs that slow down cars. I wouldn't wish Highland Ave potholes on anyone, but speedbumps or raised crosswalks are options. (Probably inappropriate here, but they are options.)

The proposal does seem to use other tools to slow down cars, though. Slip lanes are entirely(?) removed. Travel lanes are narrowed slightly (but could maybe be shrunk a bit more). Trees along the road tend to slow drivers down. The proposal has flaws, but these are all big improvements.

 

[LexSEDotVille]

My thinking's changed somewhat now after realizing the state will/would never seek to reduce the width of the right-of-way. I've started thinking that zoning could play the most crucial role in 'right-sizing' the new boulevard. I really hope Somerville considers a re-zoning/corridor plan while the state rebuild project is planned/built.

As someone who lives a block off McGrath, we definitely need more of those access lanes. I want them at the section between Medford and Washington st. It would keep the noise of faster moving traffic further away from homes and smaller businesses.

If anything I want the boulevard roadway moved even more to the east. There are much fewer homes right up on the edge of the property line on that aide and more businesses. (Also, screw Herb Chambers.)

I think an up-zoning along the new McGrath Boulevard (ideally 4-6fl housing/mixed use) would help block surrounding residential neighborhoods from road noise better than any planned trees or any shift in lanes along the corridor (I'm not advocating for reducing plantings). It would obviously take time to infill for the noise benefits, but I don't foresee the state project making any major reductions in noise with street trees (esp at street level).

I'm frankly surprised that most of the corridor (adjacent lots) has not been up-zoned to match the scale of the road in the 60+years since it's construction. Even SomerVision 2040 didn't take it on!

(I do wonder however, without a width reduction, just what scale buildings would feel 'right' along the corridor...)

 

[Longfellow]

This is a bad idea for lots of reasons, but it would be funny to have buildings right up to the curb, no sidewalk/bike lane, and then have all pedestrian access on the other side of the new wall of buildings minus crosswalks. Kind of a open trench for the highway except it's on the ground level.

 

[Charlie_mta]

My thinking's changed somewhat now after realizing the state will/would never seek to reduce the width of the right-of-way. I've started thinking that zoning could play the most crucial role in 'right-sizing' the new boulevard. I really hope Somerville considers a re-zoning/corridor plan while the state rebuild project is planned/built.



I think an up-zoning along the new McGrath Boulevard (ideally 4-6fl housing/mixed use) would help block surrounding residential neighborhoods from road noise better than any planned trees or any shift in lanes along the corridor (I'm not advocating for reducing plantings). It would obviously take time to infill for the noise benefits, but I don't foresee the state project making any major reductions in noise with street trees (esp at street level).

I'm frankly surprised that most of the corridor (adjacent lots) has not been up-zoned to match the scale of the road in the 60+years since it's construction. Even SomerVision 2040 didn't take it on!

(I do wonder however, without a width reduction, just what scale buildings would feel 'right' along the corridor...)
View attachment 47995

I don't like this. The existing width of the corridor presents a great opportunity for an actual "parkway", and it would be a shame to eliminate that strip of open space which would be used by residents of the area,

 

[Ruairi]

I don't like this. The existing width of the corridor presents a great opportunity for an actual "parkway", and it would be a shame to eliminate that strip of open space which would be used by residents of the area,

I do like the idea of maybe bunching all the lanes to one side and having actual useable green space on the other, so maybe bunch all the car lanes with a tiny medium and then a park with one 2 way bike lane and footpath going through it.

What I'd really love to do is leave the overpass structure, take all the motor traffic off it, and put a park with bike and ped access up there. Cars underneath! Make it a focal point. Never gonna happen tho!

 

[as02143]

I think an up-zoning along the new McGrath Boulevard (ideally 4-6fl housing/mixed use) would help block surrounding residential neighborhoods from road noise better than any planned trees or any shift in lanes along the corridor (I'm not advocating for reducing plantings). It would obviously take time to infill for the noise benefits, but I don't foresee the state project making any major reductions in noise with street trees (esp at street level).

Shifting the roadway away plus a pair of tree planting rows plus an access lane with cars parked as buffers will definitely help to reduce road noise to the people who live next to the boulevard.

I'm frankly surprised that most of the corridor (adjacent lots) has not been up-zoned to match the scale of the road in the 60+years since it's construction. Even SomerVision 2040 didn't take it on!

I think the issue is largely the awkward depths of the properties that sit next to the highway today. The Somerville assessor shows as low as 60 feet and as high as 85 feet regularly with the two largest buildings sitting on awkwardly assembled properties. Other sections have properties that are aligned with the side streets and have awkward depths in relation to the highway. It would take either extremely low costs of property or extremely high sales potential to justify assemblage into a single development.

 

[as02143]

This is a bad idea for lots of reasons, but it would be funny to have buildings right up to the curb, no sidewalk/bike lane, and then have all pedestrian access on the other side of the new wall of buildings minus crosswalks. Kind of a open trench for the highway except it's on the ground level.

That's like a disturbed vision of a hausmannian boulevard!

 

[Charlie_mta]

I do like the idea of maybe bunching all the lanes to one side and having actual useable green space on the other, so maybe bunch all the car lanes with a tiny medium and then a park with one 2 way bike lane and footpath going through it.

What I'd really love to do is leave the overpass structure, take all the motor traffic off it, and put a park with bike and ped access up there. Cars underneath! Make it a focal point. Never gonna happen tho!

I agree with leaving the total right-of-way width as is, but compressing the roadway to provide room for a wider green space (With ped and bike trails).

As for the overpass, 30 years ago I had a similar idea for the old elevated Central Artery: make it into a NYC "High Line" type structure, an elevated Greenway with greenery and trails.

 

[LexSEDotVille]

I don't like this. The existing width of the corridor presents a great opportunity for an actual "parkway", and it would be a shame to eliminate that strip of open space which would be used by residents of the area,

I'm not advocating for the elimination of open space... I think if the state is going to stick with the wide corridor, the plan is relatively well balanced. I just think the surrounding parcels should be up-zoned to meet the scale of the right-of-way and the urban context.

That's like a disturbed vision of a hausmannian boulevard!

I'm wondering if including the diagram threw ppl off. I included it to spark discussion that if McGrath is 180ft wide, the recommended building heights for adjacent buildings to feel 'comfortable/human scale' would be 2:1 - 90ft or 3:1 - 60ft tall (much higher than the heights along it currently). Was not included to indicate any actual configuration suggestion - just urban scale/design principles.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I'm not advocating for the elimination of open space... I think if the state is going to stick with the wide corridor, the plan is relatively well balanced. I just think the surrounding parcels should be up-zoned to meet the scale of the right-of-way and the urban context.



I'm wondering if including the diagram threw ppl off. I included it to spark discussion that if McGrath is 180ft wide, the recommended building heights for adjacent buildings to feel 'comfortable/human scale' would be 2:1 - 90ft or 3:1 - 60ft tall (much higher than the heights along it currently). Was not included to indicate any actual configuration suggestion - just urban scale/design principles.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were proposing to narrow the corridor to make it more "urban".

 

[Equilibria]

Made a quick mockup of what I previously suggested - returning some of the width of McGrath back to Somerville to be rezoned to better stitch together the neighborhoods, improve ped experience, and reduce the excess right-of-way width. (Open to suggestions, and very rough)

(would probably flip bus lane on W side of Washington - not depicted, E side of McGrath could be further narrowed)
View attachment 47861

View attachment 47863

As a variation on this, I'd actually leave the north side alone and just rezone the far more underdeveloped south side, shifting the lanes north. In fact, you don't even really need to do that, since there's such a wide buffer on the south side right now you'd mostly be narrowing the planted median. I understand the need for the carriage road and think it needs to stay.

 

[as02143]

I'm wondering if including the diagram threw ppl off. I included it to spark discussion that if McGrath is 180ft wide, the recommended building heights for adjacent buildings to feel 'comfortable/human scale' would be 2:1 - 90ft or 3:1 - 60ft tall (much higher than the heights along it currently). Was not included to indicate any actual configuration suggestion - just urban scale/design principles.

Responding not to the diagram - that seems to be an awfully standard diagram now - rather - responding to the idea that @Longfellow said about essentially flipping the script -- building up to the highway or boulevard edge and then only accommodating pedestrians at points to get across the new McGrath and then keeping the main pedestrian and cyclist access on the "back" side of the building.

 

[as02143]

What we really need are more Highland-size potholes to slow them down. /s

"Natural" traffic calming is what one of the public works people called those potholes during a Resistat meeting a couple years ago.