Grounding the McGrath

[davem]

And there is parallel parking.

Whoops, I blew through to where they were thinking either parking or bike lanes. You are correct.


As for the green space, the roadway should run parallel with the west side that currently has a defined streetwall, with a minimum 20' sidewalk (preferably wider to accommodate a cycle track). On the other side, the parts that are too narrow should be deeded to the adjacent landowners, so that they may then redevelop the parcels down the road to front the new boulevard. The whole point of 'pedestrianising' these roads is not just to pave sections for bikes and pedestrians, you need to also have things for them to do and walk by.

Right now, the green space limits how successful a build out of the east side can be. The 10' sidewalks are too narrow for cafe tables or other street furniture, and would also be difficult to accommodate street trees. The configuration of the roadway is for 3 11' travel lanes and one 8 foot parking stall. I see no accommodation for bicycles there, and certainly not cycle tracks. The report hints that bicycle facilities will be added in later, but that simply shows they are not evaluating it as part of the roadway design, but an afterthought. Either the parking will go, or they will be door zone 5' bike lanes.

I also take some issue with how all the designs keep prioritize the intersections towards a Route 28 configuration. IMO, the two discontinuous parts of Medford Street should be resigned as one, with the northern intersection constructed in a way that gives a clear indication that proceeding east is a different road. In the south, the Somerville Ave designation should be extended all the way to Levrett Circle, with the Somerville Ave/Medford Street intersection similarly reconstructed to clearly show it is two roads intersecting, not a sweeping curve. The only place the McGrath designation should be retained is from the Lowell Line to where it crosses under 93 and becomes the Fellsway. The Boston area is GREAT at doing squares, so this is what they should be trying to create here. There is a chance to build out three new neighborhood centers here, and with all the industrial land they could be built up very well. None of these highway designs take into account future development in any meaningful way.

 

[fattony]

I also take some issue with how all the designs keep prioritize the intersections towards a Route 28 configuration. IMO, the two discontinuous parts of Medford Street should be resigned as one, with the northern intersection constructed in a way that gives a clear indication that proceeding east is a different road. In the south, the Somerville Ave designation should be extended all the way to Levrett Circle, with the Somerville Ave/Medford Street intersection similarly reconstructed to clearly show it is two roads intersecting, not a sweeping curve. The only place the McGrath designation should be retained is from the Lowell Line to where it crosses under 93 and becomes the Fellsway. The Boston area is GREAT at doing squares, so this is what they should be trying to create here. There is a chance to build out three new neighborhood centers here, and with all the industrial land they could be built up very well. None of these highway designs take into account future development in any meaningful way.

Some good ideas there. Especially regarding the southern intersection. They have it taking up double the space it needs just to keep it looking like a highway. They can reclaim so much more land by shrinking that down to "square" size.

The northern intersection has less issues to my eye and has less potential for vibrancy anyway. That doesn't mean they should leave anything on the table for no good reason, but it looks passable as drawn.

None of these intersections are going to come out well with the 6-lane plan. Everything still needs a diet.

 

[Equilibria]

From what I hear, STEP is encouraging everyone and anyone to submit comments.

Need more people to remind MassDOT that they aren't doing anyone any favors by expanding the replacement roadway to 6 lanes. Their passive-aggressive response was pretty lame.

When designing a 6-lane urban boulevard, the question should always be: "Is there a way this could be 4 lanes with light rail in the middle?" McGrath has the interesting quality of lining up almost perfectly with the Grand Junction on one end. If a light rail line could be extended through Assembly Square and across the Mystic, it's an Urban Ring routing to get from Chelsea to Cambridge.

 

[George_Apley]

Huh? There will be already be two green line branches right around here, and an easy Urban Ring routing from Chelsea to the Grand Junction on existing ROWs.

 

[davem]

I'm working on an alternate proposal in my spare time, I'll post it in a few days. Versus searching the internet for ever, does anyone have the figures on:

1) Traffic volumes on Comm Ave, before and after the reduction from six to four lanes

2) Traffic volume on the McGrath

3) the average costs associated with the maintance of one lane of roadway (this one may be a stretch to find)

4) the increase in tax assessments in the Fenway as it is built up

5) a study with hard numbers showing a coorilation between heavy investment in bike infastructure (aka a legit cycle track network) and reduced local traffic.

6) any other data that may be pertanant to downgrading this highway to a local street network.


Thanks in advance, and sorry for the poor cell phone spelling

 

[ant8904]

1) Traffic volumes on Comm Ave, before and after the reduction from six to four lanes

2) Traffic volume on the McGrath

These two numbers seems to quite important questions that is still hanging. The general sentiment seems to be strongly against 6 lanes. What we know as fact is McGrath has been declining in volume since the Big Dig. Also big roads tend to make surrounding area less desired and thus less kept well.

Meanwhile they are justifying that the numbers says it should be 6 lanes. Also the roads before and after is also 6 lanes.

Also, as a random thought with McGrath with arterial vs urbanity. Most traffic on the road tend to stem more from cross intersections than pure number of cars overwhelming the road. Wouldn't a compromise solution be an Memorial Drive style underpass at Washington St and another at Somerville minimize congestion while also allowing the two sides to be better connected urbanly? They seem intend to spend a lot of money regardless of approach, while taking public comment.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

These two numbers seems to quite important questions that is still hanging. The general sentiment seems to be strongly against 6 lanes. What we know as fact is McGrath has been declining in volume since the Big Dig. Also big roads tend to make surrounding area less desired and thus less kept well.

Meanwhile they are justifying that the numbers says it should be 6 lanes. Also the roads before and after is also 6 lanes.

Also, as a random thought with McGrath with arterial vs urbanity. Most traffic on the road tend to stem more from cross intersections than pure number of cars overwhelming the road. Wouldn't a compromise solution be an Memorial Drive style underpass at Washington St and another at Somerville minimize congestion while also allowing the two sides to be better connected urbanly? They seem intend to spend a lot of money regardless of approach, while taking public comment.

I don't know about that. Somerville Ave. intersection isn't very crowded at all, in part because of the desolation created by McGrath at its widest point. And Washington sucks more because the intersection is so batshit-configured with up to 3 light cycles just to get through some legs of that not-quite-rotary and such short and choppy distances between lights that the queues get all fucked up. Model me a design with simple left-turn lanes long enough to handle a decent protected-turn queue first and see how that handles the same volumes before we start mission creeping parts of a new overpass into the design.

I bet if it was just a sanely-laid intersection on 1 regular cycle + 1 set of protected left cycles it would be plenty good and plenty an improvement. If Broadway and McGrath can handle that, Washington and McGrath can handle that. Probably with fewer total lane count to boot.


Also, the Medford St./McGrath intersection probably doesn't need many improvements at all. Its biggest problem today is that there's so little merging space northbound when the overpass meets the surface ramp from Washington & Cross that the weaving hard-left and hard-right gets compressed into barely 200 ft. of running space. That problem goes away when everything is at-grade, and NB no longer needs 5 frickin' lanes to manage this one light. 2 thru + 1 protected left will do it, and there'll be all the run-up space in the world from the Washington intersection. The Medford St. turn lanes onto SB can get compacted from 3 to 2 (possibly with permissive right turns on red) also not needing to do a weave-a-thon southbound. And that in turn shortens the light cycles to help the mostly unimprovable McGrath SB queues sitting on the bridge.


Defective design that can't do anything right doesn't automatically require a capacity-increaser or capacity-maintainer as a replacement. Remember, that's what MassDOT wants you to believe. Sometimes the not-defective design punches way above its weight and does much more with much less. That is almost certainly what we're looking at here. The state has to show some conclusive proof that a boulevard with straightforward intersections absolutely cannot handle current volumes before they start re-adding divided highway features to this thing. That's doubly important on an all-timer FAILway like this one that breaks every rule of sane queue management at those intersections.

 

[kjdonovan]

First public meeting in a while is tomorrow in Somerville...


McGrath Highway/McGrath Boulevard Project Public Meeting
Thursday, July 17, 2014, 6:30 -8:30 p.m.
Agenziano School Cafetorium
290 Washington Street, Somerville

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation and the City of Somerville invite you to a public information meeting for the McGrath Highway/McGrath Boulevard Project. The purpose of this meeting is to introduce the Somerville community to the next phase of the McGrath Highway/McGrath Boulevard Project. This new stage begins where the Grounding McGrath planning study ended and will undertake the design work and environmental review associated with the long-term conversion of the elevated McCarthy Overpass into an at-grade boulevard with “complete streets” style bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.

The meeting will also provide residents and other area stakeholders with an opportunity to learn about the status of the short-term improvements to the McGrath Highway corridor and to meet MassDOT’s project team for the current phase of work. Following the presentation, MassDOT staff will facilitate a discussion to hear comments and answer questions.

 

[kjdonovan]

At Union Square meeting last night, MassDOT engineers speculated that 2021 would be the earliest date for demolishing the McCarthy overpass. This would be post Green Line extension, which requires the existence of the current McGrath infrastructure for its buildout along the Lowell line.

MassDOT team with the McGrath project is talking with GLX team on logistics for this post-GLX. Of course, there is no funding...

 

[George_Apley]

At Union Square meeting last night, MassDOT engineers speculated that 2021 would be the earliest date for demolishing the McCarthy overpass. This would be post Green Line extension, which requires the existence of the current McGrath infrastructure for its buildout along the Lowell line.

MassDOT team with the McGrath project is talking with GLX team on logistics for this post-GLX. Of course, there is no funding...

Hmm. I'm not really seeing where the Lowell Line interacts with the McCarthy Overpass... but if they see a linkage, all the power to them.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Hmm. I'm not really seeing where the Lowell Line interacts with the McCarthy Overpass... but if they see a linkage, all the power to them.

Lowell Line crosses under the McGrath Highway just north of the Medford Street intersection. Reworking that intersection and that bridge would certainly be part of any grounding effort.

 

[George_Apley]

Lowell Line crosses under the McGrath Highway just north of the Medford Street intersection. Reworking that intersection and that bridge would certainly be part of any grounding effort.

But that isn't part of the "grounding" itself is it? I thought the grounding was just the McCarthy Overpass section that flies over Washington St and Somerville Ave. I get that the intersection would need to be redone, but the bridge?

 

[FK4]

The McGrath refers to that entire section of Route 28. The part that passes over the lowell line is planned to remain as far as I know. The only grounding that's happening is for the rest of the viaduct that was built to bypass Washington Street. Edit, yeah as busses said.. The McCarthy = the viaduct over Washington, not the brige over the tracks.

 

[kjdonovan]

The process of grounding McCarthy would include reworking the entire roadway from the Lowell line bridge to the Fitchburg line—narrowing the roadway, reconfiguring outdated lanes and intersections, adding bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

Could they do most of the work at the same time as GLX? Sure. But saying it will happen post GLX gives a date to work toward for funding.

Lot of conversation in the Union Square meetings about new connectivity between Washington St station and Union Square proper. That is directly linked to the McCarthy coming down. There will be a decade between the new stations opening and the McGrath project wrapping up, but at least it's just one decade!

 

[FK4]

it's too bad they dont plan to sink the lowell line (and the green line as it crosses to head toward union). itll be terrific to get down part of the elevated highway, but ideally we'd have street level all the way from lechmere to medford st.

 

[The EGE]

You mean the Fitchburg Line? There's not very much you can drop it - the MBTA CR maintenance facility leads, the Grand Junction, and the freight leads around the back of the maintenance facility would make much vertical movement difficult.

 

[FK4]

yes, fitchburg line, but the yards etc are on the far side of the bridge. its not happening, at any rate, but doesnt seem THAT infeasible.

 

[George_Apley]

yes, fitchburg line, but the yards etc are on the far side of the bridge. its not happening, at any rate, but doesnt seem THAT infeasible.

The inclines necessary to manage it for the CR and freight moves would make it a lot more difficult than it sounds.

 

[FK4]

Fair enough. Obviously grounding the rest of the highway will be a huge improvement. With reasonable lane redesign of the remaining bridge, some of the problems it imposes will be attenuated.

 

[tangent]

When designing a 6-lane urban boulevard, the question should always be: "Is there a way this could be 4 lanes with light rail in the middle?" McGrath has the interesting quality of lining up almost perfectly with the Grand Junction on one end. If a light rail line could be extended through Assembly Square and across the Mystic, it's an Urban Ring routing to get from Chelsea to Cambridge.

I know I am responding to an old post, but I've been mulling over Grand Junction as BRT by day and train by night (which is my understanding that it is limited to primarily nighttime train use because of the at grade crossings) and this post caught my eye.

Seems worthwhile to explore the BRT option for Grand Junction now and consider how that would interface with the road network/stations at either end. Perhaps some dedicated BRT lanes on some segments of the grounded McGrath over to one of the new stations.

Moves toward a BRT based urban ring from Chelsea over to the new West Station with a short segment possibly along McGrath.