cden -- not only is it obvious that you've never driven Storrow or the Pike at rush hour -- it's fairly obvious that you haven't even looked at the TV Traffic maps......
What a pompous ass.
.
cden -- not only is it obvious that you've never driven Storrow or the Pike at rush hour -- it's fairly obvious that you haven't even looked at the TV Traffic maps......
You seem to be completely ignoring what he said about this being entirely out of line with the stated goals of reducing single person auto trips by 50%cden -- not only is it obvious that you've never driven Storrow or the Pike at rush hour -- it's fairly obvious that you haven't even looked at the TV Traffic maps.
Under ideal circumstances the traffic flows slowly if acceptably. Add in any disruption and its essential to have a Plan B. One compromise would be keep the number of lanes but make one each way a breakdown lane [open for travel during rush hour].
The major improvement to the rebuilt Storrow and the Pike is in terms of auxillary structures in addition to the travel lanes. Both the Pike and Storrow were constructed in an era before universal breakdown lanes and similar auxiliaries to the travel lanes as well as inadequate arrangements for merging. I suspect that you could give up one full travel lane for breakdown and expanded merging. The footprint would not get any narrower than it is today -- but it might function more efficiently.
Ideally all the auxiliaries would be added to the existing four travel lanes and even more ideal -- more exits [W bound] and entrances [E bound] would be added where they were never included in the original layout.
Citylover -- it doesn't work that wayThe federal gov't isn't allowing any new sections of breakdown lane travel and that is honestly worse imo than just not having a lane. Either way it would never be approved so that doesn't matter. I think taking it down by one lane in each direction would be okay and would in the long run encourage less people to drive into the city and instead take transit.
KCasiglio -- I'm not ignoring his repeating of theYou seem to be completely ignoring what he said about this being entirely out of line with the stated goals of reducing single person auto trips by 50%
City's GoBoston 2030 plan looks to reduce the percentage of people driving alone to work by 50% by 2030,
There is only one way that the goal could be achieved -- the same way Detroit did it -- empty the city out by killing the economy
Might be a good time to just knock it all down and build the road on the ground. Get it done while people aren't on the roads. Half joking, just half.
Stick -- that 's a good ideaNa not even joking they should. Definitely they should run double shifts, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, 12 on 12 off like I did on deployments. Works great when necessary.
No one could have predicted this, but as bad as its going to be for everyone, if there is a way to use it to our advantage in some way we pretty much have no choice but to.
Adam Vaccaro said:The biggest Boston highway project in a generation could veer in yet a new direction or even make a U-turn, after the latest plan to squeeze 12 lanes of traffic into a narrow strip of land along the Charles River in Allston has come under withering criticism.
[...]
While the state declined to comment on possible changes to the project, Pollack has previously acknowledged she was undertaking a close review of the current plan. Officials have indicated they are considering everything from minor tweaks to major changes after being taken aback by the high level of pushback to the current plan over the fall and winter.
[...]
[T]he initial support for her proposal has since collapsed, after neighborhood, environmental, and transportation groups objected to several aspects of the state’s construction plan as details unfolded in the following months. Some have complained that it is too highway-centric, putting cars before environmental considerations such as recreation along the river. A scheme to relocate Soldiers Field Road over the Charles River on a “temporary” basis during construction, they noted, could last for a decade, and the state has also refused to add a footbridge for easier pedestrian access to the waterfront.
Another pressing issue is that the construction schedule could lead to severe disruptions on the commuter rail for years.
[...]
Harry Mattison, an Allston resident who has been involved in the project for years, is also worried that Pollack will default to rebuilding the existing highway viaduct out of frustration and mounting costs.
Elevating SFR on a viaduct on top of the eastbound Mass Pike lanes (all of which would be on the surface) is the best option for maximizing park/trail space and quality of experience along the throat area, It pulls the elevated SFR viaduct away from the river and trail. and reduces the footprint of the roadways by 4 lanes, compared to the option of having SFR and Mass Pike both on the surface side-by-side.
So they've essentially decided to rebuilt the Pike viaduct.
Is there some reason why most of SFR can't go underneath the outbound side of the new viaduct?
Yeah I'm confused. Isn't this the exact configuration that's there now??
So they've essentially decided to rebuilt the Pike viaduct.
Is there some reason why most of SFR can't go underneath the outbound side of the new viaduct?
It's the same config compressed slightly, so there's a BIT more room for the bike path.
The other new constraint (at least one I hadn't seen highlighted) was that the MBTA has now asked for a $300M southside CR maintenance facility for either of the at-grade options (since they require a 6-8 year closure of the GJ). I think prior documents had suggested that they'd use the Ayer runaround during that time. The question for me is: if $300M gets the MBTA free of non-revenue moves on the GJ, have they just put a down payment price on light rail conversion? Why does this new maintenance facility have to be temporary? Also, where does it go?