Overpasses in and around Boston

[Matthew]

Does anyone have the usage statistics on the McGrath vs the section of Comm Ave they just rebuilt through BU?

http://mhd.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Mhd&mod=

Go nuts. The interface is a bit hard to use though.

Here's what I pulled up: in 2010, Comm Ave adjacent to BU West counted 35,930 vehicles per day (both ways). In 2011, McGrath Highway near BET counted 32,478 vehicles per day (both ways). This is AADT, which is a value adjusted according to some seasonal factors, according to the site.

Other data points of interest:

Comm Ave by BU West: 36,900 (in 2005)
McGrath Highway by BET: 44,670 (in 1997)
Mass Ave by Symphony: 32,133 (in 2010); 33,000 (in 2005)
Cambridge St in Allston over the Pike: 37,797 (in 2010); 40,000 (in 2002)
Comm Ave just past Packard's Corner: 11,880 (in 2010); 12,200 (in 2005)
Comm Ave in Kenmore Square: 25,998 (in 2010); 26,700 (in 2005)
Longfellow Bridge: 21,500 (in 2010); 28,400 (in 2000).

 

[davem]

http://mhd.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Mhd&mod=

Go nuts. The interface is a bit hard to use though.

Here's what I pulled up: in 2010, Comm Ave adjacent to BU West counted 35,930 vehicles per day (both ways). In 2011, McGrath Highway near BET counted 32,478 vehicles per day (both ways). This is AADT, which is a value adjusted according to some seasonal factors, according to the site.

Other data points of interest:

Comm Ave by BU West: 36,900 (in 2005)
McGrath Highway by BET: 44,670 (in 1997)
Mass Ave by Symphony: 32,133 (in 2010); 33,000 (in 2005)
Cambridge St in Allston over the Pike: 37,797 (in 2010); 40,000 (in 2002)
Comm Ave just past Packard's Corner: 11,880 (in 2010); 12,200 (in 2005)
Comm Ave in Kenmore Square: 25,998 (in 2010); 26,700 (in 2005)
Longfellow Bridge: 21,500 (in 2010); 28,400 (in 2000).

Awesome, EXACTLY what I was hoping to hear. Drawings coming soon

 

[massmotorist]

But you don't need to replace the overpass, because the parallel surface roads already exist and go the exact same direction.

If we were talking about the McGrath Highway overpasses above railroad tracks, I'd agree with you, those can't be just closed off and they need to be continuously maintained. But the McCarthy bridges over things that don't need bridging over.

In order to get to the part that goes over the railroad tracks, you need to be on the overpass, though. To demolish part of the overpass and then make a ramp up to it would take so much design work that by the time you did it you could have designed the grade-level boulevard. And that part of the overpass is also in disrepair and will need to be demolished completely and rebuilt, so you wouldn't want to build a ramp to it anyway.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

More about the repair:

Or you could just look at the thing and conclude, "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!".

 

[Ron Newman]

In order to get to the part that goes over the railroad tracks, you need to be on the overpass, though. To demolish part of the overpass and then make a ramp up to it would take so much design work that by the time you did it you could have designed the grade-level boulevard.

There's already a ramp up from Somerville Ave. to the part that goes over the railroad tracks. Demolishing the overpass just means that all through traffic will now use that ramp.

 

[Matthew]

Random fun thing I found on the internets, a 1931 plan for an overpass in Brookline Village: http://www.highstreethill.org/history/overpass.html

The chief traffic interruption at the Square is caused by the crossing of the traffic going west on Boylston Street with the east-bound traffic on Washington Street. 7,549 inbound vehicles from Washington Street cross 4,450 outbound vehicles on Boylston Street. These 7,549 vehicles will be carried over Boylston Street by the proposed overpass. The overpass will be 53 feet wide with a 40-foot roadway. The approach to the overpass will leave Washington Street at White Place, pass over the Boston and Albany Railroad and over private property in the rear of the Brookline Savings Bank. After crossing Boylston Street it will continue through the intersection of High and Walnut Streets and behind the Fire Station. The present grade at High Street will be raised about 7 feet. With the overpass, traffic at The Village will not be interrupted by cross or turning traffic except for eastbound traffic at a point opposite Morss Avenue.

 

[Ron Newman]

When is Brookline going to remove the disused pedestrian overpass in that area?

 

[Matthew]

Allston's Cambridge Street overpass repair meeting Nov 19th, 6pm, Jackson Mann.

P.S. Anyone know the current above-the-rail clearance of the overpass and the old CSX freight tracks? By eye it looks like ~20ft. I presume it's just enough for Plate H.

 

[Ron Newman]

Do you mean the Franklin Street pedestrian bridge to Cambridge Street? What sort of work does it need?

 

[Matthew]

No, Cambridge Street, the car bridge which is deteriorating.

They will be doing some resurfacing work on the Franklin Street bridge too, but they are trying not to trigger ADA requirements.

http://tinyurl.com/CambridgeStreet

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Allston's Cambridge Street overpass repair meeting Nov 19th, 6pm, Jackson Mann.

P.S. Anyone know the current above-the-rail clearance of the overpass and the old CSX freight tracks? By eye it looks like ~20ft. I presume it's just enough for Plate H.

CSX clearance maps:
Car size: http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mur...mensional-Clearance/1-25-13/PLATEfrg2013a.pdf
Double stack: http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mur...s/Dimensional-Clearance/1-25-13/ps98sysds.pdf
Autoracks: http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mur...s/Dimensional-Clearance/1-25-13/ps98sysML.pdf


Framingham-Beacon Park is 17' clearance. Beacon Park-South Station is 15'. Framingham-Westborough is 19'2" (bi-level autorack). Westborough-Albany is 20'2" to 22' (full double-stack containers, tri-level autoracks).

 

[cozzyd]

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news..._neighbors_state_agrees_to_alter_parts_o.html

 

[Matthew]

Trouble is, to build the crosswalk ramp, they narrowed the sidewalks to raise the cycle track to the higher level and made the outer travel lanes 14'.

It's like playing whack-a-mole. They fix one issue, fuck up another one.

 

[davem]

"Narrowing" the travel lanes (to 11', not closer to the 9'-6" minimum) and then adding 4' of buffer space is NOT traffic calming, MassDOT. Especially when they are rebuilding the Harvard bridge with 10'-6" lanes, 5' bike lanes, and no buffer space.

I would be fine with the 11' lanes if there was no buffer... but there is.


Also, MassDOT apparently doesn't know the law. Straight from their letter (emphasis mine)

MassDOT, at the request of the City of Boston, will be including the median fence as proposed in the existing contract documents. Illegal crossings pose a serious safety issue and the City and MassDOT both concur that the decorative iron fencing will encourage pedestrians to use the new signalized crossing to be installed at the top of the Mansfield Street stairs, as well as the signalized pedestrian crossings at the Harvard Avenue intersection.

That's all great and wonderful, except that, crossing at Linden Street is NOT illegal.

(1) Pedestrians Crossing Ways or Roadways. Pedestrians shall obey the directions of police officers directing traffic and whenever there is an officer directing traffic, a traffic control signal or a marked crosswalk within 300 feet of a pedestrian, no such pedestrian shall cross a way or roadway except within the limits of a marked crosswalk and as hereinafter provided in 720 CMR 9.00.

and again

(e) Persons alighting from the roadway side of any vehicle parked at the curb or edge of roadway in urban areas within 300 feet of a marked crosswalk shall proceed immediately to the sidewalk or edge of roadway adjacent to vehicle, and shall cross the roadway only as authorized by 720 CMR 9.00.

Source

A'la Google Earth, Linden St roughly 380' away from Harvard Ave and the proposed crossing at the Mansfield St stairs. So they are building a fence to preclude a legal activity, which will inconvenience pedestrians and bus users, and encourages the illegal activity of speeding. The speeding, of course, being what causes the aforementioned "serious safety issue", NOT pedestrians crossing within the law.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I don't think this design is done by a longshot, since nobody went away from that meeting happy. It is encouraging that MassDOT got significantly bent back by the public pressure. It means the rest of their arrogance can be chipped away at with more withering pressure from the neighborhood.

In another time they would've cut the Q&A after a few non-answers, headed for the exits, resubmitted the same plan unchanged, and dodged any more public input. That doesn't work like it used to around here.


(Also suppose it helps that Menino isn't around to concern-troll this. Even if Walsh says nothing whatsoever about it that still means no one is actively trying to undercut the neighborhood like Hizzoner did with the Casey Overpass saga.)

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

In order to get to the part that goes over the railroad tracks, you need to be on the overpass, though. To demolish part of the overpass and then make a ramp up to it would take so much design work that by the time you did it you could have designed the grade-level boulevard. And that part of the overpass is also in disrepair and will need to be demolished completely and rebuilt, so you wouldn't want to build a ramp to it anyway.

That area would look a lot less confused if they put the Fitchburg tracks below grade. (The Green line along with it which is using the same ROW) that would have part of the Urban Ring ROW below grade there too. Those tracks pass behind Twin City Plaza and behind the old A.J. Wright / Fretters Bldg. where there's another bridge for the train to pass above the future Green Line/Fitchburg ROW. That would reduce the broken continuity of that part of Somerville even more.

 

[Matthew]

I don't think this design is done by a longshot, since nobody went away from that meeting happy. It is encouraging that MassDOT got significantly bent back by the public pressure. It means the rest of their arrogance can be chipped away at with more withering pressure from the neighborhood.

I agree, but we have some major points to push and we're not really sure their patience is going to last much longer. They seem pretty set on getting it out to bid next month.

We're hoping to eliminate the fence and shift some more of the space given to cars back over to people.

 

[bostoneophyte]

MassDOT is sponsoring a temporary lighting display underneath the I-93 overpass:http://digboston.com/boston-news-op...lluminates-digbostons-once-decrepit-backyard/

This is where the temporary lighting that we [Landing Studio] designed and were installing [last night] comes in. In order to better connect the South End to South Boston, the MassDOT team realizes they need to make the space under the highway more appealing and inviting particularly to pedestrians and bicyclists. So this temporary lighting is a first step towards testing the possibilities of amplifying the pedestrian experience of the passages under the highway. Over the course of the next month or two you can expect to see a rotating collection of different light installations to make the space more dynamic.

Baby Steps

 

[JeffDowntown]

MassDOT is sponsoring a temporary lighting display underneath the I-93 overpass:http://digboston.com/boston-news-op...lluminates-digbostons-once-decrepit-backyard/



Baby Steps

I really like that they are experimenting with the lighting options. I also think that the Phase 1 parking facility makes sense:

"Phase 1 of the project scheduled for substantial completion in December 2013 includes construction of 235 parking spaces accessible from Albany Street, improved pedestrian conditions, increased lighting, and other improvements to the site."

BUT I cannot figure out how they will make the Traveler Street access for Phase 2 work. The short stretch of Traveler under I-93 is one way, eastbound, and always full of cars accessing Broadway, 1-93 W, I-90 W and HOV Lane to Logan. Adding access to almost 200 parking spaces will be a nightmare!

"Phase 2 scheduled for substantial completion in December of 2014 will include construction of approximately 192 parking spaces accessible from Traveler Street, a new multi-modal path connecting the South Bay Harbor Trail to Kneeland Street, and a new, transportation-themed public space which extends the Boston Harborwalk along the Fort Point Channel."

 

[pixelsand8]

I thought it was pretty cool to see "negative urban space" like this used in such a manner. I'll be honest though I thought the lights were going to be moving, like a disco. Now that would be something to see. As it stands it's a nice little decoration. Wonder what the ideas are for a permanent solution..