Pike/Storrow Usage/Capacity?

BostonUrbEx

BostonUrbEx

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
4,340
Reaction score
128
Does anyone happen to know what the figures are on these roads?

Also, are 4 lanes each way necessary from Allston to Back Bay? And 3 lanes from Back Bay to 93? I rarely see traffic here, but maybe I'm just not there are the right times, I feel like no heavy traffic comes beyond Allston.

Personally would free it up with 3 lanes to the Back Bay ramps, then down to 2 the rest of the way to the airport. I'd probably add in space for better rail opportunities and a little more wiggle room for breakdowns.
 
Ive seen the lanes filled up and moving very slowly.

Now the 2...that thing does not need 8 lanes.
 
The Pike sees a ton of traffic between the Allston/Brighton Tolls and Weston Tolls. One of the issues is the fact that it goes from 4 lanes down to 3 and you have the people coming on from Newton Corner.

Also, the Pike east bound heading towards 93 gets backed up as people getting onto 93 N and S get backed up.
 
Worst traffic by far is 128 to Allston either way. That's all suburban-goers, though. Inside of Allston it operates well under-capacity.

Backups inside are at the tolls-proper...pretty far back eastbound in the mornings because of all the thru suburban traffic. Shorter in the evenings, end of the elevated section at worst. The imbalance is because there's no I-93 interchange backups on the westbound merge. Mornings @ I-93 eastbound slows at about the tunnel mouth because of limited lanes and lane-shifting. As mentioned, not a problem in the opposite direction. If you're going to the Ted or Southie, if you switch into the far-right lane while you're in the tunnel you usually have wide-open road as all the 93 folks are to the left.

Those are worst-cases. The few times this past year I've needed to commute by car from Cambridge to Southie because I was hauling crap or heading out of town later the Allston Tolls-to-Seaport Blvd. trip hasn't even required a slow-down at 8:00am. 40 MPH from the merge to the end of the elevated, 35-40 MPH after the tunnel mouth until the 93 and Southie lanes are separated. 50-60 on the midsection. The only times it really gets @#$%ed to hell is when some idiot semi driver pulls a FAIL at the tolls and blocks a lane. I would have to think that's going to be a slightly less frequent occurrence after Beacon Park closes, because right now pretty much all of them come to/from the tolls.
 
Hmm, I might go. IMO, the easiest and most obvious addition is a offramp from eastbound to Arlington (like 2 feet before the intersection with Tremont and then it becomes Herald). This will put all traffic coming off onto Herald which is a very wide one way heading east. People can go Tremont (north or south), Shawmut (south), Washington (north), Harrison (south), or Albany (south). It would require taking the right lane (maybe) and certainly some of the extra rail ROW but I don't see anywhere else having any more room.

I'm also wondering if it would be possible to go from Harrison Ave both from the north and south) to the Pike East, and I think it could (except there may be clearance issues with the 93 ramps).


Anyone want me to bring anything up if I go?


EDIT: Westbound to Brookline Ave, via Newbury St?
 
The minutes from the last meeting in 2008 requested that future meetings address what they plan to do about Storrow being abused as a toll-free speedway. The earlier presentations were a little deficient on that topic...perhaps the biggest single issue downtown Pike ramps could tackle. So I'd see what they're saying on that and whether they were taking the previous feedback to heart.

I guess also given the debate on whether to rehab or tear down the Bowker Overpass it'd be important to know what ramp options are under consideration directly provisioning for that. At the very least a rebuilt Bowker would have to have more effort put into managing the load on the structure, and new Pike ramps in the vicinity are the only substantial means of doing that.


Probably too early for them to be debating whether there'll be any changes to the Allston ramps after the Beacon Park land underneath is vacated. The Pike viaduct is on the state's accelerated bridge rehab list for deck replacement, but not until FY2015 and it's unfunded with no design started. Study area for this project seems to be everything east of there. I doubt we're gonna see anything on the table as radical as tearing that mess down and going on a lower-profile alignment, but any smaller-scale ideas they have on improving the cluster**** at the Storrow/Cambridge St. lights would be noteworthy.
 
Hmm, just checked again and according to website this is different than just a public meeting. So are they not taking any input?
 
I called the BPL to check if it was public and they said it does not appear on their calendar so it might not be public.

Anyone know?

EDIT: Tried calling the "planning" department via the "Contact" link. I was bounced between the EOT, MassDOT, and numerous planning, highway, etc departments. I think was bounced around 10 times and the last person made several calls and still no one knew the meeting was even happening.
 
Last edited:
One idea I have that would provide access from the westbound Mass Pike to the Back Bay area is shown here:



pikeofframp.jpg
.



This would require no net increase of the highway footprint, no property takings, and would be relatively cheap to accomplish.


.
 
That site is politically toxic and I fear won't be touched for anything in a very long time.
 
Yeah, I know. Too bad Boston is so backwards and provincial with regards to development. It could be a world class city if the NIMBY's were reined in.
 
Could you keep the on-ramp and also add the off-ramp, by having them 'weave' with each other over that block? Make them off-limits to trucks and you could probably get away with non-existent acceleration and deceleration lanes and sharp turning radii.
 
A fully AASHTO compliant set of ramps could fit within the existing Turnpike right-of-way. It would involve a short tunnel at the exit of the new westound off-ramp. The existing on-ramp could stay where it currently is:


pikeofframp2.jpg



This would obviously cost more, and reduce the green space along Cortes Street.
 
I wouldn't call it "NIMBYism" if you're talking about putting a 2-4 lane off-ramp in front of someone's property. You're taking money out of someone's pocket.

Whether the "needs of the many" over-ride the needs of a few, or one, is a valid question, but at least understand any concerns.

Putting an off-ramp near Cortes might also preclude any decks being built over the Pike for future development.

The housing on Cortes is not the most-attractive. The owners may very well be willing to take a buyout, if offered.

Another issue is, if you had the off-ramp after they build Liberty Mutual, you're encouraging a lot of new traffic onto that block.

The other side of the street seems a better fit, once you pass by the South End, say near the Animal Rescue League and further down near Harrison Ave.

Heading west, the Arlington Street off-ramp might work, although if it did, it would push people on to a one-way street (Arlington) into the South End or one-way street (Herald) that might defeat the purpose, which would be to give eastbound traffic a way to exit to the Back Bay and Midtown.

An on-ramp to eastbound would be nice but I think neighbors like keeping traffic on Herald and wouldn't want to increase it by adding an on-ramp at Harrison or Arlington.
 
The Cortes Street location is the only place where a westbound off ramp can easily be situated. Any other location requires major disruption of buildings and decks over the Turnpike, substantial building demolition alongside the Pike, and/or construction of expensive tunnels.

If the existing Cortes Street on ramp were to be removed and replaced by an off ramp at the same location, there would be no new permanent impact on the adjoining residences. The green space along Cortes Street would remain the same size, just basically reversed in configuration.

The existing westbound on ramp at Cortes Street is not that critical, in my opinion, and could be eliminated. There are already nearby on ramps to the westbound Pike at Herald Street and Copley Square. If the off ramp I propose were constructed at this location, replacing the on-ramp, then westbound traffic on Storrow Drive would be reduced, possibly allowing for transformation of Storrow Drive into an at-grade boulevard instead of the expressway it currently is.
 
If you allow the ramps to basically cross each other (weave) would you need to take any property at all?

AASHTO standards are fine for wide open spaces where you have plenty of land to waste, but I don't think they are useful for a tight urban environment. We've got stuff nearby like the Berkeley Street on-ramps to Storrow which work just fine even with left entrance and sharp 90-degree turns.
 
Charlie's solution strikes me as the simplest and best. I'm not convinced that you really need the westbound on ramp ... there are other entrance points from the Back Bay and South End to the Westbound Pike on Clarendon, at Copley, and at Mass Ave/Newbury ... the first two are only a few blocks from here.

Ron, we again disagree on the merits of a traffic kludge ... a weave exit strikes me as flat out dangerous (same as the craziness of breakdown lane traffic). But I generally agree with your preference for prioritizing people for traffic ... and I think trading an exit for an entrance would accomplish this.

Moreover, this wouldn't necessarily preclude development. The Columbus Center proposal was designed to work with the on-ramp. There's no reason why a Columbus Center II couldn't be made to work with an off-ramp instead. Thus there's room for a deal to be cut with the folks in Bay Village / Cortes, who would be quite happy to trade some in-scale development across the street for the current Pike view/noise.

The bigger NIMBY worry would be the inevitable whoop and cry from the Back Bay about the potential of putting more traffic on Berkeley Street. But that could be the quid pro quo for a downgrading of Storrow on the other end of Berkeley.

We can always dream, right?
 
Not sure I can agree with your conclusion. I think the marginal road next to the Mass Pike Towers the next block down would make more sense. That road has two wide lanes as well as a lane for parking (wide enough for the buses that always park there).

Picture2.png


Sorry for the resizing but want you to see exactly what I'm talking about.

This site would work well for an off-ramp, bringing traffic to Tremont Street into and out of the South End and into the Back Bay / Midtown / Chinatown / DTX.

Oh, and I agree, the westbound on-ramp at Cortes / Arlington is useless, even more so now that they've left the concrete barriers there forcing Pike-bound traffic to do a whipsaw around them in order to get on the Pike or to Cortes Street.
 
Massachusetts Dept of Transportation is undertaking a study for new off-ramps and on-ramps for the Mass Pike in the Back Bay area. See presentation they made in July 2011 here: http://www.eot.state.ma.us/planning/bostonramps/downloads/reports/sag060111.pdf

Alternative 2 is identical to an idea that I posted on this thread earlier this year, and had also posted on ArchBoston a couple of years ago. Maybe they saw my post.

masspike2-2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top