Pike/Storrow Usage/Capacity?

Charlie_mta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the powers-that-be need to read the Design a Better Boston forum more often. Now we can effect change from our armchairs.
 
I like the Newbury St./Brookline Ave. and Berkeley St. off-ramp scenarios. Major point in favor of sharply reduced Storrow west traffic and eliminating the Bowker Overpass. Berkeley's the straight shot to Embankment Rd. and helps control cut-over traffic a little better. But they need to find a way to not shutter the on-ramps in the area because it defeats the purpose if you can't control outbound traffic off Embankment Rd. or Mass Ave./Kenmore. They would have to find a way to work in collection of Arlington St. traffic onto the highway. Cortez St. wouldn't have the acceleration/deceleration space, but maybe re-alignment of Cahners Place a la Alternative #2 into the Trinity Place on-ramp for strictly entrance purposes would work. Columbus Ave. can handle the load diverted from Arlington St. to the new ramp with its underutilized lane capacity and the way that diagonal intersection gently curves off Arlington. And it would increase the generally low utilization of that on-ramp to have a straight shot off Cahners that doesn't severely impact local traffic.

Shame the Worcester Line generally prevents doing anything eastbound, because that really doesn't help Storrow or the Bowker at all. Off-ramp to Comm Ave. off the end of the viaduct would work from the Pike perspective, but it would elongate the length of the BU Bridge clusterfuck and that's probably a nonstarter. I don't see how a ramp to Agganis Way or Buick St. would work any better with the turns at Comm Ave., the pedestrian impacts BU would throw a fit over, and the inadvertent thru traffic onto St. Paul and Pleasant that Brookline would throw a fit over.

Shorter-term they would have an opportunity to do a direct merge onto Storrow east from the Allston tolls when Beacon Park closes if they repurposed the trucking U-turn lane into the yard, reversed the direction of it, and utilized as a direct Storrow on-ramp off the toll plaza bypassing any Cambridge St. co-mingling or traffic lights That traffic's going to Storrow anyway, so it would be substantial relief to the intersection and traffic flow. Also think a cut-over from Western Ave. on that dead-end street behind Genzyme feeding the existing on-ramp would help a lot. But long-term I don't see how the whole downtown flow is going to get properly strung together without a remaking of the Allston tolls, realignment of the highway through the yards, and collector roads around Allston Village that can spread everything around to both the BU and Harvard sides. They can mitigate a significant amount of Storrow west load, but Storrow east is going to continue growing way beyond capacity if they can't load-shift better and do some surface streamlining from Allston to Back Bay to mitigate the Worcester Line blockage of new eastbound ramps. The entire downtown load can't slam the tolls, Cambridge St., Storrow, and Charlesgate/Bowker forever. It's untenable.
 
How about instead of doing this, turning the pike into a canal? Riverboat commutes for all!
 
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5189/pikei.jpg

Here's my very crude rendering of what I think the Allston tolls could look like with a realigned Pike, taken from a Bing Maps birds-eye screenshot. Went with a compact ramp design to maximize the amount of redevelopable land. South (BU) is up, north (Harvard) is down, east (Back Bay) is left, west (Allston) is right). That's a ramp-less Cambridge St. front and center. The Pike west to Storrow east ramp inclines down from elevated to at-grade where it merges with the (at-grade) Pike east to Storrow east ramp. The Pike east to Soldiers Field west ramp inclines up to merge with the elevated Pike west to Soldiers Field West ramp. Other than that, the should be fairly easy to see what elevated and what isn't by the overpasses/underpasses.

Blue arrows = Soldiers Field Rd. west traffic flow (or combo exit ramps).
Green arrows = Storrow Dr. east traffic flow.
Yellow arrows = Mass Pike east traffic flow (or combo entrance ramps).
Orange arrows = Mass Pike west traffic flow.

Red shade = redevelopable land.
Green shade = parkland.
Rust shade = highway/undevelopable land.

High-speed tolls with the overhead transponders moved back a little further towards Cambridge St. Space for 1-2 manual booths in the right lanes, but otherwise they're speed-limit tolls.

New configuration re-uses a small half-width (2 abutments) portion of the viaduct for the new westbound exit ramp, and a portion of the existing eastbound entrance ramp onto the viaduct over the current toll plaza is retained for the new eastbound onramp right after it splits from the westbound onramp. The new Storrow east onramp is superimposed directly on top of the Beacon Park U-turn lane. New ramp construction on the Soldiers Field flyover, the new flyovers of the relocated highway, and the sections of the Pike east entrance on either side of that recycled bridge. Nearly all else is at-grade. 3 totally demolished bridges, and over a third of the viaduct gets demolished. Cambridge St. bridge over the lone remaining ramp can get shortened to half its current length and filled in.


Lotsa land recovery, no? Note...doesn't include any ramp possibilities west of there. There's absolutely room to put some ramps to Brighton. I drew it so there'd be about 4-5 tracks of buffer still left on the Worcester Line for peeling off another ramp upstream or plunking a commuter rail station under the Cambridge St. overpass.
 
High Speed Tolls..........I think we'll see the MBTA be solvent before they ever get installed.
 
If you are going to go that far why not take it to the next step and reroute Soldiers Field Rd so that it swings west more, adding more land to the riverfront, and allowing for a more streamlined interchange with the Pike?
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
If you are going to go that far why not take it to the next step and reroute Soldiers Field Rd so that it swings west more, adding more land to the riverfront, and allowing for a more streamlined interchange with the Pike?
Click to expand...

Possible. I was shooting to re-use that two-pier section of viaduct as the EB exit ramp and that small piece of viaduct approach span as the entrance collector ramp. A fuller blow-up and total remaking of everything past BU Student Village would open up possibility to a very compact Leverett Connector-like collecting ramp that would permit shifting Storrow, but that starts becoming a mini Big Dig with years more traffic disruption. Note that there's a lot of reclaimed park space out of view to the bottom as Storrow being buried in the cut with the collector/distributor road re-centered on top opens up a lot of park space on both sides (esp. on the river side) to past the Western Ave. intersection.


Cheaper alternative--or Phase I alternative--to doing the Soldiers Field flyover is to just do the Pike realignment, flyover ramps on/off the highway, and tie it all together at the existing big exit toll plaza with the Cambridge St. merges and Storrow intersection not changing. WB exit ramp would still re-use 2 of 4 viaduct peers to split off, the existing EB entrance bridge that currently spans the main highway would stay and become part of the new EB entrance ramp, and current WB exit ramp overpass would partially stay as the new EB exit feeder. The only messing around there is compacting the ramp footprint (delete the current WB entrance ramp/toll/small overpasses that hug Cambridge St. and split almost everything at a single point at that main toll). Requires more demolition of existing ramp than it does actual new construction to achieve the same thing.

Scaled-back scenario opens up similar amounts of new land with just one parcel being bisected by the WB entrance ramp (the one repurposed from most of the old EB exit)...and that land can still be accessible by passing the side streets under that retained overpass. Very little construction or demolition required except tidying up of small sections of at-grade ramp, and fairly limited traffic impacts while they're doing the mop-up construction. Downsides are that it does nothing to de-clusterfuck Cambridge St./Storrow or mitigate the sharp curves/weaving on approach to/from the plaza. But can always revisit that and the Soldiers Field flyover decades later when they want to go there. That's more expensive than relocating the main highway due to the decking-over of Storrow and the more complex flyover structure.

I'd be inclined to just relocate the main highway with flyovers feeding the existing plaza, do the partial viaduct demo, and then hold the Cambridge St./Storrow improvements to some future phase. The I-84 Hartford viaduct teardown plan is instructive here...getting the pain over with ends up being less expensive on 50-year intervals than in-place replacement of a viaduct you'll have to replace again in a half-century. With none of the benefits of economic revitalization on abutting land. Note also that by having a huge cleared RR yard to stage construction and grade the new mainline highway alignment they save a lot of money by working with no traffic impacts whatsoever until it's time to do the tie-in. And they can prefab-assemble the new flyover bridges onsite and hoist them into place over the unopened highway. Plus it's a barren industrial site so there's no abutter mitigation required. A ton less overhead to not have to do open-heart surgery on an active roadway until it's time to pull away the jersey barriers and open the new alignment (probably EB first, WB second).


Also consolidates enough at one cleaner interchange point on a straightaway to open up room further west a staggered full interchange feeding Birmingham Parkway and the rotary to cover the halfway point to Newton Corner. WB exit to Market St., WB entrance at the North Beacon rotary...EB entrance at North Beacon where there's a small median to cram between the tracks for adequate merge and acceleration...EB exit at either Parsons St. off the same median, or Nonantum Rd. on a flyover where the tracks pull further away from the highway. Watertown Sq. traffic uses North Beacon instead of slamming dense Galen St., nearby access to Arsenal, direct access to the underutilized Brighton terminus of Soldiers Field Rd., better access to Brighton Ctr. than backtracking from Cambridge St. or slamming Newton Corner.
 
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley said:
Possible. I was shooting to re-use that two-pier section of viaduct as the EB exit ramp and that small piece of viaduct approach span as the entrance collector ramp. A fuller blow-up and total remaking of everything past BU Student Village would open up possibility to a very compact Leverett Connector-like collecting ramp that would permit shifting Storrow, but that starts becoming a mini Big Dig with years more traffic disruption. Note that there's a lot of reclaimed park space out of view to the bottom as Storrow being buried in the cut with the collector/distributor road re-centered on top opens up a lot of park space on both sides (esp. on the river side) to past the Western Ave. intersection.


Cheaper alternative--or Phase I alternative--to doing the Soldiers Field flyover is to just do the Pike realignment, flyover ramps on/off the highway, and tie it all together at the existing big exit toll plaza with the Cambridge St. merges and Storrow intersection not changing. WB exit ramp would still re-use 2 of 4 viaduct peers to split off, the existing EB entrance bridge that currently spans the main highway would stay and become part of the new EB entrance ramp, and current WB exit ramp overpass would partially stay as the new EB exit feeder. The only messing around there is compacting the ramp footprint (delete the current WB entrance ramp/toll/small overpasses that hug Cambridge St. and split almost everything at a single point at that main toll). Requires more demolition of existing ramp than it does actual new construction to achieve the same thing.

Scaled-back scenario opens up similar amounts of new land with just one parcel being bisected by the WB entrance ramp (the one repurposed from most of the old EB exit)...and that land can still be accessible by passing the side streets under that retained overpass. Very little construction or demolition required except tidying up of small sections of at-grade ramp, and fairly limited traffic impacts while they're doing the mop-up construction. Downsides are that it does nothing to de-clusterfuck Cambridge St./Storrow or mitigate the sharp curves/weaving on approach to/from the plaza. But can always revisit that and the Soldiers Field flyover decades later when they want to go there. That's more expensive than relocating the main highway due to the decking-over of Storrow and the more complex flyover structure.

I'd be inclined to just relocate the main highway with flyovers feeding the existing plaza, do the partial viaduct demo, and then hold the Cambridge St./Storrow improvements to some future phase. The I-84 Hartford viaduct teardown plan is instructive here...getting the pain over with ends up being less expensive on 50-year intervals than in-place replacement of a viaduct you'll have to replace again in a half-century. With none of the benefits of economic revitalization on abutting land. Note also that by having a huge cleared RR yard to stage construction and grade the new mainline highway alignment they save a lot of money by working with no traffic impacts whatsoever until it's time to do the tie-in. And they can prefab-assemble the new flyover bridges onsite and hoist them into place over the unopened highway. Plus it's a barren industrial site so there's no abutter mitigation required. A ton less overhead to not have to do open-heart surgery on an active roadway until it's time to pull away the jersey barriers and open the new alignment (probably EB first, WB second).


Also consolidates enough at one cleaner interchange point on a straightaway to open up room further west a staggered full interchange feeding Birmingham Parkway and the rotary to cover the halfway point to Newton Corner. WB exit to Market St., WB entrance at the North Beacon rotary...EB entrance at North Beacon where there's a small median to cram between the tracks for adequate merge and acceleration...EB exit at either Parsons St. off the same median, or Nonantum Rd. on a flyover where the tracks pull further away from the highway. Watertown Sq. traffic uses North Beacon instead of slamming dense Galen St., nearby access to Arsenal, direct access to the underutilized Brighton terminus of Soldiers Field Rd., better access to Brighton Ctr. than backtracking from Cambridge St. or slamming Newton Corner.
Click to expand...

How about adding a grade separated extension across the river? I'm always amazed to see the volume of traffic trying to cross into cambridge.
 
I was thinking recently about what a downgraded Storrow would look like. It struck me that Storrow doesn't really, by itself, need to be a beautified urban boulevard. After all, facing the backs of the Beacon Street and Beacon Hill housing, there wouldn't be much that's "urban" about it. And, in reality, the Esplanade itself is the main attraction, not the land on which the Drive is on. My main complaint against Storrow is not that it is a high-volume road but that it obstructs pedestrian access to the riverfront.

My meandering thoughts led me to consider whether the following system would work: a series of signalized grade crossings to supplement the pedestrian overpasses which, depending on the location, would either be a request button type of crossing or a timed crossing. The kicker, though, would be that these grade crossings would "not work" during weekday rush hours and a sign would direct pedestrians to the nearest footbridge. (I still haven't decided whether "not working" at certain times could be accomplished only through signage or possibly through electronic barriers that close at pre-determined times). To give an idea of where these crossings may be:

[BU Bridge]
[BU Beach footbridge]
  • Granby St
[Silber Way Overpass]
  • Deerfield St
[Mass Ave Bridge]
  • Gloucester St
[Fairfield St footbridge]
  • Exeter St
[Dartmouth St footbridge]
  • Clarendon St (across westbound only)
[Arthur Fiedler footbridge / Arlington st]
  • Mt Vernon St
  • Revere St
[Mugar Way / Longfellow Bridge]
 
Last edited:
Shepard said:
....My meandering thoughts led me to consider whether the following system would work: a series of signalized grade crossings to supplement the pedestrian overpasses which, depending on the location, would either be a request button type of crossing or a timed crossing. The kicker, though, would be that these grade crossings would "not work" during weekday rush hours and a sign would direct pedestrians to the nearest footbridge. (I still haven't decided whether "not working" at certain times could be accomplished only through signage or possibly through electronic barriers that close at pre-determined times). To give an idea of where these crossings may be:
/QUOTE]

Shep -- the idea is interesting -- BUT to make sure idiots don't try to cross during the morning and evening traffic and then cause huge delays when MedFlight is hauling them to MGH --- you need something more physical than an iPhone Ap - i think the model has to be the pedestrian path across the New Charles River damn -- where gates block-off the access when the locks are in use
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top