Roads and Highways General Development Thread

Charlie_mta said:
This brick structure is attractive and worth saving, and should be repurposed into a non-auto facility. Convert it to pedestrian and bike path only, with landscaping suitable for a land-bridge type structure, similar to the High Line in NYC. I would remove the westbound section of the bridge to make room for rerouting memorial Drive to the north side of the remaining eastbound bridge:

View attachment 69843
Click to expand...
That's an interesting take. It does seem like cutting the bridge in half does maybe too much damage to the bridge you're trying to save. The brick pillars and facade on the north side would be lost? or saved at great expense?

I really don't know how to fix that intersection, but there are a couple of priorities I think are important. 1) There's pretty heavy pedestrian traffic going North/South, like for people living in Cambridge and walking across the BU bridge for work or school, or vice versa. That pedestrian experience through the circle is pretty bad right now, where cars maybe don't stop at appropriate lights or yield at crosswalks. I'd love that fixed. and 2) the 47 and CT2 buses get stuck in that circle all the time. That must be the biggest source of delays for those two routes. I've seen three buses (carrying 150 people) get stuck in that circle by maybe two dozen cars. I have no idea how to give buses space or priority there, but that would be great.
 
ritchiew said:
That's an interesting take. It does seem like cutting the bridge in half does maybe too much damage to the bridge you're trying to save. The brick pillars and facade on the north side would be lost? or saved at great expense?

I really don't know how to fix that intersection, but there are a couple of priorities I think are important. 1) There's pretty heavy pedestrian traffic going North/South, like for people living in Cambridge and walking across the BU bridge for work or school, or vice versa. That pedestrian experience through the circle is pretty bad right now, where cars maybe don't stop at appropriate lights or yield at crosswalks. I'd love that fixed. and 2) the 47 and CT2 buses get stuck in that circle all the time. That must be the biggest source of delays for those two routes. I've seen three buses (carrying 150 people) get stuck in that circle by maybe two dozen cars. I have no idea how to give buses space or priority there, but that would be great.
Click to expand...
I agree that cutting the abutments in half could be problematic. I'd like to preserve the brick facade on the south half of the abutments, and on the south side of the existing overpass superstructure as well. The facade on the north side of the truncated overpass would have to be a new build, with new brick work probably. Or, build an entirely new pedestrian/bike land bridge on the location that I show. Anyway, the reconfigured non-auto overpass would provide a good overhead connection for bikes and pedestrians over a busy intersection, plus provide some great views of the city.
 
ceo said:
Ari Osfevit advocates for a ped/bike bridge here: https://ariofsevit.com/apb/2026/01/03/bu-bridge-an-edge-case-where-a-bike-ped-bridge-makes-sense/
I'm pretty sure the existing overpass is too steep to be used for this purpose, even if one thinks it's worth saving which I don't.
Click to expand...
If it's not feasible to rehab the existing overpass, then replace the eastbound lanes with a new bike and pedestrian-only bridge. As for the existing overpass approaches being too steep for use as a bike/ped multi-use path, I don't think so. The eastern approach passes over the GJ railroad, so its on a fairly flat slope, and the western approach is on about a 5% slope, according to measurements I made on Google Earth.
 
Obviously I'm in the "transit + ped + bike should always be priorities" camp, but this location is especially important. It's such a choke point for so many modes, with no alternate routes for a mile on either side. The vast majority of auto trips through the intersection can and should be replaced with sustainable modes - this isn't some suburban interchange where most of the trips are to or from low-density areas.
 
I can't find the meeting slides or video recording, but I saw some screenshots of the proposal. Wow what a disappointment, I thought MassDOT would have been better than DCR at something like this.
 
BOS2BON said:
I can't find the meeting slides or video recording, but I saw some screenshots of the proposal. Wow what a disappointment, I thought MassDOT would have been better than DCR at something like this.
Click to expand...

Sky Rose 🏳️‍⚧️ (they/them) (@sky@better.boston)

I'll be livetooting at the #MassDOT meeting about the #MemorialDrive overpass https://www.mass.gov/event/cambridge-bridge-replacement-memorial-drive-over-brookline-street-01-06-2026 1/? #Massachusetts #SafeStreets #BUBridge #MassDCR #CambridgeMA
better.boston better.boston
 
cubbe8 said:

Sky Rose 🏳️‍⚧️ (they/them) (@sky@better.boston)

I'll be livetooting at the #MassDOT meeting about the #MemorialDrive overpass https://www.mass.gov/event/cambridge-bridge-replacement-memorial-drive-over-brookline-street-01-06-2026 1/? #Massachusetts #SafeStreets #BUBridge #MassDCR #CambridgeMA
better.boston better.boston
Click to expand...
Sigh. I give up on Massdot ever doing anything except building more highway-sized lanes to induce more traffic. The whole point is to reduce vehicle miles traveled so a roundabout can flow effectively again. I don't see any way we get a reduction in car capacity given the current congestion there (i.e. see the I-90 grounding in allston project), best we can hope for is reasonably safe bike lanes.
 
IMG_0560.png
IMG_0559.png
IMG_0558.png
IMG_0557.png
 
as02143 said:
This is going to be like that Route 27/Route 9 interchange project isn't it? The interchange that will somehow eat all the green space and then need get supercharged into needing to do an eminent domain?
Click to expand...
The fact that all of their "keep the overpass" designs didn't even contemplate removing a lane (to 1-lane overpass in each direction) even though that would be sufficient for current throughput, tells you all you need to know. At least this will prevent cut-through traffic in the cambridgeport neighborhood.
 
cubbe8 said:

Sky Rose 🏳️‍⚧️ (they/them) (@sky@better.boston)

I'll be livetooting at the #MassDOT meeting about the #MemorialDrive overpass https://www.mass.gov/event/cambridge-bridge-replacement-memorial-drive-over-brookline-street-01-06-2026 1/? #Massachusetts #SafeStreets #BUBridge #MassDCR #CambridgeMA
better.boston better.boston
Click to expand...
WOW that's bad. Keeping the 4 lane overpass is very short sited. Seems like MassDOT is just ignoring what the DCR is actively building right now further west on Mem Drive.
 
During the meeting, the MassDOT Team noted that they do not have detailed traffic counts for all the movements and would only start including those in the next phase of the project when they start to create more detailed plans for each alternative. Honestly I was shocked that they were not already taking those into account, because that has a huge impact on what alternatives are even reasonably possible as well as what they look like.

The goal should be to not overbuild and only provide the capacity needed for each movement.

The other thing I am wondering about is whether they are factoring in the future of Memorial Drive more broadly. For example, there is a road diet planned to the west of the project which would impact how many lanes you would have there. Personally, I would love to see the 4 lane configuration changed to 3 lanes (single through lane plus left turn pockets for turning into the shopping areas on the north side or the park on the south side). Right now, turning traffic has to block a travel lane and cross two lanes, which stinks.
 
cden4 said:
During the meeting, the MassDOT Team noted that they do not have detailed traffic counts for all the movements and would only start including those in the next phase of the project when they start to create more detailed plans for each alternative.
Click to expand...

That has to have been a misstatement or something on their end. I cannot fathom the idea that they haven't done any kind of existing conditions analysis, particularly when they're arguing the design needs to be a certain way because of traffic counts
 
I sent an email to the project team (cambridgereidoverpass@dot.state.ma.us), Rep Mike Connolly (Mike.Connolly@mahouse.gov), and CC'd Phil Eng on there for good measure with some detailed criticism of the designs. I would encourage others to do the same. In my view even the designs they eliminated for not having enough throughput are dramatically overbuilt. Needs to go back to the drawing board completely.
 
For reference, the ca2019 DCR alternatives, before its bridge portfolio was handed to MassDOT. Notably, MassDOT unlike DCR doesn't make any reference to parkland greenspace in its proposals. This, right here, is why I generally think roadways which occupy space that should be managed for recreation, not traffic, such as the river roads should remain with DCR. Unlike DCR, the mission of MassDOT is transportation first, only occasionally tempered with recreational uses.
1000037657 (1).jpg
1000037659 (1).jpg
1000037661.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top