Storrow fix could mean all-night noise
Back Bay residents fight for Esplanade
By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff | September 14, 2007
To Back Bay residents outraged by the idea of rerouting traffic onto the storied Charles River Esplanade during construction on Storrow Drive, state officials offered another scenario yesterday: nighttime beeping, rumbling, and jackhammering in their backyard for nearly 2 1/2 years.
In meetings with reporters and community groups, Conservation and Recreation Commissioner Richard K. Sullivan Jr. warned that one of the options that would keep traffic on Storrow Drive and off the popular Esplanade would require overnight noisy construction during the long-delayed restoration of the decrepit Storrow Drive tunnel.
Some residents accused the commissioner of pressuring them to support the temporary rerouting of traffic onto the Esplanade by offering the more unattractive alternative of overnight work on the tunnel.
"We're being given a false choice," said state Representative Martha M. Walz, a Back Bay Democrat who opposes the Storrow bypass.
Sullivan did not endorse the Esplanade bypass at yesterday's meeting, but he pointed out that it would allow most traffic to continue flowing along Storrow Drive, a vital east-west route that typically carries 103,000 vehicles a day.
No one disputes the need for repairs to the crumbling 55-year-old tunnel, but there are few popular solutions to keeping traffic flowing through the narrow strip of land along the Charles River during a construction period that could last more than two years.
Sullivan announced yesterday that he was endorsing a renovation of the existing tunnel, rather than more expensive options like replacing the structure or eliminating it by bringing the depressed roadway to street level. But he left on the table four alternatives for managing traffic during its restoration, including the controversial plan to detour cars onto the Esplanade.
A second option, closing the roadway to traffic completely during construction, seems unlikely, given its status as a Boston evacuation route. He rejected a third proposal, to build an elevated bypass over the existing tunnel, as too costly and time-consuming.
That leaves the fourth option, which would reroute eastbound traffic on a temporary road squeezed in between the tunnel and Back Bay and would close westbound lanes at night, when the bulk of work would take place. The temporary road would run alongside Back Street, the alleyway between Beacon Street and Storrow.
Under the Esplanade option, eastbound traffic would remain on the temporary road, but westbound traffic would travel through the parkland, allowing for daytime construction of the tunnel.
"We still adamantly believe that there are options besides either nighttime construction or putting a road on the Esplanade, and we would strongly encourage that they explore them," said Jacquelin Yessian, chairwoman of the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay.
The notion of detouring cars onto the beloved Esplanade during the tunnel work emerged nearly three years ago, but was scuttled by the Romney administration before being revived by the Department of Conservation and Recreation last month. Though officials have said they are not wedded to the idea, they argued that this 22-month alternative would allow for mostly daytime construction and cost $50 million, saving the project $5 million and seven months.
One opponent deemed the difference immaterial.
"Come on, Dave Mugar spends over one million bucks a year for 23 minutes of fireworks on the Esplanade," said Robert Zimmerman Jr., chairman of the Charles River Watershed Association, who pointed to the long-delayed, swelling costs of the Big Dig. "This is too sophisticated an audience. Boston knows what's going on here. There's no guarantee that they're going to save a dime."
Environmental activists and residents who oppose the Esplanade bypass idea said the department's engineers seemed to embrace that option because it was the easiest, despite the fact that it would lead to the destruction of 89 trees and intrude 40 feet into the park.
Sullivan called himself a "strong advocate for leaving the Esplanade in a better condition than we find her today" and said the project would replace the Fiedler Footbridge with a new structure that creates a grand entrance to the parkland.
But opponents eye that pledge skeptically, pointing to the transit commitments made and dashed when the state built the Big Dig.
"Will the money be available at the end of this project to restore the park?" Walz said. "History teaches us that the answer to that question has been no."
Sullivan said that all of the options being considered would remove some trees. Even if Storrow Drive were closed and traffic diverted to Memorial Drive and local roads, which Sullivan said would lead to gridlock, 22 trees would be removed because a portion of the Esplanade would be used as a staging area. That alternative would take 18 months and cost an estimated $40 million.
The alternative that would close the westbound lanes at night and lead to construction from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., would last 29 months and cost $55 million.
Building an elevated bypass over the existing tunnel would cost more ($65 million), take longer (at 34 months), and eliminate 100 trees along the Esplanade and Back Street, Sullivan said. As a result, he said, he is not recommending that alternative, though it will be reviewed as part of the department's environmental impact statement. Advocates say they expect those plans to be filed Oct. 1, though Sullivan would not commit to a date yesterday.
During that process, expected to take about 18 months, advocacy groups and residents have additional opportunities to weigh in on the alternatives, and environmental officials can challenge the agency to consider plans that would have less impact on the environment.
In the meantime, the tunnel will need an estimated $6 million to $10 million of long-delayed repairs to keep it safe for another five years.
The pace of the project seemed to accelerate yesterday as Sullivan introduced a new project manager, announced his intent to move from the planning to construction phase of the project, and began pitching the alternatives to reporters and to various community groups that have been studying the alternatives.
Walz said that the "parade of horribles" Sullivan listed as alternatives to the Storrow bypass was misleading. She said that a temporary bypass next to Back Street could provide a solution, though the commissioner said it could not be wide enough for two-way traffic to travel safely.
"It's the most precious park in the entire Commonwealth," Walz argued. "The world over watches the Fourth of July fireworks on the Esplanade.
"Imagine the Fourth of July fireworks in 2010 with Storrow Drive rerouted into the park," she said.
Stephanie Ebbert can be reached at
ebbert@globe.com.
