Storrow Drive tunnel replacement

^^ The Central Artery has been replaced, not removed. The highway planners in San Francisco had some help with their decision to remove the Embarcadero in the form of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

I'm all for improving Storrow -- a good place to begin is removing it from the hands of a state agency whose core-competency is maintaining parkland.
 
I'm not against the project, I'm just against ruining the parkland while it takes place. We've already shown that by removing two blocks of parallel parking from Beacon Street, the traffic could be diverted there instead of onto the parkland.

Speaking of the West Side Highway, hasn't a fair amount of it been removed?
 
Beton Brut said:
... Or, this being Massachusetts, we could continue with the status quo (i.e. do nothing) until the tunnel falls in and kills some poor bastard on his way home from work ...
Click to expand...

No doubt this will happen while I'm jogging over the tunnel on the Arthur Fiedler Bridge.

Nice knowing you all!
 
Ron Newman said:
I'm not against the project, I'm just against ruining the parkland while it takes place. We've already shown that by removing two blocks of parallel parking from Beacon Street, the traffic could be diverted there instead of onto the parkland.

Speaking of the West Side Highway, hasn't a fair amount of it been removed?
Click to expand...

I haven't followed this project closely, but what you have suggested intuitively seems unrealistic. Are you suggesting that Storrow Drive traffic would be diverted onto local streets? Even if you are removing parking, the turn angles involved in such a move would appear to make such a proposal outlandish. And How would the people who live on Beacon Street get out of their homes and to the other side of the street. If you are proposing that traffic signals be installed only at this juncture I would imagine that there would be a permanent back up on storrow drive. Furthermore, you can bet that the folks who spent tens of millions of dollars on condos fronting on beacon street won't lay idle while a major expressway is rerouted past their front door.
 
West Side Highway

The West Side Highway has not been completely replaced. Pedestrian crossings and traffic lights begin south of 59th Street, near the Intrepid museum...north of 59th street is still a conventional highway.
 
North of 59th St it turns into the Henry Hudson Parkway through Riverside Park which is different than Storrow Dr in that the park was designed with the highway there (as opposed to ramming a highway through a park as was the case with Storrow Dr.)

I don't think Ron meant we should turn Beacon St into a highway, rather that the road without parking lanes could handle the amount of cars. They would not however be driving at 50mph. But you are still right in that the residents of the Back Bay would not stand for it.

I say just shut it down from Bay State Road to Charles Cricle. The traffic will filter into Boston through many other ways and people will realize we didn't need the highway in the first place. The traffic is only there because there is a highway there. We are still in the mindset that says car traffic is evil and we must do everything we can to prevent it, which is laughable since every time you increase capacity you increase traffic.
 
Last edited:
My suggestion, which I posted earlier, was to remove parallel parking on both sides of Beacon Street between Arlington and Clarendon streets only. This clears enough room to make the street two-way and carry a two-block detour of eastbound Storrow traffic on its north side during the construction project.
 
Such a solution would create several very serious problems, as I mentioned earlier...turning radius and traffic flow, impact on residential buildings on the Beacon water side, and pedestrian crossing to Beacon Water side...How would people get to their homes and the Fisher college campus on the water side?

Condos on those blocks are selling for $1000 per square foot, do you really think these people are going to roll over and let a highway roar across their front yard?
 
If it's them or the park users ... the park users are a much larger constituency. I think drivers would get used to the detour after a few days, and whatever crosswalks are there now would still be in use.

The loss of street parking spaces for two blocks of abutting residents is a real issue, but could be addressed by giving them free use of the Common Garage for the duration.

Turning radius should not be an issue at all, since trucks and buses are not allowed on Storrow.
 
Last edited:
Van wrote:
"The traffic will filter into Boston through many other ways and people will realize we didn't need the highway in the first place.?

Whether it was needed or not in the first place, given the current circumstances Storrow is definitely needed now.

Van wrote:
?The traffic is only there because there is a highway there. We are still in the mindset that says car traffic is evil and we must do everything we can to prevent it, which is laughable since every time you increase capacity you increase traffic.?

I couldn't agree more, the more roads we build the more cars fill the roads; but do you think things will work as efficiently in reverse? Meaning, do you think that removing highways will seamlessly cause less people to drive and an equal amount to take public transportation without incident?

I think step one is to improve public transportation dramatically. Step two, as there would be an alternative is to start making it more inconvenient for people (especially as you move further out) to drive straight into their final Boston destination.

Please don't forget, that things such as the Big Dig were designed with Storrow in its current fashion. Traffic from Rt. 1 either travels to Storrow or over the Zakim. Effectively close the Leverett ramp as an option and you will soon back traffic up to the NH border. This is no exaggeration...it happens during the winter on 93 regularly...Rt. 1?s not much better.
 
As a comparison to how obsessed with car capacity we are, let's think about the following situation:

The DCR is FINALLY reconstructing the path along the Charles River between the BU Bridge and River St on the Boston side. They had to close the path to do this. They put a detour notice at the Mass Ave bridge ramp and at the Sherborn St overpass directing path users to find and use alternate routes.

The path serves a lot of bicycle commuters on a daily basis. However, there was no debate about closing the path temporarily for reconstruction. There was no outcry as to the total bicycle chaos it would create. Bicyclists simply find another route while construction is taking place. Why can't motorists do the same?
 
If Storrow Drive were (hypothetically) truncated at Arlington Street, there would still be a Leverett Connector and its function would still be the same as it is now.
 
Ron wrote:
"If Storrow Drive were (hypothetically) truncated at Arlington Street, there would still be a Leverett Connector and its function would still be the same as it is now."

Yes the Leverett Connector would still be there, but my point was that drivers like me would likely not consider this route a viable option. As it stands, Arlington St. gets backed up with traffic without the detour. I think there's a strong likelihood that this intersection would be a complete nightmare with all traffic diverted off Storrow. Would you suggest increasing speed limits on Beacon St.?

cden4,
Sorry, but there's really no comparison to be made here. Bicycle use in Boston is tolerated, not supported; it's actually barely acknowledged. Comparing motor vehicle use to bicycle use in Boston, I'd be astonished to find a 1/1000 ratio. (Not saying that's a good thing.)
Besides, we rely on roads to support movement of supplies, food and all forms of services from routine maintenance to our emergency fire and police. Diverting traffic can cause/worsen serious traffic jams, pollution and add to an already abhorred commute, so I understand that people throw fits when they find out that traffic may be disrupted. On the other hand, I've never seen a bicycle jam; although I'd love to hear dozens of those little handle bar bells sounding as bicyclists frantically try to shift gears through the chaos.
One of the main advantages of riding a bike is the flexibility. People on bikes can ride down to the next bridge with or against traffic, in the roads or on the sidewalks and then make up for lost time by never having to stop in traffic or at an intersection.
 
If you really want to be specific about it, the Henry Hudson Parkway begins north of 72nd Street. Everything south of 72nd Street is technically part of the West Side Highway. Regardless, the roadway south of 59th street accommodates pedestrians and cars very successfully.
 
Nico, thanks for your responses.

To address your comment to Ron:
"Would you suggest increasing speed limits on Beacon St.?"

Increasing the speed limit would have little effect on traffic throughput, since it's not the speed or number of lanes that are the biggest bottlenecks, it's the traffic lights. It may be possible to synchronize the lights for a certain reasonable urban speed (i.e. 25 mph) along with concurrent pedestrian phasing.

To address your comment to me:
"Besides, we rely on roads to support movement of supplies, food and all forms of services..."

Keep in mind that trucks are not allowed on Storrow, so it's really only passenger cars that would be affected. What's funny is that Storrow (and all parkways for that matter) were built "for pleasure vehicles", the idea being that people would drive down it to enjoy the parkland. Unfortunately, many of them have just become mini-highways for commuters.
 
cden4,
I agree about the lights; and synchronized or not...I think it's just impossible.

Concerning your comment on drivers complaining, my response would still be that it is much easier for a bike rider to re-route...they can go anywhere.
Our roads, whatever their originally intended purposes are taxed to the max; you can't just re-route. We try all the time, but our road systems are so archaic and prone to bottleneck, that seemingly insignificant changes cause traffic nightmares. W/out traffic my commute is a 10 minute drive door to door. Most days w/traffic, 15-20 minutes at most. There are days though when it takes me an hour to get home b/c of construction/detours or a 93 on-ramp being closed; happens all the time.
Our road systems are so fragile that I don't believe anyone could accurately predict the effect a road closing/narrowing/detour will have on the system as a whole. Safe to assume pain.
 
Until the early 1960's, Storrow Drive had a traffic light on it between Arlington St. and the Longfellow Bridge. The traffic light was for a pedestrian crossing, and was there until the pedestrian overpass just south of Longfellow Bridge was built. Traffic seemed to move just fine with the traffic light.

Installing two new traffic lights, one at the Arlinton exit and one at the Berkeley St. entrance would also have minimal effect on traffic. The lights would be one-phase only, could easily be synchronized, and would stop only east-bound traffic. The effect on traffic overall would be minimal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top