Storrow Drive tunnel replacement

[czsz]

Emergency crews work to shore up deteriorating walls and roof of Storrow Drive tunnel almost every night, officials say.

State narrows options on crumbling Storrow Drive tunnel
Officials mull three choices
By Mac Daniel, Globe Staff | June 21, 2007

Forget the ramps from the Massachusetts Turnpike to the Back Bay or the traffic lights on Storrow Drive and other ideas offered as remedies for the ailing Storrow Drive tunnel.

As the design process winds down for a new tunnel, the state Department of Conservation and Recreation's plans for the badly needed project have been whittled down to three options: One would fix the existing tunnel, one would do away with the tunnel, and another would build two smaller tunnels on the east and westbound sides while extending the Esplanade to Back Street.

At a meeting last evening, two advisory committees looked at the latest proposals. The state Highway Department, which will build and pay for the project, favors fixing up the existing tunnel, the least expensive and quickest approach. It would cost $52 million and take a little over two years to finish.

Work on the reconstruction isn't expected to begin until 2010.

"MassHighway is recommending that we rehabilitate the existing tunnel, as it would cause the least amount of disruption in Boston and Cambridge along the Charles River," spokesman John Lamontagne said in a statement.

Despite pressures from local environmental and neighborhood groups to turn Storrow Drive back into a parkway, and from Back Bay neighborhood groups opposed to increased traffic on local streets, the state says it can afford to do only so much with the Storrow Tunnel because it has the $200 million reconstruction of the Longfellow Bridge and the rebuilding of the BU Bridge still to come.

But members of the advisory committees say rebuilding the current tunnel is a short-term approach that would last an estimated 40 years, compared to 70 years for new construction.

"Many of us, myself included, don't want to revisit this issue down the road," said Elliott Laffer , executive director of the Boston Groundwater Trust and chairman of the transportation advisory committee.

DCR officials, however, say the rehabilitation will last 75 years if maintained properly.

Making the tunnel into a surface road would cost about $65 million, according to the figures released yesterday. In the proposed configuration, the westbound entrance from Berkeley Street would close, as would the eastbound exit to Arlington Street. An eastbound exit would be built to Dartmouth Street, where exiting traffic is predicted to almost double. This option would take about 3 1/2 years to construct.

The other option, building two smaller east- and westbound tunnels running about 700 feet each, would cost an estimated $135 million and take more than four years to complete. The existing eastbound exit to Arlington Street would close, an eastbound exit to Dartmouth and Clarendon streets would open, and the existing left-lane westbound exit to Arlington Street would be a right lane exit.

One factor that has stymied both committees are the traffic numbers, which show that at certain points in the day, Storrow Drive carries as much traffic -- 120,000 vehicles per day -- as the parallel section of the Massachusetts Turnpike between downtown Boston and the Fenway/Longwood area. That caused some on the committees to want to ease traffic volume on Storrow and restore its parkway status, an idea that has slowly ebbed as the options dwindle down.

"The committees haven't seen an alternative that met with enough positive answers," Laffer said. "They're being very deliberative, not obstructionist. . . . This is democracy, and democracy is a messy business. It's not a bunch of crazy NIMBY people that just want to make sure they can get to their house. And if that was the kind of process it was, I wouldn't be a part of it."

Two subcommittees studying landscaping and traffic have yet to officially choose an option, though they are slated to do so by July 19.

By July 30, DCR Commissioner Richard Sullivan will make his recommendation, followed by a public comment period. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian A. Bowles is expected to make his design recommendation by Sept. 14.

Meanwhile, the 56-year-old tunnel continues to crumble. Every night, crews close lanes so they can shore up the wall and roof, which is rusting and bowed but not a safety hazard, officials say.

 

[Ron Newman]

"New tunnels" may be more complex and more expensive than "No tunnel", but future generations will thank us if we put the whole thing underground here. That gives us a direct pedestrian connection from the Public Garden and Common to the Esplanade.

 

[czsz]

But...we'd have to name something else after Arthur Fiedler! Any nominations?

Seriously, while I'd support the complete tunnel solution out of these three, I think perhaps the parkway idea was the best (feasible) solution for the whole length of Storrow. Is one Storrow-less block more of an achievement for pedestrians (or those who find the roar of the highway intrusive) than a calmer, controlled surface street would have been?

 

[Ron Newman]

The oval itself should be named after Fiedler. And the new tunnels should be extended up (north) beyond the Shell itself, so that the entire concert environment is free of traffic sounds.

 

[underground]

My favorite part of this article is where the citizens ask for one of the two projects that will last 70 years instead of the one that will last 40 years, and the DCR picks the one that will last 40 years, telling the citizens that it'll last 75 years if it's properly maintained. Isn't the complete inability to maintain this tunnel the reason that we have the problem to begin with?

 

[justin]

When they say 'last 75 years', I think they're refering to construction time.

justin

 

[Equilibria]

I don't really see how a surface street would be more "controlled" than Storrow Drive is right now. The major complement to the surface avenue plan was the exit from the Turnpike that would allow the interstate to pick up Storrow's role as a major thoroughfare in the Back Bay. As is, the traffic would stay the same, but now would have to contend with traffic lights and pedestrians.

The new tunnels are the best solution now, but won't the same maintenance issues apply with them as the reconstruction? I think the real issue here is how to guarantee that DCR will keep the new or refurbished tunnel in shape, or even build it smoothly in the first place.

And why is the DCR still in the business of building roads, anyway?

 

[statler]

Question:

I don't really see how a surface street would be more "controlled" than Storrow Drive is right now.

Answer:

but now would have to contend with traffic lights and pedestrians.

 

[Mike]

Storrow Tunnel may need replacing
Structure wasn't waterproofed

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff | July 24, 2007


State officials, who had planned to quickly and inexpensively fix the crumbling Storrow Drive Tunnel, have learned that it was not waterproofed when it was built in 1951 and may need to be replaced, a much costlier and more disruptive project.

Cranston R. Rogers, who was a structural engineer for the Massachusetts Department of Public Works in the 1950s, told officials at the state Department of Conservation and Recreation that the lack of waterproofing has led to such extensive structural damage that it would be impractical to repair the tunnel.

The news potentially spoils state plans to save money on the Storrow Tunnel project as officials confront other costly restorations, including a $200 million reconstruction of the Longfellow Bridge and rebuilding of the BU Bridge.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation just a month ago had eliminated all but three of the options for the tunnel and said it preferred the least expensive one, repairing it at a cost of $52 million over 2 1/2 years. It is now having to give serious consideration to costlier and more time- consuming options, including filling in the tunnel and constructing a surface road, at a cost of $80 million over 3 1/2 years, and building a bigger tunnel at a cost of $130 million over 4 1/2 years. The agency is also considering options that include elements of both plans.

"As it was built, it would make it impossible to rehabilitate," Rogers said yesterday. "It would have to either be rebuilt or demolished."

Department officials, who met with Rogers Friday, said yesterday that they had not been told about the lack of waterproofing by Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc, the private firm they hired to develop options for the tunnel. They said they have asked the Waltham-based firm to investigate.

"That's certainly an important piece of information that we've asked our engineers to review," said Jim Baecker, the department's project manager for the Storrow Tunnel. "If [Rogers] is correct, it might be very unwise to consider that particular option," to repair the tunnel.

Rogers, 82, a prolific structural engineer who designed the Harvard Square underpass in the 1970s, did not design the Storrow Tunnel. But he said he studied its design and consulted with its engineers in the mid 1950s when he designed the Dewey Square Tunnel to carry Interstate 93 traffic under downtown Boston.

At the time, he said, "there were all sorts of beliefs and theories," that suggested concrete tunnels could withstand water.

But he said he was convinced otherwise and designed the Dewey Square tunnel to include walls protected by layers of a gooey, tarlike substance that repels water.

Rogers said he had recently made a mental note to study the Storrow Tunnel plans but didn't look at them in detail until this summer, when they "fell in my lap" at a meeting of regional planning officials.

Rogers aired his concerns at a community meeting Wednesday.

"As a generality, it could create unsafe conditions and demand attention and funding, if it continues to be left open for traffic," he said. "So the safety of the tunnel should be of prime concern to the Department of Conservation and Recreation. I'm not alleging that there's any fault here, I'm just staying they're playing with matches -- they could cause a problem."

Baecker said the tunnel is inspected monthly and is safe. Over the last several months, he said, workers have repaired a beam on the entrance near Clarendon Street that had been hit by trucks, another that developed a stress fracture, and patches of ceiling where steel reinforcements had become exposed.

Every day, 103,000 cars use the tunnel, which carries traffic in one direction, eastbound along the Esplanade, while westbound traffic travels on the surface on the roof of the tunnel. Over the years, the tunnel has been plagued by leaks, deteriorating concrete and corroding beams.

Members of neighborhood groups who heard Rogers speak Wednesday said they were stunned. Some of the groups -- including the Back Bay Association, which represents 300 neighborhood businesses -- had been pushing to repair the tunnel and avoid a more costly and disruptive construction project.

"A lot of time and effort has gone into considering the options presented by Department of Conservation and Recreation, and it's surprising that one of those options is not feasible," said Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the association.


Link

 

[KentXie]

Revived plan for detour on Esplanade stirs outrage
State touts savings during tunnel project
By David Abel, Globe Staff | August 16, 2007

The Patrick administration revived a plan last night to build a temporary bypass road through the Charles River Esplanade to expedite reconstruction of the crumbling Storrow Drive tunnel, igniting outrage among residents who decried the damage that would be inflicted on the widely used park in Boston's historic Back Bay.

Richard Sullivan, commissioner of the State Department of Recreation and Conservation, said the bypass road would cut construction time by six months and save the state $5 million.

If the bypass is built, it will divert Storrow Drive traffic onto the Esplanade for at least two years, he said as he proposed the plan at a community meeting.

The road, Sullivan said, would cut as far as 40 feet into the tree-studded Esplanade. It would begin at the Arthur Fiedler Footbridge and run about 1,000 feet west, ending between Berkeley and Clarendon streets.

"The benefits are time, money, construction, emergency routes, and ensuring traffic always flows," Sullivan told the Globe after the heated meeting. "But the impact is clearly on the Esplanade.

"Whichever option we choose, there are pluses and minuses," Sullivan added. "All I'm asking is for everyone to weigh the costs and benefits."

The minuses, though, are enormous, according to the plan's critics, many of whom live in the Back Bay and on Beacon Hill. The plan would involve chopping down at least 23 trees and impinging on a park that many people consider hallowed ground.

Sullivan's announcement, made to the Transportation and Landscape Advisory Committee to the Storrow Drive Tunnel Project, provoked howls of dissent from Back Bay residents, who said the change in course caught them by surprise.

"We're totally opposed to a bypass road because the Esplanade is a public resource," said Patrice Todisco, executive director of The Esplanade Association and cochairwoman of the landscape advisory committee to the Storrow Drive tunnel project. "What we heard tonight was a total surprise. It doesn't make any sense."

One longtime Beacon Hill resident, Linda Cox, threatened to chain herself to a tree to prevent a bypass road on the riverside parkland.

"This is just completely shocking," said Cox, who has written a small book about the Esplanade. "We were all assured that this was completely off the table. There is no way to justify the permanent damage that would be done to the Esplanade."

After the meeting, Councilor Michael P. Ross, who represents the neighborhoods, said he does not believe the proposal has a chance of coming to fruition.

"The notion of an automobile driving 40 miles per hour down the Esplanade would be universally opposed," Ross said. "It really can't happen. It would destroy the good work of this committee. I'd say, if this was a trial balloon, it was clearly shot down."

Sullivan argued that the benefits outweigh the temporary impact on the Esplanade, which he promised would be completely restored. Building a road, he said, would allow construction to take place from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., instead of just at night, and keep emergency evacuation lanes open at all times, with two lanes in each direction. The plan, he said, would allow the project to be completed in two years at a cost of $50 million.

Even without the road, repairs on the tunnel will intrude into the Esplanade, at one point as far as 25 feet, according to engineers hired by the state.

The Storrow Drive Tunnel, completed in 1953, carries more than 100,000 cars per day eastbound along the Esplanade, while westbound traffic travels on the surface on the roof of the tunnel. Over the years, the tunnel has been plagued by leaks, deteriorating concrete, and corroding beams, its rehabilitation considered by state engineers to be an urgent priority.

State officials designing a plan to repair the tunnel first raised the prospect of a temporary road on the Esplanade in late 2005, but assured the public that it was likely to pursue other options, given the heavy use of the parkland near the Hatch Shell.

In July, the state learned that the tunnel may need to be replaced, rather than repaired, because it was not waterproofed when it was built more than five decades ago. This has led to such extensive structural damage, DCR officials learned, that it would be impractical to repair the tunnel.

Now, the state believes it will be able to stick to the original price tag by rebuilding the tunnel from within.

Paul L. Kelley, a structural engineer with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., a Waltham-based engineering firm helping to develop options to repair the tunnel, said the project would involve waterproofing the current tunnel by pouring new concrete, replacing the steel beams in the roof, and surrounding the existing walls with a chemical grout.

Before construction begins in 2010, the state will need to spend $2 million annually on maintenance to extend the tunnel's life.

Dorothy Joyce, a spokeswoman for Mayor Thomas M. Menino, said last night that the mayor was concerned about allowing Storrow Drive's traffic to spill over into town neighborhoods and recreation areas. "We'd like very much to continue to work with the state in keeping the cars that travel Storrow Drive each day in that corridor and not on the streets of our neighborhood or on the Esplanade," Joyce said.

 

[Ron Newman]

Still a bad idea. Take the parking off Beacon Street between Clarendon and Arlington, and you've got enough room to move all the traffic there during construction.

 

[Beton Brut]

Still a bad idea.

A better idea would have been to properly maintain the infrastructure, dating back to the 70s. And the "one-works-while-three-watch" horseshit in this state has gotta stop.

Take the parking off Beacon Street between Clarendon and Arlington, and you've got enough room to move all the traffic there during construction.

This is a possibly acceptable alternative, but where will the outraged committee members park their Volvos and BMW's?

I'm curious to know how many of these folks protested when Wood Island Park went beneath the bulldozer's blade. I wonder how often they attend neighborhood clean-up days at Franklin Park or along the Southwest Corridor.

 

[JimboJones]

Humph

Regarding the "NIMBYs" you speak of - to be fair, the Esplanade is enjoyed by many, not just those who live in Back Bay, or those who would be directly affected.

The question is, whose needs should be met? Those who live nearby, or those who drive through? Much of the traffic that goes down there (West) is heading out to Newton, etc., other rich people. And, a lot of the traffic (West) is people going to Red Sox games. People who should take public transportation, or go by the Mass Turnpike.

Why should the people in Back Bay be inconvenienced, just to make life easier for someone else?

I'm serious. I'm talking more about the concept, not this specific case. What's going on right now is a classic example of how we "get things done" - or, not done.

Me, personally? I don't like the idea of any tunnels, anywhere. Mostly because of the need to repair them, down the line. Why bother?

During repairs, Ron's idea has some merit. Otherwise, do what the state suggests - move the traffic onto the Esplanade. It's the only logical solution.

 

[PerfectHandle]

I'm curious to know how many of these folks protested when Wood Island Park went beneath the bulldozer's blade. I wonder how often they attend neighborhood clean-up days at Franklin Park or along the Southwest Corridor.

Not to diminish those other places, but I think it's a little unfair to expect people in one neighborhood to show up all over the city to clean up or protect parks they don't use. Yeah, it would be very intellectually consistent of them, but let's be realistic here.

Do you think residents around Franklin Park or Wood Island Park come to Storrow re-route meetings because they intellectually support maintaining the Esplanade as is?

 

[Beton Brut]

Do you think residents around Franklin Park or Wood Island Park come to Storrow re-route meetings because they intellectually support maintaining the Esplanade as is?

You are correct to recognize the "I-Me-Mine" attitude that crosses socio-cultural lines in too much of America today. I don't think it's a Boston or New England thing. It's a worldview that's probably more dangerous to our country than "the terrorists."

If I were an abutter to this project, I'd be far more concerned with the amount of time (2+ years) it will take, than the temporary and reversible impact on parkland. At the completion of this project, the Esplanade will be returned to a reasonable facsimile of its current state -- it's a shame to lose some old trees, but it would be worse if this tunnel were the next live-shot on CNN and FoxNews.

 

[Ron Newman]

I don't live or work in Back Bay or Beacon Hill. I use the Esplanade and Hatch Shell a lot more than I use Storrow Drive, so naturally I prefer a solution that protects the park even if it causes a temporary traffic problem in Back Bay for 3 or 4 years. The state could give the residents who are displaced from street parking spaces a discount on parking at the Common Garage.

 

[PerfectHandle]

In the end, this is a project that needs to be done. We can't have bridges and tunnels falling in, and that is a candidate for disaster. Back Bay needs to decide which option would be less bad.

If I lived in that area, I would MUCH rather add traffic to and subtract 150 parking spots from Beacon than lose even part of the Esplanade temporarily.

First of all, the Esplanade as an asset to the neighborhood, and the rest of the city, is so much greater than those parking spaces and Beacon already has traffic on it.

Second of all, projects here drag on longer than expected almost every time. We'd end up with lost parkland for more than 2 years. I also wouldn't be shocked to see replanting of Esplanade land delayed after the tunnel is complete because it's expensive, which would inevitably lead to its use as a parking lot for police and other public vehicles.

 

[JimboJones]

Show of hands?

So, we're agreed? Mr Ron Newman's plan to route traffic down <strike>Boylston</strike> Beacon Street, from Arlington to Clarendon (or the Bowker Overpass) vote passes, 22-0.

Now, how do we get this idea to the state?

 

[Ron Newman]

I said Beacon, not Boylston.

 

[kennedy]

So, it'll never happen, except when the politicians get bored in 100 years after the Big Dig is done. The Big Dig 2, and Storrow will be the new RKG with a highway underneath and surface/access roads on top. Replace all the ugly bridges over the Charles with tunnels. And add a super duper large parking complex under the Common, and make sure it's connected to the T properly.