Hey, there! Log in / Register
Here's a thought: When the state rebuilds the Longfellow, narrow the roadway and give more space to walkers, bicyclists
By adamg on Mon, 08/02/2010 - 8:02pm
ForLeft considers two alternates for a rebuilt Longfellow - one of which has only one traffic lane in each direction:
... I love the idea of cutting down on car traffic and [putting] benches on the walks. This is a chance to really change the urban environment. ...
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
is there a link to where I
is there a link to where I can justification for the changes? Why the wider red line in particular?
to answer myself,
to answer myself, http://livablestreets.info/files/longfellowbridge/... is pretty good
what a great idea
i love this. who do i call/email to show my support?
Longfellow Bridge
This is a great plan, but as a semi-regular driver over that bridge I'd like to see more data on the impact of one lane on the receiving end at Charles Circle. There are times when that thing can back up onto the bridge fairly far as it stands now and I imagine with one lane down it would only be worse. But it is interesting that traffic on it has been gradually declining over the past decade. There's hope!
I wrote this somewhere else
I wrote this somewhere else before; whats the feasibility of going with the one lane plan, but making a system that pushes traffic one way into the city during the morning commute, and one way out during the evening?
We do something similar on the southeast expressway. Might be a good compromise that also allows two lanes during rush hour.
Can't do it with the T
in the center...at least not like it's done on the SE x-way. The reversible commute is achieved with a center lane (which on the Longfellow is occupied by the T). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_transfer_machine.
Someone else mentioned the backup with one lane going into Charles circle. I can't help but agree. It already backs up significantly with two lanes. But, what about two lanes into Boston, one out to Cambridge, and eliminate the
right-hook death turnofframp to Land/Mem Drive? That gives at least another car lane's worth of width to play with.Good idea!
Jiffywoob, you should work for the U.N. That's a good compromise -- something for those of us behind the wheel, something for the T, something for the bikers (as a driver that uses it often, I think that turn onto Memorial Drive is dangerous and would be willing to go around the block to get on to Mem Drive) and of course something for the hordes of walking people. Make it so, number 1!
In rebuilding the Longfellow,
In rebuilding the Longfellow, we should also follow up on the Globe's longstanding suggestion, and have two of the piers dispense salt, and the other two dispense pepper.
Good, but NO on the benches.
Good, but NO on the benches. They're right up against traffic. The artist's conception of the business woman contemplating her portfolio is bullcrap. Think more like sleeping bums to out of it to mind the roar of traffic, and tourists standing on the benches to get better snapshots before they fall into the bike lane and push a bicyclist under a bus.
before they fall into the
And how would this be a bad thing? Sounds like planned serendipity to me. ;-)
yawn.....
if you're going to joke about peers being killed at least be funny about it. The Herald comments section is that way.....
If they want to provide space
If they want to provide space for people to hang out on the bridge, they should remove the chain link fences that keep people from walking around the towers. They could do this today if they wanted.
The big problem for pedestrians and sidewalk bikes is the Boston approaches. Pedestrians often end up walking in the roadway, since the sidewalks don't continue all the way to the Charles Circle traffic lights. Livable Streets mentions this at the bottom of their document, but I think it's the most important problem, far more important than widening the sidewalk and bike lane in the middle of the bridge.
The MassDOT proposal looks ok. But I don't like how they're slightly widening the bike lane while greatly narrowing the right lane. That's a net loss for bikes, especially in the winter when snow might block the right edge of the bike lane.
I agree about the towers,
I agree about the towers, people would be much more likely to hang out there than right by the road. Interesting though that your least favorite part is Charles Circle. As a bicyclist typically, my least favorite part is the Cambridge side, mainly because the ramps on and off Memorial can be used at too high a rate of speed, and it is easy to miss a bicyclist. I have a friend that got right hooked on the Cambridge bound side.
I wonder, does there even need to be a connection to Memorial here?
These get very light use from my experience, but of course, I'm just basing that on what I've seen, not traffic counts. It would seem though that given how close the Obrien Highway/28/Museum of Science bridge is to this one, these would be unnecessary. Plus it could still be reached with a slight detour up 3rd street to Athenaeum or Binney, or via Wadsworth.
Looking around, there are surprisingly few examples of bridges with non at-grade intersection in Boston. There used to be an extra ramp on the Mass ave bridge on the Boston side that was removed, you can still see the former path of it where there are no trees: Mass ave bridge
Chain link fence around towers
Aren't those fences there because the bridge is in such bad repair that the state is worried about the stability of those sections of the walkway?
Yeah, those are relatively
Yeah, those are relatively new.
Conversely
Getting from the Longfellow bike lane to the Esplanade bike lane is peculiarly complicated.
There's too many car lanes
There's too many car lanes everywhere. We're a walking city dammit, get rid of all these lanes for cars and open up the city for pedestrians and non-car vehicles. It's a win for everyone, except those people who love being stuck in traffic. They can move to LA though.
Have you ever had to take a
Have you ever had to take a cab home?
This bridge feeds to MGH for
This bridge feeds to MGH for ambulances!
27 feet for pedestrians?
Two 13'6" corridors for pedestrians is a waste of space in a place that has very limited space - 105 feet. 27 feet is more than 1/4 of the total width, and to allocate that much for a relatively small user base is a waste. I realize a lot of you have this utopian view of Boston with no cars, sunny skies, efficient mass transportation, a good coffee shop on every corner, and cab drivers that speak English, the reality is that this is a bridge going over a river, and there are very few ways to do that for a car. Plug this one up, and you just cause backups at another place.
Note: I can't remember the last time I drove over the Longfellow.
How do you know pedestrians
How do you know pedestrians are a relatively small user base?
You just assume that, and possibly incorrectly.
Right now a majority of bridge space is devoted to the private car on the bridge. From what I remember in one of the presentations, more bikes use the bridge than cars.
Red line users are number 1, so perhaps the best thing to do would be to add a third track so disabled trains can be sent there during rush hour.
You're right, I don't
Good catch, how would I know the pedestrian traffic on the bridge? Just a WAG.
Since most streets in the busiest parts of Boston don't have 27 total feet of sidewalk space, my guess is that putting that much on the bridge would be a bad allocation of resources.
You're right, I should hang out there and see what's going on.
As someone who used to work in Kendall Square
as well as attending MIT, I can tell you that huge numbers of pedestrians walk over the Longfellow every day. So many that when the sidewalk was closed a couple years ago, they were clogging up the bike lane. The upstream (south) sidewalk is much too narrow for the traffic it carries; it should be widened to at least the width of the downstream (north) sidewalk.
+1 on this Downstream is
+1 on this
Downstream is never crowded, but that upstream side is just ridiculously crowded. It's the only sidewalk I've been on that literally gridlocks sometimes. Anyone who claims it doesn't need to be wider has never walked that bridge.
More than once, I've had to
More than once, I've had to step over the curb and into the bike lane just to pass oncoming foot traffic. And forget about walking side-by-side with a friend very far. Having to go single-file for every walker or runner is so charming.
Put bikes with cars? Or with pedestrians?
Got a question for you city riders. Would you rather have a clearly demarcated bike lane that flows with autos, or have your own lane with pedestrians?
Here's why I ask. Years ago, I was travelling to Vienna for business a lot (all work, very little play), and became familiar with the city. A lot of the sidewalks are very wide - 30+ feet - and have a separate, clearly marked bike lane. There are lots of bikes in the city ridden by all ages. A newcomer to the city quickly finds out that walking in the bike lane is not tolerated (don't ask - I learned fast). This works very well.
Would that kind of arrangement work on the Longfellow? Would you rather ride with cars, and risk getting hit, but at least be in a traffic flow? Or, would you want to ride on your own lane that abuts pedestrians, possibly (probably?) dealing with pedestrians walking in the bike lane?
I'd rather be next to cars (not 'with' them)
When I first attended MIT in the 1970s, the Mass. Ave bridge had no shoulder or bike lane, so I almost always rode on the sidewalks. This led to many conflicts with pedestrians. I much prefer the current bridge's clearly-marked bike lanes.
It depends on what type of
It depends on what type of cycling you plan on doing.
Need to get somewhere fast at 15mph? Then you want to be on the road.
Regular bike ride, perhaps to the store? Sidewalk may work better.
Cambridge does have a bike lane on the sidewalk, on Vassar street. I think it's great, but the geniuses at MIT, however, enjoy walking in the bike lane.
okay people...let's make it
okay people...let's make it one lane...and then just hope you aren't the poor fool in the back of the ambulance trying to get to MGH. This bridge feeds MGH!!!! Making the bridge one lane in each direction is one of the stupidest ideas going!