Hey, there! Log in / Register
Imagine if a trolley line ran along the Charles instead of Storrow Drive
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
Scrapping Storrow Drive...
...and replacing it with a trolley line and expanded park space/bike path has been my dream for years.
Why?
So that it'll take me another 20 minutes to drive across the city? So that I'm forced to pay the Pike $1.25 to get back to my Brighton home? Please don't wish for Boston traffic to suck even more than it does now.
We already have parks and bike paths.
20 minutes if you're lucky
It seems to me that Beacon St. and Comm Ave. would bear the brunt of Storrow's traffic. And Kenmore? Wow. I don't even want to think about it.
I found the route I'd take to 93 from the Back Bay if I lived there, and if Storrow were gone, since I wouldn't want to double back to the Pike:
Comm Ave -> Arlington St -> Boylston St-> Charles St -> Beacon St -> Bowdoin St -> New Chardon St -> Surface Rd
That is, of course, if Beacon is a two-way street between Charles and Bowdoin. I honestly don't remember. If it isn't, my route might need to become even more convoluted.
Storrow Drive is one of the
Storrow Drive is one of the only reasonable streets we have in this city (that and memorial on the other side for Cambridge.) It is pretty fast moving on off hours (except during rush hour, dring construction, or when they close part of it for events on the Charles) and still actually moves pretty nicely compared to other streets. I use Storrow and Memorial for almost everywhere I have to go in that part of the city, which takes me off of city streets , which reduces congestion inside, and in turn reduces air pollution from idling cars. If you take away Storrow Im gonna just drive on normal city streets the whole way, and lots of people will do the same.
How Much Would You Pay?
Storrow needs Big Dig amounts of dollars to even repair it, but it is so horribly outdated and behind safety standards that any remake would be seriously limited anyway. It won't get federal funds, either.
I think the the "fergittaboutit" option should be studied, comparing the costs of pouring vast amounts of money into Storrow to the costs of replacing the capacity though other means - more pike exits, pike toll elimination, surface street changes, etc.
In other words, I think the money is better spent elsewhere, particularly when prime riverfront is at stake.
Oh, and I will respectfully and professionally disagree with your congestion reduction assumptions for Storrow, and leave it at that.
I have always believed in
I have always believed in universal tolls ,and would not mind in the least if we were all forced to have transponders on our cars (out of staters would be a problem, maybe they would be issued temporary ones on the way in , thats the biggest issue) and would have to pay different amounts for different roads. Id assume that local travel would be free, and so would roads that arent heavily traveled. I would imagine there would be several tiers with a top tier being reserved for the busiest of roads that have other options people may not be using. It could be a way for the governemtn to raise some funds to fix some of these roads. The system would work like the fast lane does by beaming your information as you drive by...
That being said Storrow and Memorial are currently not as over capacity as some of the other roads in this city and I would envision both of them being on a lower scale then even city roads to try to coax people out of the main parts of the system and onto these psuedo freeways.
If I have to go from Back Bay to Harvard Square a map tells me to take Mass ave the whole way, google maps does too. Instead I take either Storrow or Memorial to JFK street. It takes me less time, and Im not idling in the Back Bay and Cambridge trying to fight my way down Mass ave. In theory the distance is longer, but its near highway mileage because of the openess of the two roads. Id be willing for the state to pay through the nose to keep them open.
However,
it's already possible to get from Back Bay to Harvard Square via public transportation (i. e. either the MBTA's Red Line or the Mass Ave. bus, both of which go straight to Harvard Square once you take the 5-10 minute hike to Park Street or over to Mass. Ave to wait for the Dudley bus, which goes along Mass. Ave towards Harvard Square. That being said, I believe that they should improve what we've already got, if one gets the drift.
In other words,
you think we should pour a billion dollars into a road that cannot be remade to the same capacity without loss of parkland?
That's a pretty extreme subsidy per driver at a time when the state has little money anyway and faces an income tax revolt. Where is this money going to come from? Not Uncle Sam, that's for sure. I think our public monies are better spent on alternatives - or will be properly spent if the alternatives are actually evaluated rather than the current "OMFG WE GOTTA DUMP MORE MONEY ON THIS BECAUSE ITS GOT DRIVERS DRIVERS CARS OMFG!!". I want to see traffic studies, too, not conjectures based on a single data point.
In other words, convince the taxpaying public that it really SHOULD be done and why, not just say "but I like it it's convenient for me".
This is the U.S. and more importantly, Boston
"Subsidy" and "Driver" cannot be used in conjunction with one another.
When the government dumps money into roads it's an investment.
When the government dumps (far less) money into mass transit it's a subsidy.
Its a road that already
Its a road that already exists, the burden of proof lands on the naysayers in this case.
Nope
The burden of proof rests on an even assessment of various alternatives INCLUDING rebuilding the current roadway. Criteria are cost, movement of people and goods, traffic, future needs, land use and desirability, etc. "It's already there but falling apart and below standards" doesn't buy anything in an honest assessment.
Unless you plan on paying for it yourself ... I'm sure you might find one or two people in Western Massachusetts who think it is important and will help you.
Im willing to go "log
Im willing to go "log rolling", as it were, with people in Western Mass and give some of the small towns out there roadways they could never pay for themselves for their support of fixing the roads I use everyday.
If Storrow Drive had to be rebuilt
one absolute constraint would have to be "no net loss of parkland". Keep all the substandard curves, tight merges, narrow lanes, low overpasses, etc. as long as you don't cut into the parkland. Since it is still a parkway, conforming to modern highway standards is neither necessary nor desirable.
imagine if even a bus ran
imagine if even a bus ran along the charles, along memorial....
Clearance 11'
Given the Mem Drive height restrictions, it would have to be a short bus. Heh.
#1 bus did run on Memorial Drive
for a few years while the Mass. Ave. bridge was being rebuilt. It took Memorial Drive from Mass. Ave. to the BU bridge, then Comm. Ave. back to Mass. Ave. I don't think it stopped anywhere along the detour route, except maybe in Kenmore Square.
it could stop at the lights
it could stop at the lights and not go under the overpasses, though
Atlantic Avenue... would
Atlantic Avenue... would that have been the A train on the green line?
Too early
The A line branched from Kenmore to Watertown. The Atlantic Avenue el was the one that was bent by the Great Molasses Flood, I think.
If the Atlantic Avenue el
If the Atlantic Avenue el still stood today, it would be called a branch of the Orange Line. Trains coming from Charlestown could either enter the Washington Street subway (as they do today) or they could stay on the elevated, travelling above Commercial Street and Atlantic Avenue and a couple other streets, rejoining the Washington Street el near today's Mass. Pike overpass.
Hmmmmm...don't know.
More than enough money and time has been spent on our Big Dig as it is. Plus, as several other posters on here have rightly pointed out, scrapping Storrow Drive altogether would simply create more traffic congestion in the residential areas of Back Bay and Beacon Hill nearby, which would understandably not be tolerated, plus it wouldn't be good for anybody. Storrow Drive does have a lot of problem spots that need to be fixed, and, if anything, they should concentrate on that.