Comments on Task Force Recommendations
Sarah Kelly
Boston Preservation Alliance’s Comments on the Longfellow Bridge Rehabilitation Project Task Force Draft Recommendations
Prepared by Sarah D. Kelly, Executive Director
October 6, 2010
I. BPA Priorities (Identified at the start of the Task Force process)
1) Ensure the high-quality rehabilitation and long-term maintenance of the historic bridge in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
2) Improve pedestrian connections between the bridge and the Beacon Hill Historic District and Charles River Esplanade.
3) Promote the bridge as a destination and improve the experience of the iconic structure for all users.
II. Critical Information Not Yet Received – Continued Advocacy Needed
1) Cost estimates for steel refurbishment. This information is critical to making a determination about the extent of steel refurbishment or repair that is desirable. (After multiple requests by the Alliance and others, the Alliance received a commitment from DOT on 10/5/10 to review these estimates with us next week with no date set.)
2) Whether alternatives to bridge widening at the Boston approach were presented to historic preservation agencies during the initial Section 106 Review process and whether, if an alternative to the widening proposal were endorsed by the Task Force, would DOT present this alternative to the Massachusetts Historical Commission and other reviewing agencies. (Both the first section’s proposed12 foot widening and the second section’s graduated 4 foot widening were a part of the MHC’s initial conditional “no adverse affect” finding.)
III. General Areas of Agreement with the Recommendations
The Alliance is in general agreement with the following aspects of the draft recommendations, which pertain to historic preservation and our priorities. (Note: A number of aspects of the draft recommendations are not within the Alliance’s purview. For example, while the Alliance’s third priority leads us to support improved sidewalks for pedestrians, we defer to our colleagues at the relevant advocacy organizations on specifics regarding appropriate widths.)
- Cross section alternatives should recognize the potential for mode shift over time and are designed with flexibility to make changes in mind.
- The project scope should be broadened to include approaches to the bridge (although we would support a phased approach, outlined below).
- Pedestrian connections to the Esplanade should be improved.
- Enhancements to the bridge that are in keeping with its historic character, such as signage, benches, and street furniture should be encouraged.
IV. Outstanding Concerns and Additional Recommendations
Moving the Historic Wall Portions at the Boston Approach
The MHC has accepted the movement of two portions of the historic wall of the bridge on the upstream side of the Boston Approach. The Alliance concurs with MHC that the first portion, which would be moved 12 feet, would improve the historic condition by removing the existing cantilever and allowing for a full restoration and greater visibility of the wall. However consideration of the potential movement was given prior to serious discussion of the potential to add an improved pedestrian connection between the bridge and the Esplanade. The pedestrian bridge plans, as shown in concept on page 13 of the Draft Recommendations, might significantly impact whether or not the wall movement is necessary or desirable as proposed.
For this reason, the Alliance would prefer to see the wall movement and new pedestrian bridge considered concurrently as a next phase to the project (provided that we can be guaranteed that this phase will indeed occur and be funded). This will allow essential rehabilitation work to move forward and permit proper consideration of the relationship between the new Esplanade connections and potential alterations to this portion of the bridge. It will also yield a better outcome for the pedestrian bridge, which has been compellingly presented in concept, but which must be further assessed with respect to both design and functionality in serving its users.
Evaluation of Steel Refurbishment vs. Replacement
The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation call for the repair of historic fabric as the preferred course of action for historic structures. Replacement is considered the second most desirable choice in cases where the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair. Nevertheless, the Secretary’s Guidelines, developed in order to assist in the application of the Standards and Criteria, acknowledge that “because this approach [to repair] may not always be technically or economically feasible, provisions are made to consider the use of a compatible substitute material.” While the Alliance believes that the great significance of the Longfellow Bridge warrants considerable investment, the astronomical cost of the project following decades of deferred maintenance implores us to fully assess the cost implications for preservation decisions. For this reason, it is critical that both current estimates and information that becomes available with the culmination of the current testing inform final decisions about the appropriateness of repair and/or replacement scenarios.
The Alliance sees it as our responsibility to hold the project to the highest standard of rehabilitation. However, part of that responsibility is to demand complete and accurate information about the choices available regarding specific preservation choices before endorsing a specific option. In the case of steel refurbishment or replacement on the Longfellow Bridge, the Alliance believes it is essential that the reports on the full condition of the steel and cost estimates are made public before a final determination is made.
Sarah D. Kelly
Executive Director
Boston Preservation Alliance
Old City Hall
45 School Street
Boston, MA 02108
ph: 617-367-2458
f: 617-227-1886
Become a member today!
www.bostonpreservation.org/join_us.html
twitter: BOSPreservation
facebook: Boston Preservation Alliance
Paiewonsky, Luisa (DOT)
Luisa Paiewonsky
Highway Division
Administrator
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA
02116
Phone: (617) 973-7811
E-Mail:
Luisa.Pa...@state.ma.us
www.mass.gov/massdot/highway
From: longfello...@googlegroups.com [mailto:longfello...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sarah Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 2:31 PM
To: longfello...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Comments on Task Force Recommendations
Jim Gascoigne
Charles River Transportation Management Association (CRTMA) is a membership organization in Cambridge that works with member employers, property managers, residential properties and institutions to encourage walking, bicycling, carpooling, vanpooling, telework and public transportation. Our signature program is EZRide shuttle, a member sponsored commuter bus that runs between North Station and Cambridgeport via Kendall Square.
With my colleagues in the other ten area TMAs, we also sponsor the annual MassCommuter Challenge, to encourage normal, non-elite cyclists to try commuting and other short trips by bicycle. Full disclosure requires me to admit in this public forum that I love my daily, year-round 7 mile bike commute from Arlington to Kendall Square.
I walk the river regularly at lunch, and at other times. Most notably, I regularly walk to Fenway, usually with one or more of my children, using the Harvard Bridge at Mass Ave. Two observations of note for the Longfellow project from that bridge: Narrow bike lanes without buffers put way too many cyclists on the sidewalk, and traffic, when not crawling in congestion, moves way too fast.
Further thoughts about Longfellow:
1. Transit buses are 102 inches, or 8.5 feet. That means there is a 1 foot clearance on each side of the bus in a 10.5 foot travel lane if the driver is holding the middle of the lane. Bus drivers rely on side mirrors, which stick out another six to eight inches. As a contract manager for a bus service in the neighborhood, I offer for your consideration:
a. 10.5 foot lanes are quite close enough.
b. Buffers between extra narrow travel lanes and cyclists are VERY important, if you or a loved one is a cyclist or a bus driver, when mirrors and hopefully helmeted heads are in proximity.
c. It is very important for safe bus operations in narrow lanes to keep speeds down on the bridge, particularly on the Inbound side if there are two lanes.
2. I am very concerned about Outbound access to Memorial Drive with a one lane configuration. There needs to be a turn lane on the bridge, before the right turn to Memorial Drive.
a. As noted at public meeting by John Allen, a tight radius right turns across a bike lane on a downhill is deadly. Even on flat roadways, drivers pass cyclists, then often misjudge cycle speed, and turn in front of the cyclist. There must be adequate space for through cyclists and turning cars to sort, well in advance of the off-ramp to Memorial Drive.
b. The off-ramp is short, and offers little space for storage. A right-turn only lane on bridge must be long enough to store an adequate number of cars. Pedestrian crossings on the bridge, at the off-ramp and Memorial Drive, and well as Memorial Drive motor vehicular traffic, may slow turns, likely resulting in short cues which are nonetheless too long for the off-ramp, and need to be accommodated on the bridge.
3. Keep it simple and direct for cycling facilities on the bridge. The bridge is not long enough for cyclists to endure any detour to in order access the facility. Counterflow lanes or cycle tracks require direct access and egress. If the cycling “on ramp” is too involved, cyclists will opt to ride in traffic, on the sidewalk, and some will opt out of riding across the bridge entirely. Therefore, I favor bike lanes, 5 or more feet wide, and a buffer of not less than 1 foot.
Sincerely,
Jim Gascoigne
Executive Director
Charles River Transportation
Management Association
Cambridge, MA