Beacon Hill Board's Comments

[steve...@hklaw.com]

Hi All.

 

The following are the positions of the Beacon Hill Civic Association (with reasons for each) regarding the redesign of the Longfellow Bridge. While there are many components of the redesign of the bridge other than those mentioned below that BHCA members have strong views about, the components listed below are the ones that the group as a whole believes are essential to have reflected in whichever redesign alternative(s) may be selected.

 

CRUCIAL COMPONENTS TO BE IN REDESIGNED BRIDGE:

 

1. A minimum of 10' clear walking space over the main bridge span on both sides of the bridge. 

Reason:  A 10' width is the minimum width (see Walk Boston Fact Sheet) to reasonably accommodate two people walking one direction and two people walking the other direction.  In addition, it is the basic width that exists today and has existed for decades on the main span of the downstream side of the Longfellow Bridge, and it is the basic width of the sidewalk on the Harvard/Mass. Ave. Bridge.  The BHCA also notes that if the future dictates changes in the space allocation between vehicles and bicycles, those changes can be accommodated merely by restriping and redesigning the space allocations.  The same is not true for the sidewalk segment of the bridge because the crash barrier which will separate the bicycle segment from the rest of the roadway will be constructed as an integral part of the bridge itself, and changing that crash barrier location would require a prohibitive reconstruction cost.  Accordingly, it is essential that at least a minimum 10' of clear sidewalk space be allocated now, especially where it is virtually a guarantee that pedestrian/jogger use of the Longfellow Bridge will increase substantially after the reconstruction, if the bridge is made pedestrian friendly.  Of course, with a single vehicle travel lane, there should be room for several more feet of clear sidewalk space.

2. A minimum of 5' clear walking space at the narrow, "pinch," sections of the bridge on both sides - where that width is not possible, split the available space with a bike lane. 

Reason:  Providing adequate clear walking space on the main bridge spans of each side of the bridge will not alone result in the bridge becoming fully utilized by pedestrians and joggers, either for commuting or pleasure purposes.  That is not just speculation - it is a fact that has been confirmed by decades of minimal use of the downstream side of the existing bridge, which all along has had 10' of clear walking space on most of the main bridge span because at the pinch section you had to step into the street or squeeze against the bridge railing to let someone pass.  A 5' minimum width is the ADA required minimum, barring an exception.  Where this bridge is being designed to last for 75 years, the sidewalk section should be designed to minimum ADA requirements, not be designed to seek an exception to the minimum. 

As with designing to meet the 10' main span minimum sidewalk width, the pinch section 5' minimum would require reallocation of space from either the bike lane or the vehicle lane(s).  The largest share of that space can and should properly come from the vehicle lanes, which are presently shown on the 2 lane options as 11' with a potential design exception being sought to reduce the lane width to 10' 6".  That exception should in fact be to 10'.  That is so because the basic standard of Boston bridges is 10' as established by the BU Bridge being reconstructed to have 10' travel lanes, the Craigie Dam Bridge is to have 10' travel lanes and the Harvard/Mass. Ave.Bridge already has 10' travel lanes.  In addition, the Massachusetts Turnpike Extension in whole or in part is designed with 10' lanes and the Massachusetts Highway Department 's design manual specifically states that "the normal range of design lane width is between 10-12 feet."  (Section 3.3.3, p. 5-30) and goes on to say that "narrow lanes . . . encourage low operating speeds" (5.33.3, p. 5-32), a highly desirable result on the Longfellow Bridge.  Finally, we understand that the lightest vehicle that is expected to use the Bridge is a certain MBTA bus, which 96' wide, thereby leaving ample clearance in a 10' lane.  The BHCA Board recognizes that all of the lanes, including the sidewalk space, will not be able to maintain a consistent width throughout their space.  Because of that recognition, the Board further recommends that where the minimum 5' clear walking space is not available in a pinch section of the bridge, that the existing available space be split between the sidewalk and the bike lane.  If additional space becomes available as a result of moving the bridge walls, the Board recommends that the additional space be allocated between the sidewalk and the adjacent bike lane.

3. A minimum 5' bike lane over the main span of the bridge, where possible, on both sides of the bridge. 

Reason:  The minimum 5' bike lane, which includes the buffer or separation line between the bike and vehicle lanes, only applies to two vehicle lane alternatives, because there should be substantially more space available for proper bike lanes on all other alternatives.  While the BHCA Board recognizes that 5' is a minimum for bike lanes and only supports such minimum width because of the lack of available space on the Longfellow Bridge, it is also aware that the bike lanes on the Harvard/Mass. Ave bridge are approximately 5' (48" width with 4" stripe), that the bike lanes on the Craigie Dam Bridge will be 5' and that 51" plus 4" stripe bike lanes were installed on Commonwealth Avenue.  If more space becomes available on the Longfellow Bridge because of outward movement of the walls, the BHCA Board would support reallocation of any such space between the bike lanes and the sidewalk.

4. Two vehicle lanes (instead of the current three) and one dedicated bike lane at Charles Circle.

Reason:  The BHCA Board believes that 3 lanes of vehicles plus a flow of bicycles entering Charles Circle from the Longfellow Bridge creates a significantly more difficult, if not dangerous condition, for pedestrians crossing toward or away from the MBTA station than do 2 lanes of vehicles with a bicycle flow.  That feeling has been confirmed by the recent condition when 2 lanes existed during the reconstruction work on the sidewalk at the pinch point near the Circle on the upstream side of the Bridge.  The traffic entering Charles Circle was significantly more orderly and did not appear to be significantly reduced from what it was before or has been since the work was completed.  Board members speculated that the reason why the flow at Charles Circle works better with 2 vehicular rather than 3 vehicular lanes may be that when there are 3 lanes at the Circle,  one or more center lane vehicles in each cycle invariably tries to turn rather than proceeding straight down Cambridge Street.  When that happens, the vehicle blocks  vehicles in the adjacent lane from continuing into the intersection - a condition that does not occur with only 2 lanes.  The Board also notes the space limitations that presently exist on Cambridge Street where there is no reasonable accommodation for bicyclists, a condition that should be now and clearly will have to be addressed if bicycle volume increases over the Bridge, and that the only way to deal with the condition is to reduce the pavement space available for vehicles. Accordingly, traffic conditions at Cambridge Street and thus Charles Circle not only cannot accept any increase in vehicular volume but actually cry out for a decrease in volume. 

5. Posted 25 MPH speed limit on the bridge. 

Reason:  Because traffic coming across Longfellow Bridge toward Boston will likely have to stop, especially during rush hour, because of there being a 3 light cycle at Charles Circle, as compared with a 2 light cycle at the Kendall Square side and at most intersections, there is no need for a vehicle to rush across the Bridge only to come to a stop.  Furthermore, slowing the traffic down would create a safer environment on the Bridge both for the vehicles and bicyclists.  There is presently pending a bill before the Massachusetts House to reduce the prevailing speed on "local" roads in urban areas, which would include the internal Beacon Hill streets, and a similar 25 mile per hour posted speed would be appropriate on the Longfellow Bridge.

 

 

Sincerely,

Steve Young, on behalf of the BHCA

 

 

 

Stephen Young | Holland & Knight

Partner

10 St. James Avenue, 11th Floor | Boston MA 02116

Phone 617.573.5833 | Fax 617.523.6850

steve...@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com

 

 

 

  ________________________________  

To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.

  ________________________________  

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.