Wording for Edits to TF report

[Steven Miller]

The final report correctly states that while the Task Force supported moving out the wall, it was only with the caveat that the extra space be primarily used to expand the space for walking and bicycling rather than expand the number or size of the traffic lanes -- and that there be a full 4(f) and 106 review. 

What the report leaves out is the explicit statement that the reviews be based on a MassDOT commitment to move the Storrow exit ramps, build the new pedestrian bridge, and implement the other proposed off-bridge mitigations.  It also leaves out the fact that the Task Force suggested that DOT explore expanding the wall even more than 12 feet in order to provide the best possible pedestrian and bicycling facilities.  Finally, it should be made clear that there was no general support among Task Force members for moving the wall if the mitigation measures are not committed to by MassDOT -- with some members believing that without such a commitment, not moving the wall and reducing the "release" into Charles Circle to two lanes would provide the best opportunity for pedestrian and cycling facilities.

Steve

Steven E. Miller
Executive Director, Healthy Weight Initiative, HSPH, Dept. of Nutrition
Board of Directors, LivableStreets Alliance
cell:  617-686-1050
Blog:  "Transportation, Health, and Livable Communities" -- http://blog.livablestreets.info/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven Miller <semil...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 3:43 PM
Subject: Wording for Edits to TF report
To: Bill Logue <Bi...@loguegroup.com>, Abby Goodman <agoo...@engineers.org>


* For the section about the Inbound pinch point/release area...

The Task Force feels that a huge number of elements are in play on the Boston side of the bridge, particularly around the inbound pinch point and the release into Charles Circle.  The Task Force believes that an evaluation of alternative designs for the inbound sections of the bridge from the pinch point to Charles Circle (and to some extent for the outbound side as well) requires analyzing many possible combinations of these elements -- including the possibility of moving the last part of the wall further out than 12 feet, creating a new pedestrian bridge (possibly not as high as originally proposed), consolidating the two current exit ramps from east-bound Storrow Drive (only one of which is currently being used) and locating the new exit ramp further away from the bridge, making it more inviting for cyclists coming off the Esplanade to get over to the downstream side of the bridge (perhaps via the existing tunnel underpass) in order to return to the Cambridge side, improving the signage for cars coming into Charles Circle, slowing down cars as they go over the bridge....and much more.

In addition, while the Task Force is unanimously in favor of expanding the bridge, at least from the pinch point to Charles Circle, the members feel that it is vital that a full 4(f) and 106 review of the impact of that action when integrated with the various other elements included in the potential solutions be conducted to lock-in the full range of needed mitigations in the broadest possible area around the bridge -- including as "far away" as the Blossom Street intersection.

* For the section describing ideas that have been "discarded."

>>Bill -- two of these supposedly "discarded" ideas are part of the ABC Phase 1 and Phase 2 options that we voted to include -- so they should be taken off this list.  The two are "Creation of an inbound promenade...." and "Cycle tracks....   
>>As for the remaining "discards," I think the introductory sentences should be changed to read:

While many Task Force members had strong objections to the following ideas, a few felt that the proposals had enough merit -- at least under certain circumstances -- to be included in the list of things to be analyzed. ( The major objections to the ideas are included.)   


>>good luck with the rewriting....

Steve


Steven E. Miller
Executive Director, Healthy Weight Initiative, HSPH, Dept. of Nutrition
Board of Directors, LivableStreets Alliance
cell:  617-686-1050
Blog:  "Transportation, Health, and Livable Communities" -- http://blog.livablestreets.info/

[Tuli...@aol.com]

If we don't conditionally (as indicated) support moving the wall,  MassDOT's hands are tied and there's no flexibility to resolve sidewalk, travel lane and bicycle lane width's.

 

Joe Tulimieri