Redline edits to draft recommendations - not for dissemination
Bill Logue
Greetings,
Attached are the revised draft recommendations based on the discussions yesterday. Please do not circulate these at this time.
If you have comments at this stage please send them to me by 12:30 PM Friday, October 1. Where possible I will make notations or edits. However, time, complexity or inserting individual opinion and the fact that some members may not have time in their schedule, may require that most suggestions are not incorporated at this stage. In the afternoon I will clean up the changes and have the draft disseminated via the Google Group, email list serves of MassDOT and MODR and posted on line. Please do circulate that draft when it is released.
The public meeting will be Wednesday, October 6, 2010 from 6:30 – 8:30 pm Shriners Children’s Hospital, 51 Blossom Street, Boston, MA. We will post an agenda for that soon.
A meeting summary for the September 29 meeting will be sent soon.
Thanks for all your hard work,
Bill
William DeVane Logue, JD
Senior Affiliate
Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration, UMass Boston (MODR)
Telephone: 860-521-9122
Email: Bi...@LogueGroup.com
Don Greenstein
Go get a drink! NOW>>
Don Greenstein
DLG Conflict Management Services
(703) 980.6209 (C)
Tuli...@aol.com
Thanks.
Wendy Landman
Thank you for all your hard work consolidating the many, many comments and opinions of the Task Force. WalkBoston's comments are below.
Wendy
WalkBoston Comments to LBTF Recommendations document, 10-1-10
Delete those items shown as strikethrough
Add those items underlined
Page 1 28,000 in automobiles and trucks and hundreds
thousands of pedestrians and bicyclists cross (counts are from the DCR Halvorson/Alta Charles
River Basin | Pedestrian + Bicycle Study For Pathways + Bridges)
Page 2
The Outbound configurations include: A) one vehicle travel lane, a 6 foot bike lane plus buffer and a 15 foot wide sidewalk; B) one vehicle travel lane, a 14 foot bidirectional bike lane and a 13 foot wide sidewalk; and C) two vehicle travel lanes, a 5 foot bike lane plus buffer and a 10 foot wide sidewalk. (Approaching Charles Circle, the sidewalk narrows to 3 feet 3 inches clear for about 55 feet without a widening of the abutment wall or to 9 feet 4 inches clear with a widening. These measurements could be adjusted with modifications to vehicle and bike lane widths.)
The Inbound configurations include: A) two vehicle travel lanes, a 5 foot bike lane plus a buffer and a 10 foot wide (8 foot clear) sidewalk (the sidewalk narrows to only 4 feet clear for approximately 70 feet approaching Charles Circle) (this alternative has two other minor variations); B) an single vehicle travel lane, a 12 foot bike lane, a 15 foot sidewalk (which narrows as it approaches Charles Circle); and C) is referred to as the “hourglass” alternative with a single lane onto the bridge at Cambridge, widening to two lanes at the midpoint and widening to three lanes at the entrance to Charles Circle. The sidewalk width varies from 15 to 10 (13 to 8 feet clear) in relation to the vehicle travel lanes and the bicycle lane varies from 5 to 6 feet plus a buffer. (The sidewalk narrows to only 4 feet clear for approximately 70 feet approaching Charles Circle.)
Page 4
There was substantial discussion among the
Task Force members as to what the primary purpose of the project should be.
Some felt the cross section should be designed to favor bicycle and pedestrian
travel, and suggested that increasing congestion for automobiles and trucks
would be acceptable as a means to encourage mode shift to transit, walking
and biking. Others favored a flexible approach, creating additional bicycle
and pedestrian capacity but retaining sufficient existing
capacity for automobiles and trucks during peak periods.
Drawings
There is some inconsistency in the drawings in labeling and measurement which is confusing and also leaves us with some uncertainty about whether the description of the alternatives is correct. The location labels (such as Pinch Point 1) and measurements of the identical locations should be the same on all of the drawings.
Two lane release into Charles Circle with no change in the abutment wall configuration – labels Pinch Point 1 just on the river side of the octagon.
Three lane release into Charles Circle moving the abutment wall - labels Pinch Point 1 about 100 feet further toward the river from the octagon. On this drawing the widening in this area seems to start beyond the octagon yet the measurement shown at the end of the octagon (labeled Pinch Point 2 on this drawing) suggests that the width in this location is 36’ 6” which is 6 feet wider than the similar location on the drawing of “Two lane release into Charles Circle with no change in the abutment wall configuration”
--
Wendy Landman | WalkBoston
T: 617.367.9255 | F: 617.367.9285 | wlan...@walkboston.org
Old City Hall | 45 School Street | Boston MA 02108
www.walkboston.org
Click here to join or renew your membership: http://www.walkboston.org/support/membership.htm
steve...@hklaw.com
Partner
10 St. James Avenue, 11th Floor | Boston MA 02116
Phone 617.573.5833 | Fax 617.523.6850
steve...@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
Add to address book | View professional biography
From: longfello...@googlegroups.com [mailto:longfello...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tuli...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:57 AM
To: longfello...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Redline edits to draft recommendations - not for dissemination
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.
David Watson
Just a couple of quick comments:
1. The 14’ bike lane depicted in Outbound Alternative B could be either outbound-only or bi-directional, depending on whether there is an adequate bicycle facility on the inbound side. If it is outbound-only, this is essentially an outbound “1+1” alternative.
2. I am very reluctant to see a bicycle facility that is less than 5’ with a 2’ buffer. Anything less is unlikely to significantly increase the attractiveness/safety/comfort of the bridge for bicyclists. I am willing to consider reducing the buffer to 1” only if the travel lanes have been narrowed as much as possible and reducing the buffer is the only way to achieve a minimally acceptable sidewalk width.
David Watson
Executive Director
MassBike
171 Milk Street, Suite 33
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-542-BIKE (2453)
Fax: 617-542-6755
Email: da...@massbike.org
The Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition promotes a bicycle-friendly environment, and encourages bicycling for fun, fitness, and transportation.
Visit us at www.massbike.org. Not a member? Click here to to join.
Loutzenheiser, David
Thank you for your efforts on this document.
1. With the added discussions on the two way cycle track alternative on the outbound side, I would like to reiterate my request that regardless of what is provided on the outbound side, that an exclusive bicycle lane at least 5ft wide (plus buffer where feasible) the full length of the bridge into Charles Circle is provided. In my view, that removes the alternative of the shared right turn lane/bike lane option at Charles Circle (shown in green in one alternative).
2. The bike lane at Charles Circle should be place to the right of all vehicle lanes. There was consensus on this in my group last meeting but not sure if this is the consensus with the entire committee.
3. The bike box at Charles Circle should remain as a variant in one of the figures. I realize there has been little discussion of this in meetings, hence the concerns by some. So ideally please find a way to show bike boxes without stating as a task force preference at this time.
4. Under Appendix 1, correct name of the agency I represent is the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Please correct.
Thanks
David
From: longfello...@googlegroups.com [mailto:longfello...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Bill Logue
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 10:27 PM
To: longfello...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Redline edits to draft recommendations - not for dissemination
Greetings,
Please be advised that the Massachusetts Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a public record, and therefore subject to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 § 10.
Bob O'Brien
Messervy, John N
analyses contained in the Task Force alternatives could unduly delay the
completion of design and possibly the funding to complete the bridge
restoration. My understanding is that MDOT has funds only for the steel bridge
span, that rehabilitation of the bridge is a 4 to 5 year project, and that funds
through the ABP expire in 2016. If these understandings are correct then I
suggest our first priority ought to be to make sure the bridge span is repaired
without further delay. In order to do that the bridge rehabilitation needs to
be separated from the many other issues yet to be decided. For the bridge
design to proceed we need to agree on a bridge cross-section, presumably one
that provides the highest level of flexibility with regard to the allocation of
deck space to pedestrians, bikes and autos? My review suggests that placement of
the barrier at 13 to 15 feet provides sufficient flexibility to accommodate the
majority of alternatives being considered short-term and is also a good
long-term solution.
The evaluation of approach configurations, connections to the Esplanade,
drainage, 4f review of the abutment relocation, revisions to Charles Circle,
etc. will require a year or more of more of analysis, review and permitting.
There is no reason to hold final engineering of the bridge hostage to these
processes; indeed there is some risk, given the advanced state of disrepair, to
delaying the completion of bridge engineering and the start of rehabilitation.
I therefore suggest that the Task Force make its first recommendation to MDOT a
single cross-section design. That will release the engineers to complete the
bridge design, while we continue to address the many issues at the ends of the
bridge.
John Messervy, AIA
Director of Capital & Facility Planning
Partners HealthCare System Inc., Boston, MA. 02114
tel: 617-726-8616 cell: 617-861-5363 fax: 617-724-2740
email: jmes...@partners.org
Michelle Stringer - Assistant
tel: 617-724-1228
email: mstri...@partners.org
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.
Messervy, John N
Thanks Bill for managing a smooth and inclusive process resulting in the Task Force report.
I would like to reiterate the point I made last week about the need to separate decisions on the bridge from decisions on changes at the ends of the bridge.
As is apparent to everyone participating in the meetings, the complexity of issues in the inbound direction from Pinch Point 1 to and through Charles Circle to Cambridge and Charles Street will require substantial additional analysis and design. Furthermore, there is broad support for a new pedestrian overpass to the Esplanade which requires relocation of the Storrow off-ramp. My understanding is that MassDOT views this as a separate project, with its own set of permitting and funding issues.
Together these activities pose a significant risk and unacceptable delay to the reconstruction of the structurally-deficient bridge over the river. In order to expedite the reconstruction of the structure over the river, while allowing the time necessary for the further analysis and design required in the vicinity of Charles Circle, I strongly suggest that the Task Force report, and eventually the environmental assessment, present the possibility of a phased approach.
In my view, the Task Force is close to a consensus on the preferred bridge cross-section, which was our original charge from MassDOT. A cross-section with barrier curbs located to provide up to a 15' clear sidewalk dimension could capture that consensus. With this decision the bridge is released to proceed into Final Design and Procurement as Phase II of the Longfellow project. The finalization of the much more complex issues involving the approaches to and through Charles Circle, the connection to the Esplanade, and relocation of the Storrow off-ramp require more time. Proceeding with the Phase II structural work does not pressure any of the issues near Charles Circle, and does not constitute "segmentation" any more than proceeding with Phase I.
I hope Task Force members recognize the importance of this issue and will voice their support for deciding on a cross section design so that final engineering of the bridge can proceed.
John Messervy, AIA
Director of Capital & Facility Planning
Partners HealthCare Inc., Boston, MA. 02114
tel: 617-726-8616 cell: 617-861-5363 fax: 617-724-2740
email: jmes...@partners.org
Michelle Stringer - Assistant
tel: 617-724-1228
email: mstri...@partners.org