Last week, the Boston City Council voted in favor of landmark status for the Charles River Esplanade. That vote will make it all the more difficult for the Mass. Department of Conservation and Recreation to enact a controversial proposal to build a temporary bypass over-top a portion of the park while they rebuild the crumbling Storrow Drive Tunnel.
DCR Commissioner Richard Sullivan has for years played down the likelihood of the bypass scenario, but his recent public statements in opposition to landmark status seemed to indicate otherwise.
With the Esplanade now an official Boston Landmark, this seems like a good time to review the alternatives to building a new tunnel. What’s former Mass. Secretary of Transportation Fred Salvucci’s preferred alternative? Tear down Storrow Drive.
“Much as I think they made a mistake back in the ’40s when they [built Storrow Drive], shame on us if we repeat that mistake,” Salvucci told David Boeri during their interview last week.
Salvucci thinks the tunnel rehab provides the perfect opportunity to convert Storrow into a genuine parkway (slow moving, narrow, with traffic lights and possibly on-street parking), or maybe even to tear it down altogether.
On this week’s show, we’ll ponder the future of Storrow Drive and the Esplanade. We’re asking you, dear listener, to weigh-in on which is more important: fast-moving east-west auto traffic through Back Bay, or the Esplanade? Can you imagine Boston’s prized promenade as James Storrow had envisioned it: without a major parallel roadway?
Sad to say but Storrow Drive is indespensible. Salvucci’s is completely wrong. Without the money to do the massive build out that Boston’s transit desperately needs we must rely on the auto to move people in and out of the city. Major stations with large parking lots (a la Alewife and Braintree) are needed at new Orange and Blue Line termini, but that’s a different story.
For now, a Storrow Drive with NO trucking is in disepensible.
If the wonderful Esplanade is torn up for a while, so be it. Amazing what landscape architects can do when asked! They can build beautiful naturalized spaces, as they did yearsago when they built the Esplanade.
Surely we can make a short term sacrifice for a long term benefit. No?
I’m glad to hear there is finally some discusion on this topic. Storrow Drive is the most stupefying piece of urban planing i’ve ever encountered. Boston could have a robust urban shopping corridor, pedestrian promenade, easy access to water, space for gardens and paths for running and biking, all seamlessly connected to the surrounding streets.
Instead we’ve paired the esplanade up with a freeway!? Wow, “gum and nuts together at last…”
Boston could make a major Green Statement opposite “The Big Dig” by shutting down Storrow Drive east of the BU Bridge.
Shifting Resources from the Tunnel Repair to Public Transportation would help the Cash strapped MBTA.
The 19 cent gas tax and tax cuts for Hybrids instead of Bush era Hummers would go along way to fund safe clean public transportation like Europe and Japan where gas is over Six Dollars a gallon.
It is about time Americans start paying the TRUE Cost of excessive Oil Consumption.
Higher fuel costs might encourage the 25 % obese population to use safe Bike Paths through a GREEN Esplanade, contributing to overall health of the population and a cooler earth.
This can be engineered as the Esplanade was once a tidal marsh where there was good clamming in the 1700’s.
While Storrow Drive is neither efficient or pretty to look at it is absolutely crucial to Boston.
Quite frankly, I don’t care what they do to the Esplanade. In my many, many, years of living in Boston I haven’t been in it once. I do however need to drive on Storrow Drive, sometimes several times a day.
Traffic in Boston is bad enough as it is. I can’t believe anyone is seriously suggesting the removal or shrinkage of Storrow Drive. Have they ever been to Boston? They should expand it instead. If need be, pave over the stupid esplanade.
To the poster above, public transportation is all good and well, if you need to go from your home right near a T stop to work right near a T stop, but if you either work or live where there is no T stop in sight this is not a possibility.
Sad as it may be, driving a car in Boston is an absolute necessity for most people, not some sort of frivolous excess.
I support increases in gas taxes to deter large SUV’s and excessive driving, but the ability to drive in Boston right now is a must, and as such closing or shrinking Storrow is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
First: Storrow Drive is going nowhere. It is essential to most in & around the city.
Two points:
- Is the argument about a ‘a temporary bypass over-top a portion of the park while they rebuild the crumbling Storrow Drive Tunnel’? This seems like a necessity during construction so the project can be done. What is the issue then? That the ‘Temporary bypass’ would be there too long or become permanent? How long is ‘temporary’? Boston ‘temporarily’ put up with the Big Dig for almost two decades; and though that was painful at times (and setting the cost aside as a separate issue), the city now has an urban condition that is better (not perfect) than it started with. If we can endure twenty years of the big dig that tore up most of the city; we can endure the inconvenience during Storrow Drive repairs.
- The bigger question: Is it possible to put a large portion of Storrow Drive ‘underground’ or ‘enclose, cover, and landscape’, such that a large stretch of the Esplanade Park directly connects to the Back Bay? I thought this was being looked at; I remember a questionnaire handed out a couple of years ago that gave several options for the Storrow Tunnel repair. One of those options was to put *both lanes* of the tunnel ‘underground’ at that stretch: creating such an urban pedestrian connection. Whatever happened to that survey or that option?
@Michael, we’ll be covering this ground during the show tomorrow, but based on our reporting this week, I can give you basic answers.
1) People who advocate for the Esplanade say a temporary bypass over part of the park would result in the permanent loss of dozens of mature trees. “Temporary,” we’re told, is on the order of two years in this context, but obviously the Esplanade folks are worried tunnel reconstruction could last much longer. Also, some are worried that a “temporary” roadway could easily become permanent.
2)Mayor Menino put forward a plan to, as you say, cover both directions of Storrow traffic with a landscaped deck. Why hasn’t that gone anywhere? Well, interim repairs to the tunnel have had the effect of kicking this debate down the road a bit. With the economy the way it is, I have to imagine that not many people in post-BigDig Boston are eager to get back into the park-covered tunnel business anytime soon.
But, we’ll hear what our guests say.
I think that Storrow Drive is actually an illegal parkway anyway since when the land was bequeathed to the State (I believe), it was done so with the stipulation that it remain a park in perpetuity. I will look into this for no one’s benefit.
That dubious fact aside, since the Storrow Drive tunnel is not really a tunnel but a decked roadway, I wonder if the DCR is considering a construction method wherein the new roadway is pre-fabricated off-site and then assembled on-site in order to reduce construction schedules and/or impact on the Esplanade.
Traffic in Boston will be unbearable with or without Storrow Drive. I agree with removing it and putting the reconstruction money toward the MBTA and connecting Rt2 to the Pike. I find it crazy that 4 lanes of Rt2 end at an intersection and feed onto overly packed “local roads”.
More importantly is taking the roads and bridges away from the DCR. I’ve worked as a contractor for both the MDC (previous name of DCR) and MassHighway. DCR does not have the expertise to be in charge of major roadways. These roads and structures should be moved to the highway department.
Well given the amount of traffic using it it seems to me that closing it would put more of this traffic on the streets of Boston. Unless they figure it out, what to do with all the cars then it will be a nightmare.
50 years from now this part of Boston will be under water.
build a park on top of Storrow drive build it slowly over time. people will be able to walk over from back bay and it can be tiered so as to add noise control for people in the park. eventually restaurants and ect. can be above the highway at low traffic periods. put the people on top
Suggesting that drivers substitute the Pike for Storrow ignores the turnpike toll. Not everyone who lives west of Boston can afford the tolls on a daily basis.
It’s expensive, but what about burying Storrow and laying a park above.
Storrow does create a wall between the city and the river (pedestrian access bridges are much to few and far between). However, I have to admit that zipping along Storrow along the river and the edge of the city is one of the most enjoyable and beautiful drives around.
I am disappointed that the voice of business is limited to back bay retail owners who *I suspect* take Storrow Drive to work. My experience with store owners who live elsewhere is that they rarely take a systematic view of the community they are selling into; they invest and argue for immediate benefit and are not able to *invest* in long term thinking. I hope Bostonians can rise above such limited thinking…
Sorry for the double post – wasn’t sure where to put this:
Here is a link for a beautiful 1916 photograph by Leon Abdalian of the pre-Storrow Back Bay.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24029425@N06/2589574813
The same issue concerning heavy traffic through a parkway effects the Riverway–>Jamaica Way–>Arborway road system.
Metro Boston population in 1915 was around 1.5 million, in 2008 it was nearly 4.5 million. The parkway roads were designed long before modern population/transportation pressures.
I lived in my parents’ Beacon Street apartment from 1958-1968. My room looked out on Storrow Drive just where it enters the tunnel. Much noise.
If getting rid of it is possible, I’m in favor.
Also a great way to connect Boston University to the river!
Interesting discussion.
Steve
The Esplanade is a unique treasure and one of the things I miss most about Boston. Put Storrow Drive underground if it’s possible, but I’m not going to cry for commuters if it’s gone. People shouldn’t be driving anyway, Boston’s mass transit needs improvement but it’s orders of magnitude better than most cities.
Great photo! Thanks Ed.
I agree with the many people who have noted that Storrow should really be buried and landscaped over, similar to the Rose Kennedy Greenway.
That’s probably not going to happen for awhile since it reminds too many people of the expense of the big dig. This would make a great stimulus project though…
Storrow only benefits people who live outside the city, but Bostonians sacrificed a rare and precious stretch of land in doing so.
I have listened to the show now, and fully understand how people would like to cut down on traffic in the area. It certainly would make it prettier.
The alternatives being suggested are all very good. Improving public transportation among them
These alternatives – however – absolutely MUST exist BEFORE any action is taken to shrink or remove storrow. Like it or not, Storrow drive today is a vital artery into the city. For very many people rthere simply is no alternate route.
If Storrow were to disappear there would just be even more crippling traffic around the other surrounding city roads, and Leverett circle.
Many of the people proposing shrinking or removing Storrow drive seem to have no understanding at all that apart from a very limited few who live near public transportation or live near to their work, riding a bicycle, walking or taking the T simply is not an option, at least not as it stands with public transportation in the state it is in.
I find it amusing that the Mass Pike is considered an alternative to Storrow drive. It really isn’t. It doesn’t have exits to the many places that Storrow does, and anyone who has spent 45 minutes trying to get off at the masspike Allston/Cambridge exit during rush hour knows how bad an idea this is.
We need MORE major arteries into Boston, not less. The ones we currently have are insufficient for the task, and shrinking or removing them would be a terrible mistake. We can certainly design them smarter so that they flow better, take up less space, and don’t block the Esplanade, as well as improve public transportation so that there is less need for these arteries, but again, these are things that need to happen before anything is done to shrink or remove Storrow, or we will have an even worse traffic congestion problem on our hands than we already do.
Paul:
A lot of the cities strength comes from major organizations that operate in the City. These organization get many if not most of their employees from locations outside the city.
People who work and live in the same city are actually relatively rare. If we make it more difficult for commuters to get to work, some of these organizations may choose to expand elsewhere, and shrink their Boston operations, because they simply can not hire the right people for the job.
This is no small potential problem. People will decide on whether or not to take a job based on the commute to it. Personally, if I had to travel more than 30-45 minutes to work, I wouldn’t take the job. I also could not afford to live with my family in the city. There are very many people like me.
If the major institutions in Boston decide to not expand, or even shrink their operations in Boston due to not being able to recruit people based on the long hairy commute, it will definitely impact the economic well being of the entire region.
As a city, Boston NEEDS the people who commute in to work to survive. They create the entire economic reason for the city to exist. The people who actually live in the city are mostly students and young single adults, and can not make up the entire economic viability of the city.
Cities serve the functions as regional hubs. Without being a regional hub there is no reason for the city to exist.
Matthew, you seem to think the suburbs existed before the city?
Where would these organizations expand to, some small town?
Have you tried working in your neighborhood? I assume you come to the city to work because it’s where the jobs are and the jobs are here because the people are here. Each depends on the other, if more people committed to living and caring for the city then there would be even more jobs here. Each benefits from the other. If everybody moves out to the suburbs then the city will be in a very poor state of demise; that’s bad for the entire region but it’s what storrow drive enables. The city does need more high density affordable housing, of a type that appeals to the middle class. Many enjoy the benefits of living in pedestrian friendly neighborhoods where the ability to drive a car is not key to a sustainable economy; because it’s definitely not key to a sustainable planet.
Bury storrow drive in a tunnel and landscape over it to expand the esplanade. The real estate values of the land along the esplanade will drastically increase. This should provide many economic opportunities for developing new residential and commercial real estate. It will put the construction industry back to work and improve the quality of life for all Bostonians by enabling easy daily access to the esplanade again. With the right housing policies in place we might even give some of those workers the opportunity to buy a home right along the esplanade with panoramic views over the Charles River.
I listed to this show this afternoon, on my way home early from work, while I was actually driving on Storrow Drive.
I live between Fenway and Brookline Village and work on Main St. in Watertown past Watertown Square. Storrow is by far the easiest way for me to get to work. Public transportation isn’t an option as buses would require that I spend three hours a day commuting, resulting in an extremely decreased quality of life. I also use Storrow to get to the airport (which, were I to take 93, I’d have to practically take back roads almost all the way to the airport and be on 93 for about a minute), and to get to other points north of the city. I have grown to love Storrow Drive and I love the view of the city I get as I drive home in the evening.
I think that testing out the traffic flow is a hilarious idea, and I’m interested to see it enacted. As it is, shutting down Memorial Drive on Sundays in the summer results in a major annoyance for so many people. If this traffic test occurs, I’d especially love for it to happen on a day when the Red Sox are playing a home game. A World Series game would be even better.
The guy from MIT kept saying to close Storrow Drive, and that people could use alternative methods of transportation, like walking and bike riding. Does he realize that this is Boston where the weather can be inclement six months of the year? The MBTA is limited and many people couldn’t get “from here to there” without Storrow Drive. The Mass. Pike, and 93 don’t in any way provide the same access points.
[...] [...]
Did any one else notice that two of the guests, the MIT professor, and the woman in the McGrath Highway story, both wanted to move the traffic from those roads on to I-93? They want to add the traffic from both roads? Have these people driven on I-93? Have they experienced the joy of sitting in traffic for half an hour just to cross the Zakim Bridge, or in the traffic jam that happens every rush hour(s) all the way down to Route 3 every day?
I don’t think the Pike could handle much increased traffic through the city either. Plus it has very limited access to Down Town and would create huge traffic jams in Copley Square.
Storrow Drive is poorly constructed (it often floods when it rains), and is not my favorite design, but it is a MAJOR artery in to and through the city. Where would all the traffic go? We would be extremely foolish to eliminate it.
The notion that we’re going to have fewer cars on the roads in the future is laughably foolish. As population increases, so will the number of cars on the roads. We need as many major arteries as we can get to keep traffic flowing through the whole city.
The guest suggested closing down part or all of the road on Sundays. We already do that to a sizable chunk of Memorial Drive every Sunday in the summer. It is a colossal pain, especially for out of towners who are trying to get around and don’t know about it. This city is confusing enough as it is to drive around with out unnecessary detours.
The idea of getting rid of McGrath Highway is stupid too. Again, it is a major artery in to Down Town for people who live in Somerville and Medford. In fact I use it all the time to get from my home in Somerville to Storrow Drive. Crossing for pedestrians is a major issue. It is extremely dangerous to try to cross it on foot. I think we should consider building pedestrian bridges and cross walks for them.
The future will undoubtedly be one fewer cars and more public transportation. The opportunity afforded by the decaying Storrow drive and McGrath structures is to abandon these anachronisms and get a head start on the inevitable. The money not spent on these projects can be used on public transportation and/or improving other roads such as the turnpike.
I realize that many people will be inconvenienced by this, mostly commuters using Storrw Drive as a less costly alternative to the Pike. However, this is true of every major public works project on transportation and people always cope. I do not believe that the business community will be affected by this at all. Shoppers can come amd go when they please, not so commuters.
Simply put … with sarcasm:
Oh yeah… let’s tear down a crucial roadway for commuters into Boston for more trees.
It’ll be SO easy… after all – look how efficient and swiftly built “The Big Dig” was ?
Seriously… do we REALLY want Boston to have another traffic nightmare like “The Big Dig”… just for some trees to be built along the Esplanade.
The current layout for folks to enjoy concerts… and the Charles works just FINE ! Don’t fix what isn’t truly broken!
Judging from this program and listener comments, Radio Boston made it seem that the case for rethinking Storrow Drive was based solely on an dead couple’s wishes and some assertions about the need for cleaner air. The former premise is nothing more than an appeal to authority, which is, of course, a fallacy. Even if the Storrows gave reasons for why a parkway along the Esplanade was a bad idea, current conditions may give rise to considerations that would outweigh such reasons. The latter cannot even being seriously entertained unless, first, concrete proposals for new alternative transportation options are given. The lack of proposals is a worry due to heavy traffic that currently exists on the Pike, I-93, Rt.2, and Memorial Drive during rush hour. The MBTA? A compelling case must be given for why people would suddenly use public transportation, but more on this later.
Radio Boston did hint at a better case for rethinking Storrow Drive, but it was seriously overshadowed due to a (morbid?) fascination with premises that are woefully inadequate. The Boston Globe does a better job at presenting this case:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/24/storrow_tunnel_may_need_replacing/
Here, the Globe talks about the unexpected costs of rehabilitating the Storrow Tunnel. This article does lead to several questions that should’ve been addressed yesterday:
1) Radio Boston made it seem that the residents of Back Bay are in favor of seriously modifying Storrow Drive to make it easier to access the Esplanade. However, it is interesting to note that one of the program’s guests, Meg Mainzer-Cohen, was also interviewed in the Globe article. According to the Globe, the Back Bay Association, or which she is president, was in favor of repairing the Storrow Tunnel. This doesn’t sound like the residents of Back Bay were uniformly in favor of a serious modification of Storrow Drive. On the other hand, people do change their minds. The problem is that Ms. Mainzer-Cohen was never asked whether she or her association have changed their minds, or what the general feeling in Back Bay was.
2) Mr. Kruckemeyer never talked about how exactly to redistribute the money that could go to rehabilitating Storrow Drive to new projects that would relieve the potential load that would be placed on existing infrastructure. The key here is that he must show that such projects, in addition to any serious modification to Storrow Drive, would cost as much or less than work on the parkway in the first place. At the very least, Ms. Clayson should have pressed him on the issue. Instead, by ignoring the potential costs of modifying Storrow Drive and talking about irrelevant details like Bogota (which never experiences winter, being so close to the Equator), he came across as either woefully unprepared or inept at his job, not good coming from someone associated with MIT.
Finally, the MBTA was presented as a possible alternative for commuters. I think the underlying assumption here is that people have a tendency to choose the more rational alternative. After all, if traffic is backed up day after day, wouldn’t it be better to ride the T? If things were really that simple, I suspect that more people would ride the T (another interesting example is the West Coast, where people absolutely would not ride public transportation, no matter how bad the roads can get). It cannot be a given that people would ride public transportation just because of worsening traffic. Maybe a proposal or two on how to encourage people to ride the T would be great to hear. Would they do so if the commuter rail came more frequently? Would they be willing to ride if it was cheaper (my company actually subsidizes less for the MBTA than parking in the city mainly out of fear that people would abuse the subsidies and get free rides to the city/suburbs)?
Jimmy,
I am a resident of Cambridge and went to some of the Storrow Drive meetings. You are confused about the difference between the Back Bay groups. The Neighborhood Association of Back Bay is the Back Bay’s neighborhood group that represents the postion of residents. They advocated for the option that called for creating a surface roadway with traffic signals; reducing capacity of the roadway by 40%. The business group advocated for maintaining capacity, which is consistent with the show. In Cambridge, we worry that reducing capacity of Storrow would increase traffic on Memorial Drive…but when did residents of Back Bay or Beacon Hill care about the rest of us?
[...] Most brilliant idea of the year. In brief, Sturrow Drive was never supposed to exist. Now it needs massive repairs, which will be both expensive and disruptive. Rather than fix it, some are calling to simply remove it, similar to what San Francisco decided not to rebuild its elevated highway after it was severely damaged in an earthquake. Proponents of dismantling Sturrow Drive include former secretary of transportation Fred Salvucci and former DPW associate commissioner Ken Kruckemeyer. [...]
Removing Storrow Drive is an excellent idea and should definitely be pursued. Not only would it restore the parks & the river to the city, but the money that would be wasted on rebuilding a mistake could be redirected to public transit. In fact, the current route of Storrow Drive would be a great location for a new trolley line from North Station to Allston (and perhaps onwards to Watertown).
I can imagine a bright future with a 2-3 lane local road, trolley line, & a larger park with more room for bikes & pedestrians.
People protest that the traffic would be displaced but time & time again it has been proven that traffic will disappear. Read Jane Jacobs’ about closing the road in Washington Sq Park. One of the people on the show mentions closing Central Park loop road and the temporary closing of the Tobin Bridge. The Embarcaderro Freeway in San Francisco collapsed in an earthquake and was replaced by a local road and a trolley line and no one missed the Freeway.
This can be done.
Proposal for maintaining vehicular use of Storrow Drive as a major thoroughfare while improving pedestrian access to the river:
1. Reconfigure the Soldiers Field Road/Western Ave/River Street/Cambridge Street/Pike exit mess to allow direct flow from inbound SFR onto the inbound pike, and similarly outbound to outbound. My feeling is that many drivers from Newton, Cambridge, Watertown, Arlington and beyond COULD switch to/off the pike here and would be willing to do so, except that waiting at the long intersections involved in switching make it not worthwhile. Storrow ends up the path of least resistance. (This was me while I lived in Cambridge.)
2. Maintain the currently existing exits and on-ramps as the only points of exit and entry for vehicles.
3. SFR/Storrow receives at-grade signalized pedestrian crossings after the BU Bridge (i.e. when the train and the pike no longer separate it from civilization). Crossings exist at the end of cross-streets, which are dead-ended to cars (as most of them are, currently). Including from west to east:
Granby Street
Deerfield Street
Hereford
Fairfield
Dartmouth
Berkeley
Mt Vernon Steet
Revere Street
4. Signals are synched and timed, and customized for times of day – maybe 7 minutes green, 1 minute red during rush hour, down to 3 minutes green in mid-day.
5. Pedestrian overpasses remain, to fill in some important gaps in the above list.
I don’t know what Storrow drive is like now but years ago every time I followed someone’s instructions to use it, I found myself heading for New Hampshire (never my destination). Thank goodness I’ve given up driving except on local roads.
Salvucci is right. Boston missed an opportunity during the big dig to create a nice auto free area along the harbor, instead we have highway on and off ramps and cars screaming down the surface artery/atlantic on up to 8 lanes of pedestrian unfriendly territory.
Boston already has another east-west highway, the Mass Pike, that goes parallel to storrow. It makes no sense to offer a free alternative (except for the heavy tax subsidies) in Storrow Highway just so people dont have to pay the 90 tolls. It cuts Boston off from its real waterfront, the Charles. Some of the parks along the Charles are arms width to accommodate the highway.
Its time Bostonians got back our access to the Charles, no just a few cumbersome pedestrian access bridges spaced far apart. If that means some suburbanites have to pay a toll if they want to get downtown quick in their car, and not take the commuter rail, I can live with that.