Report on the Charles River
Crossing
Bridge Design Review Committee, October
1991
This 150 report contains a great deal of visual material,
which will not reproduce well on the web. The parts
excerpted here are from its Executive Summary.
Summary of Initial Committee Concerns
Committee members were asked to submit their concerns
with Scheme Z in writing. Letters received are included in
the Appendix. Improvements and concerns suggested in these
letters are summarized below:
· Restore the Traverse Street on-ramp or an
equivalent move to reduce additional traffic on local
streets and negative noise and air quality impacts.
· Reduce visual impacts of bridge and ramp
height/massing to improve visual design.
· Ensure positive development/design of parklands
along the Charles River Basin, which is adversely affected
by Scheme 7.
· Investigate alternative schemes, including partial
and/or full tunnel alternatives, to find a superior solution
to the river crossing.
· Reduce negative impacts of bridge piers and
overhead structures on aquatic resources and navigation in
the Charles and Millers Rivers and on open space along their
banks.
· Incorporate/improve nonautomobile transportation,
including pedestrian and bicycle routes, ferry service at
Lovejoy Wharf, and bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
routes.
· Provide pedestrian and bicycle routes along both
banks of the Charles River and connections both to and
across the river from Charlestown, Cambridge, and
Boston.
· The Committee's work should not unduly delay the
Artery/Tunnel or CANA projects or jeopardize funding.
· Provide adequate technical support to Committee
deliberations.
· Maintain/review all connections to the regional
roadway system. Give special consideration to the role
played by Storrow Drive in the regional system and maintain
its character as part of the Esplanade.
· Minimize construction impacts; maintain road and
transit connections during construction.
Narrowing the Options
The Committee began with the broadest possible spectrum
of ideas, from members and nonmembers alike, for improving
the Charles River crossing. The problem was disaggregated
into component parts, and several options were considered
for each of these components. Beginning early in April 1991,
packages were assembled from these component parts and
denoted Committee Improvement Packages (CIPs) 1 to 13.
Committee Improvement Packages were of several types.
CIPs 1 and 2 are variations of Scheme Z. CIP 3 would provide
access between Storrow Drive and the north on a bridge over
the Charles River. CIP 4 would use arterial street
connections with a low bridge over the Charles River. CIPs 5
and l1 would make the connections between Storrow Drive and
the North via tunnels under the Charles River. CIP 6 would
have multiple tunnels under the Charles for Storrow Drive
and Traverse street connections. CIP 7/10 would place both
mainlines and Storrow Drive connections in river tunnels.
CIPs 8 and 12 are hybrids that would have eastbound Storrow
Drive connections to the north in tunnel and westbound
connections from the north on a bridge. CIPs 9 and 13 are
similar to CIPs 8 and 12 but also carry northbound Artery
traffic to the Tobin Bridge in the river tunnel.
Packages were improved by incorporating bridge and tunnel
concepts suggested by the Committee's expert contributors as
well as design refinements developed by the CA/T engineering
staff. Most packages were studied in several versions
differing in the design of ramp connection north of the
river, Leverett Circle access, single- versus double-deck
bridge, and exclusive HOV ramps. Ramp variations explored
for CIPs 3, 5, and 8 included different combinations of loop
ramps over and under the MBTA commuter railroad tracks near
the north bank of the Charles River, left-hand and
right-hand Artery exits to the Tobin Bridge, and combination
of Tobin Bridge and Storrow Drive loop Connections. Options
for connecting Storrow Drive to northbound 1-93 were also
explored for CIPs 5 and 8. These variations increased the
total number of options that received engineering study to
over 20.
After the first round of study, all packages had
basically the same geometry south of Causeway Street:
connections between the central area of the Artery and
Leverett Circle via a pair of tunnels behind North Station.
This geometry solves the inadequate traffic weaves of the
alternatives studied with Scheme Z in the SEIS, it
eliminates Scheme Z's double river crossings, and it permits
reintroduction of a northbound on-ramp without additional
structures in the Charles River. It is emphasized that the
south of Causeway Street geometry is a prerequisite for the
improvements studied by the Committee for improving Charles
River bridge design and for reducing impacts to Charles
River open space by lowering the loop ramps; those
improvements are not geometrically possible if the
additional ramps required for Scheme Z's double river
crossing must be accommodated.
Packages were evaluated by the Committee and its three
subcommittees, using objectives developed by each of them.
Special concern was focussed on resources protected by
Section 4(f). Packages differed both in potential impacts
due to their Charles River bridges and ramps and in the
changes they would make to Storrow Drive next to the Charles
River Esplanade, one of the premier parklands in the region.
Packages also differed in terms of visual and land use
impacts, traffic, and access. Issues of concern to the
Committee in evaluating these options included the adequacy
of access to Leverett Circle and the North Station area;
future traffic volumes on Storrow Drive and the Charles
Street Extension, and implications for the roadway's
cross-section and for the accessibility and quality of the
adjacent Charles River Esplanade; impacts to the North Point
area of Cambridge, the Charlestown residential community,
and North Station area development; the symmetry and
aesthetics of the Charles River bridge and related
opportunities for HOV access and pedestrian/ bicycle use;
and the coverage of the Charles and Millers River by the
bridge and associated viaducts. All packages were subjected
to detailed scrutiny and discussion.
Among the packages studied but eliminated from
consideration in the final round were two versions of the
all-tunnel option. Known as CIP 7/10, this concept was
favored by a number of members because of its open space and
visual benefits, but it was ultimately not advanced because
of cost and other issues. Other packages not advanced were
CIPs 1 and 2, which were judged not sufficiently improved
from Scheme Z. CIP 4 (arterial bridge) had bridge and
traffic impacts. CIP 6 involved multiple river tunnels and
open space impacts. CIPs 11 and 12 (tunnel parallel to
bridge) were similar to CIPs 5 and 8 but more costly and
with additional land use impacts. CIPs 9 and 13 reduced
mainline bridge width by carrying one 1-93 lane in a tunnel
but posed traffic operation difficulties.
On May 23,1991, at a joint meeting of the subcommittees,
Packages 3, 5, and 8 were advanced for further
consideration. This final round of scrutiny led to several
improvements, variations and modifications, which are
described in the body of this report.
In the final week of Committee deliberations, these
variations were reduced to final versions of Packages 3, 5,
and 8. In a 17-15 vote on June 2l, 1991, the Committee
recommended CIP 8 over CIP 5.
On the following pages are Committee Chairman Stanley
Miller's statement to the Committee, the summary information
used by the Committee in comparing the packages, and the
recommendations adopted by the Committee.
While these final packages shared several key
improvements such as eliminating double river crossings and
providing northbound access to Route 1-93, and to varying
degrees reduced ramp impacts along the north bank of the
river, several key differences were the subject of the final
deliberations. CIPs 5 and 8 have deeper and therefore longer
boat sections than CIP 3 in Storrow Drive next to the
Esplanade. While the current level of design shows no
encroachment into the Esplanade by any package, there was
concern that these boat sections would be visual and
psychological barriers and might require temporary use of
some land during construction, as well as some potential
permanent 4(f) use of Esplanade land if the cross-section
increases in width during the design process; (continued
scrutiny is needed during the design process to avoid and
minimize such impacts). Similarly, the width and height of
the bridges and connecting ramps differ among the final
packages with varying impacts on the Charles River and on
existing, planned, and potential open space on both banks;
CIP 5 has a narrower bridge than CIP 8 while CIP 3's ramp
connections have more impacts than the other two packages.
CIP 3 extends further into the North Point development area
than the other packages. Northbound egress to Nashua Street
is an important concern, and at present only CIP 5 provides
this ramp. CIP 5 is highest, CIP 8 intermediate, and CIP 3
lowest in both cost and materials disposal requirements.
These issues are compared in the Table on page 18.
…
Committee Recommendation
The Committee adopted the following recommendation on
June 21, 1991:
To improve the Charles River crossing portion of the
Central Artery/Tunnel Project in accordance with the mandate
of the Secretary of Transportation in convening the Bridge
Design Review Committee on February 1, 1991, the committee
makes the following recommendations to the Secretary:
1. Abandonment of Scheme Z.
Each option still before this Committee (CIPs 3, 5, and
8) is a significant improvement over Scheme Z, in terms of
traffic, open space and land use, and the visual appearance
of the bridge and its associated ramps.
All options eliminate all double river crossings, thereby
reducing vehicle miles travelled and reducing the number of
lanes crossing the river from 16 in Scheme Z (or 18 if Ramp
WCN had not been deleted), to a maximum of 13. Instead of
Scheme Z's three bridges (or four if the WCN ramp had been
included in the project), all the Committee options have
only a single bridge, supplemented in two options by a
tunnel or tunnels under the Charles River. All options
reduce the height and the width of the bridge by about
one-third. Scheme Z's six loop ramps in North Point have
been reduced to either two or three, depending on the
particular option. The bridge is far more visually appealing
than Scheme Z's bridge.
In all Committee options, an on-ramp from downtown Boston
to the north has been added to the plans, replacing the
function of the former Traverse Street on-ramp that was
deleted from Scheme Z.
Scheme Z is unacceptable to this Committee. We
unanimously recommend that it be abandoned as a viable
approach to crossing the Charles River.
2. South of Causeway Street/North Station Area.
The Committee unanimously recommends that the design of
the CA/T Project south of Causeway Street and in the North
Station area be modified to include the Sudbury on-ramp and
direct connections between Leverett Circle and the downtown
portion of the Central Artery and related design changes as
included in all Committee Improvement Packages and as
described in the Committee's Summary Report of May 15,
1991.
3. Recommended Committee Improvement Package: CPI 8.
We recommend that Committee Improvement Package 8, as
presented to and endorsed by this Committee on June 21,
1991, be adopted as a substitute for Scheme Z, observing all
applicable notification, environmental, and permitting
requirements needed to make this plan part of the approved
CA/T Project.
We recommend that the Secretary vigorously pursue design
refinement; Federal and State funding sources that could
reasonably be provided during the full construction period;
and environmental and permitting approvals to incorporate
this plan into the CA/T Project.
The construction of either CIP 8 or CIP 5 will add cost
to the entire CA/T project. In seeking additional funds for
the crossing, the State shall not apply funds for mitigation
or improvements to the project in other Boston neighborhoods
and areas along the project corridor as a source of funds to
offset this increased cost.
The Committee recommends that nothing be done to expand
either the capacity or geometry of Storrow Drive.
In the event that the Secretary determines, after a
sustained good faith effort, that he is unable to support
the Committee's first choice as his own, we request that he
not move to another solution (including either of the
Committee's other final options) without consultation with
the Committee.
Description of CIP 8
· A single-deck bridge with two southbound lanes
connecting from 1-93 and Tobin Bridge to Storrow Drive, four
southbound 1-93 main line lanes, and five northbound 1-93
mainline lanes.
· A two-lane tunnel under the Charles River (one
lane from Storrow Drive and one lane from Merrimac Street)
to the City Square Tobin Bridge approach and 1-93
northbound.
· Northbound on-ramps at New Sudbury Street and
Lomasney Way.
· Outer CANA ramp from Central Artery to Tobin
Bridge (C-T) passes under the commuter rail tracks.
· Inner loop ramps from Tobin Bridge to Central
Artery (T-C) and Tobin Bridge to Storrow Drive (T-S) are
combined on a single three-lane viaduct
· The Storrow-to-north ramp (S-N) remains in tunnel
to the Gilmore Bridge to avoid visual and noise impacts on
Charlestown.
4. A Multidisciplinary Design Phase.
It is understood that this new Charles River crossing
portion of the CA/T Project will require detailed
preliminary and final design work. We recommend that the
design phase be accomplished in a multidisciplinary manner,
with involvement of professionals from engineering,
architecture, environmental protection, land use, urban
design, and related disciplines as full participants in an
integrated design effort. It is further recommended that Dr.
Christian Menn and Dr. Herbert Einstein, expert contributors
to the Committee, be retained to consult on the design and
construction of the Charles River crossing.
5. Continuation of this Committee.
We recommend that the Secretary ask this Committee to
stay in existence during the design phase of the project to
play an independent advisory oversight function. We
recommend that the full Committee be convened on an
as-needed basis at regular intervals, and that the following
members of this Committee constitute an executive committee
available to meet more frequently:
Stanley Miller, chairman
Joseph Beggan, City of Boston
Elizabeth Epstein, City of Cambridge
Joel Bard, chairman of the Land Use/Open Space
subcommittee
Philip Caruso, chairman of the Traffic and Transportation
subcommittee
Charles Redmon, architect, chairman of the Visual
subcommittee
William Coughlin, Artery Business Committee
K. Dun Gifford, Citizens for Regional Transportation
Frederick Gleason, architect, Boston Preservation
Alliance
Dan King, Citizens for a Liveable Charlestown
Robert O'Brien, Downtown North Association
Mark Primack, Move Massachusetts 2000
Robert Zimmerman, Charles River Watershed Association
6. Additional Studies.
The Committee recommends that the following studies be
established by the Secretary:
· North/South Rail Link in Congress Street
Corridor.
· Charles River Area Arterials
· Transportation/Land Uses North of the Charles
River Air Quality Improvements
· Transportation Management and HOV Planning
Each of these studies should be performed with an open
and participatory process, a multidisciplinary and
multimodal transportation planning approach, adequate
funding and firm deadlines established for findings and
recommendations. A draft scope for each of these studies is
included in this report; that scope should be reviewed and
refined by the executive committee and by the advisory
committee to be established for each of the studies.
Affected agency, community, and user group representatives
and Bridge Design Review Committee members, as appropriate,
should be fully involved in the planning process.
North/South Rail Link
The Bridge Design Review Committee recommends that the
Secretary begin a detailed feasibility study to examine
connecting north and south rail networks by a tunnel in the
Congress Street corridor to serve both commuter and
intercity rail passengers. This recommendation reflects the
conclusion of independent experts that there would be no
advantage to a rail connection in the Central Artery
corridor. This study should be a part of the MBTA's ongoing
study of ways to improve and interconnect the intercity rail
system in the Boston area. The study should investigate the
proposed routing for such service; recommended construction
methods and staging; estimates of construction costs and
time frames; recommended implementation and staging
schedules; funding sources and policy initiatives.
Charles River Area Arterials
The Bridge Design Review Committee recommends that the
Secretary begin a detailed study of the interface between
Storrow Drive, Memorial Drive, the Massachusetts Turnpike,
and other related area arterials. The study should recommend
proposed changes to improve the pattern of traffic
utilization between regional and arterial roadways as well
as the quality and accessibility of Charles River
recreational facilities, and to reduce conflicts between
traffic and recreation. It should consider design,
construction, and operational measures necessary for timely
implementation; funding sources and policy initiatives;
recommended implementation and staging schedules; and the
transportation, environmental, and public costs and benefits
that will result therefrom.
Transportation/Land Uses North of the Charles River
The Bridge Design Review Committee recommends that the
Secretary undertake a study to identify and evaluate
transportation, access and service issues, and related land
uses in the area north of the Charles River between New
Rutherford Avenue, McGrath/O'Brien Highway, and Washington
street. The Committee notes the jurisdiction of the cities
of Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville over the redevelopment
of this area and requests that the study be closely
coordinated with said communities. At a minimum, the study
should consider traffic and transportation issues, impact on
existing roadways, access improvements, and public
transportation opportunities. This study should assess
opportunities for a variety of land uses in an integrated
plan including partial or complete relocation of existing
rail facilities. The study should investigate financing
schemes to make possible suggested land use and
transportation improvements.
Air Quality Improvements
The Bridge Design Review Committee recommends further
study of ways to improve the air handling technologies of
the tunnel sections of the CA/T Project, including but not
limited to any tunnels selected in the Area North of
Causeway Street as well as the quality of air being provided
throughout the project. The study should include examination
of alternatives for handling air that will provide the
highest level of air quality possible for the approved
plan.
Transportation Management and HOV Planning
The Artery/Tunnel Project provides both an opportunity
and a necessity to improve the management of traffic in the
Boston region and to encourage the use of forms of
transportation other than the single-passenger automobile. A
regional action plan is needed to encourage and accommodate
the use of public transportation and high occupancy-vehicles
(HOVs). Management plans should include effective incident
management, communication of changing traffic patterns, and
truck mobility (including those carrying hazardous
materials). Mechanisms to examine include congestion
pricing, automatic toll collection devices, managed lanes
for priority traffic, pricing and availability of parking,
and other such technologies and policies.
Issues to Be Resolved
Continuing effort will be made during the
multidisciplinary design process to address several issues
identified by the Committee. A workable off-ramp from the
northbound Artery to Nashua Street will be vigorously
pursued, as will accommodations for high-occupancy vehicles
in a manner consistent with the regional HOV plan
recommended by the Committee. Design and construction
staging will attempt to minimize both construction and long
term impacts to the Esplanade along the Charles Street
Extension, Paul Revere Landing Park, the Registry Building,
and other resources protected by Section 4(f). Charles and
Millers Rivers open space, ramp infields, pedestrian, and
bicycle facilities will be designed in conjunction with the
Charles River bridge, other highway elements, and
ventilation facilities to achieve Committee objectives and
prior CA/T commitments, including an attractive and
environmentally appropriate bridge design. There will be
parallel design efforts and discussions with property owners
aimed at reducing the impacts of viaducts, tunnels, and
vents on the MGH development parcel near North Station and
of ramps on the North Point Development in Cambridge.
Environmental studies, including a possible Supplemental
EIS/R, will address all impacts, including those involving
the Charles and Millers Rivers, 4(f) resources, materials
disposal, land use, and community areas. These impacts will
be minimized to the extent possible.
Summary of Recommended Improvements to the Charles
River Crossing
In carrying out its mandate to seek ways to improve the
Charles River crossing of the Artery/Tunnel Project (the
Proposed Action), the Committee reached consensus on the
following improvements included in its recommendation. Both
the selected Committee Improvement Package 8 and the other
options given final consideration Committee (CIPs 3 and 5)
are each a significant improvement over Scheme Z, in terms
of traffic, open space and land use, and the visual
appearance of the bridge and its associated ramps.
· Inclusion of a northbound on-ramp from New Sudbury
Street in downtown Boston, serving the function of the
former Traverse Street on-ramp that was deleted from the
DSEIS version of Scheme Z. This directly benefits the North
End and Charlestown by reducing traffic on Keany Square,
North Washington Street bridge, City Square and New
Rutherford Avenue. It also benefits the entire Boston
downtown area -- political, residential and business
interests had been unanimous in criticizing Scheme Z for
eliminating the Traverse Street on-ramp.
· Direct connections (without having to cross the
Charles River twice, as is the case in Scheme Z) via tunnels
in the North Station area between Leverett Circle and the
Central Artery southbound and Central Artery north-bound.
All final options eliminate double river crossings, thereby
reducing vehicle miles travelled and reducing the number of
lanes crossing the river from 16 in Scheme Z (or 18 if Ramp
WCN had not been deleted), to a maximum of 13. The
recommended CIP 8 has 11 bridge lanes and two tunnel lanes.
By reducing the volume of traffic on the bridge, the width
of the bridge, and the number of ramps north of the river,
elimination of the double river crossing benefits the
interests of pedestrians, cyclists and others seeking more
parkland along the riverbank; boats going under a
significantly narrower bridge structure; those seeking to
reduce pollution (by reducing vehicle miles travelled); and
the developers and users of North Point.
· Reduction in the number, width, and height of
bridges over the Charles River. The Committee has considered
options that include no bridge (the all-tunnel option),
combination bridge/river tunnel options, or solely bridge
(either single-deck or double-deck). Instead of Scheme Ts
three bridges (or four if the WCN ramp had been included in
the project), all final options have a single bridge and
reduce the height and the width of Scheme Z's crossing by
about one-third. The single-deck bridge in the recommended
CIP 8 is substantially narrower (196 versus 275 feet), and
has lower towers (205 versus 335 feet). The bridge is far
more visually appealing than Scheme Z's bridges. Though not
symmetrical, CIP 8 has much less visual mass over the river,
less impediment to navigation, and superior aesthetic
appearance and opportunities for park uses along the
riverfront. Having a single, and a lower and narrower,
bridge benefits the developers and users of North Point by
having less structure looming over the development area, and
others who will see a much more aesthetically pleasing
bridge from either near or far -- whether from Charlestown,
East Cambridge, the North End, the Esplanade, or the North
Station area.
· Reduction of impacts due to ramps in the North
Point area in Cambridge, by placing the portions of them
nearest the Charles River underground, thereby reducing
their height and intrusion on planned developments in the
North Point area and benefiting future park uses along the
Charles River and in an improved Millers River area. Scheme
Z's six loop ramps in North Point have been reduced to two
in OP Sand the higher of the loop ramps is 65 feet lower
than in Scheme Z. This benefits users of future parkland
along the north bank of the Charles River, as well as the
developers of the North Point area itself.
· Reduction in the height (by 25 feet) and width (by
95 fret) of viaducts near Charlestown, and fulfillment of
previous commitments to provide pedestrian access to the
Charles River via the Millers River area. This benefits the
Charlestown community, which will have less visual and noise
intrusion into their residential area and the newly created
park around City Square, as well as pedestrians who want to
walk to the riverbank.
· Improvement in the quality and quantity of open
space along the Charles and Millers Rivers. The closest ramp
to the Charles River is 120 feet away, as compared to 45
feet in Scheme Z, and structures over the mouth of the
Millers River are reduced. These changes afford a
significantly better opportunity to fulfill the Chapter 91
commitments of the CANA license and to implement the MDC's
planning for the Charles River Reservation. The better
highway design makes the CA/T mitigation commitments to
improve this open space more cost effective, benefiting
residents of Beacon Hill, Cambridge, Charlestown, and the
entire region.
· Identification of a separate corridor (in the
Congress Street area) for a future rail link between north
and south (both intercity and commuter rail) that is
compatible with the Artery/Tunnel Project as a whole. This
benefits those who seek a viable corridor for intercity rail
as well as those who want an improved commuter rail system
with the capacity for trains to distribute passengers
throughout the downtown, at North Station, Post Office
Square, South Station, and Rack Bay.
In all options considered by the Committee (described on
the preceding pages), the Committee has worked from the
premise that the Artery/Tunnel Project could cross the
Charles River in a manner that would enhance the region in
general and the immediate area of the crossing in
particular, as compared both with present conditions and
with the proposed Scheme Z.
The Committee strongly believes that Scheme Z minimizes
construction cost at the expense of important environmental
and community values. Several project components developed
since the SEIS/R reduce impact to those values and should be
regarded as basic parts of any Charles River crossing
alternative and included in the basis for cost comparisons.
These include the land-based tunnel connections between
Leverett Circle and the Artery south of Causeway Street,
which eliminate double river crossings, reduce the width of
structure over Paul Revere park, the Charles River and its
banks. They are a prerequisite for improved bridge designs
that reduce the number of bridge piers in the river and have
less visual impact on nearby parkland. These tunnel
connections also permit replacement of the Traverse Street
on-ramp with a Sudbury Street ramp without additional
structure in the park and river. The net incremental cost
above Scheme Z of these connections is approximately $160
million, and this is a threshold that should be used in
comparing final options considered by the Committee.
|