|
. . . receive a presentation from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and to discuss the Storrow Drive Tunnel Reconstruction Project. |
April 6, 2006Committee Report #5 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC AND In City Council May 22, 2006
The Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee held a public hearing on Thursday, April 6, 2006, beginning at eleven o’clock and twenty-seven minutes p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber. The purpose of the meeting was to receive a presentation from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and to discuss the Storrow Drive Tunnel Reconstruction Project. Present at the hearing were Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Committee, Councillor Henrietta Davis and City Clerk D. Margaret Drury. Also present were Deputy City Manager Richard Rossi, Police Commissioner Ronnie Watson, Susan Clippinger, Director of the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, Police Lieutenant Jack Albert, Jason Schrieber, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, Karst Hoogeboom, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Karl Haglund, Regional Planner for DCR, Bernadette O’Malley, DCR and Nancy Farrell, Regina Villa Associates. Several members of the public also participated in the meeting, and their names are listed below, with their comments. Councillor Kelley convened the meeting and explained the purpose. He invited Karst Hoogeboom, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), to make a presentation. Mr. Hoogeboom said that the DCR will provide early and accurate information on the project. The project goal is to repair the deteriorated Storrow Drive tunnel and to improve the parkland at the same time. He introduced Karl Haglund, DCR Regional Planner to describe the project. Mr. Haglund presented a slide show. He began with the need for reconstruction. The structure is a bridge as well as a tunnel, which has been in service for fifty-five years. The risk of structural failure is greater than that accepted by modern standards and is increasing each year. The repair needs are becoming more sizeable and less predictable. The roof, walls and base slabs leak and there has been extensive corrosion damage and falling concrete. Mr. Haglund then described the public outreach program and the state and local review process. During the design period, there will be public meetings and briefings for civic neighborhood and business groups, along with regular updates on the DCR websites. During construction, there will be notice of the construction schedule by e-mail, news releases, letters and the DCR websites. Mr. H said that right now they’re looking at options A, B, C & D, to include options with and without a vent building. There are a variety of issues with service lives of these options. People should feel free to comment on additional options besides A-D. The cost range of the options is from 35-135 million dollars, the time range from 18 to 60 months. They will drop truly unlikely proposals, like the at-grade with flyovers, from consideration before the DEIR. Tunnels will require some sort of vent, often via expensive vent buildings. Surface vents on Esplanade would be considered a loss to the Esplanade but would not impact the view. A variety of plans have pedestrian crossings over surface roads. The state and local review process will be governed by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) under the auspices of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA). The Environmental Notification Process is planned for April-June 2006. The Environmental Notification Form (ENF) will be filed and there will be an ENF scoping meeting. The MEPA office will receive comments on the ENF and determine the scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Report. In September there will be traffic workshops with neighborhood representatives followed by public meetings in October to review the three or four preferred design options of the total fourteen options that have been identified. DCR expects to be able to say by the end of the year what traffic patterns will be area by area. Twenty-five to 50 Boston/Cambridge intersections will be analyzed based on cities’ concerns. Various options will have permanent traffic impacts. Traffic is heavy everywhere at all times. Their chart shows volume over capacity, and if it gets close to or exceeds 1 it’s full. DCR has Memorial Drive down as about 0.21, but that does not take into account congestion at traffic lights. A roadway controlled by traffic signals has its capacity controlled by signals more than roadway itself. DCR is trying to look regionally and will be guided by origin and destination study. The DCR plans to file its Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in November. Thereafter there will be a public comment period for comments on the DEIR and then the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) will issue its Final Environmental Impact Scope (FEIR) in December. In April 2007 the DCR schedule calls for public meetings for 25% design review of the proposed project, DEIR refinements, review of impact mitigation and the FEIR schedule and comment process, which is scheduled for May and June, 2007. Mr. Haglund then reviewed the draft criteria for evaluation of all of the options to arrive at the preferred options (Attachment A) and briefly summarized the comprehensive list of design options that has been developed (Attachment B). The presentation then moved to a demonstration of the application of the preferred option criteria to an illustrative example of each option type. With regard to traffic planning issues, Mr. Haglund stated that the Central Transportation Planning staff has completed a preliminary traffic analysis. He emphasized that the data does not include traffic light information and is very preliminary. An origin/destination survey is being developed with completion expected in May. The survey will be deployed at every place where the target traffic stops for a traffic light. Susan Clippinger, Director of the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation emphasized that there are many traffic lights on Memorial Drive. Ms. Clippinger also suggested that public transportation options be highlighted on the website for the construction project. Councillor Davis noted that an interstate roadway pilot project in Portland, Oregon, has shown that individualized marketing techniques have the potential of diverting 6 – 7% of automobile-driving commuters to public transportation. The marketing technique is expensive, but it could replace some even more expensive options. She submitted an article about the pilot project (Attachment C). Councilor Davis would like traffic mitigation to be paid for by the project. She advocated for a “travel smart’ program to help make mode shifts permanent. In response to a question from Mr. Rossi, Mr. Haglund said that there will be a public meeting in September after more detailed traffic analyses has been completed. Mr. Rossi asked whether the state would consider funding for independent traffic consultants from Boston and Cambridge. Police Commissioner Watson stated that the Memorial Drive intersections at River Street, Western Avenue and J.F.K. Street are already maxed out. He emphasized that State Police traffic control support will be needed for these intersections every day, especially during rush hours during the construction. Commissioner Watson encouraged on-line traffic studies that would be less likely to be random and would be unbiased at that point. Mr. Haglund noted that temporary traffic issues will be considered, varying on the options. DCR is coordinating with MGH, neighborhoods, the Boston Evacuation Route, etc. Commissioner Watson noted that Cambridge streets will take a beating from the extra traffic and may need to be resurfaced and that Cambridge streets back up anytime something is going on on Boston side of the river. Mr Haglund said that new pumps will have oil/water separators and that tunnels are the most expensive projects, but with the most benefits. DCR hopes to fix the road, improve traffic and improve the Esplanade. They will probably try to group responses to comments by category for the EIR. She does not want every square inch of river taken up by development, removing native plants, trees, etc. She wants to keep sale of City the way it is and we should think about beautiful parks we want to have, even as empty space. Fleet Hill, president of the Mt. Auburn Neighborhood Association, urged the DCR to consider mitigation that could be done during and after the construction to improve the parkland on the Cambridge side of the Charles River. Kathy Podgers, 148 Pearl Street, urged mitigation in terms of parkland improvement in Cambridge, not just Boston, and including the Charles River Estuary and leaving it natural. She urged that the project be designed to not cut down trees. She expressed concern about traffic impacts on the neighborhoods. One truck stuck on Storrow Drive sends all the traffic to Cambridgeport. Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, said that the Storrow Drive project will affect Memorial Drive. She asked how this DCR restoration project ties into the Phase 2reconstruction on Memorial Drive near the B.U. Bridge. She said that the budget for the Memorial Drive project is seven million dollars. Mr. Haglund said that with regard to the Storrow Drive project, DCR is looking at a permanent reduction, but is not advocating a final plan at this point. Rather, they are analyzing the traffic. He said that he is not familiar with the Phase 2 Memorial Drive restoration project. Mr. Hoogeboom said that the Office of the Deputy Commissioner will be coordinating the Storrow Drive project with all other construction projects. Councillor Kelley encouraged him to coordinate with people running the Memorial drive project. He said that he believes the projects are very connected. Arthur Strang, Fresh Pond Parkway, said that in 1962 he drove to Atlanta, which looked then like Central Square. He does not want enlarged highways, just repaired roadways. He does not want to see what happened to Atlanta happen to Cambridge. He noted that there is insufficient maintenance of the parkland at both Memorial and Storrow Drives. He suggested sending everyone who completes the origin/destination survey two one-week passes for the MBTA. He also suggested subsidy of MBTA pass costs during construction. He noted the importance of police enforcement of traffic rules on the parkway right after construction. Karen Carmean, 1657 Cambridge Street, stated her appreciation of DCR expressing its concern for the environment long term. She encouraged looking at longterm goals and not getting drowned by the traffic needs. She also suggested talking to Harvard because they have longterm plans that relate to Storrow Drive. After an hour at Magazine Beach, she is shattered by the traffic noise from Storrow Drive. Ms. Carmean also suggested involving M.I.T. DCR should have a long-term goal of improving tranquility. Mr. Haglund said that several people at DCR are paying very close attention to Harvard’s plan. Councillor Davis agreed with Ms. Carmean that the noise from Storrow Drive is a big factor in keeping Magazine Beach from being a successful park area. Ms. Davis would like long-term noise mitigation. Chris Weller, 160 Chestnut Street, suggested extending the MBTA Red Line. He stated that he is working with HOSITT and noted DCR’s observations that the tunnel is about to cave in, which means that DCR needs to act quickly and thus cannot engage in a planning process that is extensive enough. He said that it feels like everybody is all caught up in the traffic process. He would like a public meeting on what temporary work solutions exist. There is a diversity of opinion about how bad the problem is. Mr. Haglund said that if there are engineers who think DCR is missing opportunities for short-term repairs, he would like to hear from them. DCR has laid out a planning process of at least fifteen months. Their engineers believe we are headed into a situation in which safety will continue to be a growing concern. The rating of the westbound artery bridge by the state is currently zero. Kathy Podgers stated that there was no public process in the Magazine Beach construction. Any preservation of the environment should include a place for wildlife. Bill Norman, Cambridge, thanked the DCR for coming and expressed appreciation for the process. He would like to see outside confirmation of how bad the structure is. He asked about the timing with regard to plans for reconstruction of the Longfellow Bridge. He expressed concern that these projects are always bigger and more costly than expected, and hi thinks the continuity of events is crucial. Mr. Haglund said that DCR has made the preliminary conclusion that the state cannot do construction on the Longfellow Bridge and Storrow Drive at the same time. He emphasized the importance of preserving the recreational areas. He noted that the engineers are not very enthusiastic about tunnels, which cause significant disruption of neighborhoods concern about water rising with climate change. Marilyn Wellons asked if the Storrow Drive Tunnel is deemed regionally significant and whether DCR is considering the EOT study in progress regarding transportation alternatives in Allston. She expressed concern that things which are physically and logically connected may be consigned to different compartments of the government bureaucracy. Mr. Haglund said that these projects will go through the N.P.O. He also said that when there is additional traffic on Memorial Drive, there will be additional maintenance. Councillor Kelley encouraged DCR to really think about the fact that there are an awful lot of projects going on. Cambridge cares about moving people. At the end of this reconstruction, we hope to have figured out many more ways to enable people to move around with their cars, and without their cars. He thanked all those present for their participation. The meeting was adjourned at one o’clock and thirty minutes p.m. For the Committee, Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair |