Kudos to Mac Daniel, the Globe’s excellent “Starts & Stops” reporter, who today once again takes the Department of Conservation and Recreation to task for its inane propensity to close one lane of Storrow Drive for parking when there are events on the Esplanade.
I have been railing about how ridiculous it is to half-close a major downtown artery so that a couple dozen people can park more conveniently for months. Ernie has also taken up the mantle, arguing that it’s a winner as an election issue.
And now that parts of the Big Dig tunnel system are closed, traffic is nightmarish, and people desperately need alternative routes to get places, what’s DCR’s response? Business as usual. Concert on the Esplanade? Lane closed. Backups all the way up the Leverett Connector ramp to I-93, and all the way back into the Big Dig tunnel coming from the south. Completely unnecessary, completely avoidable, and serving no useful purpose. Government stupidity at its worst. Says Daniel, “it was as though the tunnel collapse and everything that’s happened since just didn’t matter to the DCR.”
Daniel reports that the DCR has not been totally unaware of the situation. Says a DCR spokesperson, “In response to the traffic issues recently, to ease some of the congestion on Memorial and Storrow, we determined that the best way to do this is that parking will not begin until 7:30 [rather than the usual start time of 6 pm], at which point we expect a lot of the rush hour traffic to be out of Boston.”
Yeah, thanks for nothing, guys. I’ve gotten stuck on the Leverett Connector on Sunday afternoons when there wasn’t a rush hour in sight, simply because a lane of Storrow Drive was closed for parking.
Let’s make this really simple so that even the powers that be at DCR can understand it:
No parking on Storrow Drive. Ever.
Ernie may well have been right. Any Gov candidate who promises to end this ridiculous practice could pick up a bunch of voters who want to see common sense prevail over entrenched habits. But it shouldn’t have to come to that. Mitt Romney, who it must be said has done a good job taking control of the Big Dig investigation (that’s the guy voters thought they were getting in 2002 – where’s he been?), should have the sense to pick up the phone to DCR Commissioner Stephen Burrington and end this foolishness once and for all.
and knows that more people will only do so when cost(transit) < cost(car) where cost = f(time, money, comfort), I must say that I don’t lose any sleep about the closing of one lane of traffic on Storrow.
<
p>
As someone who uses the Esplanade as a park and as a transit thoroughfare (bicycle), I hate parts of Storrow Drive. There are places where it’s far too close to the bike/jogging path, resulting in lots of noise, dust, and yucky air, not to mention a sudden loss of peace and tranquility. That we may lose more of the Esplanade to the tunnel repair/replace for a few years only irks me more. There are hundreds of times more square footage dedicated to cars than to greenspace in Boston. It’s a lousy ratio for livability.
<
p>
I understand that I’m in the vast minority here, even w.r.t. citizens of Boston/Brookline/Cambridge/Somerville. I also agree that if you merely look at the comparison of convenience(parking) for the few dozen folks vs. negative_convenience(traffic) for the hundreds or thousands, it’s a bad trade off. But, I take a more holistic approach. As far as I’m concerned, any time cost(transit) < cost(car), the greater-Boston area is better off. While I’d rather do that by lowering cost(transit), I don’t worry so much when it’s done by increasing cost(car) either.
I think there is a problem with your reasoning stomv, and it goes to the heart of the issue David has brought up. The simple fact is that while the arrogance of a few may have the unintended consequence of benefitting you and like-minded individuals, it is just that, an unintended consequence. What this is really about is a select few getting theirs because that’s what public life and political office has been dangerously reduced to. Our acquiescence in allowing that attitude to persist is part of the reason that we don’t have better public transit, more livable cities etc. So while the situation with Storrow Drive may have the immediate result of raising the “cost” of car travel, allowing it to continue perpetuates the problem in a political sense.
In fact, I’m certain that the intent of parking on Storrow isn’t anywhere in the neighborhood of my cost function argument.
<
p>
I’m just pointing out that the result, at least in the extent of impact on transportation, is percieved as a negative by most, but as a positive by me.
DCR may be using a row of parked cars for public safety purposes: creating a buffer between moving traffic and crowds of pedestrians attracted to the event, and slowing down moving traffic by narrowing the roadway. This may actually be a cheap and deliberate way to create a safer environment for – what does that R stand for – Oh, yeah – recreation.
Sorry about that. It appears that traffic calming is exactly the intent behind this continued practice. Placing jersey barriers permanently along the sidewalk would be unsightly, and could actually create a safety issue for drivers, cyclists or for a pedestrian who might get caught on the wrong side of a barrier.
<
p>
According to the columnist, DCR is willing to compromise to be part of the solution to the current (and, we hope, temporary) traffic problem in Boston. Since DCR’s mission is to promote conservation and recreation, however, they apparently feel that the attractiveness of the park for use by human beings is more important than accommodating the exponentially increasing number of vehicle trips made by the average American.
<
p>
I believe that part of the logic behind the international traffic calming movement is that the more accommodations you make for traffic, the more traffic you will enable. So why not draw a line, and make it inconvenient for vehicles to go fast. Internalizing the cost of traffic, so to speak, so that it falls upon those who choose to drive in certain places or at certain times.
<
p>
Of course, this is easy for me to say. I think I may have been caught in traffic on Storrow Drive only once in my life. Out here, a major traffic problem is a tourist who doesn’t know the purpose of a passing lane. . . .
Whatever the merits of this alleged movement elsewhere (about which I have my doubts), it has no place on a highway. And that’s what Storrow Drive is – it’s one of the major Boston arteries, and is the only non-city-streets way of getting between Cambridge, the Pike, I-93, and downtown Boston. If you force drivers off Storrow because they fear traffic jams, all you do is plug up city streets worse than they already are, which I would think is far more dangerous for pedestrians (among other things). Plus, at this time in Boston’s history, would it really be such a bad idea to “enable” a bit of traffic?
<
p>
As for DCR’s primary mission being to promote recreation, that’s why getting Storrow Drive and other major roadways out from under their purview and transferring them to MassHighway has been talked about for a long time, though it’s never been done. DCR doesn’t understand roads (obviously), and there’s no reason it should be responsible for them.
1. Traffic calming is an important step toward safety and livibility in densly populated areas, like, oh I don’t know, Boston. This is unquestioned by folks in civil engineering because the damage caused to humans hit by cars grows (roughly) at the square of the speed. In collisions with vehicle speeds of 40 mph, the probability of fatal pedestrian injury is more than 80 percent. That probability is reduced to 50 percent at 30 mph, and drops to only 5 percent at 20 mph. (fn1) Since Storrow Drive is so close to the park in those areas, a buffer lane of cars both (a) provides a safety wall for people, and (b) forces cars to slow down near people, reducing the probability of a fatality dramatically. This is also why cars moving throughout city streets may not be as dangerous (in the sense of death or severe injury).
<
p>
2. Storrow drive is not a highway. In fact, there’s about a 1 mile stretch where it’s perfectly legal (although not recommended) to ride a bicycle.
<
p>
3. Storrow drive is not “the only non-city streets way” of getting b/n Cambridge, Pike, and I-93. You can use Mem Drive for much of that as well (and the Mass Ave or other bridges). You make it sound as if cars are forced to spill throughout the streets of Boston to get around the Storrow slow-down. They’re not. Besides, there are days when Storrow Drive gets closed. I’d think you’d argue against closing Storrow Drive before you argued against slowing it down.
<
p>
4. It’s not at all obvious that DCR doesn’t understand roads. They understand that there’s a tradeoff between public convenience and public safety — something entities like MassHighway rarely understand. In fact, in this tradeoff, they almost always side with the vehicles — rarely do they slow or stop Storrow traffic, there are parts where Storrow is way to close to park users, they’re almost certainly going to (temporarily, to the tune of a few years) take away even more park space while they repair the tunnel for drivers, etc. This even ignores the vast waste of potentially useful park land wasted on all the flyovers, such as the Kenmore Square exit which takes up acres of possible park land.
<
p>
So, not so much. The nuance is that almost all people who walk or ride cycles throughout the city regularly also have cars, drive regularly, or at the very least have driven many thousands of miles. The converse isn’t nearly as likely — very few drivers in Boston regularly walk or cycle in the city, so they’re only seeing it from one perspective, whereas the walkers and cyclists have “walked that mile” in everyones shoes.
<
p>
fn1. Dan Burden, Director, Partnership for a Walkable America.
It is a highly travelled state road used as the primary route from many heres to many theres.
When will we start closing lanes on Morrisey Blvd, Revere Beach Parkway, Jamaica Way, the Fells Way, Route 1, Memorial Drive, West Roxbury Parkway, Nahant Causeway,
Quicny Shore Drive, Revere Beack Blvd. (different from Revere Beach Parkway), Winthrop Shore Drive, Day Blvd.?
<
p>
I can go on. If it is about safety, then safety it is. We need to stop these speeding cars on all these roads. Children are playing and people going about their business nearby.
An accident waiting to happen. Just like the Big Dig.
Why?
<
p>
1. The parking near Storrow is only when there are major events, and you have hundreds (over 1000?) people in a tight area — and very close to the road. There’s also no guardrail IIRC, just the green metal fence which will do little to slow a 4000 pound vehicle traveling at 60 mph (as opposed to a wall of other 4000 pound vehicles, which certainly would).
<
p>
The problem isn’t that cars are “speeding” on roads. The problem is that this particular piece of road is far too close to hundreds of people congregating without sufficient safety barriers between the two.
<
p>
If you can find substantially similar situations at Morrisey Blvd, Revere Beach Parkway, Jamaica Way, the Fells Way, Route 1, Memorial Drive, West Roxbury Parkway, Nahant Causeway,
Quicny Shore Drive, Revere Beack Blvd. (different from Revere Beach Parkway), Winthrop Shore Drive, Day Blvd, I encourage you to post them. I can’t think of any.
<
p>
Ultimately, I’m speculating that the parking isn’t for the convenience of a few dozen drivers attending the event, but rather for the safety of the many hundreds who are.
Obviously you havenever driven on one of the beach roads on a hot summer day or evening.
Packed with people feet, not 50 yards or more, fromn the main road.
<
p>
I’m sorry. This safety thing is a red herring.
<
p>
Stormv, do you have any empathy – can u relate to any one but yourself and your own selfish needs.
Show me by map. Name a road and I’ll look. Here’s the Hatch Shell:
<
p>
Google satelite photo of Hatch Shell
<
p>
First of all, the people are indeed “feet” not 50 yards from the main road. In fact, it’s almost exactly 200 feet from Storrow Drive to the Charles River near the Hatch Shell. During concernts, you’ve got people within 25 feet of Storrow densely packed, not to mention the extra foot traffic on the path which is about 5 feet from Storrow. Look at the map yourself. It is true that the trees do provide some protection, but it is also obvious that a row of parked cars provide substantially more.
<
p>
And again, notice the distinct lack of a guard rail. I’d argue the best long term solution to this is either:
(a) put up a really strong wall between the Hatch Shell area and the road. Not just a standard guard rail, but a little more. It would have the added benefit of deadening some noise. This wouldn’t be loved by the people who have a view of the Hatch Shell from their homes on the other side of Storrow. Alternatively, (b) squeeze Storrow east by 10 feet or so in that area, moving the entire road in both directions one lane east. Then, you leave that paved area that used to be the right most lane for traffic that is traveling south at that specific area. Call it a breakdown lane, and park in that breakdown lane during events. You don’t slow traffic, you keep the safety, and you get the added bonus of a bit of breakdown lane, which helps to alleviate backups if there happens to be an accident there. Downside: cost and there may not be enough room on the other side — its hard to tell from the photo I can see.
<
p>
Stormv, do you have any empathy – can u relate to any one but yourself and your own selfish needs.
<
p>
This has nothing to do with my needs. I drive on Storrow past concerts far more than I attend concerts. In all the years I’ve lived in Boston, I’ve been to exactly one concert — a July 3rd Pops show. I’ve gotten stuck in the Storrow traffic caused by the parking three or four times.
<
p>
This has to do with advocating for the minority, acknowledging that it may result in inconvenience for the majority. In fact, nearly all advocates face this dillema — asking the majority to give up time or more often money for their pet issue, be it AIDS research or health care for all or gay marriage (cost: additional health care benefits for spouses, etc), or leg-powered or mass transit. That doesn’t mean any of those isses are bad issues or the people who advocate for them don’t have empathy or are selfish.
<
p>
I’ve driven far more miles than I’ve walked, cycled, or T’d. I have empathy for drivers. From my perspective, it seems like many drivers have virtually no empathy for those who are walking, cycling, or riding the T, since those drivers can’t empathize — they’ve rarely walked a mile in those shoes.
<
p>
And there is still no ‘r’ in stomv.
Stormv – you make the case that the esplanade is a dangerous place for concets. Then let’s not have them.
Plenty of other places in the city for outdoor concerts.
Errrnrirer Brarcrhr IrIrIr:
<
p>
There is still no ‘r’ in stomv, as I’ve mentioned in the past.
<
p>
As for the Hatch Shell… I’m making the case that normal operations of Storrow Drive and concerts at the Hatch Shell are indeed in conflict. My proposed resolution: a few dozen parked cars on Storrow to provide a buffer.
<
p>
It would seem to me that those advocating for no parking on Storrow are, in fact, making the case that the Hatch Shell should be moved.
<
p>
2. Call it whatever you want, but if it looks like a duck …. It’s limited access, the speed limit is 40 (except it’s a bit lower around the S-curve), and almost everyone drives 50-60 – you can’t drive 40 on the stretch past the Esplanade heading to Kenmore, or on the stretch heading to the Central and Harvard exits, without being the slowest car on the road.
<
p>
3. Mem Drive is much slower – traffic lights, and it’s not limited access so you’ve got left turns, etc. Furthermore, it’s MUCH more dangerous in terms of pedestrians and bikers – there’s no guard rail and people cross the road all over the place. I’d think you’d want less traffic on Mem, and more on Storrow, if you’re concerned about bikers. As for closures, Mem closes every Sunday from April-November. Storrow almost never closes – I’m actually not sure what you’re talking about on that one.
<
p>
4. It’s pretty obvious to me.
<
p>
I know you’re totally anti-car. Most people – and, importantly, most voters – aren’t.
1. I agree that traffic calming doesn’t make much sense on Storrow under the standard considerations (sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.) since Storrow is designed to have no pedestrians crossing on the road or walking directly along it (with the caveat that some places on Storrow are really close to the bike/walking path — but there is a fence in between, but no guardrail IIRC.
<
p>
2. Storrow Drive is almost limited access, but in fact it is not. This is actually key in a legal sense, because it has a huge impact on what kinds of vehicles are allowed on the road. As for the speed limit, it is 40 for a reason, and I wish they’d enforce it. I know, there are parts where you can drive faster and remain on the road, but the higher speeds result in nastier traffic jams when there are accidents, a higher probability of an accident, and (yes, here I go) a greater chance of a vehicle plowing through the green fence onto the Esplanade and mowing down people who don’t have thousands of pounds of metal and plastic surrounding them.
<
p>
3. Is Mem Drive really that much slower across the river from the Hatch Shell area? I agree that it’s slower west of the BU bridge, but east of the BU bridge there’s 1 (I think!) traffic light between BU Bridge and Mass Ave (which has a bypass underneath) and there are rarely people crossing along that stretch except at the light or at Mass Ave (bypass). After Mass Ave there is a light or three and a crosswalk or two, I don’t remember the details. While it’s not as fast as Storrow, I don’t see it as a major inconvenience for drivers or peds. Furthermore, there’s a path along the river on the Cambridge side too, which is why you never see bikes traveling on Mem Drive itself, even though it is legal to do so. It’s also why many pedestrians are about 10 feet from the road much of the time.
<
p>
3 1/2. Storrow Drive closes on July 4th and (I thought!) a few other holidays. Am I wrong on this? I’m starting to doubt myself.
<
p>
4. And equally obvious to me 😉
<
p>
I’m not anti-car. I just think that (a) given there are scarce resources, and (b) often times what’s most convenient for drivers is least convenient for leg-powered folks and vice versa, too often no consideration is given to the later and all to the former. I believe that has direct negative impacts on a huge part of the population (who happen, btw, to have fewer resources at their disposal in general) and indirect negative impacts on the entire population. Particularly in a densely populated area, where a little extra money and planning can go a long way to making the city livable without wasting so much money and land on roadways, it seems to me that the balance is out of kilter.
<
p>
I don’t advocate banning cars or not spending money on roads. I merely want to see more money and more thought go toward making it easier on walkers, cyclists, rollerbladers, and public transit riders, even if it means less money and consideration going toward motor vehicle operators.
<
p>
I also understand I’m in the minority. That doesn’t mean that my ideas are bad, wrong, or should be summarily dismissed. It also doesn’t mean that they’re easily part of an electible platform — although I suspect that the spirit of my claims could very well be part of an electible platform. Like nearly all issues, the key to being electible is not to go to extremes, but to choose one side and tug a little in that direction. Perhaps advocate for more bicycle paths, more money for the T, and some simple changes in city planning and zoning that would, over time, make the city far more inviting. In other words, reaching way back to my initial post, don’t advocate for increasing cost(car), but instead champion ways to reduce cost (non-car-transit).
You mean “traffic joke”.
<
p>
Has there been a problem of people running into traffic and getting hit by cars?
Why then don’t they make a permanent fix? Pehaps widen the road so the cars can park in a sepeate lane.
Perhaps the Red Sox can pay for it. “Tom Werner Parking Lane”.
<
p>
Oh wait, this is an accoustic driven policy. The fans can’t hear the music with that noisy trafic.
<
p>
Why don’t we all wear t-shirts that say “I’m Stupid. I will Believe Anything I am Told”?
Do you feel any loyalty to the family business that might help us to put your militant love of speeding traffic into proper perspective?
I do believe that stomv has the better part of this argument. This thread has completely changed my mind on this tiny little issue.
<
p>
Not because I believe that cars are fundamentally evil (I don’t) or that anything that makes driving difficult or annoying is good (I don’t) but because I lived on Beacon Hill long enough, attended enough events at the Hatch Shell, and walked my dog often enough along the Esplanande to know that the traffic is dangerously close to pedestrians, and moves, despite the speed limit and the dangerous curves, at unsafe speeds when possible.
<
p>
A barrier between the traffic and people is particularly important when there are a lot of people present for an event. If Junior driving Daddy’s 5500 lbs. Chevy Suburban hit a dense crowd at 40 mph, it would be a catastophic.
<
p>
You live in a city. Sometimes there is traffic. If you choose to drive from downtown to Brookline via Brookline ave at 6-7pm on a summer evening, it would be a bad choice. If you choose to drive on Storrow Drive during a Hatch Shell event, it is a bad choice. Choose a different route.
but sometimes a car ends up driving through a mass of people, killing 10.
<
p>
A single car is capable of killing many people if they’re densely packed and the car is moving quickly. I’m not suggesting that an old dude is going to ram through the Esplanade and hit his gas pedal instead of his brake; I’m suggesting that a car could be traveling around 50 mph when for any number of reasons it carromed off to its right, plowing through folks at the Hatch Shell. A wall solves this problem. Either build one or create one; the current choice is the latter.
was from 2003. The idea behind reducing risk of low probability high casualty events is not to look at “how often” but rather “how to substantially reduce risk cheaply”.
<
p>
Currently, and perhaps because of a lack of vision or just good numbers, parking on Storrow is considered cheaper than building a sufficiently strong wall.
<
p>
Maybe the question is — if it would happen once every 50 years, would parking on Storrow be worth it — the many thousands of hours lost to traffic vs. human life? How about every 20 years? Every 100 years? Where’s the trade-off worth it? Yeah, it’s an unfair question, and one that I wouldn’t expect you (or me) to answer.
Yeah, I’m thinking that’s it. I was checking out this very spot as I drove Storrow Drive today. And it’s true that a guardrail would be a fine addition to much of that stretch of the road. Wouldn’t obstruct the view or be unsightly (it’s amazing what they’re doing with guardrails these days!), and it would largely resolve this problem. Drop in a couple of fashionable concrete planters with nice flowers in them if you’re still worried that cars will jump the guardrail (though that seems quite unlikely to me on Storrow).
<
p>
It is NOT costless to create the huge jams that result from closing a lane. In addition to the enormous inconvenience, lost productivity, and increased blood pressure of people delayed in trying to get where they’re going, there is all that gasoline that’s burned and greenhouse gases that are pumped into the atmosphere by hundreds of cars crawling along.
I don’t regularly drive on Storrow Drive, nor have I ever visited the Esplanade, so I have no dog in this fight. That said, I would like to make a historical point. Storrow Drive is an old MDC Parkway. It was created for “pleasure vehicles” back in the days when “motoring” was something fun to do on a Saturday afternoon. (Mac Daniel had an informative piece back in 2004 about the reasons for excluding commercial vehicles from parkways.)
<
p>It could be argued that since Storrow Drive is a parkway and not a highway, anyone who is using it for non-recreational purposes is actually intruding on those who are. (I think that is probably the crux of DCR’s real argument.) Also, the Esplanade was built in 1928, with a $1 million donation from Helen Osborn Storrow. During her lifetime, she was opposed to the construction of a highway through the park, and after her death, the project was still highly controversial.
<
p>Again, I have no dog in this fight. But I think it is important to know some of the historical background.
The streets in downtown Boston were created for “cows”. “Back in the day when ‘milking cows’ was something to do ‘to survive'”.
<
p>
So, it could be argued that anyone not using the downtown streets for non-cow purposes should be given a tix.
<
p>
<
p>
Check out this Boston Globe article from 2004.
Very good.