Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration TCRP...Transit Capacity and Quality of Service...
Transcript of Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration TCRP...Transit Capacity and Quality of Service...
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMSponsored by the Federal Transit Administration
TCRPR E P O R T 1 6 5
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service
ManualThird Edition
1. User's Guide
2. Mode and Service Concepts
3. Operations Concepts
4. Quality of Service Concepts
5. Quality of Service Methods
6. Bus Transit Capacity
7. Demand-Responsive Transit
8. Rail Transit Capacity
9. Ferry Transit Capacity
10. Station Capacity
11. Glossary and Symbols
12. Index
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition
CHAPTER 3 OPERATIONS CONCEPTS
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 How to Use This Chapter ................................................................................................................... 3-1
Other Resources .................................................................................................................................... 3-2
2. CAPACITY, SPEED, AND RELIABILITY .............................................................................. 3-3
Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 3-3
Capacity Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 3-4
Speed Concepts .................................................................................................................................. 3-10
Reliability Concepts .......................................................................................................................... 3-13
3. PASSENGER DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................... 3-15 Transit Passenger Demand Patterns ......................................................................................... 3-15
Demand Related to Demographics ............................................................................................. 3-18
Demand Related to Land Use ....................................................................................................... 3-18
Demand Related to Transportation Demand Management Strategies ....................... 3-21
4. DWELL TIME .......................................................................................................................... 3-23 Definition .............................................................................................................................................. 3-23
Dwell Time Components ................................................................................................................ 3-23
Dwell Time Variability .................................................................................................................... 3-24
Illustrative Impacts of Dwell Time on Capacity .................................................................... 3-24
Illustrative Impacts of Dwell Time on Speed ......................................................................... 3-27
5. OPERATING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................. 3-28 Guideway Type and Design ........................................................................................................... 3-28
Traffic and Transit Vehicle Effects ............................................................................................. 3-29
Illustrative Impacts of Operating Environment on Capacity ........................................... 3-30
Illustrative Impacts of Operating Environment on Speed ................................................ 3-35
Impact of Operating Environment on Reliability ................................................................. 3-3 7
6. STOP AND STATION CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................... 3-38 Vehicle-Platform Interface ............................................................................................................ 3-38
Vehicle Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 3-38
Fare Collection .................................................................................................................................... 3-39
Stop Spacing ........................................................................................................................................ 3-39
Illustrative Impacts of Stops and Stations on Capacity ..................................................... 3-39
Illustrative Impacts of Stops and Stations on Speed ........................................................... 3-41
7. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 3-44
Chapter 3/0perations Concepts Page 3-i Contents
I
Exhibit 3-7 Illustrative Variation in Peak-Hour Demand
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition
low-density residential areas and major activity centers may only be feasible during peak periods or at a very low frequency (hourly or worse) during off-peak periods (13).
Peak-Hour Demand Variation
Passenger demand can also vary within the peak period. Some of this variation is attributable to people timing their trips to arrive at a destination (e.g., job, school) as close to the desired starting time as possible; other is due to day-to-day variations in people's activities that result in them taking different transit vehicles on different days. These variations have implications on the level of onboard crowding, as a service scheduled to accommodate average demand over the peak hour may experience overcrowded conditions during the peak of the peak
The concept of a peak hour factor (PHF) is used to express this demand variation within the peak hour (or any other analysis hour). The PHF is defined as the demand during the hour divided by four times the demand during the peak 15 min of the hour. Thus a PHF of 1.00 indicates even demand in each 15 min period of the hour, while a PHF of 0.25 would indicate that all the demand occurs in one 15-min period. Typical transit PHFs range from 0.60 to 0.95 (2, 14).
Exhibit 3-7 shows actual train loading data for the a.m. peak period for one day at a peak load station on Vancouver's SkyTrain (15), with the peak hour and the peak 15 min indicated, along with the average passenger loads during those time periods. The PHF represented in the graph is 0.92, which is relatively high (i.e., relatively even loading by 15-min intervals) for transit service.
400
350
300
c 'iii .= 250 .... QJ c..
"C ra
200 0 ..... Qj 1>.0 c QJ 150 "' "' ra c..
100
50
0
Aver ge load (peak 1 min) 1 /\J\~ l ,.
~verage load (peak hou I JAN l A I ~ ... f\ V\ 1\1\ V"" ' ' A f\ J
~ v 1 v v \A h \ IJ \.... If v
~eak 15 nin 4 ~
Peak houn
6:50 7:00 7:10 7 :20 7 :30 7:40 7 :50 8:00 8 :10 8 :20 8:30 8 :40 8:50 9:00
Time
Source: Derived from TCRP Report 13 {15) . Note: Vancouver, B.C., Broadway Station inbound, October 27, 1994.
Chapter 3/0perations Concepts Page 3-17 Passenger Demand Characteristics
I
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition
Even though the average load throughout the peak hour, relative to the peak 15 min, is fairly even, it can be seen from the exhibit that there are considerable variations from one train to the next. Furthermore, the average load during the peak 15 min is 35 passengers per train higher than the average for the peak hour. If this agency had only peak-hour ridership totals to work with and had (hypothetically) a service standard of 300 passengers per train, it might appear to meet its standard based on the average peak hour load, while in actuality, peak 15-min loads would exceed the standard. In many cases, the proportional difference between peak-hour and peak-15-min demands will be much greater than shown in Exhibit 3-7.
Both Exhibit 3-6 and Exhibit 3-7 have illustrated the importance of being aware of demand patterns over both long and short periods of time. The use of automatic passenger counting (APC) equipment allows the collection of passenger demand data on a regular basis. TCRP Report 113: Using Archived AVL-APC Data to Improve Transit Performance and Management (16) provides guidance on collecting, archiving, and using APC data. TCRP Report 135: Controlling System Costs: Basic and Advanced Scheduling Manuals and Contemporary Issues in Transit Scheduling (17) describes the use of ridership data, in conjunction with transit agency loading standards and policy headways, when developing transit schedules.
DEMAND RELATED TO DEMOGRAPHICS
The 2009 National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS, 18) provides data on household travel patterns for all travel modes and trip purposes. The following are selected demographic factors that relate to transit use in the U.S. ( 19):
• Gender. Controlling for other factors that influence mode choice, males are 7% more likely to use transit for a given trip than females.
• Age. Compared to persons 16-24 years old, persons in the 25-44 and 45-64 age groups are about half as likely to use transit for a given trip ( 45-64 years olds are slightly less likely to use it than 25-44 year olds), and those 65 and older are one-fifth as likely to use it. (The NHTS did not ask about trips made by children.)
• Employment. Persons who are employed are 41% more likely to use transit for a given trip than those not in the workforce or unemployed.
• Number of cars in household. Compared to zero-car households, one-car households are 10% as likely, two-car households 3% as likely, and three-car households 2% as likely to use transit for a given trip.
DEMAND RELATED TO LAND USE
Land Use Densities Supporting Various Transit Service Modes and Levels
As indicated above, there are a number of factors that influence the ridership demand for a given transit line-for example, ease of access, demographic factors such as age and car ownership, cost and convenience of transit relative to competing modes-but the density ofland uses along the line is a basic requirement. Simply put, the more people and the more jobs that are within easy access distance of transit service, the more potential customers there are to support high-quality service. Conversely, the more spread apart land uses are, the more difficult it is to develop a
Passenger Demand Characteristics Page 3-18 Chapter 3/0perations Concepts
BUS RIDERSHIP DATA AT KENDALL SQUARE
Load Entering
Stop
Boardings
(Trips OUT)
Alightings
(Trips IN)
Load Exiting
Stop FY 2007 07 ‐ '08
avg ann
ual %
FY 2008 08 ‐ '10
avg ann
ual %
FY 2010 10 ‐ '13
avg ann
ual %
FY 2013
avg annual growth
rateAM Peak Hour(8‐9am) Typical Weekday Ridership 344,111.0 2.9% 2.9% 354,060.0 2.2% 1.1% 361,676.0 4% 1% 376,227.0 1.8% 9% 1.6%
Bus 1 Inbound 291 8 20 279 Annual Ridership 101,331,725.0 4.5% 4.5% 105,881,740.0 2.1% 1.0% 108,088,300.0 3% 1% 111,730,664.0 2.2% 10% 1.7%Bus 1 Outbound 297 8 57 248 2% 2%Bus 68 Inbound 23 0 22 1 1.02
Bus 68 Outbound 0 7 0 7Bus 85 Inbound 76 0 76 0 Past two decades 1991‐2011, Avg annual rate growth 1.2%
Bus 85 Outbound 0 4 0 4 Accelerated in the past five years 2006‐2011, Avg annual growth 2.9%Bus CT1 Inbound 114 4 6 112 Future Baseline Growth Scenario 1.2%
Bus CT1 Outbound 115 1 64 52 Future Moderate Growth Scenario 1.5%Bus CT2 Inbound 132 25 42 115 Future High Growth Scenario 2.9%
Bus CT2 Outbound 71 8 36 43EZRide Inbound* 103 16 49 70
EZRide Outbound* 82 18 36 64
PM Peak Hour(5‐6pm)
Bus 1 Inbound 288 56 7 337Bus 1 Outbound 294 25 12 307Bus 68 Inbound 9 0 9 0
Bus 68 Outbound 0 23 0 23Bus 85 Inbound 7 0 7 0
Bus 85 Outbound 0 66 0 66Bus CT1 Inbound 47 31 2 76
Bus CT1 Outbound 54 3 3 54Bus CT2 Inbound 29 31 6 54
Bus CT2 Outbound 134 25 55 104EZRide Inbound* 52 31 19 64
EZRide Outbound* 13 18 11 20Source: MBTA Bus Ridecheck Data, November 2012 (\\mabos\projects\11356.00\ssheets\TIS\Transit Analysis\MBTA Data)
Source: Charles River TMA Ridership Data from Sept. 2013 through Oct. 2014 (\\vhb\proj\Boston\11356.00\ssheets\TIS\Transit Analysis\EZRide)
* EZ Ride Data: CRTMA provided monthly boarding data, use September 2014 (same as EZ Ride Feasibility Study) ; used EZ Ride Feasibility Study (March 2015) OFF % distribution to determine approx loads entering Kendall Station; assuming Total Peak Hour ONs = Total Peak Hour OFFsGROWTH RATE PER YEAR
1.02
Load Entering
Station Boardings Alightings
Load Exiting
Station
AM Peak Hour(8‐9am)
Bus 1 Inbound 309 8 21 296Bus 1 Outbound 315 8 60 263Bus 68 Inbound 24 0 23 1
Bus 68 Outbound 0 7 0 7Bus 85 Inbound 81 0 81 0
Bus 85 Outbound 0 4 0 4Bus CT1 Inbound 121 4 6 119
Bus CT1 Outbound 122 1 68 55Bus CT2 Inbound 140 27 45 122
Bus CT2 Outbound 75 8 38 46EZRide Inbound 103 16 49 70
EZRide Outbound 82 18 36 64
PM Peak Hour(5‐6pm)
Bus 1 Inbound 306 59 7 358Bus 1 Outbound 312 27 13 326Bus 68 Inbound 10 0 10 0
Bus 68 Outbound 0 24 0 24Bus 85 Inbound 7 0 7 0
Bus 85 Outbound 0 70 0 70Bus CT1 Inbound 50 33 2 81
Bus CT1 Outbound 57 3 3 57Bus CT2 Inbound 31 33 6 57
Bus CT2 Outbound 142 27 58 110EZRide Inbound 52 31 19 64
EZRide Outbound 13 18 11 20
MBTA BlueBook Data
ALL MBTA BUS LINES
GROWTH%
Hub and Spoke Study (July 2012)
MBTA 2012 Data grown to 2015 (2% per year for 3 years) NO ADJUSTMENT TO EZRIDE
MBTA Nov. 2012 Counts & EZRide 2014
\\vhb\proj\Boston\11356.00\ssheets\TIS\Transit Analysis\Existing Bus Ridership.xlsxdata PRINTED 6/18/2015
Hub and Spoke Report
Hub and SpokeCORE TRANSIT CONGESTION AND THE FUTURE OF TRANSIT AND DEVELOPMENT IN GREATER BOSTON
Authored by Stephanie Pollack, Associate Director, Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy at Northeastern University
Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy
June 2012
3
RISING RIDERSHIPThe Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, known locally as the T, serves 175 communities with a population of almost 4.7 million people spread over 3,200 square miles. The MBTA’s integrated transit system includes 14 commuter rail lines, 4 subway lines and over 180 bus routes as well as bus rapid transit, trackless trollies, ferries and a paratransit system. (MBTA Blue Book 2010).
Boston is one of the top five metropolitan areas in the United States for transit ridership. In 2010, the last year for which the American Public Transportation Association compiled comparative data from the Federal Transit Administration’s National Transit Database, the MBTA was the fifth largest transit system in the United States, when measured by the total number of unlinked passenger trips served annually1 (APTA Fact Book 2011). And when per capita transit use is the metric, as shown in Figure 1, Boston also ranks fifth nationally.
Like transit systems across the country, the MBTA has continued to grow its ridership even in the face of the persistent predictions that transit was a dying transportation mode. Six years ago, when the Urban Land Institute’s Boston District Council and Northeastern University’s Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy last teamed up to examine transit and transit-oriented development in metropolitan Boston, that On the Right Track report acknowledged that “transit ridership has declined in recent years.” But the report noted a number of trends “that point toward a future of growing demand for higher quality transit.” That prediction, and others like it, has proven correct — ridership has grown steadily and the rate of increase has accelerated.
Transit ridership has actually been growing modestly but steadily for the past two decades, both nationally and on the MBTA. 2011 marked the sixth consecutive year that Americans took more than 10 billion trips on public transportation. The 2011 total of 10.4 billion trips was the second highest annual ridership recorded since 1957, according to the American Public Transportation Association.
As shown in Figure 2, the MBTA’s ridership over the past two decades roughly parallels the national increase in ridership, rising at an average annual rate of 1.2% between 1991 and 2011. Ridership growth on the MBTA has accelerated during the past five years, with trips increasing at an average annual rate of 2.9% between 2006 and 2011. And 2012 is off to a strong start: April 2012 marked the fifteenth consecutive month in which year-over-year ridership on the MBTA increased and the third straight month that average weekday ridership exceeded 1.3 million. Between January 2007 and April 2012 — with fares remaining unchanged and the retail price of gasoline in Massachusetts rising from $2.26/gallon to $3.86/gallon — MBTA ridership rose at more than twice its longer-term historical average of increasing just over one percent per year.
1 “Unlinked trips” are the number of times passengers board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles, no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination.
FIGURE 1
U.S. METROPOLITAN AREAS RANKED BY PER CAPITA TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
0
50
100
150
200
250
New York Tri-State Area
San Francisco Bay Area
Washington, DC
Honolulu Bosto
n
Chicago
Philadelphia
Portland
Seattle
Los Angeles
Per Capita Transit Ridership
Ann
ual U
nlin
ked
Tri
ps
Per
Cap
ita
Urbanized Area
FIGURE 2
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP TRENDS FOR THE U.S. AND MBTA
Annual Unlinked Transit Trips
250
300
350
400
450
500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
10,000
10,500
11,000
1991 1993
1995 1997
1999 2001
2003 2005
2007 2009
2011
United States MBTA
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
(mill
ion
trip
s)
MB
TA
(m
illio
n tr
ips)
7
FUTURE RIDERSHIP GROWTH With MBTA ridership rising modestly and steadily over the past twenty years — and the annual rate of increase more than doubling from 1.2% over the past 20 years to 2.9% over the past five years — the MBTA must plan for higher ridership in the future. Even with fares set to increase, which may at least temporarily slow ridership growth, analysis of the MBTA’s historical and more recent ridership data, as well as recent modeling performed by the Commonwealth’s Central Transportation Planning Staff, support the conclusion that the MBTA needs to plan to be able to serve significantly more riders in the near future.
How many more transit trips should the MBTA plan to accommodate? For this report the Dukakis Center developed three scenarios for forecasting MBTA ridership growth from 2011 through 2021: a baseline forecast, a moderate growth scenario and a high growth scenario. The results, as illustrated in Figure 3 and explained in “Ridership Growth Scenarios” on the next page, are both exciting and sobering.
The MBTA’s 2011 ridership was 390 million unlinked trips or approximately 1.28 million unlinked trips on an average weekday, with average weekday ridership increasing to over 1.3 million average weekday riders in the early months of 2012. Figure 4 shows the forecast level of ridership in 2021:
p The baseline growth rate of 1.2% annually predicts that the MBTA would serve at least 420 million unlinked trips in 2021, equivalent to approximately 1.4 million average weekday riders.
p The moderate growth rate of 1.5% annually predicts that the MBTA would serve 450 million unlinked trips in 2021, equivalent to approximately 1.5 million average weekday riders.
p The growth rate of 2.9% annually predicts that the MBTA would serve 500 million unlinked trips in 2021, equivalent to approximately 1.67 million average weekday riders.
FIGURE 4
FORECAST GROWTH IN AVERAGE WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
1,300,000
1,400,000
1,500,000
1,600,000
1,700,000
1,800,000
2000 2005 2010 2011 2020
MBTA Average Weekday Ridership
High
Medium
Low
FIGURE 3
FORECAST MBTA RIDERSHIP GROWTH IN 2021
275000
300000
325000
350000
375000
400000
425000
450000
475000
500000
1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
+2.9%
+1.5%
+1.2%
Bicycle Analysis
Charles River Basin Report
Charles River BasinPedestrian and Bicycle Study for Pathways and Bridges
Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Study
May 2013
Charles River BasinPedestrian and Bicycle Study for Pathways and Bridges
Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Study
May 2013
Prepared for
Massachusetts Department of Transportation | Highway Division
and Massachusetts Department of Conservation + Recreation
by
Halvorson Design Partnership, Inc.
Alta Planning + Design
HDR, Inc.
CHARLES RIVER BASIN | PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY STUDY v
Table of Contents
Executive Summary I
Part 1 | Background + Analysis
Introduction 1
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity 5
Pedestrian Facility Toolbox 8
Bicycle Facility Toolbox 9
Regional Context 10
Part 2 | Recommendations
Overview 11
Section A: Galen Street Bridge to North Beacon Street Bridge 12
Section B: North Beacon Street Bridge to Arsenal Street Bridge 16
Section C: Arsenal Street Bridge to Eliot Bridge 18
Section D: Eliot Bridge to Western Avenue Bridge 21
Section E: Western Avenue Bridge to Boston University Bridge 24
Section F: Boston University Bridge to Harvard Bridge 26
Section G: Harvard Bridge to Longfellow Bridge 30
Section H: Longfellow Bridge to Craigie Dam Bridge + Drawbridge 33
Implementation Project Tables 36
Appendix A-1
Acknowledgements
Massachusetts Department of Transportation Highway DivisionRichard A. Davey, Secretary and CEO
Frank DePaola, Administrator Highway Division
Amy Getchell, Connectivity Study/ABP Project Manager
Stephanie Boundy, ABP Public Outreach Coordinator
Massachusetts Department of Conservation + RecreationEdward M. Lambert Jr., Commissioner
John P. Murray, Deputy Commissioner
Joseph Orfant, Director of Bureau of Planning + Resource Protection
Dan Driscoll, Director of Recreational Facilities Planning
Karl Haglund, Senior Planner
Richard Corsi, Senior Planner
Ken Kirwin, Traffic Engineer
City of BostonBoston Transportation Department
Jim Gillooly, Deputy Commissiomer
Nicole Freedman, Director of Boston Bikes
Charlotte Fleetwood, Transportation Planner
City of CambridgeTraffic, Parking + Transportation Department
Sue Clippinger, Director
Community Development Department
Cara Seiderman, Transportation Program Manager
Jeff Rosenblum, Transportation Planner
City of WatertownSteve Magoon, Director of Community Development & Planning
Gideon Schreiber, Senior Planner
Consultant Team
Halvorson Design Partnership, Inc.Prime Consultant | Planning + Landscape Architecture
Cynthia Smith FASLA, Principal, Project Manager
Monique Hall, Landscape Designer
Lin Teng-Yen, Landscape Designer
Chris Greene, Landscape Planning + Graphic Design
Alta Planning + Design
Multi-modal Specialists
Jeff Olson, Principal
Phil Goff, Project Manager
Shannon Simms, Designer
Amy Linné, Designer
HDR, Inc.Civil Engineering
Jerry Friedman, Civil Section Manager
Executive Summary
CHARLES RIVER BASIN | PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY STUDY i
Executive Summary
The Charles River Basin is a world-class resource for people and nature. The park that
stretches eight-and-a-half miles along the river from Watertown to Boston is the
convergence of the region’s built and natural environments, and a critical nexus in the
metropolitan transportation network. As the Charles River approaches Boston Harbor,
it passes through communities of increasing density. The path systems that frame the
river banks and the bridges that span the river form a “trunk route” of non-motorized
transportation for Newton, Watertown, Cambridge, Boston, and beyond. As many
as 10,000 cyclists, pedestrians and runners an hour use these routes. Several of the
Typical Conditions in the Study Area
User-created “goat tracks” occur when users feel that the path surface provided is too nar-row, too hard or both. Here, three informal paths have been created.
Accommodation for pedestrians and bicycles is needed on many of the the bridges over the river, as well as safe and well-marked ways to negotiate the intersections at either end. This is Charles Circle at the South Bank end of Longfellow Bridge.
The Bowker Overpass roadway may be wide enough, relative to its anticipated vehicular use, to accommodate a dedicated zone for bicycles.
Access for pedestrians and cyclists on the important desire line between Arsenal Mall and the river is uncontrolled and unmarked.
A “user counter” on the Esplanade records three different types of user sharing the path right-of-way: a jogger, a cyclist and a stroller.
In some of the upstream portions of the Study Area, the character is more rural.
surrounding urban areas feature well-established bicycle and pedestrian links to the park
system. However, many have fragmented or nonexistent connections due to the adjacent
parkways, the Massachusetts Turnpike, rail yards or auto-oriented land uses. These barriers
can discourage walking and bicycling to, along and across the river. Recognizing these
and other concerns, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) in 2009 jointly commissioned a
study as part of Governor Patrick’s Accelerated Bridge Program to evaluate the conditions
and needs of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the Charles River Basin.
The Charles River Basin Pedestrian + Bicycle Study for Pathways + Vehicular Bridges begins
with the need to identify connectivity gaps that exist where physical or other constraints
impede bicycle and pedestrian travel throughout the network of paths, intersections
and bridges along the Charles River Basin. The study area focuses on the Charles River
Reservation from the Galen Street Bridge in Watertown downstream to the Craigie Dam
Bridge and Drawbridge and includes areas within two blocks of the Reservation itself.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYii
The primary goal of the report is to provide conceptual design recommendations for
connectivity improvements to and along the Basin for DCR, MassDOT and the adjacent
municipalities to incorporate in the future. Part I, Background + Analysis, (pages 1-10)
provides a background and introduction to the study and description of the public
process and analysis. It also illustrates the existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
and the activity generators within the study area. Part II, Recommendations, (pages 11-35)
divides the Basin into segments bounded by the river bridges, beginning at the upstream
end of the Basin. It details the recommended enhancements and includes supporting
graphics.
The recommendations are listed at the end of the report in the Project Implementation
Tables (pages 36-40), showing each project’s priority, relevant jurisdictions, and potential
funding sources. Some of these recommendations can be implemented in the short
term, while others will require further study and will need to be incorporated into long-
term planning and fundraising. The recommendations are preliminary and conceptual
in nature. Proposed improvements will need to be evaluated for design and construction
feasibility, regulatory compliance, and long-term maintenance costs.
Context map showing relationship of the Study Area to the existing regional path systems.
Study Area
CHARLES RIVER BASIN | PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY STUDY iii
Summary of Connectivity Recommendations
Figure 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYiv
General recommendations that apply throughout the Basin include:
• DCR should strive to develop a 10’-wide paved path with a parallel soft-surface
trail or shoulder for runners where possible. All path widening projects must
take into consideration the value of the Reservation as a natural resource.
Exceptions to the path-width standards should be made in the presence of
historic landscape , riparian habitat or large and mature trees. In “pinch point”
conditions, a minimum 8’ paved path, with 3’ shoulder on one side, should be
incorporated.;
• Traffic signals should be examined to determine if concurrent or exclusive
pedestrian phases are appropriate. Exclusive signals are recommended where
feasible;
• A wayfinding study should be conducted to identify the type and location of
wayfinding signage to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and to
support environmental stewardship, education and interpretation;
• Signing the pathways along the Basin as the “Charles River Greenway” to
support the concept of green infrastructure as an integrated element of the
Basin’s conservation strategy;
• Regular maintenance of the paths throughout the Reservation is essential to
the continued success as a transportation, conservation and recreation corridor.
Other key recommendations include:
• Numerous streetscape enhancements in Watertown and Newton along
roadways that should connect directly to the Reservation, but currently do not;
• A new footbridge over the Charles River that connects Newton and
Watertown, providing additional opportunities for walking and bicycling loops
between the Galen and North Beacon Street bridges;
• New crosswalks, roadway geometry and bike lanes on or adjacent to the North
Beacon Street Bridge;
• The lane reduction of a mile-long stretch of Greenough Boulevard to provide
new parkland and paths that form an integrated loop with Herter Park on the
south bank of the river;
• Road narrowing along Memorial Drive between Mt. Auburn Hospital and John
Fitzgerald Kennedy Park in Cambridge to improve connections to Brattle Street
and provide space for separated paved and soft-surface paths;
• A link from the Boston University Bridge to the Esplanade, incorporating the rail
trestle that may be redeveloped as a part of the Grand Junction trail project;
• A plan to connect the Esplanade with the Emerald Necklace, utilizing a new
path through DCR-owned land adjacent to the Bowker Overpass, paralleling
the Muddy River and along a widened sidewalk of the viaduct over the
Turnpike;
• Previously planned improvements as part of the Memorial Drive Phase II project
that will widen the existing concrete path adjacent to the seawall, introduce a
parallel soft-surface path in places and plant additional trees;
• Enhancements to improve connections from the Albany and Sidney Street
corridors in Cambridgeport to the river using shared lanes, signage, an
improved at-grade railroad crossing and new paths through Fort Washington
Park;
• In conjunction with the planned improvements to the Longfellow Bridge
through MassDOT’s ABP, new traffic signals and crosswalks to link the Broad
Canal path to Cambridge Parkway;
• Bicycle connections through Charles Circle that will include green bike lanes,
enhanced signage and frequent shared-lane markings;
• A critical link from the north to the south bank of the Charles utilizing a pair
of new foot bridges along the upstream side of the Museum of Science on
the 1910 dam, one located where Lechmere Canal and the River join, and the
second spanning the 1910 lock, ideas being explored in a preliminary study
initiated by DCR;
• At-grade pedestrian and bike enhancements at Leverett Circle (with provisions
for a pedestrian overpass in the future).
Connectivity Recommendations
The Connectivity Study is intended for the use of DCR, MassDOT and the municipalities
that line the Charles River as a blueprint for moving forward, with recommendations for
both near-term and future projects. MassDOT’s GreenDOT policy (http://www.massdot.
state.ma.us/greendot.aspx) includes a commitment by Massachusetts Secretary of
Transportation Richard Davey to triple walking, bicycling and transit mode share in the
Commonwealth by 2030. The variety of projects presented in this report will help Greater
Boston become a truly multi-modal region and create a model for integrating green
infrastructure that connects people and nature. As the primary corridor for pedestrian
and bicycle transportation and recreation, the Charles River Basin will play a central role in
ensuring a sustainable future for the region.
RECOMMENDATIONS30
The reservation between the Harvard and Longfellow Bridges is one of the
most trafficked in the whole Basin.
North Bank. Major improvements are planned for the path system along
Memorial Drive as part of DCR’s Memorial Drive Phase II project. For most of
this section there will be a 10-foot, two-way, paved shared-use path adjacent
to the roadway with a separated, 6-foot stabilized aggregate path along the
river.
Ames Street provides a connection to Kendall Square, the Sixth Street
Pedestrian Walk, and East Cambridge. On-street improvements will enhance
this connection, as will a proposed pedestrian-actuated signal at the
intersection with Memorial Drive. Wadsworth Street connects to Kendall
Square and, when reconstructed, will connect to Third Street and East
Section G Harvard Bridge to Longfellow Bridge
68. Photosimulation of the reservation adjacent to Memorial Drive showing Phase II improvements, downstream of MIT’s Pierce Boathouse.
69. Photosimulation of Memorial Drive with Phase II improvements, upstream of MIT’s Pierce Boathouse.
70. On the occasion of the 2010 centennial of the Charles River Esplanade, the non-profit Esplanade Association came together with DCR and a group of volunteers, professionals, and concerned citizens to envision an ambitious future of the this beloved stretch of riverfront parkland.
With guiding principles for the park’s future, and an extensive list of forward-looking improvements, the Esplanade 2020 Plan provides an excellent context for long-term planning in this area. It is available online from The Esplanade Association.
The Connectivity Study recommendations have considered the visionary ideas of the 2020 Plan. One of the more imaginative proposals from the Plan —currently unfunded—would involve lowering Storrow Drive, enabling the creation of an at-grade crossing near the Hatch Shell, shown in the detail above.
South Bank. On the Boston side of the river, there are four overpasses over Storrow Drive
between the Harvard Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. The overpasses at Fairfield Street
and Dartmouth Street need better bicycle and pedestrian connections to Beacon Street.
Both streets are one way for that block; however, bicycle demand is two-way. Counter-
flow lanes should be considered in both directions. Further improvements to Fairfield
and Dartmouth Streets will improve the connectivity to the river from the Back Bay
neighborhood.
The Arthur Fielder foot bridge, built in 1953 and named after the famous Boston Pops
conductor, currently provides a vital pedestrian and bicycle connection between
Arlington Street and the Esplanade landscape. Nearby destinations include the Hatch Shell
concert area, the Esplanade Playspace, Community Boating, an outdoor café and public
bathrooms as well as access to the recreational paths along the river. The striking orange/
pink curving concrete bridge spans Storrow Drive allowing people from Beacon Hill and
Back Bay to access the parkland from the city any time of year.
Cambridge. Improvements to this street should follow the reconstruction of
the intersection at Main and Third Streets.
East of the crosswalks at Wadsworth Street, there is an existing pedestrian
signal and crosswalks to facilitate access to the Longfellow Bridge. This
crossing, however, is relatively far from the bridge itself. Wayfinding signage
should be added to this area to direct path users to Longfellow Bridge and
Main Street.
In the Spring of 2013, construction will begin to rehabilitate the Longfellow
Bridge as part of MassDOT’s Accelerated Bridge Program. The plans maintain
the bike lanes across the bridge, adding a buffered bike lane to the outbound
side and widening sidewalks. The rehabilitation will also include the widening
of the path under the Longfellow Bridge along Memorial Drive (See Section
H).
CHARLES RIVER BASIN | PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY STUDY 31
See Figure 70
See Figure 72
See Figure 74
Existing crosswalk, no improvements needed
Existing crosswalk, needs improvement
Proposed crosswalk
Existing/funded signal
Proposed signal
Existing ped bridge/overpass
Proposed ped bridge/overpass
Existing Hubway station
Existing/funded bike lane/cycle track
Proposed bike lane/cycle track
Existing/funded multi-use path/sidewalk (primary)
Existing/funded multi-use path/sidewalk (secondary)
Proposed multi-use path
New path/landscaping/reduced lanes
Proposed bike/ped and street-scape improvements within ROW
Reconfiguration of intersection recommended
Entry node to the river with art, seating, lighting, landscape elements and small plaza features
Legend
*
NFigure 71
Recommendations
Section GHarvard Bridge toLongfellow Bridge
RECOMMENDATIONS32
South Bank continued. The existing pedestrian overpass from Charles Circle to the
Esplanade is to be replaced in conjunction with the Longfellow Bridge Reconstruction.
Due to the extremely high volumes of cyclists and pedestrians that use this bridge
particulary during events on the Esplanade, the width of the new bridge should be no
narrower than 12 feet.
The bicycle connection through Charles Circle is critical. Currently it represents a
significant barrier that nearly precludes less-experienced cyclists from bicycling to and
from downtown Boston over the Longfellow Bridge.
While there are bike lanes on the Longfellow Bridge, the Draft Boston Bike Master Plan
recommends shared lane markings on Cambridge Street. At Charles Circle these two
facility types meet (Figure 72). For eastbound Longfellow Bridge traffic, the current design
72. Charles Circle detail plan showing an interim bicycle connection between the Longfellow Bridge and Cambridge Street. 73. Existing and proposed view of westbound Cambridge Street at Charles Circle.
Section G Harvard Bridge to Longfellow Bridge continued
includes a wide bike box intended for queueing bicyclists traveling through to Cambridge
Street or left to Charles Street or Mass. General Hospital. Green paint or thermoplastic in a
dashed bike lane will also help motorists see this conflict area.
East of Charles Street, a series of tightly spaced “sharrows” can help define another conflict
zone where bicyclists may conflict with motorists merging from their right.
Westbound bicyclists on Cambridge Street have difficulty traveling straight through the
traffic light due to heavy volumes of right-turning motor vehicles from all three existing
travel lanes. Shared lane markings or a green priority shared lane should be incorporated
to encourage bicyclists to stay in the middle lane as they enter the intersection. A
series of tightly spaced sharrows will help define the path of bicyclists traveling straight
through this intersection. In the long term, Cambridge Street and Charles Circle should
EXISTING
be reconfigured to accommodate a separated bicycle facility. Once bicyclists pass the
Storrow Drive on-ramps, they would enter a buffered bike lane that continues to the
planned buffered bike lane on the Longfellow Bridge. Green coloration helps define
another conflict area where motorists turn right from Storrow Drive onto the bridge.
Full signalization of this intersection should be studied to discourage motorists from
taking a “rolling stop” through the flashing red light from the Storrow Drive off-ramp.
CHARLES RIVER BASIN | PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY STUDY 33
The paths on the Boston and Cambridge sides of the river between the
Longfellow Bridge and the Craigie Dam Bridge and Drawbridge provide
access to the Broad Canal, Lechemere Canal, the Museum of Science, and
Teddy Ebersol’s Red Sox Fields.
North Bank. The recommended connections between the Longfellow
Bridge, Broad Canal, and the path are shown in Figure 74. The short ramp
from First Street to the westbound lane of the Longfellow Bridge can easily
include a bicycle lane. The addition of several crosswalks across First Street
and Land Boulevard will connect the end of this ramp, the Broad Canal path,
and the path along Cambridge Parkway. Because of the slope and short
sight lines, a pedestrian-actuated signal should be incorporated at these two
crosswalk locations.
To further enhance the pedestrian connection under the bridge, the wall
on the west side of First Street will be enhanced by providing openings
in the granite wall. This work will be done during the rehabilitation of the
Longfellow Bridge. There are existing bike lanes and a planned cycle track
on Binney Street, which ends at Land Boulevard. Across the street, Front Park
links to the Cambridge Parkway. A more clearly defined bicycle connection
through this park will help complete the movement from Binney Street.
Other streets that provide connections to the East Cambridge neighborhood
include Charles Street, which has a signalized crossing at Land Boulevard, and
Thorndike Street, which connects to the path around the Lechmere Canal.
This canal path links to the Charles River path; however, the connections
are not ADA-compliant because of the steep slope from the river to Land
Boulevard on the north side.
Section H Longfellow Bridge to Craigie Dam Bridge + Drawbridge
74. Plan diagram showing connectivity improvements where the Broad Canal meets the Charles River
75. Proposed curved bridge design by Rosales/Schlaich Bergermann, linking the path behind the Museum of Science to the North Bank. (image courtesy of DCR).
Currently, the primary path connects from Cambridge Parkway to Land
Boulevard, over the Lechmere Canal, and along Charles River Dam Road on
the downstream side of the Museum of Science. An alternate route for the
path would be on the upstream side of the Museum of Science.
Two new bridges are required to make this connection. DCR consultants
have completed conceptual designs for these two bridges. The first is a
curved bridge (Figure 75) which will connect from the Esplanade at the
north end of Cambridge Parkway over the canal to the Museum of Science
parking garage. A cantilevered walkway will be necessary to connect to
the existing path behind the Museum of Science. Another bridge will be
necessary to cross the open lock that leads to the Craigie Drawbridge.
Because of occasional boat traffic, this bridge will need to be a movable
bridge (see Figure 76). These connections will create a loop around the east
end of the Charles River Basin along the water’s edge, without any road
crossings.
In addition to this long-term vision for connectivity on the upstream side
of the Museum of Science, improvements are needed to the existing
connection on the downstream side. Improved crosswalks at today’s
Museum Way signal will enhance the connection of the path to North
Point Park and the new North Bank Bridge, which links to Paul Revere Park
in Charlestown. There is a long-term vision to connect the Somerville
Community Path to the river in this area. This portion of the river also
includes the proposed Inlet Bridge between Charles River Dam Road and
North Point Park in Cambridge, and the Draw One Walkway across the river,
connecting Cambridge and Boston..
RECOMMENDATIONS34
South Bank. On the Boston side of the river, the South Bank Bridge, serving cyclists and
pedestrians, is planned by DCR to cross over the MBTA train tracks and connect Nashua
Street Park with the new Charles River Dam.
MassDOT has committed to reconstruct the pedestrian overpass at Leverett Circle,
which will link the MBTA station to the east- and westbound walkways along Storrow
Drive. At-grade improvements will help bicyclists and pedestrians navigate this complex
intersection. The planned bike lanes on the O’Brien Highway should extend through
Leverett Circle. Bike signals and an alternating flashing/steady red right turn arrow will
mediate the conflict between eastbound bicyclists and right-turning motorists.
Section H Longfellow Bridge to Craigie Dam Bridge + Drawbridge continued
77. In addition to the proposed pedestrian overpass at Leverett Circle, some at-grade intersection improvements can be made to enhance pedestrian/bicycle connections to the T station and the West End neighborhood.
If a flashing red arrow cannot be accommodated with the existing signal equipment,
then a permanent “No Right Turn on Red” sign, with hour restrictions, should be installed.
The addition of a crosswalk from a traffic island to the MBTA station will satisfy an existing
pedestrian desire line while avoiding conflict with vehicles from Nashua Street. These
improvements were developed by the Connectivity Study team for MassDOT in the
Leverett Circle Pedestrian + Bicycle Crossing Study (2011).*
Both Martha Road and Nashua Street are important links between North Station and the
Charles River Reservation. Bicycle facilities are recommended for both streets. Further study
is needed to determine if a lane reduction and the addition of bike lanes is appropriate
on Nashua Street. Currently the Draft Boston Bike Master Plan recommends shared lane
markings along Martha Road and Naushua Street. Additionally, the path connection to the
west side of North Station is not well defined. Pavement markings and wayfinding signage
directing bicyclists from Martha Road will improve this connection. Bicyclists leaving North
Station via Nashua Street will benefit from the addition of a stop sign for cars exiting the
underground parking garage.
* http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/0/docs/infoCenter/docs_materials/Leverett_report.pdf
76. Proposed movable bridge by Rosales/Schlaich Bergermann at the lock on the South Bank (courtesy DCR)
CHARLES RIVER BASIN | PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY STUDY 35
See Figure 72
See Figure 77
Existing crosswalk, no improvements needed
Existing crosswalk, needs improvement
Proposed crosswalk
Existing/funded signal
Proposed signal
Existing ped bridge/overpass
Proposed ped bridge/overpass
Existing Hubway station
Existing/funded bike lane/cycle track
Proposed bike lane/cycle track
Existing/funded multi-use path/sidewalk (primary)
Existing/funded multi-use path/sidewalk (secondary)
Proposed multi-use path
New path/landscaping/reduced lanes
Proposed bike/ped and street-scape improvements within ROW
Reconfiguration of intersection recommended
Entry node to the river with art, seating, lighting, landscape elements and small plaza features
Legend
*N
Figure 78
Recommendations
Section HHarvard Bridge toCraigie Dam Bridge + Drawbridge
See Figure 74
RECOMMENDATIONS36
Implementation Project Tables
The recommedations set forth in this report are intended for the use
of DCR, MassDOT and the municipalities that line the Charles River
as a blueprint for moving forward and to help meet the recent call
of Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation Richard Davey to triple
walking and bicycling in the Commonwealth.
The recommendations are conceptual in nature and will
require further analysis and study before moving forward to
implementation. The following summary tables categorize each
measure by order of magnitude costs, timeline, and jurisdiction.
Projects which have been identified as both early to mid-term actions
and low to medium cost are listed as priority projects for municipalities
and state agencies to act upon in the near future.
The variety of projects presented in this report will help move Greater
Boston closer to becoming a truly multi-modal region and will help
create a model for integrating green infrastructure that connects
people and nature.
PROJECT AREA/DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTIONJURISDICTIONAL INVOLVEMENT
A. UPPER CHARLES RIVER BASIN (GALEN ST BRIDGE TO ELIOT BRIDGE)Watertown Square Intersection Shared lane markings on Charles River Rd and N Beacon St to continue bike lanes through the
intersectionWatertown
Irving Street / Charles River Road New crossing with pedestrian signal, entry node to path with art, seating, etc. DCR, WatertownN. Beacon Street / Charles River Road Improvements to crosswalks and widen path to 10 feet at pinch point DCR, DOTArsenal Mall and Arsenal Park Path Path connection with new crosswalk between Arsenal Street and the N. Beacon Street Bridge DCR, WatertownN. Beacon Street Bridge (north end) Pedestrian actuated signal; improve crosswalks DCR, DOTN. Beacon Street Bridge Lane reduction, new bike lanes or cycle tracks DCRCommunity Rowing Launch Site Improve path visibility at boat launch DCR North Beacon St Bridge (south end) Improve path crossing DCR, DOT, City of BostonArsenal Bridge (south end) Improve crosswalks and curb ramps at path crossing; remove or tighten free-right turn lanes DCR, DOT, City of BostonSoldiers Field Road parking lot (east of Western Avenue) Improve path connection through parking lot; improve crosswalk DCREverett Street at Soldiers Field Road New crosswalks across Soldiers Field Road DCR, City of Boston
B. MIDDLE CHARLES RIVER BASIN (ELIOT BRIDGE TO BU BRIDGE)Memorial Drive at Hawthorn Street Enhanced crosswalk; potential entry node to river with art, seating, etc. DCR, City of CambridgeJFK Street Bike lanes from Anderson Bridge to Eliot Street City of CambridgeDewolfe Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Memorial Drive to Mt. Auburn Street) City of CambridgeRiver Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Memorial Drive to Putnam Avenue) City of CambridgePath improvements along Memorial Drive Raised crosswalks along path at driveways, widen path to 10 ft between River Street Bridge and BU DCR, City of CambridgePath along Soldiers Field Road (west of Anderson Bridge) Improve path crossings to be more visible at driveways to boathouse (potential raised crosswalk) DCR
C. LOWER CHARLES RIVER BASIN (BU BRIDGE TO CRAIGIE BRIDGE)Memorial Drive Rotary at BU Bridge Colored bike lanes in conflict areas, signage and curb adjustments DCR, City of CambridgeMemorial Drive / Ames Street Improve crosswalks; proposed pedestrian actuated signal DCR, City of CambridgePath west of Longfellow Bridge Add wayfinding signage to direct bicyclists/pedestrians to and from the Longfellow Bridge DCR, City of CambridgeLongfellow Bridge (Cambridge side) Improve crosswalks at on/off ramp from bridge to Memorial Drive/Land Boulevard DCR, City of CambridgeCommonwealth Avenue / BU Bridge Improve all crosswalks; potential two-stage left turn queue box for bikes DOT, City of BostonBoylston Ave to Beacon Street via Charlesgate East ramp Sidewalk widened to shared-use path, improved crossings (part of proposed Charlesgate connection) DCR, City of BostonBeacon Street to Harvard Bridge New crosswalk, add curb extension to remove slip lane; proposed path connection under Storrow Drive
ramp and around gatehouseDCR, City of Boston
Harvard Bridge / Storrow Dr WB off-ramp New traffic signal and crossings (part of proposed Charlesgate connection) DCR, DOT, City of BostonBeacon Street / Massachusetts Ave Improve crosswalks and other intersection improvements (part of proposed Charlesgate connection) DCR, City of BostonDartmouth Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements; add counterflow bike lane to improve access to
overpassCity of Boston
Charles Circle Bike improvements: bike lanes, shared lane markings, green bike lanes in conflict areas, etc. DCR, DOT, City of BostonLeverett Circle Improvements to existing crosswalk, new crosswalk, and other at-grade improvements DCR, DOT, City of Boston
D. NEW CHARLES RIVER BASIN (CRAIGIE BRIDGE TO NORTH STATION)North Station to Martha Road connection New path connection between North Station and Martha Road, including wayfinding signage City of BostonNashua Street at North Station Improve bike wayfinding between North Station and the Charles River City of Boston
Priority Projects
CHARLES RIVER BASIN | PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY STUDY 37
PROJECT AREA/DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION PRIO
RITY
PRO
JECT
EARL
Y A
CTIO
N (1
-2 y
rs)
MID
TER
M (3
-6 y
rs)
LON
G R
AN
GE
(>6
yrs)
MA
SS D
CR
MA
SS D
OT
CITY
OF
BOST
ON
CITY
OF
CAM
BRID
GE
CITY
OF
NEW
TON
TOW
N O
F W
ATE
RTO
WN
OTH
ER
LOW
MED
IUM
HIG
H
MIT
HA
RVA
RD
NO
N-P
ROFI
T FO
UN
DA
TIO
N
OTH
ER
ADDITIONAL NOTES
UPPER CHARLES RIVER BASIN(GALEN ST BRIDGE TO ELIOT BRIDGE)
1 Watertown - Main Street Adjust vehicular travel lane widths to accommodate bike lanes • • •2 Watertown Square Intersection Shared lane markings on Charles River Road and N. Beacon Street to continue bike lanes through the intersection • • • •3 Galen Street Bridge (north end) Entry node to path with art, seating, etc.; improved crossings through intersection • • • •4 Park between Riverside Street and Charles River Road Path from Riverside Street to primary riverfront path; improved crossings • • • •5 Irving Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Charles River Road to Mt. Auburn Street) • • • • •6 Irving Street / Charles River Road New crossing with pedestrian signal, entry node to path with art, seating, etc. • • • • • •7 Riverside Street from Irving Street to Perkins School Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements • • • • •8 Beechwood Avenue and Paul Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Charles River Road to N. Beacon Street) • • • •9 Watertown Square to North Beacon Street Path improvements proposed in Watertown Riverfront Park Restoration Plan • • •
10 Charles River Road (various locations) New crosswalks to access river at Wheeler Lane, Beechwood Avenue and Paul Street • • • •11 Charles River Rd between Bay St & Watertown Yacht Club Complete sidewalk on north side of Charles River Road • • • •12 N. Beacon Street / Charles River Road Improvements to crosswalks and widen path to 10 feet at pinch point • • • • •13 Arsenal Mall and Arsenal Park Path Path connection with new crosswalk between Arsenal Street and the N. Beacon Street Bridge • • • • • • - Collaborate with Arsenal Mall (private property)1 Arsenal Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements from School Street to the Arsenal Bridge • • • •2 Talcott Avenue Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements • • • •3 N. Beacon Street Bridge (north end) Pedestrian actuated signal; improve crosswalks • • • • •4 N. Beacon Street Bridge Lane reduction, new bike lanes or cycle tracks • • • •5 Arsenal Street between Coolidge Ave and Greenough Blvd Widen/improve sidewalk • • •6 Greenough Blvd at Arsenal Street (western intersection) Improve crosswalk • • • • • •7 Arsenal Street at Greenough Blvd (eastern intersection) Improve crosswalks; potential reconfiguration of intersection • • • • • • Potential involvement of Solomon Foundation1 Greenough Blvd from Arsenal Street to Eliot Bridge Road diet and parkland expansion • • • • • • • •2 Grove Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvement (from Greenough Blvd. to future Waterown Path extension) • • • •3 Path at Grove Street crossing Entry node to the river with art, seating, etc. • • • •
14 Galen Street Bridge (south end) Improve path visibility; improve crossing • • • • •15 Watertown Street and Aldrich Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Galen Street to Casey Park) • • •16 Water Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Galen Street to Nonantum Road) • • •17 Hunt Street/Maple Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Galen Street to Nonantum Road) • • • •18 Jefferson Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Galen Street to Maple Street) • • •19 Nonantum Road (various locations) Improvements to bicycle transition from roadway to path adjacent to Nonantum Road (Water Street, Maple Street and Brook Street
intersections) • • • • • •20 Nonantum Rd at Maple Street Potential location for new bike/ped bridge across river (located above culvert) • • • • • • - Coordinate with Mass. Water Resource Authority21 Nonantum Rd at Charlesbank Rd Potential new signal • • •8 Brooks Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (Nonantum Road to Washington Street) • • •9 Community Rowing Launch Site Improve path visibility at boat launch • • • •
10 N. Beacon Street Bridge (south end) Improve path crossing • • • • • •11 N. Beacon Street Bridge (south end) Add crossing from south end of bridge to pool across Nonantum Road • • • • •12 Soldiers Field Road connection to Parsons Street New crossings from river path to Parsons Street (in conjunction with new path connection); includes study for new signal at crossing of
Soldiers Field Road; includes entry node to the river with art, seating, etc. • • • • • •13 Birmingham Parkway New path connection between Parsons Street and N. Beacon Street along the parkway, new crosswalks at N. Beacon Street signal • • • •14 N. Beacon Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from bridge to Birmingham Parkway) • • • •15 Parsons Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from N. Beacon Street to Washington Street) • • • •16 Arsenal Bridge (south end) Improve crosswalks and curb ramps at path crossing; remove or tighten free-right turn lanes • • • • • • • •17 Soldiers Field Road at Western Ave/Arsenal Bridge New crosswalks • • • • • •18 Birmingham Parkway from N. Beacon to Lincoln Street Road diet and/or path along north side of parkway • • • • • • •19 Birmingham Parkway from Lincoln Street to Western Ave Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements • • • • • •20 Intersection of Leo M Birmingham Pkwy & Lincoln Street Improve existing crosswalks; add crosswalks across the Parkway • • • • • •21 Market Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from N. Beacon Street to Birmingham Parkway) • • • • • •4 Western Avenue Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Birmingham Parkway to Everett Street) • • •5 Soldiers Field Road parking lot (east of Western Avenue) Improve path connection through parking lot; improve crosswalk • • • •6 Telford Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from pedestrian overpass to Western Avenue) • • •7 Everett Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Soldiers Field Road to Western Avenue) • • •8 Everett Street at Soldiers Field Road New crosswalks across Soldiers Field Road • • • • •9 Soldiers Field Road / Herter Park New path from Soldiers Field Road/Everett Street to existing path network in Herter Park; entry node to river with art, seating, etc. • • • • •
10 Soldiers Field Road / Smith Playground Potential new crosswalk at Soldiers Field Road from Smith Playground to Herter Park; includes study to incorporate future signal • • • • • •
POTENTIAL FUNDING
ASSISTANCEJURISDICTION
Coordinate with the Perkins School for the Blind
Possible coordination with New Balance Campus Master Plan
COST
MA
P SE
CTIO
N
PRO
JECT
#
TIMELINE
NORTH SIDE (WATERTOWN - CHARLES RIVER RD - GREENOUGH BLVD )
SOUTH SIDE ( NEWTON -SOLDIERS FIELD ROAD - BRIGHTON)
B
C
A
B
C
A
All Recommended Projects | Sections A - C
RECOMMENDATIONS38
PROJECT AREA/DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION PRIO
RITY
PRO
JECT
EARL
Y A
CTIO
N (1
-2 y
rs)
MID
TER
M (3
-6 y
rs)
LON
G R
AN
GE
(>6
yrs)
MA
SS D
CR
MA
SS D
OT
CITY
OF
BOST
ON
CITY
OF
CAM
BRID
GE
CITY
OF
NEW
TON
TOW
N O
F W
ATE
RTO
WN
OTH
ER
LOW
MED
IUM
HIG
H
MIT
HA
RVA
RD
NO
N-P
ROFI
T FO
UN
DA
TIO
N
OTH
ER
ADDITIONAL NOTES
POTENTIAL FUNDING
ASSISTANCEJURISDICTION COSTTIMELINE
MIDDLE CHARLES RIVER BASIN (ELIOT BRIDGE TO BU BRIDGE)
1 Intersection at Memorial Drive & Gerry's Landing Road Improve existing crosswalks • • • • • •2 Gerry's Landing Road Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements - curb cuts and area sidewalks • • • • •3 Memorial Drive at Sparks Street New path connection from Sparks Street to parkland, including new crosswalk at Memorial Drive • • • • •4 Memorial Drive from Sparks Street to JFK Park Reduction of travel lanes with parkland expansion • • • • • •5 Memorial Drive at Hawthorn Street Enhanced crosswalk; potential entry node to river with art, seating, etc. • • • • • -6 Hawthorn Street from Mt Auburn St to Memorial Dr Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements • • •7 University Road Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from JFK Park to Mt. Auburn Street) • • •8 University Road to Memorial Drive Improved path connection to river • • • •9 Memorial Drive at JFK Park New crosswalk in conjunction with changes per project D-4 • • • •
10 JFK Street Bike lanes from Anderson Bridge to Eliot Street • • • •11 Dewolfe Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Memorial Drive to Mt. Auburn Street) • • • • •12 Dewolfe Street at Memorial Drive Improve crosswalks; add entry node to river with art, seating, etc. • • • • • •13 John W. Weeks Bridge Improve Weeks Bridges for bicycle access and ADA compliance • • • • • • • - Involvement of Mass. Historic Commission likely14 Memorial Drive between Dewolfe and Western Ave Widen sidewalk on Cambridge-side of Memorial Drive • • • •15 Memorial Drive between Dewolfe and Western Ave Lane reduction due to westbound left-turn lane onto Western Avenue Bridge • • • • • •1 Memorial Drive and Western Ave Potential new crosswalk across Memorial Drive on the east side of intersection • • • • •2 River Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Memorial Drive to Putnam Avenue) • • • • •3 Pleasant Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Memorial Drive to Putnam Avenue) • • •4 Parking lot enhancements Connection through parking lot and to river, primarily within City of Cambridge right-of-way • • •5 Memorial Dr between Pleasant Street and Magazine Street Raised crosswalks at all parking lot entrances on the Cambridge side of Memorial Drive • • • •6 Path improvements along Memorial Drive Raised crosswalks along path at driveways, widen path to 10 ft between River Street Bridge and BU Bridge • • • • • • •7 Magazine Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Memorial Drive to Massachusetts Avenue) • • •8 Magazine Street at Memorial Drive Entry node to river with art, seating, etc. • • • • •
SOUTH SIDE (BRIGHTON - ALLSTON)16 Eliot Bridge (East Side) Realign paths between underpass and bridge sidewalk to be ADA compliant • • •17 Path along Soldiers Field Road (west of Anderson Bridge) Improve path crossings to be more visible at driveways to boathouse (potential raised crosswalk) • • • • •18 Sinclair Weeks Bridge Improve overpass for bicycle access and ADA compliance • • • • • - Involvement of Mass. Historic Commission likely9 Cambridge Street Proposed bike lane/cycle track In coordination with Boston Bike Master Plan effort • • • • •
10 Path downstream of River Street Bridge Widen path to 10 ft with cantilever • • • • • - Partial widening part of River Street Bridge design11 BU Bridge / Grand Junction Path Connection between the bridge and the Grand Junction Path • • • • • • - Potential interest from Boston University
Potential interest from Mount Auburn Hospital
Note: Assumes installation of traffic signal in separate process
NORTH SIDE (MEMORIAL DRIVE - WEST CAMBRIDGE )
MA
P SE
CTIO
N
PRO
JECT
#
D
E
D
E
All Recommended Projects | Sections D - E
CHARLES RIVER BASIN | PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY STUDY 39
PROJECT AREA/DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION PRIO
RITY
PRO
JECT
EARL
Y A
CTIO
N (1
-2 y
rs)
MID
TER
M (3
-6 y
rs)
LON
G R
AN
GE
(>6
yrs)
MA
SS D
CR
MA
SS D
OT
CITY
OF
BOST
ON
CITY
OF
CAM
BRID
GE
CITY
OF
NEW
TON
TOW
N O
F W
ATE
RTO
WN
OTH
ER
LOW
MED
IUM
HIG
H
MIT
HA
RVA
RD
NO
N-P
ROFI
T FO
UN
DA
TIO
N
OTH
ER
ADDITIONAL NOTES
POTENTIAL FUNDING
ASSISTANCEJURISDICTION COSTTIMELINE
LOWER CHARLES RIVER BASIN (BU BRIDGE TO CRAIGIE BRIDGE)
1 Memorial Drive Rotary at BU Bridge Colored bike lanes in conflict areas, signage and curb adjustments • • • • • •2 Path east of BU Bridge Widen sidewalk/path between BU Bridge and BU Boathouse • • • • • - Potential involvement of Boston University3 Vassar Street at Amesbury Street Direct bike/ped traffic on Vassar to Amesbury St through signage and other enhancements • • • •4 Amesbury Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Memorial Drive to Vassar Street) • • • •5 Amesbury Street at Memorial Drive Improve crosswalks; add entry node to river; potential signal phase adjustments • • • • • • •6 Connection to Fort Washington Park Improve connection from Vassar St to the park with a new crossing through parking lot • • • • • - Potential involvement of private property owner7 Grand Junction Overpass Proposed railroad overpass connecting Pacific Street to Vassar Street per MIT plan • • • • •8 Memorial Drive / Endicott Street Improve crosswalk on westbound side of Memorial Drive • • • •9 Memorial Drive / Massachusetts Ave Improve all crosswalks; potential reconfiguration of intersection to mitigate bike lane pinch point • • • • • •1 Memorial Drive at MIT Sailing Pavilion Improve crosswalks • • • • •2 Ames Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Memorial Drive to Main Street) • • • • •3 Memorial Drive / Ames Street Improve crosswalks; proposed pedestrian actuated signal • • • • • •4 Wadsworth Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Memorial Drive to Main Street) • • • • •5 Memorial Drive / Wadsworth Street Improve crosswalks • • • • •6 Path west of Longfellow Bridge Add wayfinding signage to direct bicyclists/pedestrians to and from the Longfellow Bridge • • • • •7 Longfellow Bridge (Cambridge side) Improve crosswalks at on/off ramp from bridge to Memorial Drive/Land Boulevard • • • • •1 Path along Broad Canal/Cambridge Parkway New crosswalks for path crossing; new signals on Land Blvd. • • • •2 Binney Street / Edward H Land Boulevard New path connection to river; potential reconfiguration of intersection • • • •3 Path at Lechmere Canal Improve ADA access from path to bridge above • • • • •4 Upstream-side of Museum of Science New bridges over the Lechmere Canal and the old Charles River lock per Rosales/Schlaman Bergmann design • • • • • • - Potential involvement of Museum of Science
10 Commonwealth Avenue / BU Bridge Improve all crosswalks; potential two-stage left turn queue box for bikes • • • • • • •11 Storrow Drive crossing below BU Bridge Potential new signal and crossing to connect BU Bridge stair with Esplanade • • • • • •12 Pedestrian overpass east of BU Bridge Make ADA compliant, may require replacement of bridge • • • • • • •13 Silber Way Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Comm Ave to Storrow overpass) • • • •14 Boylston Ave to Beacon Street via Charlesgate East ramp Sidewalk widened to shared-use path, improved crossings (part of proposed Charlesgate connection) • • • • • •15 Beacon Street to Harvard Bridge New crosswalk, add curb extension to remove slip lane; proposed path connection under Storrow Drive ramp and around gatehouse (part of
proposed Charlesgate connection) • • • • • •16 Harvard Bridge / Storrow Dr WB off-ramp New traffic signal and crossings (part of proposed Charlesgate connection) • • • • • • •17 Beacon Street / Massachusetts Ave Improve crosswalks and other intersection improvements (part of proposed Charlesgate connection) • • • • • •8 Beacon Street between Mass Ave and Berkeley Street Proposed bike lane/cycle track per City of Boston Bike Master Plan • • •9 Fairfield Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements (from Beacon Street to Storrow Drive overpass) • • •
10 Fairfield Street overpass Entry node to river with art, seating, etc. • • •11 Dartmouth Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvements; add counterflow bike lane to improve access to overpass • • • •12 Charles Street Proposed bike lane/cycle track per City of Boston Draft Bike Master Plan (from Charles Circle to Beacon Street) • •5 Charles Circle Bike improvements: bike lanes, shared lane markings, green bike lanes in conflict areas, etc. • • • • • •6 Blossom Street at Storrow Drive Entry node to river with art, seating, etc. at base of bike/ped overpass • • • • - Potential involvement of Mass General Hospital7 Leverett Circle Improvements to existing crosswalk, new crosswalk, and other at-grade improvements • • • • • • •8 Leverett Circle Proposed pedestrian overpass • • • • •
Potential involvement of Solomon Foundation
Potential involvement of Boston University
NORTH SIDE (CAMBRIDGEPORT - MIT - EAST CAMBRIDGE)
SOUTH SIDE (STORROW DR - BACK BAY - BEACON HILL)
H
G
F
MA
P SE
CTIO
N
PRO
JECT
#
F
H
G
All Recommended Projects | Sections F - H
RECOMMENDATIONS40
PROJECT AREA/DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION PRIO
RITY
PRO
JECT
EARL
Y A
CTIO
N (1
-2 y
rs)
MID
TER
M (3
-6 y
rs)
LON
G R
AN
GE
(>6
yrs)
MA
SS D
CR
MA
SS D
OT
CITY
OF
BOST
ON
CITY
OF
CAM
BRID
GE
CITY
OF
NEW
TON
TOW
N O
F W
ATE
RTO
WN
OTH
ER
LOW
MED
IUM
HIG
H
MIT
HA
RVA
RD
NO
N-P
ROFI
T FO
UN
DA
TIO
N
OTH
ER
ADDITIONAL NOTES
POTENTIAL FUNDING
ASSISTANCEJURISDICTION COSTTIMELINE
NEW CHARLES RIVER BASIN(CRAIGIE BRIDGE TO NORTH STATION)
9 Charles River Dam Road to North Point Park Proposed inlet bridge per North Point Master Plan • • • • • - Potential involvement of North Point developer10 North of Industrial Park Road Further study needed: connection to Somerville Community Path Extension • • • • • - Potential involvement of City of Somerville11 Draw One Walkway Path connection adjacent to existing bridge between Spaulding Hospital/Nashua Street to the North Point Park • • • • •
12 Martha Road Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvement per City of Boston Bike Master Plan (from Storrow Dr. to Causeway) • • • •13 Nashua Street Bike/ped ROW and streetscape improvement; consider lane reduction (from Storrow Dr. to North Station) • • • •14 North Station to Martha Road connection New path connection between North Station and Martha Road, including wayfinding signage • • • • • • •15 Nashua Street at North Station Improve bike wayfinding between North Station and the Charles River • • • • •16 Nashua Street Park connection to North Station Future South Bank Bridge project per DCR design contract • • • • • •
Potential involvement of Delaware North Company
NORTH SIDE (CAMBRIDGE - NORTH POINT PARK - CHARLESTOWN )
SOUTH SIDE (WEST END - NORTH STATION - NORTH END)
H
H
MA
P SE
CTIO
N
PRO
JECT
#
All Recommended Projects | Craigie Dam - North Station