Road to Reform? The MassDOT is Coming! The MassDOT is Coming! (Part 1)

Coming in one week is a major reorganization of the state transportation agencies. Right now, Massachusetts has an alphabet soup of agencies loosely organized under the Secretary of Transportation and Public Works. The reorg will create MassDOT, somewhat resembling the normative state DOT (Department of Transportation) that most states have.

The stated reasons for the reorganization are many. There are fiscal considerations such as the savings of consolidating certain administrative functions and reforming retirement programs. There is the idea all state highways and bridges should be maintained and operated by a single agency instead of several. There is the idea of greater transparency, greater responsiveness. And the idea of consolidating transportation policy, decision-making, and funding into a single multi-modal vision.

While the fiscal considerations are the selling point for many, I want to focus on what this means for transportation in Massachusetts.

• Will this end the chronic underfunding of the MBTA?
  
• Will this do anything with the backlog of structurally and functionally deficient bridges?
  
• Who will plow the DCR parkways and bridges this year?
  
• Where is that bus that should have come 15 min. ago?
  

I’ll get to a number of these issues over the course of a series of posts on this topic. But first, my number one argument for creating a DOT.

Argument No. 1 for a DOT
Witness how the taxpayer looses out when there’s an uncoordinated gaggle of transportation agencies each with their narrow vision and objectives. My example takes place along the MBTA Lowell Line, where the proposed Green Line Extension is planned. I’ve been working on projects in this corridor over the last 18 years. For all that time, the MBTA anticipated the Green Line extension and we had even done a preliminary alignment for that extension so that when we designed drainage improvements in 1991, we would design to accommodate the future Green Line.

All the while, MHD (Massachusetts Highway Department) had its consultants designing replacement bridges for the local streets that spanned the MBTA rail corridor. Now MHD could save a lot of money on the new bridges by spanning as narrow a corridor as possible. Shorter bridges are less expensive. So, rather than consider the future Green Line, MHD would rather just design a new bridge to span only the active tracks.

Keep in mind that the Commonwealth had made a commitment to extend the Green Line as mitigation for the Big Dig. And to build the Green Line, the bridges needed to be long enough to span not just the 2 or 3 active tracks, but at least 4 tracks to accommodate the addition of the extension. Nevertheless, over the last 10 years, MHD still built 3 new bridges that are not long enough to accommodate the Green Line Extension.

So, this is clearly a case where a narrowed-focused agency was not making decisions in concert with the state’s commitment for another agency. With such parochial thinking, it is the Commonwealth and ultimately the taxpayers who are the losers.

So, my hope is that a single DOT will ensure that all transportation divisions (bridges, roads, transit, aviation) will be on the same page as far as state commitments and coordination with other proposed projects. Capital and operating expenditures need to be considered in the context of the planning and objectives of the entire state transportation system.

Some Clear Advantages
Theoretically, a single DOT should result in a better approach to policy, funding, and planning:

• A single consistent transportation policy
• An intermodal approach to transportation planning
• Better funding of all modes (particularly the chronically underfunded transit systems and parkways)

My example above illustrates the need for the first two advantages. Let me expound a little on something I’ll call “cross-modal” funding.

Cross-Modal Funding
On the funding side, there should be more opportunities to achieve equity in funding the various modes. In particular, gas tax revenues could more readily fund more that just highways as it typically has in the past. This approach could help out the chronically underfunded MBTA.

But to understand this approach, there needs to be an understanding of how this will benefit the Commonwealth. This starts with understanding that adequate funding for transit and rail will also benefit the state roadway system. As people shift from single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to transit, it frees up roadway capacity, improving highway operations and reducing the wear and tear on roads and bridges. This also should reduce the need to spend funds to increase roadway capacity.

The same is true with freight. Every freight car represents 4 less trucks taking up roadway capacity and pounding the life out of taxpayer funded bridges. Shifting freight, particularly to the privately owned freight lines, off loads the tax burden of repairing and replacing public roads and bridges while providing added revenue to tax-paying freight railroads.

Furthermore, transit and rail use of less real estate than highways to carry the same number of people per hour or tons of freight per hour.

In summary, a shifting of funding to provide reliable passenger transit and encourage freight rail use will provide benefits in terms of lessening the burden of taxpayer-funded maintenance, repair, replacement, and capacity improvements on the state’s public roads and bridges.

More to Come
More discussion will follow in subsequent posts.

Longfellow Bridge Reconstruction -- Long Overdue but Plans Need Work!

The Longfellow Bridge between Cambridge Street in Boston and Main Street/Broadway in Cambridge is finally in the design stages of a long-awaited rehabilitation. Much of the minor steel framing needs repair/ replacement, the entire deck needs replacing, and the towers are leaning and need to be rebuilt.

Good news: Mass. Highway Dept. (MHD) has the design under way and just filed its Environmental Notification Form (ENF), part of a state environmental review process for projects.

Not so good news: This is a vital transportation link (Red Line, pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles) and these links need to be better accommodated during construction.

I have copied my letter of comments on the ENF below, which details my concerns regarding how the project is accomplished.


Though I may have some concerns, it is paramount that the project proceed as soon as possible, once the construction staging issues are incorporated into the project plans.


___________________________________________________


Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Anne Canaday, EEA #14384
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114-2524
Anne.canaday@state.ma.us


RE: Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD)
Reconstruction of Longfellow Bridge
Boston & Cambridge, MA
Comments on Environmental Notification Form

Dear Sec. Bowles:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. For the ease of identifying comments in contrast to statements and discussions, my comments are in underlined italics.

The Longfellow Bridge is an important multi-modal link connecting Boston and Cambridge and part of a regional system of roadways, transit lines, walkways and bicycle facilities. It is also an important route for emergency preparedness, in that it leads directly to a major hospital (Massachusetts General).

I have multiple interests in this project.

First, around 1982, I was the project engineer with DeLeuw, Cather & Company, consultants for the MBTA for the design of the platform extensions of Charles Station onto the Longfellow Bridge:

• MHD and their consultants (Jacobs) can blame me for the difficulty of the pinch point created where the platform extensions reach onto the bridge. I designed those pinch points into the roadway to accommodate the platform extensions.


• Back in 1982, I stood with Dave Lenheart of the then MDC on Span #1[1] of the bridge with the deck opened up as we looked upon the rusted structural steel. Thus, I can say personally that this repair project is long overdue and MHD should expedite this project to the extent possible.

______________
[1] Span #1 is labeled on sheet 32 of 59 (titled “Construction Stages, Stage 1, Sheet 1 of 4”) in Attachment 2 to the ENF.


Second, I use all 4 modes of the bridge, particularly in getting to work. Normally, I take the Red Line (over the Longfellow Bridge). When the weather is nice, I try to bike in once or twice a week (over the Longfellow Bridge). When I need a vehicle for work-related travel, I drive (over the Longfellow Bridge). And sometimes if the weather is nice (like after the MEPA hearing last week) I walk home (over the Longfellow Bridge).

So, clearly I have a stake in ensuring that the project will maintain all four modes during and after construction.


Final Configuration
I applaud the project design as presented in the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) in its inclusion of all four modes at the end of construction: pedestrians, bicycles, the Red Line and motor vehicles.

Alternatives for Eastbound (Inbound) Boston ApproachPage 6 of the ENF describes three alternatives were developed to address the pinch point caused by the inbound platform extension I designed some 27 years ago.

At first, I would agree with the preferred alternative 1 for the Boston approach (as described on page 6 of the ENF). This alternative accommodates a sidewalk, a full bike lane and 3 approach lanes to the Charles Circle signalized intersection.

However, it moves one retaining wall into parkland. Regarding this issue, there are both state and federal concerns:

• From a historic resources perspective, I agree with the ENF’s assessment that although there is some loss of parkland, this is compensated by the historically-sensitive treatment of the relocated wall. Assuming the Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC) and the Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) concur, this issue should not delay the project in terms of the historic approval process on the state and local level. The MHD should confirm that moving the wall is acceptable to the MHC and BLC.


• On the other hand, this is a 4(f) parkland taking from a federal perspective. Since MHD intends to use federal funds in part for this project, MHD should address this issue of whether the 4(f) issue will delay the project start-up by requiring a separate environmental review under the federal NEPA process. The MHD should address this issue of possible project delay due to 4(f) issues related to federal funding.

Conclusion on Alternatives:
I have different conclusions that depend on whether there would be a delay in federal funding due to 4(f) issues:

• If there are significant schedule delays in project startup due to parkland taking, then I agree with the ENF’s conclusion that Alternative 1 is the best.


• If there are significant schedule delays in project startup due to parkland takings, then I recommend Alternative 3 (no wall relocation) combined with the widening of the sidewalk over Span #1 as included in Alternative 1.

Construction Staging
During construction, it is essential that all four modes be accommodated. But more than that, construction presents an opportunity for an exemplary approach: incorporating energy and environmental policy by shifting modal use from motor vehicles to the more modes that expend less energy and pollute less (i.e., walking, bicycling and transit). The MHD should look into ways to reduce motor vehicle trips and shift trips to the other 3 modes.

Page 7 of the ENF describes two options, both of which raise some concerns.

Option 1 would take an estimated 12 to 18 months less than Option 2. It would maintain Red Line service and one 10-foot wide sidewalk for pedestrians. However, it would maintain only one inbound travel lane a little over 14.5 feet for both bicycles and motor vehicles. Outbound bicycles and motor vehicles would be detoured over the Cragie Bridge. Problem with this approach include the following:

• The outbound bicycle detour is simply not reasonable. Bicyclists will not detour to the traffic-congested Leverett Circle area. Rather, they will travel westbound on the open sidewalk. A better plan for two-way bicycle accommodation during construction is needed.


• The outbound motor vehicle detour into the traffic-congested Leverett Circle is equally unreasonable. The peak hour delays waiting for several light cycles at the Circle and at the Land Blvd./Gilmore Bridge/O’Brien Highway intersection. I would also detour traffic towards the site of the relocation of Lechmere Station for the Green Line Extension at the exact same timeframe as this project. Furthermore, consideration should be given to detouring traffic towards the Harvard Bridge (Massachusetts Avenue). A better detour plan is needed that considers a more regional approach and considers other EOT projects (e.g., Green Line Extension)


• However the greatest concern is for emergency access. With MGH at Charles Circle, the Longfellow is an important ambulance access route. Likewise, the bridge is used for other emergency purposes including mutual response to fires as well as police and other law enforcement agencies. Let me emphasize the importance of this issue. Two years ago, my son and I went bike riding. Once home, his heart rate did not decline. After a few hours my wife took him to Cambridge Hospital. Once they realized the situation, they were immediately rushed to Massachusetts General Hospital where they had the experienced doctors who know what immediate action was needed. My son is fine now, in part because the ambulance was able to cross the Longfellow Bridge without delay.I cannot underestimate the importance of maintain emergency access in both directions.
  
  o MHD should consult with Boston, Cambridge and state emergency departments (police, fire, EMS) before any further consideration of Option 1.
  o MHD should not pursue Option 1 without provisions for two-way emergency access across the Longfellow Bridge 24/7/365 throughout construction.

Option 2 would take an estimated 12 to 18 months longer than Option 1. It would maintain Red Line service and one 10-foot sidewalk in all phases. It would maintain motor vehicle access in either direction in one or two lanes. It is unclear from the plans included how bicycles would be accommodated during construction.

• Option 2 is clearly superior with regards to emergency access and the detouring of traffic. Still, construction activities will inevitably cause some motorists to seek alternative routes, be they the Craigie or Harvard Bridges or other routes.


• Option 2 does not clearly indicate how two-way bicycle accommodation will be maintained during construction.


• Comments:
  o Option 2 should be considered the preferred option
  o MHD should better describe how two-way bicycle access will be provided through all the states of construction.

Storm DrainageThe ENF states on page 10 that it is not practical to meet all stormwater standards. In particular, the ENF states there is no room on the bridge for sediment collection or pollution removal systems. Also, with the exception of the first 2 spans in Boston, no runoff will be diverted to existing storm drainage systems. For the spans over water, the scuppers will simply drain into the river.

While full diversion of flow does not appear practical, improved water quality could be obtained if it were possible to divert the water quality volume (WQV) or first 1 inch of runoff to some form of sediment control and/or water quality enhancement device.

Consideration of attempting to treat about 1” of runoff was brought up by the representative of the Charles River Watershed Association at the ENF meeting on April 30th.

Based on that comment, my thought was to see if there could be one device per span, maybe located over the pier. The scuppers would drain to this device, which would retain the WQV and let the excess flow discharge to the river. This would at least provide some treatment for the initial runoff, which is more heavily laden with contaminants.

As the ENF does not include any WQV calculations, I have provided a calculation of the WQV for one span of the bridge, based on 1” of runoff:

A = W x L
A = (2’ +11’ + 11’ + 5’ + 10’) x 150’
A = 5,850 SF
A = 0.134 Acres (based on 1 acre = 43,560 SF)

WQV = 1” x A
WQV = 1” x 0.134 Acres
WQV = 0.134 Acre-Inches
WQV = 487.5 CF

This represents a rectangular tank approximately 6’ x 8’ x 10’. Other shapes could be used. The device would need convenient accessways from the roadway to allow inspection, cleaning and other maintenance.

A tank to hold a WQV based on 1/2" of runoff would be half that size.

I am not familiar enough with the structure to determine if such devices could be stowed somewhere above the piers, so they are maintainable but do not create a visual impact.

MHD should consider whether it is feasible to provide some sediment removal and water quality enhancement, be it for a 1” WQV or even 1/2" WQV. This could be by a tank, maybe with a vortex device or a filter, located in the piers. Flows greater than the WQV would overflow, either at the scupper itself or at the tank.


Other Comments

• Section III (Consistency) should include discussion of:
  o Consistency with Grown Policy, and
  o Consistency with the Massachusetts Bicycle Plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the ENF for this very important project. I look forward to seeing the bridge under construction soon and restored to structural good repair in the years to come.