| CITY minus TRAFFIC | Freshgate Tunnel |
Frequently Asked Questions
| Website questions: |
|
|
The landscape designs are deliberately diagrammatic. For
instance, much of the new parkland should probably leave plenty of the existing road surfaces just as
they are for play, but this drawing shows little winding paths in place of all removed auto roads. The
idea was to make the basic intent clearer, since it might be harder for viewers of this website
to imagine all the new parkland as auto-free if the drawing still showed existing roads where the new parks are.
Consequently the landscape designs shouldn't really be considered "designs", but as visual symbols for parkland. They are diagrammatic. (Same for the tunnel design. See "Is such a tunnel technically feasible?" below. )
This scheme will interfere with access to no retail business except Mahoney's Garden Center at the corner
of Memorial Drive and Western Ave in Cambridge. The Mahoney's site is owned by Harvard, and will be shut
down soon to make room for new Harvard facilities. In an agreement with the community (called Riverside),
this is planned for development with non-retail uses including parkland and housing.
If this scheme interferes with access to any retail business, it was an oversight. The only retail use that is even near a tunnel ramp is the first gas station on the north side of Fresh Pond Parkway, west of Larch Road. The drawing depicts non-interference, but western entrance to the tunnel would need to be carefully designed to retain all exiting vehicular access for this gas station.
Yes, as follows:
(The drawing does show a narrow roadway remaining between and a little to the east of Ash Street and Hawthorne Street, to maintain the equivalent of the existing on-street parking at this location.) Some of the eight streets shown blocked to Memorial Drive could instead be given long entry ramps to the tunnel, if this were deemed preferable.
|
|
The website of The Automobile Association Limited of England has the following list of tunnel downsides:
Their website also has a list of advantages to tunnels. Here are a few of my favorites:
If the section of Storrow Drive behind the Esplanade were ever buried, it would be a cut-and cover tunnel
(similar to the existing tunneled section of Storrow Drive already buried to the north of Back Street
between Arlington and Berkeley Street, in the Back Bay). That effort would be a different technology
and venture than what is proposed here. The proposed Freshgate Tunnel would be a deep-bore tunnel.
It could be built and opened with far less interference to existing traffic flows during construction
than burying Storrow Drive behind the Esplanade would entail.
Also, such a venture at the Esplanade would seem to be beyond the purview of Harvard University – the proposed funding source of the deep-bore tunnel in this vision. Burying the existing roadway between the Esplanade and the Back Bay may be a good idea, but it is not the purpose of this website to advance it.
Public transportation improvements definitely ought to be included in the mix of ideas to consider. Here are just
two of many public transportation schemes worth pondering:
In this vision, the entire deep-bore tunnel (and all of its entry ramps that are either deep-bore ramps
or in places where traffic would be unaffected) would be totally completed before any work to change
existing roads even begins. Traffic problems would be incurred only during construction of
the top ends of the new ramps and interchanges. All the rest would already be
completed. Still, the construction process would definitely mess up traffic for a while, but not as
badly as the Big Dig has.
|
|
Given that Harvard University would likely have more control of the design of certain parklands if
it financed them, Harvard might be eager to pay for some of them - notably the new parkland
that is essentially the front lawn of the new Harvard campuses in Allston.
At other locations maybe there would be no immediate need for new park construction, so nobody would have to pay initially. Perhaps other institutions or groups would want to pay for certain parts. For instance:
|
|
In this vision, Harvard would be the sole financier of this tunnel. In the short-run, the "Big Dig" has
exhausted local, state, and national resources for tunnel building in greater Boston. Harvard could marshal the
resources to finance such a venture.
The suggestion that Harvard be the financier might be considered presumptuous or inappropriate, but no offense to Harvard is intended. It is important to emphasize here that this is only one of any number of tunnel finance schemes that could be proposed. The suggestion that Harvard finance the tunnel may not be welcome in some quarters, but it is made in good faith.
Grand institutions do grand deeds.
Also, Harvard would be the primary beneficiary of such a tunnel:
Harvard's most recent capital campaign ended in 1999, yielding $2. 6 billion. Their new vice
president for alumni affairs and development recently said that she expects to begin a much larger
capital campaign in the middle of this decade - largely to finance the Allston Initiative. Harvard
could set an even higher goal for this capital campaign to include financing of this tunnel.
Harvard has a history of proposing and financing bridge and tunnel construction to make their
campus work well for people who are not in automobiles. The Weeks Footbridge was built over the Charles River in the
first half of the 20th century, entirely at Harvard's expense.
In the last half-century Harvard has endeavored three times to build bridges or tunnels in and around their Harvard Square campus:
In the two instances where Harvard failed, community opposition to the construction prevailed. In both instances the proposed bridge or tunnel was for the private use of Harvard. (In this website's proposal the tunnel and the land made auto-free would all be for public use - just like the pedestrian mall, the Cambridge Street underpass, and the Weeks Footbridge.) Harvard paid all construction costs for the 1966 Cambridge Street underpass, and upon completion deeded it to the City of Cambridge. The work cost $19.3 million in today's dollars ($3. 4 million in 1966 dollars), but Harvard owns neither the underpass, the land, nor the mall. All are publicly owned and intended for public use. Harvard University was the sole source of all financing. In proposing this construction to the City of Cambridge in 1965, Harvard's representative, L. Gard Wiggins, noted that the mutual benefits for the city and for Harvard "are clearly evident." With the city's consent, Harvard deeded 23,660 square feet of land to the city, hired the contractor, oversaw the construction, and to this day performs all maintenance on the pedestrian mall. (The city maintains the automobile underpass. ) Similarly, the mutual benefits of this vision of the Charles River's future, both for the public and for Harvard University, are clearly evident.
This drawing does show some places where Harvard might be allowed to build above streets
owned by the City of Boston, most notably above the proposed cut-and cover tunnel of North
Harvard Street in Allston between Harvard Business School and their athletic area, but also
above parts of Western Ave and Cambridge Street in Allston.
Otherwise, in this drawing there is one and only one area where it is suggested that Harvard be given a very long-term lease of public parkland: only upon the public land that is presently the roadway intersection along the north end of the Soldiers Field (not any of the existing pedestrian land there). The notion here is that Harvard may feel these two particular parcels of land - atop the north end of North Harvard Street, and at the north end of Soldiers Field - are exceptionally desirable for their campus expansion (for instance additional undergraduate campus) because both are especially near Harvard Square. Harvard may be willing to consider undertaking many projects for the public benefit in exchange for permission to build new campuses in these locations. Soldiers Field Road between the Herter Center/William E. Smith Playground, the Anderson Bridge and the Eliot Bridge is a special condition of this drawing. The campus shown on the drawing keeps all new buildings behind the edge of the present roadway, so that no land presently for non auto use is lost - only land that is presently used as road way and median strips. Harvard would be permitted to build a new campus on this land only after making formal agreements with the public sector like the following:
On the other hand, if Harvard wanted to build one or two new undergraduate Houses in this area, perhaps fenced enclosures of up to two smaller quadrangles could be negotiated. (Harvard's undergraduate Houses in Cambridge are often organized around an enclosed yard: There are two pairs of buildings shown on the drawing that would lend themselves to this possibility - both just to the west of the large central lawn that is aligned with Longfellow Park in Cambridge (aligned with the western one of the two new pedestrian bridges shown across the Charles). Further, Harvard currently owns almost enough land between four existing athletic buildings (Blodgett, Briggs, Dillon, and Palmer-Dixon) and Soldiers Field Road to comfortably build several residential or academic buildings there. But the new buildings would be unpleasant without Soldiers Field Road being removed. Two of the existing athletic buildings have no windows facing the Charles, and only one – the Dillon Field House – is a pleasant sight from the Cambridge side. This is an obvious place for additional campus buildings. Diagrammatic building outlines were shown at this location in the drawing. In total the drawing shows the potential for 30 new campus buildings between the Eliot Bridge and the Business School, either academic or housing, totaling a little over 1. 5 million square feet, if the average building were four stories high with one basement level.
This is only one vision of many.
If Harvard's leaders were eager to build this tunnel they might be willing to make certain other concessions. They might agree to a very long moratorium on new construction and land acquisition in parts of Cambridge, Allston, Brighton and around the Medical School. Harvard has faced the specter of such restrictions, has even proposed building moratoriums in parts of Cambridge, and has already entered into agreements to limit their growth for specified time lengths in parts of Cambridge. (For instance in a recent agreement between Harvard and the Riverside neighborhood of Cambridge, Harvard agreed to growth limits in that neighborhood for the next 25 years. Harvard has also just made a similar agreement with the Agassiz neighborhood of Cambridge.) There may be other things that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, cities, non-profits, or neighborhoods in Cambridge or Boston might request. One obvious example: Harvard University already makes annual payments to both the City of Boston and the City of Cambridge; each is called a "Payment in Lieu of Taxes" (PILOT for short). The amount of their PILOT payment could of course be renegotiated, but there may be more important things to request.
Difficult question. Since the initial cost estimates of the Big Dig proved to be off by a factor
of four, who would trust anyone's estimate of this? Still, if the tunnel costs $1 million per foot
then the whole thing might cost over $17 billion. If the tunnel costs $1 million per yard then the total
cost would be over $5 billion, and if the per yard cost were $333,333 , then the final bill might be $1.7
billion. The higher figure seems more likely.
|
|
All work on this project was done by volunteers without compensation. A small group developed the ideas,
prepared the drawings, text and graphics, and built the website. The group includes people who studied
architecture, urban design, planning, public administration, fine arts, film making, and computer programming.
Some of us reside around greater Boston, others are further afield: One lives in Brooklyn, New York, beside
Frederic Law Olmstead's Prospect Park; another lives in Hamburg, Germany, near the Alster Basin (a forerunner
of the Charles River Basin).
The time is ripe. Harvard University has recently taken several large strides in a long-range planning
and development process for Allston and Brighton. Their process, named the Allston Initiative, advanced
in earnest on November 21, 2003 with a speech by President Lawrence H. Summers. Here is
a link to that
speech.
Harvard University made four faculty committee Allston Initiative reports available to the public in May 2004, and in June 2004, announced the names of the design firms hired to do master planning for Allston Initiative. HERE is a link to the faculty reports. HERE is a link to the press release of design firms hired. A public process of long-range planning or vision-development for urban areas around the Charles River Basin should really be going on concurrently with Harvard's process. Since Harvard's process has begun, it is time for discussion of public visions to begin too. These two processes of vision development could and should have enormous influence on one another.
Access to this website was restricted for several months to community organizations, neighborhood groups, community
development corporations in Allston, Brighton Cambridge, and Fenway, and a few authors of books about the Charles
River Basin. Some non-profit organizations - such as the Charles River Conservancy, the Charles River Watershed
Association, and the People for Riverbend Park Trust - also had access to the site.
The groups listed above had time to review, digest, and discuss this vision, and similar visions that this one may have helped bring to light. Until this website it was opened for all, in September 2004, no public sector groups, planning departments, agencies, city, state or federal offices, no one from the media, and no one from any schools, hospitals, or universities had access. Since the ideas in this website originated entirely outside of large institutions, they may be more likely to help spawn open public discussion. Vigorous, expanding civic discourse preceding engagement with entities of power and resources may strengthen potential alliances between communities and those entities, conducive to bringing such visions to reality. If this vision broadens and hones the discussion that Harvard University will have with many interest groups in the near future, then this website will have served one of its main purposes.
The drawing is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough for the purpose of sharing this vision. It was drawn
from scratch on AutoCAD LT. It began as a tracing over an aerial photograph. While roads, bridges and the river
are more accurately drawn, the locations of existing buildings are only roughly accurate.
Much of the vision just grew as we drew.
Aside from the aforementioned book, Inventing the Charles River, important sources of inspiration were the examples of two people with civic vision:
Several people were instrumental with the text and images, most notably Ghanda DiFiglia, David Langton, Max Hall, and Judith Zinker. The drawing was made by Christopher Schniewind Weller, as was the initial draft of the text, and the initial concept. This website was designed and built entirely by David Langton. If the vision presented here is understandable, it is because of David's tenacious effort, skill, and patience. Both Andy Towl and Renata von Tscharner proposed vital revisions to the concept and presentation. Werburg Doerr and Andy Towl were centrally important through their early and steadfast encouragement. If you have questions, comments, or especially if you would like to help, feel free to contact us: ideas@freshgatetunnel.net
Click here to return to the City Minus Traffic home. |