charles river basin: leverett circle pedestrian and …. background leverett circle is located at...

June 11 2010

Charles River Basin Leverett Circle Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Study

Accelerated Bridge Program Massachusetts Department of Transportation

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + PLANNINg

with

ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN HDR ENGINEERING INC NITSCH ENGINEERING INC

EPSILON ASSOCIATES April 4 2011

June 11 2010


LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + PLANNINg Accelerated Bridge Program

with Massachusetts Department of Transportation ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN

HDR ENGINEERING INC NITSCH ENGINEERING INC


Table of Contents

1 Background 1

2 Existing Conditions Analysis 5

3 Regulatory Permitting and Jurisdictional Issues 21

4 Best Practices And Case Studies For PedestrianBike Overpasses 25

5 Conceptual Design Options 31

6 Summary 59

Appendices 61

1 BACKGROUND

1 Background

Leverett circle is located at the eastern terminus of Storrow Drive and the Boston-end of the ldquooldrdquo charles River Dam

The Leverett circle area has been a major multi-modal gateway to Boston since the early 1900rsquos when the Dam and

the roadway which it carries (charles River Dam Road now OrsquoBrien HighwayState Route 28) as well as the adjacent

elevated streetcar viaduct were completed

with the construction of Storrow Drive the Mystic River (now Tobin) Bridge and central Artery in the mid-20th century

Leverett circle became a major node in both the local and regional roadway networks and became dominated by

vehicular traffic with the exception of the original charlesbank Park the section of the charles River adjacent to

Leverett circle was still heavily industrialized and neighborhoods such as the west End were not particularly oriented

towards the river as a recreational resource Pedestrian amenities at Leverett circle were adequate to serve what was

seen as a secondary need

As the 20th century progressed however the charles River became de-industrialized and increasing numbers

of people traveling by transit bicycle and on foot began to seek access to such attractions as the Esplanade

the Museum of Science and newly expanded parklands downstream of the dam In addition new residential

development in East cambridge as well as revitalized residential development in Bostonrsquos west End and the presence

of important institutions such as Mass General Hospital and TD Garden resulted in a growing number of people

commuting along and across the charles River using non-vehicular modes

By the end of the century it had become clear that Leverett circle was an important nucleus not only in the vehicular

network but in the local and regional pedestrian transit and bicycle networks as well Major infrastructure projects

at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st including the central ArteryTunnel (cAT) Accelerated

Bridge Program (ABP) DcR charles River Basin and MBTA Accessibility Improvements all had as one of their common

goals the upgrading of conditions for non-vehicular travel at Leverett circle and a move away from vehicular

domination and towards multi-modal balance safety and convenience

11 Introduction and Purpose of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Study

In September 2010 Halvorson Design Partnership and its consultants (the team currently working on the Pedestrian

+ Bicycle Study for the charles River Basin associated with the Accelerated Bridge Program) was asked by MassDOT to

undertake a detailed Pedestrian and Bicycle crossing Study for the Leverett circle area

The goal of this effort at Leverett circle was to provide MassDOT with planning and design services to help identify

operational and safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists at Leverett circle based on current conditions Initiated

by MassDOT the study was undertaken as a response to ongoing concerns expressed by west End neighborhood

residents and other stakeholders related to the safety and ease of circulation for all modes of transportation within

Leverett circle The study also identified regulatory permitting commitments pertaining to this location

The scope of the study included the development of concepts and an initial feasibility assessment of pedestrian and

cyclist improvements at Leverett circle including evaluation of existing conditions and circulation patterns evaluation

HALVORSON DESIGN PARTNERSHIP with ALTA | HDR | NITScH | EPSILON

AccELERATED BRIDGE PROGRAM | PEDESTRIAN + BIcycLE STuDy fOR PATHwAyS + BRIDGES | cHARLES RIVER BASIN 1

of potential enhancements to existing at-grade crossings potential new grade-separated crossings and associated

elimination of at-grade connections and some combinations of at-grade and grade-separated crossings based on

current MassDOT standards

12 Brief Historical Context for the Study

Most of information in this section comes from two sources Inventing the Charles River by Karl Haglund The MIT

Press 2003 and Gaining Ground ndash A History of Landmaking in Boston by Nancy S Seasholes The MIT Press 2003

a 1800rsquos

Throughout the nineteenth century the narrow segment of the charles River between Boston charlestown and

cambridge in the vicinity of the current Leverett circle was spanned by several bridges a causeway and a viaduct

Miscellaneous landfills over time and the construction of the ldquooldrdquo charles River dam transformed this transition zone

between the river and the harbor into a threshold between the more park-like charles River Reservation and the

remaining industrial character that still remained at the mouth of the river

b 1900rsquos

In the early decades of the 1900rsquos the original charles River dam (including a strip of parkland over the river) was

completed The Boston Elevated Railwayrsquos Lechmere Viaduct (now the MBTA Green Line) was opened in 1910

although without a station at Leverett circle Leverett circle in 1946 was still more of a traditional New England Rotary

with surface roads including charles Street charles River Dam Road and Nashua Street converging at a formal circle

By mid-century many of the industrial uses along the river were rapidly disappearing

c Mid 20th Century ndash Pre-conditions to Central Artery

The infrastructure and character of the Leverett circle area began to change dramatically in the late 1940rsquos and early

1950rsquos within the span of a few years the Mystic River (now Tobin) Bridge the elevated central Artery (I-93) and its

double-deck crossing of the charles River

and Storrow Drive were opened To facilitate

movement among these roadways an

underpass was constructed beneath Leverett

circle to allow traffic from the Tobin the

Artery and later from I-93 north of Boston to

flow directly onto Storrow Drive westbound

without entering the circle All eastbound

traffic from Storrow Drive continued to use

the surface roadways at the circle before

entering the elevated ramp system behind

North Station

In 1951 the first portion of the Museum of

Science opened at the charles River Dam (from wwwbingmapscom)

Central Artery construction view of the Leverett Circle Overpass

MASSAcHuSETTS DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION

LEVERETT cIRcLE PEDESTRIAN AND BIcycLE cROSSING STuDy | APRIL 2011 2

and in 1955 the present MBTA (Green Line) Science Park station was added to the existing viaduct in the center of

Leverett circle

Also in the early 1950rsquos in conjunction with the major infrastructure projects described above a pedestrian overpass

was constructed to link the MBTA Station Esplanade and west End neighborhood The overpass was similar in

character to other pedestrian crossings of Storrow Drive which were built in this period

d Central ArteryTunnel Design and Construction Impacts to Leverett Circle

The pedestrian roadway and transit infrastructure at Leverett circle remained essentially unchanged from the midshy

1950rsquos until the beginnings of the central ArteryTunnel (cAT) Project As part of the cAT Project the new Leonard

Zakim and Leverett circle connector Bridges were constructed and the interchange between I-93 the Tobin Bridge

Storrow Drive and the local surface street network was substantially reconfigured

As before highway traffic destined to Storrow Drive westbound bypassed the surface of Leverett circle via the

existing (now reconstructed) underpass In addition a new eastbound underpass was constructed to take traffic from

Storrow Drive directly to the Tobin Bridge I-93 North and charlestown Eastbound local traffic from charles circle and

the Massachusetts General Hospital complex still uses the surface intersection to access the Tobin Bridge and I-93

North and South and Storrow Drive eastbound traffic still uses the surface to access I-93 Southbound Route 28 to

Somerville and local streets in the west End and North Station area

The cAT Project also reconfigured the surface intersection eliminating the last vestiges of the traditional ldquocirclerdquo

configuration and extended the riverbank parkland northward to the area now known as the New charles River Basin

downstream of the old Dam Overall Leverett circle continues to be a complicated and congested intersection

e Removal of the Pedestrian Overpass and the ldquoPost CATrdquo Era

During the cAT Project the existing Leverett circle Pedestrian Overpass was modified several times to facilitate

phased construction The structure was ultimately removed in 2005 when the new infrastructure and roadway

configurations made it infeasible to maintain it in its original location

At the time that cAT construction began in Leverett circle the final configuration of the surface intersection had not

yet been finalized cAT contract c19E6 which was essentially the final surface restoration contract for Leverett circle

originally included a replacement pedestrian overpass designed by HNTB Inc while cAT construction progressed

in Leverett circle the former Massachusetts Highway Department (now MassDOT) and its consultant team studied a

number of alternatives for restoration of pedestrian access It was ultimately concluded that a system of signalized at-

grade crosswalks could be accommodated within the basic intersection geometry and the final roadway construction

performed under cAT contract c19E6 included these signalized crosswalks in lieu of a pedestrian overpass

After the substantial completion of the cAT Project in the Leverett circle area in 2006 discussions continued among

city and State officials and the public regarding the adequacy of the new signalized crosswalks and the potential for

replacement of the pedestrian overpass

In March of 2006 (subsequent to removal of the overpass) walkBoston a pedestrian and multi-modal advocacy

group wrote a memorandum to various public officials neighborhood advocates and state agency representatives



outlining ldquoPossible Pedestrian Surface Improvements to Leverett circlerdquo (see Appendix) By that time many of the cAT

roadway improvements had been completed although there were a still a number of contractor punch-list items

outstanding including several which walkBoston had identified in their letter Based on the memorandum and

more detailed consultant engineering and an October 24 2007 public meeting led by cAT Project Director Michael

Lewis to discuss the status of Leverett circle improvements Massachusetts Highway Department and later MassDOT

implemented several of the recommended surface improvements during the years 2007-2010

f Rosales + Partners Bridge Design and Ongoing Community Advocacy

In 2007 the transportation architectural design firm Rosales + Partners prepared a pedestrian overpass concept on

behalf of the west End Neighborhood Association and the community at large Large segments of the community

had continued to express concern that the at-grade crossings were not adequate and had also not fully embraced

the proposed c19E6 overpass design due to functional and aesthetic considerations Rosales + Partners performed

the work on a pro bono basis at the request of city council President Michael Ross and others The concept was well

received by the community but was not fully evaluated as to its technical feasibility and cost by MassDOT

g MBTA Science Park Station Improvements

In 2010 the MBTA began the construction of accessibility improvements at the Science Park station The MBTA scope

of work includes new accessible entry lobbies and elevator towers on both the inbound and outbound sides of the

viaduct and will result in new physical constraints that must be considered when evaluating the feasibility of at-grade

and overpass concepts



2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

2 Existing Conditions Analysis

This section of the report describes existing conditions at Leverett Circle including both physical conditions and

operational characteristics for all modes A description of data collection and analysis performed for this study is also

included as well as a discussion on the currently planned and funded improvements to the MBTA Science Park station

and to Charles River Dam Road (ie the Craigie Bridge and Drawbridge) as part of MassDOTrsquos Accelerated Bridge

Program

21 Field Observations

Much was learned from observations on site during multiple field visits and by reviewing the videos filmed during

Saturday October 2 and Tuesday October 5 The three-hour and eleven-hour videos respectively were filmed

facing both the Nashua StreetOrsquoBrien highway intersection and the Charles StreetOrsquoBrien highwayMartha

Road intersection Clearly visible from these two angles were vehicle bicycle and pedestrian movements as well

as the vehicular and pedestrian indications displayed on traffic signals further detail on traffic counts and turning

movements can be found in the appendix of this report

Motor vehicle movement

Despite the tens of thousands of vehicles that pass through Leverett Circle daily traffic flows reasonably smoothly

and well-designed signal phasing limits the blockage of the two adjacent intersections and Interstate 93 access

ramps Traffic count figures include 6434 vehicles per hour (vph) during morning peak (730 ndash 830AM) 5929 vph

during evening peak (500- 600PM) and 5405 vph during Saturday mid-day peak (1200 ndash 100PM) The highest three

movements at all times were Charles Street NB to I-93 ramp Nashua Street SB to Storrow Drive wB and OrsquoBrien

highway EB

There is currently a three-phase split for traffic movement within the two Leverett Circle intersections functioning as

a single cycle of approximately 100 seconds in length The diagram below illustrates the motor vehicle and pedestrian

crossing movements for each of the phases

Despite the generally efficient operation of the intersection there are several areas where conflicts frequently occur

between vehicle traffic and pedestrian movements including

1 OrsquoBrien highway EB right-turn-on-red vehicle movement conflicts with pedestrians crossing Storrow

Drive westbound during the Charles Street (Storrow Drive Eastbound) NBL green phase (Phase 1 on the

accompanying diagram) and with vehicles traveling through from Nashua Street to Storrow Drive during

the Nashua Street SB green phase (Phase 2) During this latter phase the flow of right-on-red turning traffic is

nearly constant

2 The MBTA station is a major origindestination point Pedestrians traversing between the station and Martha

Road tend to cross between the station and the island that splits the Charles Street NBL and NBR approaches

on a diagonal essentially bypassing crosswalks ldquoDrdquo and ldquofrdquo (see graphic on previous page) This is possible

hALVORSON DESIGN PARTNERShIP with ALTA | hDR | NITSCh | EPSILON

ACCELERATED BRIDGE PROGRAM | PEDESTRIAN + BICyCLE STuDy fOR PAThwAyS + BRIDGES | ChARLES RIVER BASIN 5

during Phase 1 and is particularly attractive as it allows pedestrians to skip the concurrent crossing of

crosswalk ldquoDrdquo during Phase 2 which many users describe as very problematic Based on video observations

nearly all pedestrians followed this desire line during the AM and PM commute while on Saturday there was

a relatively even split between those crossing within the crosswalks and those jaywalking on the diagonal

3 After the OrsquoBrien highway EBwB Phase 3 completes many pedestrians cross OrsquoBrien highway halfway on

the ldquoDonrsquot walkrdquo phase and gather in the vicinity of the median island while the Charles Street NBL Phase 1 is

operating They then are able to complete crossing on a ldquowalkrdquo phase during the Nashua Street SB Phase 2

Based on video and field observations the intersection phasing scheme works as well as possible given the

constraints with one possible exception The 47 seconds of time during Phase 2mdashwhile needed for right-turning

traffic from Charles Street (Storrow Drive Eastbound) to the I-93 ramps and Martha Roadmdashmay be excessive for

the volume of Nashua Street traffic heading southbound to Storrow Drive westbound This provides the potential

opportunity to split Phase 2 into two parts and provide additional times for other vehicle or pedestrian movements

in exchange for less green time for the Nashua Street SB traffic without limiting the right-turning capacity from

Charles Street (Storrow Drive Eastbound) Also because I-93 off-ramp traffic receives green time during Phase 3 when

east-west traffic on OrsquoBrien highway is green the two traffic lanes directly to the south of the MBTA station may be

excessive Traffic proceeding from the off ramp rarely encounters a red signal at the Nashua Street intersection leading

to very short queues if any at all within the two thru lanes adjacent to the station Based on this there may be an

opportunity to remove one of these traffic lanes to accommodate a wider sidewalk or median within that short block

MASSAChuSETTS DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION

LEVERETT CIRCLE PEDESTRIAN AND BICyCLE CROSSING STuDy | APRIL 2011 6

Pedestrian and Bicycle Movement

while motor vehicle traffic flow remains relatively constant throughout Saturdayrsquos three-hour period and Tuesdayrsquos

eleven-hour period (traffic volumes fluctuate by only 30-35 between AMPM peak hours and mid-day levels)

pedestrian and bicycle traffic fluctuates far more dramatically between AMPM peak hours and mid-day Over one

thousand pedestrians were counted during both morning and evening weekday peak hours while between 9am and

2pm fewer than 600 people per hour passed through the intersection on foot

Much of the demand for pedestrian movement at Leverett

Circle is driven by the Science Park MBTA station The majority

of movement is tofrom the southwest ie connections to

the Esplanade and the Museum of Science There is also

considerable movement from the MBTA station across Nashua

Street to the Nashua Street Park and to the southeast with

connections to the west End neighborhood Many of these

trips may be discretionary as the highest levels of pedestrian

activity are during the Saturday ldquopeakrdquo mid-day hour field

observations and video analysis indicated very few people

with disabilities using the intersection Though the at-grade

connections are all ADA accessible the lack of accessibility to

the Science Park MBTA station is likely the primary reason why few pedestrians using mobility aids were observed

This is likely to change after the elevator is installed and the station is made fully accessible

Numbers of bicyclists varied even more significantly as over 50

cyclists passed through the intersection during the weekday

morning peak while no more than 20 per hour passed through

after 10am even during the PM peak hour This is not unexpected

given that access to Leverett Circle from the financial District or

the North Station area requires bicyclists to access the Esplanade

or Cambridge via Nashua Street Despite that some cyclists still

pass through the intersection from east to west riding the wrong

way on Martha Road or along the sidewalk A few cyclists coming

from downtown Boston positioned themselves at the head of the

left-turn queue from Charles Street and continued into Cambridge

with the flow of traffic along OrsquoBrien highway

for all intents and purposes Leverett Circle functions as a one-way inbound intersection for bicyclists During

weekday mornings dozens commute through the intersection heading into downtown Boston while few return in

the opposite direction in the evening Based on video observations most approach the intersection using the OrsquoBrien

highway and pass through the signal with motor vehicle traffic weekend observations however imply that far more

cross through Leverett Circle using the sidewalks islands and pedestrian signals This is due to the higher percentage

of more-casual recreational cyclists riding to and from the Esplanade into Boston This route takes far longer than

remaining on the street and riding with vehicular traffic however and explains why most rushed commuters currently

avoid the crosswalks and traffic islands

MBTA Science Park Station view from Police Station

A cyclist heads towards Government Center along Martha Road



Typical group of pedestrians crossing OrsquoBrien Hwy after departing from the Green Line

(Crosswalk D)

Behavioral Observations at Leverett Circle

while area residents perceive Leverett Circle to be a traffic snarl within inner Bostonrsquos roadway network it functions

reasonably well given the high volumes of motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic and the complex geometry of the

multiple legs of the dual intersection Vehicle traffic remains relatively consistent throughout the weekday and

weekends while pedestrians tend to come in spurts The latter is coordinated primarily with the arrival of outbound

Green Line trains and secondarily inbound trains This is most

apparent during the AM and PM peaks and especially weekends

when large groups of people frequently with children in

tow depart the MBTA station on their way to the Museum

of Science This activity is likely to remain somewhat steady

for outbound trains in the future Alightings at the Science

Park station from inbound trains however will probably rise

significantly when the Green Line Extension through Somerville

is complete in 2016 (A similar spike in bicycle traffic is expected

as well due to planned bike lanes along OrsquoBrien highway

Craigie Bridge continued residential development at North

Point and elsewhere in East Cambridge and potential bike lane

extension to Martha Road in Boston)

when groups of pedestrians approach the intersection from the MBTA station those wishing to cross to the

southwest (to the Esplanade or Museum of Science) typically cross either Nashua Street (crosswalk ldquoBrdquo) or OrsquoBrien

highway (crosswalk ldquoDrdquo) depending on which one provides a wALK signal at that particular moment from

observations those heading directly south from the station in crosswalk ldquoDrdquo typically do so without looking to their

right to watch for left-turning traffic from Nashua Street fortunately this left turn volume is relatively small (between

25-30 in the AM PM and Saturday peak hours) so conflicts during this concurrent movement are somewhat rare

This conflict however was cited on numerous occasions during the stakeholder interviews and by residents during

the community meeting for this study A number of people

claimed it as one of the reasons they avoid walking across the

intersection altogether to access the Green Line If the Nashua

Street wALK signal (crosswalk ldquoBrdquo) was activated pedestrians

heading to the southwest would cross at that leg instead The

adjacent traffic island is large enough for the typical queues

and there is no right turning vehicle conflict because of the

slip lane between the island and the north sidewalk along

OrsquoBrien highway

Groups of pedestrians approaching the intersection from the

MBTA station and heading to the southeast (the west End or

towards Government Center) behaved somewhat differently

during weekday commute hours vs weekends Video

observations of weekday peaks hours showed that nearly

100 of pedestrian traffic crossed tofrom the MBTA station to the southeast outside of the established crosswalks

Most walked at an angle during signal phase 1 to avoid crosswalks ldquoDrdquo and ldquofrdquo while Charles Street traffic turned left

onto OrsquoBrien highway and some crossed during signal phase 2 that allows southbound traffic from Nashua Street

Pedestrians heading to the West End from the MBTA station usually cross at an angle during

signal Phase 1 (Crosswalk D)



Due to the low volume of left turns from Nashua Street conflicts were not observed during either of the phases

when pedestrians ldquojaywalkedrdquo During weekends however there was a relatively even split among pedestrians using

the existing crosswalks and signals and those cutting off the angle to save time Presumably those walking on the

weekends are in less of a hurry as weekday commuters and because it is not their daily routine may not be aware

of the relatively safe opportunity to jaywalk during the Charles Street left turn phase Also notable during weekends

is the prevalence of joggers passing through the intersections we observed that the average runner does not like to

wait for traffic signals so many were observed crossing during a DONrsquoT wALK phase usually across OrsquoBrien highway

tofrom Nashua Street Park or back and forth from the west End to the Esplanade

Urban Design Context and Analysis

Leverett Circle is not a rotary nor is it a traditional urban intersection The graceful arches of the Green Line viaduct

cut through the center of it and the proximity to parkway and interstate on and off ramps is quite clear Buildings of

all shapes and sizes are nearby but none of them front the Circle There are no street trees public art or benches It is

clearly a utilitarian space within the urban landscape

This context and prevailing traffic conditions put the space in an awkward position of being part of the city fabric

yet also divorced from the city fabric Depending on the direction of travel for many motorists it is a gateway to the

world of high-speed traffic and limited access while

for others itrsquos the transition between the freeway

world and the dense walkable city of Boston Tens

of thousands pass by on the elevated rail line

looking down on the urban space that is divorced

from the trainrsquos plane of movement Pedestrians

pass through in significant numbers but there is no

lounging around people watching no comfortable

places to sit no storefronts to look at One thing truly

dominates the Circle currently flow All modes of

transportation are simply flowing through people on

their way from one place to another This is not the

only location in Boston where movement and flow

predominate but it may be the one with the highest

demands for space and time from all user groups

22 Analysis of Existing Pedestrian Facilities

Currently there are seven crosswalks that provide access to all corners of the Leverett Circle intersection except the

north-east corner where on and off ramps to I-93 prohibit pedestrian and bicycle access (see graphic on following

page) Most of these crosswalks provide an exclusive pedestrian crossing phase but two in particular experience

significant conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians Crosswalk E across Storrow Drive westbound

experiences conflict because of the permitted right turn on red (RTOR) movement from OrsquoBrien highwayRoute 28

In addition pedestrians using crosswalk D do so concurrently with south-bound traffic from Nashua Street some of

Leverett Circle a part of the city still looking for a

coherent identity



which turns left to access downtown Boston or the I-93 on ramps This crosswalk was the one cited most frequently

by community members as a potential conflict zone In addition because of the Green Line viaduct overhead southshy

bound motorists on Nashua street have poor sight lines to the crosswalk Providing an enhancement at this location

is one of the primary goals of the recommended at-grade crossing improvements presented within this Study

Pedestrian Crossing Time Analysis

The Study team developed a theoretical model of legal pedestrian crossing times between the three major origin

destination points of the Leverett Circle study area (shown in graphic as points 1 2 and 3) Point 1 is the corner of

OrsquoBrien highwayRoute 28 and Storrow Drive It is used frequently by people traveling to and from Cambridge the

Museum of Science and the Esplanade Point 2 is at the entrance to the MBTA Science Park station Pedestrians can

access the elevated platform via a stairway or an elevator (currently under construction) from this point Point 3 is the

corner of Charles Street and Martha Road This is used frequently by people traveling to and from the North Station

Boston Garden area and the west End

The model incorporated a walking speed of 35 feet per second per current MuTCD standards The ldquominimumrdquo legal

crossing times were determined by assuming that pedestrians arrived at the originating sidewalk location while the

walk interval was in progress The ldquomaximumrdquo legal crossing times were determined by assuming that pedestrians

arrived at the originating sidewalk just as the walk interval ended and therefore had to wait until the beginning of the

next walk interval The existing signal timing and phasing at the intersection was verified in the field and used as the

basis of the model The following crossing movements were studied

1 Point 1 to 2 using

crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D



In addition to the theoretical model of legal pedestrian crossing times actual crossing times were observed from

videos which were taken on Saturday October 2 2010 (3-hours) and Tuesday October 5 2010 (11-hours) Average

morning and evening observed pedestrian crossing times for each crossing were determined from the video Most

observed crossing times during AMPM peak hours were lower than the minimum legal crossing times determined

in the theoretical model This indicates that some pedestrians are crossing on ldquodonrsquot walkrdquo or flashing ldquodonrsquot walkrdquo

designations at those locations Pedestrian volumes were relatively consistent between AM and PM peak periods with

a roughly equal number crossing to and from points 1 and 2 with somewhat fewer pedestrians crossing between

points 1 and 3 and points 2 and 3 A similar dynamic occurred during Saturday mid-day peak (for more detail see

Nitsch Engineeringrsquos report that is included in the Appendix)

The following graphics illustrate the pedestrian crossing times for each of the eight movements listed above based

on the theoretical minmax crossing times and the observed crossing times per the 11 hour video recordings



Not enough observations or video unclear








23 Underground Utilities and Infrastructure

One of the potential solutions to improved pedestrian access at Leverett Circle is a new overpass structure Given this

possibility an understanding of the existing underground utilities and other infrastructure is needed Infrastructure

location will have an impact on the design of any overpass solution as elements such as tunnels and utilities will

present constraints on the potential locations of overpass and ramp structural supports

CAT construction at Leverett Circle included the addition of the eastbound Storrow Drive to I-93 underpass and this

in turn required the relocation of many utilities to a relatively narrow corridor beneath the Charles Street sidewalk

In the vicinity of a potential overpass the following major facilities will need to be taken into account

bull Storrow Drive eastbound and westbound underpass tunnels

bull 48rdquocombined sewer overflow along Charles Street

bull 12rdquo storm drain along Charles Street

bull 30rdquoMartha Road storm drain and twin 42rdquo storm drain siphon south of MBTA Station

bull Low service water main along Charles Street

bull Major electrical and MBTA AC power duct banks along Charles Street



24 MBTA Science ParkWest End Station Accessibility Improvements

Science Park Station is part of the MBTA Green Linersquos ldquoErdquo service between Lechmere and heath Street and sits in the

center of Leverett Circle Once the proposed Green Line extension to Medford is completed in 2016 (approximately)

the ldquoErdquo line will be extended to union Square in Somerville and the station will also be served by an extension of the

ldquoDrdquo line to Medford

According to the MBTArsquos 2009 Blue Book average weekday boardings at the station ranged from 808-1047 during

the years of 2007-08 Currently Science Park is an elevated station that is not fully accessible but construction has

recently begun to include two new elevators a renovated mezzanine sitting 85rsquo above sidewalk grade and other

platform improvements After the $135 million project is complete the station will fully comply with the Americans

with Disabilities Act According to the MBTA the design did not specifically take into account the development of

a potential pedestrianbike overpass adjacent to it however except for some constraints discussed in this report

it does not appear that the new configuration precludes the attachment of a spur from the primary section of a

potential bridge over Leverett Circle

Sketch view of the proposed Science Park Station entry area and elevator tower

(from MBTArsquos ENf Environmental Assessment 4-f Statement report cover)



25 Craigie Bridge and Drawbridge Rehabilitation project

As part of MassDOTrsquos Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) the Craigie Bridge and Drawbridge Rehabilitation project

is currently under construction Expected completion date is late summer of 2011 At the time of this report all

eastbound traffic along the OrsquoBrien highwayRoute 28 between the Museum of Sciencersquos entry drive and the Nashua

Street intersection has been closed to motor vehicle traffic westbound traffic and pedestrian and bicycles in both

directions is still permitted however It is important to note that all traffic counts analysis and videotaping for this

project was performed before the eastbound traffic restrictions were put into effect

Previous conditions along OrsquoBrien highway included three traffic lanes in each direction with 5rsquo to 6rsquo sidewalks along

both sides of the roadway Bicyclists shared the travel lanes with motor vehicles and the sidewalks with pedestrians

while the core of this ABP project is the rehabilitation of the bridge and drawbridge along this stretch of roadway

numerous pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety improvements are included in the design The sidewalk

along the south side of the roadway has been maintained at 8rsquo to allow for the inclusion of bike lanes Though not

finalized as of this date the preferred approach for bicycle travel through Leverett Circle is for a hybrid facility that

includes a mix of an eastbound bicycle lane and a marked bikeway across some of the traffic islands and parallel with

crosswalks There would be no direct westbound access for bicyclists through Leverett Circle though itrsquos understood

that somemdashespecially recreational riders on the weekendmdashwill cross from Martha Road to the Esplanade using the

sidewalk crosswalks and traffic islands along the south edge of the circle

The series of potential pedestrianbike bridge options studied in section 5 of this report incorporate the hybrid bike

facility as described above and continues it through the intersection for consistency

Proposed bike facility through Leverett Circle as currently planned (from howard Stein hudson)



26 Traffic Capacity and LOS Analysis

The current level of service (LOS) for all vehicle movements within Leverett Circle is presented in the table below

Additional detail can be found January 24 2011 study by Nitsch Engineering found in the appendix Location 1mdashthe

Nashua StreetOrsquoBrien highwayStorrow Drive intersectionmdashfunctions at LOS ldquoErdquo for weekday morning peak hour LOS

ldquoCrdquo during weekday evening peak hour and LOS ldquoDrdquo during the Saturday mid-day peak hour Location 2mdashthe Charles

StreetOrsquoBrien highwayMartha Road intersectionmdashfunctions at LOS ldquofrdquo during weekday morning and evening peak

hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour

One element that is important to note from the table above is the relatively high LOS of the Nashua Street

southbound through left-turn and right-turn movements in Location 1 This represents a potential opportunity to

experiment with providing less green time for motor vehicles approaching Leverett Circle along Nashua Street In

section 5 of this report the reallocation of some of this green time to benefit pedestrians is proposed and analyzed



27 Crash Data and Analysis

MassDOTrsquos crash data from the years 2006-2008 was analyzed for this report During this period the present

intersection geometry with at-grade crosswalk improvements was complete The data is summarized in the table

below

In this three-year period there was an average of 23 and 9 reported crashes per year at Locations 1 and 2

respectively A total of 97 crashes were reported of which 60 crashes involved property damage and 28 involved

personal injury Though the reports for 39 crashes did not indicate what type of collision occurred there were only

three reported collisions involving pedestrians and one involving a bicyclist There were no reported fatalities within

Leverett Circle in this time period The crash rate at location 1 was 177 accidents per million entering vehicles

Crash rate at location 2 was 085 accidents per million entering vehicles Given that the statewide crash average for

signalized intersections is 082 this suggests that safety improvements for all users of Leverett Circlemdashespecially at

intersection 1mdashshould be considered



3

REGULATORY PERMITTING AND JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

3 Regulatory Permitting And Jurisdictional Issues

The Study team was tasked with researching the regulatory and permitting commitments pertaining to

the ldquoreplacementrdquo of the former pedestrian overpass at Leverett circle The team reviewed relevant historic

correspondence files provided by MassDOT and met with MEPA officials february 15 2011 The following sections

provide a summary of our findings to date

31 Identification of legal commitments to provide pedestrian overpass

The construction of a pedestrianbike overpass at Leverett circle is a mitigation commitment of the central Artery

Tunnel (cAT) and charles River crossing projects The commitment is memorialized in project documents developed

pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) chapter 91 authorizations as well as formal

interagency Memorandums of Agreement Key references include the following

The Massachusetts Department of Public works (DPw) Section 61 findings on the 1990 Supplemental final

Environmental Impact Report dated September 5 1991

Leverett Circle will be reconfigured re-landscaped and enlarged Pedestrian overpasses will be reconstructed with

one or two new overpasses on the Nashua Street parcel Historic buildings will be improved at the old dam and site

improvements including new walkways will be made on each side [p10]

The Amendment and Restatement of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the Executive Office of

Transportation and construction the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs the Massachusetts Highway

Department and the Metropolitan District commission Section 1B4 Leverett circleStorrow Drive dated December

30 1993

Provide new pedestrian overpass between Leverett CircleScience Park MBTA Station and Nashua Street Park [p9]

The Metropolitan District commission (MDc) consolidated chapter 91 License Application dated January 1995

The present Leverett CircleStorrow Drive intersection is to be reconfigured under the Central ArteryTunnel Highway

Program and includes replacing the existing pedestrian overpasses [Application Attachments for BRP WW 01 for

Leverett CircleStorrow Drive 2]

The Section 61 findings on the charles River crossing final Environmental Impact Report dated November 1995 and

submitted to MEPA on December 18 1995

Improved green spaces at Leverett Circle appropriate architectural treatment of the roadway underpass and boat

section and a pedestrian overpass between the MBTA Station and Nashua Street Park Design refinements since the

FSEIR have shortened the length of the required boat section in this area and provided for more attractive and safer

pedestrian crossing at OrsquoBrien Highway in the vicinity of the historic Street Railway viaduct [p3-2]

The Massachusetts MassDEP chapter 91 License 7611 dated July 16 1998 addresses the pedestrian footbridge by

reference HALVORSON DESIGN PARTNERSHIP with ALTA | HDR | NITScH | EPSILON


The MHD shall restore all existing walkways public open spaces and roadway surfaces within Chapter 91 jurisdiction

impacted by any project activities to pre-construction conditions Said restoration shall be completed within 60 days

after the area is no longer needed for CAT construction purposes unless otherwise approved by the DEP [Special

Condition 15]

The pedestrian footbridge will require additional chapter 91review and approval from MassDEP pursuant to a Project

Modification to License 7611 issued on June 28 2002 The terms of the authorization restate Special condition 15

and state additionally that

hellipthe Licensee shall submit to the Department (Waterways Regulation Program) for approval with a copy to all

commenters pursuant to Special condition No 5 the final plans for the ldquoLeverett Circle Pedestrian Bridgerdquo to ensure

consistency with the conditions of [License 7611]

The commitment is also reflected in federal documents including the charles River crossing final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement Report dated December 1993 (Volume 1 pp 4-54 Table 6-1 p 4(f )-19) and

the federal Highway Administration charles River crossing Record of Decision (p16 and Section 33 Long - Term

Measures 34)

32 MEPA Office perspective (Section 61 findings)

On review of the above referenced project materials the MEPA Office has communicated that the record clearly

establishes the requirement to replace the pedestrian footbridge as a mitigation commitment The MEPA Office also

indicated that it recognizes that the proponent (MassDOT) may choose to reevaluate the proposed design solution

based on comprehensive planning that reflects analysis of current conditions and consultation with the charles

River crossing citizens Advisory committee and other commenting parties If alternative pedestrian crossing options

were to be proposed as the result of such ongoing analysis additional MEPA review in the form of a Notice of Project

change would be required

A Notice of Project change for lapse of time pursuant to the MEPA regulations at 301 cMR 301 1110(2) is not

required based on 301 cMR 301 1110(2)(b)2 (lapse of more than three years between notice of availability of the

SfEIR and commencement of construction) MassDOT and predecessor agencies as the project proponents have

continued to take major steps in a continuous sequence to advance the project as evidenced by interim street-level

site improvements project planning and public process associated with the proposed pedestrian footbridge and

continued notification to MassDEP by way of public meeting otices and ch 91 License 7611 construction period

extension requests pursuant to the chapter 91 license (see above)

a Point in permitting when commitment was made

As listed above the initial regulatory commitment occurs in the Massachusetts Department of Public works (DPw)

Section 61 findings on the 1990 Supplemental final Environmental Impact Report dated September 5 1991 The

commitment was maintained and incorporated in subsequent project documents as referenced above



b Changes to the commitment made over time

The commitment to provide a pedestrian footbridge has not been modified since the Section 61 finding issued in

1991

c Identification of legal commitments re design of pedestrian footbridge

Section 31 above references cAT project authorizations that identify the location of the pedestrian footbridge

These materials also address required design standards but do not explicitly specify dimensional requirements Rather

MassDEP regulatory requirements regarding design standards including the requirement that the width of the

pedestrian footbridge be a minimum of twelve feet clear are addressed by reference to design guidelines established

under the 1993 MOA as described below

The MHD Section 61 finding for the Area North of causeway issued in 1995 in reference to the pedestrian footbridge

as one of several components of mitigation identified in the MOA states that

Performance standards for these components require a path adequate for anticipated use with a minimum width of 10

to 12 feet and standards of quality typical of other parks in the Charles River Reservation [p3-3]

The MassDEP consolidated written Determination (cwD) on the charles River crossing issued in 1996 identifies

and incorporates parkland mitigation measures and design standards applicable to the pedestrian footbridge by

reference to the 1993 MOA stating that ldquothe MOA outlines the specific parkland mitigation measures and minimum

performance standards to be achievedrdquo [p31] The MOA does not specify a design standard for the pedestrian

footbridge by name but states that

hellipthe level of quality that is to be achieved shall be typical of other parks in the Charles River ReservationhellipPedestrian

and bicycle access shall be continuous along both banks of the river shall meet all applicable guidelines for accessibility

and shall provide for separation of pedestrians and bicycles where appropriate Path widths shall be adequate for

anticipated use with a minimum width of 10 ndash 12 feet for principal paths [IB2]

The cwD identifies special conditions applicable to both MHD and MDc under MHD Special condition 23b the cwD

requires that pedestrian pathways be a minimum of twelve feet clear along the waterrsquos edge eight feet clear along

roadways and that bicycle pathways be a minimum of ten feet clear In addition the cwD specifically states that

Pedestrian bridges shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet clear and designed in consultation with the MBTA DEP may

allow reduced widths upon a clear documentation by the MDC or MHD demonstrating that design constraints preclude

the full clear width from being achieved [p41]

under MDc Special condition 21a the cwD states that mitigation described in the MOA ldquohellipshall meet the minimum

parkland design standards described in the MOA and as further described hereinrdquo The special condition repeats the

dimensional standards specified in MHD Special condition 23b does not include the reference to pedestrian bridges



while the MassDEP cwD does not require that the Leverett circle footbridge be designed with a minimum width

of twelve feet clear by name the special conditions clearly establish the regulatory expectation that the MOA

commitment to twelve feet clear is the applicable and required design standard

33 Identification of legal commitments regarding timing of pedestrian footbridge construction

As discussed above the MassDEP chapter 91 License 7611 does not specifically reference the pedestrian footbridge

but does impose the general condition that

hellipall existing walkways public open spaces and roadway surfaces within Chapter 91 jurisdiction impacted by any

project activities to pre-construction conditionshellipwithin 60 days after the area is no longer needed for CAT construction

purposes unless otherwise approved by the DEP

A MassDEP Project Modification for License 7611 issued to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) on June 28

2002 related to surface restoration elements (including among other elements demolition of the existing footbridge

and construction of a temporary footbridge) established two conditions related to the timing of construction of the

pedestrian footbridge

first MassDEP requires that the surface restoration elements comply with Special condition 15 described

above and the condition therein that all restoration be completed and open to the public within sixty days of the

completed construction contract If construction of the pedestrian footbridge does not meet this schedule a license

modification is required pursuant to Special condition 5 of License 7611 which specifies that MHD [now MassDOT]

provide a written request and plans associated with proposed modifications to MassDEP the MDc [now DcR] the

Mayor and city council of the city of Boston the Boston conservation commission the Massachusetts coastal Zone

Management Office the MBTA and interveners for a ten day comment period

Second the License Modification requires that final plans for the pedestrian footbridge be submitted to MassDEP also

pursuant to Special condition 5 as described under Section 30 above

Last Special condition 3 of License 7611 states that the construction period for work authorized under the license

(ten years from date of issuance on July 16 1998) can be extended by MassDEP without public notice for one or more

one-year periods based on written request from the licensee MassDOT provided MassDEP with such notification

most recently on May 4 2010



4 BEST PRACTICES AND CASE STUDIES FOR

PEDESTRIANBIKE OVERPASSES

4 Best Practices And Case Studies For PedestrianBike Overpasses

As described above one of the potential solutions to improve pedestrian conditions at Leverett circle is an overpass

either with or without supplemental at-grade crossings The Study Team used a number of documents for guidance

in developing and analyzing alternatives including the following

bull Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities ndash A Recommended Practice the Institute of Transportation

Engineers (ITE) chapter 10 esp pages 77-78 March 1998

bull Florida Pedestrian Planning and Design Handbook Chapter 20 ndash Grade Separated Crossings pages 169-172

bull City of Madison Wisconsin PedestrianBicycle Grade Separation Worksheet (Based on Design and Safety of

Pedestrian facilities a Proposed Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers chapter

10 ldquoGrade Separated crossingsrdquo December 1994)

o This excerpt is of particular note Perceived ease of accessibility convenience factor R = ratio of

time to travel on the over- or underpass divided by time to travel at grade level 1985 study

indicated 95 of pedestrians would use an underpass and 70 would use an overpass if R=1 (no

time difference) It also found that very few would us an overpass if R=15 (50 time difference)

bull Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines for Texas Texas Transportation Institute December 2000

It should be noted that all of these documents are based on the ITE guide listed above Below is the typical language

used in the guides This language was excerpted from Texas

Past research has shown the effectiveness of grade-separated pedestrian crossings depends upon the perceived effort

and time to use it For example Figure 41 (not shown) defines a convenience measure R and compares it to the

percentage of pedestrians likely to use a grade-separated crossing The figure shows that 95 percent of pedestrians will

likely use an underpass and 70 percent will likely use an overpass if the travel times at-grade and grade-separated are

equal (ie R=1) Similarly less than 5 percent would use either an overpass or an underpass if it takes 50 percent longer

(R=15)

Other studies have shown that pedestrians use grade-separated crossings more often if the elevation change can be

minimized or worked into the normal path of pedestrian movement For example switchback ramps are often used

for ADA compliance but provide a time-consuming approach for some pedestrians Although more right-of-way may

be required the site topography at the approaches to the crossing may be able to be modified to better accomplish

the elevation change without especially long andor switchback ramps

A 1988 synthesis by Zegeer and Zegeer suggested that grade-separated pedestrian crossings are most beneficial

under the following conditions

bull where there is moderate to high pedestrian demand to cross a freeway or expressway

bull where there is a large number of young children (ie particularly near schools) who must regularly cross a

high-speed or high-volume roadway



bull on streets having high vehicle volumes and high pedestrian crossing volumes and where there is an extreme

hazard for pedestrians (eg on wide streets with high-speed traffic and poor sight distance) and

bull where one or more of the conditions stated above exists in conjunction with a well-defined pedestrian

origin and destination (eg residential neighborhood across a busy street from a school a parking structure

affiliated with a university or apartment complex near a shopping mall)

(Zeeger CV and Zeeger SF ldquoPedestrians and Traffic-Control Measuresrdquo Synthesis of Highway Practice 139 Transportation

research Board November 1988)

The document Warrants for Pedestrian Over and Underpasses suggests more specific criteria and other general

considerations for grade-separated pedestrian crossings

bull The pedestrian hourly volume should be more than 300 in the four highest continuous hour periods if

the vehicle speed is more than 40 mph and the proposed sites are in urban areas and not over or under

a freeway Otherwise the pedestrian volume should be more than 100 pedestrians in the four highest

continuous hour periods

bull vehicle volume should be more than 10000 in the same four-hour period used for the pedestrian volume

warrant or have an ADT volume greater than 35000 if vehicle speed is over 40 mph and the proposed site(s)

are in urban areas If these two conditions are not met the vehicle volume should be more than 7500 in the

four hours or have an ADT greater than 25000

bull The proposed site should be at least 600 feet from the nearest alternative ldquosaferdquo crossing A ldquosaferdquo crossing is

defined as a location where a traffic control device stops vehicles to create adequate gaps for pedestrians to

cross Another ldquosaferdquo crossing is an existing overpass or underpass near the proposed facility

bull A physical barrier is desirable to prohibit at-grade crossing of the roadway as part of the overpass or

underpass design plan

bull Artificial lighting should be provided to reduce potential crime against users of the underpasses or

overpasses It may be appropriate to light underpasses 24 hours a day and overpasses at night

bull Topography of the proposed site should be such as to minimize changes in elevation for users of overpasses

and underpasses and to help ensure that construction costs are not excessive Elevation change is a factor

that affects the convenience of users

bull A specific need may exist for a grade-separated crossing based on the existing or proposed land use(s)

adjoining the proposed development site that generates pedestrian trips This land use should have a direct

access to the grade-separated facility

bull Funding for construction of underpass or overpass must be available prior to a commitment to construct it

(Axler EA Warrants for Pedestrian Over and Underpasses Report No FHWARD-84-082 US DOT Washington DC July 1984)

In addition to the traffic and pedestrian volume considered in these warrants a benefit-cost analysis is often also

desirable for grade-separated pedestrian crossings Details on conducting a benefit-cost analysis can be found in


leveReTT CIRCle PeDeSTRIAn AnD BICyCle CRoSSInG STuDy | APRIl 2011 26

NcHRP Report 189 (ldquoQuantifying the Benefits of Separating Pedestrians and Vehiclesrdquo 1978) and nCHRP Report 240 (ldquoA

Manual to Determine the Benefits of Separating Pedestrians and Vehiclesrdquo 1981)rdquo

41 Case Studies of pedestrianbike overpasses adjacent to at-grade connections

To also help the team understand the optimal conditions for pedestrian and bicycle overpasses case studies from

other communities were investigated There are thousands of pedestrianbike overpasses throughout the united

States most passing over busy highways expressways and railroad tracks These are not relevant for this study If

an overpass is ultimately located at leverett Circle it will be in conjunction with at-grade pedestrian facilities that

connect some or all legs of the complex intersection while finding a precise precedent proved difficult there are a

handful of locations of pedestrian and bike overpasses that exist in close proximity to a signalized intersection with

functioning at-grade pedestrian crossings Examples presented below include

bull Bunker Hill Community College Charlestown MA bull Route 9A46th Street new york ny

bull Route 9AChambers Street new york ny bull Aurora Avenue n155th Street Shoreline WA

Bunker Hill Community College Charlestown MA

The pedestrianbike overpass at this location

was developed to provide an enhanced link from

charlestown to the BHcc Main campus The

Rutherford Avenue overpass connects directly to

an elevated plaza adjacent to the A Building which

houses the campus auditorium and art gallery This

plaza also provides a direct connection (via a second

pedestrian bridge) to the MBTA community college

station along the Orange Line station The east end of

the bridge features a stairway and switchback stair to

connect to the sidewalk and an adjacent parking lot

(from wwwbingmapscom)

Route 9AChambers Street Lower Manhattan New York NY

The pedestrian overpass is a long-span arched bridge

over Route 9A in the Battery Park City section of lower

Manhattan Though an at-grade crosswalk also exists

at the chambers Street intersection the overpass

was developed in conjunction with Stuyvesant High

School which lies on the west side of Route 9A

Though accessible from the sidewalk the bridge also

connects directly to the second floor of the school

Connections to the sidewalk include both stairs and

an elevator There are no ramps


Aerial View of Rutherford Avenue overpass

Chambers Street view to the east across Route 9A (from wwwmapsgooglecom)


Route 9AWest 46th Street Lower Manhattan New York NY

The pedestrianbike bridge at the end of West 46th

Street in Manhattan spans over Route 9A adjacent

to a signalized intersection with well-designed

crosswalk Both provide connections to the Intrepid

Sea Air amp Space Museum consisting of a small

museum building and the retired world war II-era

Intrepid aircraft carrier (not docked in the photo

at right) under normal conditions the overpass

connects directly to a large landing in front of the

main entry to the aircraft carrier During spring and

summer the Intrepid is one of the largest tourist

attractions in new york drawing nearly one million

visitors a year according to the museumrsquos web site (from wwwbingmapscom)

Aurora AvenueN 155th Street Shoreline WA

This pedestrianbike overpass project was

recently completed as part of the Aurora corridor

Project the reconstruction of the three miles of

Aurora Avenue North (State Route 99) that run

through the city of Shoreline Shorelinersquos section

of SR-99 carries 40000 - 45000 vehicles per day

and is a major transit route

According to the cityrsquos web site the ldquogoal of the

project was to improve pedestrian and vehicle

safety pedestrian and disabled access vehicular

capacity traffic flow transit speed and reliability

nighttime visibility and safety stormwater

quality and management economic investment

potential and streetscape amenitiesrdquo Paralleling

Aurora Avenue is the Interurban Trail a three-

mile multi-use path developed along the former

Interurban Rail Line where the trail crossed N

155th Street a new overpass was developed

in conjunction with at-grade pedestrian

improvements including decorative crosswalks

new sidewalks and the removal or free right-turn

lanes and their accompanying pork-chop islands BeforeAfter aerial view of the Aurora155 Street intersection (from wwwbingmapscom)

Aerial View of Route 9A and West 46 th Street intersection

th



Summary of Case Studies

The examples above show a range of pedestrianbike overpasses over busy roadways adjacent to intersections with

at-grade pedestrian facilities unlike a potential overpass at leverett Circle none of them passed over the entire

intersection itself Instead they provided connectivity along one edge in order to connect to existing attractions or

to maintain the alignment of a multi-use trail Of particular note all of the examples provide direct connectivity to

a facility or space that is above the grade of the roadway below In other words the team was not able to find any

examples of overpasses adjacent to at-grade connections that required users to ascend one side of the overpass cross

the structure then descend on the other side other than connections to the MBTA Science Park station mezzanine

this would be the necessary movement for those wishing to cross a potential pedestrianbike overpass over leverett

circle

42 Evaluation Criteria for Potential PedestrianBike Overpass

The Best Practices and case Studies research described above were used to inform a series of criteria that is used to

evaluate the pedestrian and bike connectivity options presented in the next section These options include multiple

overpass alternatives with or without at-grade connectivity improvements as well as an option where only at-grade

improvements are incorporated The criteria also derive from meetings with various stakeholders and were presented

in draft form at the December 2010 public meeting held in conjunction with this study The criteria include

1 Safety for all users

2 Security of all users

3 Perception of Required out-of-direction Travel

4 Length of Travel for Non-Motorized users

5 Time of Travel for Non-Motorized users (including expected wait time at signals)

6 Cost and Constructability (bridge structure utilities signals etc)

7 Sight Line considerations (obstruction issues shadows etc)

8 Overall Pedestrian Accommodation and convenience

9 Overall Bicycle Accommodation and convenience

10 functionality of Intersection for all users

11 Operational Impacts on Vehicular Movements

12 Aesthetic Impacts to Intersection

Evaluation results of the various options are presented at the end of the next section It is important to note that

evaluation results should be used for advisory purposes only They are not intended to be a ldquofinal scorerdquo that makes

the ultimate decision which of the options is the right one for Leverett circle



5 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS

5 Conceptual Design Options

The primary purpose of this report is to provide MassDOT with information and analysis that will help to inform the

agencyrsquos final decision about the type of pedestrianbicycle crossing facilities to provide at Leverett circle As such

three options were studied

bull An ldquoat-grade onlyrdquo option that includes at-grade intersection improvements for the benefit of pedestrian and

bicyclist safety

bull Three overpass alternatives that include some or all of the at-grade improvements developed above

bull Three overpass alternatives that retain only the minimum at-grade pedestrian connections required to cross

OrsquoBrien Highway andor Nashua Street to and from the MBTA station

51 Option 1 ldquoAt-Grade Onlyrdquo with improvements

The suggested improvements for pedestrian at-grade connectivity derive from two sources MassDOTrsquos review of

recommendations made originally by walkBoston and additional recommendations developed as part of this Study

Bicycle improvements have primarily been incorporated from the recent craigie Bridge design work by a separate

consulting team with input from the Leverett circle team

Proposed at-grade improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists at Leverett Circle



The combined recommendations for enhancements to the existing at-grade crossings still require a final review

by MassDOT and may be implemented after the completion of the craigie Bridge rehabilitation project which

is currently under construction The proposed program of recommended enhancements will be communicated

to the cities of Boston and cambridge DcR the MBTA adjacent neighborhoods and other stakeholders prior to

implementation

The at-grade improvements include both physical infrastructure changesmdashstriping new crosswalks revised curbs

signage and new bicycle signal headsmdashand changes to the signal operations Infrastructure improvements are

summarized in the diagram on page 31 above

Arguably the most significant improvement for pedestrian safety and connectivity is the shifting of the east crosswalk

at the Nashua StreetOrsquoBrien HighwayStorrow Drive intersection further to the east of the charles Street double left

turn lanes This accommodates the general ldquodesire linerdquo movement that many pedestrians currently use when going

to and from the MBTA station (see section 21) Shifting this crosswalk east eliminates one of the primary accessibility

concerns that many in the community have had since the intersection was complete in 2006 left-turning vehicles

from Nashua Street conflicting with pedestrians who have the right of way while crossing OrsquoBrien Highway The new

crosswalk location will be signaled to allow crossing movement during the first phase of the signal cycle when traffic

from charles Street is turning left to OrsquoBrien Highway The current timing of Phase 1 of the cycle is only 19 seconds

however not enough for a slow-moving pedestrian to safely cross to and from Science Park station on the angled

crosswalk In consequence new signal phasing is proposed to give more crossing time for those on foot To do so

Phase 2 of the cycle is proposed to be split in order to give 12 fewer seconds of green time for southbound right-

through- and left-turning traffic along Nashua Street (where LOS grades range from ldquoBrdquo to ldquoCrdquo during AM PM and

Saturday mid-day peaks) Right-turning traffic from Charles Street continues its movement during both portions of

the split 2nd phase however

In addition the splitting of Phase 2 provides the opportunity to restrict right turn on red (RTOR) movement for

eastbound traffic on OrsquoBrien Highway A right-turn signal is proposed for this movement This signal would display

a solid red arrow for the 19 seconds of Phase 1 along with the shorter portion of the split 2nd phase combined this

provides 31 seconds of exclusive pedestrian and bicycle crossing time at three of the legs of the NashuaOrsquoBrien

Storrow intersection During the subsequent 35 seconds of Phase 2 the red arrow would be flashing and permit

RTOR to Storrow Drive wB during gaps in Nashua Streetrsquos through traffic (Please note the full impact of this partial

restriction to RTOR movement onto Storrow Drive is still being studied for its impact) The proposed traffic signal

timing and phasing is shown in the two diagrams on the following pages







52 Option 2 PedestrianBike Overpass with Improved At-Grade Crossing Alternatives

Three design alternatives were studied to determine multiple options to create a fully-accessible pedestrianbike

overpass at Leverett Circle The three alternatives all assumed the incorporation of the at-grade improvements and

signal-phase adjustments described in section 51 above The themes for the three alternatives include

bull Curving Overpass A single curving overpass connecting the SW corner of the NashuaOrsquoBrienStorrow

intersection with the SE corner of the charlesOrsquoBrienMartha intersection and a spur to the MBTA station

(similar in concept to the Rosales + Partners proposal)

bull Three-legged Overpass A three-legged overpass connecting the SW corner of the NashuaOrsquoBrienStorrow


(similar in concept to the HNTBc19E6 design)

bull Partial Connection A partial curving overpass connecting the SW corner of the NashuaOrsquoBrienStorrow

intersection with the MBTA station only

To varying degrees all overpass options improve mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists in the Leverett circle area

by providing a grade-separated alternative The Curving and Three-legged options in particular allow people to pass

over one of the busiest intersections in the city of Boston without waiting for pedestrian crossing signals This option

also provides an alternative for those who are uncomfortable crossing concurrently with turning vehicles

for the west End community this would provide a major benefit to the elderly those with disabilities and families

with young children A grade-separated connection to the MBTA station might also induce a greater level of use of

the Science Park station as a number of west End residents have reported that they currently walk the extra distance

to the North Station MBTA station to avoid having to cross Leverett circle at grade All overpass options will also

enhance connections between Science Park Station and the charles River Reservation and the Museum of Science

for many large school groups and families with young children this will be viewed as a major mobility improvement

There are a number of design criteria that were used when developing a conceptual design for the three overpass

alternatives These included

1 12rsquo-0rdquo minimum bridge width for consistency with MassDEP Consolidated Written Determination on the

Charles River Crossing issued in 1996 (AASHTO guideline for pedestrian bicycle overpasses is 10rsquo-0rdquo)

2 16rsquo-6rdquo clear height of structure above roadway (note that trucks are unrestricted along Charles Street EB and

Craigie Bridge to I-93 and Martha Road connection)

3 Depth of overpass structure 14rdquo from top of walking surface to outside bottom of structure (It was assumed

that the structure would consist of integral precast concrete walkway girder and railing system)

4 ADAAG and MassAAB Accessible Route Requirements (lt5 running slope without landings 5-8 running

slope designed as a ramp with landings)

5 Limit of Work to remain within existing State ROW and easements

6 Limited impacts to intersection vehicular capacity

7 Limited impacts to intersection geometry (minor changes to geometry only)

8 Limited impacts to underground utilities

9 compatible with MBTA Science Park Station improvements and ideally providing a connection to the



mezzanine level ldquounpaidrdquo area as well as access to the sidewalk below

10 compatible with craigie Bridge and Drawbridge final roadway conditions

11 Maintain or improve connectivity to Charles River Basin parkland for non-motorized users

12 Compatible with existing or potentially improved at-grade pedestrian connections

When developing the conceptual alternatives based on the three themes it quickly became clear that it would be

difficult to satisfy all twelve of the design criteria Of the three ldquobaserdquo alternatives presented on the following pages

only Alternative 2 the Three-legged Overpass has the potential to completely satisfy the design criteria

Alternatives 1 and 3 are not able to satisfy key criteria and are presented for informational purposes for these

schemes to be fully functional and meet more of the key criteria listed above alterations to the designs were required

and therefore sub-alternatives 1A 1B 3A and 3B were developed for additional evaluation These sub-alternatives

illustrate how overpass designs based on base Alternatives 1 and 3 could work if there was flexibility in at least one of

the criteria

Alternative 1 Curving Overpass

This alternative attempted to provide access from both the southwest StorrowOrsquoBrien corner (ldquoState Police cornerrdquo)

and the Martha Road corner to the mezzanine level of the MBTA Green Line Science Park Station It is similar to

the Rosales + Partners concept with the important difference that the MBTA spur is located on the west side of

the mezzanine rather than the east due to the new elevator lobby Issues concerning this alternative include the

following

bull The controlling MBTA mezzanine elevation of 12765 results in a vertical clearance of only 124 feet over the

intersection In the Rosales + Partners design the spur to the Science Park station mezzanine approached

from the east but this does not appear feasible given the locations of the proposed MBTA lobby and elevator

tower An ldquoeasterly spurrdquo could not vertically clear the elevator lobby while maintaining ADA-compliant ramp

slopes It should also be noted that the Rosales + Partners concept assumed a minimum clearance of 14rsquo-6rdquo

over roadways versus the 16rsquo-6rdquo criteria used in this study

bull The 124rsquo vertical clearance is substandard and could represent a potential ldquofatal flawrdquo for this alternative The

available clearance would not meet even a relaxed criterion such as 14-feet which is sometimes used for

local roadways in urban areas

In addition to the above significant problems with Alternative 1 the following issues were also identified

bull The junction of the MBTA spur and the main overpass structure would occur above the roadway As a

structural support cannot be located at this location the complexity of the design and construction would

be increased perhaps significantly along with the cost

bull Structural piers will have to be constructed over the Storrow Drive Westbound tunnel at the MBTA island

bull At the Charles StreetMartha Road corner foundations for the ramp support columns may be in conflict with

utilities



bull The required length of ramp on the Esplanade results in the ramp switchback being located very close to

the State Police driveway onto Storrow Drive This may present sight distance issues at the driveway and also

results in the Storrow Drive sidewalk being relocated to the edge of Storrow Drive with no buffer

On the following page is a conceptual plan diagram showing the alignment of pedestrianbike overpass

Alternative 1 with areas of concern highlighted Additionally included is a diagram and matrix illustrating

the pedestrian walking distance and time for overpass Alternative 1 versus the distance and time required to

cross Leverett Circle using the Study Teamrsquos proposed at-grade improvements









Alternative 2 Three-Legged Overpass

This concept is similar to the pedestrian overpass design originally included in contract c19E6 The concept has three

branches which meet at the Charles Street median island All horizontal and vertical clearances are met however the

following issues were indentified






utilities

On the following page is a conceptual plan diagram showing the alignment of pedestrianbike overpass Alternative

2 with areas of concern highlighted Additionally included is a diagram and matrix illustrating the pedestrian walking

distance and time for overpass Alternative 2 versus the distance and time required to cross Leverett Circle using the

Study Teamrsquos proposed at-grade improvements









Alternative 3 Partial Connection

This alternative takes the same approach as Alternative 1 but only provides access between the T station and the

ldquoPolice Stationrdquo corner Unlike Alternative 1 this concept provides the required 165 foot vertical clearance above the

roadway Doing so however results in what appears to be a fatal flaw The ramps required to meet the controlling

mezzanine elevation must approach the mezzanine from the east and there is insufficient vertical clearance above

the new MBTA elevator lobby structure to do so

In addition to the above the following issues were also identified















As noted on previous pages overpass Alternatives 1 and 3 include a number of flaws which preclude the ability to

serve their primary purpose These include the inability to achieve a 165rsquo (or even a 14rsquo) clearance over the roadway

and the difficulty of developing a functional connection to the MBTA stationrsquos mezzanine Because of this two sub-

options were developed for both alternatives that required a slight rethinking of the connectivity of each alternative

bull Alternatives 1A and 3A ndash provide connections to the MBTA inbound platform (rather than mezzanine)

bull Alternatives 1B and 3B ndash premised on the removal of one WB traffic lane in front of the MBTA station to

provide additional space for a ramp connection to the mezzanine (see section 21 of this Study for

discussion)

Alternative 1A Curving Overpass with Inbound Platform Access

To remedy the low vertical clearance of Alternative 1 Alternative 1A provides access to the inbound platform level of

the MBTA Science Park station which is 20 feet above the mezzanine Issues with this concept include

bull Sight distance will be affected at the State Police station driveway onto Storrow Drive

bull Structural foundations will have to be constructed over Storrow Drive Westbound tunnel

bull Structural foundations may conflict with the pump house building adjacent to the MBTA station

bull Structural foundations may conflict with combined sewer storm drain and other utilities

bull Provisions for fare-control will need to be provided either on the overpass structure itself or on the inbound

platform Both of these options are very space-constrained and this may not be feasible Further investigation

of this possibility will need to be explored with the MBTA

bull The overpass by only serving the inbound platform has significantly less functionality than is desirable

Access to and from the outbound platform would be technically available but would require a circuitous

trip via the ldquopaid siderdquo of the mezzanine level lobby





Alternative 1B Curving Overpass with WB Lane Removal

This alternative is able to provide access to the mezzanine level while meeting MassDOTrsquos minimum vertical clearance

of 165rsquo To do so one WB travel lane along the short block in front of the MBTA station would need to be removed in

order to relocate the curb to the south The pedestrian ramp would span parallel along the proposed widened curb

and then loop under the pedestrian overpass thus avoiding the lobby roof Issues with this alternative include

bull Sight distance will be affected at the State Police station driveway to Storrow Drive






Alternative 3A Partial Connection to MBTA Inbound Platform

In this concept ADA access is provided to the inbound platform level and also stairwell access to the mezzanine level

All vertical clearances are met in this alternative Issues include


bull Structural foundations may conflict with combined sewer and other utilities

bull Structural foundations may be required over Storrow Drive Westbound tunnel




bull The overpass by providing ADA access to only the inbound platform has significantly less functionality than

is desirable Access to and from the outbound platform would be technically available but would require a

circuitous trip via the ldquopaid siderdquo of the mezzanine level lobby





Alternative 3B Partial Connection with WB Lane Removal

Like Alternative 1B this alternative is able to provide access to the mezzanine level while meeting the required

minimum vertical clearance of 165rsquo To do so one WB travel lane along the short block in front of the MBTA station

would need to be removed in order to relocate the curb to the south The pedestrian ramp would span parallel along

the proposed widened curb and then loop under the pedestrian overpass to avoid the lobby roof Issues include


bull Structural foundations may conflict with storm drain and other utilities

bull Structural foundations may be required over the Storrow Drive WB tunnel





Based on the criteria discussed in section 42 of this report the five workable design alternatives (1A 1B 2 3A

and 3B) were evaluated using a 1-5 scale with 1 as poor 3 as fair and 5 as excellent The evaluation assumes that the

proposed at-grade improvements would be incorporated in all five potential overpass alternatives

Criteria At-grade only Alt 1A amp 1B Alt 2 Alt 3A amp 3B

Safety for all Users 4 5 5 5

Security of all Users 5 3 3 4

Perception of Required Out-of-direction Travel 5 4 2 4

Length of Travel for Non-motorized Users 5 4 3 4

Time of Travel for Non-Motorized Users 3-5 4 4 3-5

(including expected wait time at signals)

Constructability and cost (bridge structure utilities signals etc) 5 1 1 3

Sight Line Considerations (obstruction issues shadows etc) 5 3 3 4

Overall Pedestrian Accommodation and Convenience 3 5 5 5

Overall Bicycle Accommodation and Convenience 3 5 5 3

Functionality of Intersection for all Users 4 5 4 5

Operational Impacts on Vehicular Movements 4 4 4 4

Aesthetic Impacts to Intersection 5 3 2 3

TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49



53 Option 3 PedestrianBike Overpass with minimal at-grade pedestrian connections

The third option for Leverett circle is to develop a new pedestrianbike overpass (based on workable alternatives

1A 1B and 2 discussed above) and retain only the minimum at-grade pedestrian connections This would require

the removal of most of the existing crosswalks curb-cuts and pedestrian crossing signal heads within the two

intersections The crosswalkscurb cuts retained would be those that cross OrsquoBrien Highway (on the west side of the

intersection) and Nashua Street These two crosswalks would provide pedestrian and bike connections from Nashua

Street Park to the charles River Esplanade and to the MBTA station The pair would also provide a secondary route

tofrom the southwest corner of the intersection in front of the State Police Station to the MBTA station for those

who chose to remain at-grade To mitigate the desire to cross at-grade after pedestrian facilities have been removed

barriers (fencing and dense landscaping) will be needed to ensure that pedestrians use the overpass structure

It is important to note that with the removal of most at-grade pedestrian connections there will be no apparent

benefit to traffic capacity or LOS This is because none of the existing WALK signals prevent potential non-conflicting

traffic movements from occurring The most apparent benefit of removing most at-grade pedestrian facilities would

be to reduce conflicts between pedestrian and motor vehicles If all walkers (and some bicyclists) were to use the

potential overpass the number of pedestrianvehiclebicycle crashes would be expected to decrease This would

need to be balanced against 1) the additional walking time required to cross Leverett Circle and 2) the potential that

even with efforts to physically discourage or prevent inappropriate at-grade crossing (with fencing or landscaping for

example) some jaywalking would be likely

Option 3 diagram showing potential removal of at-grade pedestrian connections



6 SUMMARY

6 Summary

The key goals of the Leverett circle Pedestrian and Bicycle crossing Study were to analyze the conditions at Leverett

circle and study both at-grade and grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian safety enhancements The scope of

the study included the development of concepts and an initial feasibility assessment of pedestrian and cyclist

improvements at Leverett circle including evaluation of existing conditions and circulation patterns evaluation of

potential enhancements to existing at-grade crossings potential new grade-separated crossings and associated



Based on the existing conditions analysis crash data and field observations of motorist bicyclist and pedestrian

behavior it is clear that a number of potentially feasible at-grade improvements are possible These would enhance

connectivity and safety for non-motorized users of Leverett circle with no or minimal impacts to vehicle circulation or

intersection LOS These low and modest-cost improvements could be done relatively quickly and include

bull Signal enhancements

bull Pedestrian count-down timers in a number of locations

bull Better signage

bull Updated crosswalk markings

bull Relocation of the OrsquoBrien Hwy crosswalk in front of the MBTA Science Park station to the east of the double

left turn lanes from charles Street

bull Potential movement of curb line in front of the MBTA station

Even with the incorporation of the enhancements listed above concern over pedestrian safety is likely to remain

The cities of Boston and cambridge and community groups may still express the desire for a grade-separated

environment for the elderly the disabled and groups of children crossing Leverett circle tofrom the west End the

Esplanade and the MBTA station

for users whose route requires them to cross completely from the Police Station corner to the west End corner (ie

for whom the MBTA station is not a destination) it is difficult to predict what percentage would choose the overpass

option if an at-grade option was also available

As discussed in Section 4 available research suggests that a perceived ldquoconvenience factorrdquo can be calculated

to consider usersrsquo perceptions of how long the at-grade route would take compared with the grade-separated

alternative In analyzing the several Leverett circle overpass options presented in Section 5 this perceived

ldquoconveniencerdquo of an overpass is relatively low when compared with the minimum duration of crossing at-grade

However the overpass convenience values are considerably higher if the maximum likely at-grade crossing time is

considered In other words if someone arriving at the intersection just misses the crossing signal theyrsquore more likely

to choose the overpass because travel time across the intersection will be very similar to waiting for the next at-grade

opportunity conversely there are times in the signal cycle when a pedestrian arriving at the intersection will be able

to cross at-grade up to 3 times faster (depending on overpass option) than using an overpass

If a pedestrianbike overpass is built at this location case studies from other communities and the pedestrian crossing

distance and time analysis implies that the most likely user of the overpass would be those traveling to and from the

MBTA station Because the final destination is elevatedmdashthe station mezzanine levelmdashand the travel time would be



comparable to crossing at-grade many people of all abilities are likely to use the overpass especially if coming to or

from the southwest corner of the intersection

The primary beneficiaries of the proposed at-grade improvements are those wishing to travel between the MBTA

station and the west End Additionally the evaluation matrix at the end of section 52 points to the possibility of

satisfying nearly all of the connectivity and safety goals with a partial overpass over Leverett circle



LeverettCirRept-Cover-etc

Dividerspdf

LeverettCirRept-Chapt1

June 11 2010


LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + PLANNINg Accelerated Bridge Program

with Massachusetts Department of Transportation ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN

HDR ENGINEERING INC NITSCH ENGINEERING INC


Table of Contents

1 Background 1





6 Summary 59

Appendices 61

1 BACKGROUND

1 Background










































a 1800rsquos






b 1900rsquos




















North Station







Leverett circle






























































Program














highway EB










nearly constant







































































(Crosswalk D)


































OrsquoBrien highway



















































coherent identity






















crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D































































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf


Table of Contents

1 Background 1





6 Summary 59

Appendices 61

1 BACKGROUND

1 Background










































a 1800rsquos






b 1900rsquos




















North Station







Leverett circle






























































Program














highway EB










nearly constant







































































(Crosswalk D)


































OrsquoBrien highway



















































coherent identity






















crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D































































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf


1 BACKGROUND

1 Background










































a 1800rsquos






b 1900rsquos




















North Station







Leverett circle






























































Program














highway EB










nearly constant







































































(Crosswalk D)


































OrsquoBrien highway



















































coherent identity






















crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D































































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf


1 Background










































a 1800rsquos






b 1900rsquos




















North Station







Leverett circle






























































Program














highway EB










nearly constant







































































(Crosswalk D)


































OrsquoBrien highway



















































coherent identity






















crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D































































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf








a 1800rsquos






b 1900rsquos




















North Station







Leverett circle






























































Program














highway EB










nearly constant







































































(Crosswalk D)


































OrsquoBrien highway



















































coherent identity






















crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D































































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf



Leverett circle






























































Program














highway EB










nearly constant







































































(Crosswalk D)


































OrsquoBrien highway



















































coherent identity






















crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D































































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf




























Program














highway EB










nearly constant







































































(Crosswalk D)


































OrsquoBrien highway



















































coherent identity






















crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D































































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf



































































(Crosswalk D)


































OrsquoBrien highway



















































coherent identity






















crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D































































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf








































coherent identity






















crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D































































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf





















crosswalks C to B


crosswalks B to C


crosswalks E to D


crosswalks D to E


crosswalks E f G


crosswalks G f E


crosswalks D f G


crosswalks G f D































































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf






























































































below











3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf


3





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf





















30 1993


















Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf





Condition 15]










Measures 34)
























1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf




1991



















































































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf






















































(R=15)































































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf




















































































































th












circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf











circle






























bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf








bicyclist safety
















implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf






implementation


















































































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf
























































the criteria






following
















utilities



























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf


























utilities









































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf




































discussion)










































































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf




























































TOTAL 51-53 46 41 47-49
























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf























6 SUMMARY

6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf


6 Summary














bull Better signage


































Dividerspdf










Dividerspdf


charles river basin: leverett circle pedestrian and …. background leverett circle is located at...

Documents