They didn't have the nerve to deliver the news in person! It's sad, we'll get stuck with a half solution (missing the tunnel we really need here)

So the only option they will have to fix this mess afterwards is to create a fly-over along this green space to carry the traffic (like Rt93) creating a bigger eyesore!

Boom! Nailed it!

Jim - Your right the ship has sailed here. The only problem is we can't fix this now as it's an incomplete design that dooms us. The cost of correcting this after the fact will be very expensive Vs doing it right the first time.

Yes, we all like the idea of the open space and bringing together the disjointed parts caused by the current trench design. But, to create a design that fails to handle the traffic volumes correctly doesn't solve things here. Both designs offered us failed to deal with the realities of the volume of traffic (they didn't correctly study the traffic which was proven to them by Capuano and others).

The surface design with a tunnel under it was the correct design here. It still is!

The only answer I see here is stalling this project until they see the light of adding the tunnel which is sad as I too want this mess cleaned up and done right years ago.

Charles who is your tobacconist? Clearly have your head in smoke.

Rutherford Ave won't be safer, less noisy, or smog free in this design.

As the morning and afternoon commuter traffic will press their way through with little care for the pedestrians & bicyclists.

If on the other hand, you had a tunnel underneath to funnel this commuter traffic to, you would get what you want. Sorry to say thats not what we're getting here.

Dorie -

Sorry to tell you you won't be biking along or crossing Rutherford as it won't be safe to do so with this design during the commuting hours. Maybe on Sundays it will be safe otherwise think about other routes.

When is any final decision actually made by residents? I see what you're saying, but honestly, people were bickering about this so much that it seems the city just put a stamp on it so a.) no more money would be lost, and b.) to just get something started.

Clearly we had an even split between the two offered designs so they decided to pick for us instead of going back and re-think why we had a split.

It was clear to me what the answer should have been to solve this mess. They just didn't have the smarts to see it

So let me get this straight, Dan. You say clearly we are split as a community, and that they should have gone back to (and I am paraphrasing you here) figure out why your option is the best.

Nop - Rethink the solution: If A or B don't work come up with plan C.

Another subtle dig at renters?

I agree with you Joseph,
I am just curious of what kind of Parent would allow their child play on the edge of a highway?
Would you let them ride their bikes along Storrow Drive, or Memorial Drive?
I can hardly wait to see the crowds of walkers and jiggers and baby strollers going down the "Boulivard" on a Sunday afternoon.
One other question, what are they going to be seeing. Traffic, Rubbish trucks, Commecial trucks, not to think of the pollution with the traffic stopping at the traffic signals.
Oh yes, great idea.

@Matthew - A bit self conscious are you about being a renter? Get over it man! I wish you would reread my original post about renter vs homeowner. You'll see how foolish you're being. Way to stay on topic pal. And to answer you, no. Not at all.

Fact is that most young adults that move to Charlestown, once they begin having families, they move out of the city and into the burbs. All of them, no. Most of them, yes. Plenty of readers here will back that up. As your stay here in Charlestown will show you, your neighbors of today will not be your neighbors in five years. This is one of the biggest reasons that To...nah, not gonna open that can of worms.

Once again, my point is rather simple - less than half of the people who have signed their names in support will be living in Charlestown by the time this project is complete. But more importantly, to say the Surface Option will create more green space so kids can play on Rutherford Ave is a JOKE!!

Joseph,

It was just a question. Calm down.

Having said that, why would I have any reason to be "self concious"? You have just had a pattern of coming off a bit elitist. I read your original post. But I have to say that even after reading it, I still get the feeling that because you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding renters. It's not a big deal. Also, I explained (not that I had to) my reasons for renting. You are the one painting us with broad strokes.

Anyway, this is a discussion between people, and things sometimes go off topic. Deal with it.

Have a good one.

Tom
Do you actually believe that Rutherford Ave is working now as you state?
You honestly believe that closing the underpasses is a solution?
You honestly have to get out more and see the real problem, that is the underpass closed to 75% of the traffic that goes to Everett .instead of going into Sullivan Sq.
I hope that all of the Town suffers with the traffic flow thru the side streets once this is done, not only Rutherford ave traffic

What! Bob,
Really you can't cross the street now??????
Why? Is my question.
Even with the surface option you are not getting any SMALLER crossing area.
Did you attend ANY meetings? Just curious.

Rob get your running shoes ready you'll need them!

Helloooooo, Tom
That is because they took away, one,the overpass, two,the underpass, what don't you understand that both those necessary roadways relieved the problem that now exists in Sullivan Sq.

Tom - I have to agree with JAP here.

The mess we currently have is the creation of the DPW for not maintaining the viaduct so it had to be taken down (years ago). Then the current Alford St bridge work forced them to close the underpass.

If these were still present it would have relieved a good portion of the rotary traffic. That is not to say the solution we had was ideal here, it just worked!

@Robs - This isn't a "Greenway" though. That there lies the problem.

The Greenway in downtown Boston is great! There is no green space with this option. I spent my lunch looking at the plans again, and nowhere can I see any green space, just wider sidewalks.

If they buried Rutherford Ave and covered it up with grass, then you'd have a Greenway for kids and adults to play. Nobody is playing on Rutherford Ave with this surface option.

Yah, there will be plenty of Greenway - over by the cemetary behind the old VFW. Kids can play right next to the graveyard - sweet!

Robs - The Big Dig created the greenway, if we had a tunnel for the commuter traffic to take (Rt99) we would get similar results. Alas, all we'll get here is a mess with this incomplete design.

Seriously Charlie? Please tell me how making Rutherford Ave smaller will eventually reduce traffic? I mean, it is one of the few roads that leads out of (into) the city. How else are people going to/from 99? Or to 28? Or to 93N? Or Tobin? What about during an evacuation? Your comment is delusional. The fact that you're comparing a small, European city to Boston is comical, especially knowing full well the number of commuters that Boston employs from as far away as several hours. Bike lanes are one thing, I'm for it. Bike roads are another. Your anti-car, pro-bike perspective is all too clear and very selfish.

Joseph, I'm sorry you think I am anti-car. If I were anti-car, I would say "screw the drivers, they can deal with congestion". But that's not my opinion at all. The point of the article is to show that traffic is not like water in a pipe. Just because there are X number of cars on a street today doesn't mean there will be X number tomorrow. This gives us a lot of flexibility to making our neighborhoods safer, quieter, and more pleasing. It means the people who live in Charlestown and love it so much are not destined to living next to huge road that only serves people driving through at fast speeds. Cars are an important part of society but they are just one piece of the system. I own a car and use it when I can't get somewhere easily via other means (T, walking, or bicycling). And the fact that traffic is not inevitable means that we can actually design our streets to make our cities nice places to live while still providing enough space for cars.

It's a good thing then that City's design will handle every single car and truck that is on Rutherford Ave today (as well as projected growth based on new development in the area). The reality is that if you were to build a road to handle the amount of traffic currently on Rutherford Ave, you would never even consider building the large underpasses that are currently there. They were designed at a time before I-93 even existed when Route 99 was the major route into Boston. It of course still is an important route, but doesn't handle nearly the amount of traffic that it once did. The amount of traffic on Rutherford Ave today is more similar to the amount of traffic on many other city streets in the region, none of which have more than two lanes in each direction and certainly no underpasses.

Charlie - Sorry to tell you this they guessed on the traffic numbers! Using old studies and very limited new data.

I personally asked to see the 'data' they were using I ended up using some back channels as they gave me every reason why I couldn't. I then did my own study (granted it was very limited). Their numbers are far short on what I counted during the peak morning and afternoon of moving traffic.

I also looked at stalled traffic to see how long and why it was stalled out. In many cases the cross-pathing of the traffic created the problem. Without a means to route the cross over traffic at the high point all you'll get here is a grid lock condition. No, traffic lights won't help here and the road width is not the issue either it's simple flow dynamics of the commuter traffic.

Yes, we all like the surface design but you need to add in a tunnel to make it work.

Matt - The city only gave us two bad options! the third, correct one - wasn't even offered to us.

Each of the two offered options fail for different reasons. What was needed here was a better solution: The surface design with a tunnel under it.

@Matthew - I believe the the reason this is still a hot topic is because of the massive amount of misinformation presented to the community, and presented by the RCIC.

For the life of me, I have no understanding how traffic engineers claim that projected traffic flow will decrease? Aren't they widening highways all around us because of the increase in traffic? Or is it increasing everywhere but here?

Reduction in traffic flow in, out, and through Charlestown is completely false. How many new units are being built in Charlestown right now? A few hundred units to accommodate several hundred new residents, right? How many cars does that account for?

I also don't understand how Mumbles and supporters of this option say this will open up Rutherford Ave with green space that is similar to the Greenway? I have looked at those plans on the other site and nowhere, I mean nowhere, does it show green space that is comparable to what we have in Boston. Not even close. So how can supporters and the City make this claim?

Listen to what Dan has to say about this. I don't know this man, but he is spot on with his comments. G'day

Matthew,
Are we going to get a Merry Go Round too?
The greenway has one..

I understand that the options might be less than good, and that the city government might be ignoring the opinions of Charlestown residents, but my basic point is that fighting amongst residents will not get the decision reversed. Probably nothing will, but if there is a chance of that happening, flooding Lamattina's office wil emails and phone calls is a good first step.

Larry - The city stated no land taking was needed (The roads will be narrower).