That's exactly the point of the surface option - making this entire space more pedestrian and bike friendly, i.e., cleaner and more pleasing to the eye. As it stands now its not conducive to walking or biking through there because of the massive pseudo-highway plowing through that doesn't even have the traffic to support its size. I agree overall that the lack of attention it has received is disappointing, but how would cleaning it up help if no one really wants to go that way anyway because of the massive unused traffic lanes? I walked through there this weekend and noticed all the same stuff. It seems to me it would all be better if you put in more green space by reducing the number of traffic lanes. And yes - definitely clean it up.

Jay - Sorry both designs offered by the city fail to really offer a pleasant walking experience at the walk way entryway, and the entire length of Rutherford Ave.

The third option most of us really want is a full tunnel from Sullivan Sq. as far as possible to City Sq. (past Austin St.) so the bulk of the traffic is off the surface roads. In addition, develop a parking garage across the BHCC parking lots with the Rutherford frontage offering office and/or additional classroom spaces. This would create a similar environment as what the North End got with the Big Dig project.

Yes, the root issue is getting the city to see the light and money to make it happen but if we cave in getting a solution that doesn't make things really better and stops this better design from being done later we all loose.

I disagree, Dan. The green space offered by the Surface Option will look very nice near the entry way and all along Rutherford. A tunnel would be overkill. It would cost way, way too much - and not just building it, but maintaining it will increase costs dramatically. There isn't anywhere near enough traffic moving through there to support such a massive undertaking. There's another benefit I don't think many people appreciating with the Surface Option. Those lights, fewer lanes, and all the people crossing the street and riding bikes along Rutherford will tend to restrict traffic flow. It's well known that roads tend to carry the amount of traffic they can support. If you increase capacity you get increased throughput, decrease capacity and you reduce throughput. Make it easier for cars to move through Rutherford and that's what you'll get. Make it easier for people to move across Rutherford and that's what you'll get.

Jay - OK, I'll Bite, First, the Tunnel option would be the surface design + much more open space, less noise and pollution spilling out along the sidewalk or bike lanes and neighboring houses. OK, lets talk about some of the misconceptions someone has feed you.
1- less lanes = less traffic: That only works when we can push the traffic to other paths leading or exiting the city. Sorry, there just isn't enough pathways so we're stuck with the commuter traffic we have (and could get more!). Yes, during the day and even into the night the traffic load drops! and if that were the real traffic load the surface design would work! The numbers the traffic studies given were biased on counters that can't catch heavy traffic loads (need gaps between cars) as the counters count depressions so the number & type of vehicles is averaged out. Lastly, they count per hour which can also bias the count. They still haven't disclosed where the counters were placed so that is also a factor. Bottom line the numbers given are still very suspect.
2 - Traffic lights slow traffic: Very True! But, to the point of creating grid lock, when you have left turning traffic also fighting to get thru. Take a hard look at a map of the area and you see a Y when looking at the major pathways. OK, now how does the left moving traffic get though? It ends off blocking the right moving traffic coming from the other direction when the lights change. This is the root issue at Sullivan Sq . You just can't stop it.

There just isn't any way to stop the cross over traffic unless you have an independent pathway option which the tunnel offers for the turning traffic. Thats why the old design worked (before it was closed).
3- Decrease capacity = less traffic: Don't forget Rutherford Ave. is a hazardous cargo pathway into the city and around it. It will be used when the Big Dig tunnels have problems (talk about gird lock!). It is also an emergency evacuation pathway out of the city. It also a very heavily trafficked pathway for trucking in general. This traffic will still be there afterwards! So your argument of fewer 'cars' doesn't work here as these vehicles still need to get through. The number of cars will stay about the same mostly they will be stalled out on the Rutherford Ave during rush hour in or out of the city so the reasons of the surface design alone losses its appeal into making Rutherford Ave a pleasant walk or Bike ride during these time points.
4 - High maintenance costs: Not true! If you need to post a police detail (4 or 5 officers) during the morning and evening commute you'll need to minimize the grid lock that would be more over time then the costs of maintaining a tunnel for 50 years!

Dan, your condescending tone and remark that someone "feed" this stuff to me is not a productive way to continue conversation. But I'll leave the conversation with the stuff that I fed on - in case anyone else is interested. The concept is called Induced Demand. It's a pretty well established theory and there's a decent wikipedia page describing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand. There's even a little on the controversy of the theory. But the literature seems to largely support this phenomenon, and certainly with respect to the local impact - which is what we care about. Here are a few references. The first of which I think is the most relevant.
Kang, H., Scott, D. M., Kanaroglou, P. S., & Maoh, H. F. (2009). An exploration of issues related to the study of generated traffic and other impacts arising from highway improvements. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1), 67–85
Noland, B. (2007). Transport Planning and Environmental Assessment: Implications of Induced Travel Effects, 1(1), 1–28.
Goodwin P. and Nowland, R. (2003). Building new roads really does create extra traffic: a response to Prakash et al. - Applied Economics - Volume 35, Issue 13.
Prakash, A.B. et al. (2010). Does building new roads really create extra traffic? Some new evidence - Applied Economics - Volume 33, Issue 12.
Pfleiderer, R.H.H. and Martin Dieteric, M. (1995). New roads generate new traffic, 1(1), 29–31.

Here's the abstract from Kang et al.:

"Generated traffic has received considerable worldwide attention for its ability to congest newly built roads or return improved roads to their original congested states. By investigating impacts resulting from two contentious highway projects in the Hamilton Census Metropolitan Area, Canada, we address two outstanding issues relating to the study of generated traffic. First, we find that the type of measure used to quantify the phenomenon can impact significantly evidence of its existence. Second, we decompose successfully generated traffic into its constituent parts, namely, induced travel and diverted travel. We also identify the source of each component. Next, we document statistically significant changes in the spatial distribution of traffic flows in the vicinities of the new expressways and throughout the entire network. Finally, our analysis of traffic congestion and vehicular emissions of three pollutants (carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides) suggests that while the new expressways may prove beneficial to the system as a whole, this is not the case for their immediate environs."

Jay - I'm Sorry if I sounded condescending. When ever I met some of the Surface group to even have a dialog I found people who appeared to have drunk the 'Kool Aid' none that could understand how traffic flow management works. I'm happy you pulled some good references I've read a far amount of Kim, Son & Kang's work due to my job. They do have some good logic and theories on traffic flow. There arguments are mostly on 'New' avenues of flow dynamics. Did you read Kim & Kangs work on flash traffic patterns? and on modified pathing? In these two works you'll find arguments that support a dual path design (if fact what the Big Dig was based on). The tunnel design is not intended to widen the pathway only to detour the commuter traffic off our surface streets. Remember this is not a new road but a rebuilt road that is not being widened, just better flow management.

Based on Kim, Son & Kang's work at Yosu National University they were able to reclaim a culturally significant stream that was buried under a massive highway and make a beautiful park space along it. In my travels I was lucky to see some of the transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon) While many felt the cost was to high, it established a framework to make long term investments for the betterment of the city. If you are wondering where the idea to recover the stream came from it came from us here in the states with the San Antonio River Walk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_River_Walk).

Hi Dan. I have absolutely no doubt that a full tunnel flowing through with a very small street on top for local traffic, bikes, and pedestrians would be ideal. The increased green space and connection to the city, Cambridge, and Somerville would be ideal. The only counter argument this will run into is the cost to build and maintain it. I also agree that counter argument is short-sighted given that the Big Dig (with all its failings) has been a tremendous boon for the city. But there's still a hangover from the Big Dig. I just don't see this project getting traction - certainly not in this political climate. Given that, and given the inverse of Induced Demand, I support the Surface Option. It appears to me that it will accomplish about 80-85% of what the tunnel would for a lot less cost with a lot less headache.
What I am most concerned about is this hybrid option, where we keep the underpass and the roads up above. This will maintain the barrier between Charlestown and the rest of the city, cost more in the short and long term, and result in increased local traffic and pollution. The hybrid option is the worst case scenario.
The good (and bad) news is we have several more years before anything begins, so maybe the political climate will change re investing in public projects. If a tunnel comes on the table, I would support it fully. Maybe we should be pushing for only two sides - Surface or Tunnel. If there are only those 2 choices - who wouldn't choose the Tunnel?

Jay - I'm happy you see some of the light here.

But, if we do the current surface design it will prevent a future tunnel - Period (way to expensive to redo). If we stick with the trench as bad as it is a tunnel conversion would be possible (still more than doing it straight up). So, then the argument is if both are bad for the true betterment should we move forward at all with any direction than the ideal direction (tunnel)? As you pointed out the current climate is not ideal. Thats were we are now. But, by pressing the surface design as the 'we'll go with' design we short-sell what we really need. To not press the BEST design which is not on even on the table will be our undoing (as expensive as it is - its still cheaper and better in the long haul).

I may also point out the people currently living along the route will be the real losers here. They have been sold a pack of mis-truths as to what they will end up with. As much as the city wants to improve the route the noise and air quality won't really change, and likely to be worse depending on how the traffic management solution is handled with the surface design. For us up on the hill getting out and in will be harder and we'll also get some commuter traffic threading thru our streets as commuters try to find a better route. Lets not sell these people out.

We've managed to live with the mess so far, I think we can live with it a bit more if we can right this ship onto the correct course.

Unfortunately I can't get on board with that, Dan. Though I do appreciate your perspective. We care about all the same things. But I think your approach will put the Tunnel out of reach just the same. Any work done will finish some 15 years from now (nothing major slated to begin for 6-7 years). The hybrid redesign will cost more than the Surface Option. This would push the Tunnel out at least another 40 years. 15 to complete the redesign, then what around 15 at the very earliest before anyone would even begin to entertain any talk about a tunnel? Then you've got to go through the politics and build the tunnel. Given the slowed traffic caused by the Surface Option, the restricted capacity will ultimately reduce overall traffic throughput through our area, making alternate routes more appealing to longer distance commuters. The hybrid option will increase local traffic overall and maintain the wide gulf between Charlestown and the other regions. In my view this is the ultimate lose-lose. I guess this is where we'll respectfully agree to disagree. But like I said, if the choice is between a more expensive Tunnel and the Surface Option - you've got my enthusiastic support for the Tunnel.

Jay - The Hybrid option was only the Austin St intersection not the Sullivan Sq part or Rutherford Ave between the two. The traffic will not be lessened as much as they want to spin it during morning or evening commute in either the 'Surface' or 'Trench' designs offered.

The so called alternate routes are at capacity during the morning or evening commute time points, so people will continue with their current routes even if they are slower then before as they have little option to do otherwise.

I think your selling your self short here as you've clearly given up as the city has hoped many would. You and others are throwing in the towel before the battle has even started! Is that going to be your legacy to the community?

I fought long & hard with others during the CANA meetings to get the ramps moved to the other side and the tunnels be built so we could have less impact. Was City Sq worth it? I'm proud that being my legacy.

This is not 40 year slug. If we can band together I can see this starting up in less than 6-8 years, even with the Big Dig phobia present.

Yes, I'm sick of seeing the mess too! but redoing things still again would be a crime to the tax payers and we may be faced living with something worse without a chance of it being corrected in the future.

So I guess we disagree

The idea is that how much attention an area gets depends on usage. I'm not talking about making that walkway wider. The surface option will make the pedestrian areas along Rutherford wider and more green, thereby making the spaces connecting to that walkway more appealing to pedestrians - which will increase use of the specific walkway we're talking about. More of us complaining about it being dirty leads to something getting done (cue the complaints about the city *never* responding to complaints). Or as "Make Bunker Hill day a National Holiday" suggests, we might all start cleaning it ourselves. I wouldn't mind joining a Friends of the North Park Walkway group. I'm not sure if this is as sustainable as pressuring the city to regularly clean the area, but like I said - I'll join.

Let's go clean it up then. You supply the broom and bags. I'm down to help.

Can we paint that ugly yellow over too while we're at it?!?!

Haaa!! Sorry Just a person! I just commented earlier that we were overdoing it on this thread. That's a good idea too. Dan, maybe we should start a joint blog on this. Any interest? Just a person wants a full subscription with daily updates.

Sorry - Just a person, we did go a little wild on you. I think the stagnation of Rutherford Ave and what still remains to be done after the CANA project got us both hot under the collar.

Sorry Jay for not replying sooner took a long weekend - Your On!

Sounds good Dan. I asked Matt (mattc@patch.com) to give you my contact info. Get in touch when you're ready to talk about blogging.

Sounds great Charlestown joe! I'll look for you at the next one.

Nooreen, why don't you just effect a clean-up or do some of it yourself. You are an armchair activitst, all mouth. Leadership is in the doing of things. Break a sweat and clean-up what you don't like!