Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
If all the other issues now on Lowell’s collective plate just aren’t enough for you, here’s another discussion we as a community need to have - whether or not to close the Middlesex portion of the Lord Overpass when redeveloping Hamilton Canal. The discussion will take place at the Traffic Working Group meeting this Wednesday, May 21, 2008 from 7-9 PM in the Mayor’s Reception Room.
The proposal for this is explained on the JAMbra website, including a map. It states:
Trinity Financial, developer of the Hamilton Canal District has recently submitted their development to the state agency MEPA. Part of that plan includes a proposed traffic redesign for the JAM neighborhood and the Lord Overpass.
…
It has been proposed that part of the Lord Overpass is removed breaking Middlesex Street into two parts. Traffic will be routed through Revere Street to either Appleton Street or an extended Jackson Street. There are many ramifications to this plan. Appleton Street will become four lanes of traffic for a portion eliminating on street parking through Revere Street.
This is part of the Trinity proposal for how to deal with the Hamilton Canal development, but it affects JAM businesses. The JAM plan will be in full swing long before Hamilton gets going, so the traffic changes in this area could strand or lessen the value of the new developments in JAM. JAM businesses and residents feel that they have not had a chance to examine and question the traffic plan from Trinity. JAMbra’s site says:
This will harm many area businesses including the Durkin Building and the Owl Diner. Revere Street will be extended requiring additional land acquisition/taking. Access to Middlesex Street heading west will be severely impacted, disconnecting this area from the JAM neighborhood.
So, if you have an opinion one way or the other, go to the meeting this Wednesday and be part of the process. (Speak now, or forever hold your peace!)
(I know, I know, I couldn’t resist the pun for the title. I am as bad as all those local morning news anchors and newspaper headline writers that I constantly mock. I hang my head in shame…)
[powered by WordPress.]
43 queries. 0.669 seconds
May 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
They just put in a HUGE garage in our neighborhood. I can’t imagine not going to eat/shop somewhere just because I had to walk a block from a safe garage. I walk further than that to eat at Owl all the time.
If we keep our neighborhood safe and clean it’s an easy, enjoyable walk to the diners or gyms etc.
I love the ideas for the area I’ve seen at the charettes and just hate seeing obstruction, that could slow it down, over which way cars can drive on this street or that.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Those are valid points and JAMbra isn’t saying that eliminating the Middlesex Lord’s Overpass wouldn’t work, they are saying there are serious issues that it would cause and those need to be discussed, mitigated if needs be, and if the plan does too much damage to the needs of JAM, changed. This plan was proposed by the HCD developer, and as such JAM has been left out of the equation, though it’s the development that will be finished first, before these traffic changes are made.
After all, NOW is the time to discuss/change things, we can’t do it after the fact! I’d rather slow down and do it right and make sure all affected persons have the chance to have a say than rush it and screw it up, find out after the fact that it was untenable, and be stuck with it. There’s too many intersections in this city that were put together haphazardly, or appear to be, and are as a result problems we now have to solve all over again.
Also, JAMbra states that they felt that this particular part of the plan was NOT addressed adequately in charettes.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I believe this part of the plan was disclosed in a traffic charrette early in May, and because of the concerns raised with the approach at that time a follow-up meeting is scheduled for this week.
The subcontractor for the traffic study (Woodland Design Group) examined the much larger picture (well beyond the immediate area) of the traffic situation and developed a plan that they claim will work from a traffic perspective. However, there are other issues to be considered, and that is the benefit of the open dialogue that is the character of this project, as these other issues were surfaced and hopefully can be satisfacorily addressed.
What is not clear from the plan put forward by Woodland is whether alternatives have already been hypothesized and evaluated, and rejected based on traffic projections. Some of these alternatives that may not be optimum for traffic may still be preferable when other factors are considered. It will be interesting to see what these alternatives may be, if indeed there are any already conceived.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I don’t see Appleton going to four lanes. This would cut down on parking in the area, and if Lowell does have one ‘destination’ it is the Owl Diner.
Its known thoughout New England, and it would be foolish of the city to hamper that business.
Not only is it a tradition, but it is also a generous city community business that is always there for anyone in need.
Peter may be willing to make that walk, but many elderly and distance travelers may not. I know I would be more apt to go to a local breakfast place that I can get into easily than go park in a garage and hike a couple blocks.
Face it, when I’m in the city I park on the streets. I’ve never felt comfortable in garages.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
What would be great is a pedestrian/bike bridge so you could walk r bike to downtown on middlesex. yes there are sidewalks, but it doesn’t seem all that safe or pleasant a walk.
I’m sure this is me being overly optimistic, but that could even help with the parking downtown.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
the bike thing is HUGE. That’s my route (biking) to my new office. I would love to have safe bike/pedestrian crossing in that section of the city.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:06 am
“People on Bikes” is a whole other issue. Many, many of them observe the car rules (which they’re supposed to) when it suits them, but then observe the pedestrian rules (running lights and riding on sidewalks)when THAT suits them.
I’m amazed more of them don’t get run over!
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
First of all, I think we could close every road leading to Owl Diner and it would still be packed every day. Second of all, The Durkin Building? Hurting business in the Durkin Building is now some sort of major concern? That place has been an eyesore since they built it. Furthermore, it has spent most of the last 20 years as a revolving door of nearly temporary enterprises. I really don’t think The Durkin Building is something we need to lose sleep over.