The Boston Courant reports state transportation officials are working on plans to stick both sides of Storrow Drive under a Longfellow Bridge arch, which would let Mass. Eye and Ear Infirmary expand one of its buildings and dig a new parking garage under the current Infirmary parking lot in exchange for giving up the parking lot for the new road alignment and new parkland (Ed. note: Link goes to a JPG image of the article, because the Courant remains one of the few newspapers in America to resist the Web).
The Courant reports the re-alignment - which would include "a lane reduction" and garage construction is at least two years away, but will not start until after the current Longfellow Bridge work is done. And before the permanent re-alignment of the entire road to what is now the inbound side can begin, the state will first have to build a temporary new road section along the outbound side, in part to let Mass. Eye and Ear build the garage.
State Rep. Jay Livingstone (D-Back Bay, Beacon Hill) filed the bill that will pave the way for the work, which would include a 240,000-square foot, 15-story expansion at the Infirmary and a new 1,040-space underground garage under what is now the hospital's Storrow-enclosed parking lot on land leased from the state.
Livingstone says that beyond helping out the hospital, the work would mean a straighter Storrow Drive, which he says would make the road safer. The land now occupied by the parkway's outbound lanes would become part of the Esplanade.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
I've never been to Portland, Oregon..
By Neal
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 2:08pm
But I have been to Hamburg, Germany. What you describe sounds more like Hamburg.
Bet
By Michael
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 10:36am
10 bucks says this gets done before the first Green Line train makes its first stop beyond Lechmere
Easy bet
By Scratchie
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 10:56am
We'll probably have a colony on Mars before the first Green Line train runs beyond Lechmere.
Reduced lanes will be fine
By Kaz
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 11:08am
People taking Storrow expect 3 lanes. They also have to deal with all levels of idiots not understanding the traffic flow (does the middle lane turn left or right here, etc.). This leads to aggressive driving, use of the middle lane to "merge" into turn lanes, panicked tourists, etc.
Two lanes is understandable for a road that size and that speed limit. People stay in their lane more, and they expect exit lanes to appear and disappear instead of the entire left/right lane becoming an exit or not as it is now.
The one caveat I will say is that if they reduce both sides to 2 lanes, then outbound Storrow can NOT ever lose a lane to parking for the Hatch Shell any more ever again forever and ever. That would be a disaster even worse than it is already now. There's a certain amount of volume that satisfies people driving from north of the city to Back Bay/Beacon Hill that isn't realistically serviced by any other roads than Storrow, so that outbound traffic is always at a certain volume between 93 and Kenmore. It's already bad enough when they close one lane out of three...closing it down to a single lane would be a nightmare.
So my understanding is that
By Matthew
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 11:28am
So my understanding is that this project will restore an arch under the Longfellow bridge to parkland use, returning it to as it was in the 1930s and prior to the construction of Storrow Drive in 1950?
Can anyone confirm that?
Some of these ideas are pretty interesting...
By Freddy Benson
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 11:58am
....they would be even more interesting if people didn't have to, you know, use Storrow in the next few years.
Surface streets, are you joking? More Bikes? Bikes are part of the problem now, with adding bike lanes. If they want to dedicate a line, do it for buses - doing it for bikes is useless.
I was in London recently and the subway and the buses are awesome - I saw no bike lanes, because, as one Londoner told me "It is terribly inefficient to have a lane for a few blokes when you can just take the bus that carries 50 times as many a day - also it rains a bit here which makes cycling sometimes less than pleasant."
The same people who believe that bikes wil save us from pollution, ill health, etc, are the same people who post constant pictures about saving dogs on Facebook - you're missing the point. I wish we gave as much thought to the city's homeless as we did for stupid dogs.
Forget the bikes, forget the dogs, forget healthcare for illegals - build a better transit system, build an urban ring. Tell people to shut the hell up, dug tunnels under the charles, do a boat taxi, and force developers and colleges to kick in for transit upgrade money.
And for goodness sake, stop trying to expand the Green line to Slumerville. Fix what we have, make it better, the train stations are gross and leak. Think about burying the B-line to make it faster, putting a connection underwater from Kenmore square to central square - spend all the money on deep level subways,
I got bingo!
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 1:39pm
insulting cyclists
dog pictures
healthcare for illegals
shut the hell up
Kill the GLX while asking for better transit
Way to sound progressive while going 55 in reverse!
Oh, and you do realize that London has some of the worlds worst pollution because of all those buses? That when they switched to buses was when they got the killer fogs?
Look it up.
You are correct saying that
By anon
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 2:49pm
You are correct saying that public transportation should have priority over private transportation (like cars and bicycles) on city roads. I don't know why we prioritize setting-up bike-lanes but not bus lanes. Maybe it's because bus-lanes don't have anyone lobbying for them.
surface road?
By anon
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 11:58am
maybe they'll also study making storrow a surface road - get rid of that ridiculous charlesgate interchange...
Traffic is bad as it is.
By anonermus
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 12:02pm
Traffic is bad as it is. Doing this will make it worse and reduce everyone's quality of life - think of all the pollution from idling vehicles. It keeps thru-traffic off residential streets in the Back Bay. Not to mention how many emergency vehicles use Storrow every day to quicky get across the city. And public transportation is really only useful if you're wealthy enough to live close to a stop, and you're going to or from downtown. Anything else and you're better off driving or biking.
Emergency vehicles
By downtown-anon
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 1:00pm
I think if you are coming from the East you use the first part of Storrow to get to Mass General. If you coming from most parts West of Back Bay you got to Longwood or Boston Medical Center. I think for the most part they avoid Storrow (aside from the short sectioned mentioned above).
I believe the article isn't quite right
By downtown-anon
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 12:21pm
I didn't get my copy this morning and I can't read the JPG. So it might be Adam's interpretation.
Anyway, I thing the building of Mass Eye and Ear expansion and the moving of Storrow are two different things. And the construction of the new building and underground parking don't necessarily lead to moving the outbound lane under the same arch as the inbound lane. When Mass Eye and Ear proposed their idea the proposal prohibited moving the two directions one arch possibility. So the neighborhood and Esplanade Association rejected it and suggested they put together a proposal that would allow the two directions one arch possibility. The current proposal allows for the two directions under one arch.
I don't think the one arch two directions idea necessarily follows the building of Mass Eye and Ear's expansion. It may go the way of the Blue line extension to the Red line.
Sounds like a great plan
By JustinM
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 12:28pm
Heading westbound on Storrow from the tunnels or I-93N there is a very difficult merge. You're usually faced with heavy traffic in the right two lanes, and have to make a last-second merge in the middle of a sharp curve to avoid going up the Charles Circle ramp. Heading to Storrow westbound from Charles Circle there is again a difficult merge in the middle of a curve. Eastbound on Storrow, there are two very sharp curves in this area. And in the middle of this all is a bizarre maze of parking lots and ramps that completely cuts off pedestrian access to the river.
This plan would presumably solve all of those problems, give back some of the Charles River parkland, and provide high-paying jobs and expanded access to healthcare. Sounds like a winner to me. I think Storrow could survive a lane reduction here anyway, the backups are caused by situations to the east and west of here.
If they can straighten the
By anon
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 12:58pm
If they can straighten the road, traffic will flow more smoothly, which will more than make up for the lane reduction. And it restores some parkland. It sounds like a win-win.
I just hope they can pull it off, including not messing anything up by making the traffic lights worse where the ramps meet Charles Circle.
Make Storrow 8 Lanes wide--
By anon
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 1:07pm
This is another bright idea brought to us by the fools at MASSDOT. Imagine adding a 1040 space parking garage while removing 2 traffic lanes? This why I am voting for Charlie Baker--30 year Democrat- This nonsense has to stop. Wider roads, bridges and tunnels is what we need, not a narrowing of our infrastructure. Maybe Mass Eye and Ear should move and let Mass General buy the property? These Devalue Bike people have to be removed from MASSDOT.
You mean
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 1:32pm
Wider Linear Parking Lots?
Beijing smog?
That's what you get.
We have 50 years of experience telling us that you cannot build your way out of traffic jams.
FIFTY YEARS - IT DOES NOT WORK! It just turns our cities into sterile shitheaps.
Even my late father - 40 years in road building - could get that.
Perhaps you should do some web searches - there are too many studies demonstrating the foolishness of this notion over half a century to cite here.
You CAN'T really look at
By DTP
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 2:02pm
You CAN'T really look at history to make that argument though, because guess what? Our population has grown tremendously in the past 50 years!
The only way you could make an accurate judgement about whether increasing road capacity reduces congestion or the opposite is if the population had remained stagnant. Of course the roads aren't going to seem less congested if there's more people driving.
I think you misunderstood
By Matthew
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 2:19pm
It isn't that roads grow more congested 50 years after they are widened... they grow more congested usually the same year they are widened. We have more than 50 years of experience of that.
For example, California just spent billions to widen the most heavily used freeway in the country, adding a car-pool lane, and the result has been that vehicles now experience an additional minute of delay on average. Billions wasted, for a worse outcome than before.
We are lucky that Governor Sargent put a stop to the ever-deepening, cyclical trap of highway widening inside Rt 128. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of Boston left by now, except one enormous, spiraling traffic jam.
So the question right now isn't about whether widening is the right idea. Other than a few 1950s dead-enders, we all know that widening doesn't work. That's been proven beyond a doubt for decades. The question then is what to do instead?
I personally think that one aspect involves reducing dependence on the motor vehicle in various ways. It's not freedom if you are forced to use it. So you can get into a whole discussion about improving cities, transit, walking, biking, making it possible to live close to your daily activities, etc. It turns out that in cities, density (done right) usually leads to much less driving per person. That's why cities work at all: proximity solves a large portion of the travel problem.
Another aspect is charging the true cost of driving to the person who experiences the most benefit. In the past, the costs were passed off onto the general public while drivers reaped the benefits. Parkland was taken away (in the case of Storrow) and pollution was added to the air, with no recompense. Furthermore, it turns out that not charging for a valuable resource (road space) results in shortages (traffic jams). Thus far, the only known, fair way of resolving this impasse is to put a price on the resource, much like we do with just about every other resource, and balance supply with demand.
induced demand
By anon
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 4:04pm
it's what it's called - you increase capacity, people drive more - and you end up with more congestion. people who study this issue have known this for years and finally policy is catching up (the public, unfortunately, still hasn't). What we need to do is find ways to make it easier and more pleasant for people to get around by other modes - which is a lot more than just putting in bike lanes and expanding public transit - it means development patterns, job access, vulnerable road user laws... if our population is growing absolute the last thing we want is more cars on the road - we need to find other ways of moving people.
If they are going to dig a hole for parking
By North Beginner
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 1:09pm
bury that portion of Storrow Drive in the hole too. Maybe just bury the whole drive in a mini big dig.
Floodwater storage
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 1:33pm
Great Idea!
That's what sump pumps are
By anon
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 1:54pm
That's what sump pumps are for. Do you think the entire central subway stays dry without an army of pumps running 24/7?
Floodwater Storage, yes
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 4:32pm
You can't pump it out without it coming right back in, because there is no "away" to pump it into (unlike the sumps at the dams that can pump back into the harbor)
Add sea-level rise overwhelming the earthworks and stir for a potent cocktail of fail.
This was a swamp. It wants to be a swamp. It will be a swamp.
A thought
By RhoninFire
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 4:55pm
To anyone who done more research. Is it possible to keep Storrow at its current level, but just cover it?
Theoretically
By KBHer
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 6:14pm
But we'd be talking some serious benjamins and a decades worth of snarling delays. We'd need to reconfigure all the on/off ramps, figure out what to do about 11' clearances, rebuild the pedestrian bridges, not to mention somehow account for the vehicular bridges, or that the whole thing is built on filled-in swamp. With Storrow it's either reduce it, keep it as it is, or get rid of it - can't really get the best of both worlds in the situation.
What stinks ain't "the swamp"
By Kaz
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 6:09pm
Most of it didn't even exist to be "a swamp" until they filled in Back Bay (literally filled a bay of water with earth).
The downtown area is rife with examples of where we built out on to the Harbor or the River. We could tunnel Storrow if we wanted to. Putting tunnels near and under water is where tunnels are usually found. Sheesh.
Three Questions
By anon
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 7:43pm
How many transit systems (or how much improvement in transit capacity) could we get for the money it would take to big dig Storrow?
How much of an excise tax would you pay on your car to pay for this, as it would be entirely state money?
Do you really trust MA with a project this large when there aren't Feds to answer to?
Let me get this straight.
By Sources Say
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 1:46pm
They want to have fewer lanes to inevitably handle the same amount of traffic. That means the ambulances I see on a daily basis using Storrow Drive to get to the nearby hospitals will have one less lane to access thus slowing emergency response times. Sounds like a brilliant plan to me. SMH.
Lanes != throughput
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 1:54pm
Want your shower to run faster? I'll come over and put a 3' wide pipe in the wall! That will do it!
No?
Doesn't work that way. Storrow, like other roads, jams up because the intersections and off ramps and the roads they empty onto are fundamentally limited in capacity, not because it doesn't have enough lanes.
That's called a rate controlling factor in science and engineering. Lane miles are not the rate controlling factor in throughput on Storrow and other roadways.
More lanes just means a bigger parking lot.
Yes, more lanes means a
By DTP
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 2:09pm
Yes, more lanes means a bigger parking lot, which means more cars crawling sling on Storrow rather than on surrounding surface streets.
You are completely right that traffic flow largely correlates to fluid flow. But you still need to have space to PUT all the cars trying to get through. If you reduce Storrow's capacity, it pushes the backups father back, which means onto Boylston, Charlesgate, Comm Ave, etc. and 93, 1, etc. Then people like you will see the traffic on those roads and start pushing to reduce their capacity, which will just push the congestion even farther out.
People are not molecules
By Matthew
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 2:27pm
No! This is one of the biggest fallacies that laypeople fall into when they try to think about traffic flow.
People are not molecules. People adapt to context, make plans, and think ahead. People engage in long-range and short-range planning, and can make different choices depending upon available options.
That's why adding lanes to a highway results in more congestion, and it's also why removing lanes from a highway can reduce congestion. This whole idea of "spillover" is a red herring. People don't keep on throwing themselves at an opening and "spill over" like they are molecules in a fluid. They change their behavior instead. The system reaches a new equilibrium.
You may be right about humans not being molecules
By cybah
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 2:41pm
but for a lack of easy alternatives, people still will go the same way.
As we've said over and over again, Storrow serves a purpose.... local traffic to Beacon Hill, Backbay, Fenway, and beyond.
I agree with one point about ADDING lanes adds more traffic. But reducing them doesn't remove them. It just causes back ups and forces people onto other lesser traveled streets.
Just look at the traffic patterns when the big dig was in full construction mode. Did it stop people. NO. They just sat in traffic longer or used roads like 28 or 99.
As an engineer from INRIX
By Matthew
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 2:56pm
As an engineer from INRIX once said: "there's a large element of psychology in traffic patterns." In the Big Dig they told people that they didn't need to change anything, that they could continue the same patterns of travel that they were using before, and as a result people continued to try to do so.
Nowadays, the more clever engineers have figured this out. For example, when building the aforementioned highway expansion in California (the 405), the media spent weeks promoting the notion of a "Carmageddon!" during a necessary shutdown of the highway for construction. In the end, the traffic conditions during the shutdown were easier than normal. Same for a project in NYC where a lane had to be shutdown on the extremely busy Alexander Hamilton Bridge carrying the Trans-Manhattan expressway into the Bronx. The media screamed the usual predictions of doom. The mayor of Fort Lee (yes, that Fort Lee) made preparations for riot conditions, with police stationed at major ramps. In the end, it turns out, during the multi-month project, congestion levels were much lower than normal. Of course, since nothing bad happened, it went almost unremarked in the press, except for one very interesting interview with folks at INRIX.
So, as I said, reducing lanes can result in lowered congestion. It's all about how well relations with the public are managed. Precisely because people are not molecules, and treating people as people will produce a much better outcome.
Regarding Storrow, I understand what you're saying, but I think there's still plenty of room for reform somewhere between the current, decrepit, 1950s-style anti-urban highway and a proper street that actually helps everyone with accessibility between Beacon Hill, the Back Bay, Fenway and the Esplanade.
Yeah
By cybah
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 3:31pm
I will admit a parkway (more Memorial Drive-like or SF-style Embarcadero ) would be a good replacement. but I don't support getting rid of it all together like others on here have suggested.
And yes you are correct about PR... like the Longfellow. Good communication and little traffic issues because of the lane restrictions. So yes, it does work.
(Edited to add second paragraph)
I think on this website, we
By RhoninFire
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 4:16pm
I think on this website, we don't disagree reducing lanes can actually reduce congestion. The water molecules thing is just trying to explain concepts without getting all the clauses and nuances.
That said, your examples of carmegeddon and etc is troubling to me. If you're merely trying to say that we need to factor that people will change behavior patterns in face of changes in the environment, we can get that. If you're using "Carmageddon" and Alexander Hamilton Bridge towards reducing lances will reduce congestion, we got a problem. With all the media hype, its the same thing as the traffic shutdown hype of the DNC convention.
Yes, traffic during DNC was great in that time. It doesn't mean things were better. Reducing lanes can relieve congestion, but while the cars can go away, the people does not. The person will have the same options between bike, train, bus, car, foot, and other modes. But the only thing changed is now the car option looks less enticing because driving sucks more. I'll write a clause that's not necessarily true, as people do not always pick the most "optimal" way to commute/get-around. Thus, changing a pattern may switch a person that actually be better for the person. But I'm going to argue more times than not that it's a strategy of serving less. If we are going to discuss about reducing lanes and options, we are going to have ask if we are attacking the sub-optimal users or making people lives harder.
All of that said, what this means when applying to the case of Storrow Drive is we can't just merely reduce/close stuff down without improving in equal or greater amount somewhere else. While this can easily mean adding ramps to the Pike, I'll add that it can also mean making the Green Line faster (or both). If we just merely reducing lanes without any other action, then we're just forcing people to use other modes by using vinegar rather than honey.
Edit: I want to add one thing. I argue against you because your argument against "water flow" thinking have issues to me that I must repeat every time you raise it on this site. Traffic does not flow like water, but we can't just remove lanes everywhere and dust our hands off either. In regards for Storrow aside from Pike ramps. I dream of a day Storrow can be shutdown and restored to the vision of James Storrow. It remains an enraging injustice the state did to him after his death by waiting for him and his wife to die, building it that is against his wishes during his life, and naming it after him. But I also recognize - especially in my post college years (though I think I have some understanding before) - what's needed before we can make that happen, if ever. I'm not one to toss aside 90,000 users unless we can set up something to is equivalent or better (that sentence is only in regards to a Storrow Dr Shutdown, reducing a lane not affecting on that deep of a level).
...and remember Swilrs.....
By Swirlys Bro
Sat, 10/25/2014 - 10:35am
...what our dear old Dad (a highway worker) said to us many times:
"You never can - or will - build your way out of a traffic jam"
Question: what is the most
By KBHer
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 1:59pm
Question: what is the most controversial topic in the city of Boston today? Is it 25yr anniversary of the Chuck Stuart killings that opened raw wounds in our community? Is it the 10yr anniversary of the Red Sox first championship in 86 years?
Answer: No! It's fucking Storrow Drive. I have a lot to say here, but I'm too late to the party it seems. Just put the Bowker at grade and we'll call it a day. Holy shit we care a lot about our acid-trip of arterial road.
Reclaiming Eslpanade parkland
By Ron Newman
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 2:14pm
will improve everyone's quality of life. Bring it on.
Agreed
By Matthew
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 2:33pm
I'm not too keen on the addition of parking but at least they're proposing a pretty nice form of mitigation. A restoration of a piece of the Charlesbank park!
Next up: untangling the Bowker spaghetti ramp mess to regain some semblance of what Olmsted once termed the "crown jewel" of the Emerald Necklace: the Beacon Entrance and the Charlesgate park.
What we lost to pavement and traffic
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 4:28pm
Now:
[img=500x400]https://gallery.mailchimp.com/93f0127a18f92cd96c09...
Then:[img=600x400]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9qOITqUnxpY/T-qgE1MhO_I/...
SOURCE
100 Comments
By KBHer
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 6:23pm
congrats all
Thanks guise!
By libs
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 8:02pm
This whooooooooole thread is so awesome to read. PURE JOY!!! i love you all. I have absolutely nothing to contribute here, except all the scoffing, laughing, frowning, and calculating and mental mapping ive done for the last 20 minutes reading each comment.
But Boston... damn it is a fine fine city and that would not be possible without yall~!
he he! dem Brahmins out fer a stroll!
By libs
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 8:09pm
I love the pics. But the boats... the boats in that second pic muster up a thought i have wondered about 500,000 times while getting from my newton office to downtown court buildings -- being a salty dog from the waters of Maine and having my own outboard boston whaler when I was 8 years of age... Ive wanted to simply park at the charles rive so r boathouse on nonantum or thereabouts, jump in my boston whaler and waiiiiiillll all the way down the rivah and tie the boat up near the science museum so i can get from middlesex courthouse to suffolk courthouse and city hall on my runarounds.
Sounds great? Anyone ever do that? is it legal? ha! But as for the outboard engine... it wont use gas... itlll be solar! haha! but a nice trip nonethless. To be able to use the Charles River itself as my main mode of transportation would be so epic.... ohhh look thar he goes, down the rivah! passing all dem cars crammed up in a bottleneck yonder Storrow
I wonder if a water taxi
By anon
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 8:45pm
I wonder if a water taxi/shuttle service on the Charles could make it ad a commuter option?
Easily
By Neal
Fri, 10/24/2014 - 11:33pm
It would work very well if they were to turn Clarendon Street into a canal...
Yes, and no
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 10/25/2014 - 12:12am
Yes, you can make that trip by power boat if you want.
No, you can't do it very fast because you have to consider the rights of other watercraft, including sailboats from the sailing pavilions and crew shells.
The first crew you wake will probably be your last. Crew coaches are mean SOBs and DOBs and they will put aside rivalries to surround and board your vessel if your actions threaten an eight or a four.
I was rowing in a four in college when some jerk decided to harass and intimidate us with his power boat. No idea why, but he was surrounded, boarded, thrown to the deck, and held for the cops by coaches from BU, Harvard, and MIT.
They'd Have To Catch Him First
By anon
Sat, 10/25/2014 - 5:30pm
Unlike in your case where the jerk was out to intimidate and thus easily susceptible to being surrounded, in this case, uhub commenter 'libs' would be trying to get from point A to point B as fast as possible.
He would likely blow past any crew moving at speed in a pretty direct path and already well on his way before some coach with a stick up his ass even gets any idea about lesson teaching.
That having been said: unless the entire Charles River is a no-wake zone (unlikely), libs would merely need to ensure he stays outside of any no-wake zones and at least 150 feet away from any sailboats or crews (or other powerboats) and he could go as fast as he damn well wants to since I don't think the Charles comes equipped with speed limits.
"As fast as he damn well wants to" might not be possible in the more congested parts of the Charles that happen to parallel Storrow where there wouldn't even be 300 feet of room between any two watercraft to pass through while creating a wake, thus invalidating at least one of the reasons for this exercise, but I digress.
And then what?
By Sock_Puppet
Sun, 10/26/2014 - 2:47pm
Anybody making more than headway speed on the Charles would stick out like a sore thumb. It's not like there's any way to get a boat off it in a hurry either. What's he gonna do, go through the locks? That'd be the slowest escape in history. Do you even know what the Charles looks like?
Just got back from Venice!
By anon
Sat, 10/25/2014 - 10:38am
It was really cool being in a city where all the roadways are waterways and transporting oneself is accomplished via vaporettos (water buses) or foot. Saw a few kids on push strollers but no bikes. Land lanes are just too narrow.
I love being on the water, too. If I lived there, I'd have my own powerboat and/or kayak.
Bieks in Venice would be useless
By Ron Newman
Sat, 10/25/2014 - 4:43pm
because there are stairways EVERYWHERE.
Problem:
By anon
Sat, 10/25/2014 - 11:55am
Problem:
The basin freezes over in winter.
Pages
Add comment