1.012 | Spring 2002 | Undergraduate

Introduction to Civil Engineering Design

Readings

General

  1. Famous Civil Engineering Projects

Readings for Paperweight Design

  1. Sullivan, Louis H. “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered.” Lippincott’s Magazine, March 1896.

Readings for the Charles River Project

  1. Introduction: Metropolitan District Commission, “Reclaiming the Lost Half Mile.”
  2. McAdow, R. “The Charles River Basin Study Area.” The Charles River. Marlborough: Bliss Publishing, 1992.
  3. The Old Colony Trust Company, Boston MA, 1926, “Building the Back Bay.”
  4. Ty, Raymond Kieh Sheng, “History and characteristics of man-made fill in Boston and Cambridge”, M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987.
  5. The Old Charles River Dam: Committee on Charles River Dam, “Report of the Committee on Charles River Dam … to consider the advisability and feasibility of building a dam across the Charles River at or near Craigie Bridge,” 1903.
  6. Hall, M. “Flood Control.” The Charles, the Peoples River. Olympic Marketing Corporation, May 1986.
  7. Alternatives for the New Charles River Dam: The Department of the Army New England Division Corps of Engineers, “Charles River Dam, Design Memorandum No. 2,” 1972.
  8. “Historic Back Bay poised to expand commercial focus: With Boston’s office space tighter than ever, Back Bay has become an attractive alternative.” Boston Business Journal Real Estate Quarterly (January 22-28, 1999).

Readings for the Green Line Project

  1. Koebel, Romin. “Boston Transit Milestones.”

In 1814, a man who has since been called the “Chief Benefactor of Boston” had an idea. It was so stupendous that it was then considered a weird, impossible dream. Yet the train of consequences resulting from that idea have been largely responsible for Boston’s greatness today.

One hundred and twelve years ago, Uriah Cotting, on behalf of a group of men who together formed the Boston and Roxbury Mill Corporation, applied to the legislature of Massachusetts for a charter which should empower the Company to build a series of dams connecting Boston, Brookline, and Roxbury; to use these dams as toll roadways, and to develop water power by the tidal flow in and out of the Back Bay. This Bay was so called to distinguish it from the harbor - or Front Bay, and from the South Bay. It was at that time a shallow sheet of water, spotted here and there by marshy islands and flats. Charles Street, Boston Neck, and the Roxbury mainland marked the shore line, but when the tide was unusually low much of the entire expanse was bare.

The project of Uriah cotting and his associates marked the first attempt at development in this area. In spite of much opposition, the legislature granted the charter of the Mill Corporation, slipping it through rather secretly at a session when only fifty members were present. Governor Strong signed the bill, and work was soon begun.

The Mill Dam was built from the Common at the foot of Beacon hill to the solid land at Sewall’s Point, now the junction of Brookline and Commonwealth Avenues. It was a toll thoroughfare, today known as Beacon Street. When first opened to travel it formed a new, short way between Boston, the Brighton road, and the Punch Bowl road, which ran westward from the outer end of the dam. It was here that the famous Punch Bowl Tavern was located.

The stream of traffic that passes through Governor Square today represents the growth during many years of that which flowed over the old Mill Dam highway.

Connecting the Mill Dam with Gravelly Point - a promontory extending from Roxbury to what is now the corner of Massachusetts and Commonwealth Avenues - was built the Cross Dam. The two enclosed the power company’s receiving basin.

In the neighborhood of Gravelly Point, the Roxbury town landing had been located. With the completion of the Cross Dam and the availability of water power, the Point became the center of a manufacturing community. Near here were grist mills, soap and candle works, a fulling mill, a looking glass and a carpet works.

Today Gravelly Point is still the center of a business community. Despite the passage of years and a multitude of changes, we see in the Massachusetts Avenue neighborhood the development of the old-time Cross Dam Community.

Uriah Cotting did not live to see his project completed. He was succeeded by Loammi Baldwin, who finished, in 1821, the construction of the dams.

The area enclosed by them formed a tidal basin which soon became a nuisance, an eyesore, and a menace to the health of the city. The building of railways and dissatisfaction among the mill interests with the available power foretold further development. The public voice began to urge that the flats of the basin be filled in and new land be made, as had already been done along the harbor front.

By 1844, two railroads had been laid across the flats - the Boston and Worcester Railroad and the Boston and Providence line. The rails of these lines could be used to transport material - “clean gravel and earth” - easily and cheaply. By making use of the dams as retaining walls, sand dredged from the bed of the Charles River could be used to make land on the flats. Several plans for the development of the district were proposed, and, in 1852, a legislative committee recommended that the district be filled in.

That the narrow and winding streets of the older city somewhat preyed on the minds of the citizens is realized when it is observed that the new district was to be “laid out in rectangular plots, with wide streets.” Ordinary streets were to be a hundred feet wide between buildings, while the central boulevard - Commonwealth Avenue - was to have the unprecedented width for Boston of two hundred and forty feet! Imagine the meaning of this to those who could hardly even conceive a street over thirty feet wide.

It was the accepted program that the State should pay for the work of filling in the basin, and should be repaid by the sale of the new land. Certain lots were to be set aside for museums, schools, charities, and so forth. Other spaces were to be left for parks and playgrounds, and the balance to be sold for residences.

But before actual work could be begun, there was much wrangling and disagreement. The town of Roxbury, perhaps a bit jealous of her larger neighbor, refused at first to disclaim title to the bottom lands within her boundaries. The powerful water power company held out for better terms. Petty bickerings and politics delayed operations several years, but finally, in 1859, the Back Bay was attacked with sand, gravel, and earth.

Progress was slow. By 1874, the dry land extended only as far out as Gloucester Street. As the filled area increased size, building went on apace.

The fashionable families began to desert the South End for new and magnificent homes along the wide, parked streets of the newly made section. The name Back Bay, instead of an epithet applied to a sheet of shallow water and mud flats, became a synonym for fashion and culture.

Beacon Street - the former Mill Dam - was soon lined with the now familiar brown stone homes. The parallel streets were given the names that in the early days had been given to parts of Washington Street - Newbury and Marlborough. Commonwealth Avenue soon began to take on an atmosphere of luxury a bit above its neighbors. Clubs and hotels appeared - and the back bay was Back Bay.

The finishing touches at the Fenway were added between 1882 and 1885, marking the first step in the famous Metropolitan Park system of Boston.

For a decade or more the pressure in the congested downtown section of Boston has caused many to seek a business home in the wider spaces of the newer city. Very gradually trade has crept westward into Back Bay. New business centers have grown up in the neighborhood. The modern apartment house has, in many cases, displaced the residence of the ‘70’s.

Recognizing the trend of the times, the Old Colony Trust Company has established a new office to serve this growing neighborhood. This office occupies the ground floor of a fine new building at the corner of Massachusetts and Commonwealth Avenues, on the exact spot where the old Cross Dam joined the mainland at Gravelly Point, the only bit of lower Commonwealth Avenue that is not man-made land.

Sullivan, Louis H. “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered.” Lippincott’s Magazine, March 1896.

This work is no longer under copyright. It is in the public domain.

I.

The architects of this land and generation are now brought face to face with something new under the sun,-namely, that evolution and integration of social conditions, that special grouping of them, that results in a demand for the erection of tall office buildings. It is not my purpose to discuss the social conditions; I accept them as the fact, and say at once that the design of the tall office building must be recognized and confronted at the outset as a problem to be solved,-a vital problem pressing for a true solution.

Let us state the conditions in the plainest manner. Briefly, they are these: offices are necessary for the transaction of business; the invention and perfection of the high-speed elevators make vertical travel, that was once tedious and painful, now easy and comfortable, development of steel manufacture has shown the way to safe, rigid, economical constructions rising to a great height; continued growth of population in the great cities, consequent congestion of centers and rise in value of ground, stimulate an increase in number of stories; these successfully piled one upon another, react on ground values;-and so on, by action and reaction, interaction and inter-reaction. Thus has come about the form of lofty construction called the “modern office building.” It has come in answer to a call, for in it a new grouping of social conditions has found a habitation and a name.

Up to this point all in evidence is materialistic, an exhibition of force, of resolution, of brains in the keen sharp sense of the word. It is the joint product of the speculator, the engineer, the builder.

Problem: How shall we impart to this sterile pile, this crude, harsh, brutal agglomeration, this stark, staring exclamation of eternal strife, the graciousness of those higher forms of sensibility and culture that rest on the lower and fiercer passions? How shall we proclaim from the dizzy height of this strange, weird, modern housetop the peaceful evangel of sentiment, of beauty, the cult of a higher life?

This is the problem; and we must seek the solution of it in a process analogous to its own evolution,-indeed, a continuation of it,-namely, by proceeding step by step from general to special aspects, from coarser to finer considerations.

It is my belief that it is of the very essence of every problem that it contains and suggests its own solution. This I believe to be natural law. Let us examine, then, carefully the elements, let us search out this contained suggestion, this essence of the problem.

The practical conditions are, broadly speaking, these:

Wanted-1st, a story below-ground, containing boilers, engines of various sorts, etc.,-in short, the plant for power, heating, lighting, etc. 2nd, a ground floor, so called, devoted to stores, banks, or other establishments requiring large area, ample spacing, ample light, and great freedom of access. 3rd, a second story readily accessible by stairways,-this space usually in large subdivisions, with corresponding liberality in structural spacing and expanse of glass and breadth of external openings. 4th, above this an indefinite number of stories of offices piled tier upon tier, one tier just like another tier, one office just like all the other offices,-an office being similar to a cell in a honey-comb, merely a compartment, nothing more. 5th and last, at the top of this pile is placed a space or story that, as related to the life and usefulness of the structure, is purely physiological in its nature,-namely, the attic. In this the circulatory system completes itself and makes its grand turn, ascending and descending. The space is filled with tanks, pipes, valves, sheaves, and mechanical et cetera that supplement and complement the force originating plant hidden below-ground in the cellar. Finally, or at the beginning rather, there must be on the ground floor a main aperture or entrance common to all the occupants or patrons of the building.

This tabulation is, in the main, characteristic of every tall office building in the country. As to the necessary arrangements for light courts. these are not germane to the problem, and, as will become soon evident, I trust, need not be considered here. These things, and such others as the arrangement of elevators, for example, have to do strictly with the economics of the building, and I assume them to have been fully considered and disposed of to the satisfaction of purely utilitarian and pecuniary demands. Only in rare instances does the plan or floor arrangement of the tall office building take on an aesthetic value, and this usually when the lighting court is external or becomes an internal feature of great importance.

As I am here seeking not for an individual or special solution, but for a true normal type, the attention must be confined to those conditions that, in the main, are constant in all tall office buildings, and every mere incidental and accidental variation eliminated from the consideration, as harmful to the clearness of the main inquiry.

The practical horizontal and vertical division or office unit is naturally based on a room of comfortable area and height, and the size of this standard office room as naturally predetermines the standard structural unit, and, approximately, the size of window-openings. In turn, these purely arbitrary units of structure form in an equally natural way the true basis of the artistic development of the exterior. Of course the structural spacings and openings in the first or mercantile story are required to be the largest of all; those in the second or quasi-mercantile story are of a somewhat similar nature. The spacings and openings in the attic are of no importance whatsoever (the windows have no actual value), for light may be taken from the top, and no recognition of a cellular division is necessary in the structural spacing.

Hence it follows inevitably, and in the simplest possible way, that if we follow our natural instincts without thought of books, rules, precedents, or any such educational impedimenta to a spontaneous and “sensible” result, we will in the following manner design the exterior of our tall office building,-to wit:

Beginning with the first story, we give this a main entrance that attracts the eye to its location, and the remainder of the story we treat in a more or less liberal, expansive, sumptuous way,-a way based exactly on the practical necessities, but expressed with a sentiment of largeness and freedom. The second story we treat in a similar way, but usually with milder pretension. Above this, throughout the indefinite number of typical office tiers, we take our cue from the individual cell, which requires a window with its separating pier, its sill and lintel, and we, without more ado, make them look all alike because they are all alike. This brings us to the attic, which, having no division into office-cells, and no special requirement for lighting, gives the power to show by means of its broad expanse of wall, and its dominating weight and character, that which is the fact,-namely, that the series of office-tiers has come definitely to an end.

This may perhaps seem a bald result and a heartless, pessimistic way of stating it, but even so we certainly have advanced a most characteristic stage beyond the imagined sinister building of the speculator-engineer- builder combination. For the hand of the architect is now definitely felt in the decisive position at once taken, and the suggestion of a thoroughly sound, logical, coherent expression of the conditions is becoming apparent.

When I say the hand of the architect, I do not mean necessarily the accomplished and trained architect. I mean only a man with a strong, natural liking for buildings, and a disposition to shape them in what seems to his unaffected nature a direct and simple way. He will probably tread an innocent path from his problem to its solution, and therein he will show an enviable gift of logic. If he have some gift for form in detail, some love for that, his result in addition to its simple straightforward naturalness and completeness in general statement, will have something of the charm of sentiment.

However, thus far the results are only partial and tentative at best; relatively true, they are but superficial. We are doubtless right in our instinct but we must seek a fuller justification, a finer sanction, for it.

II.

I assume now that in the study of our problem we have passed through the various stages of inquiry, as follows: 1st, the social basis of the demand for tall office buildings; 2nd, its literal material satisfaction; 3rd, elevation of the question from considerations of literal planning, construction, and equipment, to the plane of elementary architecture as a direct outgrowth of sound, sensible building; 4th, the question again elevated from an elementary architecture to the beginnings of true architectural expression, through the addition of a certain quality and quantity of sentiment.

But our building may have all these in a considerable degree and yet be far from the adequate solution of the problem I am attempting to define. We must now heed the imperative voice of emotion.

It demands of us, What is the chief characteristic of the tall office building? And at once we answer, it is lofty. This loftiness is to the artist-nature its thrilling aspect. It is the very open organ-tone in its appeal. It must be in turn the dominant chord in his expression of it, the true excitant of his imagination. It must be tall, every inch of it tall. The force and power of altitude must be in it the glory and pride of exaltation must be in it. It must be every inch a proud and soaring thing, rising in sheer exultation that from bottom to top it is a unit without a single dissenting line,-that it is the new, the unexpected, the eloquent peroration of most bald, most sinister, most forbidding conditions.

The man who designs in this spirit and with the sense of responsibility to the generation he lives in must be no coward, no denier, no bookworm, no dilettante. He must live of his life and for his life in the fullest, most consummate sense. He must realize at once and with the grasp of inspiration that the problem of the tall office building is one of the most stupendous, one of the most magnificent opportunities that the Lord of Nature in His beneficence has ever offered to the proud spirit of man.

That this has not been perceived-indeed, has been flatly denied-is an exhibition of human perversity that must give us pause.

III.

One more consideration: Let us now lift this question into the region of calm, philosophic observation. Let us seek a comprehensive, a final solution: let the problem indeed dissolve.

Certain critics, and very thoughtful ones, have advanced the theory that the true prototype of the tall office building is the classical column, consisting of base, shaft and capital,-the molded base of the column typical of the lower stories of our building, the plain or fluted shaft suggesting the monotonous, uninterrupted series of office-tiers, and the capital the completing power and luxuriance of the attic.

Other theorizers assuming a mystical symbolism as a guide, quote the many trinities in nature and in art, and the beauty and conclusiveness of such trinity in unity. They aver the beauty of prime numbers, the mysticism of the number three, the beauty of all things that are in three parts,-to wit, the day, subdividing into morning, noon, and night; the limbs, the thorax, and the head, constituting the body. So they say, should the building be in three parts vertically, substantially as before, but for different motives.

Others, of purely intellectual temperament, hold that such a design should be in the nature of a logical statement; it should have a beginning, a middle, and an ending, each clearly defined,-therefore again a building, as above, in three parts vertically.

Others, seeking their examples and justification in the vegetable kingdom. urge that such a design shall above all things be organic. They quote the suitable flower with its bunch of leaves at the earth, its long graceful stem, carrying the gorgeous single flower. They point to the pine-tree,-its messy roots, its lithe, uninterrupted trunk, its tuft of green high in the air. Thus, they say, should be the design of the tall office building: again in three parts vertically.

Others still, more susceptible to the power of a unit than to the grace of a trinity, say that such a design should be struck out at a blow, as though by a blacksmith or by mighty Jove, or should be thought-born, as was Minerva, full-grown. They accept the notion of a triple division as permissible and welcome, but non-essential. With them it is a subdivision of their unit; the unit does not come from the alliance of the three; they accept it without murmur, provided the subdivision does not disturb the sense of singleness and repose.

All of these critics and theorists agree, however, positively, unequivocally, in this, that the tall office building should not, must not, be made a field for the display of architectural knowledge in the encyclopedic sense; that too much learning in this instance is fully as dangerous, as obnoxious, as too little learning; that miscellany is abhorrent to their sense; that the sixteen-story building must not consist of sixteen separate, distinct, and unrelated buildings piled one upon the other until the top of the pile is reached.

To this latter folly I would not refer were it not the fact that nine out of every ten tall office buildings are designed in precisely this way in effect, not by the ignorant, but by the educated. It would seem, indeed, as though the “trained” architect, when facing this problem, were beset at every story, or, at most, every third or forth story, by the hysterical dread lest he be in “bad form;” lest he be not bedecking his building with sufficiency of quotation from this, that, or the other “correct” building in some other land and some other time; lest he be not copious enough in the display of his wares; lest he betray, in short, a lack of resources. To loosen up the touch of this cramped and fidgity hand, to allow the nerves to calm, the brain to cool, to reflect equably, to reason naturally, seems beyond him; he lives, as it were, in a waking nightmare filled with the disjecta membra of architecture. The spectacle is not inspiriting.

As to the former and serious views held by discerning and thoughtful critics, I shall, with however much of regret, dissent from them for the purpose of this demonstration, for I regard them as secondary only, non-essential, and as touching not at all upon the vital spot, upon the quick of the entire matter, upon the true, the immovable philosophy of the architectural art.

This view let me now state, for it brings to the solution of the problem a final, comprehensive formula:

All things in nature have a shape, that is to say, a form, an outward semblance, that tells us what they are, that distinguishes them from ourselves and from each other.

Unfailingly in nature these shapes express the inner life, the native quality, of the animal, tree, bird, fish, that they present to us; they are so characteristic, so recognizable, that we say simply, it is “natural” it should be so. Yet the moment we peer beneath this surface of things, the moment we look through the tranquil reflection of ourselves and the clouds above us, down into the clear, fluent, unfathomable depth of nature, how startling is the silence of it, how amazing the flow of life, how absorbing the mystery! Unceasingly the essence of things is taking shape in the matter of things, and this unspeakable process we call birth and growth. Awhile the spirit and the matter fade away together, and it is this that we call decadence, death. These two happenings seem jointed and interdependent, blended into one like a bubble and its iridescence, and they seem borne along upon a slowly moving air. This air is wonderful past all understanding.

Yet to the steadfast eye of one standing upon the shore of things, looking chiefly and most lovingly upon that side on which the sun shines and that we feel joyously to be life, the heart is ever gladdened by the beauty, the exquisite spontaneity, with which life seeks and takes on its forms in an accord perfectly responsive to its needs. It seems ever as though the life and the form were absolutely one and inseparable, so adequate is the sense of fulfillment.

Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not change form does not change. The granite rocks, the ever-brooding hills, remain for ages; the lightning lives, comes into shape, and dies in a twinkling.

It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law.

Shall we, then, daily violate this law in our art? Are we so decadent, so imbecile, so utterly weak of eyesight, that we cannot perceive this truth so simple, so very simple? Is it indeed a truth so transparent that we see through it but do not see it? It is really then, a very marvelous thing, or is it rather so commonplace, so everyday, so near a thing to us, that we cannot perceive that the shape, form, outward expression, design, or whatever we may choose, of the tall office building should in the very nature of things follow the functions of the building, and that where the function does not change, the form is not to change?

Does this not readily, clearly, and conclusively show that the lower one or two stories will take on a special character suited to the special needs, that the tiers of typical offices, having the same unchanging function, shall continue in the same unchanging form, and that as to the attic, specific and conclusive as it is in its very nature, its function shall equally be so in force, in significance, in continuity, in conclusiveness of outward expression? From this results, naturally, spontaneously, unwittingly, a three-part division,-not from any theory, symbol, or fancied logic.

And thus the design of the tall office building takes its place with all other architectural types made when architecture, as has happened once in many years, was a living art. Witness the Greek temple, the Gothic cathedral, the mediaeval fortress.

And thus, when native instinct and sensibility shall govern the exercise of our beloved art; when the known law, the respected law, shall be that form ever follows function; when our architects shall cease strutting and prattling handcuffed and vainglorious In the asylum of a foreign school; when it is truly felt, cheerfully accepted, that this law opens up the airy sunshine of green fields, and gives to us a freedom that the very beauty and sumptuousness of the outworking Of the law itself as exhibited in nature will deter any sane, any sensitive man from changing into license; when it becomes evident that we are merely speaking a foreign language with a noticeable American accent, whereas each and every architect in the land might, under the benign influence of this law, express in the simplest, most modest, most natural way that which il is in him to say: that he might really and would surely develop his own characteristic individuality, and that the architectural art with him would certainly become a living form of speech, a natural form of utterance, giving surcease to him and adding treasures small and great to the growing art of his land; when we know and feel that Nature is our friend, not our implacable enemy,-that an afternoon in the country, an hour by the sea, a full open view of one single day, through dawn, high noon, and twilight, will suggest to us so much that is rhythmical, deep, and eternal in the vast art of architecture, something so deep, so true, that all the narrow formalities, hard-and-fast rules, and strangling bonds of the schools cannot stifle it in us,-then it may be proclaimed that we are on the high-road to a natural and satisfying art, an architecture that will soon become a fine art in the true, the best sense of the word, an art that will live because it will be of the people, for the people, and by the people.

History

Long after Leif Erikson was reputed to have explored the Charles River in the Eleventh Century, the waterway served early settlers as a convenient “highway” and as a site for settlements and flourishing industries.

The river continued as a prime avenue for large scale commercial shipping well into the Twentieth Century. Meanwhile, some 750 acres of Back Bay Tidal land was filled in between 1834 and 1884, followed by additional filling of 640 acres behind retaining walls along the Boston and Cambridge shores. Remaining, however, was a Tidal Estuary that extended nine miles inland to the Watertown Dam, thus creating obnoxious conditions emanating from the exposed mud flats twice daily at low tides.

Condemning the Estuary from an environmental standpoint the Board of Metropolitan Park Commissioners and the State Board of Health in 1884, reported:

“The banks of the river and the exposed flats have become from year to year more offensive until … people living near the stream have been exposed to the disagreeable and probably injurious emanations therefrom.”

The report called for a dam at the mouth of the river to keep the tides out of the basin and maintain a permanent basin level and a lock to allow large vessels access to the river regardless of tide levels. A subsequent report stated that “difficulties experienced in passing under the low bridges at high tides have combined to make boating and use of the stream by small steamboats unattractive and, in a measure, dangerous.”

No less compelling was the landscape architects’ vision of a fresh water basin and shoreline park for “working people, who would find refreshment on the public river bank … (and) playgrounds for children.” They also foresaw “a throughly pleasant mode of travel on roads built upon the boundaries of the proposed reservation for a continuous parkway from Waltham to the heart of Boston.”

Held out as an example was “the world renowned Alster Basin, the water park of the City of Hamburg (Germany).” In his inaugural address of 1891, Boston Mayor Mathews declared, “We have in this basin the opportunity for making the finest water park in the country.”

These glowing visions became a reality over the years following completion of the 1170 foot dam, boat lock, and sluices in 1908, and a highway atop the dam in 1910. One large lock was provided. The lock was 350 feet long, 45 feet wide, and 18 feet deep at low water. The site replaced Craigie Bridge, originally built as a toll bridge in 1809, connecting Cambridge and Leverett Street in Boston.

The new river basin was set at eight feet above low tides (elevation 108), allowing about six to eight hours at each tide for sluicing river discharge by gravity flow. Design of sluicing facilities was based on 10 percent in excess of flood flow records for a freshet of February 1886, the largest recorded flood up to that time.

The sluicing waterway area served adequately in controlling maximum basin levels in a range of elevation 109 to 110.2 until 1954, when Hurricane Carol, accompanied by heavy rain, flooded Storrow Drive because of its low elevation of 109.5. A year later, Hurricane Diane hit the Boston area with a 12-inch rainfall and the basin level reached 112.55. Basin flooding caused damage of nearly $6 million and estimated $24 million at today’s costs. Lack of pumping was the big problem, for flood waters could not be released from the basin into the harbor when tides reached basin level.

Meanwhile, pleasure boat passage had grown enormously - nearly triple the 6,254 recorded numbers in 1911, for all types of crafts - causing congestion and delays. Projections indicated growth to 40,000 passages. Saltwater intrusion into the basin through the old dam had become a pollution problem, and the specter of other big storms hovered over invaluable river front and Back Bay property.

Following extended controversy over the best remedy, construction of a new $58.7 million dam was started in 1974, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with the Metropolitan District Commission, and completed in late 1979.

New Charles River Dam

The New Charles River Dam is a multipurpose dam using locks and sluiceways to control the elevation of the Charles River Basin.

The locks - water tight compartments with gates at both ends which raise or lower boats to let them pass between bodies of water at different levels - serve dual purposes: they pass boats between Boston Harbor and the Charles River Basin, and they drain excess flood waters from the basin into the Harbor during flood conditions.

The New Charles River Dam features two recreational vessel locks, measuring 220 feet long by 22 feet wide, and one commercial lock with dimensions of 300 feet long by 40 feet wide. All three locks are operated 24 hours a day, year-round.

When a boat enters a lock from a lower water level, the lock gates close, and the lock fills to raise the boat. When the water in the lock reaches the level of the other side, the opposite gates open to let the boat proceed. If a boat enters from higher water, the process is reversed. Once boats enter the locks, they are secured to floats.

If tidal water is higher than the water level of the basin, then before the lock gates to the basin are opened, the extra water is pumped back into the “ocean side” of the dam until the water in the lock is leveled to basin height.

The lock gates are electrically actuated, hydraulically operated bascule type dams structured on a horizontal axis at the bottom of the steel grates. If necessary, the locks can open partially at both ends during low tides to drain excess flood waters into the Harbor.

Pumping Station

To supplement the natural gravitational drainage of the basin through slucieways, the New Charles River Dam features a pumping station which houses six vertical lift pumps, each capable of pumping 630,000 gallons or a combined four million gallons of basin water back into the Harbor each minute. Each pump is driven by a 2,700 horsepower Fairbanks Morse Diesel Engine.

During possible flood conditions, which occur when the basin level reaches two inches above the 108 constant maintained by the Metropolitan District Commission, the pumps at the New Charles River Dam have the pumping capacity to convey water at a rapid rate, back into the harbor, through the discharge pipes, or sluices.

The pumping station itself is 190 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 60 feet high. It is bordered on the south by the MDC Police Boat Facility and on the north by Paul Revere Landing Park. An overhead enclosed walkway connects the pump station with three standing stair towers and with the three navigational locks below. The walkway houses the control station for operating the locks and runs the full length of the pump house which contains the MDC Offices responsible for the overseeing operations of the Charles River and all other locks and drawbridge facilities.

Fishway

The fishway incorporated into the New Charles River Dam was designed to restore anadromous fish - those which leave the ocean to spawn in fresh water - to the Charles River Basin. Although the fishway was designed to reintroduce the American Shad to the river, other species including alewife, blueback herring, white perch, rainbow smelt, and American eels travel through it as well.

Built as a ladder, the fishway is a vertical slot-type reinforced concrete structure 144.83 feet long by 4 feet wide, with a tope elevation of 16.55 feet mean sea level. The ladder has 29 connecting pools with a false weir to attract fish and provide a jump for their entrance into the Charles River Basin. It also features an exit channel connecting pool 17 of the ladder to the basin. This channel provides gravity flow freshwater and a passageway to the basin whenever the tide is below elevation 104.6 MDC.

The fishway is operated 24 hours a day from March 1st to July 15th. Juvenile fish migrating downstream between June and October will move to the sea partially via the boat locks.

The fishway was designed and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Extracts from:

“An evaluation of the removal of salt water from the Charles River”, Metropolitan District Commission

Conclusions

Large amounts of seawater in the lower portion of the Charles River basin cause a stable stratification which is difficult to disturb. By late summer, and in dry years, a saltwater layer extends all the way to Watertown dam. The density of salt water is higher than fresh water, causing salt water to remain on the bottom. This layering prevents vertical mixing of oxygen-rich surface waters with oxygen-poor bottom waters, resulting in anaerobic bottom muds and steady production of hydrogen sulfide.

Bottom muds throughout most of the basin contain significant amounts of metals, pesticides, oil and grease, and other pollutants. Benthic organisms are limited, and the muds exert a significant oxygen demand. Surveys have indicated that 21 species of fish reside in the basin at different times during the year. However, spawning cannot occur in toxic muds.

In the lower basin, downstream of Boston University Bridge, the stratification is currently strong and stable enough so that, although malodorous gases are generated, they are not brought to the surface and liberated. Upstream of the bridge, on the other hand, the small amount of diluted seawater which reaches that part of the basin results in a weak stratification. This is easily disturbed and periodically releases noticeable quantities of malodorous gases.

Water quality will be improved by removing the stratification. Possible methods include:

1. curtailing intrusion of salt from the harbor (currently, most salt water enters during lock operations; if this intrusion were reduced or curtailed, the natural stream-flow would in time reduce the salt content of the basin)

2. vertically mixing the contents of the basin, to destroy the stratification maintained by residual salt content and by any vertical temperature gradients.

With the new dam in operation, the rate of salt intrusion from the harbor will be reduced by 80 to 90 percent, principally because of the smaller locks (pleasure boats will be the principal users of the new dam). However, this reduction by itself will not ensure consistent quality control, which vertical mixing capability will provide. Although stratification in the upper basin will be almost completely eliminated, it will still occur in the lower basin. In summer, when seawater intrusion rates are greatest because of heavy lock traffic, the decreased freshwater in-flow will not be sufficient to purge the basin entirely of all the sea-water, as it intrudes. Temperature stratification downstream of Boston University Bridge will also occur.

In the lower basin, the present strong stratification, which traps and contains malodorous gases, will be replaced by a weaker, less stable stratification, sufficient to promote anoxic and odor-causing conditions much of the time but too weak to prevent occasional release of these odors.

Satisfactory conditions in the basin can be maintained, as long as aerobic conditions are maintained (e.g., by mixing the waters as necessary, to overcome stratification and oxygen deficiency). If the basin is prevented from stratifying, natural reaeration will maintain aerobic conditions, and noxious odors will not be generated.

The most satisfactory way to prevent stratification, or to destratify, is by means of a simple air mixing system. Air fed to diffusers located at low points in the basin will pump bottom waters to the surface. Field tests indicate that the air/water flow can be regulated, so that it will not disturb or resuspend a significant amount of bottom muds. We propose that diffusers be installed at five locations between Boston University Bridge and the new Charles River dam.

The current saltwater intrusion provides a continually varying salinity, which appears to inhibit the severity of algal blooms. Reduced saltwater intrusion, with operation of the new dam, might enhance conditions favorable to freshwater algal blooms. Such blooms may be controllable, by deliberately increasing the salinity of the basin waters (i.e., admitting salt water).

The recommendations of this study may increase the number of fish, but not significantly.

Basin muds are of extremely poor quality. However, dredging the entire basin bottom would be too costly (both in dollars and environmental effects). Creation of an aerobic water layer, in contact with them, will improve their quality.

If a no-action program were adopted, stratification would occur and would be subjected to uncontrolled disruption. Anaerobic conditions would exist in parts of the basin, and odors would continue to be produced. Prior to full service of the new dam, these odors would continue to be concentrated in the upper part of the basin. After the new dam was operable, the upper basin would probably be odor free. However, odors could be anticipated in the lower basin, and algal blooms would also be a greater possibility.

Recommendations

It is recommended that a permanent destratification system be installed for use by the time the new dam is placed in full service. This system will allow the basin to be destratified or mixed, whenever necessary.

Construction of a permanent destratification facility will (1) improve the aquatic environment of the basin by maintaining aerobic conditions throughout, (2) prevent stratification resulting from temperature or salt water, and (3) result in an odor-free discharge from the flood control pumps at the new dam. Moreover, the entrance of seawater because of lock operations or leakage will not cause any problem, because the saltwater wedge will be homogenized with the fresh water. Stabilization of bottom sediments will be promoted, and overturns of the lower basin waters will not result in odors.

Destratification facilities will consist of compressors, located in the upper gate house at the old dam, supplying three air diffusers. One air diffuser will be located upstream of Longfellow Bridge, one downstream of Longfellow Bridge, and one in the area between the new and old dams. Compressors will also be located in the Fens gate house, supplying two air diffusers. One air diffuser will be located downstream of Harvard Bridge and one upstream toward Boston University Bridge.

Mixing equipment will be started each year at the breakup of ice cover, when the volume of salt water in the basin is at a minimum. Several days of operation will mix the basin thoroughly and ensure homogeneous, aerobic conditions from top to bottom. From breakup of ice cover through October, mixers adjacent to the old dam will operate continuously; the other deep parts of the basin will be monitored for dissolved oxygen. If oxygen is deficient in any of these areas, mixing equipment may be turned on for a few days until aerobic conditions are restored. Dissolved oxygen monitoring is quite simple, consisting of lowering a probe to the appropriate point in the water and reading a meter attached to the probe. (Sampling or laboratory testing is not required.)

Estimated total cost of construction, including engineering and contingencies, is $500,000. Estimated annual operation and maintenance cost is $25,000 (June 1976 dollars).

Courtesy of Dr. Romin Koebel. Used with permission.

Based on:

Cudahy, Brian. Change at Park Street Under: The Story of Boston’s Subways. Brattleboro, Vermont: The Stephen Greene Press, 1976.

Holleran, Michael. Bostons Changeful Times: Origins of Preservation and Planning in America. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Schaeffer, K. H., and Elliot Sclar. Access for All, Transportation and Urban Growth. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1975.

Milestones

Horse Car Lines

1850

In 1850, the Boston metropolitan area reached 2 miles from City Hall. For internal circulation, the city depended on walking and ferries. Boston and its adjacent communities were arranged to minimize walking. Horse car lines, became fixtures in American cities in the 1850s.

1852

Horse-drawn street railways starting in 1852 were a major force in restructuring the area. They attracted primarily passengers with bundles and parcels, or on special errands to a distant destination, (S&S p. 73). People started taking jobs in parts of the city too far to walk to.

Annexations

In the horsecar decades, Boston’s corporate limits achieved their greatest expansion through annexation.

  1. Roxbury on the mainland end of the Neck was annexed first (1868);
     
  2. Dorchester in 1870;
     
  3. Charlestown in 1874, and across the Back Bay the city annexed Brighton;
     
  4. West Roxbury was annexed last.

Brookline opted against annexation.

Horsecar lines were a force in reorganizing the spatially undifferentiated walking city into well-defined geographic neighborhoods for different ethnic and socio-economic groups, as the contrasting experiences of the Back Bay and the South End illustrate.

The South End never became an upper-class neighborhood as had been the intention, but rather turned into a rooming house area.

Development of the Back Bay began in the late 1860s by which time horsecars made distinct socio-economic neighborhoods possible. The Back Bay has preserved its character as upper-income residential area.

The horsecars were a success. High-density population led to a high-density ridership and the problems of commuter ridership and peaks had not yet appeared. Horse cars had limitations in speed and power.

Problems included: abuse of animals; feeding and stabling; public health issues. The electric street car was the logical successor (87).

Electric Street Car

1880

Frank Julian Sprague 1880 invented a flexible cable that transmitted electricity from an overhead wire to the streetcar’s electric engine. This invention eliminated the danger of an electrified third rail at ground level.

1887

The Massachusetts legislature enacted a bill bringing Boston’s West End Street Railway into existence.

1889

The first electric trolley cars appeared.

Streetcar companies, charging a flat 5 cents fare and offering free transfers, engaged in suburban real estate development. Since no one wanted to live more than a few minutes’ walk from the trolley stop, streetcar lines promoted suburbs of limited scope, and saw the electric street car as a means of developing outlying real estate. With this motivation, keeping fares down and extending lines as far as possible, was economically rational.

Through mergers Whitney put together a sizable system. By 1900, the outer limits of Boston’s electric railways reached some six miles from downtown. As cross-town lines were built, free transfer points were added (S&S p. 78). Downtown boomed from an influx of shoppers, the trolley, traveling at 10 to 15 miles an hour, brought from all over town.

1892

Street space was insufficient. Trolleys lined up bumper to bumper on Tremont Street. A State commission, charged with preparing a comprehensive analysis and making recommendations, called for measures to alleviate congestion, and for more efficient transit service. The report recommended a network of elevated railways and an underground tunnel.

Subway

1894

The General Court enacted a bill authorizing:

  • a subway for electric trolley cars [The bill also authorized,
     
  • the incorporation of the Boston Elevated Railway Company, and
     
  • the formation of a public agency, the Boston Transit Commission].
     

The enabling legislation also stipulated that:

  • the Boston Transit Commission provide for a bridge across the Charles with a transit line reservation, and
     
  • East Boston both deserved and required transit service.

Alignment and geometry of the electric trolley car subway

The tunnel, two and two-thirds miles in length, was to approach the downtown from three directions by way of entry ramps called “inclines,” which provided the interface between the tunnel and street levels.

  1. From the west, on Boylston Street at the Public Gardens.
     
  2. From the south at Tremont Street and Broadway. (Pleasant Street)
     
  3. From the north emerging a short distance north of Haymarket Square providing service to the North Union Station.
     

Three underground loops would enable trolleys to reverse directions.

1895

Ground was broken near the Public Gardens on Boylston Street opposite the Providence Railway depot.

The initial leg ran beneath Boston Common between the Park Street terminal and the Boylston-Public Gardens incline.

1896

The Boston Elevated Railway Company was designated to build and to operate a combination subway and elevated line under the provisions of a 20-year lease negotiated with the Transit Commission in 1896.

Park system.

1897

The first tunnel was not a product of the free enterprise system. The early history of the subway shows that real estate development was the driving force. Private entrepreneurs declined an offer to construct the first tunnel, because:

  1. it would involve considerable capital costs,
     
  2. run through the already built up downtown leaving no opportunity to offset these costs through capital gains from the abutting real estate.

Moreover,

3. the charter negotiated with the city required the system to maintain the five cents fare with free transfers for at least twenty-five years.

Entrepreneurs saw no profits in transportation. Consequently, the tunnel was built by the city.

  • Tremont Street subway between the Park Street terminal and the Boylston-Public Gardens. The first leg of the Tremont Street subway between the Park Street terminal and the Boylston-Public Gardens incline opened. It removed 200 trolleys which had previously daily plied the street in each direction.

[Frank Sprague’s multiple-unit control was used for the first time on the South Side Elevated in Chicago].

1898

  • The second subway leg between Park Street and the Haymarket incline opened.
     

The Main-Line El

Encouraged by the success of the Tremont Street/Boylston Street trolley tunnel, Boston moved ahead on the transit plans for Roxbury, East Boston, Charlestown and Cambridge (Cudahy, p. 17). The first of these involved the construction of a combination subway and elevated line that would bisect the downtown and connect intermodal terminals at Dudley Square in Roxbury to the south and Sullivan Square in Charlestown to the north. Trains of multiple-unit cars, using Frank Sprague’s multiple unit control, which had been used for the first time on the South Side Elevated in Chicago in 1897, would load and unload passengers at floor-level platforms. The system employed track- level third-rail current collection. These trains were put in service, while the tunnel beneath Washington Street bisecting downtown was being built. This meant running multiple-unit trains through the Tremont Street trolley subway until the Washington Street Tunnel was ready. Such routing necessitated 1) exclusion of the surface cars for a period of time, and 2) interim adaptation of the trolley subway tunnel to high platform usage.

Once the Boston Elevated Railway Company had built the tunnels for the city, the tunnels would be leased, to the Boston Elevated Company.

1901

Routing of El trains through the trolley subway commenced. A major change in surface car operations took place in conjunction with the opening of the Main-Line El between Dudley Square in Roxbury and Sullivan Square in Charlestown. Cars that had previously gone all the way downtown thus providing a “single-seat” ride between outlying areas and the central business district, their previous final destination, would now be rerouted into new intermodal terminals at Dudley Square in Roxbury and Sullivan Square in Charlestown (C. p. 20). At the Dudley terminal two sets of street car tracks ran up a pair of ramps to El platform level for easy transfer at grade. Each of set of tracks looped and returned to the street. In this manner several car lines could be accommodated on just two tracks.

  1. The loop track to the west of the El platform would be used by car lines reaching into the growing areas of Forest Hills, Jamaica plain and Roxbury Crossing.
     
  2. The loop track to the east would be used by a some half-dozen lines that fanned out into Roxbury and Dorchester" (p. 21). At Sullivan Square in Charlestown 10 stub-end trolley tracks - five on either side of the single elevated track - provided terminal facilities for the many feeder street car lines connecting with the El.

With 200,000 fares on the first day of operation, the Roxbury-Charlestown line was an immediate success.

Street railway tracks.

Main Line El: Additions and Alterations

The Main Line El was underwent numerous additions and alterations. In August,1901 an all elevated right-of-way over Atlantic Avenue was put in service. Turning off the Main Line north of Dover street Station and rejoining the original route near North Station, it provided an alternate to the Tremont Street subway. The Atlantic Avenue service:

  1. linked the two major railroad stations and provided access to steamship berths and ferryboat slips. (C. p. 23).
     
  2. allowed an array of routing alternatives.
     

The routing alternatives included the following routings:

  1. from Sullivan to Dudley via Atlantic Avenue;
     
  2. an “Atlantic Avenue Circuit” train, in loop service through the subway and over the waterfront El;
     
  3. a North Station-South Station shuttle;
     
  4. from Sullivan to Sullivan;
     
  5. from Dudley to Dudley.

1904

The Tunnel beneath the harbor between East Boston and Downtown. In 1894 then first-term representative from East Boston John L. Bates had sought to have East Boston included in the legislation as both requiring and deserving of transit service. 10 years later, as Massachusetts governor, Bates presided over the opening ceremonies of the trolley tunnel under Boston Harbor. The tunnel connected Maverick Square in East Boston with Court Street in downtown. The geometric design of the route included sharp curves, steep gradients, close clearances. The route had been designed with no premonition of any subsequent conversion to multiple unit trains, which would take place in 1924, 20 years later.

With the opening of the below-harbor transit crossing, patronage of the municipally-operated ferry boats dropped off sharply. Only teams of horses and drays continued to use the old side-wheel steamers. The ultimate demise of the ferry boats contributed to the abandonment of the Boston Elevated Railway’s Atlantic Avenue Line. (Cudahy, p. 31). After the first harbor vehicular crossing, the Sumner Tunnel, linking East Boston to Boston for automobile travel, opened in 1934, the municipality-supported ferry closed. As a consequence, ridership on the Atlantic Avenue line, dropped so low that (S&S p. 89) the line was forced to close in 1938.

1906

Extension of the Tremont Street/Boylston Street electric trolley subway to Copley Square. For some years the shopping district had been extending to the west along Boylston Street in the direction of Copley Square. In 1906, the Boston Transit Commission noting that streetcar traffic on Boylston Street, had “practically reached its limit,” recommended extending the Tremont Street/Boylston Street electric trolley subway at least as far as Copley Square, or further. The legislature, however, was to favor a route next to the river.

1907

Connecting to Cambridge

An additional bridge, the Longfellow Bridge, across the Charles River, was dedicated, but the built in transit way right-of-way would remain unused for five years. Local residents wanted five stations between Charles Street and Harvard Square. Opposing suburbanites on the other hand wanted through-express service, with a single station at Central Square where there were excellent transfer facilities to Brookline and Newton. (Cudahy, p. 41).

1908

Completion of the Main Line El/Tremont Street Subway Reverts to Previous All-Trolley Status. An important revision of the “Main Line El” occurred when trains were rerouted from the original Tremont Street subway into the new $8 million, 1.23-mile tunnel beneath Washington Street. With no provision for the running of surface cars in the new Washington Street subway, the Tremont Street subway reverted at once to its previous all-trolley status. The high platforms were torn out and the link-up ramp at Pleasant Street was reconnected. (p. 27). [The Pleasant Street ramp had been the interim transition between the elevated and underground parts of the Main Line El.]

1909

The Main Line El Extension to Forest Hills

The Main Line El was extended southward some 2 1/2 miles from Dudley to a new terminal at Forest Hills. The impressive new terminal was considered to be the “chef d’oeuvre” of rapid transit development in Boston up until this time.

1****911

Extension of Tremont/Boylston Street Subway Tunnel to Copley Square

Boylston Street was experiencing increasing commercial development. Boylston business interests persuaded the legislature to approve an extension of the central trolley beyond the Public Gardens in an alignment that ran beneath Boylston Street. [The legislature had initially favored an alignment closer to the river].

1912

The Main Line El Extension to Lechmere Square in Cambridge

A 1.8 mile elevated route from the Haymarket incline to Lechmere Square in Cambridge was built. The elevated route served North Station.

1913

During excavations for the new Boylston subway at Arlington Street and again in 1939 during excavations for the New England Mutual Life Insurance Building, an important archeological discovery was made some thirty feet below street level - 65,000 sharpened wooden stakes - remnants of an ancient fish weir 2,000 to 3,600 years old. The weir extended into the northeastern section of the block bounded by Stuart Street and St. James Avenue.

1914

Westward extension of the Central Trolley Tunnel beyond Copley Square to Kenmore Square

A westward leg was spliced onto the original Tremont Street electric trolley Line. A two track tunnel under Boylston Street extended through Back Bay to a point east of Kenmore Square, where it connected to surface branches providing service to Brookline, Allston and Brighton. Merchants expressed concern about what good a subway with an uninterrupted run of four thousand feet from Copley Square to the existing downtown station at Tremont Street could do business interests on Boylston Streets between Clarendon and Tremont streets. Consequently, they pressed for an intermediate station at Arlington Street. The Boston Elevated Railroad Company, which held the transit franchise, opposed such a station. The state legislature also rejected an Arlington Street station.

1915

  • Mayor Curley supported a renewed push for an Arlington Street station.
     
  • The Arlington Street station bill and the district-revision bill were passed by the legislature together. (Massachusetts Special Acts and Resolves, 1915, Acts ch. 297 (Arlington Street station); 1915 Acts ch. 333 building heights). (H. 254).
     
  • A “Center-entrance car” designed for service in the trolley subways was put in service, appearing first as motorless trailers.
     

1916

Extension of East Boston Tunnel to Bowdoin Square

The layout of the Court Street terminal of the East Boston tunnel was poor. Trolleys had “to change ends” before returning to East Boston. This situation was rectified by an extension across town (0.41 miles) to Bowdoin Station, allowing a loop turnaround, as well as an incline up and out to surface tracks in the middle of Cambridge Street. In this manner through trolley service between Chelsea and Cambridge could be provided." (C. p. 31)

1917

Extension Southward of Cambridge-Park Street Under Subway

The Cambridge-Park Street Under subway was extended incrementally toward South Boston to Broadway Station. By December a tunnel under the Fort Point Channel brought the line to Broadway Station in South Boston.

A fleet of center-entrance motor cars- was delivered. Initially assigned to East Boston Tunnel service, they were then reassigned to run outdoors in three-car multiple-unit trains on the Beacon Street and Commonwealth Avenue route, from which they dived into the original subway complex. The wide center doors were well-suited for the fast loading and unloading demanded at the Park and Boylston stations.

1918

Despite strong growth in ridership, in part due to the five cent fare and free transfers negotiated in 1896, the Boston Elevated was forced to declare bankruptcy. The State legislature had to step in passing the Public Control Act of 1918. The act assured transit service to the 14 cities and towns which the Boston Elevated had serviced.

But, in spite of reorganizations and a doubling of the fare, the transit system would never again be privately operated. Once the real estate holdings had been developed there was no incentive to operate a transit system that was not a money-maker. S&S p. 79

1919

Extensions of the Forest Hills - Charlestown line northward beyond Sullivan Square were discussed. Branches to destinations in Malden and Melrose, and Lynn were envisaged, but while trains did start running an additional elevated mile across the Mystic River, the new terminal at Everett remained temporary for over 50 years.

1923

A bill cleared the legislature enabling extension of the Cambridge Connector over the right-of-way of the Shawmut branch of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad to Worcester. (C. p. 46)

1924

Conversion of East Boston Line to Multiple Unit Trains. The East Boston Line had been built in 1904 for trolleys with no premonition of a conversion to multiple unit operation. Over an April double-holiday weekend, the East Boston Line underwent major change. Patrons went home aboard familiar trolley cars. They returned on Monday on brand-new steel multiple unit trains which they could board and leave at platform level. The grade in the tunnel was 5%, severe for trolleys, but even more so for multiple unit. subway trains. There were sharp curves and close clearances. Nearly four miles of third rail had to be hoisted onto pre-set insulators, electrically connected, and tested.

1927

Cambridge-Park Street Under Subway Extended beyond Broadway to Field’s Corner

The Cambridge-Park Street Under subway which had been extended incrementally toward South Boston beneath Fort Point Channel to Broadway Station in South Boston was further extended to the south to provide service to Fields Corner.

1932

The Central Trolley Tunnel is Extended West of Kenmore Square in Two Branches

The original Tremont Street-Boylston Street electric trolley subway was extended through and beyond Kenmore Square to inclines:

  1. at Blandford Street and Commonwealth Avenue, and
     
  2. at Beacon Street and St. Mary’s.
     

1933

The Huntington Avenue Branch of the Central Trolley Tunnel

The $8.5 million subway line Mayor James Michael Curley had proposed linking Copley Square and the Museum of Fine Arts opened. The line peeled off the Boylston Street subway west of Copley station, twisted under the Boston & Albany railroad yard and ran in a southwesterly direction beneath Huntington Avenue surfacing at an incline at Opera Place near Northeastern University. By eliminating surface cars from the Boylston Street corridor, the measure permitted abandonment of the incline at the Public Garden.

1934

The Sumner Tunnel

The Sumner Tunnel opened in 1934 linking East Boston to Boston for automobile travel. Ridership dropped so low on the municipality-supported ferry so that it was forced to close.

1937

The first President’s Conference Car (P.C.C.) car was delivered.

1938

Closing of the Atlantic Avenue EL

With the opening of the Sumner Tunnel and cessation of ferry service, ridership on the Atlantic Avenue EL, along the waterfront between North Station and South Station dropped so low that closing was the only rational solution. (S&S p. 89).

1940/1940s

  • The Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn Railroad ceased operation.
     
  • During World War II BE Railway reordered P.C.C.s in substantial numbers.

These were wired for multiple unit (m.u) train operation.

1941

A 20-car fleet of P.C.C.s. was delivered.

1945

The Legislature voted approval of service on the East Boston line northward beyond Maverick Station.

1950s

A still later order for 50 “picture window” P.C.C.s. 25 second-hand.

1952

East Boston Line Extended to Orient Heights

Service to Orient Heights

1954

East Boston Line Extended to Revere Beach

Service to Revere Beach. In the early fifties, the Blue Line (the East Boston Line) was extended past Logan International Airport to Revere. This expansion was less successful, than the subsequent Riverside Extension, because it competed with commuter trains and bus lines running directly from the major North Shore population centers and with automobiles able to reach Boston from the North over the newly opened Tobin Bridge and through the Sumner Tunnel.

1959

The Riverside Line

The most significant improvement to transit service occurred in 1959, when yet another extension of the Tremont-Boylston subway, was placed in service. The New York Central Railroad had sold to the MTA, a 9.4 mile grade-free right-of-way through Brookline and Newton. The “Riverside Line” was line was built on an abandoned railroad right-of-way which was free of street crossings at grade level. The first “transit tentacle” reaching out to Route 128, it connected downtown with Route 128 at an area just south of the region where the electronics industry had located and north of the warehouse region. Despite this mislocation, ridership more than justified it, as a carrier for traffic into central Boston rather than as a hauler of workers from the inner city to jobs on Route 128. “The forecasts had it that the bulk of patronage would come from the Brookline stations, but the more distant Newton stops drew so much the larger crowds that the Riverside storage yard quickly had to be enlarged to four times its original size.” [“To free up the necessary P.C.C cars, buses were assigned to street car routes in Cambridge.”]

1963

As part of Boston’s Government Center renewal project, the subway was slightly rerouted and the Adams Square stop was eliminated.

1964

  • Extension of the Main Line EL, or Orange Line, to the Malden-Melrose border sharing the right-of-way of the Boston and Maine Railroad’s Reading Branch. Allows MBTA to dismantle elevated line from Haymarket to Everett. Replaced by an underwater passage of the Charles River.
     
  • At the southern end of the Washington Street tunnel, the “South Cove by-pass” - a tunnel connector enabling Orange Line trains obviating the elevated route through Dudley and making it possible to reach Forest Hills, over a new right of way.

1971

  • Yet the Central Trolley Tunnel continued to be overtaxed. Some relief occurred when the tunnel stopped accepting A - line trains with discontinuance of trolley service to Newton. Arborway cars no longer run into the tunnel.
     
  • $ 124 million in new bonding authorization voted by the legislature specified $30 million for refurbishing.

1987

Back Bay Station. Dartmouth and Clarendon streets.

(Kallmann, McKinnell & Wood) Originally built in 1897, destroyed by fire in 1928, rebuilt in 1929, closed in 1979. Resurrected as a symbolic gateway to the city. 40 foot arches of laminated wood span entry to station and concourse between Dartmouth and Clarendon streets. Depression of the railroad below the water table using slurry wall technique. Financed by a federal grant for a public transit project in the Southwest Corridor. Arcades connected to Hancock Garage and an underpass to Copley Place. “Intermodal” transportation hub - interstate (Amtrak), intrastate (commuter lines), and local (subway) transportation - a stop on the new Orange Line relocated from Washington Street.

2000

Draft-Boston MPO Transportation Plan 2000-2025

PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THE 2002 NO-BUILD SCENARIO

These are projects that will come on line after January 1, 1996. They are either already completed, under construction or already advertised for construction.

North Station improvements:

This MBTA project includes the relocation of the above ground portion of the Green Line to Lechmere to underground. The new rapid transit station will include a super platform with easy transfers between the Green and Orange lines.

Blue Line platform lengthening and modernization:

The modernization program to allow for six car operation is underway. Modernization of stations from Wood Island to Wonderland is complete. Aquarium station will be renovated in conjunction with the Central Artery work.

South Boston Piers Transitway, Phase 1

This MBTA transitway will provide transit via tunnel from South Station (Boston) to the World Trade Center (in the vicinity of Viaduct Street) with an intermediate station stop at Courthouse Station (in the vicinity of Northern Avenue and Farnsworth). Construction on this project is underway and Phase 1 services is scheduled to begin in 2002. This does not not include Phase 2 - full build. Phase 2 connects South Station to Boylston Street Station. It also includes a surface route from the D Street portal to City Point. (South Boston).

PROJECTS ADDED AS THE 2025 BUILD SCENARIO

Silver Line - Washington Street, Section C: ($59,000,000). The Silver Line is to initially run along Washington Street from Dudley Square in Roxbury to Downtown Crossing in the city of Boston. The vehicles used on the route are 60-foot articulated compressed natural gas buses and their low-floor design makes them handicapped accessible. The buses operate in mixed traffic from Dudley Square to Melnea Cass Boulevard where they enter a reserved lane. At the Massachusetts Turnpike, the reserved lane ends and the vehicles enter mixed traffic again. Proposed stations for the Silver Line include Dudley Square, Melnea Cass Boulevard, Lenox Street, Newton Street, Cathedral Street, East Berkeley Street. Additionally, the vehicle will make stops at Herald Square, New England Medical Center, Chinatown, and Downtown Crossing. This Project is a Central Artery/Tunnel commitment. It is scheduled to be completed before 2002.

AITC (Airport Intermodal Transit Connector): ($35 million) This project would provide a new transit service in Boston from South Station Intermodal Center to the Logan Airport terminals. There would be approximately eight vehicles which would be similar to those used in the Silver Line-Transitway Section A, except that these vehicles have more luggage storage space. The service would use the MBTA South Boston Piers Transitway tunnel from South Station to South Boston and then the Ted Williams Tunnel to the five Logan Airport terminals. The capital portion of this service would be sponsored by MassPort. This service would provide for enhanced connection between the Red Line and Logan Airport. There would continue to be AITC bus service between the Blue Line Airport Station and the Logan airport terminals. This project must be completed by June 2004 as part of the administrative consent order between EOTC and EOEA relative to the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project.

Green Line to Medford Hillside ($375,000,000); cost includes station construction and right of way improvements but not vehicles. The MBTA would extend Green Line trolley service to Medford Hillside. The extension begins at the relocated Lechmere Station in Cambridge, and continues along the Lowell commuter rail right of way through Somerville and Medford. The extension is 3.9 miles in length and there are four interim stations at Ball Square, Lowell Street, School Street, and Washington Street. 1994 ridership estimates were for 11,560 riders per day on the new extension, 3,660 of which were new transit users. The project is a SIP commitment. The extension to Medford Hillside is scheduled to be complete in 2011.

Red Line-Blue Line Connector. (Project cost to be determined). This project would consist of an extension of the MBTA’s Blue Line from Government Center/Bowdoin in Boston to the Charles Street Red Line station. The proposed Charles Street Station will not preclude a future Red-Line Blue Line connector. This connector was envisioned as providing a direct link between the only two transit lines that lack a direct station link in downtown Boston.

Silver Line - Transitway 2, Section B: ($713,000,000; cost includes construction of Transitway and new vehicles). The final phase of the MBTA’s Silver Line project, and the one which allows integration between it and the South Boston Piers Transitway, is the construction of a new tunnel through Chinatown and the Leather District in Boston. This tunnel would roughly follow the alignment of Essex Street and would connect the end of the existing Silver Line tunnel Boylston with Chinatown Station and South Station. This provides another connection with the Orange Line as well as direct connections with Red Line subway, Transitway, Commuter Rail, Amtrak and Intercity bus service. This phase of the Silver Line improves the level of service by utilizing the Green Line tunnel under Tremont Street with a portal at the Don Bosco High School building. The downtown end of the route would be adjusted to make stops at New England Medical and Boylston stations, allowing transfers to both the Orange and Green Lines. The Commonwealth has committed to apply for federal funding for this project by the end of 2004.

2002

South Boston Piers Transitway, Phase 1

Phase 1 services is scheduled to begin in 2002.

Silver Line- Washington Street, Section C. The section is scheduled to be completed before 2002.

2004

  • The MBTA’s Super Platform project will link the Orange and Green Lines underground at North Statkion. The new connection will improve access from the North Station to the Back Bay.

  • The Commonwealth has committed to apply for federal funding for Silver Line.

    - Transitway 2, Section B: by the end of 2004.
     

  • AITC (Airport Intermodal Transit Connector). This project must be completed by June 2004 as part of the administrative consent order between EOTC and EOEA.

2005

Silver Line South Boston Waterfront Service to begin operation.

2011

  • Green Line extension to Medford Hillside;
  • Silver Line - Transitway 2, Section B scheduled for completion.

Extracts from:

“Charles River Dam, Design Memorandum No. 2”, The Department of the Army New England Division Corps of Engineers, 1972.

L. Other Plans Investigated

32. Flood Control - Several alternative plans for flood control were studied. Consideration was given to the possibilities of upstream reservoir storage, perimeter diking, diversion and the provision of pumping facilities to afford a reasonably constant level in the Basin at all times.

a. Upstream Reservoir Storage - A review of all of the recent major floods revealed that the runoff from the lower 56 square miles of the watershed contributed up to 90 percent of the total inflow to the basin, and also that the peak inflow from the lower watershed occurred within 2 to 3 hours after the storm, indicating the importance of local inflow to the Basin. It was evident, therefore, that upstream reservoir storage or diversion out of the watershed, would have little or no effect on reducing the Basin inflow. Reservoir storage on the lower tributaries which drain into the Basin will be effective in reducing floodflows, however, the widespread distribution, the large number of storage areas required and the highly urbanized nature of the basin make such plans economically prohibitive. b. Perimeter Diking - Local protection measures consisting of diking miles of riverfront and providing numerous small pumping stations to control the interior drainage were also studied. These studies were discontinued because the cost of providing protection of this nature exceeded $50 million. In addition, the construction of dikes in many areas would destroy the scenic and aesthetic values currently being preserved. c. Diversion of Flows - An investigation was made to divert additional Charles River flows to the adjacent watershed by way of Mother Brook which now diverts flows to the Neponset River. However, this brook is situated about 25 miles above the mouth of the Charles River and is too far upstream to be effective in reducing peak levels in the lower Basin. d. Flood-Proofing and Zoning Measures - Consideration was also given to the possibilities of using a combination of flood-proofing and zoning measures to decrease future flood damages in the area adjacent to the Basin. It was determined that such measures could not be readily and economically achieved except through the expenditure of great sums of money and through the complete disruption of city functions. This consideration would not provide protection to the extremely heavy vehicular traffic using the main arteries on both banks of the river. Further studies were discontinued.

e. Basin Level Control - In view of the more rapid filling of the Basin that is now being experienced following heavy rainfalls, control of the water level in the Basin through the provision of a pumping station was considered the one positive and economically feasible method of securing desired results. Five alternate locations for a pumping station at the existing dam were studied. Three utilized the existing lock as a discharge channel, and one required the installation of a discharge conduit through the existing dam. The fifth scheme used the existing lock as an entrance channel to the pumping station located downstream of the lock. This proposal required an extension to the lock and installation of a new lock gate. All five plans were either physically or financially not feasible owing to the unusually difficult and costly foundation conditions, undesirable hydraulic characteristics and other problems, such as, the interruption of navigation during the construction period. Further, these plans would not provide for existing and future navigation needs. All five plans were abandoned.

33. Locking Facilities - Consideration was given to improving locking facilities at the existing dam. However, the greater part of the top of dam, comprising of about 7 acres, is now occupied by the Museum of Science with an investment in facilities of about $15 million. Because of these facilities, the sole existing lock could not be enlarged and additional locks could not economically or physically be provided.

(…)

N. Project Formulation And Evaluation

47. Flood Control

a. Basin Level Control - The existing Charles River dam was constructed in 1910 to create a fresh water Basin known as the Charles River Basin. Primary objectives of the project included elimination of extensive mud flats and consequent nuisance at low tide, protection of large low areas in Boston and Cambridge from tidal flooding; stabilization of the ground water table in adjoining areas, and the creation of a significant water body of recreational purposes. A design objective was to maintain the basin at a permanent elevation of 108 feet MDC datum.

The depth of the Basin generally varies from 3 to 14 feet with a maximum of 30 feet. At the design elevation of 108 feet, the water surface area of 675 acres has a shore line of approximately 20 miles. Prior to the construction of the dam, the area along the Basin and the tributary streams had been subjected to frequent tides up to elevation 112-113 feet and construction of facilities vulnerable to such levels was restricted, both by ordinance and by consequences of encroachment below such an elevation.

Installation and use of facilities prior to dam construction were also subject to low tide levels of elevation 100 feet or lower, and the then contemplated future occasional prelowering of the Basin possibly to elevation 105 feet obviously presented no problems. However, the relatively consistent regulations of the Basin within close proximity to elevation 108 feet for many years led to extensive construction of adjacent facilities at appreciably lower elevations than had been considered in the original design. Therefore, the restrictions and ordinances in effect prior to construction of the dam appeared to become less important and were accordingly violated. It appears that most of the facilities constructed had been made on the assumption of continuous control of the Basin at elevation 108 feet. Again, over the years, the sustained basin elevation normally in close accord with elevation 108 feet has led to uses which are dependent upon limited drawdown of the Basin, with consequent objections to elevations at or below 107 feet for any length of time.

b. Top of Dam - The selection of the height of dam was predicated on both the tidal and river flooding conditions and the physical land features at the dam site. The history of hurricanes and other severe coastal storms in Massachusetts goes back to 1635. Past hurricanes have resulted in serious tidal flooding along the coast of Massachusetts south of Cape Cod. However, the problem of hurricane tidal flooding in Boston Harbor has not been serious because of protection afforded by surrounding ground from high sustained winds from the south. Slow moving severe coastal storms, commonly called “northeasters”, have caused the highest tides in Boston Harbor. These storms with prolonged periods of easterly and northeasterly winds result in the greatest tidal flood levels.

The dam site is sheltered from ocean waves, and has only a short tidal fetch of about 1,300 yards; therefore, wave action is not considered to be of consequence at the project. The highest recorded tide at Boston, adjusted to 1970 levels, occurred in April 1851 with an elevation of 11 feet, msl, or 116.6 feet, MDC datum.

The upper limit in height of dam was governed by surrounding land elevations. The topography south of the site is generally between elevation 117 and 118 MDC datum. Thus, raising the dam above 118 would not be realistic without extensive filling or diking to prevent tidal flooding around the right abutment. Such filling or diking in the center of urban Boston for the purpose of preventing this extremely rare event from occurring is not economically or aesthetically feasible. The minimum top of dam was selected at elevation 118 feet, MDC, which is 1.4 feet above the highest recorded harbor tide.

The amount of overtopping that could safely be handled was determined on the assumption that a tidal flood occurred which was 2.5 feet higher than any flood level previously experienced and coincident with a 10 year rainstorm over the Charles River Basin. For these condition, the pumps will be operable and could handle interior runoff and overtopping without causing a significant rise in the basin level.

During the freshwater standard project flood and with pumps in full operation, the Basin would rise to elevation 110.5 feet MDC. With the top of dam at elevation 118, there is ample freeboard from river flooding.

(…)

O. Corrosion Mitigation

32. General - The proposed project will be located at the mouth of the Charles River in an area of brackish and salt water. Corrosion is considered to be a serious problem at this site and corrosion characteristics of the area and its effect on the proposed structures, studies and surveys have been made of the water and soil at this site. These studies and surveys also included an inspection of the Mystic River Locks and Dam facility which is similar to the proposed project located in brackish water environment less than 3 miles from the project site.

(…)

S. Environmental Quality

58. Architectural And Engineering Treatment

a. General - Architectural design of facilities and structures required for this project will be based upon the development of a harmonious relationship between structures and contiguous visual amenities, including landscaping. The design will provide an aesthetic value and enhance the environment of the urban waterfront site. Locus of the principal structures places them in close proximity to a network of elevated highways and bridges. The complex will become a scenic attribute in an otherwise depressing environment. Nearby structures, in general, lack aesthetic or historical value. A modern architectural concept for this project should be an incentive to improve the entire area. An architect perspective rendition is shown on the following page.

59. Environmental Impact - The project will enhance the aesthetic and recreational potential of the area, provide a flood free environment, eliminate extensive flood losses, provide improved vehicular and boat traffic flows, enhance water quality to the Charles River Basin and improve fish passage. A detailed five-point statement of the impact the project will have on the environment was prepared as required by Section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Federal Organizations and National Research Centers

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Science Foundation

US Geological Survey

United States Department of Transportation

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

Temperature satellite readings

Associations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AITC American Institute of Timber Construction

ACI American Concrete Institute

AISC American Institute of Steel Construction

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ATC Applied Technology Council

CERF Civil Engineering Research Foundation

PCI Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute

SCI Steel Construction Institute

Based on MIT S.M. thesis by Raymond K. S. Ty (1987).

Boston Peninsula

Surface area initally < 500 acres, only narrow neck (today’s Washington St.) was the connection to the mainland, in several locations along the shore there were marshes, several hills served as filling material

West Cove:

Filling began 1804 with material from Mt. Vernon à today’s Charles St. (WC1)

North Cove:

1640 construction of a mill dam/causeway across cove, creating a pond

1805 filling of mill pond with material from Beacon hill + rubbish (NC1 and NC2)

East Cove:

1673: Old Wharfe (wall of wood and granite blocks)

18th century: several timber wharves, 1st half of 19th century new generation of wharves with granite walls + fill placed between old and new wharves

1870: Atlantic Ave. is filled at about location of Old Wharfe

Back Bay

Area between Charles River (N), Charles St. (E), original shoreline (S) and Mass Ave (W)

Before it was filled it was a large area of marshy flats with channels for river flow. Filling began in early 19th century with peak activity at the end of 19th century. The last phase was the constitution Storrow Drive in 1930

  • 1820: construction of Mill Dam and Cross Dam creating two basins
  • by 1835 two railroads crossed the flats
  • for many years the sewage of Boston was drained into the basin
  • 1805: start of filling with city ashes and other refuse (BB1), 1830-1850 small fills (BB2)
  • 1860-1880: major filling: area from Arlington St. to Mass Ave. (BB3 - BB5), concurrently a seawall was built along the Charles River and backfilled with river material and sand/gravel from Needham, creating Back St. (BB3A - BB5A)

Back Bay Fens

  • 300 acres west of Back Bay originally marshes an winding rivers, known as Full Basin after construction of Mill Dam and Cross Dam
  • Most of the filling started in late 1870’s as a continuation of the filling of Back Bay and continued for about 10 years.
  • Along the Charles River construction of seawalls and backfilling (F1 - F3). Dredging resulted in the removal of unsightly flats in front of the seawall and in the deepening of Charles river for navigation.
  • Together with the construction of Back Bay Park, covered channels for Stony Brook and Muddy River were built. The original rivers were filled with gravel.

Cambridge and Allston

Originally there was a broad floodplain of the river with salty marshes, springs, ponds and quiet streams. First changes occurred in the 18th century through construction of bridges and connecting roads. Originally there were three islands: Lechmere’s Point, Pelham’s Island and Captain’s Island. All of them disappeared during filling operations.

  • Pelham’s Island and Lechmere’s Point were connected to Cambridge and Boston through embankment roads and bridges.
  • Bridges between Cambridge and Boston were: West Boston Bridge (Longfellow Br.) 1793, Canal/Craigie Bridge (Charles River Dam) 1807.
  • A railroad embankment across the river marshes of Cambridge kept the tidal water from the area in its back.
  • 1st half of 18th century: filling of marshes between Lechmere’s Point, Pelham’s Island and mainland (C1+2)
  • 1870’s: filling of area around Miller’s River (East Cambridge) (C3)
  • 1892: construction of seawalls from Broad Canal to Binney St. and backfilling, prolongation of seawalls in 1895 (C4 + C5)
  • 1883 - 1904: construction of granite seawalls along the Charles and subsequently filling of area between railroad embankment, Main St. and seawalls (C6, C6A, C7)
  • 1890: finishing of Harvard Bridge. Was first without connection on Cambridge side because filling operations there made only slow progress.
  • 1899: construction of dam between Brookline St. and Captain’s Island and filling of the area with gravel à served as playground and bathing beach (C8, C8A)
  • 1901 - 1911: filling of flats north of Captain’s Island + south of River St (C9, C9A, C9B)
  • 1898 - 1902: filling on south side of Charles River between Boylston St. and Arsenal St. bridge (C10)
  • City dump site in North Cambridge (C11): refuse dumping between 1946 and 1971

Charlestown

Charlestown was originally a triangular peninsula, connected to the mainland through a neck at the NW-part of the town. It was once the junction of the Charles, Miller’s and Mystic River. Connections to Boston with Charles River Br. (1786), Warren Br. (1828) and later Prison Point Bridge

  • 1840 - 1880: foundation of navy yard and continuing filling operations (CT1)
  • In the East there was a protected deepwater cove (Town Dock) which was important for trade and shipping. Later a bridge obstructed the dock and 1835 a fire destroyed most of it à the area was filled (partially with rubble from the fire) (CT2)
  • 1840: filling of additional land behind seawalls with material from Bunker Hill (CT3 + 4)
  • 1880: area of Prison Point Bridge is filled (CT5)
  • The original west shoreline ran approx. along today’s Main St. with large flats adjacent to it. In early 18th century there was a Mill Dam enclosing a pond which was filled in 1880 (CT6)
  • Mystic Wharf was built in 1890 to the north of the Charlestown peninsula (CT7)

Bridges

These links feature some of the most recent and innovative bridge projects all over the world: 
Tsing Ma bridge 
Matsuo Bridge Co., Ltd. 
Höga Kusten bridge 

Tunnels

Link between Great Britain and Continental Europe: Channel Tunnel

This is one of the largest project in the United States: Central Artery Tunnel - Boston

Dams

These links feature some of the major dam projects in the world:

Glen Canyon Dam 
Grand Coulee Dam 
Three Gorges Dam 

A report about the performance of dams during the Kobe earthquake

Some famous dam failures:

St. Francis Dam

<img alt=“The Green Line - A Brief History.” src="/courses/civil-and-environmental-engineering/1-012-introduction-to-civil-engineering-design-spring-2002/readings/briefhistory.jpg" border=“0” />

Extracts from:

“Report of the Committee on Charles River Dam … to consider the advisability and feasibility of building a dam across the Charles River at or near Craigie Bridge”, 1903

Necessary Improvements if no Dam is Built

The Charles River, between the Watertown dam and Craigie bridge, has a mean rise and fall of tide of 9.6 feet, with an extreme predicted range of 13.6 feet, which at times of easterly winds and freshet flow of the river may be increased to 15 feet. In case a dam is not built, it will still be necessary, in order to adapt the river to these park requirements, to dredge the unsightly and unsanitary flats in the lower portion of the river basin to a depth of five feet below mean low water. These flats are indicated upon the survey of the basin made under the direction of this committee. The amount and position of the excavations to be made are indicated in the report of the chief engineer, and their extend and appearance at low tide are shown in the accompanying photographs. In addition, certain changes in the sewage from the Stony Brook channels, extending an overflow channel from the Commissioners’ channel to the Charles River, and the interception of the sewage which comes from Beacon Street houses, should be effected; the embankment and walls from West Boston bridge to the westerly line of the Fenway should be built by the board of Park commissioners of Boston, in accordance with the provision of the Acts of 1893, chapter 435, with some amendments hereafter suggested; the unimproved banks of the river above the territory which is to be walled must be dealt with in a similar way to that adopted by the Cambridge and metropolitan park commissions above the Boylston Street bridge; and portions of the tidal marshes should be diked, as has been done by the Metropolitan Park Commission between the Boylston Street and Arsenal Street bridges. As the extreme rise and fall of the tide is about 15 feet, these works will be necessarily expensive. The estimated cost of this work above outlined is $3,914,000.

After this work is completed, however, the river, as a tidal stream, will still for half the thime present an unsightly and unattractive appearance. Its use by the public will be limited, and its possibilities as the main feature of the park system will be only partially utilized.

(…)

Sanitary Conditions

The Present Condition of the Basin

In considering the question, the present sanitary condition of the basin must be borne in mind. There are in the basin to-day unsanitary conditions, which must be remedied even if a dam is not built.

The Fenway - The influx of sewage into the Fenway has transformed this body of water from a water park into a drainage canal. The Fens were not offensive as long as Stony Brook discharged through its old channel, in accordance with the original plans of the park department, and the present conditions have been largely caused by the building of the new Commissioners’ channel. The present conditions are a nuisance to the people living in the vicinity, and destroy the usefulness and beauty of the Fens as part of the park system. The objectionable sewage at present entering at various points in both the old and new channels of Stony Brook should be removed. The necessity for immediate relief is fully set forth in the report of the street department, sewer division, of the city of Boston for 1901, in which it is proposed to construct a 12-foot channel from the present Commissioners channel to the Charles River, at an expense of $300,000. While this solution of the difficulty will relieve the Fens, it will transfer the trouble to the river basin at the present outlet of the Fens.

The Main Basin - Direct sewage now enters from the houses on the water side of Beacon Street which should be cut out. There exist in the main basin large areas of flats covered with sewage mud, which are exposed at low tide, and which the Board of Health of the city regard as a “well-recognized public nuisance.” These should all be dredged, if there is to be no dam. There is a discharge of the combined overflow sewage in times of storm from the sewerage systems of Boston and Cambridge by the introduction of the separate sewerage system, already begun in Cambridge and officially recommended by the sewage division of the street department of the city of Boston in its report for 1901. There are numerous breeding-places for mosquitoes which ought to be removed.

Conclusions

Basing its conclusions on the study of these conditions and on the reports of its engineer and special experts, the committee finds as follows: -

Fresh water, gallon for gallon, disposes in a normal manner of more sewage than salt water; the tendency of salt water is rapidly to precipitate sewage in sludge at the bottom.

For the proper disposition of sewage in water, it is essential that the water be well supplied with oxygen. This is accomplished by the contact of its surface with the air, and this surface water is carried down by the action of the waves and currents, and especially by the vertical movement caused by changes of temperature. Bodies of fresh, nearly still water are well oxygenated to a depth of 25 feet or more in ordinary summer weather, and to much greater depths with the autumn cold. No considerable part of the basin, with a permanent level at grade 8 or 9, would be over 25 feet in depth.

Letting in salt water under the fresh interferes with the vertical circulation necessary for oxygenation, and the salt water under the fresh soon loses its oxygen if any waste material is admitted into it.

Changing a fresh water basin into a salt from time to time interferes with the bacterial animal and vegetable growths, which effectively aid in taking care of and digesting sewage.

A comparatively still body of fresh water with animal and plant growths will dispose of a considerable amount of sewage admitted from time to time, and will tend to purify itself, even if no more fresh water is added.

Such a body of fresh water will dispose of more sewage if comparatively still than if in motion.

Most of the sewers in Cambridge and practically all in Boston carry both house sewage and storm water in the same conduits, which are called “combined sewers.” These all connect with the intercepting sewers of the metropolitan system on both sides of the river leading into the lower part of Boston harbor; and in dry weather the metropolitan sewers take all the sewage, none of which goes into the basin with the exception of the sewers to the houses on the water side of Beacon Street, and some emptying into Stony Brook which find their way into the Fenway. The metropolitan sewers are not nearly large enough however, to take both the house sewage and that very much larger body of liquid called the storm water in times of heavy rains and rapidly melting snows; and the surplus of this mixed storm water and house sewage, called the “storm overflow,” is emptied into the basin, excepting when the storm water is small in amount.

(…)

Malaria is only spread from person to person by means of the anopheles mosquito. This mosquito breeds only in small pools of fresh or partially salt water; it does not breed in a large basin, with properly constructed shores open to the winds, and supplied with fish, even if the water is fresh. There are now, however, many breeding-places of this mosquito on the borders of and near Charles River, which have been located.

It is not true, as has been contended before the committee, that there is a large inflow into the Charles River basin of salt water direct from the ocean twice every twentyfive hours. A study of the currents shows that the water near Harvard bridge at high tide cannot come from the ocean direct, but at the best from the upper middle harbor as it was at the preceding low tide; and this is made up of what came from the Charles and Mystic rivers with the preceding ebb, mixed with what sea water stayed in the eddies and lagoons or was retained between the wharves from the high tide preceding that. A good deal more of the water making up the body of high tide at Harvard bridge comes from points still less remote. In short, the water in the estuary of the Charles surges back and forth day after day, and only gradually finds its way to the sea; the water at high tide near the Harvard bridge is on the average 8 degrees warmer than at Boston Light; when examined bacterially, it is not superior, if it is equal in purity, to the water at the same place at low tide when there is no sewer overflow going on; it is not as pure as the water coming over the Watertown dam.

(…)

The level of the ground water in the Back Bay would not be raised by maintaining the level of the proposed basin at grade 8. The building of a tight wall with an embankment behind it, and the construction of a marginal sewer, emptying at grade 9, below the dam, into which some of the ground water could be drained in the immediate vicinity, would probably enable the basin to be maintained at grade 9, should it prove advisable, without interfering in any way with the ground-water level in the Back Bay. The old mill dam under Beacon Street was practically water-tight, and the ground level beyond it seems to be chiefly controlled by leakage into the sewers.

The combined sewers flowing from the Back Bay and from certain of the lower parts of Cambridge, in case of heavy rains during high tide, back up into and overflow the cellars of the houses to an extent that is a constant menace to the residents. If a permanent grade of 8 or 9 were maintained in the basin, this nuisance and danger to health would be removed.

(…)

Commercial Interests

The traffic on the Charles River in the delivery of coal and other material, either to wharves upon the river itself or upon the canals in Cambridge, is one that your committee feels should be preserved, whether this traffic is at present large or small , or whether it is increasing or diminishing.

The construction of a dam with a proper system of locks and with such dredging as is indicated below will, in the judgement of the committee, rather facilitate than hinder this traffic. The formation of ice in the winter will be a possible objection, and an estimate of the probable expenditure necessary to protect the animal traffic has been prepared.

In view of the recommendation of the Craigie bridge as the site of the dam, the committee has considered the need of sufficient room for manoevering vessels between that bridge and the Lowell Railroad freight bridge, immediately below. The evidence submitted to the committee is that a space of 320 feet is necessary, and the committee finds that the requisite space can be obtained by moving the Boston & Maine Railroad freight bridge slightly to the east, and recommends that 400 feet be secured, if practicable.

As the railroad company is under contract with the federal government to renew its present pile bridges with modern structures at an early day, the committee recommends that the railroad be required to locate their new bridges in such a manner as to give the requisite space.

Counsel for property owners on Broad and Lechmere canals have submitted to the committee a stipulation of certain conditions which they regard as essential, with reference to the size of the locks, dredging the canals, the maintenance of the sea-walls on the canals, and maintaining the canals free from ice in the winter. These conditions, so far as they refer to free maintenance of locks large enough to accommodate the largest vessels which will be used on the Charles, and the maintenance of access to the canals free from ice, should be complied with; and, in consideration of the possible future development of commerce, the committee would recommend locks of even greater width than those suggested by the engineers of the proprietors.

The Broad canal is owned by the proprietors of the banks as tenants in common under an agreement dated in 1806, by which they are authorized to maintain a canal at a depth of 9 feet, and they undoubtedly have certain riparian rights of access to tide water. Any act authorizing the building of a dam should contain a provision that the owners of private property on the river above the dam should recover damages for any injury occasioned to their property by reason of the construction of a dam and the consequent reduction of the water level. It is the opinion of the committee, and also of those interested in the river traffic whose testimony is before the committee, that the maintenance or a permanent water level at the elevation of mean high tide would be a material benefit to owners of wharf property above the dam.

If the basin is maintained at grade 8, Boston base, a depth equivalent to the present mean high water can be obtained by a moderate amount of dredging in the canals, and probably with comparatively small expense for strengthening the walls. The walls along these canals were in most cases built about twenty years ago, and in many places are ruinous, and must soon be rebuilt at the owner’s expense. It is probable that the dredging of the canal to the depth called for by the owners at the wharves will result in many cases in causing these walls to fall in. The cost of dredging and rebuilding these walls and dikes, as might be called for under a strict construction of the owners’ demands, is estimated by Mr. Hodgdon to be $331,735. In view of the benefit which these canals will receive by having a constant water level, and of the fact that walls will in many cases require rebuilding at an early date, the committee feels that the stipulation by the owners of these premises, if fully complied with, would place them in a much better position than they now enjoy. Dredging these canals in the manner proposed by Mr. Hodgdon in his report, p. 423, with the riprapping of the slopes, would leave the canals in as serviceable condition as they now are at mean high tides, and this can be done at an expense of $10,000, for work in the canals, which seems to the committee an equitable adjustment of the claim. A moderate amount of additional dredging in the basin would be required. The cost of this would not exceed $25,000. It was stated by counsel for the owners that $80,000 would probably cover the cost of their requirements. An examination of the photographs which accompany this report, showing the condition of these canals at low water, will give some idea of the limitations placed upon commerce in these canals under present tidal conditions.

(…)

New Researches and Data Derived from them

(…)

(B) Influence of Present Tidal Basin on Temperature of Air - A careful study was made of the influence of the present tidal basin upon the temperature of the surrounding air, both immediately over the water and for some distance back from the Boston and Cambridge shores. Ten self-recording thermometers were stationed at various representative localities, and ten other mercurial thermometers were stationed at other representative localities all the way from Boston Light to Norumbega Park, and read several times daily for a little more than two months. Great care was taken in the calibration of these thermometers, and also in locating them so as to obtain proper exposure.

The result of all these thermometric readings was to show that the basin now cools the temperature of the air on the shores around the basin and at the street level over the middle of the basin by hardly more than a single degree Fahrenheit from 10 A.M. to 4 P.M. on the hottest days; and it is proved by these very numerous and careful observations, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the apparent coolness of the air on hot summer days near the present basin is almost wholly due to the wind, in very much the same way that the face is cooled by the motion of air from a fan.

(…)

(D) Pollution. Chemical Analysis of Water -

(…)

The chemist’s conclusions will be found stated in great detail in the appendix devoted to his report. We may summarize the most important of those relating directly to the proposed basin as follows: -

(a) Although there are local pollutions, as a whole, the water of the present Charles basin gets well mixed in going through the bridge piles (soon to be removed), and is found to be fairly clean, with an abundance of free oxygen. The water of the Fens is overburdened with sewage, and its lower strata contain no free oxygen.

(b) Although the upland water, as it enters the basin in time of ordinary low summer flow, is somewhat discolored by dyes and factory washings, it always (except perhaps very rarely in extreme drought) contains an abundance of free oxygen, and it does not contain more organic matter than can be taken care of and rendered innocuous by the proportion of free oxygen contained, and such water if held stagnant in a pond would probably continually improve. This conclusion was reached after many experiments on incubation of this water, etc.

(c) The old and the new Stony Brook conduits continually discharge dilute sewage; Muddy River outlet is at times polluted; there are several places where the water is polluted by factory waste; and in time of storm. considerable amounts of sewage overflow, also much street wash, enter the basin. But if all the pollution now entering were discharged into the nearly stagnant, fresh-water lake produced by the proposed dam, it is doubtful if this pollution would rob its water of all its dissolved oxygen and thereby lead to the generation of the offensive gases of putrefaction. It would probably be absorbed.

This conclusion was reached after an extended series of experiments by incubation of Charles River water containing various percentages of sewage. The chemist confirms this conclusion from a study of the analyses of the polluted Abbajona River water and the bettered condition of this water after storage in Mystic Lake, which was, until recently, used as a portion of Boston’s water supply, and which has recently become a favorite resort for pleasure boating.

The turbidity and pollution from street wash and sewer overflow are now for a time mainly held as a thin layer at the surface, because of this fresh water being so much lighter than the salt, thereby exaggerating the appearance of pollution. With a fresh-water basin the same pollution would be at once more evenly diffused through the depths, and give less apparent defilement to the surface.

In case the proposed dam is to be built, in order to give the surface of the water a more attractive appearance, and a safeguard against offence arising from the fact that the entrance of sewer overflows is intermittent, not uniform, the following improvements are recommended by the chemist: -

(d) The pollution now entering from the Beacon Street houses should be diverted into a sewer. At least a portion of the pollution that now enters the basin through the Stony Brook channels should be excluded, particularly highly putrescent brewery waste. The outlets of polluting material from the abattoir and the starch factory near it should be more efficiently guarded. It is desirable, but not certain, that the dredging of a few of the present sludge banks in the Charles will be reqiured.

(e) Better conditions would prevail for absorbing sewage pollution with the basin filled with still fresh water than if filled with still salt or brackish water. By an extensive series of experiments it is proved that salt water tends to a much greater precipitation of the impurities of sewage in the form of putrefying sludge than fresh water; and numerous other tests show that, when a given percentage of sewage is added to salt and fresh water under similar conditions, offensive odors arise much sooner from the salt water than from the fresh.

(…)

(F) Malarial Conditions - The report of investigations relative to malaria, made at your request, form a separate Appendix, No. 1. The pathologist who made these studies has long been celebrated as a most skilful observer in this line of work. His researches for the United States government on the cause of the Texas fever are well known, and his recent call to direct the work of the newly established laboratory in New York for research on contagious disease is a testimonial to the esteem in which his work is held. I am told by competent authority that there is no man in America more competent to pass on these questions of effect of the proposed basin upon the health of the community by promoting or retarding conditions favorable to malaria. It is, therefore, most reassuring to learn that, following years of study on the origin of malaria, and after having repeatedly explored all parts of the adjacent territory, devoting a large part of his summer to this study, he reports: -

(a) “It is quite firmly established that the micro-organism of malaria which produces the well-known disturbances in the body by multiplying in the red blood corpuscles is transferred … by a certain species of mosquito.”

(b) “The malarial microbe is a true parasite in all its stages. It never exists free in the air or in the water or on vegetation, but spends its life partly in the blood of man, partly in the organs of the mosquito.”

(c) ‘‘All shallow pools in which water may stand for a portion of the year, and which are cut off from the permanent bodies of water so small fish cannot enter, may become breeding-places of mosquitoes, and should be filled up."

(d) “As regards the river itself, we may safely assume that the proposed basin will not become a breeding place for mosquitoes,’’ if so treated as to contain abundant fish life, and if its banks are so treated as not to afford protection for mosquito larvae from their natural enemies, the small fishes.

(e) Impurity or pollution of water, as in the present Fens basin, if made fresh water instead of salt, would tend to restrict the natural enemies of the mosquito, the little fishes, and, by greatly favoring the growth of fresh-water algae, might eventually lead to the multiplication of culex and anopheles mosquitoes. “This necessarily implies the removal of all sewage from the Fens basin.”

(f) “In reviewing all the conditions likely to prevail in the future in and about the Charles River basin, there seem to be none which would tend to the increase of malaria provided the suggestions made are carried out. In fact, the improvement of the banks and the territory beyond them would be a great improvement on present conditions, and tend to relieve those near the marshes of all mosquitoes now breeding in these places, and perhaps remove the causes of malaria prevailing at the present time, unless such malaria is due to bodies of fresh water beyond the immediate confines of the proposed basin.”

(g) “Fresh water v. salt. The substitution of a fresh-water basin for the present tidal reservoir would not tend to intensify malarial influences, providing the present breeding-places of mosquitoes are properly dealt with. There would be a material improvement over present conditions, both as regards mosquitoes and malaria.”

(…)

Conclusions

(…)

Disadvantages

The only important disadvantages that would result from this dam appear to be: -

First - The extra cost (if any) of the dam and its auxiliary structures above the cost of the structures that will be required for sanitary and other reasons, if no dam be built.
(It appears that, taking account of the present condition of Craigie Bridge the dredging of foul mud banks; the improvement of the Fens required regardless of the dam; the necessity for filling and diking and draining marshes; the absolute necessity of improving the dirty banks of the upper portions of the estuary, the method of improvement by means of the dam and its auxiliary structures will cost the least of any efficient method of treatment that can be devised.)

Second - The loss of interest involved in an earlier expenditure for the separation of sewage from storm water than would otherwise be demanded.
(It does not appear that any part of the cost of remedying the present unsatisfactory conditions front sewage in the Fens basin or of removing the defilement from the two Stony Brook channels is properly chargeable to the dam. Neither should the cost of a sewer for the Beacon Street houses be charged against it, nor the connection to sewers of sundry privies and stable drains, now emptying openly or leaching into the basin and the Cambridge canals. The work of separation of sewage from storm water was begun in Cambridge two years ago and, the report of the Boston sewer division for the year 1901 strongly recommends that a similar work be begun in Boston, purely on sanitary and economic grounds, almost without regard to the Charles basin. This work of improving the sewers of Boston and Cambridge must be done sooner or later, although no dam be built. The building of the dam will merely stimulate an earlier and more energetic carrying out of the work.)

Third - The greater interference to navigation by ice on a fresh-water basin, in comparison with the present salt-water basin, and possibly, rarely, some increased trouble with ice in the part of the harbor near the railroad bridges below the dam.

Fourth - The compensation of damages that will doubtless be asked for by those owning wharves.

Fifth - Some very small increase in the cost of dredging out certain deposits of gravel for purpose of sale. (This will be far more than offset to the owners by the market afforded for this gravel in the dam.)

Sixth - A very small increase in total amount to be pumped at the pumping stations of the Boston main drainage and the metropolitan sewerage, due to the larger average quantity of storm water that will be stored in the main sewers after that lying below grade 8 can no longer drain into the Charles at low tide, and must, therefore, drain down through the regulator gates into the metropolitan sewers after the storm is over, and immediately be pumped.
I have had a very complete estimate made of this possible storage in the Cambridge system connected with Binney Street, the largest system of all, and find this will involve only a comparatively insignificant expense.

Seventh - The need and cost of flushing the Broad and Lechmere canals. (This has been provided for by means hereinafter described, and, in this respect, the arrangements proposed in connection with the dam will relieve the present unsatisfactory dirty condition of the Broad canal, due to oil sleeks on the basin that come from gas works and from asphalt roofers’ waste, and that which comes from storm wash of streets and dirty yards.)

Eight - The need and cost of special means for circulation in the Fens basin, now produced by the tide. (This can be done better than now by the marginal conduits elsewhere described in this report. Much less circulation will be required than now, after the “foul flow” of Stony Brook is removed from the Fens by the connection of the new “commissioners’ channel” with the old 7-foot channel.)

II. Full Dam v. Half-tide Dam

I have given careful consideration to this because of the plan having been favored by certain men whose opinions are entitled to great respect. I have come to the opinion that the improvements which are most desirable can be accomplished very much better by a dam of full height than by a half-tide dam. It appears that much more than half of the advantages for pleasure boating and for park development, with neat, attrac-tive water margins, free from wetness, slime and mud, pos-sessed by a basin with slight current, at constant water level, would be sacrificed by a half-tide dam. For half the time the objectionable current would be as strong as now. For half the time the upper half of the slope would be as unsightly as now, and there are some dangers to life connected with pleasure boating controlled by a half-tide dam, due to boys in boats or canoes coming too near the overfall, or to direct attempts to run the rapids while fall was moderate.

The benefits of the constant water level near grade 8.0 or 9.0 in preventing the flooding of the marshes, in draining the mosquito-breeding pools and in lessening the height of storm discharge from sewers and drains would be wholly sacrificed by a half-tide dam. The Back Bay cellars and Cambridge cellars would continue to be flooded by the backing up of sewage in severe storms at high tide, just the same as now. A half-tide dam would not properly cover the broad areas of objectionable mud flats in Watertown (see map of upper basin) and, indeed, the rise of the tide, as now, to grade 10.4 (saying nothing about the frequent rise to about grade 12, Boston base) would keep these marshes, guzzles and shores wet and slimy; and its fall to grade 5.2 would uncover many acres of slimy, muddy slopes and flats, mainly in Brighton, Cambridge, Watertown and Newton.

Indeed, so far as now seen, the only substantial advantage presented by a half-tide dam is: -

  1. It would secure the covering of the mud flats near Harvard bridge and the dirty strips of flats exposed at low water along the present embankment walls.
  2. It would prevent uncovering the unsightly, bad-smelling bottom at the upper ends of the Broad canal and the Lechmere canal.
  3. The daily flushing of the Charles basin with salt water would have nearly the same effect as now, and permit the separation of storm water from sewage to make slower progress, and permit delay in providing a sewer for the houses on the north side of Beacon Street.
  4. It would afford to the shipping the same flood tide depths as now, during the week of spring tides, and would prevent some of the grounding with the ebb tide that now occurs.

In brief, it would deprive Newton, Watertown and upper Cambridge of the benefits that it brought to Boston and Cambridge port.

MIT Open Learning
Over 2,500 courses & materials
Freely sharing knowledge with learners and educators around the world. Learn more
© 2001–2024 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Accessibility
Creative Commons License
Terms and Conditions
Proud member of:
© 2001–2024 Massachusetts Institute of Technology