Bowker Overpass replacement?

[kenmoreResident]

I'm confused at why you, and others, say Eastbound ramps are not an option.

From Dec 4 2013 meeting (see presentations below) Bowker Overpass Reconfiguration Alternatives, which they claim to be studying and analysing, including Alts 3 and 4, pages 14 and 25 (pt 1) - 9 (pt 2), include a 4 ramp option (i.e. east/west & on/off).

Dec 4 2013 MassDot Ramp Advisory Meeting
Presentation Part 1
Presentation Part 2

Was this meeting to inform that they were considered and have now been rejected? Is that why they do not appear in the Jan 15 2014 meeting?

I agree that the original scoping only considered an East On and West Off ramp. But I was under the impression that public feedback pushed them to consider all ramps. The developments are difficult to follow as the context in the presentations is limited.

Eastbound IS a goal for the Pike. The "Massachusetts Turnpike - Boston Ramps Study" states three "Goals", the first two of which are: "new or revised eastbound-on or westbound-off ramps along the Massachusetts Turnpike that would directly serve Boston's Back Bay" (goal 1) and "new or revised eastbound-on or westbound-off ramps along the Massachusetts Turnpike that would directly serve Boston's Fenway and Longwood Medical Area." (goal 2)

The DOT only came up with one eastbound proposal however (and 3 westbound proposals) ...

Back Bay Alternative 4: New I-90 EB on-ramp from the Bowker Overpass (to be accomplished by shifting the Pike onto Newbury Street behind the Somerset area, to make room for the ramp.)

The January meeting was strictly a Bowker discussion meeting, and so Pike ramps were not discussed, though of course access to the Pike (or poor access to the Pike) has a significant impact on use and disuse of the Bowker. But the ramps are still in play, just not part of the Bowker only January meeting.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'm confused at why you, and others, say Eastbound ramps are not an option.

From Dec 4 2013 meeting (see presentations below) Bowker Overpass Reconfiguration Alternatives, which they claim to be studying and analysing, including Alts 3 and 4, pages 14 and 25 (pt 1) - 9 (pt 2), include a 4 ramp option (i.e. east/west & on/off).

Dec 4 2013 MassDot Ramp Advisory Meeting
Presentation Part 1
Presentation Part 2

Was this meeting to inform that they were considered and have now been rejected? Is that why they do not appear in the Jan 15 2014 meeting?

I agree that the original scoping only considered an East On and West Off ramp. But I was under the impression that public feedback pushed them to consider all ramps. The developments are difficult to follow as the context in the presentations is limited.

I have no idea how the setup in those PowerPoint renderings could ever work. Look at the space available to work with here: http://goo.gl/maps/MbuhF (overhead), http://goo.gl/maps/Mj997 (street view).

In only 450 ft. of runup space you've got the Jillian's building abutting the tracks with no buffer, Ipswich abutting the tracks with no buffer, and the Pike narrowed to no breakdown lane on either side. Absolutely nothing can shift positions here or anywhere back towards Brookline Ave. for a turnout to ramp up.

The only possible scenario I could see is an exit-only ramp that lane-drops the Pike for a ramp propped up on retaining wall. But even that has to be a little bit wider than a single 12 ft. lane to fit the footprint of a retaining wall and a 12 ft. lane on top, so the complete lack of shoulder pretty much prohibits that. The only way to possibly accommodate is lane-drop the Pike on BOTH sides, and redo the entire overpass to shift the center abutment around. That's a $100M+ project right there.

I would really, really like to know what exploitable nook-and-cranny MassDOT sees here, because there's literally not 1 foot of claimable space to be had anywhere on the footprint of the highway + Worcester Line + Ipswich + abutters.

 

[Scalziand]

Looks like at the very least it would require cannibalizing both sections of Newbury St.

 

[cozzyd]

Could Ipswich St under Bowker be removed if the Bowker / Boylston intersection gets unfucked? That might give you enough room somehow

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Could Ipswich St under Bowker be removed if the Bowker / Boylston intersection gets unfucked? That might give you enough room somehow

The city, 55 bus riders, Trans National Group, Red Sox, all of the Landsdowne clubs, and these apartment dwellers would scream bloody murder. And that's probably completely justified of them. Ipswich might be sub-critical on the grid, but it's most definitely not superfluous.

 

[Ron Newman]

Ipswich St. is also by far the best way to bicycle between Back Bay and the Fenway. Leave it alone please!

 

[kenmoreResident]

Those Ipswich Street apartment dwellers would scream bloody murder at this as well, but is this possible?

 

[davem]

Those Ipswich Street apartment dwellers would scream bloody murder at this as well, but is this possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards

As it is that S curve has solid lines on the inbound side to discourage weaving, and I'm amazed that ramp doesn't cause more accidents with near zero room for merging. Even if you could tighten up that curve, converting the onramp to an offramp would chew up half of Newbury for a decel lane.

 

[kenmoreResident]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards

Jeez, can't point out which section of the article you are referring to?

 

[kenmoreResident]

Any thoughts why this is not on the state's options list?

 

[davem]

Jeez, can't point out which section of the article you are referring to?

The whole thing. Your enthusiasm and out-of-the-box thinking are great, but your proposals make old sections of 128 look like the foremost example of safety.

 

[kenmoreResident]

The whole thing. Your enthusiasm and out-of-the-box thinking are great, but your proposals make old sections of 128 look like the foremost example of safety.

Thanks, but it couldn't be the whole thing! Anyway, the Pike Extension is already in violation, what with no break down lane on most of it. In my first photo above, looking north of my proposed east bound onramp you can see the room cars have to merge in the current west bound onramp. It is tiny! I agree far from ideal, but the whole Pike extension is far from ideal, in terms of safety and violation of standards/best design. And the reason was, and still is, there is just not enough space for meeting standards/best design.

 

[datadyne007]

Any thoughts why this is not on the state's options list?

My thoughts exactly:

your proposals make old sections of 128 look like the foremost example of safety.

You just can't take breakdown lanes and make them ramps. I would never in a million years use that on-ramp and would feel very sorry for the poor souls whose GPS would direct them to use that on-ramp. You'd be attending a lot of funerals.

 

[paperless paul]

Those Ipswich Street apartment dwellers would scream bloody murder at this as well, but is this possible?

Also in reference to F-line today (#322).

The Bowker / Mass Ave Eastbound on ramp proposal (similar to yours) appears to have been dropped following the June 1 2011 MassDot meeting.

See alternative 4 (page numbers not provided).

In fact all 3 Eastbound on ramp alternatives from this 'study' appear to have been rejected (including 1. Arlington/Tremont and 5. Brookline). The reasons were given as Yawkey Station / Fenway Studios historic, Worcester Rail line, Olmstead Park, and Muddy River.

However, the BackBay alternative from the December 2013 meeting appears to show the alternative you suggest, but with F-line's modifications (i.e. shift rail line North, cannibalise Newbury, shift Mass Pike north, and add (?) Westbound on ramp from Mass Ave.

So in this case, they seem to recognise the issues you raise, and would require massive realignment to make it happen.

OTOH Bowker Alts 3 and 4 (New Regional Access) from the December 2013 meeting appear do not appear to have any precedent. The Westbound On/Off appears to run up an embankment to meet the overpass to feed south into Fenway. There is no access to Storrow / Comm Ave north from south of the Pike.

 

[kenmoreResident]

My thoughts exactly:


You just can't take breakdown lanes and make them ramps. I would never in a million years use that on-ramp and would feel very sorry for the poor souls whose GPS would direct them to use that on-ramp. You'd be attending a lot of funerals.

Well, most of the extension has no break down lane at all. That section is a rare exception. Given this unsafe condition, I assume you refuse to use the Mass Pike extension at all and feel sorry for the poor fools whose GPS guides them onto it.

 

[datadyne007]

Well, most of the extension has no break down lane at all. That section is a rare exception. Given this unsafe condition, I assume you refuse to use the Mass Pike extension at all and feel sorry for the poor fools whose GPS guides them onto it.

The point is that you can't replicate unsafe conditions in 2014. It's like building a new building with asbestos. We know it's dangerous and would never build something new with it. The same applies to roadways.

 

[davem]

90% complete, I might play with adding in some Pike access, but I was trying to stay within the scope of JUST replacing the Bowker.

The Storrow mainline would be moved onto an overpass so the ramps could filter beneath. The overpass would need to be a landmark bridge due to the location. I'm thinking all stone, like the bridges on the parkways.

I do have to play with it a bit where it crosses under Mass Ave, as its currently running through the main support for the bridge =/

I moved the Pike overpass back to it's historic location, although its a good 30' wider than its predecessor.

 

[kenmoreResident]

It is beautiful. Putting all of the Bowker traffic on just Charlesgate West is interesting; something I have not seen before in other approaches. As a practical matter though the state is rejecting putting Bowker traffic thru intersections with Comm Ave and Beacon. They rate their capacity at 'F' (unacceptable) in such a scenario.

 

[Ron Newman]

Interstate highway standards are designed for the wide-open spaces of the West. I would hope a congested Eastern city could be exempted from them for the sake of conserving valuable land.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Interstate highway standards are designed for the wide-open spaces of the West. I would hope a congested Eastern city could be exempted from them for the sake of conserving valuable land.

EDIT: On second thought, the original version of this post was probably a bit too much and I apologize for letting my anger get the better of me. The general gist of what was here is that we don't have to choose between tossing what are (for the most part in the context of an interstate rather than a city street) reasonable safety standards and opening ourselves up to routine wrongful death lawsuits, nor do we need to rip up even more of Boston for fast-moving, high-throughput interstates. The Pike is already overbuilt. Dropping lanes and rebuilding it for compliance with safety standards means less vehicles pumped through the core of the city, without having to take more land OR reduce the safety of a road already at dubious safety levels.