Bowker Overpass replacement?

[ant8904]

Why can't they let it go out-of-service? It is entirely redundant with Charlesgate East and Charlesgate West. (I'm assuming that the overpass over the Mass Pike is not falling apart.)

I am assuming you mean shutting the bridge (from Storrow, it feels like an underpass - it took a bit to realize what they are talking about) and letting Charlesgate handle? It could work. Points east would rely on the Charles MGH ramps and points west would rely on the Charlesgate.

The shifting of 58,000 daily cars should be calculated to see how it would affect the other two ramp areas and in general. Some just won't show up, but it should still be a shifting in the order of the tens of thousand. Looking at the map and speculating, points east of the bridge would shift to turn right on Beacon and go down Bolyston St to reach Cambridge St and then the ramp. West would be smoother with the cars just keep going down Beacon St.

 

[Ron Newman]

No, I'd keep all of the ramps between Storrow and both Charlesgate East and West, and just remove the bridge over Beacon Street and Commonwealth Ave.

 

[ant8904]

No, I'd keep all of the ramps between Storrow and both Charlesgate East and West, and just remove the bridge over Beacon Street and Commonwealth Ave.

I'm not sure we're on same bridge (pun-intended). The article is pointing to the bridge/tunnel/ramp near the Hatch Shell and Public Garden. From Beacon St, it's a ramp. From EB Storrow, it's an underpass tunnel. That's the "bridge" they cited as the most dangerous (and I just realize looking at the map, that EB may actually go under the WB Storrow for that stretch, thus why they called it a double decker). Shutting down the bridge means shutting down the ramp, I am guessing they mean the whole structure so that mean the WB Storrow off-ramp bridge and Berkeley St. on ramp that is actually a bridge over EB Storrow.

In short, keeping the ramps means fixing the "bridge" as said by the article. Shutting down the bridge mean closing the ramp (as it can be argued the Charlesgate bridge and on ramps make those ramps redundant).

As for the Charlesgate discussion. I'm not sure it's a good idea to take it down as said before. I liked the suggestion of just making a nicer bridge as said back on the first page. I would agree on taking it down if the numbers argue that it can work (like the low usage Casey and declining numbers McGrath). So far, I don't see any numbers and the arguments been damage to the urban environment. But, I don't think it's impossible to have both (and the area is pretty lively anyways - like I said earlier, the biggest casualty is the Olmstead's vision with the Muddy River rather with seemingly no blight damage to even the next building over the street to either Back Bay or Kenmore).

 

[Ron Newman]

I was talking about the Bowker / Charlesgate overpass, because that is the topic of this thread, and it's where the "interim repairs" are happening (see the link in mass88's post)

I would not necessarily have advocated taking it down if it weren't already falling apart. Since it is, why not take advantage of the opportunity to improve this neighborhood by just removing it instead of spending any more money to fix it?

 

[ant8904]

I was talking about the Bowker / Charlesgate overpass, because that is the topic of this thread, and it's where the "interim repairs" are happening (see the link in mass88's post)

I thought you were referring to JonhAKeith's post just below mass88's post. Jonh's post mentioned bridges, in extreme need of repair, and you said "It was redundant" with it referring to the bridge-tunnel of Jonh's post and was made redundant with Charlesgate.

I would not necessarily have advocated taking it down if it weren't already falling apart. Since it is, why not take advantage of the opportunity to improve this neighborhood by just removing it instead of spending any more money to fix it?

I don't see a difference. If the overpass should be gone, it should removed even if the bridge is still in top condition. If it should be kept, then it should be regardless it can stay as-is or need replacement investment. The optimal balance is maybe a nicer bridge than street level putting throughput for cars versus neighborhood.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Why can't they let it go out-of-service? It is entirely redundant with Charlesgate East and Charlesgate West. (I'm assuming that the overpass over the Mass Pike is not falling apart.)

If they have no money to demolish it the raining-chunks-on-pedestrians thing requires emergency repairs right away. Ditto for the McCarthy overpass, where the interim repairs are primarily for safety underneath. It's a different situation from when the old Sullivan Sq. overpass was abandoned but left standing for a few years until they found the money for demo. In that case the underside of the structure was safe but the roadway itself wasn't, so they could close it and figure out the rest later.


The Pike bridge and the Charlesgate WB down-ramp aren't exactly in superb condition, but they're adequate and don't have to go anywhere. If money is tight they can just sever and outright remove the main structure, dump as-is onto Charlesgate with only minor changes like re-timing the traffic lights for longer thru cycles, and figure out how to re-fashion the Storrow and over-Pike stubs later when funding permits. The surface route is simple and straightforward enough and has 4 continuous thru lanes as-is.

The Bowker is a huge induced demand trap. It gets used by a lot of people as a lazy shortcut to the Back Bay when the Pike/Pru exit is severely underused. Same way Storrow gets pointlessly slammed by toll evaders when the Pike is much better. What they need to do when the Bowker closes is remove the Pike tolls from Allston-downtown and downtown-Allston so intra-city movements are finally free where there's max capacity to tap. Then promote the hell out of it to get people the hell off Storrow.

Then, eventually, start building the extra Pike WB ramps so Storrow's load becomes asynchronous...heavier EB where the Pike has no corresponding exits before Copley, lighter WB where it's largely redundant for all traffic originating west of Charles Circle. And promote the hell out of that so people know to take different routes EB vs. WB (not hard...that already happens in lots of places with this town's messed up street grid). Then augment this with a Pike WB-to-Storrow EB direct onramp on the ex-CSX access road behind the Doubletree, put a long merge lane and widen Storrow EB along the Pike Viaduct to the Grand Junction bridge with a real shoulder so it works better with the asynchronous load (and trucks that get stuck under the bridge don't have to shut down the whole road), and leave lighter-use Storrow WB as-is. Then re-work the Bowker-less Kenmore ramps for a more logical Charlesgate merge, consolidate those ramps so there's no longer that Charlesgate fork in the road right at the Beacon St. intersection, and slightly rework the Charlesgate ramps on the other side for better alignment onto the Pike bridge. Maybe if we're lucky they'll even change the elevation slightly to let Newbury become a thru street all the way to Brookline Ave.


But really, the only thing they have to do to start controlling the induced demand is waive the Pike tolls for movements between Allson and downtown, remove the overpass, and punt all other $$$-bearing improvements to a later trickle. The car counts will disappear. Bowker and McGrath/McCarthy (which has already seen precipitous drop in traffic since the Big Dig) are very unlike the Casey where the at-grade traffic will be much the same. These two have encouraged way too much proven-and-obvious induced demand laziness for the last 60+ years. It's a behavioral correction as much as it is eyesore+deathtrap removal.

 

[Matthew]

The missing part in that plan is that Storrow is going to need to be seriously reworked in order to do something about the tunnel.

I think they should take the opportunity to undo the grade separation and reconnect Storrow back into the street grid. And then the mess of ramps connecting Bowker and Charlesgate to Storrow go away too.

Much cleaner and more compact -- recover tons of parkland -- and makes it easier to find your way around the city on all modes.

And yes, once they fix up the induced demand trap, it'll go from being a good idea to a slam dunk.

 

[matredsoxfan]

MassDOT held the meeting the other night. The project will cost $12 Million, start next spring and take 18-months to complete. The work will not be a full rehabilitation project. It will consist of partial deck replacement, parapet repairs/replacement, steel repairs and concrete substructure repairs. According to MassDOT work will be done in 4 stages and work hours will be from 7AM-11PM. In 2014 for 3 Weeks the ramps from Storrow Drive will be closed to complete repairs. Work should be complete by Spring 2015 when MassDOT plans to rehab the Bowker Overpass Bridge over I-90.

 

[Ron Newman]

when MassDOT plans to rehab the Bowker Overpass Bridge over I-90.

That, unlike the overpass over Beacon and Comm. Ave, is actually a vital transportation link. What kind of work does it need?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

That, unlike the overpass over Beacon and Comm. Ave, is actually a vital transportation link. What kind of work does it need?

Deck work. The metal expansion joints are popping up after 48 years of freeze-thaw cycles and the pavement is a total patchwork. The underside is in good shape because the Turnpike Authority maintained it well, but the deck's simply approaching end-of-life much like Comm Ave. and Beacon St. That project is part of the cycled renewal nearly all Turnpike Extension bridges need to get sooner or later. Probably will be a higher-quality job than the emergency repairs the rest of the Bowker is getting for safety to eke it along a few more years.

 

[Ron Newman]

Hopefully traffic can be maintained in both directions by first fixing one side, then the other? I'm glad to hear that the structure is sound, at least.

 

[gooseberry]

That, unlike the overpass over Beacon and Comm. Ave, is actually a vital transportation link. What kind of work does it need?

The bridge over Beacon and Comm Ave separates traffic from Boylston/LMA/Fenway from Comm Ave/Beacon traffic going to Storrow Drive. I know everyone will say traffic will adjust itself, but there's already gridlock in every direction at rush hour, so there really is no magic alternative route. The T is inadequate unless you're lucky enough to live and work in the small area that it is useful and it isn't getting upgraded anytime soon. But it will be nice to have the pretty park back if they remove the overpass.

 

[timsox6]

In the belly of the beast.

CIMG3251 by timsox6, on Flickr

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

In the belly of the beast.

CIMG3251 by timsox6, on Flickr

I walked by there a couple weeks ago on one of those awful rainy days. I love how they now have to paint the bottom of the concrete supports so they don't get eaten away by all the leaking (and who knows how acidic) water from the steel above above and giant pools of standing water and mud that collect on the ground with every storm and take weeks to dry.

 

[Charlie_mta]

When a coat of paint becomes a significant structural support, then you know something is very wrong.

 

[kenmoreResident]

I am hoping to wrestle the Bowker to the ground! I submitted this to the state (explanation follows) ...

The gist of it is: the state wants to improve pike access to back bay and fenway/longwood, and they have come up with 4 proposed ramp alternatives to do so. One of these would be an offramp onto Newbury behind the Hotel Commonwealth toward Brookline Ave.

It hit me that it might be far better to do this instead: make the current on ramp at Mass Ave and Newbury into a Pike off ramp, and move the on-ramp to that location behind the Hotel Commonwealth that the state suggests for an off-ramp.

The beauty of this is that it actually makes replacing the Bowker overpass with a surface Bowker into a transportion plus instead of a minus. It has lots of advantages, when combined with a few other changes sketched out on my map, such as removing/rerouting Beacon Street where it crosses the Charlesgate (not as controversial as it sounds!), and adding a couple of new Storrow ramps (one for the removed Beacon Street). Oh, and a bit of a tough nut ... an underpass for the Bowker at Comm Ave.

It will probably go nowhere, but it just seems to have such potential for making everyone happy ... getting rid of the Bowker, yet keeping the Bowker traffic moving without surface interesections, creating new access from the Pike to both the Back Bay and the Fenway, and new direct Bowker to Pike westbound access. And less traffic on local streets because there are less choke points and more ways to get around.

I am hoping this makes getting rid of the overpass a sensible idea, not just a dream in the sky. Maybe, but very unlikely, the enhanced Pike access might even justify a Bowker tunnel under the Charlesgate with additional (hidden) Bowker lanes. I can dream, can't I?

Anyway I enjoy the chit chat about such matters here, and the ideas that develop, and maybe you will think this one is BAD for valid reasons I have not yet thought of (and I realize it is not perfect), but maybe you see potential and can improve upon it also. I will just lay it out for analysis, if anyone wants to give their two cents.

Here is how I concluded my letter to the state DOT...

CONCLUSION

I hope that the ideas suggested here offer very significant improvements in Pike-to-local access, while allowing the state to remove the expensive to maintain Bowker, and at the same time allowing maintenance of current Bowker volumes by removing Bowker surface level choke points that would otherwise exist. With this proposal, the relocation of the Bowker down to surface level actually serves to enhance meeting the goals of the Pike Ramp Study and improves, rather than harms, area traffic flow. This proposal really offers a lot of potential: Travelling on Storrow in either direction? You could now get onto the Pike westbound via the Bowker. On the Pike westbound? You can now take an exit to head toward Longwood, OR Kenmore OR the Back Bay. Travelling down Beacon? You can bypass that messy intersection with traffic coming off of Storrow. Likewise, on Storrow inbound or outbound, exiting at Kenmore? You no longer have to deal with the Beacon Street choke point and traffic lights that are there now. Heading inbound on Comm Ave from Kenmore? You could now get on the Pike westbound without going up to Mass Ave. Heading south on Mass Ave? Less Pike bound traffic to deal with means a smoother trip. Heading north on the Bowker? You can now get to Beacon outbound without getting off by the Somerset and going thru the Comm Ave intersections. You could also easily "bang a U-ey" and get on the Bowker southbound from the Bowker northbound via a new Storrow area ramp. On Beacon? Get new easy access to Bowker south and the Fens, bypassing the local traffic on Charlesgate West and Comm Ave intersections. In the Mass Ave area? Get up to the Fens via new access from Newbury Street (getting to the Fens now is difficult due to the forced exit toward Comm Ave at the Boylston/Bowker intersection). Want to go to Storrow from Mass Ave? Head down Newbury for new access to the Bowker north, bypassing multiple Comm Ave and Beacon street intersections. In the Fens? Take Bowker North and use the new loop U-turn access over Storrow to get to Bowker south and from there onto the Pike westbound, without hitting local streets. All of these new options should improve flexibility and traffic flow for everyone; people passing thru the area and people in the neighborhood alike. For people in the neighborhood, new options to bypass local streets should shift traffic from local roads and intersections.

 

[fattony]

^ I'm not familiar with all the alternatives off the top of my head, but this seems extraordinarily auto-centric. How do pedestrians and bicycles get through all this spaghetti? We lose Beacon entirely and Comm becomes a series of convoluted ramps and multi-way intersections. Can you sketch out a version with ped and bike flows? Especially Comm Eastbound. This doesn't look like it jives with "complete streets". The overpass is an eyesore, but only for the 10 seconds it take to walk under it. Maybe my mind's eye isn't in focus tonight, but this looks worse for peds and bikes.

 

[omaja]

Charlesgate E and W should more than be able to carry the traffic volumes on the Bowker provided that Boston actually installs smart traffic lights instead of the outdated mechanical ones we have everywhere. No need for even an even more convoluted mess of ramps and roads.

 

[kenmoreResident]

^ I'm not familiar with all the alternatives off the top of my head, but this seems extraordinarily auto-centric. How do pedestrians and bicycles get through all this spaghetti? We lose Beacon entirely and Comm becomes a series of convoluted ramps and multi-way intersections. Can you sketch out a version with ped and bike flows? Especially Comm Eastbound. This doesn't look like it jives with "complete streets". The overpass is an eyesore, but only for the 10 seconds it take to walk under it. Maybe my mind's eye isn't in focus tonight, but this looks worse for peds and bikes.

Quite right it is auto-centric because that is generally the primary focus of the DOT when they consider things like this. But you bring up a good point in the area where Beacon street was ... u can cross there now by bike and sidewalks but you would lose that here. Everywhere else it is pretty much the same for bikes and peds as it is now (and i am NOT saying that as it is now can't be improved upon ... it certainly can).

 

[kenmoreResident]

Charlesgate E and W should more than be able to carry the traffic volumes on the Bowker provided that Boston actually installs smart traffic lights instead of the outdated mechanical ones we have everywhere. No need for even an even more convoluted mess of ramps and roads.

People have been saying this for several years to the DOT and it is a battle that has been lost. You can keep on arguing it, but i don't think it will ever get that overpass removed.