Bowker Overpass replacement?

[F-Line to Dudley]

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.

It did on the Casey Overpass @ Forest Hills. It most likely is going to on the McCarthy Overpass on McGrath Highway. MassDOT's furiously making changes to the Cambridge St. bridge design over the beating it took in Allston public meetings from the over- car-centricity.

Not saying it isn't hard to push back on 6 decades of road-building conventional wisdom, but where exactly is the evidence that MassDOT is riding an indefatigable winning streak here?

 

[kenmoreResident]

It did on the Casey Overpass @ Forest Hills. It most likely is going to on the McCarthy Overpass on McGrath Highway. MassDOT's furiously making changes to the Cambridge St. bridge design over the beating it took in Allston public meetings from the over- car-centricity.

Not saying it isn't hard to push back on 6 decades of road-building conventional wisdom, but where exactly is the evidence that MassDOT is riding an indefatigable winning streak here?

It has been argued for 3 times in the last roughly 6 months as part of the Mass DOT Pike ramp public meeting process, and the other removed overpasses were part of those arguments. Here is a report from the last meeting, which was all about the Bowker: http://willbrownsberger.com/forums/topic/report-bowker-meeting/

 

[whighlander]

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.

Kenmore -- Today I went to a seminar by someone from Volpe who talked about the difference between the traditional [circa 1960's] and the newer approaches to modeling transportation alternatives

In addition to the generic discussion and some examples of complex simulations -- he also demonstrated a nice simple example of a network composed of about 6 nodes with three major routs between a source and a destination -- the simple model was easy to follow and could be used to test some simple changes such as replacing one slow link with a faster one -- before the change the users balanced the 3 routes to yield 11 minuter travels -- after the users re-balanced their choices the new was that all 3 now took 15 minutes to make the same start to finish trip due to added congestion on 2 separate segments

with something as complicated as your proposed reconfiguration the results of detailed multi-node multi-mode dynamic simulations might be that things got substantially worse rather than slightly better

So beware of the Doctrine of Unintended Consequences

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It has been argued for 3 times in the last roughly 6 months as part of the Mass DOT Pike ramp public meeting process, and the other removed overpasses were part of those arguments. Here is a report from the last meeting, which was all about the Bowker: http://willbrownsberger.com/forums/topic/report-bowker-meeting/

Yeah? And they didn't argue for equal-or-better capacity on all those other intra-city projects in meeting after meeting after meeting?

So let's ask the original question again. . .

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.

Where is your evidence that MassDOT has "won"? This battle or a 'war' at-large, if that's the loaded analogy you insist on viewing this through.

 

[Ron Newman]

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.

Letting it gradually fall apart will eventually result in demolition by neglect. That is a desirable outcome that the neighborhood should advocate. It has the advantage of costing nothing at all until the overpass actually fails inspection.

 

[CSTH]

with something as complicated as your proposed reconfiguration the results of detailed multi-node multi-mode dynamic simulations might be that things got substantially worse rather than slightly better

This.

The immediate topic is the bowker, but the scope of the issue is access to points south of the pike from the catchment basin served by storrow - thats everything from the Allston tolls to the Tip tunnel, and it ultimately includes Cambridge access via the bridges and the E-W through flow on storrow and the pike as well.

Ideally then (or in a technocratic utopia, at least), the Bowker studies would be merged with the beacon yards do-over and the storrow tunnel euthanasia planning. And we'd throw in pike air rights and river crossings as well. That way you could build a plan that would deliver a distributed load to enable downgrading storrow and the bowker, based on a subset of the following:

- Build new 'air rights avenues' as pike dis/tributaries both E and W of the Pru (borrowing the fourth lane from the pike and widening the bay village cut for ramp leads where appropriate - and with the promise of filling in the fabric above)
- Connect longwood with west-side pike and SFR via audubon circle, park ave and cottage farm
- Streamline the cottage farm / magazine beach interface, to get better leverage from Mem Drive for access to cambridge and kendall (and an alternate route to 93N and the Tobin)
- un-fuck the gilmore bridge (again, tobin from the W via mem)
- Integrate beacon and boylston into E-W load balancing
- Better-integrate cambridge st (beacon hill) and charles st into downtown access, to take pressure off levrett cir
- while we're at it, reduce the Cambridge St. Allston crush by adding ramps to Nonantum and the Bergin Parkway at NB / Boston Landing (and un-fuck the circle of death in the process)
- also, umm, transit and DMUs

In other words, the issue is the network, not the node, and so the solution has to come at the network level. I recognize that the strategic is only meaningful in dialogue with the tactical, and that a finite scope is always a prerequisite for actionability, but what will it take to get some comprehensive planning done here?

Our planning and building systems are built for focus - where's the synthesis? For that matter, where's the ArchB synthesis conversation? Anyone up for Crazy Regional Mobility and Prosperity Pitches?

 

[paperless paul]

This.

The immediate topic is the bowker, but the scope of the issue is access to points south of the pike from the catchment basin served by storrow - thats everything from the Allston tolls to the Tip tunnel, and it ultimately includes Cambridge access via the bridges and the E-W through flow on storrow and the pike as well.

Ideally then (or in a technocratic utopia, at least), the Bowker studies would be merged with the beacon yards do-over and the storrow tunnel euthanasia planning. And we'd throw in pike air rights and river crossings as well. That way you could build a plan that would deliver a distributed load to enable downgrading storrow and the bowker, based on a subset of the following:

- Build new 'air rights avenues' as pike dis/tributaries both E and W of the Pru (borrowing the fourth lane from the pike and widening the bay village cut for ramp leads where appropriate - and with the promise of filling in the fabric above)
- Connect longwood with west-side pike and SFR via audubon circle, park ave and cottage farm
- Streamline the cottage farm / magazine beach interface, to get better leverage from Mem Drive for access to cambridge and kendall (and an alternate route to 93N and the Tobin)
- un-fuck the gilmore bridge (again, tobin from the W via mem)
- Integrate beacon and boylston into E-W load balancing
- Better-integrate cambridge st (beacon hill) and charles st into downtown access, to take pressure off levrett cir
- while we're at it, reduce the Cambridge St. Allston crush by adding ramps to Nonantum and the Bergin Parkway at NB / Boston Landing (and un-fuck the circle of death in the process)
- also, umm, transit and DMUs

In other words, the issue is the network, not the node, and so the solution has to come at the network level. I recognize that the strategic is only meaningful in dialogue with the tactical, and that a finite scope is always a prerequisite for actionability, but what will it take to get some comprehensive planning done here?

Our planning and building systems are built for focus - where's the synthesis? For that matter, where's the ArchB synthesis conversation? Anyone up for Crazy Regional Mobility and Prosperity Pitches?

This is a great point which I have seen mentioned at other blogs as well. If you have any confidence in the theory that coordinated planning can deliver improved outcomes or even just serve as a basis for consensus decision-making then I agree that this approach is an important one to take.

There have been several proposals in these fora for street reconfiguration including many of the areas you have suggested. Perhaps these comments will reignite some further debate.

 

[ant8904]

I'll go and applaud your effort kemoreResident. I tend to like to think of ways where "everybody wins". I view your effort as an attempt to find a way to accommodate everybody from what I can tell from your design. Your justifications after contradict that, but I view your design looks to have an intention to accommodate all sides. Thus, I give you credit for that.

That said, the criticism have major points too. I suspect the engineering can be simplified. There are still more routes (like Beacon St.) that increase accommodation to the pedestrian and neighborhood. And Whighlander have a point that it may actually backfire with the level of complexity. Then from own view, there's remains a possible option bypassing the whole issue: setting up to the Pike to replace Storrow from BU bridge to the Hatch Shell area and negating the whole thing..

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'll go and applaud your effort kemoreResident. I tend to like to think of ways where "everybody wins". I view your effort as an attempt to find a way to accommodate everybody from what I can tell from your design. Your justifications after contradict that, but I view your design looks to have an intention to accommodate all sides. Thus, I give you credit for that.

That said, the criticism have major points too. I suspect the engineering can be simplified. There are still more routes (like Beacon St.) that increase accommodation to the pedestrian and neighborhood. And Whighlander have a point that it may actually backfire with the level of complexity. Then from own view, there's remains a possible option bypassing the whole issue: setting up to the Pike to replace Storrow from BU bridge to the Hatch Shell area and negating the whole thing..

Important thing to remember re: Pike is that all the ramp opportunities are westbound-only. What that sets up is asynchronous peak loads where Storrow EB continues to be a load-bearer in the A.M. to the Kenmore area (but it drops off a LOT to Copley if more people are using the Pike EB instead)...but Storrow WB no longer sees a similar peak in the evening and has its load dramatically reduced (by half or more). This is nothing new for people in the city because our lovely throw-shit-at-the-wall street grid already has plenty of instances where a car or bus commute takes different routings in one direction vs. the opposite direction. And I don't mean one-way pairs either, but navigating "can't get there from here" streets that dump you on entirely different blocks the opposite direction. That is something drivers can be conditioned to follow Pike vs. Storrow on opposing commutes, since it comes with the territory.

The trick is encouraging free movements on the Pike intra-city between Allston and Logan without getting dinged by the toll. That is what strips out the induced demand from Storrow and gives it its true traffic levels.The toll should only be for people coming to/from the 'burbs, and positioning of the high-speed toll gantries west of the interchange is going to be key for that (right now the plans still keep it positioned tolls-for-all).

Charlesgate should be fully able to handle this if compacting the whole ramp sprawl by the Bowker interchange allows for a little better EB exit ramp geometry and a less-sharp merge from WB (i.e. WB merges straight onto Charlesgate instead of at similarly sharp angle to the EB ramp). Then you can time the Charlesgate lights asynchronously to go longer EB in the A.M. to give that road some priority over Beacon and Comm Ave. than it gets P.M. when a lot more load is shifted to the new Pike exits.

Similarly, the Pike Viaduct teardown plan should offer up some improvements to Storrow EB out there while leaving WB alone. They should attempt to do something with the former Beacon Park access driveway that traces around the yard's track loop and make it into a direct Storrow EB onramp, while otherwise sticking with the plan to compact the Cambridge St. ramps. There's less need for over-capacity if the only load-bearing direction is served by a direct ramp while Storrow WB-to-Pike and Soldiers Field Rd. make do with less capacity stripped of their induced demand. Likewise, you can streamline what induced demand uses SFR EB in the evening commute by throwing a Pike WB exit at the North Beacon rotary on the west end of SFR. Offramp onto a lightly reconfigured Birmingham Pkwy., onramp on Nonantum Rd. just west of the rotary and Brooks St. intersection. That helps with the overload traveling the Western Ave.-Cambridge St. block to get on the Pike.

Likewise, with this asynchronous streamlining of Storrow they should take some of this useless grassy median on Storrow EB next to the viaduct and Grand Junction track and widen it into a full-size breakdown lane (but NOT reciprocate on WB) so those dumbass truck drivers who smack the bridge can get yanked back without shutting the road for an hour.

All of this is relatively minor and cosmetic change, but it fully conditions the asynchronous commutes where Pike WB absorbs all the evening commute volume, including a moderate lightening of the evening load on SFR EB from Harvard Sq. and Fresh Pond. And then some flow--but not capacity--enhancements on Storrow EB and Charlesgate West for the A.M. that doesn't need to get reciprocated at all in the opposite direction. That should pretty much do it for busting all this down to true traffic levels sans induced demand and remove all the fear of taking down the Bowker. It is almost certainly collectively less expensive than rebuilding the Bowker, despite the project scope of the ramp work being spread around the city end-to-end on these roads.

 

[kenmoreResident]

Kenmore -- Today I went to a seminar by someone from Volpe who talked about the difference between the traditional [circa 1960's] and the newer approaches to modeling transportation alternatives

In addition to the generic discussion and some examples of complex simulations -- he also demonstrated a nice simple example of a network composed of about 6 nodes with three major routs between a source and a destination -- the simple model was easy to follow and could be used to test some simple changes such as replacing one slow link with a faster one -- before the change the users balanced the 3 routes to yield 11 minuter travels -- after the users re-balanced their choices the new was that all 3 now took 15 minutes to make the same start to finish trip due to added congestion on 2 separate segments

with something as complicated as your proposed reconfiguration the results of detailed multi-node multi-mode dynamic simulations might be that things got substantially worse rather than slightly better

So beware of the Doctrine of Unintended Consequences

Thanks Highlander. Very interesting. I don't know how good it is, but the state DOT uses something that sounds similar to map out route changes and analyze their impacts. They then grade various intersections from A to F (maybe you could call these nodes), and project forward to include anticipated future traffic volumes. The Pike Ramp Study on the DOT website has slides from public meetings were such results have been presented. It appears that any redesign that the state seriously considers goes thru this node analysis. And i understand what you are saying entirely about unintended consequences! I have no certainty that what I have sketched out will work, or could handle volumes etc. It just seems to me it has potential to meet the state's concerns about the Bowker's removal as an overpass.

 

[kenmoreResident]

Yeah? And they didn't argue for equal-or-better capacity on all those other intra-city projects in meeting after meeting after meeting?

So let's ask the original question again. . .



Where is your evidence that MassDOT has "won"? This battle or a 'war' at-large, if that's the loaded analogy you insist on viewing this through.

My main evidence that they have won is that they start a major rebuild of the Bowker this spring, an 18-month long project that we have been trying to stop and get the state instead to spend those $12 million to instead refocus on overpass removal. The state's project could add a decade to 15 years more of life to the Bowker. Propose taking down the overpass, and we always get the same answers: 'NO', and 'this is not the Casey overpass', and it handles too much traffic, is too vital, the Longwood Medical community needs it, ambulances need it, what about Red Sox games, etc. We can keep banging our heads against that wall, but I think we will not get a different answer from the state. In fact they will just stop listening if we keep trying. And we have not just said take down the overpass. We have put forward multiple ideas that could help make that viable ... traffic flow changes, intersection changes/signal light changes. We always get No. At this point we need a solution that satisfies the state's objections to overpass removal. Saying 'send the traffic onto the Charlesgates (E and W)' does not satisfy them. I wish it did, provided it was not a traffic disaster.

 

[kenmoreResident]

Letting it gradually fall apart will eventually result in demolition by neglect. That is a desirable outcome that the neighborhood should advocate. It has the advantage of costing nothing at all until the overpass actually fails inspection.

That is not in the cards. A rebuild begins in the spring. The neighborhood has advocated that, more or less. Instead we get an 18 month rebuild so it can stand strong for another decade and a half.

 

[kenmoreResident]

I'll go and applaud your effort kemoreResident. I tend to like to think of ways where "everybody wins". I view your effort as an attempt to find a way to accommodate everybody from what I can tell from your design. Your justifications after contradict that, but I view your design looks to have an intention to accommodate all sides. Thus, I give you credit for that.

That said, the criticism have major points too. I suspect the engineering can be simplified. There are still more routes (like Beacon St.) that increase accommodation to the pedestrian and neighborhood. And Whighlander have a point that it may actually backfire with the level of complexity. Then from own view, there's remains a possible option bypassing the whole issue: setting up to the Pike to replace Storrow from BU bridge to the Hatch Shell area and negating the whole thing..

Thank you Ant for the feedback. I guess to say 'everybody wins', as I did is oversimplification and not completely accurate but it is the direction I was aiming for. It is more accurate to say that maybe everyone gets a bit more of what they want. The neighborhood wants the overpass gone, the DOT wants a roadway that maintains current thru-put and better Pike connectivity to the Back Bay and the Fenway. What I have sketched out does this, I think. Not that there are not other ways to do this perhaps, and several of you guys have suggested improvements in other areas of town that could eliminate the need for doing any of this, but arguing these big picture solutions and changes on a more regional basis has not gotten us much traction with the DOT and their plans for the Bowker. Realistically, I think they will only take down the overpass if the state has a solution that does everything the overpass now does so that was my 'design goal'. And I appreciate the two comments about big picture thinking and how improvements in other areas might mean we don't need a Bowker or a Bowker replacement. But right now the state has a focused Pike ramp study going on, with a goal of implementing something, and if we can give them a Pike ramp implementation that also brings down the Bowker as part of this I will do what I can to try to make that happen.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: Bowker Overpass replacemen

My main evidence that they have won is that they start a major rebuild of the Bowker this spring, an 18-month long project that we have been trying to stop and get the state instead to spend those $12 million to instead refocus on overpass removal. The state's project could add a decade to 15 years more of life to the Bowker. .

They're rehabbing the McCarthy too but it's still planned to be torn down in the not too distant future. Then again, Somerville has been much more vocal advocating for its removal than Boston is for the Bowker.

 

[kenmoreResident]

Re: Bowker Overpass replacemen

They're rehabbing the McCarthy too but it's still planned to be torn down in the not too distant future. Then again, Somerville has been much more vocal advocating for its removal than Boston is for the Bowker.

That could be true, I am not familiar with the extent of the efforts made in Somerville on the McCarthy. Still, on the Bowker, we have petitioned the state, sent letters, had good turnout at public meetings, drawn up alternate plans, have a website, have worked on the issue for 5 years, enlisted the help of local politicians, neighborhood groups, environmental groups, collected support from ex Gov Dukais, and Fred Salvucci, and engaged in a lawsuit to halt the rebuild, so the neighborhood efforts have been far from nothing. The state tells us, and it is obviously true, that not all overpasses are the same (each is its own unique situation). In the case of the Bowker we are told a simple take down of the overpass is not in the cards.

If anyone here wants to sign our petition, please do so! ...

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-bowker-overpass

 

[paperless paul]

Our planning and building systems are built for focus - where's the synthesis? For that matter, where's the ArchB synthesis conversation? Anyone up for Crazy Regional Mobility and Prosperity Pitches?

Now that I have a bit more time. I am up for 'this'. Although this might not be the right thread for Crazy Regional Mobility, so I defer to the senior members / mods.

Today the Jan 15 2014 MassDot public meeting presentation was released. It is a very useful document because it outlines the existing traffic conditions for the Bowker including source and destination plus a graphical contribution analysis including both directions (North/South) and both peaks (AM / PM).

It also has the typically useless analysis which suggests that if you close the Bowker, and do nothing else, funnelling all of the vehicles on to E/W Charlesgate produces terrible traffic jams. Shocking.

It suggests that switching modes to public transportation doesn't work because there are too many transfers, etc.

The conclusion follows simply, all we can do is replace / fix it.

It also considers a tunnel which is pretty obvious will be a tough sell. The cynic in me thinks they were happy to consider this alternative because a very easy analysis of elevations and geometry, not to mention cost, would confirm that this won’t work but they can claim to have listened to the public and considered an alternative.

 

[ant8904]

It also has the typically useless analysis which suggests that if you close the Bowker, and do nothing else, funnelling all of the vehicles on to E/W Charlesgate produces terrible traffic jams. Shocking.

Umm... I know this goes strongly against the sentiment of the board. And I'm aware of the arguments raised of methodological flaws like assumption of ever rising car volumes over 20 years and points to many discussions like some overpass have decline traffic volumes for years.

But, reading that sounds like knee-jerk dismissiveness. Not critical analysis. They seem to use all cars using the surface as a worse case scenario with a realistic case of reduction by divergence. That mean pointing out what's wrong with SYNCHRO (which I'll admit I don't know what that means, but that also mean to mean I can dismiss until I know what is this and be able to point out a serious flaw) as an estimation would be fair. Say saying "shocking" doesn't attack if they are being biased or making a honest evaluation and balancing the best options to all parties. I'm still not going to assume all the engineers doing the analysis are that biased and dishonest that their analysis have no truth and can just be dismiss that easily off-hand.


That said, my initial glance of the data of where they are commuting from and to indicates the Turnpike can make Storrow redundant. The lionshare of the northbound AM traffic fans on to the Broker and then go west getting off and fanning out around Soldier Field road or eastward getting around all around where the Turnpike, I-93 or Route 1 goes. Southbound AM traffic fans initially on to Soldier's Field, somewhere along I-93, Route 1, and maybe Callahan/Sumner Tunnels (if they are not going initially northward to Route 1) then all fans out right after Broker.

I would interpret that the Turnpike if we can figure a way to add ramps around I-90 in the Broker Overpass area (and probably remove the tolls), it can easily take over Broker's function with traffic changes with the fanning around Soldier's Field switch to the an on ramp to the Pike and the other fanning just continuing down I-93/Pike. I know all the ramp opportunities are Westbound only, but maybe there still something not considered yet. Or even something more costly.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Umm... I know this goes strongly against the sentiment of the board. And I'm aware of the arguments raised of methodological flaws like assumption of ever rising car volumes over 20 years and points to many discussions like some overpass have decline traffic volumes for years.

But, reading that sounds like knee-jerk dismissiveness. Not critical analysis. They seem to use all cars using the surface as a worse case scenario with a realistic case of reduction by divergence. That mean pointing out what's wrong with SYNCHRO (which I'll admit I don't know what that means, but that also mean to mean I can dismiss until I know what is this and be able to point out a serious flaw) as an estimation would be fair. Say saying "shocking" doesn't attack if they are being biased or making a honest evaluation and balancing the best options to all parties. I'm still not going to assume all the engineers doing the analysis are that biased and dishonest that their analysis have no truth and can just be dismiss that easily off-hand.


That said, my initial glance of the data of where they are commuting from and to indicates the Turnpike can make Storrow redundant. The lionshare of the northbound AM traffic fans on to the Broker and then go west getting off and fanning out around Soldier Field road or eastward getting around all around where the Turnpike, I-93 or Route 1 goes. Southbound AM traffic fans initially on to Soldier's Field, somewhere along I-93, Route 1, and maybe Callahan/Sumner Tunnels (if they are not going initially northward to Route 1) then all fans out right after Broker.

I would interpret that the Turnpike if we can figure a way to add ramps around I-90 in the Broker Overpass area (and probably remove the tolls), it can easily take over Broker's function with traffic changes with the fanning around Soldier's Field switch to the an on ramp to the Pike and the other fanning just continuing down I-93/Pike. I know all the ramp opportunities are Westbound only, but maybe there still something not considered yet. Or even something more costly.

Eastbound isn't going to be an option. The canyon's too densely abutted to come up with any wiggle room to shift the Worcester Line tracks over enough to get an ramp in there. Or send one dipping below the other anywhere close to Kenmore because of the Muddy River. The only place I can think of where something would be possible is off the eastern third of the viaduct to Comm Ave. @ BU Bridge. And that's impossible to tie into the already bad Bridge intersection in any sensible way.


But as long as intra-city is free from tolls a crapload of traffic that normally uses Storrow can go Pike-to-Copley and get much closer to their destinations than clogging 6 blocks of Clarendon and Berkeley Streets. That alone is enough of an excuse to lane-drop Storrow from 6 to 4 all points west of the Copley interchange.

 

[paperless paul]

But, reading that sounds like knee-jerk dismissiveness. Not critical analysis.

The purpose of my post was to notify people that the presentation existed and to summarise what was in it so they could decide whether it was worth reading.

I threw in a quick and flip comment at the end (i.e. Shocking). It was not meant to be a critical analysis. I don't think they are being biased or dishonest and I haven't had time to thoroughly review the numbers, nor do I know precisely how Synchro works.

I was referring to the outcome of the analysis (as in shocked to find gambling in this bar etc). I do wonder whether if there is any point in providing an analysis of what happens when the entire overpass volume is placed into 3 signalised intersections but doesn't consider any other potential mitigation aside from assuming that if traffic is bad people will take other routes.

Why not consider one of the alternatives presented at the Dec 4 meeting? Including Mass Pike on/off ramps. Or couple it with public transportation solutions. Or other ways to lessen demand.

I would guess MDot would say it's outside the scope.
But this point brings us back to the opening part of the thread, 'solving' the Bowker overpass might require considering the larger infrastructure context for the Fenway/Longwood etc.

My cynicism was with respect to the tunnel analysis.

 

[paperless paul]

Eastbound isn't going to be an option.

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.