kenmoreResident
New member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 1
DaveM's photos prompt me to put up the then and now views below, from very roughly the same angles ...
Bowker Overpass replacement?
- Thread starter kz1000ps
- Start date
What I'm saying is there is no need for any ramps north of EB Comm Ave. Hence my design, everything is at grade except for the Storrow Drive mainline and the downgrade between the Pike and Comm Ave (which has historically always had an overpass due to the B&A tracks). You have everything north of Beacon covered in roads, as well as the center of Charlesgate and a third road in the middle of Comm Ave.
kenmoreResident
New member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 1
Ah, I see now. Thanks for clarifying. I did misunderstand. As to "everything north of Beacon covered in ramps", at the Charlesgate Park area itself I am just connecting to existing ramps that go up over Storrow, not new ramps and in fact I am removing 1 ramp from the Charlesgate into the Storrow ramp maze (I have not shown removed ramps). My new ramps are all within the current maze of Storrow ramps. I am suggesting 3 new down ramps (1 of these is more a surface ramp) which are in an area with a significant amount of existing ramps that run, not over parkland, but over busy Storrow Drive. In fact, one 'new' ramp just relocates an existing ramp from over the Charlesgate and puts it further north, away from Beacon and the Charlesgate park area, improving (not degrading) the Charlesgate. Also of note is the removal of ramps to/from the overhead Bowker (again, removed ramps not shown on my map), though any design removing the Bowker removes those ramps. I am not putting any new ramps in an area south of the existing Storrow ramps; all ramps are within the existing Storrow ramp maze and would not harm the views from the Charlesgate Park, as they are being hidden within the existing Storrow spaghetti. Standing on Beacon at the Charlesgate now looking north what you see is the overhead inbound Storrow and it is hard to see much of anything beyond that, even the current existing ramps that are beyond that. Standing in the Charlesgate, new or existing ramps north of Storrow inbound are barely or mostly not at all visible. I know, because I've done this, trying to examine the current ramps from the ground ... where they go, how they connect etc. It's an impossible task from the Charlesgate ... you just can't see them.
As for the roadway in the center of Charlesgate, it could be rotated outward and parallel to the Charlesgates potentially, or even join the Charlesgates as one road with more lanes. The route does not have to be the route on my map. In any design, I would be cautious of putting more 'action' on one Charlesgate than the other if it can be avoided, as I know from personal experience this ignites a bit of a neighborhood war, with the busier side crying foul.
Finally, there is no "third road in the middle of Comm Ave", at least I don't intend that and the map is kind of vague here because there are multiple factors involved in what would have to be done, grade wise, to be able to create a Bowker underpass under Comm Ave to avoid an intersection with "unacceptable" back ups (DOT terminology). What I am showing is that moving Comm Ave inward briefly (toward the Mall center) gives the Bowker more room to descend, and elevating Comm Ave somewhat here helps reduce the grade the Bowker would have to take to flow under Comm Ave. I picture a kind of Olmstead style arch for Comm Ave here with a Bowker underneath as a possibility. This is all to allow a surface Bowker without the traffic having to hit traffic lights at Comm Ave, cuz otherwise the state DOT and their intersection study grades the intersection an F (unacceptable) and gives us a 'no' to removal of the overpass.
So all of that is the intent (to avoid that 'no' while still being able to get rid of the overpass), and there are probably better ways to accomplish it, but I am just putting out some ideas of ways that I can think of. A solution that has Bowker traffic having to go thru intersections on the Charlesgates, as much as I would like that over what I have drawn up, I just don't see getting an OK, unless the state can be convinced that other changes (like improved Pike to local access) can greatly reduce the Charlesgate load. My bottom line feeling is that unless we have a design that deals with the intersections, the Bowker will not likely be coming down. So I am trying to deal with the intersections and crossing my fingers that Pike accessibility might even make possible a design more like yours, which most (me too) would rather have. But if we can't get that I would prefer a design like mine instead of the design we currently have ... which is the overhead Bowker. New ramps within the Storrow ramp maze will not degrade the Charlesgate. Getting the state to say 'yes' to removing the overpass above would be a major upgrade.
Last edited:
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,334
- Reaction score
- 5,972
I'm aware of DOT's proposed off-ramp, but DOT does not include the eastbound on-ramp that I propose. I think both ramps are critical to take traffic off of Storrow Drive, so that it and the Bowker overpass can be remade into surface streets.
Last edited:
kenmoreResident
New member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm aware of DOT's proposed off-ramp, but DOT does not include the eastbound on-ramp that I propose. I think both ramps are critical to take traffic off of Storrow Drive, so that it and the Bowker overpass can be remade into surface streets.
Looks like you would shift the Pike northward toward Cortes to give enough room for a new EB onramp? I like how you could access it from both Columbus and Berkley. As in most of our scenarios here, space looks tricky. Pike would have to shift north quick after Arlington and then back to its current track before Columbus. A bridge support at the north end of Berkley would likely have to be relocated. Looks tight, but maybe? You might want to send it in to the DOT Pike Ramp Study guy while they are still taking public comments (if you haven't already).
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,334
- Reaction score
- 5,972
All four street bridges over the Pike would have to have their piers relocated northward and their superstructure replaced, but these bridges are nearing the end of their life anyway.
An onramp from the Bowker onto eastbound Mass Pike could also fit if the Mass Pike were narrowed to three lanes in each direction through that stretch.
An onramp from the Bowker onto eastbound Mass Pike could also fit if the Mass Pike were narrowed to three lanes in each direction through that stretch.
So I moved the Storrow mainline to take advantage of the existing underpass and retaining wall at Mass Ave. Doing so put me in a bit of a pickle, as there is only enough room for five lanes of traffic, so the WB offramp wouldn't fit. So I decided to run it up to meet Mass Ave at grade, where there would be a light. (I could have had it follow the existing WB mainline, but the whole point is to free up parkland).
Am I insane, or would this work? This is in concert with adding a WB offramp to the Pike, so traffic getting off Storrow WB would be less to begin with. It also really simplified Charlesgate East, since it's now able to be one way northbound.
Charlesgate, looking east^
Am I insane, or would this work? This is in concert with adding a WB offramp to the Pike, so traffic getting off Storrow WB would be less to begin with. It also really simplified Charlesgate East, since it's now able to be one way northbound.
Charlesgate, looking east^
How would this area handle the crunch of traffic 81 times a year when the Sox have a home game? Storrow is a major artery for fans coming to Fenway. You reduce/alter the Storrow, how bad would that hurt traffic in the area?
The Pike, the eastbound exit I'm proposing dumps you right onto Brookline Ave, bypassing Kenmore Square entirely. From the same exit, one can also hang a right onto Kenmore St and get onto Park Drive and then Boylston to come in from the opposite side.
Storrow itself isn't downgraded at all. If anything, a proper merge lane for the westbound onramp and straightening out the mainline should help throughput. My main worry is that traffic making a left onto Mass Ave from the WB offramp and a right onto Beacon will overwhelm that intersection. My hope is that it won't be that large an issue, as most people will opt for the Pike.
For reference, My proposal for the Newbury St collector/distributor road:
^Also in that I fixed a mission critical oversight. To get off the Pike overpass and onto the WB Pike would have required three lefts across heavy traffic, now its all rights via Charlesgate East.
Last edited:
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 11
It shouldn't -- that's why we have a Green Line and a Yawkey commuter rail station.
Lets try to be realistic here...
millerm277
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 488
- Reaction score
- 544
The Green Line clearly does not remotely meet the existing demand, much less additional demand.
Yawkey is not really going to take some giant new demand given the unpredictability of the length of a baseball game, only serving Framingham/Worcester, etc.
I'm not saying things can't be done to improve the service both provide, but there will still be many people coming by car to Red Sox games regardless, and planning has to keep that in mind.
The additional substantial issue there is that many people going to a Red Sox game are not daily Boston commuters and would still drive in even if they park a 30min walk away and pay $40 to do it, because they have no familiarity with the system and are unlikely to try to learn it for one event they're going to.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Ron -- You do realize that the Red Sox foster fandom throughout New England with special days for different states, such as State of Maine Day, etc.
Further there are people coming to Red Sox games from Maritime Canada, Quebec, Ontario and upstate NY
Mostly none of the above are takers of the T -- they drive -- some for the day and others stay over
Between locals and remote fans -- you've got to accommodate about 10,000 cars who arrive for a game and need to park somewhere
I think you guys underestimate Yawkey: it is essentially going to become "the shuttle stop from South Station" after the new schedule changes. So it will serve more than just the Worcester line. Also, even if you didn't want to connect, the walk from Back Bay station is not that bad.
I don't mind if people want to come and pay for their parking, deal with the traffic etc. I just don't want our planning to go out of our way, destroy our quality of life, to subsidize more capacity that just encourages more people to drive here, just for the sake of Fenway Park.
If you walk around the Kenmore area before and after a game, one of the major things you'll notice is that huge crowds of people set are on foot down one of the streets, like Comm Ave. This is not Dodger stadium. A significant fraction of people get to the game by walking. If you live in Boston, why not? It's a nice time. Some of them are just getting to cars they parked further out. They get some exercise after sitting for hours.
Only a small minority of fans actually drive all the way to Fenway Park and park nearby. Even that is too much for the streets and highways to handle. Cars are very inefficient space-wise. This is what it takes to handle a stadium full of people who only drive:
I don't mind if people want to come and pay for their parking, deal with the traffic etc. I just don't want our planning to go out of our way, destroy our quality of life, to subsidize more capacity that just encourages more people to drive here, just for the sake of Fenway Park.
If you walk around the Kenmore area before and after a game, one of the major things you'll notice is that huge crowds of people set are on foot down one of the streets, like Comm Ave. This is not Dodger stadium. A significant fraction of people get to the game by walking. If you live in Boston, why not? It's a nice time. Some of them are just getting to cars they parked further out. They get some exercise after sitting for hours.
Only a small minority of fans actually drive all the way to Fenway Park and park nearby. Even that is too much for the streets and highways to handle. Cars are very inefficient space-wise. This is what it takes to handle a stadium full of people who only drive:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
Obviously there are a lot of people who opt to drive in and park, but I think a fairly large portion of suburbanites drive to the T. That's what we did for every single Sox game I went to as a kid.
We don't need to start accusing each other of extremity. It's simple, people are going to come to Red Sox games by car. We need to plan accordingly.
This doesn't mean going out of our way to accommodate and encourage
This doesn't mean expect everyone to use Yawkey.
No one is suggesting we knock down buildings to accommodate parking for Red Sox games.
No one is suggesting we make everyone use the rails lines.
I think we can all agree on that.
For the Red Sox. It means optimizing as best as possible. That means a better Green Line and Commuter Rail. It also mean planning knowing that some cars will be driving to Red Sox games.
This doesn't mean going out of our way to accommodate and encourage
This doesn't mean expect everyone to use Yawkey.
No one is suggesting we knock down buildings to accommodate parking for Red Sox games.
No one is suggesting we make everyone use the rails lines.
I think we can all agree on that.
For the Red Sox. It means optimizing as best as possible. That means a better Green Line and Commuter Rail. It also mean planning knowing that some cars will be driving to Red Sox games.
1) While a lot of people do drive in for games, they don't drive to the park. Many fans take the opportunity to spend the day in the city, and are parking at the Common garage, the government center garage, etc. So the load is already spread out. If you don't believe me, go to any bar on Boylston on a game day.
2) Public transportation accounts for at least half the trips, if not more.
3) How does a direct exit from the Mass Pike onto Brookline Ave NOT accomidate the cars that are driving into Fenway?
2) Public transportation accounts for at least half the trips, if not more.
3) How does a direct exit from the Mass Pike onto Brookline Ave NOT accomidate the cars that are driving into Fenway?
That said, we should go back to Bowker Overpass. I want to ask a question. The ideas we threw to fit Eastbound Ramps to Bowker ran straight into safety problems or laws of physics or both. A bunch of ideas was brainstormed including usual ramp configurations, shifting the tracks for space, changing road configuration, burying the railroad, or some combination.
I am curious of one other thought. The other ideas requires too much compromising safety or true requirements to pull it off to make it a viable idea. But Ipswich Street still look enticing. When viewing from Google Street view, the street is big enough to take the tracks and possibly still leave a lane.
Of course the problem is shifting the tracks has only 371ft to take starting from the end of TransNational Building to the start of Charlesgate E. I believe the discussion found that this was too short as the shift of tracks within that length would only give a few feet of space in the end. Basically Laws of Physics make this impossible.
Okay, what if we remove the restriction of length? Taking a longer piece of Ipswich St. Would we still be hemmed by physics as well as outcry? Or would it becomes physically do-able but we need to figure how to deal with the aggrieved parties?
I should mention that first apartment building faces Charlesgate E and not Ipswich. Technically, of the loss of street would affect accessibility (ignoring parking) of only the next building with its doors ~90ft down.
I am curious of one other thought. The other ideas requires too much compromising safety or true requirements to pull it off to make it a viable idea. But Ipswich Street still look enticing. When viewing from Google Street view, the street is big enough to take the tracks and possibly still leave a lane.
Of course the problem is shifting the tracks has only 371ft to take starting from the end of TransNational Building to the start of Charlesgate E. I believe the discussion found that this was too short as the shift of tracks within that length would only give a few feet of space in the end. Basically Laws of Physics make this impossible.
Okay, what if we remove the restriction of length? Taking a longer piece of Ipswich St. Would we still be hemmed by physics as well as outcry? Or would it becomes physically do-able but we need to figure how to deal with the aggrieved parties?
I should mention that first apartment building faces Charlesgate E and not Ipswich. Technically, of the loss of street would affect accessibility (ignoring parking) of only the next building with its doors ~90ft down.
Do you really NEED an EB exit at ipswitch though? There is one right after at Copley, and the planned/possible one near the BU bridge, as long as it has direct access to Park Drive, should be just fine.
Honestly, I don't even know if the feds would let you add an exit that close to copley. The weaving between people getting on at ipswitch and off at copley could cause more traffic jams than it would help.
I could also see the ipswitch st offramp, which likely end at a traffic light, causing backups onto the pike, ala newton corner.
Honestly, I don't even know if the feds would let you add an exit that close to copley. The weaving between people getting on at ipswitch and off at copley could cause more traffic jams than it would help.
I could also see the ipswitch st offramp, which likely end at a traffic light, causing backups onto the pike, ala newton corner.
If it is possible, it would be better than a EB ramp at Park Drive via Mountfort/Carlton St. Per public meeting presentation orignally linked by Paperless Paul post number #316, it seems most traffic from the south using the Bowker fans from all directions into the Bowker. They get on Bowker then go either west getting off around Soldier Field into Watertown/Harvard-Cambridge or East fanning out around Charles MGH, I-93, Route 1, Turnpike exits.
From my interpretation, Charlesgate EB ramp to the Pike would directly attack EB traffic to Storrow. Charles MGH users would still find Storrow more direct, but even that have an alternative via I-93 to WB Storrow still getting off around Charles MGH.
This would help move Storrow to be completely redundant from BU Bridge to Back St. Help move it for a complete shutdown rather than reducing to a traffic light highway. Honestly, I want the end of Storrow and not just a downgrade. To be, that means all or nothing - I'm not sure a downgraded Storrow accessible by traffic lights is really that much better than a Storrow with just better designed pedestrian bridges (ones not requiring all the switchbacks).
A shift to Mountfort/Carlton St. via Park Drive may be sufficient. But I'm not sure how effective to move the fanning of traffic that way versus a Charlesgate exit. The roads leading to Charlesgate are set up to take a large number of cars from all directions points south. Park Drive not much once over the D-line into Audubon circle. Carlton Street definitely not an equivalent to Park Dr/Fenway multi-lane roads and many would switch to that street. I also remember a lot of BU officials live down that street, but I guess that make that ramp as much political consideration as using Ipswich.
From my interpretation, Charlesgate EB ramp to the Pike would directly attack EB traffic to Storrow. Charles MGH users would still find Storrow more direct, but even that have an alternative via I-93 to WB Storrow still getting off around Charles MGH.
This would help move Storrow to be completely redundant from BU Bridge to Back St. Help move it for a complete shutdown rather than reducing to a traffic light highway. Honestly, I want the end of Storrow and not just a downgrade. To be, that means all or nothing - I'm not sure a downgraded Storrow accessible by traffic lights is really that much better than a Storrow with just better designed pedestrian bridges (ones not requiring all the switchbacks).
A shift to Mountfort/Carlton St. via Park Drive may be sufficient. But I'm not sure how effective to move the fanning of traffic that way versus a Charlesgate exit. The roads leading to Charlesgate are set up to take a large number of cars from all directions points south. Park Drive not much once over the D-line into Audubon circle. Carlton Street definitely not an equivalent to Park Dr/Fenway multi-lane roads and many would switch to that street. I also remember a lot of BU officials live down that street, but I guess that make that ramp as much political consideration as using Ipswich.
Last edited: