Bowker Overpass replacement?

The EB onramp at Bowker problem is, of course, finding enough merge area to build a ramp and provide a Pike merge lane for the onramp traffic.

Given space constraints, it seems the onramp would have to be build either above the Pike or the RR tracks BUT it has to be high enough above either of them to allow adequate clearance for the cars or trains underneath, yet it still has to find a place to drop at some point to meet the Pike traffic.

This board has ruled out descending the RR tracks to allow such a ramp as not practical.

How about descending the Pike itself? What if the pike were lowered x # of feet in the EB direction ... enough to allow the onramp to descend while still being above the Pike lanes. At some point, the Pike is shifted so it is no longer under the new onramp (see diagram below), at which point the Pike starts to rise, and the onramp descends a bit more steeply, and then the two meet at the same elevation in the onramp merge area.

Does this sound possible?

4987448_orig.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's why I suggested a left-entry ramp, to avoid the railroad-tracks problem entirely.
 
Ron Newman said:
That's why I suggested a left-entry ramp, to avoid the railroad-tracks problem entirely.
Click to expand...

This solution DOES avoid the whole railroad problem entirely. The ramp sits above the Pike, not the tracks. In this design, I suggest shifting the RR tracks south, not to avoid going over them (the ramp does not go over them in this design) but to create enough space to drop an onramp lane onto the Pike. You would need space for this no matter if the ramp enters from the left or right side of the eastbound Pike. Shifting the tracks a bit creates space but there is no advantage that I can see to making the onramp enter from the left here.
 
Last edited:
kenmoreResident said:
The EB onramp at Bowker problem is, of course, finding enough merge area to build a ramp and provide a Pike merge lane for the onramp traffic.

Given space constraints, it seems the onramp would have to be build either above the Pike or the RR tracks BUT it has to be high enough above either of them to allow adequate clearance for the cars or trains underneath, yet it still has to find a place to drop at some point to meet the Pike traffic.

This board has ruled out descending the RR tracks to allow such a ramp as not practical.

How about descending the Pike itself? What if the pike were lowered x # of feet in the EB direction ... enough to allow the onramp to descend while still being above the Pike lanes. At some point, the Pike is shifted so it is no longer under the new onramp (see diagram below), at which point the Pike starts to rise, and the onramp descends a bit more steeply, and then the two meet at the same elevation in the onramp merge area.

Does this sound possible?

4987448_orig.jpg
Click to expand...

1. There is a very minimal amount of space to both merge safely and get up to speed there. The acceleration lane is not long enough and the descent prevents visibility to seeing cars that are coming. I drive this route every day and because of the merging issues, I explicitly avoid the right lane. I've witnessed many near accidents because traffic getting onto the highway either doesn't merge appropriately, stops at the end of the ramp, or doesn't get up to speed fast enough.

2. This worsens the S-Curve and makes it like this one.

3. This creates a pretty bad weaving situation because of the lane drop at the pru. Also- keep in mind that at highway speeds this is a very short amount of distance-- at 60 mph it's less than 10 seconds of travel time.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=z1oiqyHX8vBQ.kRgmZBLKuC4E


For adding the lane back at the other end, use something like the HOV lanes on the beltway in N. Virginia

HOT-lanes-before-opening.jpg
 
Thanks Kahta for your comments. And I do agree that this is far from perfect. The question before us, (see ant's last post): is there anyway to put a Pike eastbound onramp in this area. I have borrowed space from both the tracks and the area north of the Pike in the hope that the S curve situation is not made too severe. The merge, up to speed area is, i agree awful (just as it is, though perhaps marginally better than, the current onramp from Mass Ave). The deeper you lower the Pike east of the bowker, the less awful you can make the merge area (i.e. the merge area can be given more space), but it can not be made ideal.

Your comment has me wondering: if you did the lane drop here instead of at the Pru perhaps you could take advantage and actually provide a decent amount of merge-up-to-speed space here. I wonder if that is an option?

I don't quite follow what you mean by the comment "For adding the lane back at the other end, use something like the HOV lanes on the beltway in N. Virginia"
 
kenmoreResident said:
Thanks Kahta for your comments. And I do agree that this is far from perfect. The question before us, (see ant's last post): is there anyway to put a Pike eastbound onramp in this area. I have borrowed space from both the tracks and the area north of the Pike in the hope that the S curve situation is not made too severe. The merge, up to speed area is, i agree awful (just as it is, though perhaps marginally better than, the current onramp from Mass Ave). The deeper you lower the Pike east of the bowker, the less awful you can make the merge area (i.e. the merge area can be given more space), but it can not be made ideal.

Your comment has me wondering: if you did the lane drop here instead of at the Pru perhaps you could take advantage and actually provide a decent amount of merge-up-to-speed space here. I wonder if that is an option?

I don't quite follow what you mean by the comment "For adding the lane back at the other end, use something like the HOV lanes on the beltway in N. Virginia"
Click to expand...

I may be misunderstanding you-- Are you suggesting that the pike be lowered at bowker so that there is an uphill grade approaching the pru?

Roughly 1/3 of the traffic on the pike at the point exits at the pru during the AM peak period-- so the two exit lanes there are probably necesary-- and forcing a lane drop right before the onramp will create a chokepoint just like on I-93 at route 28. The weave there would require crossing two lanes of traffic. In the evening, there's also almost equal volume getting off at the pru, and as it is, the pike backs up to allston at times-- it's even worse now with the tunnel issues.

There's already a similar weave on I93S coming from leverett circle and dealing with the govt center/airport offramp-- I'm always surprised that was even allowed as part of the big dig.

There's also the issue that the mass ave on ramp has pretty low peak volume of just 550 cars-- this ramp from bowker to the pike eastbound would add quite a few cars using it as a shortcut from charlesgate to the pru.

I just don't think there's a feasible way to add an onramp on the eastbound side at bowker. As it as, there are some significant traffic barriers (weston, newton corner, allston) that slow the flow of cars into this area in the morning. Once cars are able to approach downtown at full speed, this area will have much more congestion than is experienced now.
 
"Are you suggesting that the pike be lowered at bowker so that there is an uphill grade approaching the pru?" Yes, kind of. I am suggesting a descending Pike eastbound starting at the bowker to allow the onramp to also descend while maintaining clearance on the Pike. That way, when the Pike and the onramp merge the onramp has less of a steep drop downward to meet the Pike, as the Pike rises upward from its descent in the merge area.

Thanks for the elaboration on why you can't do a lane drop here instead of at the pru. Given the stats you cite, I would have to agree. Also, your point about low volume of traffic using Mass Ave vs higher that would want to use an EB onramp at Bowker. Much appreciated in giving me further insight.

Your conclusion "I just don't think there's a feasible way to add an onramp on the eastbound side at bowker" is one someone else cited a few pages back as well. It seems to be the consensus! That doesn't keep people here (me included) from keeping on trying, perhaps to no avail! Even the state DOT has an onramp here as 1 of the 4 options for their Pike ramp study.

Thanks again.
 
Last edited:
I think an eastbound on-ramp from the Bowker is feasible, while keeping 4 lanes both directions on the Pike:

12216819864_b51e95315f_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Interesting and more importantly seemingly doo-able Charlie. I think people here have been shy about any land taking from Ipswich (me too), but on your map it looks kind of reasonable, making Ipswich one way to allow the Pike ramp. People using that long stretch of lost resident parking now tight along the tracks are going to scream, and I am not sure of the potential impact on local traffic by a 1 way Ipswich, but there is certainly potential here. I have previously suggested on this board a 1 way Fens loop ( the SECOND image in this post: http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=195624&postcount=369 ), that if implemented would eliminate the lights at Bowker/Boylston as well as the need to exit when travelling westbound on Boylston at the Bowker, making it quicker for people who want to get around the area to do so (and helping to justify your 1 way Ipswich as more workable as people could then fairly easily travel down Park Drive and get to Ipswich that way if coming from the east).

Despite the land taking, some of the neighbors might prefer your design over mine in that the onramp itself will be less obnoxious in that it can be shorter and drop quicker from the Bowker than it could in my design. And of course you have a longer merge area.

I somewhat question the utility of the ramp dropping down to Ipswich in the westbound direction. I am not sure that it is worth constructing a neighborhood unfriendly ramp in that location, as I think its utility may not be all that great anyway.
 
Last edited:
So instead of the 350 feet shifting of tracks I suggested between the two buildings East and West of the the current Bowker Overpass, this one takes most of Ipswich and goes all way the way.

My understanding of F-Line's explanation was the 350 ft wasn't long enough length-wise for the track to shift width-wise before shifting back. Also, I tried to connect West-side Ipswich st to Bolyston st and it doesn't work.

But what if we increase the length from the overpass to the curve? Would half or 3/4 of Ipswich enough to provide the ramp width? It seems the length is now increased long enough for the rails to substantially shift.

Does this finally pass the F-Line engineering standards and reality?
 
Hi ant. Interesting points. I note that the tracks currently shift in the manner Charlie is describing, but that shift now is at Mass Ave. Taking a look at the map ( https://www.google.com/maps/preview/place/ipswich+st+boston/@42.3463713,-71.092469,823m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e37a1c898dbc6f:0x1f51a586d18c3a19) I think you could see that just moving that shift (or at least part of it) to start west of the Bowker and onto Ipswich instead of at its current location, in which case the shift at Mass Ave no longer has to happen (or would be less of a shift than it is now) as it now would be more of a straight run from Ipswich and then under Mass Ave instead of the current shift situation at Mass Ave.

I view this more as moving the existing track shift in the westbound direction. Once the tracks are so shifted my inclination would be NOT to shift them back to their current location but to continue a straight run all of the way up the rest of Ipswich and under Mass Ave. There would be no need to shift back.
 
Well, that leaves the question if F-Line sees it as possible or impossible now. If Charlie_MTA passes, I would suggest combining Charlie_MTA eastbound idea with DaveM's Westbound off-ramp and on-ramp (along with Soldier Field-Pike rework at the train yard).

This would seriously undercut the need for Bowker to Storrow, if any connection at all. It may even eliminate the need for Storrow at all from BU Bridge to Back St (Hatch Shell area). I'm sure James and Helen Storrow would smile from their graves if so.
 
Gee, I'm not F-line, I hope it's okay if I answer =/


It MIGHT be possible. Reducing Ipswich to 22' (one lane each way, no parking) plus sidewalks gives you around 20' (green) to play with between the tracks and the Pike. So physically you may be able to cram a ramp in there. The issue is merge room, even shifting over the Bowker to the west, you only have ~600' to descend and get up to speed. About 400' of that is chewed up just getting down to the Pike.

With the far right lane becoming an exit only in less than a quarter mile, it still may wind up causing accidents, dangerous weaving and traffic jams. I think the exit at Copley may be the bigger issue than space here.

12222953604_e87aa63918_o.png
 
ant8904 said:
Well, that leaves the question if F-Line sees it as possible or impossible now. If Charlie_MTA passes, I would suggest combining Charlie_MTA eastbound idea with DaveM's Westbound off-ramp and on-ramp (along with Soldier Field-Pike rework at the train yard).

This would seriously undercut the need for Bowker to Storrow, if any connection at all. It may even eliminate the need for Storrow at all from BU Bridge to Back St (Hatch Shell area). I'm sure James and Helen Storrow would smile from their graves if so.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you ant, to some degree. Nothing that goes in here will be perfect of course, and daveM (and Kahta before him) makes a good point about that onramp lane turning into an exit-only lane just up the road, as well as the small merge area. Still, the DOT itself is putting a ramp here as one of the four viable ramp alternatives for consideration, so it would seem that would confer some 'we can live with this' status upon this location.

Finally, not to be petty, & with all respect to daveM, I think the WB onramp / offramps idea came from me: "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." ( http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=195325&postcount=296 )
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
I think an eastbound on-ramp from the Bowker is feasible, while keeping 4 lanes both directions on the Pike:

12216819864_bf9a907fd4_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Charlie, what if you made that westbound downramp to Ipswich into an upramp to the Bowker, and angled it at the top toward the Pike onramp? Instant Pike eastbound access, direct from Fenway Park, and an alternate path from the Longwood Medical Area to the Pike eastbound (a major goal sought by the Pike Ramp study)....

UPDATE: I am withdrawing this idea. Better to have this traffic go down Ipswich and up Boylston and onto the Bowker and Pike that way, than to introduce an intersection like this on top of the Bowker. Though, I think the reversed Van Ness idea might still have merit.

505793_orig.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's pretty evident that the Mass Pike was not designed too well from the Allston/Brighton tolls to the 93 interchange.


Adding an an on ramp to the Pike eastbound between the A/B Tolls and the tunnel seems a bit of a problem.
 
mass88 said:
It's pretty evident that the Mass Pike was not designed too well from the Allston/Brighton tolls to the 93 interchange.


Adding an an on ramp to the Pike eastbound between the A/B Tolls and the tunnel seems a bit of a problem.
Click to expand...

The inner belt was supposed to handle the local traffic needs.
 
The Mass Pike extension from Allston to downtown wasn't designed with the idea that it might some day be extended further east to the South Boston waterfront and Logan Airport. And that second extension is why we now need eastbound on-ramps and westbound off-ramps that weren't in the original design.
 
Charlie, I am really liking your EB Pike onramp plan, the more I look at it and play with it. I refined it a bit to remove the westbound ramp, and then I realized you could also potentially reduce the length of the 1-way Ipswich by adding roadway from Charlesgate East westward out towards Lansdowne Street. This would requiring shifting a tall concrete embankment, but there would no taking of buildings or parking or roadway required to do the later. It is mapped out here ....

780988_orig.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top