Bowker Overpass replacement?

Charlie_mta said:
I like to look a bit differently at these types of transportation issues. The way I look at it is: what if the Bowker overpass had never been built in the first place? That is an entirely possible scenario. It was built at the same time as the Mass Pike extension, not formally a part of that project, but as a direct result. At the time in the early 1960s, the Charlesgate road bridge over the railroad had to be replaced due to the Pike construction, so that provided an opportunity to add the overpass as an extension of that new bridge. I"m guessing if the Pike had not been built, then there never would have been a Bowker overpass. At the time, a real debate was raging about whether or not to terminate the Pike coming in from the west at Allston in anticipation of the planned tie in to the (subsequently cancelled) Inner Belt Expressway. My point is, if the Bowker had not been built, then traffic would have never known the difference, and would have dealt one way or another with the Bowker's non-existence. So, why not eliminate it now and allow traffic to adjust accordingly. In an alternative history, it may never have been built anyway.
Click to expand...

This doesn't feel like a particularly useful perspective to me. You could seemingly apply this logic to every piece of infrastructure - "if it was never built we'd just have had to deal with it not existing in some way" - well, yes, that's true.

That doesn't really address anything about the utility/value of the piece of infrastructure or seem to inform any sort of decision-making about it.


bakgwailo said:
Just staring at the map I can't help but think something at grade could work utilizing the existing Charlesgate East and West roads - thinking of West taking traffic into Kenmore/Fenway, east taking traffic out of them, and extending both into two smaller Pike/Ipswitch crossings that can then interface into Boylston St. Would lose a bit of park here, but, would that not be worth getting rid of the overpass entirely? Will admit CG West seems the easier fit, with CG East being a bit more shoehorned into a Bolyston St connection. I don't see how this would work any worse than say the Forest Hills overpass removal provided intersection crossing and lights are intelligently designed and timed.
Click to expand...

I guess I'll ask the obvious question - why is this better? I'm sure it can probably work in a traffic sense, but I don't understand the perpetual "at-grade is always better" approach. Just seems like you're going to make Charlesgate E/W heavily loaded at all hours and make those intersections much busier/more unpleasant. Further, those proposals above/mentioned by mjolnirman seem to involve widening Charlesgate E/W, as well. I don't really see how the pedestrian or cyclist experience is improved by now having to cross wider, busier intersections, or how the park is somehow more restful with more lanes of heavier traffic on each side of it. Currently a large portion of the cars are up on a bridge away from people.

I typically don't get a lot out of small, chopped up park sections, especially when fully bounded by busy roads. They can look ok, but I rarely choose to spend time in them and don't feel they add a lot to the city other than aesthetics. Probably controversial, but I'd put the Comm Ave Mall in that category - looks fine, but I don't typically want to sit there and it's more enjoyable to just walk along the buildings than in it.

This can change when there's a specialized use - but I don't know that all uses are particularly hurt by being under an overpass, either. Lynch Family Skate Park has worked out fine. With decent lighting/care taken to the appearance of the underside of the overpass, I don't necessarily see much that's harmed for the dog park or playground by having it.

---------

Anyway, looking it over a bit more, I'm interested to see if stitching the ends of Newbury together turns it into a more major ped/bike corridor, as well seeing what the vastly improved bike/pedestrian connection between the Esplanade, Kenmore area, and Fenway does, if this plan does happen.
 
HenryAlan said:
Looks like this is going to happen, with the state committing $179 million to the project. It will include replacement of the viaduct, eliminating the Charlesgate East connection, major landscaping and Muddy River daylighting, elevating Storrow Westbound to cross the river, a pedestrian path connecting the two sections of Newbury St., and a parallel to Bowker "green bridge" for pedestrian, bike, and other kinetic human connection between the Fens and the Charles Esplinade.

Details here: https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/10/04/charlesgate-park/

View attachment 30980

View attachment 30981

View attachment 30982

View attachment 30983

h/t UniversalHub
Click to expand...
I’m confused here. 1) Is all of this a done deal (seems like a shitload of major changes to be done with little or no fanfare in the globe etc) and 2) I still can’t figure out what they’re doing here: the diagram seems to show
- elimination of westbound exit to mass ave
- elimination of westbound exit to kenmore (ie to charlesgate east)
- bowker actually stays but becomes a greener bridge

is that right?
 
Charlie_mta said:
I like to look a bit differently at these types of transportation issues. The way I look at it is: what if the Bowker overpass had never been built in the first place? That is an entirely possible scenario. It was built at the same time as the Mass Pike extension, not formally a part of that project, but as a direct result. At the time in the early 1960s, the Charlesgate road bridge over the railroad had to be replaced due to the Pike construction, so that provided an opportunity to add the overpass as an extension of that new bridge. I"m guessing if the Pike had not been built, then there never would have been a Bowker overpass. At the time, a real debate was raging about whether or not to terminate the Pike coming in from the west at Allston in anticipation of the planned tie in to the (subsequently cancelled) Inner Belt Expressway. My point is, if the Bowker had not been built, then traffic would have never known the difference, and would have dealt one way or another with the Bowker's non-existence. So, why not eliminate it now and allow traffic to adjust accordingly. In an alternative history, it may never have been built anyway.
Click to expand...
millerm277 said:
This doesn't feel like a particularly useful perspective to me. You could seemingly apply this logic to every piece of infrastructure - "if it was never built we'd just have had to deal with it not existing in some way" - well, yes, that's true.
That doesn't really address anything about the utility/value of the piece of infrastructure or seem to inform any sort of decision-making about it.
Click to expand...
The point I was trying to make is: just because a road facility exists, doesn't mean it is immutable and must remain in place. Yes, it's been there since the early 60, and yes, motorists love it, but does that seal it's immortality? San Francisco tore down two major and lengthy elevated highways (the Embarcadero Freeway and the Central Freeway) and replaced them with surface boulevards. Did that lead to carmeggedon? No. People adjusted, traffic is fine, even though there were no new transit facilities built to replace the capacity of these freeways. If San Francisco can do it, I think it can be done here.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
The point I was trying to make is: just because a road facility exists, doesn't mean it is immutable and must remain in place. Yes, it's been there since the early 60, and yes, motorists love it, but does that seal it's immortality?
Click to expand...

This is absolutely a valid point.

Charlie_mta said:
If San Francisco can do it, I think it can be done here.
Click to expand...

That remains to be seen. It's absolutely true that changes can be made without causing disaster, or lesser but still problematic (unintended) consequences. Pointing to anecdotes from other cities might well be sufficient to rebut any "we can never change anything" kinds of arguments (given that those are reflexive-reactionary in nature and typically weak arguments anyway), but it does not support any further conclusions about the specific impact of specific projects and proposed changes. The fact remains that we do not live in the alternate history where these pieces of infrastructure were never built, and as such the existing traffic and commute patterns are shaped by and around the existing infrastructure. It's absolutely valid to propose that changes (such as elimination of the overpass) can be implemented without problematic consequences elsewhere, but it requires evidence and analysis for that argument to carry the day. "The traffic will adapt" is, intuitively, true in a technical sense, but if it "adapts" by gridlocking every intersection around Kenmore, I don't think many people will be pleased at that "adaptation". So, by all means, advocate against the reflexive "must keep things the same" mindset, and examples from other cities of changes that didn't cause havoc are good evidence that we may be able to accomplish the same, but it's also true that just because we can get rid of a road facility doesn't mean that we must remove it either.
 
Brattle Loop said:
This is absolutely a valid point.



That remains to be seen. It's absolutely true that changes can be made without causing disaster, or lesser but still problematic (unintended) consequences. Pointing to anecdotes from other cities might well be sufficient to rebut any "we can never change anything" kinds of arguments (given that those are reflexive-reactionary in nature and typically weak arguments anyway), but it does not support any further conclusions about the specific impact of specific projects and proposed changes. The fact remains that we do not live in the alternate history where these pieces of infrastructure were never built, and as such the existing traffic and commute patterns are shaped by and around the existing infrastructure. It's absolutely valid to propose that changes (such as elimination of the overpass) can be implemented without problematic consequences elsewhere, but it requires evidence and analysis for that argument to carry the day. "The traffic will adapt" is, intuitively, true in a technical sense, but if it "adapts" by gridlocking every intersection around Kenmore, I don't think many people will be pleased at that "adaptation". So, by all means, advocate against the reflexive "must keep things the same" mindset, and examples from other cities of changes that didn't cause havoc are good evidence that we may be able to accomplish the same, but it's also true that just because we can get rid of a road facility doesn't mean that we must remove it either.
Click to expand...
Gridlocking these intersections would be a good thing. Slowing cars down is a good thing. Reducing the "LOS" is a good thing. It makes the city safer and it discourages automobile use.
 
king_vibe said:
Gridlocking these intersections would be a good thing. Slowing cars down is a good thing. Reducing the "LOS" is a good thing. It makes the city safer and it discourages automobile use.
Click to expand...
This discussion reminds me of something I read a long time ago, probably in the 1960s, in which Los Angeles traffic engineers were complaining about the existence of pedestrian crossings, and how those made it harder to perfect their traffic models and enable smooth flowing traffic. This situation with the Bowker seems to all boil down to priorities: what's more important, smooth flowing traffic or the continuity of the Emerald Necklace park system and a more natural Muddy River and environs?
 
Nobody's going to be persuaded, but I want to note that I find Brattle Loop's point reasonable and the rebuttal that gridlocking intersections is a good thing is just reflexive. There are tradeoffs and people trying to drive are still people and if thousands of people's commute are doubled, that needs to be factored. This doesn't mean thousands of people who are denied access to the Emerald Necklace and the Muddy River does not have value. But that's the thing, it's not simple priorities. There are trade-offs to consider and balance as best as possible.
 
king_vibe said:
Gridlocking these intersections would be a good thing. Slowing cars down is a good thing. Reducing the "LOS" is a good thing. It makes the city safer and it discourages automobile use.
Click to expand...
at a critical traffic point to the city's main hospitals, I'd say ambulances sitting in gridlock traffic would not be a good thing.
 
Charlie_mta said:
This discussion reminds me of something I read a long time ago, probably in the 1960s, in which Los Angeles traffic engineers were complaining about the existence of pedestrian crossings, and how those made it harder to perfect their traffic models and enable smooth flowing traffic. This situation with the Bowker seems to all boil down to priorities: what's more important, smooth flowing traffic or the continuity of the Emerald Necklace park system and a more natural Muddy River and environs?
Click to expand...

I would read that as a cautionary tale against absolutist thinking - it was absurd to bemoan the existence of crossings then and it's absurd to advocate intentionally gridlocking the city now.

king_vibe said:
Gridlocking these intersections would be a good thing. Slowing cars down is a good thing. Reducing the "LOS" is a good thing. It makes the city safer and it discourages automobile use.
Click to expand...

If by "safer" you mean "everyone would leave for Texas except for you and your friends", then sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
BosMaineiac said:
at a critical traffic point to the city's main hospitals, I'd say ambulances sitting in gridlock traffic would not be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Do ambulances drive over the Bowker often? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one there.
 
Blackbird said:
Do ambulances drive over the Bowker often? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one there.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter - free movement of emergency vehicles in general is kind of required for a city to be safe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
1669835801612.png

Won't somebody please think of the ambulances?!
 
Equilibria said:
It really doesn't matter - free movement of emergency vehicles in general is kind of required for a city to be safe.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it’s not like there isn’t gridlock in other parts of the city that could impede emergency vehicles.

The other post specifically called out this stretch as being very important for vehicles driving to Longwood. Based on my own experience, I don’t think that’s true.
 
Blackbird said:
Agreed, but it’s not like there isn’t gridlock in other parts of the city that could impede emergency vehicles.

The other post specifically called out this stretch as being very important for vehicles driving to Longwood. Based on my own experience, I don’t think that’s true.
Click to expand...

Fair, but the original proposal called for intentionally gridlocking the city, preventing the movement of people and goods (and emergency vehicles) so as to punish people for traveling beyond several blocks from their homes. It got a positive response.

FWIW, the fallacy of Jane Jacobs rules here: traffic doesn't just vanish when you remove a single link. It moves to other roads, or trips don't happen, reducing the utility of the system (city) for people. You can remove (or gridlock) a link here and there when it makes sense, but if you remove all the links a large city won't be possible.

And FWIW I don't necessarily reject an at-grade, signalized Charlesgate - it may work just fine.
 
Equilibria said:
It really doesn't matter - free movement of emergency vehicles in general is kind of required for a city to be safe.
Click to expand...
If this were actually a priority (it isn't) the city could just take one line in each direction as emergency vehicles only and set up cameras to capture and fine each lawbreaker. If the state has a problem, they can sue.
 
Equilibria said:
Fair, but the original proposal called for intentionally gridlocking the city, preventing the movement of people and goods (and emergency vehicles) so as to punish people for traveling beyond several blocks from their homes. It got a positive response.
Click to expand...
You'd have one day of gridlock and then people would learn that they can swing their two legs to locomote themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top