Yeah, this is not useful discussion. This is needless snark. This is ultimately an internet forum where we generally have no influence, but concepts and ideas still matter - technical, design, engineering, policy, and even philosophical. Screaming Texas and screaming people just go ride a bike does not do any good.
Bowker Overpass replacement?
- Thread starter kz1000ps
- Start date
Yeah, this is not useful discussion. This is needless snark. This is ultimately an internet forum where we generally have no influence, but concepts and ideas still matter - technical, design, engineering, policy, and even philosophical. Screaming Texas and screaming people just go ride a bike does not do any good.
Brattle Loop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 2,077
You're welcome to believe these things, but they're beliefs as opposed to facts. Others, including those who use the roads in question regularly, can reasonably be expected to have different opinions on the subject. Maximalist anti-car advocacy is absolutely a valid frame (and provides a highly useful counterweight to the reflexive pro-car thought process commonly afflicting the powers that be) but simply stating the preference does not end the debate. If one agrees with your statements of what constitutes "good", then it makes sense as to why we should accept whatever the tradeoffs are in eliminating the overpass in order to achieve that good, but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of other people aren't necessarily going to agree that all those outcomes are "good". Those people get to vote and advocate and have a say, too, and a proper public process has to weigh their interests and beliefs as well.
Agreed. The point I was trying to make earlier (probably badly) was exactly this. There's not, to me, any problem with having a policy-concept that is maximalist anti-car in general, or specifically anti-overpass (even to the extent of high collateral consequences), but simply having that preference doesn't end the discussion, because it's not the only valid viewpoint. "Screw the cars" is a philosophy that, understandably, pisses off the car people. It's entirely possible to have situations where the overall-best public policy means screwing the cars (a lot of bus lanes, for example, fit that description), but a properly-considered project (and a full and thorough debate over a project on a forum like this) requires more than presenting policy preferences as factual conclusions rather than the starting points they are, and I for one thank you for so concisely reiterating that fact.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,368
- Reaction score
- 6,056
And/or take transit.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,368
- Reaction score
- 6,056
I guess I'm tired of the "car is king" paradigm, and that every road or overpass that now exists has to be preserved. In 1970 a whole network of proposed expressways - in and around Boston that traffic engineers absolutely swore were essential - was suddenly and unilaterally cancelled by Governor Sargent, a courageous move. Would getting around the metro area by car have been easier if they had been built? Sure. But it was decided that neighborhoods and human scale were more important than pandering to the traffic beast
Brattle Loop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 2,077
And that is absolutely a valid perspective and policy preference. It's also an absolutely valuable thing, for public discourse and public policy, to have a (strong) counterweight to that (often-reflexive) "car is king" philosophy. My issue in this discussion has never been that I think that the cars should come first, it's been with the people who've been arguing, in essence, that "anti-car is king" as though that ends the debate, while what it actually does is simply replicate the problems with the "car is king" philosophy in reverse. That's not good public policy. Good public policy can weigh non-car interests above those of cars, and can weigh it heavily, but it doesn't get to simply ignore the cars because, once upon a time, bad public policy favored them to the near-exclusion of all else. That's not progress, it's retribution, and I think all it would do is cause more problems.
Highwayguy
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2020
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 483
This is why although l am very (maybe to a fault) pro bike/ transit, l vehemently disagree with the argument that to make transit more time competitive, we should just make SOV commutes suck as much as possible. To me, this is fundamentally different than targeted lane removal or decreasing intersection LOS to improve ped/bike/transit facilities (which l support).
To the 99% of people who aren’t planning nerds, the former will be (rightfully) perceived as an additional time tax and a degradation of government service. Not the best way to win the masses over to our side. The goal should be to improve the alternatives; much easier to sell “Here are more choices that will make congestion better by removing vehicles” (true or not), than by taking things away from people and telling them to ride the once an hour bus instead.
Last edited:
Yes
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,269
- Reaction score
- 2,093
It appears to me that:
- WB Storrow -> Mass Ave ramp eliminated
- This is a change I strongly support.
- WB Storrow -> Charlesgate I can not tell
- Bowker remains, but unclear as to what form it will take
- The best I can guess from these renderings is that Bowker (over the Pike) goes from:
- sidewalk | car lane x 6 | sidewalk
- to:
- sidewalk | car lane x 2| open space | multi-use trail | car lane x4
- The best I can guess from these renderings is that Bowker (over the Pike) goes from:
I got the impression bowker would get wider to accommodate the green part but maybe they are just reducing lanes. Getting rid of the Mass Ave exit makes sense but if they are actually getting rid of charlegate access, too, it would be 1) unwise to also get rid of lanes on bowker (since bowker will start handling any Mass Ave bound traffic) and 2) also suggests they’d need to seriously rework the boylston - bowker intersection as well. And it would be a terrible idea to add a left turn lane onto boylston there I think.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,269
- Reaction score
- 2,093
Bowker is definitely getting wider, at least the section over the Pike. Go to this webpage and use the slider for the image labeled "Emerald Necklace Bridge over I-90."
Yes I already did that — I see the one diagram that shows that but the last one showing underneath (yes a slightly different segment tho) shows it the same width. Overall these schematics look all great but I want to see more detail and the actual substance of what they’re proposing.
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,603
- Reaction score
- 3,267
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,886
Yes, we need more details. What we have now are some conceptual renders, not actual engineering schematics. I think you are correct about the Mass Ave ramp, but it isn't clear to me about the westbound exit to Kenmore. I hope that will still exist, as there really is no other way to get there from Storrow westbound. My assumption is that what appears in the slider image to be a ramp connecting just to the bridge, is actually a split ramp, with one half of it connecting to Beacon St. But as you say, it's difficult to discern.
Bananarama
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2020
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 1,122
To be fair, there's successful precedent for this working elsewhere. Riverside park in NYC has a viaduct running over it and it creates a very cool space with paths parallel and crossing below. Playgrounds, sports courts, running tracks, a little cafe, etc.
Not directly the same since Bowker is lower, but honestly traffic is pretty out of view and noise doesn't permeate down so easily from my experience.
I think that this exercise provides good insight into 21st century urban planning. Obviously reducing the convenience of motorists is off the table, ça va de soi. But unlike the slash-and-burn plans of the 50s and 60s, the renderings have to at least make reference to non-drivers who will use (or in this case, not use) the leftover pieces of land not needed to achieve the desired Level of Service. Couples holding hands and enjoying a leisurely stroll (at grade next to an absolutely screaming highway overpass.) Children splashing in the water (inhaling 30,000 ppm of ultrafine particles). People in wheelchairs crossing on-ramps at grade (before they are turned into human smears).
They’ve learned something from their decades of mistakes: marketing.
They’ve learned something from their decades of mistakes: marketing.
BeyondRevenue
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2020
- Messages
- 547
- Reaction score
- 1,143
Multiple flags down on the field. Subjective judgement on ‘successful’ and false equivalency of that parklet con tot lot comparing to Fred Olmsted’s awesome classical waterside promenade with plantings so perfect you forget an actual human being put them there.
It’s bad enough that way back when we let the state circumcise our very enjoyable extended park with the Pike. Then we defile the rest of it so someone can take the meandering route to the LMA? Nope. We shouldn’t let it happen again. A reminder, lest we forget how goddamn gorgeous it was….