Bowker Overpass replacement?

ritchiew said:
I'm really getting hung up on this crosswalk across an off ramp. I mean, everything about the overpass is terrible, but this looks dangerous.

View attachment 39957
Click to expand...

They simply cannot - full stop (no pun intended) - place a crosswalk across this section of Storrow, where traffic moves frequently in excess of 60mph and visibility is impaired by the bridge dip even for a hypothetical signaled crossing. I don't think any road regulations, besides just common sense, would allow that to occur. Is there any change this is representing a tunnel underpass or something?

Charlie_mta said:
When overpasses are depicted as transparent, it is confusing as well as outright deceptive.
Click to expand...
As an alternative to Bowker removal, it should be rebuilt entirely in plexiglass.
 
HenryAlan said:
While I agree that taking down the viaduct altogether would be the best option, it's not too likely under current political-social conditions. We haven't proven ready, as a society, to completely eliminate what is seen as critical car infrastructure. This plan accomplishes one very important thing, though, connecting the pedestrian and bike paths through the Fens directly to the Charles River paths. If such an improvement is built, it will essentially be possible to bike from outer neighborhoods like Roslindale and Dorchester all the way to the Esplanade on an entirely grade separate route, through beautiful park land along the way. That in itself is a huge win.
Click to expand...
I agree to an extent. I am an idealist when it comes to removing elevated expressways, which has been done in a few exceedingly rare places in the US. The notable examples are the Westside Highway in NYC, the Central Freeway in SF, the Arborway overpass at Forest Hills, Boston, and the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee, WI. These were all replaced with surface boulevards. So it can be done. The turning point in the US will be if/when the Federal government someday increases transit funding, thus enabling some of the transit expansion ideas shared on this board to be built. Then there can be ample justification for reducing highway capacity and tearing down more elevated highways, especially ones like the Bowker which cover up an important park.
 
MjolnirMan said:
They simply cannot - full stop (no pun intended) - place a crosswalk across this section of Storrow, where traffic moves frequently in excess of 60mph and visibility is impaired by the bridge dip even for a hypothetical signaled crossing. I don't think any road regulations, besides just common sense, would allow that to occur. Is there any change this is representing a tunnel underpass or something?


As an alternative to Bowker removal, it should be rebuilt entirely in plexiglass.
Click to expand...

I think in the planning document that section would become the new off ramp and the actual westbound road section would be shifted to the south. I can't really tell but it looks like they may be putting a signal at the crosswalk as well. So ideally cars would be slowing down for the turn and traffic/intersection ahead. But knowing how real life works; yeah it's an overall stupid decision to put a crosswalk smack dab in the middle of a two lane off ramp.
 
stick n move said:
This is confusing as hell
View attachment 39940
Click to expand...
Stop lights at the top of Storrow West off-ramp. The ramp is fairly lengthy so I think two lanes at say 300' would be ok volume wise for a 2 minute light cycle.
Untitledl.png
 
Last edited:
I like the Leverette Connector Jr. ramp system. This keeps all ramps to one side, daylighting the muddy river on the East side.
Untitleda.png
 
I’m with the “remove it, don’t replace it” crowd. This plan really says traffic throughput is all these engineers understand. I’d bet the brief doesn’t prioritize design for human needs … unless those humans are hurtling over a livable street at 50+ mph.
The best alternative to congestion pricing is removing car preferences like this altogether.
 
I'm seeing little or no bike paths or bike lanes in this plan. I would expect protected bike lanes on the reconfigured roadways, even on the Bowker overpass itself. No bike paths or bike lanes anywhere, except a dashed blue line under the Bowker at Newbury Street labeled as future, to be built by others. What is up with the lack of bike facilities?
 
BeyondRevenue said:
This plan really says traffic throughput is all these engineers understand.
Click to expand...

Not 100% sure about that. The addition of the fourth leg to the boylston intersection plus the tightly spaced right/left weave on Comm Ave EB telegraphs LOS F without even seeing the volumes. The new signal on the overpass probably won’t operate horrible, but its inclusion is an explicit choice of weighing increased park space (the signal there will allow half the ramps to be eliminated) greater than vehicular delay.

Im also in the camp of just tear it down; but admittedly, it would be difficult to have all traffic use Charlesgate E/W as a one way pair without cluttering up the Charles frontage with ramps (AKA what’s there now), so l can at least see where this design came from.

On the bright side, I can tell genuine design effort was spent trying to improving non-automobile links and the general pleasantness of the area (even if the end result is imperfect). Grading on a national DOT scale, this isn’t a horrible outcome. If this project was in another state, at least 45 of the other DOTs would be proposing adding additional lanes to the rebuilt overpass.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
Pedestrian and bike traffic is poorly served by the red colored narrow walkway crossing a major street at its southern end. It's like they designed the roadways first and then threw in a walkway because they had to, The priorities should have been the other way around.
Click to expand...
It looks to be a bit tight at first glance but with a closer look, it appears to be wider than a car lane. About 12' to 15'? That seems comfortable for a couple pedestrians and/or bikes to pass by each other. But you are correct that there should be more than one ramp. A ramp should be available on the east side , to align with the pedestrian and bike flow out of the East side of the Fens.
Untitleda.png
 
All these changes and somehow the death merge at the end of the on-ramp to westbound Storrow continues into the future?
 
as02143 said:
All these changes and somehow the death merge at the end of the on-ramp to westbound Storrow continues into the future?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the merge onto Storrow WB itself or the lane reduction on the ramp? If the former, that merge is proposed to get a full length parallel acceleration lane as opposed to the ‘lol hope you have a V6’ entrance thats there now.
956D9057-53D0-4807-93BF-914D2E3FF5BA.jpeg
644E43F1-2CB7-4B1C-B883-ECB760A26149.jpeg
 
andrew.816 said:
Latest renders from the MassDOT meeting today. Current plans have construction starting Summer 2025.
View attachment 43892View attachment 43893
Click to expand...
This very clearly does nothing to address concerns of residents and of those who enjoy the Esplanade and Emerald Necklace and promotes driving through areas that most definitely do not need additional cars. How this can possibly be seen as acceptable in 2023 is beyond me.
 
andrew.816 said:
Latest renders from the MassDOT meeting today. Current plans have construction starting Summer 2025.
View attachment 43892View attachment 43893
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing - couldn't make the meeting, but curious if anyone is organizing to oppose this happening at all? It's just crazy that the state is doing this - it's a highway widening project in an urban neighborhood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top