Bowker Overpass replacement?

lainpimicaja said:
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.
Click to expand...
Everyone seemed supportive, as it is still a huge improvement from the current situation (of course far from what this should be). Near the end, someone did suggest that the Bowker be removed entirely, but that's it.
 
Charlie_mta said:
The early construction start date - Summer 2025 - is what alarms me.
Click to expand...
Important and worthwhile transportation projects (the Red-Blue connector, the grounding of McGrath Hwy, and the Rurtherford Ave redo) are delayed and studied to death forever, yet this horrendous Bowker Overpass project is pushed through the planning AND design phases, onto construction in just 2 years.
Something doesn't seem right with that picture.
 
king_vibe said:
Supportive of doubling the width of the freeway? Bizarre.
Click to expand...
Might be conspiracy theory, but I have to think people who are willing and able to attend these meetings are exactly the car-centric ones, coincidence or not. That would also explain why the Blue Hill Ave redesign community meetings were filled with drivers and local store owners who complain that center-running bus lanes will hurt them.
 
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...
I know that from an urbanist point of view, we want the viaduct to be completely removed, or at least truncated at Comm Ave. But I don't think we have moved the conversation far enough for that to be a realistic idea right at this time. I personally see the significant improvement for walking and biking connections as a win, even though it is overall still a very car focused design.
 
Note that all the elements in those pleasing renderings shown a few pages are on these drawings, but are listed as "potential" and "future" and "by others." I.e., they're not going to happen.
 
Charlie_mta:
WTF? This is a massive freeway plopped on top of the Emerald Necklace.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There is currently a massive freeway plopped directly over the top of the Emerald Necklace in this area, in a way that makes basically 100% of the theoretical park land completely unappealing, broken up, and virtually never used by anyone in the few spots where it is even possible to access. This proposal would clearly result in significantly more usable parkland and far more pleasant/useful pedestrian + cyclist accommodations than the current state of affairs.

lainpimicaja said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Its fine if you don't like it, but I'd pretty much completely disagree that this is a widening, both by literal definition + practical impact.

Bowker is currently 8 lanes at it's widest point - between Comm EB + the Pike. 4 thru lanes, 2x2 lane ramps, on 3 separate structures that basically cover/break up the entirety of the theoretical parkland in that area - especially with the literal wall of a structural support for thru lanes.

The proposal is for 7 lanes on 2 structures.

I'd also suggest that you look at street/satellite view of current conditions. There is near-zero park at present with the only real (underutilized and uninviting) space being along Charlesgate E from Comm to Beacon.

- North of Beacon:
- Current: completely inaccessible/dead space + has no connection to the small Esplanade path that exists, ramp spaghetti makes it impossible to come up with any significant amount of parkland even if you did want to try to do something.
- Proposed: Significantly compacted ramp config + compressing Storrow thru = a decent chunk of new waterfront parkland + esplanade connection + better esplanade path + access to other currently inaccessible sections of land towards Mass Ave. This is huge and will be seriously transformative for non-motorized users.

- Beacon to Comm EB:
- Current: The only thing you could call a park is the tiny chunk along Charlesgate E
- Future: Charlesgate W activated a bit for a path, Charlesgate E side gains a little with the slip ramp removal

- South of Comm EB:
- Current: Completely inaccessible/dead space + no connections.
- Future: Charlesgate E ramp is gone, land becomes daylit and usable park, new ped/cyclist links.

Actually crossing the Pike/Fenway side:
- Current: peds get a shitty narrow sidewalk on a highway ramp, cyclists get literally nothing + again, no connection onward to Esplanade. Only way to actually get out to Ipswich/Lansdowne is so hidden you have to know it's there + is very sketchy/unclear if it's even public.
- Future: Actually usable/safe/pleasant pedestrian + cyclist routes that are at appropriate grades.

And more generally an overpass that doesn't use literal walls or excessive columns for supports/abutments will help significantly too.

Put simply, I have trouble seeing a single piece of land that looks worse for local residents, parkland enjoyers, or general non-motorized users than today from the completion of this project, besides 2-5 Charlesgate West.....which was already being targeted for redev/demolition by developers anyway per BPDA filings.


Charlie_mta said:
yet this horrendous Bowker Overpass project is pushed through the planning AND design phases, onto construction in just 2 years.
Click to expand...
Given that it still looks pretty rough structurally after multiple rounds of major/expensive repairs, I suspect the answer is that they can't kick the can down the road much further from a structural perspective without the repair bills getting even more extreme.
king_vibe said:
Note that all the elements in those pleasing renderings shown a few pages are on these drawings, but are listed as "potential" and "future" and "by others." I.e., they're not going to happen.
Click to expand...
IIRC those aspects aren't MassDOT jurisdiction to implement. I don't see much reason to think won't do City of Boston isn't going to do those things?
 
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...
Only positive I see of this is it gets rid of that horrendous off-ramp to Comm Ave. But still an utter disappointment.

If anything I could stomach extending Charlesgate W over the bridge and tearing town the current Bowker to facilitate some Fenway motor traffic. But not this lol.
 
millerm277 said:
There is currently a massive freeway plopped directly over the top of the Emerald Necklace in this area, in a way that makes basically 100% of the theoretical park land completely unappealing, broken up, and virtually never used by anyone in the few spots where it is even possible to access. This proposal would clearly result in significantly more usable parkland and far more pleasant/useful pedestrian + cyclist accommodations than the current state of affairs.



Its fine if you don't like it, but I'd pretty much completely disagree that this is a widening, both by literal definition + practical impact.

Bowker is currently 8 lanes at it's widest point - between Comm EB + the Pike. 4 thru lanes, 2x2 lane ramps, on 3 separate structures that basically cover/break up the entirety of the theoretical parkland in that area - especially with the literal wall of a structural support for thru lanes.

The proposal is for 7 lanes on 2 structures.

I'd also suggest that you look at street/satellite view of current conditions. There is near-zero park at present with the only real (underutilized and uninviting) space being along Charlesgate E from Comm to Beacon.

- North of Beacon:
- Current: completely inaccessible/dead space + has no connection to the small Esplanade path that exists, ramp spaghetti makes it impossible to come up with any significant amount of parkland even if you did want to try to do something.
- Proposed: Significantly compacted ramp config + compressing Storrow thru = a decent chunk of new waterfront parkland + esplanade connection + better esplanade path + access to other currently inaccessible sections of land towards Mass Ave. This is huge and will be seriously transformative for non-motorized users.

- Beacon to Comm EB:
- Current: The only thing you could call a park is the tiny chunk along Charlesgate E
- Future: Charlesgate W activated a bit for a path, Charlesgate E side gains a little with the slip ramp removal

- South of Comm EB:
- Current: Completely inaccessible/dead space + no connections.
- Future: Charlesgate E ramp is gone, land becomes daylit and usable park, new ped/cyclist links.

Actually crossing the Pike/Fenway side:
- Current: peds get a shitty narrow sidewalk on a highway ramp, cyclists get literally nothing + again, no connection onward to Esplanade. Only way to actually get out to Ipswich/Lansdowne is so hidden you have to know it's there + is very sketchy/unclear if it's even public.
- Future: Actually usable/safe/pleasant pedestrian + cyclist routes that are at appropriate grades.

And more generally an overpass that doesn't use literal walls or excessive columns for supports/abutments will help significantly too.

Put simply, I have trouble seeing a single piece of land that looks worse for local residents, parkland enjoyers, or general non-motorized users than today from the completion of this project, besides 2-5 Charlesgate West.....which was already being targeted for redev/demolition by developers anyway per BPDA filings.



Given that it still looks pretty rough structurally after multiple rounds of major/expensive repairs, I suspect the answer is that they can't kick the can down the road much further from a structural perspective without the repair bills getting even more extreme.

IIRC those aspects aren't MassDOT jurisdiction to implement. I don't see much reason to think won't do City of Boston isn't going to do those things?
Click to expand...
I think most of it boils down to: Just because you used to get an F doesn't mean getting a D now is acceptable.

Especially when a D now likely means staying at a D for decades, given that tearing down a viaduct that has just been fully rebuilt will probably be a non-starter.
 
millerm277 said:
Given that it still looks pretty rough structurally after multiple rounds of major/expensive repairs, I suspect the answer is that they can't kick the can down the road much further from a structural perspective without the repair bills getting even more extreme.

IIRC those aspects aren't MassDOT jurisdiction to implement. I don't see much reason to think won't do City of Boston isn't going to do those things?
Click to expand...
I dunno what world you’re living in but agencies in this state routinely ignore commitments that they’ve made for *themselves*. In this case, we have MassDOT making a non-commitment implication that future work will get done by an entirely different agency. Worthless.
 
T
Teban54 said:
...... given that tearing down a viaduct that has just been fully rebuilt will probably be a non-starter.
Click to expand...
That is exactly my concern as well. "Sunk costs" will be used an an argument against tearing down the new viaduct in, say, 20 years or so.

What disappoints me the most about all of this is that MassDOT, Boston, and apparently a powerful segment of the public, are successfully pushing through the most autocentric and anti-urban options for several projects, including this one, plus Rutherford Ave (i.e., keeping the Sullivan Sq underpass), McGrath Hwy (keeping in place the 1950s elevated hwy), the Storrow Drive tunnels at Hatch Shell (rebuilding, and possibly expanding, them), and also several proposed bus lane projects getting powerful blowback by car interests. I see a lack of courage on the part of political leaders, a lack of vision for the future, a practice of just caving into the status quo. Congestion will never be solved in and around Boston with more lanes, overpasses, underpasses, and wider roads. It's almost unbelievable that this car-centric approach is still dominant.
 
The Commonwealth Ave bike lane was promised by the end of the year but it exists in neither these renderings nor the real world.
 
Highwayguy said:
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.View attachment 40426View attachment 40427
Click to expand...

It's pretty rare I drive out of Boston by getting on Storrow but I was reminded of this fucking merge a few weeks back. Death merge is an understatement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top