Bowker Overpass replacement?

Presentation slides: https://www.mass.gov/doc/massdot-hearing-presentation-boston-102623/download

I'm not seeing the flame-worthy hate here (other than the idea of keeping the overpass at all). The amount of car-dedicated pavement arguably goes down with the removal of the ramps, and vehicles are moved away from the Muddy River. Both sections of the River get exposed to the sky. Sidewalks and mixed-use paths are created. The only place where car infrastructure gets "wider" is over the Turnpike (I'm not sure I understand why one lane coming in needs to become two right-turn-only lanes), which frees up the river parcel on the other side to be improved with landscaping and walking paths. What's the outrage, exactly?

1698868021149.png

1698868062458.png

1698868078981.png
 
Equilibria said:
What's the outrage, exactly?
Click to expand...
The southern end of the proposed viaduct between Comm Ave and Boylston Street isn't bad. The Muddy River is opened up a bit by the removal of the NB viaduct off-ramp.
But it's the northern end of the proposal that is still covering the Muddy River (even though the proposed layout below deceptively shows the viaduct as transparent). That area of the SFR/Charlesgate interchange is the most impactful, though it is an improvement over the current mess of ramps there.

1698885078973.png
 
Did MassDOT or DCR model how traffic would change in a complete removal scenario?

Edit: Now I see Northeastern’s analysis of a proposed removal.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
The southern end of the proposed viaduct between Comm Ave and Boylston Street isn't bad. The Muddy River is opened up a bit by the removal of the NB viaduct off-ramp.
But it's the northern end of the proposal that is still covering the Muddy River (even though the proposed layout below deceptively shows the viaduct as transparent). That area of the SFR/Charlesgate interchange is the most impactful, though it is an improvement over the current mess of ramps there.

View attachment 44041
Click to expand...

Fair enough, though it seems that the north end isn't actually in the scope of this project (maybe it's owned by DCR?)
 
Equilibria said:
Fair enough, though it seems that the north end isn't actually in the scope of this project (maybe it's owned by DCR?)
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's technically two separate projects, but the MassDOT is moving forward with both. The recent meeting was just about the part over the Pike.
Storrow ramps:
Bridge over Mass Pike:
And here are proposals for the Storrow ramps project
 
Equilibria said:
(I'm not sure I understand why one lane coming in needs to become two right-turn-only lanes)
Click to expand...
I think is to facilitate two lanes for cars to queue up at the intersection, effectively increasing the capacity of the intersection.

There's no doubt that as designed, it's an improvement over the existing viaduct which has no room for peds or bikes. However there should at a minimum be some analysis of a road diet and reducing capacity to encourage a mode shift toward transit and biking. But seems like with every highway reconstruction project (see the Allston I-90 curve project, Tobin bridge reconstruction) there is absolutely no tolerance for any reduction in road capacity, even temporarily during construction, much less in the permanent design. If these redesigns are to have a multi-decade lifespan we will fail to reach our climate (and mode shift and road congestion) goals. We want to see MassDOT considering how traffic can be re-routed with a full removal of Storrow from Fenway to I-93 within the next 50 years, but they seem intent on keeping transportation highly car-centric even in the urban core.
 
Equilibria said:
What's the outrage, exactly?
Click to expand...
Equilibria said:
I'm not seeing the flame-worthy hate here (other than the idea of keeping the overpass at all).
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly where the outrage is coming from. It's bad that we're keeping the overpass at all. The overpass is terrible, and the benefits are questionable at best. Putting a couple hundred million dollars into fixing it means we're trying keeping it for the rest of all our lives, when the city would be vastly improved by demolishing it tomorrow.

I guess I'll stress just how terrible that overpass is compared to what it could be. It's currently a kind of no man's land. The whole park is functionally useless because the main span of the overpass cuts right though the middle. There's little space left, and what is left doesn't get used because no one wants to hang out under an car overpass. If you go poking around, it looks like homeless people store personal possessions under the ramps, but I usually don't see the people. They don't want to hang out there. It's a park pedestrians walk past quickly because it's loud and gross, and in the rain, the overpass drips runoff on people's heads. That's the environment we've built steps from a major transit hub, in one of the densest neighborhoods of the city. I really encourage you to go hang out in the park for a while. Bring a lawn chair. It's shit.

Now we could keep that overpass, or instead, revive the Olmstead-designed Charlesgate Park that finally relinks the Emerald Necklace.... Somehow, incredibly, those are our options. If we just tear down the overpass, it's kind of like Boston getting a brand new Olmstead-design park. They don't make those anymore. But we're sticking with the overpass that turns the area into a no man's land.

And again, even if your top priority is maintaining traffic volumes through this historic park, the benefits of the overpass are questionable. MassDOT apparently studied getting rid of the overpass a while back, before they did all the rehabilitation work on it about 10 years ago. MassDOT found they needed the overpass. But some researchers at Northeastern went through and found otherwise. I can't find their paper, but from these slides it looks totally possible to have that current traffic run on surface streets just fine. (Current as of 2010.) They say MassDOT's negative findings were based on the assumption of lots more growing traffic in the coming decades, and it wasn't so clear where MassDOT's projected numbers were even coming from. Even if the Northeastern researchers are off a bit, that still means that keeping the overpass is only some marginal improvement over just surface streets and a park.

And on top of that, I don't actually want more cars in the city. Cars suck here. The city and state have clear policy goals of reducing driving in the city, increasing public transit mode share, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I support all of that. Keeping the overpass for predicted higher traffic volumes runs counter to all of those policy goals.

So yeah, I find the Bowker replacement outrageous. Some of us really want to make Boston less car centric, and make the city prettier, get rid of some of these 1960's eyesores, and maybe even reach some climate goals. Tearing down the Bowker seems like the lowest hanging fruit. It wrecks an historic park, while not being obviously better at actually moving current traffic levels. And it will cost $100s of millions keep the status quo. So, just get rid of it. This isn't close. And MassDOT moving forward with the rebuild makes this probably the most disheartening project in the state.

1698938367506.png
 
Last edited:
What a sinister thing. Playground underneath an expressway.
 

Attachments

  • A2EE131E-46BF-4257-B3E8-F647DC482A05.jpeg
    A2EE131E-46BF-4257-B3E8-F647DC482A05.jpeg
    326 KB · Views: 67
Clever that MassDOT broke it up into two projects. The combined project is listed at about $200 million, but will undoubtedly go upwards from there. I also noticed on the latest Storrow Drive layout, the walking and bike paths are still wedged up against the river bank. The earlier version called for moving the WB Storrow off-ramp closer into Storrow Dr, but the new proposal places the off-ramp along the river bank under Mass Ave. This layout is just the typical highway engineer's wet dream, and it is sad and disappointing.

1698942446101.png
 

Attachments

  • 1698942374640.png
    1698942374640.png
    603.3 KB · Views: 79
Equilibria said:
Presentation slides: https://www.mass.gov/doc/massdot-hearing-presentation-boston-102623/download

I'm not seeing the flame-worthy hate here (other than the idea of keeping the overpass at all). The amount of car-dedicated pavement arguably goes down with the removal of the ramps, and vehicles are moved away from the Muddy River. Both sections of the River get exposed to the sky. Sidewalks and mixed-use paths are created. The only place where car infrastructure gets "wider" is over the Turnpike (I'm not sure I understand why one lane coming in needs to become two right-turn-only lanes), which frees up the river parcel on the other side to be improved with landscaping and walking paths. What's the outrage, exactly?
Click to expand...
A TL;DR version:

If your primary goal is to preserve car traffic, and want to maybe give some crumbs to everyone else (pedestrians and bikes simply trying to cross the Pike, nearby neighborhoods, the park, the river itself), then yeah, this plan works fine ("the River gets exposed to the sky", "sidewalks and mixed-use paths are created").

But that primary goal is very questionable in the first place.

Sacrificing a small amount of car traffic makes everyone else infinitely better off, whether it's for car traffic reduction, connecting the neighborhoods, and restoring the river and the park (the place where Muddy River merges into Charles River has much more recreational potential than it does today).
 
Teban54 said:
A TL;DR version:

If your primary goal is to preserve car traffic, and want to maybe give some crumbs to everyone else (pedestrians and bikes simply trying to cross the Pike, nearby neighborhoods, the park, the river itself), then yeah, this plan works fine ("the River gets exposed to the sky", "sidewalks and mixed-use paths are created").

But that primary goal is very questionable in the first place.

Sacrificing a small amount of car traffic makes everyone else infinitely better off, whether it's for car traffic reduction, connecting the neighborhoods, and restoring the river and the park (the place where Muddy River merges into Charles River has much more recreational potential than it does today).
Click to expand...
1698943002695.png

Note what is (second) and what is last.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Clever that MassDOT broke it up into two projects. The combined project is listed at about $200 million, but will undoubtedly go upwards from there. I also noticed on the latest Storrow Drive layout, the walking and bike paths are still wedged up against the river bank. The earlier version called for moving the WB Storrow off-ramp closer into Storrow Dr, but the new proposal places the off-ramp along the river bank under Mass Ave. This layout is just the typical highway engineer's wet dream, and it is sad and disappointing.

View attachment 44068
Click to expand...
What made them do that change?
 
Equilibria said:
View attachment 44069
Note what is (second) and what is last.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between preserving traffic and improving traffic (the latter meaning making things more car-friendly).

The former is highlighted as the very first "Project Goal", or specifically rebuilding a bridge that's almost as wide (and disruptive to the surroundings) as the existing one. This philosophy shows up in the actual design as well.

And it's not an isolated case that's limited to Bowker overpass, as others have mentioned.
 
Last edited:
king_vibe said:
What a sinister thing. Playground underneath an expressway.
Click to expand...
I used to live near the BQE in Brooklyn, and always found the parks/playgrounds along the highway in Williamsburg a double edged sword. Obviously does something to combat pollution with the amount of greenery and makes good use of otherwise unused plots, but also not the most inviting parks and playgrounds. Makes one wish for a big dig.
 
Teban54 said:
There's a difference between preserving traffic and improving traffic (the latter meaning making things more car-friendly).

The former is highlighted as the very first "Project Goal", or specifically rebuilding a bridge that's almost as wide (and disruptive to the surroundings) as the existing one. This philosophy shows up in the actual design as well.

And it's not an isolated case that's limited to Bowker overpass, as others have mentioned.
Click to expand...

Replacing a bridge that is in poor condition is not a choice to preserve traffic, unless the alternative is to not have a road there at all. MassDOT has a Federal Obligation to replace bridges in poor condition. It's required by law.
 
Equilibria said:
Replacing a bridge that is in poor condition is not a choice to preserve traffic, unless the alternative is to not have a road there at all. MassDOT has a Federal Obligation to replace bridges in poor condition. It's required by law.
Click to expand...
In addition to what @Charlie_mta said, another option is to not make the new bridge 7 lanes wide, thereby reducing its footprint and freeing up at least some park space underneath. Or even move it closer to Charlesgate W, in order to create maximum space for parks etc along Muddy River and have the bridge run to its side, instead of right over the park (or wasteland).

Rebuilding the bridge with almost the same width as today is definitely a deliberate choice, not an obligation. And it definitely shows a lack of willingness to discourage driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top