Bowker Overpass replacement?

Matthew said:
Level of service is a completely discredited metric. It's only purpose is to justify road widening with no regard for the surrounding residents or pedestrians.
Click to expand...

Mathew -- you are a bit of an idealogue about roads -- thankfully most of the modern world doesn't agree with you

In point of fact inadequate capacity and the resultant stop and go traffic hurts the neighbors almost as much as it hurts the city's economy -- cars idle and pump noise and exhaust into the local area

at certain times of the day M-F and for special events such as games at Fenway the traffic already backs-up on Storrow approaching the overpass -- if the overpass is replaced by anything which reduces capacity - the traffic will back-up so far on Storrow to the west that it can begin to impede entrance to the Turnpike
 
You'd be wrong. Most places are beginning to recognize the folly of LoS: you should really read that article I linked.
 
whighlander said:
Mathew -- you are a bit of an idealogue about roads -- thankfully most of the modern world doesn't agree with you

In point of fact inadequate capacity and the resultant stop and go traffic hurts the neighbors almost as much as it hurts the city's economy -- cars idle and pump noise and exhaust into the local area

at certain times of the day M-F and for special events such as games at Fenway the traffic already backs-up on Storrow approaching the overpass -- if the overpass is replaced by anything which reduces capacity - the traffic will back-up so far on Storrow to the west that it can begin to impede entrance to the Turnpike
Click to expand...

It backs up today because the interchange has no accel/decel lanes at any split or merge along its entire length. Although--little less hyperbole, please, whigh--it almost never backs up ALL the way to the Pike for anything other than dumbass truck drivers who can't read a low clearance sign. The total road capacity of the Bowker is already heavily compromised by hideously poor ramp design and always has been. It has never had as high a capacity as it should've because of this, and it has been a much bigger burden on the Fenway neighborhood than it should've been for the last 50 years because of this. What's going to factor in the decision is whether a rehabbed structure makes that much of a difference vs. an at-grade that uses some of the demolished ramp space for saner weaving to/from Storrow and Charlesgate. Right now, the interchange is so very poorly designed that the overpass itself is a LOS flunker at special-event load. And it would take fairly involved rebuilding of the entire interchange to fix that.

Is the difference big enough to merit a full rebuild vs. taking it down, replacing with realigned Charlesgate ramps that have less abrupt merging/weaving, and counting on a modest induced demand reduction? Probably not. Not when the above-and-beyond cost of an interchange rehab that fixes the overpass's own fatal LOS flaws has higher upside being spent instead on downtown Pike ramps to pull off the expressway traffic Storrow was never intended to carry in the first place. I would have minor (but emphasis on very minor) concerns if Bowker tear-down were the only thing under consideration and that doing that meant abandoning all further study of Pike improvements. But this isn't happening in a vacuum, the studies are interrelated, and it isn't an all-or-nothing thing.
 
Kahta said:
That left turn onto storrow west is going to be a LOS F for 14 hours a day from the day that it opens and it will turn into the same sitaution as Edwin Land Blvd and route 28-- gridlock at intersections during peak demand periods.
Click to expand...

The ramp leading to westbound Storrow is a huge operational and safety fail already: every car has to stop and wait for a break in Storrow traffic. I can only imagine a left turn and elongated acceleration lane helping smooth things out.
 
The state tried limiting westbound Storrow traffic to a single lane through Bowker, to allow an easier merge from the Charlesgate on-ramp. The experiment lasted only a year, if that, and now through traffic is back to two lanes.
 
^ Yep, you can see that experiment in the Google Maps satellite imagery of the interchange.
 
Meeting about this tonight 6pm-8pm at the BPL, considering the Bowker's use as a Pike on/offramp ... see events thread.

Alternative 1: Construction of a new I-90 westbound off-ramp to Berkeley Street with closure of the existing I-90 westbound on-ramp from Arlington Street.

Alternative 2: Construction of a new I-90 westbound off-ramp to Trinity Place with closure of the existing I-90 westbound on-ramps from Clarendon Street and Arlington Street.

Alternative 3: Construction of a new I-90 westbound off-ramp to Brookline Avenue.

Alternative 4: Construction of a new I-90 eastbound on-ramp from the Bowker Overpass northbound.


Have an opinion? Attend the meeting!
 
Traffic flow would likely be fine with a ramp onto eastbound I-90 on Bowker but I'm wondering is there room to do it? The train tracks are right next to I-90 and I can't see room for a ramp unless they make the right lane disappear before Bowker and reappear with the ramp.

Peterborough
http://www.bostontipster.com
 
Hmm, seems like MassDOT is trying to pull another McCarthy here. Should be interesting.
 
Not sure how the changes around Arlington/Berkeley/Clarendon would work; seems like it would just move traffic around (as opposed to diverting traffic from Storrow Dr).

The off-ramp to Brookline Ave (using Newbury St I assume) could be interesting since that stretch of Newbury is hardly used (it's basically an alley). Although I can only imagine how bad it would back up on nights with games at Fenway.

I'm not sure I see where they can connect to the Bowker unless they pull off something really wonky.
 
3 new offramps, close 1 onramp, and 1 new onramp. So, uh... are we only letting cars in and not out, now?
 
BostonUrbEx said:
3 new offramps, close 1 onramp, and 1 new onramp. So, uh... are we only letting cars in and not out, now?
Click to expand...

Urb -- I don't think that the idea is to build all of the alternatives -- my guess is one new E-bound on and one new west-bound off -- its just a matter of finding a combination that is workable

Unfortunately, the adjacent Worcester rail line makes the E-bound on a difficult one to site

Bowker may be the only place where you can build the E-bound on without a massive relocation of the Worcester rail line
 
Really the important thing is getting a Westbound off-ramp on I-90 for two reasons. 1) reduces traffic on Storrow as it would be more efficient for people traveling I-93 N to Fenway or Boston to get on I-90 west and then off rather then going around onto Storrow. 2) the reduced capacity might enable them to get rid of the part beyond the overpass and re-open the park area.

I doubt they're planning on doing both. Did anybody go to the meeting?

Peterborough
http://www.bostontipster.com
 
They did throw up a hypothetical scenario with multiple ramps at one point, but the potential property impacts from just one were getting people a little bit worried.

The eastbound on-ramp from Bowker would essentially require shifting the highway north by one lane. It wasn't really clear how that would fit with the existing buildings on Newbury St (extension). It's going to take some more hashing out.
 
How about just demolishing the part of the overpass that isn't over the Mass Pike, and leaving everything else alone for now? The part that bridges over Beacon and Comm Ave is entirely redundant with the existing one-way surface streets of Charlesgate East and West.
 
Sounds good to me. That's basically Salvucci's proposal. It's tough to get MassDOT to agree to demolishing or closing any overpass though.
 
Matthew - congratulations on your post to your blog on the subject - very well reasoned and argued. You should try to get it into print. Worth the read for everyone here: http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.com/2012/06/massdot-wants-to-rebuild-bowker.html

Matthew's key point that makes a lot of sense is that the Bowker traffic shouldn't be considered without thinking through Storrow traffic, and the potential for downgrading Storrow itself. I've always felt that Soldiers Field Road should be directly tied into the Pike at Beacon Yards - allowing former Storrow Drivers to exit/enter at Copley.

I also think that Pike on/offramps are a bit of a separate discussion. They would ease Storrow's downgrading but are not necessary for it.
 
Shepard said:
Matthew - congratulations on your post to your blog on the subject - very well reasoned and argued. You should try to get it into print. Worth the read for everyone here: http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.com/2012/06/massdot-wants-to-rebuild-bowker.html

Matthew's key point that makes a lot of sense is that the Bowker traffic shouldn't be considered without thinking through Storrow traffic, and the potential for downgrading Storrow itself. I've always felt that Soldiers Field Road should be directly tied into the Pike at Beacon Yards - allowing former Storrow Drivers to exit/enter at Copley.

I also think that Pike on/offramps are a bit of a separate discussion. They would ease Storrow's downgrading but are not necessary for it.
Click to expand...

Shep -- DOT is under enormous pressure to do something with the Pike -- probably not for about 10 years -- but ultimately there has to be something more effecient than the slingshot at Alston-Brighton
 
We could go back to the pipedream of Storrow getting put underground and making the area above it developments and more park area. Could just tunnel every expressway through Boston and deal with underground connections but MassDOT just doesn't have the money in the budget.

Peterborough
http://www.bostontipster.com
 
Thanks for the kind words, Shepard.

Peter, the water table is too high (it's all landfill), putting anything underground would be prohibitively expensive (even more so).

It just doesn't make sense to put Storrow underground. It's a freeway that should never have been built in the first place. At least, it should not be more than a two lane road with traffic lights. The majority of through traffic along it needs to shift to the real highways. Local travel won't be impeded much, and may actually be enhanced, by at-grade intersections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top