Bowker Overpass replacement?

[saulblum]

It looks like the pre-Bowker interchange weaved westbound entrance to and westbound exit from Storrow through a little side service road on the left. That could work again today. It also appears to have a nifty little U-turn ramp that allowed eastbound Storrow traffic to reach the Mass. Ave. bridge via the westbound exit ramp.

FWIW, you can still see the remnants of the old ramps from the Harvard Bridge.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.351475,-71.090979&spn=0.002153,0.001961&t=k&z=19

 

[omaja]

This is a 1955 aerial of the Bowker overpass site:

The Bowker overpass had been on the drawing boards since the late 1940's, and the old MDC siezed on the opportunity in 1963 presented by the Mass Pike construction. The original Storrow Drive construction even included stub ramps for the Bowker overpass. It was all part of the highways everywhere paradigm of the post WW-II era.

They really need to just demolish the darn thing already! This aerial shows just how utterly useless it really is. There is no way that having vehicles pass through two synchronized lights (one at Comm Ave, the other at Beacon St) would have any material negative impact on traffic flow. They can even elongate the exits from Storrow and redo ramp geometry so they aren't so dangerous. Seems like a no-brainer if we actually had people in power who knew what they were doing.

 

[datadyne007]

They really need to just demolish the darn thing already! This aerial shows just how utterly useless it really is. There is no way that having vehicles pass through two synchronized lights (one at Comm Ave, the other at Beacon St) would have any material negative impact on traffic flow. They can even elongate the exits from Storrow and redo ramp geometry so they aren't so dangerous. Seems like a no-brainer if we actually had people in power who knew what they were doing.

This is the proposal btw. The exit ramps will be reconfigured, but they will keep the existing ramps as a bike path connection to the Esplanade. Pretty cool.

http://cgatepark.com/plan/

 

[omaja]

Yeah, I've seen those before. I don't get why they couldn't just keep the ramps leading over the Pike, demolish the Bowker and rework the exits from Storrow. I guess one of the proposals sort of does that, but in a clumsy way. Seems like it would be a lot less work and actually open the area up a lot more.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I still prefer the version I worked up. It doesn't provide as many roadway lanes, but it does reduce overpass encroachment of the Muddy River.

 

[Ron Newman]

In the 1955 aerial photo, is that a Back Street bridge across the Muddy River?

 

[Ron Newman]

FWIW, you can still see the remnants of the old ramps from the Harvard Bridge.

I can clearly see the old loop ramp from the southbound Mass. Ave. bridge to eastbound Storrow Drive. I recall it closing when the state rebuilt the bridge about 15 years ago.

I don't know why the state closed it, but I guess it was considered redundant with the Charlesgate East entrance ramp. For a while, the state turned the old loop ramp area into an off-leash dog park, but that only lasted a couple of years.

I don't see any trace now of the U-turn from eastbound Storrow onto the off-ramp for the Mass. Ave bridge. Maybe that got eradicated by the changes around Bowker.

 

[saulblum]

In the 1955 aerial photo, is that a Back Street bridge across the Muddy River?

Yes, and it's still there.

http://goo.gl/maps/Ywif

 

[whighlander]

Yes, and it's still there.

http://goo.gl/maps/Ywif

SaulB, Ron -- I don't think its associated with Back Street

If you look at the `1954 map which I included in an earlier post -- no sign of it

Here's a map -- pre-Turnpike -- not to the same scale as the above

I belive it might have been an earlier pedestrian bridge

on looking at the Google street view images (apparently taken during the use of the area as staging for road reconstruction) it might predate Storrow - perhaps it was the actual gate where the Muddy River joined the Charles

here's a 1920 photo showing clearly Beacon St. crossing the Muddy River at Charlesgate

and a postcard from roughly the same time [no Storrow Drive]

Somenone needs to take a look and some pictures down at ground level

 

[Charlie_mta]

SaulB, Ron -- I don't think its associated with Back Street

If you look at the `1954 map which I included in an earlier post -- no sign of it

However, on this 1928 pre-Storrow Drive map, the bridge for Back Street crossing the Muddy River is clearly visible:

 

[whighlander]

However, on this 1928 pre-Storrow Drive map, the bridge for Back Street crossing the Muddy River is clearly visible:
[/img]

Charlie -- you seem to have nailed that one

It loks as if the bridge existed as part of the road system post the Dam-induced re-do of the Charlesgate area

Apparently sometime between the creation of the Storrow embankment and the creation of Storrow Drive -- these were two separate filling operations on the banks -- the bridge was left behind.

Cultural Landscape Report

The Charles River Esplanade Our Boston Treasure -- finally located this http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/49956/ocm47935567.pdf?sequence=1

by Linda Cox
a founder of the Esplanade Association, a nonprofit organization that works to
preserve, restore, and enhance the historic Charles
River Esplanade, founded in 1997

The finished promenade of grass and concrete walkways was popularly called "the Esplanade," a French word for a flat promenade along a shore. And Esplanade it's been ever since, no matter what the official name.

But this promenade, albeit delightful, was not the water park Eliot and Storrow and others had dreamed of. Where were the people, especially the children? "Only an occasional figure braves the glitter and heat of the sunlight on the unprotected esplanade," said one critic. Where were the boats? It turned out that the new Boston shore actually discouraged boating because the perpendicular seawall made the waves rougher than before. Except for college crews, few boats braved the basin.

Critics came from all ranks. In the summer of 1911 Mayor John Fitzgerald, just returned from a trip to Europe, told a press conference that "the comparison between the popular uses of the Charles River and the Alster Basin is really a shame to Boston."
....
Lots of complaints and suggestions, but no action: this pattern continued for almost two decades and might never have ended without the generosity of Helen Storrow....

Sounds a bit like the Greenway...Eventually the first expansion of the Esplanade (post the dam) occured with Shurtcliff designing

Final legislation, with $2.3 million in state money added to Helen's gft, was passed in May 1929. The City of Boston donated $400,000 to the project....
Landscape architect Arthur Asahel Shurcliff (1870-1957) came up with the perfect design for the Esplanade....Working with MDC Commissioner Davis Keniston, Shurcliff came up with the plans to widen and beautify the Boston shore from the dam at Craigie Bridge (since 1951 the site of the Museum of Science) to the Cottage Farm (BU) Bridge. As with the earlier embankment, the fill for the new land was pumped up from the river's bottom by hydraulic dredges. After the fill--more than 40 acres--had settled, it was loamed, graded, and seeded.....

In the final stage of the project, beginning in the spring of 1934, Shurcliff directed the planting of trees and shrubs, choosing the kinds and positions. Twelve hundred trees were planted--linden, red oak, pin oak, Norway maple, sycamore maple, buttonwood, and willow. More than 12,000 shrubs were arranged in attractive groups; the 24 varieties included forsythia, spirea, honeysuckle, lilac, privet, dogwood, and sumac.

In September 1936 the Storrow Memorial Embankment was for- mally dedicated. Three years later, three 10-foot-tall bronze markers were erected along the Esplanade to formally mark the change in name....Only one of the three markers, easily overlooked, remains today, on David Mugar Way (Embankment Road) near the Arthur Fiedler Bridge.

So things were completely redone by Shurtcliff at the Charlesgate -- this is still pre-Storrow Drive.... although a parkway had been planned from the beginning when there was to be another strip of houselots -- defeated by Beacon Street NIMBYs.

A mere fifteen years after the Esplanade's completion--and five years after Helen Storrow's death--the plan for a highway between the Longfellow and BU Bridges, defeated in 1929 at Helen's insistence, raised its inevitable head again. In an ironic twist, the name that never caught on for the parkland became attached to the roadway that threatened its very existence. Opponents fought fiercely, especially the Storrow Memorial Embankment Protective Association, led by Donald Starr. Mothers Against Storrow Drive, a group of women from Beacon Hill and the West End, marched, babes in arms, into the office of the bachelor governor, Paul Dever....

Even Shurcliff, who initially opposed the highway, became convinced it was necessary. Although they lost the war, the opponents still won a crucial victory: the Legislature voted money to replace what was lost to the highway.

Shurcliff, nearly 80 years old but still active, was again tapped as landscape architect. This time he worked with his son Sidney, who had joined the firm in 1930. Their charge was, in Shurcliff's words, "to more than replace the recreational features lost" to the new road. Most of the additions were made between the Longfellow and Harvard Bridges, the part of the Esplanade most heavily encroached upon by the highway.

...On the western part of the Esplanade, between the Harvard and BU Bridges, a new undulating shoreline replaced the straight one. More trees, shrubs, and grass were planted everywhere.

In some ways the redesigned Esplanade is even more delightful than the original. The long stretch of lagoons and the undulating shore- line gave it a natural, been-here-forever look. What has been lost, of course, is a green and intimate connection to the neighborhoods that border it.

The Esplanade today has changed little from that 1950s redesign, yet it remains a work in progress. New plantings, especially of cherry trees, make it more lush. A fountain commemorating the 100th anniversary of the metropolitan park system spouts merrily in the Dartmouth Street lagoon. Arthur Fiedler's memorial, a massive aluminum head, looks toward the Hatch Shell, completely refurbished in 1991.

When this was written the fountain was running -- however her next text is prescient

But all has not changed for the better. Insufficient staffing and funding--and time--have taken their toll. The Esplanade still charms the eye, of course, but broken benches, rotten wood docks, unpruned trees, and other signs of neglect mar its beauty. The historic granite structures, especially the steps to the water, are in great disrepair and in danger of being lost. Unlike the empty, sunbaked promenade of yesteryear, today's parkland is immensely popular. This intense use brings its own problems.

Our treasured riverside park faces urgent needs, as does the entire basin from the Museum of Science to the Watertown Dam. Hope lies with the MDC's new Charles River Basin Master Plan, three years in the making. The renowned architectural firm of Goody, Clancy & Associates served as lead consultants on the plan, the first comprehensive study since 1928...

Perhaps the other document might have more details -- but it seems as if Shurtcliff probably disconnected the bridge when he redid the banks in the 1950 filling project during / after the completion of Storrow Drive in 1951.

 

[kenmoreResident]

Regarding the Bowker overpass, I know the state is concerned about handling the traffic (esp to the Longwood area) if the Bowker is removed, while most area residents would like to see it gone. The following suggestion would make using the Pike to get to Longwood easier, thus reducing the need to use Storrow to get to Longwood, and thus reducing the need for the Bowker...

In the interest of compromise, with everyone giving up a little, could the following be considered?

* The state replaces the Bowker with surface level streets, with the exception of a new Bowker providing elevated access over the Pike/Ipswich street/RR tracks only.
* The city agrees to make Brookline Ave between Kenmore and the Landmark Center ONE WAY OUTBOUND, allowing for easy access to the Longwood area from a new westbound Mass Pike exit feeding onto a reconnected Newbury Street (onramp placed east of the existing Bowker and connecting Pike traffic to Newbury westbound with no break in Newbury where the Bowker now breaks it)
* The state replaces Newbury resident parking spaces lost due to Pike ramps by agreeing to build steet level, but off-street, Kenmore resident parking, placed either over the existing sunken parking lot a bit east of Kenmore Street, or above the partially sunken large lot that exists behind Hotel Commonwealth. Any extra spaces, beyond resident-only-Newbury-replacement-spaces added to this parking deck could be gifted for the use of the property owner (very valuable during Red Sox games) in lieu of compensation for the air space taken by the parking deck.

I would also propose the following, if there is enough room to do so

* Close the westbound Pike ON-ramp at Mass Av and Newbury (a replacement is described below). This makes it easier to add the westbound Pike OFF-ramp described above to this area.
* As part of the replacement Bowker over the Pike, include a ramp running roughly parallel to and west of Charlesgate E (the small portion of this road south of the Pike). This will allow a connection from the intersection of Fenway/Boylston St, going over the Pike and then down to Newbury street (at an angle allowing a quick merge with westbound Newbury traffic)
* Further down Newbury, somewhere behind the Commonwealth Hotel or before, add an onramp to the Mass Pike westbound (I know space is tight here - enough room for a merge lane via the removal of on street parking?)
* Make the loop around the northern Fens ONE WAY in a counter-clockwise direction. Thus, the small portion of Park Drive that sits between the Bowker to the north and Boylston Street to the south is one way southbound. Traffic coming off of Boylston FROM Longwood must then turn right at Park Drive and head south to Agassiz Rd, then north on Fenway and then up to Boylston, where they can optionally connect to the new Bowker ramp leading down to Newbury street (and from there they can get onto the westbound Pike). Traffic coming off the new Bowker southbound and wanting to head to Boylston inbound would have to head south on Park Drive, cross over at Agassiz Rd, and then head North on Fenway to Boylston. The short section of Boylston between the Bowker and the Fenway would be one way westbound.

What all this does...

Moving the current Mass Ave Pike on-ramp west, toward Kenmore, allows easier on-ramp access to the Pike westbound for traffic from the Longwood area. This traffic would no longer have to go thru the busy Boylston/Mass Ave and Mass Ave/Newbury intersections (and across oncoming traffic in both places) to get to the Pike on-ramp, if the on-ramp is moved west toward Kenmore.

Making the loop around the northern Fens ONE WAY in a counter-clockwise direction allows for a shortened light cycle at the intersection of Boylston and Fenway, allowing more traffic from Longwood to get to the Pike more quickly. Also traffic eastbound from Boylston now has a 'right on red' situation and there is no longer a need (or possibility) to go northbound here, again reducing traffic waits at the Boylston/Park Drive intersection. The Fenway at Westland traffic light and Park Drive at Boylston light could be eliminated I would think. Boylston just below the Bowker, now one way, could be narrowed, and pedestrian/bike access to/from the Fens is improved, as people only have to deal with traffic from one direction, not two.

A one way Brookline Av (Kenmore to the Landmark Center) might make more feasible the possibility of an on-ramp from the Pike inbound onto the now one way Brookline Av. This ramp could be built somewhere in the vicinity of the empty parking lots and Yawkey station in that area; or perhaps incorporated into the design of the new building and parking being built here. RR tracks may have to be shifted but there is some room here to maybe do so, perhaps allowing for a new Pike off-ramp from the eastbound Pike to Longwood via Brookline Av.

Making Brookline Ave one way between Kenmore and the Landmark Center also makes it easy for Longwood bound traffic to get to the hospitals from the new Pike exit described above, without requiring a traffic light at the Brookline Av/Newbury street intersection, as traffic coming off Newbury from the Pike could now have its own Longwood bound merge lane onto Brookline Ave. A one-way Brookline Ave to Landmark would also reduce wait cycles at both the busy Kenmore intersection and Landmark Center intersection due to Brookline Ave traffic only going one way now, not two.

Removal of the Bowker should pay dividends in reduced maintenance costs to the state for this elevated structure.

What is missing from the above: easy access to the Mass Pike inbound from the Longwood area. Perhaps though, the additions of new access (in both directions) FROM the Mass Pike to Longwood, and significantly improved westbound access from Longwood is enough to allow for the removal of most of the current elevated Bowker. Inbound Pike traffic could travel the Pike westbound to the fairly new Pike U-turn ramp out toward Brighton to gain access the Pike inbound.

 

[CSTH]

Regarding the Bowker overpass, I know the state is concerned about handling the traffic (esp to the Longwood area) if the Bowker is removed, while most area residents would like to see it gone. The following suggestion would make using the Pike to get to Longwood easier, thus reducing the need to use Storrow to get to Longwood, and thus reducing the need for the Bowker...

I like it. Some food for thought though - how much easier does this all get if we commit to making the pike 3 lanes + merges in each direction between newton corner and the pru? I drive this everyday and its clear that, because of the very sparse ramps and the bottlenecks on both ends, the extra capacity in this segment is superfluous. If you commit to killing a lane in each direction, you can put ramps wherever the heck you want. Much better to increase access and reduce bandwidth, i think....

 

[Charlie_mta]

I like the idea of restriping the Pike for 3 lanes, which would also allow a breakdown lane along the right side of the roadways.

 

[kenmoreResident]

CSTH: Turning a lane from travel to use as a merge would certainly simplify things as far as adding new access to/from the Pike. At the Pru inbound I think you are suggesting it widens to full length again? I do see it back up at the PRU on a regular basis tho it is probably not due to too few pike lanes, but a bottle neck further in town. I hope the state is considering what you suggest.

 

[Shepard]

Inbound Pike access to the Longwood area could be helped with a BU Bridge area offramp - a straight shot there from Mountfort St to Park Drive to Riverway/Brookline Ave.

 

[Arlington]

I still prefer the version I worked up. It doesn't provide as many roadway lanes, but it does reduce overpass encroachment of the Muddy River.

I like the geometry, but it looks like there's no way to get from the Fenway/Boylston (at left) to Storrow Inbound.

 

[Equilibria]

CSTH: Turning a lane from travel to use as a merge would certainly simplify things as far as adding new access to/from the Pike. At the Pru inbound I think you are suggesting it widens to full length again? I do see it back up at the PRU on a regular basis tho it is probably not due to too few pike lanes, but a bottle neck further in town. I hope the state is considering what you suggest.

I second the bottleneck concern. Also, lots of people on this board want Storrow to go away. We could have a narrowed Pike or the surface Storrow. I don't have the data, but I would expect that you can't feasibly have both.

 

[Ron Newman]

I'd rather remove Storrow and add a lane to the Pike (not by widening it, but by squeezing all the lanes to be narrower and removing shoulders).

Obviously this also requires adding to the Pike at least one westbound exit and eastbound entrance in the Fenway, Kenmore, or Back Bay. It's worth doing even if you have to reduce merge and deceleration distances to near zero.

 

[datadyne007]

I'd rather remove Storrow and add a lane to the Pike (not by widening it, but by squeezing all the lanes to be narrower and removing shoulders).

Obviously this also requires adding to the Pike at least one westbound exit and eastbound entrance in the Fenway, Kenmore, or Back Bay. It's worth doing even if you have to reduce merge and deceleration distances to near zero.

You have the most ridiculously reckless proposals as far as traffic planning. Shoulders should never be removed or used for travel, as we established in the other thread. Suggesting zero merge and deceleration distances is even crazier and more reckless. That is actually what is currently wrong with Storrow at Charlesgate, the ramps are far below safety standard for merging.