Bowker Overpass replacement?

[cubbe8]

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.

Or just use the Charlesgate bridge.

 

[Equilibria]

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.

I agree that a single bridge should have been considered, and perhaps it was and rejected.

We'll never agree about whether DOTs should be in the business of sabotaging transportation, so I'll leave that here.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I agree that a single bridge should have been considered, and perhaps it was and rejected.

We'll never agree about whether DOTs should be in the business of sabotaging transportation, so I'll leave that here.

Not sabotage transportation, but balance the resources. In the urban core, balance historic park resource versus traffic capacity resource. That's really what it boils down to. Assign weight to resources based on a value system. What is Boston's value system? Does Boston's value system place more weight on maximizing traffic capacity, or restoring a historic park and river? I would vote for the latter.

 

[Equilibria]

Not sabotage transportation, but balance the resources. In the urban core, balance historic park resource versus traffic capacity resource. That's really what it boils down to. Assign weight to resources based on a value system. What is Boston's value system? Does Boston's value system place more weight on maximizing traffic capacity, or restoring a historic park and river? I would vote for the latter.

A different way to look at this: This particular historic park and river system is pretty long. Boston has already (rightly) valued maintaining it over highways when I-695 was proposed to replace it. It did so again when the Muddy was daylighted and restored in front of the Landmark Center. The Back Bay Fens are a pretty nice park, including the Liberty Garden, athletic fields, and the grounds of the MFA. The Emerald Necklace as a system is heavily promoted and maintained. The other park system at play here, the Commonwealth Avenue Mall, is also prioritized from Mass Ave to the Public Garden. This project improves both - the case against it is that on this specific segment that also provides critical access to Fenway Park, the Prudential Center, Northeastern University, and the Longwood Medical Area, MassDOT didn't prioritize park 100% and access 0%.

I don't think you're advocating balance, I think you're advocating imbalance.

 

[Teban54]

that also provides critical access to Fenway Park, the Prudential Center, Northeastern University, and the Longwood Medical Area

Laughs in the Green Line

 

[Equilibria]

A different way to look at this: This particular historic park and river system is pretty long. Boston has already (rightly) valued maintaining it over highways when I-695 was proposed to replace it. It did so again when the Muddy was daylighted and restored in front of the Landmark Center. The Back Bay Fens are a pretty nice park, including the Liberty Garden, athletic fields, and the grounds of the MFA. The Emerald Necklace as a system is heavily promoted and maintained. The other park system at play here, the Commonwealth Avenue Mall, is also prioritized from Mass Ave to the Public Garden. This project improves both - the case against it is that on this specific segment that also provides critical access to Fenway Park, the Prudential Center, Northeastern University, and the Longwood Medical Area, MassDOT didn't prioritize park 100% and access 0%.

I don't think you're advocating balance, I think you're advocating imbalance.

Critical access doesn't mean it's the only critical access. The Green Line is pretty packed in this area, and of course it only goes where its tracks (and the tracks of the lines it connects to) go.

Also, I hadn't realized they have ambulance cars on the Green Line now.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

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.

These are all compelling arguments, but it feels like any proposal to remove the bridge has to come up with solutions to a few questions:

1. As @Equilibria pointed out (albeit in a sideways way), this is a major way ambulances rapidly access the Longwood Medical Area coming from Harvard Square and points northwest. How do you assure adequate alternate routes?
2. Related, if you nix this Storrow<>Fenway/Jamaicaway/Mass. Ave. connection, wouldn't you wind up putting unbearable pressure on the little on/off-ramp next to BU Academy, on the BU Bridge rotary on Mem Drive, on the Pike's Allston and Back Bay ramps, and on the Mountfort St./Park Drive corridor?

It really feels like you can't snip this link without a lot more work to promote mode shift elsewhere in the system, but I admit I don't have a lot of numbers to quantify that.


Unrelated to the above: This spot is going to get people maimed and killed on the daily.

In plan view, you really get the full effect of just how long the off-ramp straightaway is -- just begging our insane drivers to maintain or increase speed as they head towards a crosswalk. This, on what's effectively a highway, and where the typical speed every time I'm on this stretch outside of a traffic jam (example: at night, when visibility is worse) is around 45 mph. Put a couple speed tables in there, for pete's sake.

 

[king_vibe]

Critical access doesn't mean it's the only critical access. The Green Line is pretty packed in this area, and of course it only goes where its tracks (and the tracks of the lines it connects to) go.

Also, I hadn't realized they have ambulance cars on the Green Line now.

How many dedicated ambulance lanes are there on the Bowker?

 

[chrisbrat]

I like your post and your many good points, AW. "Maimed and killed on the daily" is perhaps stretching the tensile strength of hyperbole, though.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

Fair, but this feels a lot like the "crosswalk of death" underneath I-93 in Somerville...just with a lot more space for cars to get up to speed. How's "maimed and killed yearly"?

 

[cden4]

Assuming what we see here is built, the one big problem I see is the multi-use path connections at Boylston St.

1) Making bikes and peds share all those crosswalks will not work. The pedestrian volumes are very high, particularly before and after Fenway Park games/events. Bikes do not mix in such high ped volumes.
2) That crossing on the north side with the zig-zag SUCKS. That will not work for bikes.
3) It is a bad assumption that all bikes will use the multi-use path on the south side of Bolyston St. That path also has very high volumes of pedestrians and connects very poorly to Boylston St at either end. There really needs to be separate bicycle facilities on Boylston St through this stretch.

 

[king_vibe]

Assuming what we see here is built, the one big problem I see is the multi-use path connections at Boylston St.

1) Making bikes and peds share all those crosswalks will not work. The pedestrian volumes are very high, particularly before and after Fenway Park games/events. Bikes do not mix in such high ped volumes.
2) That crossing on the north side with the zig-zag SUCKS. That will not work for bikes.
3) It is a bad assumption that all bikes will use the multi-use path on the south side of Bolyston St. That path also has very high volumes of pedestrians and connects very poorly to Boylston St at either end. There really needs to be separate bicycle facilities on Boylston St through this stretch.

Don’t worry, all this stuff is getting VE’d out.

 

[ritchiew]

These are all compelling arguments, but it feels like any proposal to remove the bridge has to come up with solutions to a few questions:

Sure. But some of the questions and replies here have been kind of confusing, so let me just be really clear what I mean here by "getting rid of the Bowker Overpass."

In the simplest form, Storrow could still connect to Charlesgate East and West. There should still be ramps from the Fens, over the highway, and down to Commonwealth. The Bowker Overpass I want removed is the elevated road that starts above the Pike and runs directly to Storrow. For an example of what this could look like, the research from Northeastern analyzed this proposal

The details on those slides are sparse and I'm looking for the real paper, but they say the surface streets alone can work to carry the traffic that currently goes over the Bowker Overpass. Doing that still allows cars to get through. They'll just have to go on surface streets. And that will open up, I don't know, 4-5 acres of park space.

So it is that elevated span from the Pike to Storrow that I think can and should be demolished. The couple of projects MassDOT is planning only really connect to the ends of that span. But I dislike their plans because they ensure that we'll keep that elevated part that ought to go.

So with all that in mind, here are some answers to your questions:

As @Equilibria pointed out (albeit in a sideways way), this is a major way ambulances rapidly access the Longwood Medical Area coming from Harvard Square and points northwest. How do you assure adequate alternate routes?

Ambulances can take the surface streets, Charlesgate East or West. Cars might block an ambulance there, but that's also true on the current Bowker. On the surface streets you could have a 12ft bike lane that emergency vehicles can also use. Bikers can and do get out of the way of ambulances.

Related, if you nix this Storrow<>Fenway/Jamaicaway/Mass. Ave. connection, wouldn't you wind up putting unbearable pressure on the little on/off-ramp next to BU Academy, on the BU Bridge rotary on Mem Drive, on the Pike's Allston and Back Bay ramps, and on the Mountfort St./Park Drive corridor?

Again, the surface streets can allegedly handle all the existing Bowker traffic, says the Northeastern researchers. So this wouldn't dump all the Bowker traffic onto other exits. The researchers might be wrong, I really don't know. But the surface streets would still carry some chunk of the traffic. And the question would still come back to whether the added benefit of the overpass is worth the cost.

It really feels like you can't snip this link without a lot more work to promote mode shift elsewhere in the system, but I admit I don't have a lot of numbers to quantify that.

Yeah, I have no idea how to rigorously quantify that. But assuming the researchers are wrong, for the sake of argument, really roughly that might mean that thousands of fewer cars can make it though Charlesgate per day. However, shifting that number of people to public transit would require the most marginal of improvements at the MBTA. Every day ridership on the MBTA is over 700,00 across all modes. Pre-Covid, it was over 1.2 million. Just looking at the Green Line, since that passes under the Bowker, that used to carry many 10s of thousands more riders every day. If Longwood is an important destination for Bowker traffic, you can look at all those bus lines that each used to carry 100s or 1000s more people every day. We know how to move more people on public transit. This year the T carried more people than last year. Next year is hopefully better. And as it improves, carrying around an extra several thousand people per day is really a drop in the bucket.

This spot is going to get people maimed and killed on the daily.

omg omg omg. I know, right? I mean, most likely people won't get hurt because people will see it's not safe. It will be obvious that it's a joke crosswalk, and it won't get used. Which is cruel in it's own way.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

Thanks! I'll be eager to read the paper with the details if you are able to find it.

 

[Equilibria]

Sure. But some of the questions and replies here have been kind of confusing, so let me just be really clear what I mean here by "getting rid of the Bowker Overpass."

In the simplest form, Storrow could still connect to Charlesgate East and West. There should still be ramps from the Fens, over the highway, and down to Commonwealth. The Bowker Overpass I want removed is the elevated road that starts above the Pike and runs directly to Storrow. For an example of what this could look like, the research from Northeastern analyzed this proposal
View attachment 44165
The details on those slides are sparse and I'm looking for the real paper, but they say the surface streets alone can work to carry the traffic that currently goes over the Bowker Overpass. Doing that still allows cars to get through. They'll just have to go on surface streets. And that will open up, I don't know, 4-5 acres of park space.

So it is that elevated span from the Pike to Storrow that I think can and should be demolished. The couple of projects MassDOT is planning only really connect to the ends of that span. But I dislike their plans because they ensure that we'll keep that elevated part that ought to go.

So with all that in mind, here are some answers to your questions:

Ambulances can take the surface streets, Charlesgate East or West. Cars might block an ambulance there, but that's also true on the current Bowker. On the surface streets you could have a 12ft bike lane that emergency vehicles can also use. Bikers can and do get out of the way of ambulances.

Again, the surface streets can allegedly handle all the existing Bowker traffic, says the Northeastern researchers. So this wouldn't dump all the Bowker traffic onto other exits. The researchers might be wrong, I really don't know. But the surface streets would still carry some chunk of the traffic. And the question would still come back to whether the added benefit of the overpass is worth the cost.

Yeah, I have no idea how to rigorously quantify that. But assuming the researchers are wrong, for the sake of argument, really roughly that might mean that thousands of fewer cars can make it though Charlesgate per day. However, shifting that number of people to public transit would require the most marginal of improvements at the MBTA. Every day ridership on the MBTA is over 700,00 across all modes. Pre-Covid, it was over 1.2 million. Just looking at the Green Line, since that passes under the Bowker, that used to carry many 10s of thousands more riders every day. If Longwood is an important destination for Bowker traffic, you can look at all those bus lines that each used to carry 100s or 1000s more people every day. We know how to move more people on public transit. This year the T carried more people than last year. Next year is hopefully better. And as it improves, carrying around an extra several thousand people per day is really a drop in the bucket.


omg omg omg. I know, right? I mean, most likely people won't get hurt because people will see it's not safe. It will be obvious that it's a joke crosswalk, and it won't get used. Which is cruel in it's own way.

Looking at that, I see surface streets that are 3-4 lanes wide on both sides of the Muddy River, and if they can handle the traffic, they'll be handling the traffic. That means they'll be like Mass Ave after it crosses the river - hostile to cross, congested, and loud. Contrast that with MassDOT's plan, which has pretty minimal roads fronting both open river parcels on both the east and west sides. Those parks will be way more pleasant and easy to access under the MassDOT plan than they would under the Northeastern plan.

 

[king_vibe]

Looking at that, I see surface streets that are 3-4 lanes wide on both sides of the Muddy River, and if they can handle the traffic, they'll be handling the traffic. That means they'll be like Mass Ave after it crosses the river - hostile to cross, congested, and loud. Contrast that with MassDOT's plan, which has pretty minimal roads fronting both open river parcels on both the east and west sides. Those parks will be way more pleasant and easy to access under the MassDOT plan than they would under the Northeastern plan.

They'll be completely cut off by traffic, unenjoyable, extremely loud, and poisonous for all breathing creatures.

 

[grand_junction]

Looking at that, I see surface streets that are 3-4 lanes wide on both sides of the Muddy River, and if they can handle the traffic, they'll be handling the traffic. That means they'll be like Mass Ave after it crosses the river - hostile to cross, congested, and loud. Contrast that with MassDOT's plan, which has pretty minimal roads fronting both open river parcels on both the east and west sides. Those parks will be way more pleasant and easy to access under the MassDOT plan than they would under the Northeastern plan.

I think this is a fair critique. That being said, building this as an overpass locks us into having an overpass on that section for decades. A surface road can be calmed, lane reduced, or eliminated entirely in the future without heavy construction, in contrast to an overpass.

If Boston is serious about reducing its car dependency, building a new overpass that will last another 5-6 decades is a step backwards. Building a surface road opens up far more possibilities for reduced car traffic.

 

[ritchiew]

Looking at that, I see surface streets that are 3-4 lanes wide on both sides of the Muddy River,

Yeah, this is part of why I'm really trying to find the actual paper and figure out their actual details. Their drawing isn't very clear for lanes. On the slides they say Charlesgate East and West would have to be expanded to three lanes, but Charlesgate West is already three lanes (East is only two). So I'd like to see their exact traffic analysis. But even if both of those surface streets need an extra lane under this plan, you still then take down the four lanes of the overpass. This is a net reduction of car lanes, and the remainder would allegedly carry the same amount of traffic. And the lanes that would be taken down are the ones that are by far the most disruptive to people on ground, because they cut straight through middle of the park.

That means they'll be like Mass Ave after it crosses the river - hostile to cross, congested, and loud.

Well, that's what the traffic analysis is for. These researchers are saying it won't be congested. The surface streets can handle current traffic without affecting their Level of Service. I know we can't really argue the merits of their analysis without the details, but that is what the Northeastern researchers say. And they took pedestrian crossings into consideration. People will get through.

You're right that having pedestrians cross four lanes of traffic rather than three is worse. But that seems really minor compared to benefits of getting Charlesgate Park back.

But I'm not sure I really understand your comparison to Mass Ave. I mean, I agree that Mass Ave. could be more pedestrian friendly in places, but also, it's full of pedestrians. People walk along it, people cross the street. The whole city is full of four lane roads pedestrians have to cross. It would be better if there weren't, but people manage. I wish Charlesgate Park had as many people in it as you usually see walking along Mass Ave.

Those parks will be way more pleasant and easy to access under the MassDOT

I guess we're going to disagree, but I don't think there's really a functional park so long as the overpass is there. The overpass is unpleasant and there's precious little space in there you'd want to actually sit and hang out in. There are some plan for bike and pedestrian paths to connect the Fens to the Esplanade, and that's an improvement, but that's just to get people through. There still isn't going to be a park to stop at.

I think this is a fair critique. That being said, building this as an overpass locks us into having an overpass on that section for decades. A surface road can be calmed, lane reduced, or eliminated entirely in the future without heavy construction, in contrast to an overpass.

If Boston is serious about reducing its car dependency, building a new overpass that will last another 5-6 decades is a step backwards. Building a surface road opens up far more possibilities for reduced car traffic.

Absolutely, that's a key point. And along that thought, I point to that Northeastern study just to show that even if we absolutely require current traffic levels through Charlesgate Park, we can do it without the overpass. Calming or reducing the surface roads, or cutting the connection to Storrow could all be good ideas, and I'd be in favor. But even without doing any of that, we can make this space so much better while still being almost totally accommodating to drivers.

 

[CBCArch61]

Sure. But some of the questions and replies here have been kind of confusing, so let me just be really clear what I mean here by "getting rid of the Bowker Overpass."

In the simplest form, Storrow could still connect to Charlesgate East and West. There should still be ramps from the Fens, over the highway, and down to Commonwealth. The Bowker Overpass I want removed is the elevated road that starts above the Pike and runs directly to Storrow. For an example of what this could look like, the research from Northeastern analyzed this proposal
View attachment 44165
The details on those slides are sparse and I'm looking for the real paper, but they say the surface streets alone can work to carry the traffic that currently goes over the Bowker Overpass. Doing that still allows cars to get through. They'll just have to go on surface streets. And that will open up, I don't know, 4-5 acres of park space.

So it is that elevated span from the Pike to Storrow that I think can and should be demolished. The couple of projects MassDOT is planning only really connect to the ends of that span. But I dislike their plans because they ensure that we'll keep that elevated part that ought to go.

So with all that in mind, here are some answers to your questions:

Ambulances can take the surface streets, Charlesgate East or West. Cars might block an ambulance there, but that's also true on the current Bowker. On the surface streets you could have a 12ft bike lane that emergency vehicles can also use. Bikers can and do get out of the way of ambulances.

Again, the surface streets can allegedly handle all the existing Bowker traffic, says the Northeastern researchers. So this wouldn't dump all the Bowker traffic onto other exits. The researchers might be wrong, I really don't know. But the surface streets would still carry some chunk of the traffic. And the question would still come back to whether the added benefit of the overpass is worth the cost.

Yeah, I have no idea how to rigorously quantify that. But assuming the researchers are wrong, for the sake of argument, really roughly that might mean that thousands of fewer cars can make it though Charlesgate per day. However, shifting that number of people to public transit would require the most marginal of improvements at the MBTA. Every day ridership on the MBTA is over 700,00 across all modes. Pre-Covid, it was over 1.2 million. Just looking at the Green Line, since that passes under the Bowker, that used to carry many 10s of thousands more riders every day. If Longwood is an important destination for Bowker traffic, you can look at all those bus lines that each used to carry 100s or 1000s more people every day. We know how to move more people on public transit. This year the T carried more people than last year. Next year is hopefully better. And as it improves, carrying around an extra several thousand people per day is really a drop in the bucket.


omg omg omg. I know, right? I mean, most likely people won't get hurt because people will see it's not safe. It will be obvious that it's a joke crosswalk, and it won't get used. Which is cruel in it's own way.

Thanks for sharing.

This solution would be such a clean solution. In reality, this still shows remnants of the Bowker overpass at the Back Bay Fens intersection. Just let Boylston Street meander over to Mass Ave and let that be the primary eastern connection to Storrow. I don't think the Turnpike needs on/off here either which would allow for such a Boylston re-alignment.

This could've been a cheaper/easier Big Dig type project. With the added benefit of no tunnel digging haha.

Unrelated to the above: This spot is going to get people maimed and killed on the daily.

View attachment 44155

In plan view, you really get the full effect of just how long the off-ramp straightaway is -- just begging our insane drivers to maintain or increase speed as they head towards a crosswalk. This, on what's effectively a highway, and where the typical speed every time I'm on this stretch outside of a traffic jam (example: at night, when visibility is worse) is around 45 mph. Put a couple speed tables in there, for pete's sake.

View attachment 44157

Ab-so-fucking-lutely!! That crosswalk would be such a black mark on the city. Honestly the ONLY thing that could even make that somewhat plateable is if they signalized the crosswalk so that traffic would be required to stop. Whether it is a full-on traffic signal or maybe a HAWK signal and equip it with red light type cameras to enforce lunatics. It will be the only way to hold any form of vehicle/driver accountable.

 

[FK4]

These are all compelling arguments, but it feels like any proposal to remove the bridge has to come up with solutions to a few questions:

1. As @Equilibria pointed out (albeit in a sideways way), this is a major way ambulances rapidly access the Longwood Medical Area coming from Harvard Square and points northwest. How do you assure adequate alternate routes?
2. Related, if you nix this Storrow<>Fenway/Jamaicaway/Mass. Ave. connection, wouldn't you wind up putting unbearable pressure on the little on/off-ramp next to BU Academy, on the BU Bridge rotary on Mem Drive, on the Pike's Allston and Back Bay ramps, and on the Mountfort St./Park Drive corridor?

It really feels like you can't snip this link without a lot more work to promote mode shift elsewhere in the system, but I admit I don't have a lot of numbers to quantify that.


Unrelated to the above: This spot is going to get people maimed and killed on the daily.

View attachment 44155

In plan view, you really get the full effect of just how long the off-ramp straightaway is -- just begging our insane drivers to maintain or increase speed as they head towards a crosswalk. This, on what's effectively a highway, and where the typical speed every time I'm on this stretch outside of a traffic jam (example: at night, when visibility is worse) is around 45 mph. Put a couple speed tables in there, for pete's sake.

View attachment 44157

That does seem insanely dangerous.