Casey Overpass

I'm getting tired of the arguments from the crowd who wanted to keep the bridge (let's move on, please!). Currently the overpass is only one lane in each direction - the volume of traffic isn't really that much. I do agree that 6/7 lanes is a bit much - but I don't think reducing to 4 will produce the kind of gridlock/pollution(??) that this group keeps claiming.

Here is area as it existed before the overpass was built. the upper left hand corner you can see a swath double lanes separated by an expanse of tree-line parkland. This mess handled roughly the SAME amount of cars as currently go through the area. People at that time didn't even think there was a need for the overpass (no complaints about gridlock or traffic - there was an editorial in the globe how this was not needed) - but it was built in anticipation that the southwest corridor highway was going to go through there.

You can see how drastically different the area is now. along the arboretum, what is now 203 (and 4 lanes of separated road) used to be 2 lanes (or maybe just one lane with parking on one side?) - and the north side of that linear park was lined by houses. and you can also see a dense "urban" center at the actual train station (and how south/washington street used to tunnel under the train tracks).
 
Mass Historical Commission is apparently assuming the NIMBYs' cause... delay, delay, delay. If this forces DOT to review the design to come up with a better design for urbanism then fine, but they had better not push this project past the deadline and lose the federal funding... also, am I missing something or is there actually a good reason for the MHC to have their hands in this project?
 
The MHC loves to throw a wrench in projects in order to preserve the "historic" 1950s curblines of parkways that encourage fast traffic and dangerous conditions for everyone else. Why they do this, I have no idea...

See: http://www.wickedlocal.com/stoneham...ical-commission-rejected-traffic-improvements

And throw in that they don't do phone calls or emails and will often just ignore people altogether, they sound like a group of really wonderful people.

See: http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org...res/2012/Winter/003-Historical-roadblock.aspx
 
As per the article they are taking issue with turning shea circle into a signalized intersection, not with tearing downthe overpass. I kind of agree, I would rather see the rotary reworked into an european roundabout instead of a traffic light.
 
Who is "shut down?"

He said he was tired of endless arguments. Or are you claiming that he should be censored from saying his feelings about the discussion? (See how silly this gets?)

For the record, there is no "keeping the bridge." The current bridge has to come down; that was happening regardless. The old debate was about whether to build a new overpass in its place. The decision has been made to not do that.
 
JonFrum said:
Someone disagrees with you, so they should be shut down? Nice guy!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's as if we have to stop complaining about something just because public comment is over and the community has already reached a consensus. WHAT IS THIS COMMUNIST RUSSIA!?!?!?!11111
 
davem said:
As per the article they are taking issue with turning shea circle into a signalized intersection, not with tearing downthe overpass. I kind of agree, I would rather see the rotary reworked into an european roundabout instead of a traffic light.
Click to expand...


roundabouts are often dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists - I'd rather see a regular intersection there just because it's safer.

I'm not sure why the circle is on the national registrar other than it's vaguely reminiscent of the olmstead design. maybe massDOT can go the other route and turn it back into bridle paths and carriage lanes, restricting it to horse, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic only - just like the original design.
 
Rotaries are hard because they're less pedestrian friendly than a signalized intersection. You either force the pedestrian to walk around the circumference of the rotary, crossing busy streets multiple times, build a ped-bridge, or signalize the rotary to allow for pedestrian crossings. The last option defeats the whole purpose of a rotary because pedestrians can bring the whole traffic circle to a grinding halt. It barely works at Powderhouse in Somerville, and that rotary probably doesn't see as much traffic as this hypothetical Casey Rotary would.
 
Single lane roundabouts can work well for pedestrians.

Double lane roundabouts are hellish for everyone.

Guess which kind our state builds too many of?
 
^The roundabout in Hyde Square is pedestrian friendly probably because it is a single lane.
 
Hyde Square is manageable but the entries and exits are too wide. They are way bigger than just 1 lane. That opens up the possibility of being double-threatened by an impatient driver. Typical thoughtless 1970s style road building.

Compare Hyde Square to a randomly chosen roundabout in Holland. In the satellite view of Hyde Square you can even see two cars driving side-by-side: just the sort of situation that the Dutch design avoids.

(NB: I'm not a fan of having the bicycle lanes inside the roundabout; looks like they were experimenting with something there. Better off mixed.)
 
Wait a minute - there's no shea circle in the original 1890s plan. it looks an awful lot like two streets crossing. MassDOT can just point to this plan and say their design is closer to the original. MHC has very little standing here.

and isn't shea circle from the 1950s?
 
Matthew said:
Hyde Square is manageable but the entries and exits are too wide. They are way bigger than just 1 lane. That opens up the possibility of being double-threatened by an impatient driver. Typical thoughtless 1970s style road building.
Click to expand...

I'd say you're half right; the intersection at day street is a two way street and the intersection at Perkins is less pedestrian friendly. However, the other two sides are fine and I'm never rushed by cars when I have to cross the street.
 
MHC is involved because "Shea Circle is listed as a contributing feature of the Morton Street Historic District". Nothing to do with Olmstead or the the Emerald Necklace System.

It's wonderfully ironic that whoever set up the Morton St Historic District never gave a thought to the fact that Shea Circle (built in the 20's or 30's) and the changing of Morton St in to a 4 lane roadway was the first step into breaking Franklin Park off from the rest of the Emerald Necklace.

The Casey Overpass , 1951, was the second step that effectively stopped the Arborway 1/2 mile from Franklin Park.
 
I think I'm leaning toward the surface road myself. However, I don't think a boulevard is that much more pedestrian friendly than an overpass.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
I think I'm leaning toward the surface road myself. However, I don't think a boulevard is that much more pedestrian friendly than an overpass.
Click to expand...

How could it not be? The overpass is a massive visual barrier when traveling north/south and takes up way too much land that could otherwise be developed to unite Forest Hills with the rest of JP. Eliminate the overpass, allow for TOD around the station and - voila - a much, much more pedestrian-friendly environment to bridge the areas that have long been separated by that ugly monstrosity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top