Overpasses in and around Boston

N

ngb_anim8

Active Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
242
Reaction score
0
Wasn't sure where else to post this. Forgive me if there is a thread already dedicated to this subject. I found this article really interesting.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...-overpasses/AJM4G6FkiiNOCqb7YaEZZK/story.html

Who knew that 40 years ago MA had a governor that was anti-highway? I found it shocking, yet reassuring that there were plans to put an 8 lane highway system through the Fens, Brookline and Cambridge... and that it was rejected!

I also found it interesting that there is an organization called "Congress for the New Urbanism" - "which promotes a return to the urban design of the prehighway era"

There is hope yet!
 
It's pretty well discussed around here.

Anyway, just in case you thought the 50s attitude was gone:
“It’s not as simple as just remov*ing the overpass,” said Frank DePaola, the Department of Transportation’s highway *administrator. “We’d end up with much worse traffic congestion.”
Click to expand...
Same old, same old.

And apparently, we need to get on Capuano. What the fuck:
Removing the McCarthy could be a mistake, he said, without the long-awaited Green Line extension through Somerville or further widening of Interstate 93.

“If you think people are going to stop driving tomorrow just because you make it more difficult, I guess they haven’t seen the stories of LA, Washington, D.C., and other cities,” Capuano said.
Click to expand...

Is this guy completely clueless? First of all, there are hard numbers measuring traffic decline on the McCarthy overpass. Second, how the hell does he think he's representing his constituents in Somerville by promoting more massive highways blasting through them? And what in the world is he talking about with the examples of LA and DC? Both of those are cities which have either rejected, or started to turn away from the highway-only mode.

Write to him, tell him to get a clue.
 
ngb_anim8 said:
Who knew that 40 years ago MA had a governor that was anti-highway? I found it shocking, yet reassuring that there were plans to put an 8 lane highway system through the Fens, Brookline and Cambridge... and that it was rejected!
Click to expand...

It wasn't rejected in time. The damage had been done. They tore down the entire strip of bldgs/houses between Columbus and Tremont at Rox Xing and also along the (now) Melnea Cass Blvd. That was supposed to be the connector and it's dead obvious even as a surface road.

Refer to this map: http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=144659&postcount=195

Refer to these images of what the SWX would have looked like. (Make sure you're sitting down) http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=144026&postcount=162

and the thread: I-695, Soutwst X-Way, Mystic Valley Prkway, S. End Bypass

I've done extensive research on this topic. Contact me for more info if you would like.
 
Wow... thanks for sharing that info! That is really unbelievable. It's unfortunate that, as you said, it wasn't stopped in time. I still feel like a major bullet was dodged.
 
What DePaola is saying is perfectly reasonable.

It takes time to design infrastructure. Even if an at-grade boulevard could adequately handle the traffic volume, it takes time to design it. In the meantime, you don't want the overpass to fall down. And you can't just eliminate a major arterial route while you spend years designing an at-grade road for ten years without causing major economic disruption and congestion on local streets.

Local residents might want it knocked down this instant, but Capuano isn't a city alderman, he's a Congressman who represents, what, 600k people in the Boston area? It's not in the interests of all of his constituents to eliminate a major arterial roadway.
 
Years designing an at-grade roadway? Really? It's not that hard. I find his excuses to be hollow. Either that, or he's incompetent.

Actually, I've talked to him in person, and others at MassDOT regarding this situation. They will be the first to admit that the road doesn't carry the traffic volumes it used to, or that it was designed originally for. They are just stalling for time, in my opinion. The work they are doing on the bridge will not enhance its load bearing facility: the bridge deck is permanently and irreparably weakened.

It's crazy to think that the only thing protecting us from road pandemonium is a 60 year old rotting overpass. Could designers of the 50s have any idea what the needs of 2012 would be? Of course not. Instead, traffic adapts to the available conditions. And it'll adapt just fine to a neighorhood-friendly surface street.
 
No, and that's probably better off. Since traffic engineering is largely a "scam profession" which tells itself the same old discredited nonsense year in and year out.

You're ignoring my most basic points here: there's no way a planner in the 50s could anticipate what 2012 would be like. So the current conditions are arbitrary and haphazard already. There is no rigorous science behind it.

Another point: the McCarthy Overpass cannot remain. It must either come down or be replaced. Are you going to tell me that a $200-300 million replacement overpass is "easier" to plan?
 
To remove the McCarthy Overpass today, you don't need to build anything at all right now. You can just move the traffic onto the frontage roads that already exist on both sides, parallel to it. Planning for how to do it right (with proper engineering, design, landscaping, etc.) can go on in the meantime.

Ditto for the Bowker Overpass, except for the necessary part that goes over the Pike.
 
Ron Newman said:
To remove the McCarthy Overpass today, you don't need to build anything at all right now. You can just move the traffic onto the frontage roads that already exist on both sides, parallel to it. Planning for how to do it right (with proper engineering, design, landscaping, etc.) can go on in the meantime.

Ditto for the Bowker Overpass, except for the necessary part that goes over the Pike.
Click to expand...

Doing that and leaving barren asphalt and empty columns in the middle would probably STILL be an improvement in traffic flow over keeping the structure. If for no other reason than the Washington intersection would be simplified from that insane split and weaving, there'd be several fewer light cycles around said insane intersection, and there wouldn't be a sudden lane crunch on the NB ramp merge followed by immediate fan-out into a bazillion turn lanes at Medford. Local traffic between Medford and Washington is the problem. The SB structure and the Somerville Ave. intersection are underutilized most hours of the day.
 
Yes, it takes years to design an at-grade major arterial roadway that will replace an existing overpass, in the middle of a dense urban area, along with the work involved in preparing the associated permits, environmental studies, drainage work, utility relocation, landscape design, etc, along with lining up state and federal funding.

As for the rest of what you're saying, you're taking one side of an issue no one is arguing, at least as far as McCarthy is concerned. Yes, traffic volumes are lower, yes, an at-grade boulevard would probably be better both for traffic flow and for the neighborhood, yes, many of these overpasses are no longer necessary, yes, many of them will have to be removed.

But entirely disregarding the impact that removing such a roadway without replacing it would have is silly. If a transit station were a dilapidated eyesore that needed replacement, and served less people than it originally did when it opened (but still served tons of people) I think everyone would agree you wouldn't tear it down without a designed and funded replacement and leave the neighborhood with nothing for ten years. Even I think that and I rarely use transit.

If you think we should do that with roads, that's fine, but it's because you don't care if motorists experience more congestion (or prefer it that way). That's a valid point of view, but pretending it won't impact motorists, commutes, or increase congestion isn't credible.

P.S. Traffic engineers do a whole hell of a lot more than you might think.
 
massmotorist said:
Yes, it takes years to design an at-grade major arterial roadway that will replace an existing overpass, in the middle of a dense urban area, along with the work involved in preparing the associated permits, environmental studies, drainage work, utility relocation, landscape design, etc, along with lining up state and federal funding.

As for the rest of what you're saying, you're taking one side of an issue no one is arguing, at least as far as McCarthy is concerned. Yes, traffic volumes are lower, yes, an at-grade boulevard would probably be better both for traffic flow and for the neighborhood, yes, many of these overpasses are no longer necessary, yes, many of them will have to be removed.

But entirely disregarding the impact that removing such a roadway without replacing it would have is silly. If a transit station were a dilapidated eyesore that needed replacement, and served less people than it originally did when it opened (but still served tons of people) I think everyone would agree you wouldn't tear it down without a designed and funded replacement and leave the neighborhood with nothing for ten years. Even I think that and I rarely use transit.

If you think we should do that with roads, that's fine, but it's because you don't care if motorists experience more congestion (or prefer it that way). That's a valid point of view, but pretending it won't impact motorists, commutes, or increase congestion isn't credible.

P.S. Traffic engineers do a whole hell of a lot more than you might think.
Click to expand...

Uhhh....you're making it sound like these alternatives haven't been studied. They have. A lot. With traffic volume modeling with and without the overpasses.

They made the decision on the Casey overpass because it was time to present the alternatives to the public and set the action plan. Nobody woke up on one side of the bed deciding "Let's blow up an overpass today!"

They're beginning the public meetings on the McCarthy because that too has been studied to death. They're breaching the subject of the Bowker because that's been studied.

I'd be with you on this point if the subject were removing Storrow...that one has not gotten anywhere near the sort of rigorous analysis to consider actionable what-ifs. That is not the case with these others. Or Rutherford Ave., for that matter.

The state is offering these alternatives up. It's not like some citizen insurrection is toppling overpasses left and right.
 
It's one thing to talk about the nuts and bolts of building and operating traffic lights, like in that article. It's a whole other ballgame to talk about planning and designing roadways to increase the amount of traffic coming to an area. The guy in that article is so focused on the machinery that the only mention of a person walking is the "jaywalker" who interfered with their joyride.

The traffic engineering profession has shown over the last half century that they do not have any regard for the community in which they do their work. That's why there were freeway revolts here in the 70s. That's why they are required to do community meetings now. It's not because community members have some special acumen for engineering. It's because the engineers seem to operate in a social vacuum where they are obsessed with making their designs work, without any regard for their effect on people not driving in cars. The public meetings are far from perfect, but we don't know of a better way.

What I'm saying here is that "The Emperor has no clothes" and it's kind of ridiculous to ask me if I'm a licensed Emperor.

As for McCarthy public meetings, I'll note that the one that was held over the summer was done at the last second. Frank stood up with the contractor and said that he's just waiting for the notice to proceed. The only reason the meeting happened at all is because STEP intervened. That's why I'm already suspicious of their motives.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Uhhh....you're making it sound like these alternatives haven't been studied. They have. A lot. With traffic volume modeling with and without the overpasses.

They made the decision on the Casey overpass because it was time to present the alternatives to the public and set the action plan. Nobody woke up on one side of the bed deciding "Let's blow up an overpass today!"

They're beginning the public meetings on the McCarthy because that too has been studied to death. They're breaching the subject of the Bowker because that's been studied.

I'd be with you on this point if the subject were removing Storrow...that one has not gotten anywhere near the sort of rigorous analysis to consider actionable what-ifs. That is not the case with these others. Or Rutherford Ave., for that matter.

The state is offering these alternatives up. It's not like some citizen insurrection is toppling overpasses left and right.
Click to expand...

Huh? Nothing I said argued against replacing the overpass with a boulevard. I was just saying you can't tear it down and replace it with no road at all for ten years, as some are advocating here. Have they modeled such an alternative? If so, I can't find it. My guess is it wouldn't be pretty.
 
I was just saying you can't tear it down and replace it with no road at all for ten years, as some are advocating here.
Click to expand...
Nobody is advocating that here, I think you're misunderstanding.
 
Matthew said:
Nobody is advocating that here, I think you're misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

The MassDOT people were saying we need to shore the existing overpass up to prevent imminent collapse. In the meantime they'd work on the planning, funding, and design for a new at-grade road.

The alternatives are: 1) Tear it down now and go ten years without a replacement while the replacement is planned, designed, and funded, or 2) Continue use as an active roadway until the structure collapses.

I assume people are generally against the structural collapse of actively-used infrastructure. So what's your alternative to MassDOT's plan?
 
As Ron said:

To remove the McCarthy Overpass today, you don't need to build anything at all right now. You can just move the traffic onto the frontage roads that already exist on both sides, parallel to it. Planning for how to do it right (with proper engineering, design, landscaping, etc.) can go on in the meantime.
Click to expand...

Also the alternatives are more complicated than that. They could post weight restrictions on the bridge. That's what was offered by MassDOT. In addition, an independent engineer looked through their data and determined that the work that they are doing will shore up only one aspect of the bridge, but will not do anything for the other weak components.
 
More about the repair:
An independent mechanical engineer, Stephen Kaiser, performed a review of the same data that MassDOT engineers had assembled. He found that currently the bridge deck slab is only capable of supporting a 15-ton two-axle truck. However, the slab is not up for repairs this time around, and only one section is worse off than that. He proposed a moderate solution of repairing only the one bad section and saving the rest of the money and time, while accelerating the boulevard plan. The other major point he brought up is that the estimated per-ton-year cost of repairing the bridge ($450,000) was over twice as large as replacing the bridge ($175,000), and about 20 times higher than doing minimal repairs and demolishing the rest ($23,000). Repair is simply an astonishing waste of money.
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone have the usage statistics on the McGrath vs the section of Comm Ave they just rebuilt through BU?
 
But you don't need to replace the overpass, because the parallel surface roads already exist and go the exact same direction.

If we were talking about the McGrath Highway overpasses above railroad tracks, I'd agree with you, those can't be just closed off and they need to be continuously maintained. But the McCarthy bridges over things that don't need bridging over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top