Hey, there! Log in / Register
Giant hulking monstrosity in Forest Hills to be taken out and shot
By adamg on Fri, 09/24/2010 - 12:31pm
The Overpass is slated for replacement in 2012, the Jamaica Plain Gazette reports.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Finally! Have you been over
Finally! Have you been over that thing recently? It's a disgrace.
Wow, just going by how long
Wow, just going by how long the Dedham Circle project has taken, I'm guessing this will be done around 2016. Fortunately, I don't need to use this overpass much or probably ever, but that's going to make a mess of things on New Washington Street.
architectural rendering
...with room for separate bike lanes, pedestrian path and garden.
Tear it down
The Casey Overpass is a relic of the 1950's mindset of speedy auto access everywhere and at odds with today's livable communities mindset. It's an eyesore, it divides the neighborhood, and it doesn't carry enough traffic to justify repairs much less replacement. The intersections of Washington & New Washington and South St. & New Washington are a nightmare for pedestrians and bicyclists and fairly harrowing for cars as well (especially if turning left). These intersections cannot be re-engineered with the supports of the overpass in the way and their poor design leads to unnecessary backups on the roads. I believe that the bridge should be removed permanently, restoring the Arborway as a surface road and even making it a parkway again with plantings and landscaping. There's enough space for a 4-lane road with turn lanes plus wider sidewalks and a bike path extension. Better designed intersections will reduce traffic backups. And it would save money in that the Casey Overpass need never be maintained nor replaced again in the future.
So you want to funnel all the
So you want to funnel all the Arborway traffic through Forest Hills across Washington street? And that will make things better?
This is why we have grown-ups running things.
Only childish minds make
Only childish minds make comments like your last sentence.
As a "grown up" who works as an urban designer for a living I absolutely agree with the previous poster. The entire ______way connects its major and minor cross streets at grade--American Legion Highway, Centre Street, Longwood, etc. Why does it need to be a superhighway for this stretch? It is a nightmare urbanistically speaking and totally throws a wrench to the city beneath, not to mention it encourages a highway mindset and conditions drivers to speed along even as the roadway moves into a highly residential corridor.
Cities around the world are waking up to the fact that these dated pieces of roadway infrastructure cause as many or more problems as they solve, and funny enough Boston is their inspiration for this.
Mr. Menino, tear down this wall!
Nitpicky comment
The Fenriverjamaica203mortonway does not cross ALH at grade:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&g...
nitpicky but dead on-- i
nitpicky but dead on-- i guess in my mind i confused the ramps meeting as the intersection with the road.
but I think my point is still valid-- the tenor of that interchange is much more parkway than elevated highway
Yeah, you're right
Something about a road that's in the woods versus in an area that's starting to border on sprawl.
Forest Hills could feel more parkwayish if the intersections were redone so it was clear where TF the lanes are (less honking and yelling), had more foliage, didn't immediately dump out onto a strip of gray industrial crapola on Washington St in JP.
I'd be all for redoing that section of Washington Street, rehousing the businesses in buildings and lot layouts that work better for a walkable urban neighborhood and putting in some affordable housing.
Really, which would you rather walk past? Factories that belong on an urban street:
or the chainlink fences and parking lots and decrepit industrial buildings there now?
Urban design: buildings at sidewalk, parking (and garage entrance into building if needed) is behind the buildings accessed from alleys.
Suburban sprawl design: parking lots in front of buildings, cars turning everywhere.
The MBTA bus lot area would be much friendlier and more walkable if they put a brick or similarly attractive building along the sidewalk (for their use and/or others) and had the buses behind it.
Yes, for the reasons noted
Yes, for the reasons noted above:
a) much of the backups at New Washington street are caused by poor intersection design where cars going straight get stuck behind cars trying to turn left as well as cars that get stuck in the intersection after the light turns red. These intersections cannot be re-engineered with the crumbling bridge supports blocking the way.
b) there isn't such a huge amount of traffic on the bridge that couldn't be handled by a well-designed surface road
c) once the bridge is removed and capacity is dropped fewer people will try to drive through the area, a phenomenon demonstrated many times such as when the road through Washington Square Park in Manhattan was removed or when the Embarcadero elevated freeway was not replaced after an earthquake in San Francisco. It's kind of the opposite of "If you build it they will come."
By the way, as for your "This is why we have grown-ups running things" comment you should realize that I know you in real life from the JPHS. I doubt you would insult me like this if we were face-to-face so don't let the presumed anonymity of the internet prevent you from practicing courteous discourse.
A truly resplendent illustration of a much-loved theory:
A truly resplendent illustration of a much-loved theory:
So you think the cars that
So you think the cars that drive the overpass will magically go away? People will just decide to sell their SUVs and by bicycles because the overpass was taken down? What exactly is the problem with the overpass - it works. Just like the Orange Line works. The original Arborway with its horse carriage roads is not coming back any time soon.
As moving traffic - yes, if you make people's lives miserable, they will find another road to drive on. Which does not solve a traffic problem - it just moves it. Do you want those displaced cars driving on your street?
If you know me, we can talk about it any time. Don't be shy - and trust that I'll tell you the same thing.
I really hope they use the jackhammer in the middle of the night
Oh? You mean the Little Big Dig. Glad to hear the work continues... and continues... and continues. My favorite part is when they use the jackhammer in the middle of the night, right next to my window. They do it in the summer when everyone's windows are open. It's the most municipal fun I've ever had!
Wasn't it fixed up in the late 1980s or early 90s??
It has not been that long since this bridge was last overhauled. They added sidewalks to both sides, which weren't there before. If the bridge really needs to be replaced now, maybe they should just tear it down instead. I'm not convinced we really need it. You could remove all of the traffic lights under it and just make a big rotary.
Yes - the whole thing was
Yes - the whole thing was redone.
The Casey Overpass used to faced in brick
And when it was redone they didn't restore the brick facing, which was, aesthetically, a real pity.
—Saying farewell to the Third Decade
Mr. Menino, tear down that wall!
-and don't replace it with another one.
For once, Menino needs to stand up to the suburbs and fight for Boston residents interests. In this case, the residents who live in the Forest Hills area. Again and again he has sided with car-centric development all over the city (the seaport looks like it will resemble Framingham more than back bay. This is a chance for him to see that walking around Boston could be vastly improved. This would be a step in the right direction.
Agreed, but...
Y'know, I'm totally with you on moving away from car-centric development, but this isn't the right hill to die on. There's a large volume of traffic that wants to get from the Arborway to Blue Hills Ave and points east, and right now, the only reasonable way to do is is to cross the bridge over Forest Hills. If you rip it out, the choice becomes taking Hyde Park Ave south and then cutting across somewhere south of the park, or cutting across Jamaica Plain. Those are both terrible routes, since there's no major east-west corridor until you get all the way up to Columbus Ave or down to Cummins Highway. There are back roads, but JP is full of 1-way streets and it's easy to get lost, and none of those streets can even handle the volume of cars they deal with right now.
The thing is an eyesore and a cash-sink, and definitely needs replacing, but I shudder to think of what the intersections on either side of the Forest Hills station are going to look like at 5:15 every afternoon for the 4 years that it will no doubt take them to complete the new one.
One of the few positives of that bridge....
Is that you have a great view of the city from the top.
It isn't the prettiest thing in the world, but I don't think it's the worst either. But I don't see how it would be that hard to make a ground level road there with some extra lanes. I'm sure there are a few trees that might get in the way.
Yeah, I don't see what the fuss is
I'm pretty anti-car-centric and a strong supporter of aesthetics really contributing to a neighborhood. But really, I'd rather the Jamaicariveretcways than having full-sized highways anywhere near the city. Also, that area over toward Washington Street in JP is kind of grubby with all the not-well-maintained-in-an-aesthetic-sense industrial-type buildings too close to houses and parks. The overpass is the least of the aesthetic concerns near there.
It's definitely possible to make all these things attractive and communityish without getting rid of them. There are attractive industrial buildings that are welcoming and pleasing to walk near -- the water treatment thing in Cambridge near Fresh Pond is a great example. Also the various factories in brick turn-of-the-century buildings.
I tend to think the friendliest areas of town are the ones where the mainish streets for cars are along residential/parkway streets with lots of trees, pedestrian areas, and side strips to separate the local foot/car/bike traffic from the through traffic. VFW Parkway, Jamaicaway, etc. -- even Storrow. I'd be happy to live along one of these streets, even with all the traffic, but would hate to live on Gallivan Blvd or Blue Hill Ave or some similar street that looks like a highway (and I hate to walk along such streets). Then put businesses at sidewalk-level on more walkable neighborhoodier streets. Look at what they've done to Boylston St in the Fenway -- it's gone from looking like a highway lined with strip malls with parking lots to looking like a walkable city street with things at sidewalk level.
Remove the bridge, not the whole road
If you take down the bridge and build a parkway at ground level in the same right-of-way, the traffic could still go the way it does now. It would not need to be diverted at all.
You would have to have a light though.
This is kind of obvious, but the purpose of the bridge is so that cars going across Washington St. don't have to wait for Washington St. traffic. They can just zip right over to that rotary. Take that bridge away and cars will have to wait for red lights at Washington St. I don't see anyway where traffic isn't going to get backed up in both directions because of that.
I'm not an engineer or road planner, but I still think traffic flows better if there is a bridge/tunnel there.
Traffic
The traffic is already terrible at the Centre St / Jamaicaway rotary that is upstream of this overpass. Currently those cars are at least able to pass over Washington/New Washington without contributing to further traffic. It seems like people are suggesting that by turning this into a surface road either a) cars will magically drive somewhere else or b) this won't be a third enormous traffic zone like the Forrest Hills and Centre St. rotaries. Yes, it may be marginally better for Washington St. traffic, but at the expense of all the traffic zipping along the Arborway. I don't buy the neighborhood argument at all seeing how one end is a homeless encampment and the other end is bordered by a huge MBTA parking lot.
As someone who frquently
As someone who frquently bikes through there, i'd prefer to keep the surface road away from parkway status. I don't think this bridge is problematic in the way the one that feeds on to Storow is. The bridge isn't what keeps the industrial wasteland bellow from developing. Thwre are many other issues in play, and i'd just as soon let the cars fly past overhead.
I commute over this awful
I commute over this awful bridge everyday, and I'm counting on this being a nightmare. I'm not sure where all the comments are coming from about it not being used very much. Apparently, they haven't been out there at 8 AM when Arborway traffic can get backed right up onto the bridge. That's one of the reasons I shifted my work hours later.
On the other hand, I've been waiting for years for a car to just drop straight through the thing. Something really needs to be done about it.
Of course if it didn't take more than 60 minutes to go 6 miles on the T between the neighborhood where I live and the one in which I work, maybe the bridge would be less necessary for a lot of people. If it's as bad as I think it's going to be, I may actually opt for 60+ minutes of crammed bus until it's over, who knows.
Overpass = depression
The overpass depresses the immediate area by making it an undesirable area for housing. The immediate area dramatically improves as early as 1 block from the overpass.
Removing the overpass removes the depressing element that depresses property values and taxes in the immediate area.
The question then is whether the toxic impact on a neighborhood is worth the convenience of an overpass.
Where would these houses go?
All sides of the overpass are actively used- courthouse, MBTA station, bus parking, commuter parking lot, various houses on the JP side. Unless you are suggesting that the entire bridge needs to be redesigned for the benefit of the small number of adjacent houses, I don't get your argument. There is a real need for parking near Forrest Hills for commuters to encourage them to ride the T. There is a need for a bus depot somewhere, isn't there? This seems like a vague version of NIMBY thinking where all areas can be infinitely improved for housing. A city needs all kinds of things to be viable, including decent roadways and commuter infrastructure as well as nice housing for people without cars. Terrible traffic from 8-10 and 4-6 each day is nothing I'd want to live next you, anymore than a bridge.
Why should there be surface parking lots here?
That's what garages are for.
Garages are expensive
In any case, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the "private" lot across from the T stop will eventually be redeveloped and it will disappear. The T wants to find somebody to build atop the "public" lot (now operated by the same company) next to the station, but, again, my fading memory here, I seem to recall part of that would require whoever builds there to retain the parking (so underground garage?).
Casey Overpass, eh?
Didn't know that piece o' crap had a name. Good to know.
The worst thing I remember about going over it when I used to commute to school was that once you got to the rotary at the southbound end, it was like a GD free-for-all. The traffic that came off Hyde Park Ave down the little connecting street would enter willy-nilly because the traffic from the overpass just kept coming, so it was like everybody just said "f*** it" and drove on in with no heed for rotary laws. Oh, it was so bad; I'm so glad I have nothing to do with that anymore.
Maybe it was an overpass because of the old elevated Orange Line
A longtime JP resident was talking about this with me earlier this week and she pointed out that the old elevated Orange Line used to run along Washington.
The overpass had to be built high to accommodate the El. Since there's no El anymore, maybe that's another reason not to rebuild the overpass.
A little history. Before the
A little history. Before the overpass was built, the intersection of Washington st. and the Arborway was a gridlocked mess - and that's in the late 40s. They wanted to have the Arborway thru-traffic bypass Forest Hills, and had a choice of either building a bridge or a tunnel. Since the Stony brook conduit was already underground, they went with the overpass.
They didn't build the overpass because the El was there, they built the overpass above the El because the El was there. They can certainly build the overpass lower now that the El is gone.
Please note that the overpass saves gas over stopping at traffic lights at Washington street. If you care about global warming, you should be in favor of the overpass.
Alot can happen in 70 years--
Alot can happen in 70 years-- I'm all for hiring traffic engineering consultants to do some counting and research based on 2010 reality, not an amateur historian's account of what the morning commute was like before he was born, with all due respect.
I think traffic would have to be pretty high to justify replacing in toto such a massive infrastructural move. And your global warming play is a joke--let me guess, you watch Fox News? Discounting the massive carbon footprint of a project like this relative to a few thousand extra presses on the accelerator, if that was really your rationale then it would be wisest to slow down traffic as much as possible through here to make the T a faster way downtown, and build a big-ass parking garage right next to Forest Hills in its place.
My first question remains unanswered
Since this bridge was totally rebuilt within my memory (the last 25 years), why does it need to be torn down and built again from scratch now? Shouldn't the last rebuild have been good for 50 or 75 years?
Deferred maintenance..... a
Deferred maintenance..... a little tax money gets spent then, or a lot gets spent later. That's a no-brainer for elected politicians, it's just a question of who loses at roulette
It's a win/win
In 2010 Boston/USA, if this thing gets rebuilt it will have bikelanes and pedestrian accommodations, so whether it stays or goes it will improve circulation.
Also I imagine the Greenway conservancy and other groups will get involved and hopefully try to reconnect some long-since severed pieces of Olmsted's necklace.
This is all great news
An Old Overpass
The Casey Overpass was not just built due to auto-mentality. Rather it was part of a broader [and flawed] mindset to create evacuation routes in the event of nuclear war. Remember this was built in the Post WWII years during the height of the "Cold War".
In the late 50s and 60s when I was a kid the local fire stations still tested their air raid sirens at 12 noon on a Friday - just in case. And of course there was the siren that would sound at the State Hospital (on American Legion Highway - now the new housing development) when one of the violent mental patients escaped. Sort of a nice way to give people within a mile radius a heads up to lock up the kids and the cat.
A broader concern now is just what kind of a rebuild will this get?
The major work of a few decades back removed the brick work that dressed the sides of the Casey Overpass that made it originally look as if it were a brick and mortar structure, when in fact the brick work was simply dress facing. Under that was the steel we can now easily see. The brick was removed to reduce the stress of the extra weight (hundreds of tons), then it was reinforced. Those steel plates under the road at the support pylons are not original. That was the first "shoring up" it got, and those plates are already rusting out.
Also, consider that the structure was orginally much higher. Did it shrink? Nope, the level of the road was raised.
The Casey Overpass supports are actually very large cement pylons that are well below the level of Hyde Park Ave and Washington Street of today, and the bridge towered several stories above the former Orange Line elevated steel structure, which itself ran above Washington Street at a height of just over 2 (and almost 3 stories.
To get a grasp of just how high that overpass is/was you need to stand at Hyde Park Ave. and Tower Street, or Washington Street by the MBTA bus yard, at the far end by the car wash. Those are the original levels of the roadaways in the area or the new station. I'd say the overpass is/was at least 6 stories up originally - maybe more.
The current Forest Hills Station built in the mid-80s saw the grade of the roadways around it raised to make crossing the newly depressed and relocated Orange Line easier, and less costly - no more bridges. If you access the Orange Line platform on the inbound side (well they are both inbound but I think you get the drift) you can see the bottom of one of the overpass's supports where it stands between the Orange Line and Commuter Rail platforms. And that is not showing how much is still below that.
The Amtrak/MBTA Railroad passed through there on a raised granite lined bridge with Washington and South Streets passing under arches below. The JP Historical Society has photos.
That's all raised, filled land there kids, and despite the fact that it has been there a decent 25 years, they may not be able to set new supports on top of that fill. They may have to dig down pretty deep to get to bedrock or what was originally the solid land there.
If you think Forest Hill's is a nightmare now, just wait for when the construction starts.
Indeed that area has always been a traffic nightmare no matter what the configuration. Whan I was a kid you also had to contend with trolley cars and trackless trolleys (electric busses like those running out of Harvard Sq).
Rush hour? Hey... all day it was gridlock.
What amuses me is all the planned development in that area. When Forest Hills Station was rebuilt the neighborhood nixed development - resoundingly. NOw that 25 years has gone by and people have moved or died off - hey... let's try again.
Among the improvements 25 years back... well. the Orange Line had a repair shop and about 8 storage tracks for parked trains on Hyde Park Ave. on the land across from Dunkin Donuts (at Walk Hill Street). Imagine listening to that all night.
DMK
Thanks!
That's really interesting info. You piqued my curiosity enough so that I went and checked out the JPHS page, and found this photo which shows the overpass being built over the train viaduct.
edit: oh, and this one which is a wide shot of the whole area, with the complete overpass and the old station.
"late 1980's"?
Wait, that second one says "late 1980's"; that's got to be a typo, right?
those cars on the overpass
those cars on the overpass look 80s-ish enough..... the el wasn't torn down until 1987-- so this may have been taken in the mid-80s or mid/late 80s but it seems believable
(though i was a preadolescent Ohio boy in the late 80s so take that for what its worth)
All the work was finished in
All the work was finished in 1988, so it's not the late '80s. Mid- or earlier.
Trackless trollys? When and
Trackless trollys? When and where?
This, For One
There may have been others, as well.
"Up until 1953, Route 32 was a full-service trolley route from Forest Hills to Cleary Square until it converted to trackless trolleys. In 1958, all trackless trolley services south of Forest Hills were discontinued and replaced by diesel buses. (The trolleys ended in the middle of Hyde Park Ave; however, a loop for the trackless trolleys to turn around was placed on Hyde Park Avenue and Pine St.)" - From Wikipedia, "Key MBTA Bus Routes".
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com