State to shut crumbling Forest Hills overpass for emergency work to ensure winter drivers don't slide off it

They use it as a bus shelter now.

Never saw a train.

For those who have been living in a cave or otherwise off the page... The Casey Overpass is the bridge that carries The Arborway/Rt 203 over Forest Hills. It went through some major repairs a decade or more back and was deemed structurally deficient at that time. Since then it has been loosing chunks of concrete to the streets below and has been deemed unsafe. No trucks or buses are allowed over it now and traffic has been reduced to one lane (down from two) in either direction.

A public process that greatly engaged the immediate neighborhood, but which excluded most other invested neighborhoods that may use the structure, started about 2 or so years back. The result is that a plan has hatched to remove the bridge completely and dump all traffic into the Forest Hills area adjacent to Forest Hills T station. This will be a surface (at grade) traffic intersection. No replacement bridge is being planned.

Mayor Menino has noted that this is state property and is a state process and he could do nothing. I believe otherwise but that is another discussion.

While this plan has been the will of the immediate abutters, those people who traverse this bridge for work, school, or pleasure that come from distant neighborhoods and townships were not included, though many state representatives did attend meetings and voice their displeasure. Of course, MassDOT won't have to spend any money on a new bridge so they are all about this plan as well, and since the locals like it, they can easily point at them as the architects of this process.

A lot has been said that an at-grade traffic plan will remove a large visual blight (current bridge), and allow more people to participate in being a pedestrian or bike user, as well as further encourage people to use the immediate available public transportation. There is also a train of thought that at-grade traffic will better the business in the area by bringing more people to the surface rather than bypass above.

Not fully taken into consideration (my personal opinion) are those traffic issues that are already problematic at distances from 1/2, 1, and 2 miles from that area that this additional traffic pattern will impact. For example, Washington Street in the 1-mile between Forest Hills and Roslindale Sq already suffers from rush-hour back ups and school bus back-ups in the mornings and afternoons. The back-up headed north into Forest Hills on Hyde Park ave can be back past Walk Hill Street at the same times.

I also lived through the construction of the present configuration of Forest Hills which included the building of the new subway station and surrounding area. It was a terrible bottleneck then and people didn't swarm there what so ever. We avoided the area like the plague, and business tanked.

I reflect that at that time (mid-80s) that no one wanted any additional development in that area - also the will of locals. But a generation later and gentrification of the neighborhood is now seeing development the likes of which would have caused a past generation to have a stroke.

The extra traffic will also add access time to buses that have to get in and out of the station, so anyone using public transit in and out of Forest Hills has to immediately get into a habit of adding extra travel time just to allow for the back-ups getting in and out of the station. It happened before and will happen again.

The reason the Casey Overpass was originally built was to alleviate the increase in auto traffic that was plaguing Forest Hills, which looked much different before WWII. It was also built to serve as an improved access route in the event of war to get people out and to get military vehicles in.

Despite all of the best intentions and wishful thinking, history will repeat itself and the area will continue to be a traffic nightmare, more so than it is now. Indeed the Washington Street busway in the station will be rebuilt to include the Rt39 bus which will have to move from under the overpass during construction. That will see buses not only headed south as a majority do now (except Rt38), but now north into JP.

What fascinates me is whether the support pylons that hold up the bridge now will be totally removed or just cut off below the surface. The original Casey Overpass is really much higher than it appears today. Consider that the whole area's grade was about that of Hyde Park ave. stand at Tower Street and look up! Those pylons go down several stories below the present grade. One can be seen adjacent to the Orange Line tracks looking north from the station platform. That is the original grade of the area and the pylons go down much further below that. One has to wonder what archeologists will be asking several thousand years from now when this all gets dug up.

So folks... start thinking ahead now. Construction will be a decent 2 plus years (I'm guessing 4-5 regardless of what the plan says on paper).

Joy.

See: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Locus...

PS - And then add construction for the old Hughes Oil farm buildings to be transitioned into TOD housing.

Yeah.....

Because citizen involvement in their government is much more wasteful than people just getting out of the way and letting the government do what it wants, where, when and how it wants to do it and to whomever it feels like doing it, with no input from the people affected. When we don't pay attention to what the govt is doing they spend money efficiently, honestly and effectively.

Snark aside, any democratic-y process that involves more than 3 people really starts to bring down efficiency. Involve an entire n'hood and things get inefficient really quickly (especially as the fruit loop quotient of your hood goes up). But really what is the alternative? "Only go through the painfully long process is if it's really necessary or if it's something I care about." Kind of hard to legislate that one.

TZ was built at the WIDEST portion of the Hudson as well. And I believe it was the PA and Robert Moses' Triboro Authority that couldn't place nice.

Like the Casey, this overpass is also has to be torn down, regardless of how the area is redesigned.

Like the Casey, the area would be REDESIGNED to address some of your pseudohorror story that you are trying to sell here. It would not at all be as you say, because much of the surface roadways would not need to be replicated in an at-ground design.

NOTE: I have frequently had to cross at Broadway and at Pearl. It isn't a big deal. For several years I had to navigate the rotary on a bike to get to and from work. It can be gamed. The only real problem with either intersection that I see is the total lack of respect for non-motor vehicle amenities (such as crosswalks and lights that work and enforcement of cars screaming through red lights when they do).

I don't want my STATE tax money wasted on more infrastructure that is too expensive to maintain properly.

Nice try.

... that could be fixed if a competent traffic engineer ...

I agree; it will probably never happen.

Curious, with a bridge, how is it that bikers, bus riders and pedestrians would be affected? Are they not able to navigate that area at all now? Do you not believe that if a new bridge is built, there would be an accounting for traffic other than motor vehicles? In fact, as I am to believe, the at grade plan will actually lengthen the walk time for pedestrians by adding additional lanes for them to cross. I also keep hearing from pro 'at grade' advocates that the plan will "link" the arboretum with the southwest corridor park. How is that going to be any different from what there is now? You just won't have to walk or bike under a bridge? Because there will still be a road (a much larger one) there after the project is completed. Granted there will be much more greenery along the new road, however there will be no new link. It seems to me that the group that would be affected far greater than the others, is the commuters that use a motor vehicle. I know that I risk my point by stating this, but I am aware that studies have shown that the additional six (6) traffic lights would only add an additional 30 seconds to the commute, however I cannot fathom how they came to that number. A typical light cycle can be much longer than that and you would then have five more to go through that cross some of the busiest streets in the city and do so around one of the busiest transit hubs.

Maybe I'll eat my words, but I highly doubt it. A bridge and renovation of the surrounding streets would benefit all users and not negatively affect one.

And by the way, I initially understood your use of mass ave in Cambridge as a comparison, (in relation to the number of cars) but you lost me at the end. Are you trying to be funny by sarcastically advocating an "at grade" solution for the mass ave bridge to Cambridge. My humor switch may have been accidentally turned off but the joke didn't forward your point there.

Edit:

Disclaimer- I use that bridge twice a day to commute for work from Brighton to mattapan and only recently was I made aware of the states plan. I don't know how the process was made available to the public, but none of my friends or coworkers knew about it until I told them. I hope it's not too late to change.

Disclaimer #2- I like puppies better than kittens anyway.