State transportation officials said tonight they will shut the Arboretum-bound side of the Casey Overpass in February, followed by the Mattapan-bound side by the end of March.
And then, officials said at a meeting at English High School, contractors will bring in the heavy equipment to begin tearing down the decaying span - built high enough to let an elevated train pass underneath - to replace it with a series of surface roads and rebuilt intersections, which will include squaring Shea Circle. Over the 2 1/2-year project, the Forest Hills T stop will also get an overhaul that will include a new entrance near where the 39 bus now stops, but won't at the end of the work, because its berth will be moved to an expanded upper busway along Washington Street.
Officials spoke before a packed audience that included large numbers of vocal opponents who made their point of wanting the overpass replaced with another overpass by repeatedly calling state officials liars and hacks who couldn't even figure out how to turn on most of the lights in the school auditorium.
Before the meeting even started, bridge supporters chanted "Forest Hills! Keep the bridge!" During the meeting, they were not above using obscenities to make their point that the state surface-road plan will leave them choking in traffic and possibly breathing in asbestos and silicates from the construction work. State officials acknowledged not testing the bridge for asbestos, saying construction companies had stopped using asbestos by the time the overpass was built, but said they would check into it and the silicate issue.
State Rep. Liz Malia jumped in, saying the Patrick administration refused to listen to residents and urging the state employees at the meeting to talk to Gov. Baker and his new transportation secretary to listen to them.
However, with the state decision to go with surface roads made years ago, planners generally declined to meet the bridge supporters in their verbal joust, saying they would only talk about construction work over the next 90 days, not rehash the decision to go with what they said was a cheaper option.
Project planners said that before they shut the lanes, they will add three lanes to the existing surface road that runs from Shea Circle to New Washington Street to handle traffic forced off the shuttered overpass, which they said desperately needs to be shut because it is structurally unsound, from what's left of its deck to the foundations that anchor it in the ground.
Along with that, traffic engineers will look at resyncing the signals around the road and will remove mid-block crosswalks on Washington and New Washington, which they said can now throw traffic cycles into a gridlocked tizzy because they are not connected with the signals at intersections.
Courthouse parking will be relocated to the MBTA bus yard behind 500 Arborway. Temporary sidewalks and crosswalks will be added.
A temporary lengthening of the upper busway will let the 39 pull in there as its current parking area - left over from Green Line days - can be turned into a road.
Planners said that in 2015, Orange Line riders could see weekend bustitution and an early end to service on a number of days in 2015 to allow for work at Forest Hills station.
In addition to replacing the overpass, the new project will remove some of the gyrations drivers now have to go through to navigate the area, for example, trying to get to the West Roxbury courthouse from Washington Street, they said.
During demolition and construction of the new roads, they continued, police details will help traffic move better - as will BTD traffic-enforcement officers, who will roam the area looking for double parkers and other traffic miscreants, who will be encouraged to move along - at the point of a ticket, if necessary.
Overall, the work will free up enough land for 1.5 acres of parkland, to be split among four park areas. All of the roads will get bike lanes - which will let somebody bicycle from Roslindale Square to the Back Bay. Some of the bike lanes will even have crosswalks for pedestrians.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Cyclists and traffic on a bridge?
By Waquiot
Sun, 01/25/2015 - 1:01am
Longfellow Bridge, no?
Or perhaps the BU Bridge?
However, I go on foot, and perhaps my sadness with the demise of the bridge is that the skyline view will vanish. I saw the fireworks one Fourth from the Casey Overpass. In my Arborway Gardens time.
Well of course...
By Sally
Sun, 01/25/2015 - 11:46am
I ride on those bridges all the time but there's no alternative, is there? And the BU bridge has great bike lanes now and the new Longfellow design will too. Mass Ave bridge is always a bit of a hair-raiser because of the speedy drivers and uneven pavement on the bike lane, not to mention the occasional wind gust. And I'm just talking about the plan for the Casey replacement which apparently excluded bike lanes so as not to increase the shadow--kinda nutty.
$30 million recreational argument
By 500Monkeys
Sun, 01/25/2015 - 7:12am
I argue for the sake of countering notions and assertions not supported by the process over the last three years to date or by the facts and data. Recreationally.
I believe that it's indisputable that the bike infrastructure slated for the project area - three miles of it - vastly improves the safety of bike commuters and recreational cyclists of all ages throughout, in all directions. But I'm not even a biker. The same connections are enhanced for pedestrians all over this portion of the Emerald Necklace corridor through rational, safe paths, crosswalks and signage. Those two aspects alone are a very significant long term benefit to the recreational use of the parkways for thousands of Bostonians and visitors trying to get to Franklin Park, the Zoo or (shudder) the Olympics car-free.
On the costs, there are several compelling ways to go at this, in my view:
1) it would be the height of irresponsibility for the Commonwealth to go spending the people's money on bridges that aren't needed for the traffic challenge they serve, when so many vital ones need repair. The peer-reviewed data and modeling of traffic patterns shows that the volume here - in almost every possible direction from point A to point B in the project area -can be served as well or much better with an at-grade network of surface roads.
2) both a new two-lane overpass and the reconfigured surface road network were studied against the existing conditions, and both significantly improved the situation compared to the existing behemoth. Here's the important part: there was very little difference in outcome between the two.
3) But this imaginary bridge brings with it additional short-term ($30 million) and long-term maintenance obligations, and it's cost precludes the additional infrastructure enhancements included in the project as designed.
The oft-repeated notion that that state had a pre-determined ("cheap") outcome in mind is not supported by the facts. It was known that a bridge could carry the volume since one already was doing so. Alternatives were studied at length to determine if they were viable. They were. And that opened up many other opportunities for revitalizing the area.
This is a random question but
By mike g
Thu, 01/22/2015 - 12:50pm
This is a random question but I'm wondering if anybody has a video recording of this meeting? I ask because I'm working on a documentary about this project and would like to use the footage. I could pay a small amount for any recorded footage (not much, maybe like 15$-20$ as I'm rather broke). Thanks.
Nope
By adamg
Thu, 01/22/2015 - 2:13pm
And that was Yet Another Complaint. Somebody asked if the meeting were being recorded (after somebody yelled at the project manager for not paying attention when, in fact, he was writing down notes on a previous question so he could get an answer for it). When they said no, no recordings, people in the audience expressed their ire, even after the guy noted there was, in fact, somebody up front taking detailed notes, because of course that meant the state people would deliberately ignore the questions they didn't want to answer.
The transcripts have always been very good
By 500Monkeys
Thu, 01/22/2015 - 4:32pm
in the past, and they're available for every one of the many planning and design meetings prior to this one here:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meeti...
I applaud MassDOT, the DCR, the MBTA, their engineers, architects, consultants and contractors for the quality of their work on this project. Their sensitivity to the important history of the area and the legacy of the Emerald Necklace parkways has been exemplary and shows in every facet of the design. Their care in evaluating the data that supported the removal of the overpass and its replacement with a ground level network of redesigned roads, sidewalks and cycling paths has been admirable, professional and most importantly: peer-reviewed. Their extraordinarily sensitive efforts to promote, manage and be responsive to rational community involvement from neighbors, advocates and volunteers of all stripes in the face of near-constant verbal abuse from a vocal minority that rejects all that has been admirable too.
I firmly believe this project to be a public safety necessity and a once-in-a-lifetime transformative opportunity to enhance the quality of life in the area through improved multi-modal traffic flow and enhanced recreational opportunity. - Clayton Harper
I was just looking at your site last night
By Sally
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 7:35am
Very thorough and helpful--thank you. http://arborwaymatters.blogspot.com/?m=1
Well then, wish I had enough
By mike g
Thu, 01/22/2015 - 4:58pm
Well then, wish I had enough time to prepare my own recording. Sounds like people other than even myself would of found it useful. It is legal to video tape these meetings, I presume? I'll admit part of my trepidation at showing up to these things with a camera is not wanting to be bullied into putting it away. Not that I have any huge investment in the politics behind this (I live miles away from Forest Hills), I just think it's a fascinating way that the urban landscape is changing, and I'd like to document it. Maybe next time...
documenting the story
By 500Monkeys
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 6:57am
I bet you'd find no shortage of participants willing to be interviewed.
But it is a very big, rich story to wrap your head around: the deep history and geography of Forest Hills, the community challenges during the lifetimes of the residents, the changing transit patterns from the 50s to now, the shifting demographics of the neighborhood, the emergence of multi-modal planning and transit-oriented development and other trends both national and local...
Mix all that with the people and their differing agendas: folks focused on greenspace; or on car commutes, or bike infrastructure; or fear of gridlock or on inconvenience or on health threats; people who embrace change and those who don't; folks who trust professionals and "government"; folks who don't.
Check with Bernie Doherty, on
By A-nonny-nonny a...
Thu, 01/22/2015 - 3:15pm
Check with Bernie Doherty, on the JPNC. I sat near him and the guy he was with filmed the whole thing on his iPad, until it ran out of juice and then he used a phone.
hah! if that is the case
By 500Monkeys
Thu, 01/22/2015 - 8:11pm
Then those doing the filming last night are the same ones who complained about an at-grade supporter filming THEM at the 11/19/13 DAG meeting (see transcripts above)
BFH needs a new job
By LLK
Thu, 01/22/2015 - 1:06pm
I'd suggest they start attending community mtgs in neighborhoods with busy streets and try convincing residents that their neighborhood needs an overpass.
And yes, I live in Forest Hills.
Casey overpass
By Forest Hills walker
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:32pm
Isn't there something horribly wrong when the majority of people who go to a meeting object to the basic plan? Sounds like the 1960s when the highway departments said, "This is what we are going to do and you better get on board." The guy at the meeting who said MassDOT spent more time talking about trees than traffic in the study is right--this is not about transportation but about getting rid of a maintenance responsibility and to heck with the users.
Not necessarily
By adamg
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:43pm
If we were talking about the initial meetings before a decision had been reached, maybe. But that boat sailed a long time ago. This week's meeting was to talk about specific construction issues over the next 90 days, so the fact that lots of people with little signs showed up to try to yell down some state planners might just mean the rest of the world has moved on and these people are still too angry to realize that.
And, yes, I'm saying that as somebody who lives in Roslindale who doesn't understand the subtleties of JP politics (not that there was much subtlety the other night).
You seem to think people
By Forest Hills walker
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 2:43pm
You seem to think people should have one chance and one chance only to express their opinion (November 2011) and if you just moved here like me, too bad, and if you didn't pay attention then, too bad. And obviously people haven;t "moved on:" and that's their right. What are you afraid of?
one chance only?
By 500Monkeys
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 9:25pm
I'm sorry, but I can no longer fathom the hubris of BFH, a collective ego that rejects all data, all professional consideration of facts and all informed community input and expertise. More considerate efforts helped to create the solution we now have after years of discussion - two years of which came after the decision to reject their mythical bridge was made. BFH itself, in its more rational moments, contributed in positive ways to the final design too.
But the community has put up with their disruptive denials, their claims of nefarious intent and their outright falsehoods for YEARS now and rejected them all.
I for one am extraordinarily glad to see jersey barriers appear on the overpass in preparation for demolition today, and truly hope the next public meeting in this process includes far more mature discourse than that shouted out by BFH leaders this week. Enough, already. Really: enough!
Here's my thing
By Waquiot
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 10:22pm
Maybe the surface option is best, but the way the at-grade people seemingly talk down to the bridge folk is wicked annoying.
Take what I write with a grain of salt, I never attended any of these meetings, but from what I've read here, you'd think the at grade folk think the collective IQ of the bridge folk is 75. The views of bridge folk were never taken into consideration, and MassDOT started the process with their mind made up, too.
But I agree with you on this one thing, the decision has been made. So, just like the decision to get rid of the Green Line on Centre Street, there's nothing more to say, right?
read first four pages
By 500Monkeys
Sat, 01/24/2015 - 7:41am
Waq: read the transcript of the 11/19/13 final design meeting at the link above for a glimpse of the conduct of this group. I have attended many (15-18) of these 40+ meetings and nearly every one was punctuated by an ever-shifting array of complaint, invective, disruption and delaying tactics flung at officials and at-grade supporting neighbors by BFH members. The standard by which you expect others to describe their antics is not one BFH subscribes to when dealing with others in these meetings.
Again, I wasn't there
By Waquiot
Sat, 01/24/2015 - 11:14am
I think there is a level of partisanship here.
The BFH folk are skeptical of this whole project. They see it as a done deal. They see Mass Highway as nonresponsive to their needs. That's what I saw from the first part of those minutes. Like when the guy asks when the documents will be available, the answer seems to be "eventually" and the BFH folk call him out on it, asking for a commitment.
Look at Sally's reply to Karen Schneiderman above. Karen has a legitimate concern- all the traffic from Route 203 that currently passes above Forest Hills is now going to be street level, which concerns her as a person who is wheelchair bound and wants to get to the station from just to the north. The reply-
How is this comforting to someone who knows there will be more traffic on her path? I just finished Vrabel's latest book, and his discussion of how groups would get coopted by the city to get redevelopment plans passed it a fact.
Again, as I end most of these posts, I don't have faith, but we'll see.
Perhaps they forget something?
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 01/24/2015 - 11:59am
Perhaps they are forgetting that this project isn't using city money to do what they ask, but has to be cost-effective from a state spending perspective as well.
In other words, their desire to have a very expensive bridge has run up against the desire of the Commonwealth to use money wisely and not create unnecessary structures that are expensive to build and maintain.
So...
By Sally
Sat, 01/24/2015 - 12:23pm
The engineers and transportation professionals and--again, EVERY legit non-profit pedestrian and urban transport group we have--says it will be easier to get around on foot, with a wheelchair or stroller or bike, but the poster I replied to just "knows" that it will be harder to get around because of the "highway?" Seriously...what kind of reasoning is this? It starts to sound like those right-wing politicians who just "know" that climate change is hooey--they feel it in their bones so f the science. The fact is that no one in a wheelchair is going to have to cross a "highway" to get to Forest Hills from anywhere. Just. Not. True. I can understand ambivalence about the plan and certainly concern about what the next few years are going to be like, but from what I heard the other night there are some legit concerns and then there's a whole lot of emotion and fear that doesn't seem based in reality.
Let me put it to you this way
By Waquiot
Sat, 01/24/2015 - 1:07pm
I've read the documents done by the experts involving the Olympics bid and they seem to be well written, and those who wrote them are experts in their field. Should we not be skeptical towards the bid? Or should we just accept the proposal as valid since civic leaders have said they are?
500 Monkeys did provide a good response to the wheelchair issue. And I don't mean to be picking on you about this. I'm just saying that transportation planners can be as myopic as the rest of us. And by the rest of us I include myself.
I don't want to speak for them certainly
By 500Monkeys
Sat, 01/24/2015 - 12:31pm
but I can tell you as a close observer who has attended many of these meetings and had several conversations with BFH leaders and their sympathizers about the project over the years, that they have offered an ever-changing littany of complaints and charges about the process, the peer-reviewed data, the details of the designs, the historic value of a 1928 traffic rotary (Shea) and on and on and on. No one is co-opted here, and neither was the process. Many in the community, especially those who participated in the process, are persuaded by the professionals, by the facts, by the advocates involved and find the final plans to be a vast improvement over what is there now. It's an old saw, but: though people are entitled to their own opinions, they aren't entitled to their own facts. We're all entitled to be skeptical of any aspect of the project we'd like. But screaming "Bullsh*t" and "That's a lie!" at the top of their lungs (which they did repeatedly at this meeting) isn't winning them any converts or engendering any sympathy for whatever their argument is tomorrow.
Meanwhile: Karen should take some comfort in knowing that all crosswalks in the area will be designed to contemporary safety standards for all users, with countdown timers, refuge islands in the medians, and improved sidewalks, paths and lighting throughout the area. Anyone coming from the north with a wheelchair or a stroller will have elevator access directly to the Orange Line platform through the new head house in the northern plaza - without having to cross the Arborway at all.
Me? Afraid?
By adamg
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 10:53pm
Although I drive through Forest Hills every weekday morning during the school year, I really don't have a dog in this fight since I don't live anywhere near the overpass (although I'm hoping the state people are correct about fixing the light synchronization during the tear down, because man does it suck to get through the area when the light at New Washington and South is out of sync with the light at Washington and, um, old South).
There wasn't just one meeting before the decision to go with surface roads - there were a bunch of them (and there were even people who supported the surface option).
It's unfortunate you missed them since you weren't living in the area at the time, but at some point a decision had to be made (what the BFH people keep seeming to forget is that even if the state had gone with an overpass, the current one would still have to be torn down - it's a disaster waiting to happen), a bid advertised, a contractor hired, etc. Large projects can't be held up on the chance somebody might move in a couple years later and object.
Overpasses and elevated trains-usefullness outlived:
By mplo
Sun, 01/25/2015 - 1:05pm
These overpasses and elevated trains are coming down throughout the United States for a reason: They're a 1950's idea whose time has come and gone. They were useful during decades following WWII, when there was a huge migration of people from the cities to the suburbs. People who's moved to the suburbs but still worked, or whatever, in the cities, wanted a speedy way to get to and from the cities, which is why these overpasses and elevated trains (or "EL's") as they were called, were constructed in the first place.
Since times are different, and there's been a huge migration of people back into the cities, these overpasses and elevated trains are no longer necessary, plus they're a real eyesore, to boot.
If they r removing crosswalks
By Jo
Tue, 01/27/2015 - 6:47pm
If they r removing crosswalks how do pedestrians cross the street? I do like the idea of the t station entranceway being closer and tge dangerous spot where 39 buses pick up people being moved
Pages