![]() |
|
Transit and Infrastructure All things T or civilly engineered within Boston Metro. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North End
Posts: 461
|
Re: Casey Overpass
I agree-- and it would help suppress the highway mentality of drivers on the Jamaicaway.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 369
|
Re: Casey Overpass
Quote:
![]() ~D.I. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chelsea
Posts: 550
|
Re: Casey Overpass
You have to consider that people go this route because they are going to and from places where taking the T isn't really an option because of the amount of time it would take.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rozzie Square
Posts: 1,841
|
Re: Casey Overpass
Quote:
Again, I'd like to see some real data, but my own perception is that the people who use the overpass our traveling within these communities, not heading downtown. The people who use the J-Way to get downtown are starting off on the west side of Forest Hills. People on the East side use Blue Hill/Columbus to get downtown. As for the surface roads, as I've stated, they are already quite congested, primarily due to buses and trucks. If you extended the Orange Line, thereby getting rid of most of the buses, then the surface routes might be able to handle additional car traffic. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Moderator
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Approaching a City
Posts: 7,620
|
Re: Casey Overpass
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rozzie Square
Posts: 1,841
|
Re: Casey Overpass
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 365
|
Re: Casey Overpass
The problem with that idea is that less than 1/3 of the bus trips in and out of Forest Hills are heading south on Washington Street towards Roslindale. The majority of trips in and out of Forest Hills either cross under the overpass in both directions (37, 38, 39) or on their inbound trip (16, 21, 31) and Forest Hills seems like the logical terminus for most of these routes. And the 32 alone runs almost as many trips down Hyde Park Ave as all of the Roslindale routes combined and would likely continue to connect to Forest Hills.
So, a relatively small portion of the current bus traffic would be eliminated from the area, and the elimination of the overpass could have negative impacts on the performance of the routes that remain (among which are three of the T's busiest--31, 32, and 39). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,275
|
Re: Casey Overpass
Turn the existing Casey Overpass into an elevated park, similar to the High Line project in Manhatten. That would reconnect the Emerald Necklace.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,189
|
Re: Casey Overpass
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,416
|
Re: Casey Overpass
I think that's a really great idea, actually. Excellent skyline views, T access, and right between the Arboretum and Franklin Park. I honestly think this idea should be explored further.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North End
Posts: 461
|
Re: Casey Overpass
Hmmmm.... This is a bridge near my hometown, a dilapidated, earth and concrete bridge that used to carry an interurban trolley line. It has been deteriorating and overgrown for at least the 33 years I have been around. And of course a haven for teenagers--the original High Line!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,275
|
Re: Casey Overpass
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Here and there now and then
Posts: 2,362
|
Re: Casey Overpass
I was actually suggesting running the Green Line over the Arbor and J-Ways. Reducing the parkways from four lanes with an emphasis on maintaining the trees of course. A reasonably quiet and elegant elevated view of the Emerald Necklace would be quite lovely.
__________________
The above comment is entirely my delusional ramblings, and not those of my family, friends, past employers, or any of my other personalities. "And please, I wear my Harvard Yard shorts a seersucker with crimson whales when I ghost-ride the limozine with my mangy fat cats." -Kennedy |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,670
|
Re: Casey Overpass
http://jamaicaplaingazette.com/2011/...rrows-choices/
Study team's narrowed the Casey replacement options to 2: low-profile overpass with no added frills, or at-grade intersection that prohibits lefts at the lights but incorporates U-turns right after the intersection to make all turns happen as rights (a la Park Drive @ Brookline Ave.). Overpass plan eliminates the multi-use path suggested on the now discarded more expensive plan because it's just too cost-prohibitive. Given those conditions, I think at-grade's looking the better option if the surface ped crossings are still gonna be kind of mediocre with ramps or road. U'ies keep the roadway from having so many turn lanes it's too daunting to cross and parkways aren't supposed to be expressways with full-on interstate ramps in the first place. I think this could work if the U-turns are well designed. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rozzie Square
Posts: 1,841
|
Re: Casey Overpass
MassDOT has decided in favor of an at grade solution:
http://jamaicaplaingazette.com/2012/...treet-network/ I haven't been able to decide which option I preferred from the stand point of what's best for the most people. But I do prefer this option for my own personal needs. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Union Sq, Somerville
Posts: 3,440
|
Re: Casey Overpass
2013 to 2016?? Why on Earth does it take THREE YEARS to tear down a dilapidated bridge and widen an intersection??
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rozzie Square
Posts: 1,841
|
Re: Casey Overpass
I made the same comment at Universal Hub. It's astonishingly confounding. Also, like I said, the grade level solution is better for me personally, but I do have some reservations about it. Six lanes is too wide for New Washington St., and a "Copley Square" sized plaza is far too big for the entrance to Forest Hills Station. I'd like to see six replaced with four, and plaza replaced with "first phase of TOD project."
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 | |
Moderator
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 6,215
|
Re: Casey Overpass
Quote:
The 6 laner could be OK if they add a wide landscaped median. This is the Arborway afterall.
__________________
http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com | http://futurembta.com | http://hyperrealcartography.tumblr.com brivx: well, my philosophy is: as designers, we make a good theater, we dont direct the play |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Here and there now and then
Posts: 2,362
|
Re: Casey Overpass
Liz Malia is working overtime to to screw over her urban constituents in favor of suburban ones. Her and Capuano seem to be harboring a 1950s love affair with anti-urban highway infrastructure.
__________________
The above comment is entirely my delusional ramblings, and not those of my family, friends, past employers, or any of my other personalities. "And please, I wear my Harvard Yard shorts a seersucker with crimson whales when I ghost-ride the limozine with my mangy fat cats." -Kennedy |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rozzie Square
Posts: 1,841
|
Re: Casey Overpass
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bowker Overpass replacement? | kz1000ps | Transit and Infrastructure | 432 | 08-08-2014 08:40 PM |