Hey, there! Log in / Register
State to start shutting Forest Hills overpass next month
By adamg on Wed, 01/21/2015 - 10:57pm
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.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
Thanks for the update
I can't any I would have gone, but I did have a dentist appointment that started at the same time as the meeting.
I doubt traffic will be as
I doubt traffic will be as improved as the State claims, or as horrendous as the pro-bridgers predict. I can't remember traffic around FH ever being anything but a pain, although it felt kind of dramatic back in the day when you had to drive your car right into and thru the old station to get onto Hyde Park Ave.
I will probably just avoid the area from now on; I guess I'll have to find an alternative route to the Cape.
I'm looking forward to..
..not having to make a left, right, right to get to my house going around the overpass, when coming off the Arborway. I am perfectly willing to put up with all kinds of construction malarkey to have a straight line through that area.
OMG, that was NUTS!
I forgot about those days of driving through the station to get to HP Ave. Thanks for reminding me. That was truly CRAZY!
I live in JP and I'm kind of agnostic about the bridge thing but I do not look forward to Big Dig #2 at all. In fact, I told my daughter, who lives on the HP side of the Casey Overpass that I'll see her in a few years.
Even though I don't reside in Jamaica Plain,
I think that taking down the overpass is a good idea. I sure wish that they'd hurry up and start taking down the McCarthy Overpass on Route 28, however.
Wouldn't it be great
Wouldnt it be great if leaders like Liz Malia came to the meeting wih solutions? ideas ? Proposals to lessen the construction impact? Instead I'm reading passive comments pointing the blame at a previous administration, and telling others they should go talk to someone.
What are her ideas ? I'd be happy with even a bad idea versus passivity.
casey overpass; mischaracterization of Liz Malia's contributions
The writer of this comment evidently is discounting REp. Malia's solution: a smaller replacement bridge. Many of us present last night actually live in the immediate neighborhood and are worried about the at grade traffic, and have found there is reason to be skeptical of DOT's ability to carry through on its promises that all will be rosy eventually.
I live in the immediate neighborhood
and I support at-grade. I know many people around here who support at grade. I'm upset with the pro-bridge people because we could have gotten less lanes and you guys kept going on about "traffic" and now we have an over-designed roadway.
I think you might be the
I think you might be the first person to ever accuse Liz Malia of being passive.
Fingers crossed
Every day I drive over this bridge, I think it will be the last time. Either because they will tear it down or because I will plunge through it before I finish crossing. I hope all these plans work out. And really, people, nobody builds projects like this bridge any more for regular city street traffic. The Casey was built for a different world, when the Orange Line was elevated, there was no Southeast Expressway, and your grandfather was driving his Hudson on Route 203 to the Cape. Replacement bridge? Give up, already!
Great Summary
I was at the meeting and your report is spot on. Thanks for going.
The rudeness and condescension of the BFH faction was appalling. The comments interrupting the people reporting on the construction schedule were inexcusable and not constructive. Yelling "you lie" started it all off.
I applaud the people running the meeting for their patience. I fear this will only escalate in the future meeting updates.
I'm curious....
I'm an outsider curious about something.....
What is the purpose of the future meetings?
Just a status update?
Hope these guys get battle pay.
Yep, status updates
They originally planned to have meetings every two months to update people on what they could expect over the next two months (presumably getting more and more specific with each, like which specific roads will be affected by what work).
They might go to monthly meetings, though. And at the next meeting, they promised to have more detailed information on the ENTIRE project - some residents expressed frustration over not getting answers to longer-term questions last night.
Then again, some residents expressed frustration over pretty much everything, from the lighting (it was dark in there, apparently there was a problem with the lights) to the state not doing enough to notify illiterate people about the meetings. After the MassDOT project leader read off a list of all the newspapers - from Brookline to Dorchester - in which he'd advertised last night's meeting, somebody yelled "What about people who can't read?!?" He might have been the same guy who, after some resident stood up and said people who want more info could go to some West Roxbury page on Facebook, yelled "I don't have Internet!"
So many weird complaints
Including the dimness of the room--er, it was a slideshow--and the woman who kept barking "where do you live?" as if it mattered where this quiet engineer discussing plans for dust and noise mitigation lived on South Street or not
Oh, yeah, the "where do you live?" thing was great
After the crowd harrumphed and snickered when that guy admitted he lived in Worcester, for Christ's sake, another one of the planners got 'em good by listing his address right in Forest Hills.
"How long have you lived there?!?" one grump yelled.
ugh
similar battle playing out further south in rozzie - old timers are upset with young families pushing for safer streets. sorry - but just because you were born in the neighborhood doesn't give you the right to drive 40 mph down our street in front of a school when kids are getting out. Same sort of mentality.
regarding the BFH group - I overheard someone wanted to keep the bridge to "block gentrification" from creeping south. Using car-infrastructure to keep an area crappy and dangerous just so rents remain low is the worst sort of tactic. This is redlining era crap. These people make me angry.
Umm... some people,
Umm... some people, especially people on a fixed income, can't afford higher rents. People have every right to voice their concern about gentrification and rising rent costs. Where do you expect people to live once you push them out of Roslindale? The South End???
So...
we should leave the crumbling eyesore there (or build a new bridge?) to prevent further gentrification of Roslindale? Really? come on. These are two totally separate issues. If you prevented every transportation or infrastructure improvement on that logic, we'd all be sitting in a crumbling pile of bricks.
It's not an either or
It's not an either or situation. Sorry, but I do sympathize with less than well to do residents being forced out of their homes and neighborhoods. To me, that's not progress.
Again...
arguing against much-needed infrastructure improvements because it may raise rents is just pointless. If that were valid, we'd still have an elevated train running along washington st, no Red Line to Somerville, and on and on. Perfectly fine to be concerned but as a reason to halt progress? Not ok.
I'm also concerned about gentrification
but decreasing safety as a tactic to combat increasing rents is the absolute most lowest and disgusting thing you could do.
The planner from JP
The guy on the team from Forest Hills lived there until college, and after a few years in Eastie, he bought a place two streets from his Parents house. He's lived there longer than plenty of BFH Crazies.
blind
The rant about "not enough outreach to the blind" was the topper for me. That and the fellow hogging the mic and screaming "Bullsh*t!!"
I'm really looking forward to the BFH comments to this article.
They're sure to be posted in CAPS LOCK with maybe just a bit of italics, for flavor.
Not their scene
I've never actually seen a self-identified BFH'er comment here on Adam's reporting... they don't seem like the most tech-savvy folks, and since none of their arguments hold up to scrutiny (seriously, read the manifesto on their web site if you have 45 spare minutes and are a vicious masochist), they prefer to confine themselves to places that don't allow for real back-and-forth. Which is probably why they prefer to keep their IMPORTANT ALL CAPS statements on paper. Usually package-taped to people's front doors.
Unfortunately for them, no
Unfortunately for them, no one will ever take them seriously with what's-his-name as their ringleader.
Who I like so much
In other contexts--he's a terrific guy. But on this topic he becomes completely unhinged.
Terrific guy or not, I've
Terrific guy or not, I've known him for 30 years and he is un-hinged more than hinged.
Casey Overpass
Jamaica Plain is not the only area that will be harmed by the highway. It will extend all the way from Roxbury and Dorchester into the Longwood medical area. No one will be able to move. As a wheelchair user, I won't even be able to cross the street to get to Forest Hills. Might as well stay home rather than taking an hour to cross the street where likely I will be hit. Same for elders, people with other mobility issues, little kids, and a lot of bikers. Name calling is a bad substitute for a discussion.
What "highway?"
Respectfully, it doesn't sound as if you've looked closely enough at the project plans. I'm pretty certain that pedestrian access and especially handicapped access to the areas around the station will be improved in a huge way. Note again that every pedestrian and bicycle advocacy group in boston is behind this plan--and that there's no "highway" being planned at all. Look at the plans--or at Clayton Harper's detailed examination of them on his website and I think you'll be reassured.
link to design of central portion
http://arborwaymatters.blogspot.com/2015/01/casey-arborway-central-secti...
All crosswalks and sidewalks should be more accessible and safer than the current situation, and the new head house provides direct Orange Line platform access via elevator so that commuters from the north won't have to cross the Arborway at all.
Info. meeting with DOT re: Casey Demo on Weds. eve
I am a self-identified supporter of a replacement bridge. There wd. be no reason to rebuild the Casey; however, a smaller, functional replacement bridge wd. save those of us who actually live in the immediate neighborhood from being trapped by unnecessary at grade traffic. For those of you who didn't follow through from the beginning, DOT did not deal in a straight forward manner with the neighborhoods. Too much history to print here, but ham-handed and inexpressed decisions (with a resulting dishonest dynamic) got the pot boiling. I agree that there was some fractiousness at the meeting last night; had the DOT chosen to start with the construction info. rather than the obnoxious 15 minute sales pitch, it would have gone more quietly at the beginning. But considering the history, I thought the attendees were patient and listened to each others questions, and waited their turns, and appreciated the info. received, and carried the awareness that the DOT persons were the message carriers, not the message creators.
DOT did not want to maintain a bridge, and the Gov. and Sec'y. of Transportation made the decision, whilst allowing the residents to believe there was a real negotiation going on. While I appreciated Gov. Patrick, I am hopeful that our new Gov. will be more willing to engage with the details of running the state and we will be less subjected to the convenience of the agencies, who are paid by us to give better attention than we hve experienced so far .
"Patient...waited their turn...appreciated the info received..."
I think we must have been at different meetings. Not to mention all of the bizarro accusations from BFHers leveled at the presenters re where they lived or even weirder the lighting "we can't see you!" and the hooting and catcalls throughout...it was not impressive.
how dare you question all the
how dare you question all the new hip biking bohemian JPers with their urban planning degrees. and before i get labeled an autophile, ive been biking there for waaay longer than you timid bunch that cant seem to maneuver going under a bridge without dying.
Bridge dreaming
In fact the DOT has maintained the bridge, only it's a lousy design and faulty. Had they decided to keep it the repair phase would have seen the overpass close for the third time in 30 years while the restoration occurred. I believe there have been years of meetings with several opportunities for you to speak out. There are a preponderance of reasons to get rid of the bridge. Anyone who drives that road regularly knows it's a false time saving as they end up waiting for 3-4 light cycles during the morning rush hour headed to the Arboretum Circle OR multiple cycles at Blue Hill Avenue headed east in the evening. I actually commuted to JP Centre Street during the last closure and frankly I never bothered to change my route as the effect was perhaps another one or two light cycles at Washington Street. That was without all the planning and stuff. The sky won't fall and you've LOST. GIVE IT UP folks. Find something positive to do instead of pissing off the young cycling activists in the room that I've seen on social media calling Jeff Ferris and Liz Malia Old White JP Mafia or worse.
hate to burst your bubble
but the new transportation secretary was actually involved in advocating for at-grade.
Besides - you will have a very hard time finding any competent urban planner and/or transportation expert who would even want to consider building an overpass these days, especially in this context. I'm not sure why they even entertained a new bridge in the first place - probably because of language in the federal contribution to the project?
they only handed out flyers on top of the bridge
instead of down below at the station. I go through there every day and I never saw them on the ground during the time when things were most intense - My guess is they were trying to play into fears of people commuting over the neighborhood instead of actually talking to people who use the station and pass through there on foot or bike.
There was at least one on the ground
I saw it yesterday, taped to that painted electrical box across from the station by the Forest Hills Diner. But it was kind of tiny.
Your claim of rationale is a bit off
First, I have seen flyers put up on utility poles the length of Washington Street from the Station to Archdale Road, so they are targeting more than drivers.
Second, I would think rousing up the bus and subway crowd would be a better option, as my feeling is that the backups, even after the 2 years of construction are over, will wreck my morning bus ride to the station. As it is, I have been trying to time out the difference between walking from Tollgate Way versus taking the bus all the way. My fear is that the question with stretch back to Aldwin Road, or perhaps further back. Unless all the cars magically disappear as some of the at-grade supporters claim.
why didn't they rouse the subway/bus/bike crowd?
Nothing on their website says anything about the impact to non-car commuters. It's like we don't even exist.
tollgate way - already some days it's faster to walk.. but it's because the signal timing is really weird there. once you get past forest hills it's completely clear. Personally - I'd prefer they'd expand the orange line to rozzie - it would solve so many problems, but I have no idea if that'll happen in our lifetimes.
I just don't think there's much of a pro-bridge argument
For bus and T and bike commuters. Every advocacy group I know--Livable Streets, WalkBoston, the cyclists Union all came out early in favor of the at-grade solution (here's an old but nice sum-up) http://bostoncyclistsunion.org/uncategorized/misinformation-abounds-on-c... so I think they probably decided that was fallow ground.
You're not thinking hard enough
Cyclists- a new bridge with bike lanes would make getting from the Arboretum to Franklin Park much easier than dealing with 2 major street crossings.
Bus commuters- the increased traffic conflicts (compared to when there was a flyover for Route 203) means more delays. The 39 will end up even slowed than it is now. Being a bus commuter, this is an issue for me.
Debate these all you want, but I just gave you 2 arguments.
I'm not an engineer or an urban planner but
If what you're saying is true, when why do you think all of the groups I listed are all so strongly in favor of the at-grade solution? All of them. And re a bridge with bike lanes? I just don't buy it. Going where? Shea Circle which is a total nightmare, though the way some of the attendees the other night were going on about it, you'd think it was some combination of the Champs Élysées and Monticello that was being removed.
Mostly I still don't understand why the arguing continues. The decision was made in 2012. There is not going to be a bridge. I think most people in the neighborhood would like to see constructive, thoughtful progress, not keep beating this dead horse.
I don't know why people think the way they think
Bike lanes on the bridge? Seems like a no brainer.
Shea circle? More of an impediment to getting to Franklin Park than the bridge (I even entered the park from there today) so one way or another that problem needed to be solved.
Griping about a decision from 3 years ago? Hey, it's JP. Go up to someone who has lived in JP 20 or more years and start a conversation about the Arborway Green Line. You'll get an earful. I agree that the decision has been made, even though I think it was the wrong one.
If I could figure human nature, I'd be a rich man. I am not.
Which route do cyclists use?
My impression and personal experience, is that bicycle traffic is passing between JP and Rozzie/HP. Not a lot of people are riding on the Arborway or Morton St., so a bridge with bike lanes doesn't serve too many of us when the vast majority of trips involve passing through the area at grade, perpendicular to route 203.
At any rate, it's interesting to see the activism in support of a highway, some of it coming from the same people who correctly opposed the Southwest Expressway. Things come full circle, or maybe it's really just always about fighting anything that comes from an external source.
You're going SW -> NE (or vice versa)
My take is that were people looking to go from the Arboretum to Franklin Park, currently they can avoid the Washington Streets (both of them) via the bridge. That will be removed. And as cycling advocates say (or at least should say), the issue shouldn't be current cycling per se, but encouraging more cycling.
Now, Shea Circle is another story. As the November 19, 2013 meeting notes say, there is an understanding that something has to be done about that. I would not want to try to navigate that rotary on a bike- it's tough enough on foot.
And not a highway, an overpass.
biking from Arboretum to Franklin Park
You may not realize that there are continuous off-street cycle and pedestrian paths from the Forest Hills Gate of the Arboretum to Forest Hills Cemetery on the south side and from South Street to Franklin Park on the north side in the final design. On the north, only the sidewalk continues off-street west from South Street to a crosswalk by the Gate. The bike path is on-street west of South Street.
It is true users will have to cross two major N-S roads to travel the entire length, but all crossings have dedicated and separated crosswalks and signals for each mode (bike, ped).
And again, that's a heck of a lot better than now for recreational use, especially with no Shea rotary. An extra $30 million or so to put the bikes in the air is... Not going to happen.
You're arguing backwards
Yes, the bridge will not be replaced by a bridge, but cyclists, like drivers, will now have the joy of waiting at 2 traffic lights.
Look, at this stage I'm arguing for the sake of it. People want a reason why cyclists might want a bridge, I give it. People want a reason why us bus commuters see doom and gloom, I give it.
And are you seriously going to say that the $30 million wasn't the reason the deck was stacked against the deck?
Too bad...
... no one decided a new overpass was going to be an Olympic essential. ;-}
I'm arguing recreationally at this point too
but Pete Stidman addresses the bike/bridge issue in his piece--apparently the bridge plans included no bike lane at all. And even if it did, while some daredevil cyclists might choose to zoom up a bridge next to two lanes of fast traffic, I suspect most of us would prefer to wait through a couple of lights to stay on the flat.
Cyclists and traffic on a bridge?
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...
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
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 ($30 million) and long-term maintenance obligations, and it's cost precludes the additional infrastructure enhancements included in the project as designed.
The oft-repeated notion that that state had a pre-determined ("cheap") outcome in mind is not supported by the facts. It was known that a bridge could carry the volume since one already was doing so. Alternatives were studied at length to determine if they were viable. They were. And that opened up many other opportunities for revitalizing the area.
This is a random question but
This is a random question but I'm wondering if anybody has a video recording of this meeting? I ask because I'm working on a documentary about this project and would like to use the footage. I could pay a small amount for any recorded footage (not much, maybe like 15$-20$ as I'm rather broke). Thanks.
Nope
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
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/Meetings/DesignandPlanningM...
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
Very thorough and helpful--thank you. http://arborwaymatters.blogspot.com/?m=1
Well then, wish I had enough
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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?
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...
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
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
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?
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:
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
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