Chris, The number of people speaking for or against either solution at last night's meeting is a moot point. It is simply an indicator of how organized supporters/detractors are at getting people to show up. This decision is not up for a vote. There has been a long and rather involved process whose main goal was to seek the best solution for the Forest Hills neighborhood, Jamaica Plain, and regional communities that use the overpass. We were told not to consider budget when coming up with alternatives. That they are using cost as a determining factor at this point is disingenuous at best.
I know that the Patch likes controversy, but this is one topic that needs to be discussed rationally and not hysterically.

Hi David,
I know you have been involved in this process and favor the bridge plan, but aside from that can you tell those of us who weren't involved if there was a way established to discuss and quantify aesthetic differences between the plans?

Thanks

I can think of two nearby aesthetically pleasing overpasses, although I don't know their names, specifically the Riverway Jamaicaway bridge that crosses Huntington Ave and the railroad bridge that crosses Hyde Park Ave in Readville. One of their defining features is the stone used in the construction as well as the arched designs. Like many people I am skeptical that a modern bridge on a modern budget can rise to that kind of architectural beauty. What do you think?

Also, judging by your comments here, and previously, it seems that you believe the process has been increasingly biased by its planners toward the at-grade option because of the higher price tag of a bridge in spite of a bridge being a better traffic solution. Is that a fair assessment?

I cannot accept that there's no appreciable difference between the two solutions. I just don't trust it.

James, the Riverway/Jamaicaway bridge that crosses Huntington Ave may be attractive to see from a distance, but it has two of the negative features of the Casey Overpass: it marks a distinct separation between the communities on either side of it, rather than connecting them, and if you had ever stood under it waiting for the 66 bus you would know it can be a creepy place -- you know, the shadowy underside, etc.
'Tis the season to be thankful, and I am grateful to the DOT and the WAG for sifting through the issues and alternatives. While either of the two alternatives under consideration would be an improvement over the present traffic patterns, I hope we can avoid another overpass.

I'm also a member of the working advisory group. I'd like to follow up on some of the issues David raised. He's been a great contributor in the Casey advisory group meetings. I ultimately hope that many of us can come to see the final solution as something we can live with, even if it isn't the plan we prefer.

I've had a very open mind about both the bridge and the surface plans, and I don't see either as an ideal solution or as a horrible solution. The fact is, there are lots of cars driving through and to the area, and neither plan will change that. Both plans handle the traffic about equally: one by keeping lanes in the air, the other by providing more through lanes on the surface. The capacity we're designing for is needed for about five hours a day, at times when the Arborway itself is likely to be a major constraint on traffic.

I see the surface option as having a better ability to be tuned to the needs of through and local traffic, specifically because it isn't dedicating on-bridge lanes to through traffic that doesn't need it much of the day.

Traffic counts: multiple traffic counts in the area have been within about 15% of the current counts. One outlier from 2004 (I think) measured 50% higher, but there's no documentation of the raw numbers. Neither plan would stand up well to the +50% traffic, and overbuilding would just bring more traffic to the neighborhood. Both plans are designed for growth and development through 2035.

More points follow.

Continuing from my last comment....

David is right that we were encouraged not to consider price as an issue during the discussions. I think that was the correct approach: if we could find consensus on a plan that happened to be somewhat more expensive, the advantages should outweigh the extra costs.

But that doesn't mean that costs shouldn't be a factor in the decision. Money saved here will be redirected toward fixing other bridges in the state. That's important. Every public project needs to consider costs.

But let's look at those costs. The bridge solution is about $15 million more costly than the at-grade plan. The at-grade plan price even includes additional improvements along Washington Street next to the T station and in the busway, improvements that help bring the at-grade plan's performance on par with the bridge option. Making those same improvements to the bridge option would cost another $10 million.

I would favor a more visually pleasing bridge structure as well, but any extra money spent on a less utilitarian design will only increase the cost difference between the two plans. Considering cost earlier would not have changed this fundamental.

I agree that the renditions are not accurate. I do see the wider at-grade road as a negative for pedestrians, just as a bridge is a minus. People will adjust to either.

I just don't see how those issues add up to $15 million or more extra for a bridge with approximately the same traffic capacity.

I'd like to know if the potential increases in local population due to the Forest Hills Initiative have been included in these numbers. If that entire swath of land across the street from the Dunkin Donuts gets developed, along with all the parking lots (Fitzgerald, and T) there will be an enormous increase in traffic. Other things: - what about the increase in noise? All those cars which are currently sending their decibels and fumes above us will now be at ground level.... Also - given the huge number of Jaywalkers already at FH - how will this impact traffic flow at street level?

I'm also on the WAG. I'd like to comment on the question of livability: is livability better with a bridge that takes cars off the ground, or with an at-grade solution with cars on the ground? I think that's the key question now.

The urban design consultants have said recently that they feel the at-grade option is better for livability. History supports that opinion. We've seen many examples of overpass removals around the world. None of those examples are exactly like Forest Hills, but they are still relevant. In almost all cases, the traffic formerly carried by a bridge is now carried on surface streets with additional car lanes. In all cases, despite the addition of significant car traffic to surface streets, neighborhoods, local businesses, and livability were better off after the overpasses were removed.

Don Kindsvatter also described the shift in focus that comes with overpass removal. A big object like a bridge draws attention. Without that object (even with more cars on the surface), attention is drawn to the edges of an area, especially if there are attractive elements on the edges.

This area is surrounded by world-class parks, vibrant neighborhoods, beautiful buildings including the T station and the courthouse, and local businesses. Even if we can design a beautiful new bridge, that bridge will draw attention away from the area's edges and define the area. I think the incredible features that surround Forest Hills should define the area, not a bridge.

I just want to thank my neighbors on this thread: This discussion has been a model of what I'd like to see on JP Patch -- informed people, using their real names, having real discussions about important neighborhood issues. Thanks, everyone.

I want to remind those who have so much faith in the traffic estimates, that when the Forest Hills Initiative was in it's planning stages, they figured on fewer than 1 extra vehicle per extra units of housing built (and there are currently hundreds and hundreds of units which can be built according to the FHII). To me, that seemed like wishful thinking at best. I don't know what the car ownership rate is in FH, but I'm certain it's higher than 1/housing unit... So, again, I'm curious what numbers were used here? Wishful thinking ones? or ones truly based on current percentages of vehicle ownship in the area.

From Sarah Freeman, who had tech problems (2 of 2):

"* Cost: A bridge is so much more expensive.
* Other improvements only possible if no bridge: Bike path on Washington St, by T station, ped access from SW Corridor Park to T without crossing street.
* Shadows: Space under overpass tends to be dark, dreary & wet. Not a pleasant public space.
* Noise: High speed traffic on overpass is noisier, plus echo chamber effect.
* Graffiti, broken glass, trash: Casey has them. No reason to expect otherwise for new bridge.
* Anti-social activities, especially at night: Space underneath can attract late night drug deals, alcohol, homeless encampments etc. All important social issues - do we want to attract them here?
This is a HUGE opportunity, don't miss it!"

From Sarah Freeman, who had tech problems (1 of 2):
"Initially I tried to be neutral, but as the process evolved it became more clear that IF traffic can be handled at-grade, that seems far better for Forest Hills & Emerald Necklace parks. Some reasons:
* Removal of a massive structure that dominates the area & prevents it from feeling like an urban neighborhood: A smaller overpass will still define Forest Hills because it goes over 2 intersections.
* Traffic calming: At Arborway Hillside/end of Casey, across from Arboretum you feel speed of traffic coming off Casey. It contributes to climate of speeding & aggressive driving: "we want to move cars as fast as possible"! only to sit thru multiple cycles of next light. Our choice: ELEVATED HIGHWAY vs. URBAN BOULEVARD LINED WITH TREES?

I would like to comment on the idea expressed by a couple of people above that this process was somehow flawed or did not allow time for questions. This last public meeting was in fact the 6th public meeting and there were 12 WAG meetings—many of which I personally attended. Relatively speaking, this is probably the largest number of meetings I've seen on any project in Jamaica Plain and perhaps the city—the only rival I can think of being the redesign of an entire neighborhood in Columbia Point that ended up being moot after some property sales.

Every meeting's minutes and presentation and supporting documents have been posted at http://app1.massdot.state.ma.us/CaseyOverpass/ for everyone to see, and the consultant team has faithfully answered everyone's questions, including all of the commenters above.

Frankly I think questioning the process, which has been excellent, is a non-starter. We've had an excellent and balanced discussion with rich sources of information. The community has weighed in and that "popularity contest" (a.k.a. democracy) should be counted as well. I look forward to working with everyone to craft whichever solution is chosen by MassDOT into one that works best for the greatest number of users possible.

Does anyone have a timeline for this project? Bid dates etc? Thank you

Hi Stuart, there was a very general slide at the last meeting about years and design phases, but I don't recall anything as specific as a bid date. Can't find a link to that slide, but maybe others on the thread can help.