- Local every day in
With the Casey Overpass bridge gone (that ugly, isolating, divisive eyesore!), we will host a 6-lane highway through Forest Hills. The 6-lane "at grade" highway solution will:
- make it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross - oops
- shorten bus travel times - oops
- provide much needed traffic calming - oops
- reconnect the Emerald Necklace - oops
- remove a visual barrier and eyesore - oops
- slow down commuter traffic - Yes!
[Editor's note: The Sandra Boynton reference is to her children's book, which features series like "Blue Hat, Green Hat, Red Hat, Oops." In the "Oops" section, there's something wrong, like the hat being worn on a creature's feet.]

Heather Carito
12:51 pm on Monday, March 26, 2012
You can add
-make it easier to get to local businesses - oops
-improve air quality in Forest Hills - oops
Anne McKinnon
2:29 pm on Monday, March 26, 2012
You forgot to say the at-grade scheme will
- add more open space than you'd get with a brand spankin' new bridge - oops
- simplify the roadway network, a goal of the project - oops
Christina Fritsch
8:57 am on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Well said!
William Furr
9:33 am on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Way less of an oops than a new bridge would be.
And when you build a *highway bridge* like a new overpass would have been, you're stuck with it for 50 years unless you can come up with the funds to tear it down. A roadway, even a 6-lane one, can be reconfigured much more easily when future conditions merit.
You also left out the $15 million dollars in transit station, sidewalk, and bicycle path improvements to come along with the surface streets. Those, along with on longer having on- and off-ramps from a highway bridge, will in fact make it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, shorten bus travel times, provide traffic calming, removing a visual barrier, and reconnect the emerald necklace.
Also, you can't have traffic calming without also slowing commuter traffic. That's exactly what traffic calming is. Also, there will be zero net effect on *regional* delays, due to reduced traffic congestion at Murray Circle. By making cars spend a bit more time at Forest Hills, delays elsewhere are equivalently reduced.
Anyway, if you really want to agitate for something that will make even more of a difference across all of these areas, building yet another piece of car-only infrastructure is not it. Advocate distributing or splitting up future commercial development in Longwood. Advocate for affordable housing within a reasonable distance to work. Advocate for maximum possible bicycle and transit facilities to provide alternatives to car commuting.
Mark Tedrow
10:34 am on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
William, well said!
Andrea Cherez
11:01 am on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Great comments!
Hopefully, we'll all be able to afford living in JP by the time the work's done - oops
Hopefully, we'll all be able to afford to live, period - oops
Pete Stidman
11:53 am on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
It's amazing to me that people who can see with their own eyes the benefits we gained when Gov. Sargent killed the idea of installing a real 6-lane elevated highway right through JP would fight so hard to keep a highway-like bridge in Forest Hills. In every single case around the country and around the world, local businesses benefit from bridge removal. There is no evidence at all to support any claim to the contrary.
David M.
12:51 pm on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
When I lived in New York, I loved biking over the George Washington Bridge -- great views, fresh air. Also walking the Brooklyn Bridge. Also walking in Olmstead's Riverside Park where I could walk OVER the busy Transit way. A shame that MassDOT would not allow bikes and walkers onto the proposed bridge, but instead designed it to dedicated it solely to automobiles. A bigger shame was that all the clearly important bike-friendly and Forest Hills Station multimodal improvements were ONLY included in the "at-grade" solution. The fix was in to go with the solution that would be cheaper, but which a 21st century Olmstead would clearly recognize was not the proper answer for the Emerald Necklace and the multi-modal transportation needs of the area.
William Furr
1:18 pm on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
They weren't included because the bridge costs $30 million dollars! That's a huge sum of money for a local transportation project like this.
Why don't we work together in the next set of design meetings to *make* the surface option the proper answer? Let's *prioritize* bicycles, pedestrians, transit users, and park users, and then *accommodate* the pass-through car commuters that add nothing to the area (and who certainly don't deserve $30 million dollars of bridge over bike lanes, side paths, crosswalks, new station houses, etc.)
Marc near the Park
1:41 pm on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Damn right William. Well put!
Em
3:30 pm on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
I wish this article was more straight foward. All that oops business makes it confusing. Why don't you clearly articulate your point of view (is this where I add an oops? No clue).
Marc near the Park
4:28 pm on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Barbara and the commenters using oops are being sarcastic and per their belief the at grade solution will do none of the things that they are highlighting.
Heather Carito
5:00 pm on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Re the bridge, it was never to be a 6-lane highway bridge. It was a 2- lane bridge. I think some people forget that the bridge that is part of Rt 203 is a major artery for commuters from Dorchester, Mattapan, Quincy, Milton, etc. I live in Forest Hills and don't want the extra 24, 000 vehicles that use the bridge down where I walk and drive and live.And if I were a commuter from Quincy trying to get to and from work I would not want to have the 5 sets of lights that come with at-grade added to my commute. Those cars won't go away,(especially with the T cuts!) but they will look for alternate routes: Walk Hill St, Forest Hills St, South St,Wash St, your street. I'm curious how many residents of Forest Hills prefer the at-grade; I personally have not spoken to one.
William Furr
5:12 pm on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
There's three of us that have posted on this very article, Ms. Carito.
I live in Forest Hills and I hate walking under a bridge and playing frogger trying to get across the complicated intersections with ramps from the bridge. I would much rather have a straightforward signalized intersection with a nice wide crosswalk and separate bicycle facilities. The folks who live just north of the area will really appreciate having station access on the north side of New Washington St as well.
And those commuters from Quincy get exactly *zero* benefit from the bridge, either as is or the new one. The extra speed they get zooming overhead through Forest Hills just backs up the next intersection (Murray Circle) that much worse. Spreading out the congestion will actually give shorter individual wait times per light and same wait time overall.
Besides, the best way to deal with all those commuters is *not* to try and build them an elevated highway through our neighborhood! That's the exact same blight that has *destroyed* communities all around the country from the 50s to 70s. Let's advocate for more choices for those commuter instead, moving closer, riding bikes, taking the T.
Ken Griffin
6:09 pm on Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Hi Heather! I’m pro bridge for a lot of different reasons, but one of the biggies is the inability of the BPD, or anyone else for that matter, to control the behavior of traffic in the Forest Hills area. Cars routinely run stop signs and red lights – fail to come to a complete stop before a right on red, drive like crazy, etc. I see William’s point and would love to “see” an unobstructed view, but that’s why I climb the 4,000 footers in New Hampshire! So now, both at-grade and bridge proponents are now united (for better or worse) to make the best of it – it will be ugly and it will be disappointing and I’m basing my projections on the track record the State has with “promises kept” regarding the CNG refueling facility on Washington Street. I will make it a point to push away all of the mulch that the contractor will undoubtedly pile up against the lower trunks of the newly planted trees, until they die for lack of maintenance and water…