That ship has sailed, lady.

Barbara,

From what I can see of the numbers from MassHighway and the Dedham newspapers, the Providence Highway overpass of High/Harris Street cost approximately $17 million. The project had initial designs way back in 1998, was bid in 2004, and started in 2005. The cost would be higher today. After numerous delays and overruns, the project was completed in the spring of 2010.

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=75411

The length of the Providence Highway overpass is about 350-400 ft, or one quarter to one third of the length of the now-rejected Casey bridge alternative (depending on how you measure). I'm just going by on-line numbers; I don't know exactly what was covered in the Providence Highway contract.

Furthermore, compare the picture above to the renderings of the rejected Casey bridge alternative provided by MassDOT:

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/downloads/alternative_renderings.pdf

Given that the Casey renderings aren't meant to be photorealistic, I think the comparison is pretty favorable to the renderings. The underside of the Casey bridge and the design of its abutments look better than the Dedham overpass.

Finally, the Providence Highway overpass doesn't appear to be "stone face": it looks like concrete to me, and nothing in the on-line information says anything different.

Seems to me like the Dedham result supports MassDOT's budget and presentation for its Casey bridge alternative.

yes, the "stone face" that Barbara appears to be thinking of is actually the (very old) retaining wall to the parking lot serving the theatre and shops there.

I've actually gone under that bridge a lot driving from that part of Dedham to Hyde Park, and it's a sterile, unremarkable span. (granted, I'd call the stone-faced Riverway bridges from the Depression unremarkable as well, but the Dedham bridge is much more like something that you'd see at Logan or something -- totally utilitarian.)

The stone face in the photo here seems to be on the abutments, or in other words only on either end of the bridge—doesn't do much to beautify the bridge itself. The photo is probably pretty representative of what we could hope to get if history had been different (the decision has been made now), but it doesn't change the fact that neither those who supported the at-grade solution nor those who would have preferred to build a bridge could find an example anywhere in the world where building a bridge actually improved the local economy. On the other hand, several dozen examples from around the world, the U.S. and even Boston (the Central Artery, City Square in Charlestown, the El in JP) have shown very clearly that local economies benefit a great deal from removing elevated structures. Particularly a girder bridge (like the one in the picture) simply cannot be an asset to the neighborhood. It would merely eliminate a few stoplights for people passing over our neighborhood.

So, improving the commute of about 20,000 people (but not quite as much as would be possible with a bridge), and maybe a few thousand left-turners off of the arborway get a delay of a minute or two vs. vastly improving the quality of life and economic vitality of a neighborhood of 40,000 people or more. I'm just not seeing why this is a tough decision for some of us. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

upon reconsideration, there may be stone on the very far right of the frame, forming a wall to the parking lot. it's not particularly noticable, though.

@ Jerry O'Connor. I totally agree on your point about finding things to agree about, and I appreciate the energy both sides have put into our neighborhood debate and how much all of us care deeply about our neighborhoods future. Sometimes good process can be a little overly intense due to the passions of those involved, myself included.

Anyway, all of us at the Boston Cyclists Union, it's fair to say, are looking forward to what hopefully will become the two sides of the debate coming together to make a project that we're all proud of. I long for the day of the ribbon cutting where we all shake hands proudly and put old wounds behind us.

Hi Jerry,

Not sure if by "It is striking how two people can see the same thing and draw different conclusions" you meant me. My goal was to try to answer Barbara's specific question and give come context and reflection of how the Providence Highway Overpass related to the Casey bridge alternative.

To me, one antidote to opposing "strongly held views" and a factious process is to deal with facts and fact-based analysis when possible. The core question of whether an individual prefers a bridge to the absence of a bridge remains, but we are all better then that question is driven more by information and less by emotion, or at least by fear.

I can add one additional fact. The 2003 traffic counts for the Providence Highway were something like 46,000 to 47,000 cars per day, between 150% and 200% of Casey daily traffic.

It shows up on Google Maps( http://tinyurl.com/cay8nfl). Google Streetview shows it under construction.
I suspect a major difference between the two projects, is that Casey is surrounded by ample state owned lands, the Dedham replacement bridge isn't. Any at-grade solution in Dedham would have resulted in the taking of private property.

Thanks for all the info leads on this bridge, especially from the MA web site:
Construction Contract Value: $16,825,011.83
Construction Bid Price: $14,315,649.35
Initial Construction Estimate: $13,522,198.00

The Dedham overpass/bridge is designed to carry twice the traffic, including full truck traffic, compared to the Casey Overpass, yet it was originally expected to cost under $15 million. In rough numbers, the review process had the at-grade solution at $50 million and a bridge solution at $70 million ($20 million for the bridge alone). Considering the actual Dedham bridge cost, it seems that the absolute and the relative cost of the projected Forest Hills bridge was ginned up a bit by Mass DOT in the discussion process, which does not seem to have been particularly helpful to a fair-minded effort by JP/Forest Hills Community to be able to work in a planning process for the sensible transportation infrastructure development of our neighborhood. But as Mass DOT is settled on the "at-grade" solution, maybe going forward they can bit more respectful of the challenges ahead which proponents of a bridge solution were looking to mitigate through the use of a bridge, and that additional money may need to be spent to reasonably optimize what is indeed built.