One section of 1950s-era plan called the Inner Circle to turn the Jamaicaway and other streets around the city into a highway to complement the Casey Overpass. This map is from the Boston Globe, March 25, 1969, reporting on continuing opposition to the plan.

During Jamaica Plain’s great debate on the Casey Overpass, [...]]]> By Pete Stidman

One section of 1950s-era plan called the Inner Circle to turn the Jamaicaway and other streets around the city into a highway to complement the Casey Overpass. This map is from the Boston Globe, March 25, 1969, reporting on continuing opposition to the plan.

During Jamaica Plain’s great debate on the Casey Overpass, some have said that it has no relation whatsoever to Boston’s highway revolt of the 1960s—the “street fight” that brought us the Southwest Corridor instead of an elevated highway. But the truth is they are both part of a relatively short period of history when road engineers, politicians and even newspaper reporters were all fighting the evil “bottleneck” and devising everyway they could to drive long distances without ever experiencing a slow down or even a stop light.

Over the last few days I’ve dug into the annals of the Boston Globe to get a little context that adds some detail to this time period and how the Casey rests within it. In its time, Casey was the largest structure the Metropolitan District Commission had ever constructed—and considered “massive” by Bostonians when it was built in 1953. It became part of larger plan for highways utilizing the edges of the Emerald Necklace and other parks called the “Inner Circle” that was eventually halted.

A second scheme, the Master Highway Plan announced by the state in 1948, was even more ambitious. It included the Southwest Expressway (I-95) that would have plowed through Jamaica Plain, seven other radial highways and an “Inner Belt” highway that would have run through Roxbury, Brookline, Kenmore, Cambridge and Somerville.

Once these projects began, and Bostonians began to see the results—not to mention the thousands who were made to move out of their homes—a citywide revolt emerged and after much battle, the governor called a moratorium on all highway construction.

Going back to the beginning of the story, it’s not hard to see how the desire for huge car infrastructure developed. Cars were already gaining popularity rapidly when Henry Ford began producing the Model T in 1908, making cars affordable to a growing middle class.

In Jamaica Plain, the Arborway was already becoming a dangerous speedway as cars hurtled down the hill from Jamaica Pond. In one account of a police speed trap in 1908, the officers attracted so much attention with their work that informers had blown their cover within an hour.

The Arborway circa 1914.

For the period between 1900 and 1915, the number of motor vehicles registrations in the country was doubling every two years according to the U.S. Census. The numbers slowed and paused for the Great Depression—but growth began promptly again at the close of WWII. As early as 1924, parking along the Arborway, Jamaicaway and Riverway was prohibited in order to make more room for the “autoists.” This effectively doubled the capacity of many of those streets overnight.

Accounts of crashes also ratcheted up, in part due the fact that the first street lights did not arrive in any large numbers until the 1930s. Officers controlled only the most congested intersections, but those were multiplying rapidly, and the first stop signs in the country began appearing in 1915. During the 1930s City Councilors and state Representatives often endeared their constituents by demanding more stoplights for their districts—and it took a while before they got around to every place they were needed.

The first overpass in Boston—at American Legion Highway and Morton Street, also arrived the early 30s, and they were added elsewhere only slowly. Mass Ave and Commonwealth, Mass Ave and Huntington, and a few others sprinkled in. Often the motivation was safety, as many articles lamented the roadway death tolls, but the most intense ire of the day was reserved for “the bottleneck.”

By the 1930s Arborway and Washington St.—-a popular route for long regional trips before the advent of I-93—-was considered one of the bottlenecks that needed mending, along with Atlantic Avenue downtown, several spots on Massachusetts Avenue, and other intersections in the city. Sullivan Square became a focus of attention in the 1940s, but construction on both the Casey and Sullivan Square’s underpass/overpass combination were underway by the 1950s amid a rapidly growing political frenzy to get a handle on the “traffic problem” and ample funding from Washington along with President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1948 Master Highway Plan.

During the 30s, 40s and 50s Republicans and Democrats battled over which party could plan better, which could spend its dollars wiser, but never whether or not elevated roads or overpasses should be built. The answer, even the skeptical newspaper reporters were chanting, was to “take to the sky.” Some in the public, however were making the connection between the hated elevated train lines (for their noise and negative effect on property values) and the proposed elevated roadways.

The old Orange Line Elevated, taken from the Casey Overpass looking down Washington Street.

At the dawn of the elevated highway era in 1935, Governor James Curley was asking the federal government for $40 million in funds to take down the El on Washington Street and stick it underground all the way from Sullivan Square to Forest Hills—stating that “removal of the elevated structure would do much to restore property values along its route.” (Boston Globe, Mar. 28, 1935) Numerous other articles make it clear that there was a huge hue and cry from the populace to take the El down.

The first inklings of an elevated roadway that would one day become the Central Artery first appeared in the Globe in 1928. Commercial tenants and merchants in the district around Faneuil Hall ran a “determined campaign” to alter the city’s planned route, but to no avail. One writer of a letter to the editor in 1950, as the groundbreaking for the project came closer, made the direct connection easily enough: “The Legislature has voted to take down the Elevated, as it is a nuisance, and yet here is the state planning to put another elevated right alongside the one they are going to take down.”

After construction began in the 50s (completed in 1959) it was instantly and widely hated—not only for the traffic it developed later in its life, but for the “great wall” it created between the North End and other parts of town and the suppression of the business district that thrived where it stood before it arrived. A half-century later the roadway was famously buried as part of the Big Dig—the largest and most expensive highway project ever undertaken in the U.S. at over $22 billion all told.

Before and after shots of the Central Artery and today's Rose Kennedy Greenway.

While the Central Artery was linked to the 1948 Highway Master Plan from the state—which included the Inner Belt and eight radial highways (including the SW Expressway that would have run through Jamaica Plain), Casey was linked to the Metropolitan District Commission’s “Inner Circle” highway plan for circumnavigating the city via the parks.

The MDC (today renamed as the Department of Conservation and Recreation) had been acquiring a number of roadways along the Boston parks it managed—many of which were originally designed as an interconnected loop around the city to provide recreation—the famous Emerald Necklace. With the advent of the car, this convenient loop and other unspoiled parks around the state put the MDC into the business of moving traffic. From all appearances, the agency accepted their new charge with gusto.

The Inner Belt idea had been around for eight years by the time the MDC trotted out its plan for an “Inner Circle” in 1956, just three years after the Casey Overpass was completed. It’s hard to imagine its outlines hadn’t been thought of before the massive Casey was built with three lanes in each direction—more capacity than anyone would propose in today’s redesign process.

Titled boldly as a “circumferential highway,” the Inner Circle plan was to turn Jamaicaway into a one-way highway northbound, and the roads on the Brookline side of the pond and Olmsted park into a highway for the southbound traffic. Jamaica Pond would have become the center of a giant traffic circle. To the north, the new highway would connect to the Riverway, which would link to Storrow Drive. To the South, the highway would head down Morton St. to Gallivan Blvd. and connect to Morrissey Blvd. It was anticipated that the planned Southeast Expressway would someday help complete the loop.

Both the 1948 state highway plan with its “Inner Belt” and the 1956 MDC plan with its “Inner Circle” would see opposition build as more open space, homes and businesses were taken. Even as the Casey began construction there were hints. One of the Boston Globe’s concise “Editorial Points” in 1950 proclaimed: “For an example of utility in architecture nothing beats the big highway overpass, which cost three zillion dollars and saves the motorist going nowhere three seconds.”

The Roslindale Board of Trade was perplexed by the Forest Hills Overpass at the time as well. Frederick A. Robinson, that board’s vice president and an engineer employed by the city’s assessing department, wrote that the overpass wouldn’t be needed. Not only would other planned highways obviate the need for it, but in an eerie prescient to today’s bridge/at-grade controversy he wrote, “the traffic on both [Arborway] and Washington Street is only two-way traffic. Couldn’t the section at Forest Hills be expanded for the intersection to four lanes? There is enough room for this… A 60-foot high skeleton of steel for the overpass will certainly not make the parkway there any more attractive.”

Robinson clearly considered himself a pragmatist and a saver of taxpayer dollars, but was also interested in devising the shortest routes for highways. He wrote reams of letters to the editor on traffic planning. In other letters he suggested both that the Central Artery be built underground (predicting the Big Dig), and in another letter that it be built along Commercial Street around the city, rather than directly through it.

Despite his harangues, the Casey Overpass was opened on Labor Day weekend in 1953 and the Central Artery six years later. At the time the Casey was built to handle 100,000 cars passing through the intersection at Washington and Arborway (the actual count made in 1949 was 43,140 vehicles per day for both streets). Robinson’s prediction that an overpass was overkill in this regard turned out to be true—Just over 60,000 vehicles pass through that intersection per day according to more recent counts (36,000 via the Arborway and 24,000 down Washington/Hyde Park Ave).

During the 1960s the fight against the Inner Belt and the SW Expressway planned for a route through Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, the South End, and other communities drew the most ire, but riding on the coattails of this larger movement was a backlash against the MDC’s Inner Circle plan.

Brookline played an early part in both battles, but it wasn’t long before the whole city was up in arms about one part of either plan or another. In 1948 when the Inner Belt route was first announced Brookline residents and officials got riled and let their displeasure with the plan be known—and you can imagine why. It was set to cruise down Longwood Avenue, cross the Riverway and plow straight through the neighborhood over to Beacon Street and Commonwealth beyond, taking out nine homes, five businesses and Amory Playground, Brookline’s biggest. By 1962, the movement was jumping neighborhood boundaries. At one meeting for the SW Expressway in 1962 2,000 people were in attendance, and the crowd jeered and booed when plans were announced. In all, 7,500 families (30,000 people) were facing evictions thanks to the Inner Belt plan.

The Inner Circle wasn’t seizing homes and businesses, but it was acting much more like a highway authority than a conservator of the state’s park system. The plans for the Inner Circle that were laid in 1956 met a formidable obstacle in 1969 when they ran into a young state Rep. named Michael Dukakis. In the preceding years Dukakis had been working with the victims of improper landtaking in Brighton by the state for the Massachusetts Turnpike. A few parcels had allegedly been seized by eminent domain only to sell again to private firms. In 1963 he had alerted the Globe to an investigation by the state’s Attorney General into the matter. When the MDC moved to seize ownership of the Jamaicaway, Riverdale Parkway, and parts of Chestnut Street and Perkins Street by eminent domain, Dukakis clearly understood the process.

A map showing elements of both the Inner Belt and the Inner Circle plans from the Boston Globe, Aug. 11, 1969.

The MDC’s plan was to “straighten out” the Jamaicaway and make it into a one-way northbound highway, and widen Riverdale Parkway, Chestnut and Perkins for a one-way southbound route, turning Jamaica Pond into the center of a giant traffic circle. The Casey, of course, was large enough to handle the increase flow this new highway route would bring. But in 1969, according to the Globe, Dukakis filed legislation to nullify earlier legislation that put the MDC in charge of maintenance on the Riverdale Parkway, just as the agency was trying to seize it, and he and others ultimately blocked the project from moving forward.

“The MDC was determined to go ahead with the double barreled road along the Muddy River which would have made the Jamaicaway one way and put a Storrow Drive type road on the Brookline side between the river and what is now Brook House and the Whiskey Point section of the town,” wrote Dukakis in an email this week.”We found a clause in a grant of land to the town in the area which prohibited its use for other than park purposes, took the MDC all the way to the Supreme Judicial Court, and won. Without that court suit, the road would have been built, and the lovely park along the Brookline side of the Muddy would never have happened.”

Dukakis was elected Governor in 1974 and made one of his goals in that first term dismantling what he believed to be a mismanaged and patronage-choked MDC. The agency proved to have a great deal of political power of its own, however. This era also marked a renewed interest in the then neglected Emerald Necklace, which the state and cities of Brookline and Boston began restoring in the 1980s. The Emerald Necklace Conservancy, a public-private partnership now actively campaigning to take down the Casey and reconnect the link in the Emerald Necklace that was obliterated by it, was formed in 1996 to protect and help maintain the park.

The late 1960s and early 70s saw a broad coalition not only of citizens but also elected officials objecting to the highway plan. Reacting to the changing winds, Governor Frank Sargent put together a citizen task force to review every major transit and highway project in the state in 1969. That same year Mayor Kevin White asked Sargent for a moratorium on all highway construction in Boston—which the governor accepted and expanded to include all highway construction inside Route 128.

Today's SW Corridor.

Thus began a major shift in the state—rare in the nation—toward investing in transit expansion. The Orange Line’s Elevated on Washington street was finally dismantled according to Mayor Curley’s wish, and the line moved to its present location in the Southwest Corridor—where a linear park and bike path were also installed. The Red Line was also extended in both directions, and several parking structures built at terminal stations across the MBTA system. Much later, the Central Artery was also dismantled and put underground as part of the Big Dig.

No longer considered part of a highway plan, hardly ever remembered as part of a highway plan, the Casey Overpass of today is crumbling, and the neighborhood is carefully considering its future. The controversies that developed over the highway proposals of the past helped ensure that a full public process preceded any work on the old bridge, with a 35-member Working Advisory Group meeting 12 times over nine months and six large public meetings to discuss what became over time two concepts for its replacement. One at-grade, and one a not-quite-so massive bridge. Once the state announces a decision, a further public process will help determine all the details of what the next chapter in Forest Hills history will look like.

[Ed.—Additional information from former Gov. Michael Dukakis was added to this article after initial publication.]

A bird's eye view of the Casey Overpass.

Despite his recent arrival in Boston, you may have already come across one or more of Josh Zisson’s projects. He’s been busy promoting his law practice with accident report cards at local bike shops, posts about the state’s bike law on his blog, and reflective Bike Safe Boston t-shirts–the sale of which benefits [...]]]> By Patrick Kelleher-Calnan

Despite his recent arrival in Boston, you may have already come across one or more of Josh Zisson’s projects. He’s been busy promoting his law practice with accident report cards at local bike shops, posts about the state’s bike law on his blog, and reflective Bike Safe Boston t-shirts–the sale of which benefits local advocacy groups.

“What I’m trying to do is use my practice in bike law to pay for my activities as an advocate,” said Zisson a recent graduate from Suffolk Law School. Money from his first big case allowed him to pay for the T-shirts and cards.

Local lawyer Josh Zisson created the Bicyclist's Accident Report for cyclists to use in case of a crash.

BikeSafeBoston.com, Zisson’s website, was an obvious next step for his law practice. Powered by Tumblr, Zisson takes advantage of that platform’s “Ask” function to solicit and answer questions from curious cyclists confused about how the law applies to them.

“This is stuff everyone should know, but there’s no driver’s ed for riding a bike,” he said.

Questions he has answered so far include his opinions on running red lights, wearing helmets, and whether or not mopeds can use bike lanes.

“I think a lot of it has to do with bike lanes,” said Zisson when asked what the most common misconception about bike law, “‘Do you have to ride in the bike lane?’ There’s no good source for this information. People get on the street and think, ‘Oh, I have this special lane — I guess I have to stay in it,’ but that’s totally not the case.”

As far as ideas for changes in the law, Zisson favors a look at the famed “Idaho stop” law. “I do like the Idaho stop law, but I don’t think we’re ready for it here,” he said. “Under the law that they have, a cyclist could be cited for not putting their foot down at a stop sign. So to change that they came up with this idea that, if the intersection is clear, and you slow down, and you look both ways, you can run a stop sign. I think it’s such a reasonable approach to that problem.

However, Zisson does not see law as the major front for bike advocacy. “Laws are great, but I’m really more excited about infrastructure. I think that’s the next step, and laws follow from infrastructure,” he said. “Education is more important than legislation.”

Zisson is, however, very interested in connecting accident victims to lawyers who really know and care about bikes–a mission that would benefit his own bottom line as well as victims in need.

“My goal is to set up a nationwide referral network for bike lawyers,” he said. “If you’re in an accident, you should be able to contact someone who works with bike law, rides bikes, and understand what it’s like to ride in traffic, which I think is very important.”

Image courtesy of the Carfree with Kids blog

The Boston Cyclists Union learned of the decision during a regular check-in on the project, which has been highly anticipated since May of 2010, when Mayor Thomas [...]]]> In a disappointing development this week, the City of Boston is delaying the striping of bike lanes on Massachusetts Avenue between Symphony and the Charles River——possibly until spring.

The Boston Cyclists Union learned of the decision during a regular check-in on the project, which has been highly anticipated since May of 2010, when Mayor Thomas Menino first spoke publicly about extending lanes to the bridge. In the spring of this year, anticipating push-back from motorists and possibly businesses, the Boston Cyclists Union petitioned in order to show support for the project and pack an April planning meeting which drew over 100 cyclists. A subsequent letter campaign from the Union riled BTD commissioner Thomas Tinlin, who then reiterated the fact that at that meeting, “the City unequivocally stated that it would install the bike lane between Symphony and the Harvard Bridge in 2011.”

But some measure of push-back about the plan did end up materializing unbeknownst to the union, delaying the project into 2012 and leaving Boston’s most dangerous street for cyclists un-striped till the weather warms. The delay appears to have been fairly innocuous however, a mixture of a councilor’s concern and a fear or angering local business owners, and the department is still bullish on installing the lane.

“Councilor Ross had some initial issues and concerns… and we talked them through with him,” said Freedman. “It was important for us to let him know that we had talked with businesses numerous times and I think he needed to hear that from us.”

Ross’s concerns were raised in November, and by the time they were fully addressed, the Christmas shopping season had begun, said Freedman, and it was thought that removing parking during this time would send the wrong message to local businesses.

“If that’s the case I feel horrible,” said Ross, a cyclist himself, when asked if he knew his concerns had been part of a delay. “I did not ask them to delay, I only asked that they refer to it as a temporary solution until we can make a better plan.”

Ross, who was unaware of the plan until he read about it in the Boston Herald in November, was also involved in neighborhood discussions surrounding the Berklee College of Music’s plans to develop a new 800-bed dorm and music hall at 168 Mass Ave. An idea was brought up at those discussions to begin a roadway redesign process for the stretch of Massachusetts Avenue between Symphony and the bridge, possibly leveraged with funding from the new development and other upcoming developments along the street.

“They’re very open to it and they’ve talked to the Fenway Cultural District and the BRA [Boston Redevelopment Authority] to see how they would implement the plan,” he said.

In this new design, Ross said, it might be possible to recoup some but not all of the parking lost by installing the bike lanes by widening the street. He also said that a physically separated bike lane could be part of that plan, but it likely would require narrowing sidewalks in some areas where they are “incredibly wide,” such as in front of the Christian Science Center and the Church Park Apartments.

Such a project would take at least five to ten years to complete from design to construction, and might need to reclaim as much as 12 to 16 feet of sidewalk——a move not likely to be popular with pedestrian and accessibility advocates.

In terms of the current plan for the bike lanes on Mass Ave, the city is still determined to install them, but when is not clear due to the cold weather. A warm streak could possibly change that.

“We’ll give it a try if we can, we need a few days of dry,” said Freedman. “It’s not a zero percent chance.”

But that scenario is made unlikely not only by the potential of cold weather and snow, but also by the unusual nature of contracting road striping in the dead of winter. Road striping crews are generally not called together at this time of year. If it were to happen, the lanes would be actually laid with paint, as opposed to the longer lasting thermoplast that most bike lanes are “painted” with.

Neither Freedman nor the BRA could be reached in time for this newsletter to explain where the idea for a new planning process Ross said was under discussion with the BRA stood today, but the Boston Cyclists Union will stay abreast of any new developments and keep you informed.

For example, in a new Air New Zealand commercial (not yet YouTubed fortunately for you), a dashing fellow on an airplane remembers riding bikes [...]]]> Are bicycles becoming the new pop culture aphrodisiac? It seems that every time a commercial wants to communicate romance in two seconds or less, they pan over to a couple riding bicycles.

For example, in a new Air New Zealand commercial (not yet YouTubed fortunately for you), a dashing fellow on an airplane remembers riding bikes and dining out with his young lady love. And in a Helzberg Contrex – Contrexperience (English Version). 

This somewhat silly French Contrex advert illustrates a novel way to stay in shape.

Diamonds spot hitting TV screens these days, yet another beaming duo is seen pedalling slowly to an off-screen bliss. And of course, France is blowing the lid off of the trend with this crazy thing (at right) which scored over a million viewers when it went viral on YouTube just over a month ago.

More and more, it seems, the advertising world is catching on to the sea change going on in people’s opinions and impressions of bikes. By the evidence, the same sort of thing happened back in the 70s during the last bike boom too. Back then bikes were “Kool.”

It makes sense that we’re seeing this trend come back into play now, what with new tactics and demands from the 100 or so well-organized urban bike advocacy organizations across the country. And maybe it will stay around this time.

There are even car manufacturers running commercials that tell drivers to share the road with bikes.

he din is even reaching the ears of car manufacturers, evidence this Kia ad that actually tells drivers to share the road.

And we’re not the only outlet noting the uptick, check out articles from Portlandize and Veloreviews.

If you’re seeing commercials out there for anything that also happen to include bikes, share them with via email or on Facebook!

At-grade supporters in the great Casey Overpass replacement debate squeaked out a small victory at MassDOT’s public hearing on the project last month, outnumbering bridge supporters 15 to 11 in a packed house according to the JP Patch, and the letters supporting at-grade have been [...]]]> [This article has been edited due to a request for privacy—Ed.]

At-grade supporters in the great Casey Overpass replacement debate squeaked out a small victory at MassDOT’s public hearing on the project last month, outnumbering bridge supporters 15 to 11 in a packed house according to the JP Patch, and the letters supporting at-grade have been pouring in. (Sent yours yet?)

But this street fight is not over. At least one bridge supporter is switching tactics and attacking the nine-month, 18-meeting public process so far, which is due to come to an end at 6pm on Dec. 14 at English High School, when MassDOT announces its decision: bridge, or at-grade. All in all, the public process so far has been one of the most involved and likely one of the most expensive in recent MassDOT history.

The union’s first ever video production, aimed at illustrating what an at-grade solution might look like at the Casey Overpass project site:

No less than 35 people hold seats on the Working Advisory Group for the Casey replacement project, which has held 12 working meetings and a further 6 public meetings. All of the presentations and meeting minutes from these meetings are open to the public at the project’s website. Each of those people represents local organizations to which they’ve communicated numerous emails and phone calls about the proceedings of the WAG. The consultant team working with the WAG has answered hundreds if not thousands of questions during over 60 hours of actual meetings, and who knows how many emails and phone calls. The JP Gazette and the JP Patch have also faithfully covered the meetings, with the Gazette reporting the goings on of several WAG meetings to the general public.

Despite this impressive effort, from several sources the Boston Cyclists Union has confirmed that a person closely following the activity of the Working Advisory Group has sent a letter requesting MassDOT’s decision be delayed by two months to give time for residents to further “analyze” the traffic studies that were first released at a Nov. 9 Working Advisory Group (WAG) meeting, also heavily criticizing the agency’s ability to “run a meeting.”

That the writer is an absolutely unshakeable bridge supporter speaks less to a sincere desire to analyze with an open mind, and more to an edict from the 2,200-year-old “Art of War” by Sun Tzu: “If you can’t win, stall.”

Unless their constituents let them know that they have followed the process and have more than enough information to make a decision – legislators may listen to this call for delay, which would not only extend an already long and laborious public process which has yielded an enormous trove of information, it would also shorten the design period for the upcoming public processes for the 25 and 100 percent design processes that will follow. (The entire project’s funding ends in 2016, and around three years are needed for construction.)

The 25 and 100 percent design processes are what allow residents to have input on hundreds of details, such as the finer points of the road geometry, what plants will be installed, if and where the bike boxes would fit in, and what will be installed in the at-grade solution’s two-acre park at the end of the SW Corridor (Playground? Amphitheater? Food carts?) or the same-sized plaza next the MBTA station in the bridge option, or under the bridge (a giant troll?).

This next design period would also be the prime time for fixing anything people do not like about whichever option is chosen. Fear speeding cars in the at-grade version? Campaign for raised crosswalks and narrow, traffic calming travel lanes. Fear speeding cars in the bridge version? Campaign to add a sidewalk and cycletrack to the bridge.

Both would be challenging, potentially un-winnable campaigns. In either scenario, bicycle advocates would benefit from more time spent digging into new information and research.

Here’s how you can get engaged:

Let your elected officials know how you feel about the process so far by calling or e-mailing. And let them know whether you support a bridge or an at-grade solution while you’re at it and why.

Getting to 100 percent design on a project of this size takes a great deal of time, not for the public review meetings themselves, but for the endless drawings and specifications, permitting processes, and the re-do’s sparked when the neighborhood sends the team back to the drawing board once or twice. But being funded only by the Accelerated Bridge Program, which expires in 2016, time is something this project has very little of. Demolition and Construction alone would take nearly three years, according to MassDOT.

If all goes well, the final meeting will be on Dec. 14, 6pm at English High School (144 McBride St.). Be there to join in the excitement, and jump for joy or shed a tear in reaction to the state’s decision.

My former boss and mentor, Bill Forry, managing editor of the Dorchester Reporter

Not every one of our readers knows this, but just a year before I helped found the Bike Union I was working late nights as the news editor at the highly regarded Dorchester Reporter [...]]]> A special message from the executive director Pete Stidman. 

My former boss and mentor, Bill Forry, managing editor of the Dorchester Reporter

Not every one of our readers knows this, but just a year before I helped found the Bike Union I was working late nights as the news editor at the highly regarded Dorchester Reporter newspaper, a job I had a passion for and held for two years.

I had spent a total of five years as a newspaper man, including a long stint at the Jamaica Plain Gazette. I loved the idea that just bringing out the truth could change the world and I still firmly believe that once people understand what’s happening, they will make the right decision.

That’s why I start to get a little heated under the collar when I see and hear misinformation spoken or published, such as I’ve seen online and heard via the rumor mill this week on the subject of the Casey Overpass Replacement Project. Some of it is an innocent misunderstanding of the facts, but some of it seems to come from those who are intentionally twisting the facts or publishing false information in order to further their personal opinions.

Well, this is one looooong article, it’s more like an encyclopedia that debunks the myths being spread around and shows clearly where the benefits for cyclists and pedestrians lie. It’s full of links to more information, pictures, and analysis. If anyone finds a factual error of any kind, please email me. We’ll fix it.

Firstly, if you want to see what at-grade would look like compared to a bridge, check out the Working Advisory Group (WAG) presentationfrom Nov. 9. It has lots of renderings like this one below.

An early draft rendering of what the Casey area could look like with the at-grade solution (Scroll down to see bridge, click on image to see more).

And on Dec. 6, at the State Lab at 305 South Street, 6pm, the Boston Cyclists Union and other at-grade supporters on the WAG will hold a community meeting of its own to fully discuss the benefits of the at-grade option. You are invited.

The more important meeting to show up at is, of course, MassDOT’s public meeting this Monday which the state will use to gauge public opinion:

MassDOT Public meeting on the Casey Overpass Replacement Project

Monday, Nov. 21, 6pm-8:30pm
(with open house beginning at 5:30)

at the State Laboratory

305 South St., Jamaica Plain, MA

• Go to this meeting and do not leave until you
• Speak your mind! If you can’t make it,
• Write a letter.
  

 

First, a tiny bit of background

The Casey Overpass that looms over the Forest Hills T Station in Jamaica Plain is crumbling and must be taken down.

A rendering of a new overpass viewed from the same spot as above (scroll up to compare, click on image to see more). Note that the bridge is much lower than the Casey is today.

The question facing the community now is: What do we replace it with, a bridge or a regular city street? The Boston Cyclists Union, MassBike, WalkBoston, Livable Streets Alliance, JP Bikes, and several local residents on the Working Advisory Group working closely on the project have all come to agree on one option as having the most benefits for bikes and pedestrians: a regular city street built at-grade (meaning: no bridge).

 

The at-grade plan has massive benefits for cyclists traveling to and from Roslindale

Washington Street with Cycletracks (only possible with the more affordable at-grade solution) Source: MassDOT draft

Only the at-grade plan, because it is far more affordable (roughly $58 million compared to $73 million for the bridge), comes parceled with a pair of physically protected bike lanes (cycletracks) on either side of Washington Street toward Roslindale. Cyclists headed northbound will be able to leave the street at Ukraine Way and ride separated from traffic to either the bike cage at Forest Hills Station or the crosswalk over New Washington Street, which will directly connect to the SW Corridor.

Heading southbound, a crosswalk will take cyclists directly from the relocated end of the SW Corridor across South Street where there could be a two-stage turn queue box (which also facilitates left turns for those traveling in the on-street bike lane). They would there cross the Arborway and ride separated from traffic either to the path that leads to the Arboretum or to Ukraine Way, where the bike lanes to Roslindale begin. These improvements are not possible with the bridge option. As one of Boston’s bike leaders put it, “It would be a tragedy if we did not get this.”

 

 

There is no sidewalk planned for the bridge and that decision is not likely changeable

A close up of the bridge plan, sidewalks are in gold, and do not exist on the bridge. A narrow shoulder is in red as a bike lane-insufficient protection for bikes with traffic moving at 50 mph plus. See Nov. 9 presentation for closer look (page 72)

The Boston Cyclists Union advocated for sidewalks and a cycletrack on the bridge option, but other members of the Working Advisory Group were very much against it as it would “increase the shadow” from the bridge. Currently there is no sidewalk on the bridge option plan and only a narrow shoulder for bikes to use, which is very unsafe given the 50 miles per hour speeds expected on the bridge. Given community opposition and the fact that MassDOT will be moving forward with the project as fast as possible to meet a July 2013 deadline for completion of all design, and a July 2016 deadline for all construction, it is extremely unlikely that we could advocate for a sidewalk and win. MassDOT has told us directly that this decision point has passed.

 

There is no safe bike facility planned for the bridge and that decision is not likely changeable

The Boston Cyclists Union was very vocal about the need for cycletracks to protect cyclists from traffic that reaches over 50 miles per hour on the bridge option, but because of legal requirements the bike lane in the bridge plan doubles as the break down lane and provides emergency vehicle access, thus physical separation is not possible without adding width to the bridge. The community was fairly united in opposing adding any width to the bridge for bicycles. To turn this around at this point would not be possible according to MassDOT.

 

The bridge and at-grade options move traffic in a very similar way and north-south traffic isn’t significantly impacted
Having a behemoth highway bridge overhead can give the impression that there is a lot of traffic speeding by overhead, but this isn’t so on the Casey. Only one lane of traffic in each direction is currently headed over the Casey Overpass. The total number of cars headed over the bridge each day is near 22,000-24,000, with

There are a growing number of examples of successful highway removals around the country.

another roughly 10,000-12,000 on the surface road (New Washington). The combined flow of 32,000-36,000 cars a day is similar to Melnea Cass and less than that of the Jamaicaway. Around the country, highways and overpasses with twice that volume have been taken down with very positive effects.

The consultants on the project performed a traffic analysis on both the bridge and the at-grade options using the predicted rush hour traffic of 2035. Rush hour of 2035 assumes a 5% increase in traffic over the bridge and 14% on the ground, thus about an 8% increase to traffic overall (given the difference in volumes above and below).

Many progressive urban planners around the country reject the concept of designing streets for predicted future traffic increases because it has been clearly shown that building streets with greater capacity encourages more traffic. In many European countries, this idea of “induced demand” has been widely accepted and guides policy. Short term, people have more flexibility with their time when congestion is lowered, so peak times generally remain highly congested (as more people adjust) when roads are widened. And of course long term, when you build a highway through vacant farmland, that farmland quickly fills up with suburban development and the highway becomes congested.

Similarly, in the urban context motorists make their decisions on where to live and/or work based on the ease of travel on nearby roadways. When car traffic flow is not prioritized, transit, cycling and other modes become more attractive, and so does moving closer to work or getting a job closer to home in the long term. Essentially, if you build it, the cars will come. If you don’t build it, they won’t come. And the peak hour traffic always gets bad again no matter how wide or how narrow you make a roadway (or a bridge).

There are many examples around the country where neighborhoods have had part of their transportation infrastructure rebuilt, leading them to become extremely successful public places. It takes time, but it can blow your mind.

The truth in this case is that the at-grade solution and the bridge option performed very similarly in terms of traffic, and both were huge improvements on the existing bridge. What follows here is all based on this analysis of travel times for at-grade and the bridge option, created with figures from a MassDOT handout on the options. The color coded travel times clearly show the bridge is only slightly better than the at-grade version at speeding traffic through the area, and both are far better than today’s conditions. There are really only three potential downsides for cars to speak of with the at-grade solution:

1. Traffic headed straight through from Franklin Park to Murray Circle would take an average of a minute longer (at rush hour in 2035) on the at-grade option than it would with the existing bridge. But, according to MassDOT’s planning team, many of those cars would wait for that saved minute anyway in a rush hour situation as there would be a backup on the Arborway caused by Murray Circle. Essentially, it doesn’t matter how quickly you get to it if there’s a line of cars to wait behind. 
2. Left turns off of New Washington would not be allowed, motorists would go around a “bow-tie” u-turn and come back to take a right on the desired street in the at-grade option. This adds between a minute, and for a couple of particular moves, two or three-minute delays (at rush hour in 2035) over the existing bridge. The longest delays caused by this effect only impact a small fraction of cars. Very roughly speaking, if you mash up the 2035 peak traffic counts for these moves, and quintuple them to account for five hours at peak rush, around 5,000 drivers would feel this level of impact during a given day.Now if you add up all the users:
   • 80,000 motorists (rough estimate adding daily traffic of Hyde Park, Casey/New Washington, South St. and Washington St.)
   • 500 cyclists (educated guess)
   • 5,000 pedestrians (total guess)
   • 13,500 Orange Line passengers (MBTA Figures)
   • 5,000 bus riders (total guess)

   you get 104,000 users, hence this is about 5% of users.   

3. Washington straight over to South Street would take about a minute and a half longer to get through (at rush hour in 2035) compared to how it would be with the existing bridge, but all other North or South movements would take only an extra 20-30 seconds. This minute and a half delay would occur only at rush hour (in 2035) and will affect less than 2,500 or so people a day at this level out of a roughly estimated 104,000 users.  

So, if my back of the envelope calculations are anywhere in the ball park, we’re talking about building a bridge to prevent 7.5%, or let’s say, less than 10% of the users of this area from experiencing a minute or more delay.

If you look at the benefit side by adding up all the car movements that are made faster, all the transit and 39 bus riders who would hang out in a more inviting and friendly environment, the pedestrians and bikes who would enjoy their commutes far more, the tourists on their way to the Arboretum, the economic benefits for neighborhood businesses (and maybe some food trucks?), the potentially huge property value increases, and the health benefits of increased biking and walking in the area, you can see why we’re motivated to tell you about the at-grade option.

The “Level of Service” analysisfor each option is also very similar, and shows As, Bs, Cs and Ds but only one E rating (the lowest rating) for the intersections in each option. Both options, it is clear, would vastly improve conditions for cars compared to the existing bridge.

Because traffic is not significantly slower on the at-grade solution, “cut-through” traffic is unlikely and can be combated with traffic-calming measures
Since cars traveling through the neighborhood will not be adding significant times to their commutes, cutting through the neighborhood will not shorten their commutes, thus it is unlikely they will stray from the main road in an at-grade solution. Boston is also becoming very progressive on traffic-calming, as evidenced by the city’s new Complete Streets Policy. There are a number of very effective tools for slowing down traffic on neighborhood streets that could be employed to encourage cars to stick to the Arborway and New Washington Street.

The at-grade solution will encourage healthy active transportation and stimulate the local economy (we don’t want to make it difficult for cars, we just want a healthier neighborhood!)
After a thorough search, and after challenging bridge supporters to search themselves, no example of a thriving pedestrian and bike-friendly neighborhood has been found anywhere in the United States under the shadow of a bridge. The Bike Union’s representative Bob Dizon was very interested in exploring this and the bridge option in general, but he found that quite the opposite was true. Removing bridges and overpasses stimulates local economies by encouraging pedestrian traffic.

When San Francisco replaced the elevated Central Freeway with the at-grade Octavia Boulevard, nearby property values rose nearly 40% and several new businesses opened. With its access to the city’s best

City Square in Charlestown, 1952, long before the elevated was removed.

parks, we believe Forest Hills could also become a hot destination, and several land parcels abutting this project are up for redevelopment in the near future. These new developments could either be closed to the street under an unattractive bridge, or take advantage of an influx of pedestrians brought by an at-grade option and offer new retail space. More businesses

City Square today.

in JP mean a stronger draw to bring customers to the neighborhood, and thus a major boost to all JP businesses.

Encouraging biking and walking is about more than just bike lanes and wide sidewalks, it’s also about making public spaces that are inviting and enjoyable. “In any country with an advanced economy, ‘necessary activities’ are rarely enough to activate public spaces throughout the day and evening. Optional activities — things that people choose to do for emotional, aesthetic, recreational, or spiritual satisfaction — are the keys to making a modern city hum with life,” (–Jan Gehl).

Just imagine if Columbus Avenue was an elevated highway with traffic underneath as well, would you enjoy riding on the SW Corridor next to such a structure as much as you do now? Would you want to stop and hang out in Copley Square (similar in size to the new park at the end of the SW Corridor) if there were a highway-like bridge overhead?

 

The at-grade option would not double the amount of lanes on the ground

This MBTA head house, only affordable in the at-grade solution shown here, would serve as a new entrance and exit directly onto the Orange Line platform and eliminate the need for crossing New Washington Street for thousands of commuters every day.

It would have a total of six lanes, three lanes in either direction (a 33% increase in the number of travel lanes base on the four lanes we have today), but pedestrians headed to the Orange Line would be benefited by a T entrance directly to the train platform from the new park to be built at the head of the SW Corridor (thus no need to cross New Washington street unless you’re taking a bus or the commuter rail). Currently, New Washington Street has four lanes, two lanes in either direction. The resulting at-grade solution street would be comparable in the amount of traffic flow (32,000-36,000 cars per day) to Melnea Cass Blvd. The bicycling experience would be similar to the SW Corridor as it nears Columbus Avenue (though Columbus has a higher traffic volume). This amount of traffic flow is not relatively high compared to other city streets and would not normally call for a bridge.

The SW Corridor would no longer dead end at Forest Hills T Station

When envisioning the future for this area it is important to

One of several possible designs that could offer a safe biking solution for Morton Street.

keep in mind that the new bike paths planned for both sides of New Washington and the Arborway would extend the benefits of the SW Corridor eastward all the way to Franklin Park. The Boston Cyclists Union and other groups are already advocating for a physically separate bike lane (cycletrack) on Morton Street to connect to this, bringing Dorchester and Mattapan a new low-stress, healthy way to get to work or for youth to get to some of the city’s best parks.

Once again:

• Go to the meeting and do not leave until you
• Speak your mind. If you can’t make it,
• Write a letter!

The union's interactive crash [...]]]> Inspired by a need first cited by a column by lawyer Andrew Fischer in the Boston Cyclists Union’s Union Rider newsletter last year, state Rep. William Brownsberger has introduced a new piece of legislation that takes a shot at giving bicyclists who cross streets from bike paths and greenways greater protection.

The union's interactive crash map has revealed a number of crashes at intersections along the SW Corridor in which the cyclists hit have little to no defense in court due to the current laws regarding crosswalks.

The proposed state law pertains only to crosswalks and simply adds the word “bicyclists” to language that already exists to protect pedestrians. If the law were passed, any driver who does not yield to a pedestrian or a bicyclist in a crosswalk would be subject to a $200 fine. Furthermore, a driver who strikes a pedestrian or a bicyclist with their vehicle could not use as part of their defense in a court of law that that person walking or on a bike failed to stop at a stop sign, yield sign, or other traffic control device.

Based on reactions from the blogosphere and the Boston Herald’s “war on bikes” correspondent Chris Cassidy, that last bit is giving some people the wrong impression. And it should be made clear that the Boston Cyclists Union was not involved in creating this legislation. Nor does the union take a position on it. We’re here to provide you with the information so you can decide.

This is the first time this kind of legislation has been put forward in Massachusetts to our knowledge, and often the wording of a particular bill changes before it becomes law. It is clear from experiences elsewhere in the country and common sense that  something should be included that would indicate

cyclists can proceed only at a “reasonably safe speed” as has been suggested in Oregon, and it is also possible that a different kind of marking should be developed for crossings with bike paths attached to differentiate them from normal intersections, but there is a real need here to find a

way to hold drivers responsible for crashes that happen at crossings along the SW Corridor and other urban greenways. It is unfair to allow a larger more powerful vehicle run over a vulnerable road user without consequence.

When cyclists are hit at these crosswalks, the injuries can be quite serious, and drivers are not held responsible because the cyclist did not dismount. When you are on a bicycle you are considered to be in a vehicle, therefore riding in a crosswalk is not in accordance with legal behavior. But because no cyclist in practice dismounts at every crosswalk on their commute (not even grandparents or grandchildren), there is only the weakest of protections for thousands of people daily at intersections between bike paths and roads all over the state.

The aim of this bill, according to Brownsberger, is safety. And Andrew Fischer, who helped craft the bill’s language, maintains the same.

“In this state if someone doesn’t wear a seat belt, they can get a ticket for it,” said Fischer, drawing an analogy to a cyclist running a stop sign. “But if you cream someone in your car and they’re not wearing a seat belt, you don’t get a free ride just because they’re not wearing a seat belt. And this is the same thing.”