I know traffic will be horrible during the tear down and reconstruction of the roadway, and I'm not looking forward to that, that is for sure. I currently travel from my home on the Morton Street side of the overpass, to my job in Kenmore Square every day by car. I'm thinking that I'll probably start riding my bike, or taking the T to my job, once work on the overpass commences. That will add 30 to 40 minutes to what is currently a very managable and short commute.
However, in the long run, destruction of the overpass and reconstruction of a ground level roadway, similar to what exists on the rest of the Arborway I think can only be a good thing. I'm hopeful that our community can come to consensus around a replacement plan. I've heard nothing about the rumored community meeting on this issue. Has anyone else?
I'm a big fan of the at-grade solution myself.
1) The Overpass is an eyesore. It needs to come down.
2) A bridge requires more upkeep over time than a flat road, so it would be less money in the long run (which is not to say roads don't need maintenance!)
3) The bridge visually cuts the neighborhood in two. It's like how Rte 20 splits Worcester into two pieces on a smaller scale.
4) Reworking the ground level roads to accommodate solutions will allow for a reworking of the existing intersections and make them better, especially given that the new plan will not have to leave a gap for trolleys.
I disagree. For one thing, there are very few left turn options in the groundlevel plan; you would have to go way around the station to go, say, from Morton St. coming from Mattapan, heading towards the Arboretum, to get back onto Hyde Park Ave. A couple more lanes is not going to make this work well.
Second, there has been discussion that the current traffic estimate of 30,000 cars / day are low.
There has been little effort to rework the existing roadways to improve functioning of a bridge option, in WAG discussions.
Also, a bridge can designed to look better than the current overpass. If you don't think 6 lanes of traffic would cut a neighborhood in 2, think again. Bridges can be things of beauty in and of themselves. Any bridge that carries 30,000+ cars over our beloved neighborhood is more beautiful than seeing said 30,000 clogging the works. The state has been trying to shove this option on us and the WAG.
Kate, Forest Hills resident
I've been to most of the public meetings, and I noticed that there will be all the same left turn options in the ground plan except for one, currently made at the east and west ends of New Washington Street just to the north of the Forest Hills T stop. Instead, those will have signals (better traffic control) and median u-turn lanes just to the west of Hyde Park Avenue and South Street. The u-turns will calm traffic and turn the left-turns into right-turns, which are easier to make.
I don't think the state has been trying to force the at-grade option on anyone. In fact, I hear a lot of neighborhood support, particularly at public meetings for the at-grade solution. Plus, it will be cheaper to maintain, and will work to improve the existing intersections.
Also a Forest Hills resident :)