Donate To Keep Pushing For A New Bridge!

“Bridge It” buttons

Bridging Forest Hills Wiki

Contact MassDOT

Contact Everyone


Contact Our New Mayor, Marty Walsh, and Ask for a New Study

Marty Walsh Flyer
arty Walsh campaigned for a moratorium on the Casey Project.  Please call or e-mail Mayor Walsh and remind him and ask him to please act quickly since MassDOT says it will advertise for a contractor this month.

Marty Walsh issued a statement Thursday, August 22, 2013 in support of a new bridge to replace the Casey Overpass:
"I am calling on Mass DOT to fairly evaluate the option of replacing the Casey Overpass with a beautiful modern bridge that reflects the Olmsted tradition that protected this area for so long, a bridge that will unite and connect communities."
Click here to download this Marty Walsh flyer as a PDF.

Growing Support for a New Bridge by the Numbers
   610 signed petitions to Mayor Walsh (click here if you haven’t!)
  1,093 Bridging Forest Hills supporters and growing
    Comments to MassDOT after the 75% design meeting were 3:1 against the at-grade scheme
     ...and the numbers continue to grow!
P.S. It's not just a "small vocal minority" that opposes the state's nutty at-grade scheme!

Dorchester Resident Asks Mayor Walsh for Casey Moratorium

What the JP Gazette Will Not Report on the Casey Project

Two recent JP Gazette articles on the Casey Overpass Project have been incomplete at best and could be called bad reporting.  Letters to the editor attempting to correct and clarify were not printed.  Here are the facts:

“Casey project timeline delayed (Nov. 22)” implies that MassDOT's Casey Arborway project to remove and not replace the bridge in Forest Hills is behind schedule because of Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) review of the proposal to destroy Shea Circle, a National Register-listed historic resource.

Shea Circle historic review:  MassDOT, not MHC, is causing the delay.

1. It failed to follow state regulations that say “notice should be given to the MHC as early as possible in the [project] planning process.” MassDOT waited until it finished planning and was into design to notify MHC of its plans to obliterate Shea Circle, pretty late for MHC to comment effectively.  How strange that MassDOT, always claiming time was critical, did not take obvious steps to avoid delays with MHC’s review.

2. MassDOT dragged its feet responding to MHC’s requests and again did not follow regulations to begin resolving issues within 15 days of MHC’s ruling (Jan. 8, 2013).  MassDOT waited five months to communicate with MHC.

3. In June 2013 MassDOT ignored MHC’s requests for new alternatives to avoid impacts to Shea.  At MHC’s Aug. 23 meeting, MassDOT still had nothing new to present, but committed to providing the requested material “in two weeks.” It was finally delivered three months later on Nov. 20.  Now, tell me—who is responsible for the delays? It looks to me like it’s MassDOT.

MassDOT Waffles on Source of Project Funding
"Casey funding source named; historic review pending” (Dec. 6 article) reads as if Gazette reporter Rebeca Olivera didn’t attend the Nov. 19 DAG meeting.  The article states MassDOT is “actively exploring the use of funds from a state bond bill.” Yet at the meeting MassDOT representative Steve McLaughlin emphatically stated “we have the money” and “what difference does it make” what the source of the money is?  It matters because:

1.  MassDOT wants to advertise the project now and seems to be scrambling for funding. MassDOT’s months of claims it has plenty of money are now dubious and leaves one wondering what else is not as MassDOT claims.

2.  After repeated requests to explain why non-Accelerated Bridge Program funds were being used,  McLaughlin finally said, “So we can go beyond the 2016 [Accelerated Bridge Program] deadline.”  The Gazette’s failure to mention MassDOT’s version of the funding issue was contrary to that stated at the meeting is bad reporting and allows more the shading of the truth that has characterized the Casey project.

3.  This last fact is critical:  MassDOT stated Nov. 19 construction will be done Sept. 30, 2016, “at 5:00 p.m.”  Then it said it wants outside funds so it can “go beyond the 2016 deadline.”  What’s the truth?  The reporting of the Nov. 19 meeting omitted key facts that make a difference.

Devil in the Details “Walk the Line” video: Check out this fascinating short video about some of the proposed new “enhanced” crosswalks at Forest Hills after the Arborway nightmare is built. Do you think the 115-foot-long crosswalk is the one Sec. of Transportation calls an improvement in his June letter?  Watch the 2:36-minute video on Facebook or YouTube.
City Actively Promoted At-Grade Scheme While Claiming it Had no Position: E-mails bought through a $440 Public Records Request show that some members of the Menino administration called a hand-picked group of people to encourage them to attend the Sept. 13, 2011, public meeting on Casey alternatives. Although the e-mails do not describe the nature of the “messaging” mentioned by BTD Commissioner Tinlin, the City employees in the e-mails seemed intent on making sure a list of seven people not only attend the meeting but also speak. City officials in the JP Gazette (Aug. 3, 2013) denied prepping anyone on what to say despite discussing “messaging” for the calls. So if the City wasn’t promoting the at-grade scheme and wanted to escape scrutiny, why would BTD Commissioner Tinlin ask, “No fingerprints?”
Letter from Sec. Davey to Bridging Forest Hills
MassDOT Secretary Davey Attempts Letter to BFH ‘Members’: 
Give MassDOT a B for effort. Sec. Davey’s letter
to BFH was clearly written with more care than previous communications that made unsupported and erroneous claims about the at-grade scheme. Click to see letter for how MassDOT now explains its support for the at-grade and BFH’s comments.
Truth about how MassDOT misled the public about Shea Circle revealed. An independent state agency—one not controlled by Gov. Patrick—has exposed the charade run by MassDOT’s Casey Overpass team involving Shea Circle, a National Register-listed historic resource.

1.  During the planning study, MassDOT never revealed to the WAG and public that Shea Circle is a historic resource and that it’s obligated per CMR 950 71:07 to “eliminate, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects.”  The status of Shea Circle is listed in a public-access database on the Mass. Historical Commission website. A professional could find out its historic status in 7 minutes.

2.  Further, MassDOT maintained for 11 months it had “consulted with” MHC and had done preliminary outreach and implied there would be no problem eliminating Shea Circle. None of this was true. MHC does not engage with a proponent until it receives an official submission for review. That submission was the ENF, filed in Nov. 15, 2012. MHC responded on Jan. 8, 2013.

3.  On May 22, 2013, MassDOT said, “The effect finding has essentially been made; it’s the mitigation that we’re doing now.”  MassDOT was ahead of itself, saying what it wanted people to hear.  None was true. MassDOT did not submit materials requested in January to MHC until June 21, 2013. Further, it ignored MHC’s request to “reconsider and further explore alternatives to avoid  or minimize the adverse effect to Shea Circle” instead reiterating its plan to eliminate Shea Circle.  MHC did not ask for mitigation—it would be premature.

4.  Finally, MassDOT misled the DAG again when it said on May 22, “MHC didn’t want to have a meeting at which the public comment was negative because the design had changed...and that’s why they are comfortable working through this process with you and letting the design move ahead a little further.” (emphasis added). The regulations (CMR 950 71:07) call for the proponent to communicate with MHC as early in the planning process as possible, and MHC commented that it “is concerned to note that  MassDOT has progressed to 75% design—a fairly advanced point to be at, without having consulted with the MHC regarding adequate consideration of alternatives.” (emphasis added).  MHC wants alternatives at this point, not mitigation.

At the initial consultation meeting on Aug. 23, MHC made it clear again it wants alternatives that would avoid or minimize impacts to the historic Shea Circle. MHC stated the fact that Olmsted designed an intersection is irrelevant because the Circle is in the National Register.

Questions: Why didn’t MassDOT reveal that Shea Circle is historic for six months?  Why the lies and secrecy about Shea Circle designs?  Doesn’t MassDOT know the regulations?  Why the delay consulting with MHC if this project is such a rush job?  Stay tuned . . .


Bridging Forest Hills News Coverage

JP Gazette “Casey Arborway will only add to local woes”

Boston Herald “JP overpass blues”

Tell Governor Patrick You Do Not Agree!
We think Gov. Patrick needs more information about his agency’s bad plan. Send him a note via his online comment form:
1. Click here or call 617-725-4005,
2. Tell the Governor you do not agree and he needs to tell MassDOT to build a new bridge.  His legacy is at stake.
Your health and safety are at risk! 




Here’s how and why we must demonstrate to those elected to represent us that MassDOT’s plan, like I-95 in 1970, is wrong:
1. project has significant regional travel implications that are continually understated.
2. the critical decision period in late 2011, MassDOT overweighted at-grade support from bike and parks
groups while actual users of the bridge had little or no knowledge of the planning study.
3. because “traffic works fine” under the at-grade doesn’t mean a six-lane highway with no normal left turns is appropriate here.
4. not too late. The funding will not disappear if MassDOT reconsiders this flawed plan. The 2016 deadline is a MassDOT-imposed deadline. Doing the right thing sometimes takes more time.

So please let your elected officials know you think MassDOT is wrong! Send a short message or call your state representative, senator, and city councilors. Then fill out the Governor’s online comment form to let him know.

Sample e-mail to legislators


My name is ________ and I live at ____________. I oppose MassDOT’s plan to eliminate the Casey Overpass in Forest Hills and replace it with a six-lane highway. The impacts on Jamaica Plain and regional drivers will be significant. MassDOT refused to study local air quality impacts. Common sense says 3 to 4 new signals and 2/3 more traffic on the surface will result in congestion and poor air quality.

Other impacts include slower bus service; worse pedestrian conditions for those headed to and from the MBTA at New Washington Street; elimination of the direct surface crossing at the end of the Southwest Corridor Park; destruction of Shea Circle, a historic resource; large trucks making a U-turn at the Arboretum Gate.

MassDOT’s refusal to present a high-quality bridge alternative and its insistence on using amateur and misleading renderings skewed the entire study. Some places would improve by eliminating a bridge. Not here. A bridge works in Forest Hills.

Your constituents oppose MassDOT’s design. The advocacy groups from outside the area who signed a form letter supporting the at-grade scheme don’t vote for you. I ask you to represent my interests and concerns and speak out publicly against MassDOT’s at-grade scheme and help stop this pending disaster. Bridge supporters are not just a “few sore losers”—we are the majority and we vote. Please pay attention to our arguments and take a stand against this at-grade scheme today. 


Contact Governor Deval Patrick’s office

Contact Governor Deval Patrick at 617-725-4005, or via the online comment form:

Contact Your Elected Officials

State Rep. Russell Holmes (Mattapan, Roslindale)

State Rep. Liz Malia (Jamaica Plain, Dorchester)

State Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez (Jamaica Plain, Mission Hill)

State Rep. Edward F. Coppinger (West Roxbury)

State Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry (Dorch-Lower Mills )

State Rep. Martin Walsh (Dorch-Savin Hill)

State Rep. Angelo Scaccia (Hyde Park/Readville)

State Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz

City Councilors

Sign the Petition

Tell your friends, neighbors, and co-workers!

BRIDGING FOREST HILLS: Statement of Purpose

Bridging Forest Hills is a group of local citizens who believe the MassDOT decision to not replace the Casey Overpass is wrong. The fundamental concept is that every traveling mode is served better with less surface street traffic on the smaller street network required with a new replacement bridge. 

Forest Hills is a transportation node for every form of urban transportation. Eight arterial routes converge here: Washington Street from north and south, South Street from north and south, Hyde Park Avenue and Walk Hill Street from the South, The Arborway from the west, and Morton Street/Route 203 from the east. Walkers, bicycles, local traffic, regional traffic, city busses, school busses, taxicabs and trains are all funnelled through this area. It is blessed to be surrounded on three out of four directions by the Arnold Arboretum, Forest Hills Cemetery, and Franklin Park. This is also what creates the transportation funnel with no adjacent transportation routes to alleviate the traffic through this node. 

Although there is a popular design concept today of removing urban viaducts as featured in the article “The Life and Death of Urban Highways,” this is a bridge, not a viaduct. Many communities around the world have benefited by removing elevated highways, but every other one had other routes to relieve the traffic load, and were not a node with this many arterial routes converging. e.g. With the removal of the Central Artery, all its traffic was put underground! 

Some of the many benefits that a new replacement bridge can provide are: 

1. Pedestrians and cyclists can cross New Washington St./Arborway easier and safer with a narrower crossing. This is what our bike and pedestrian advocacy groups have been requesting for years, and is best accommodated with a new bridge.

2. On-street cyclists can move throughout the area easier with new bike lanes and fewer cars. Bike lanes were promised from the start of this project, and now MassDOT wants to eliminate them, despite national, state and local guidelines that call for bike lanes. (AASHTO) 

3. The 39 bus terminus can stay where it is to minimize travel time for this busy high-priority route. The current plan calls for moving it to behind the Roslindale busses. Not only does this complicate and lengthen bus route 39, but also crimps future transit expansion possibilities.

4. There is no need to rearrange significant MBTA infrastructures. 

5. The mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor Park can be retained. 

6. There is less pavement on the ground with a new bridge, thus more open-space allowing for fabulous Emerald Necklace Parks connections to be made on the ground. 

7. Sidewalks on the bridge would provide additional connections, allowing Emerald Necklace park users, both pedestrians and cyclists, to completely avoid 2 major intersections. 

8. In addition, sidewalks on the bridge provide views from the Stoney Brook Valley into the surrounding city and parks as well as from downtown to the Blue Hills. It becomes a destination in itself within the Emerald Necklace. 

9. Least impact on Route 203 regional traffic providing important access to our hospitals and to Boston’s largest growing employment sector of the Longwood Medical & Academic Area. 

10. Provides the best opportunity to improve the flow of local traffic in the Forest Hills area, as well as the N/S commuter traffic.

11. Best serves the needs of local businesses and new development with normal traffic patterns and turning movements. 

12. Local air quality is improved with less cars stopping and idling on the ground with fewer traffic lights. 

13. Although the bridge may create a psychological barrier, this can be overcome with good design. But a 6-8 lane roadway here will be a real physical barrier for anyone passing through. 

14. Safety of the traveling public was never rated. Statistically there are fewer accidents when there are fewer cars on smaller streets.  

15. A fabulous new bridge will create an iconic focal point for Forest Hills. Modern bridge design would create a much slimmer, sleeker bridge than is there today. 

16. The geography lends itself to a bridge because the Arborway comes off a hill that is already at the required elevation. 

17. Frederick Law Olmsted, the Emerald Necklace architect, incorporated bridges and separation of modes here and many other of his parks as he designed for contemporary use. 

18. We need a different bridge design than the one and only design that was shown in last year’s alternatives analysis. The bridge can be designed with much smaller intersections creating the best safety and Level of Service for all. 

Recent Interviews Regarding the Casey Overpass Replacement

Bike Advocate Favors Surface Replacement for Overpass from Chris Lovett on Vimeo.

Casey Overpass Debate: for the Bridge from Chris Lovett on Vimeo.


Basic Facts

The existing Casey Overpass is structurally deficient and cannot be rehabilitated. The bridge is so tall because it used to go over the Orange Line and railroad. It is so massive and ugly because it was built in era when aesthetics in urban infrastructure were ignored.

The existing bridge is higher and wider than necessary.
Any new structure would be one lane in each direction and lower.

The existing bridge carries 24,000 vehicles
per day (vpd) and between 1,350 and 1,700 in the a.m. peak hour. New Washington Street carries about 12,000 vpd.

Few other east-west alternate routes exist
, so no traffic is expected to be diverted from this corridor in the future, according to CTPS.

Existing traffic is expected to grow on the overpass by 5% and by 14% on surface streets.

Surface streets and traffic patterns will be improved
by removing the massive existing bridge and replacing it or not.

Cost estimates in 2008 dollars to build a new bridge
ranged from $57.5 million to $73.7 million.

Why a New Bridge is Better

A Forest Hills bridge is a  connector, not a barrier, because it keeps 24,000 vehicles per day that are not going to local destinations off local streets. With the bridge, the traffic volumes on New Washington Street are kept relatively low, about one-third of what traffic volumes would be without a bridge. This is the central argument for building a new bridge—the quality of the pedestrian, auto, bike, and transit experience would be degraded with the addition of 24,000 vehicles per day, the additional lanes required to accommodate these regionally vehicles, the additional signals and travel time required for vehicles to maneuver a contorted and convoluted surface street pattern. A new, modern bridge would allow a simpler, reduced traffic surface street that would help reconnect the area divided by the 1950s Casey Overpass.

Benefits of a New Bridge

A new bridge . . .
  • would require fewer travel lanes for people to cross. The bridge prevents a mini-highway/traffic barrier for those traveling north-south, keeping central JP connected with Bournedale, Roslindale, and Hyde Park.
  • would connect east-west travelers to and from further destinations without clogging local streets.
  • would be a gateway connecting the Emerald Necklace from the Arboretum to Franklin Park and Forest Hills Cemetery with a vista impossible from a congested surface street.
  • would provide an opportunity for an iconic structure that would be both a gateway to the Southwest Corridor Park and a focal point for the area. What’s the new emblem of Boston? The Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge.
  • and the surface solution would both improve Emerald Necklace connections with either the bridge or no bridge. Both plans show improved paths on the north side of New Washington Street with connections to the Southwest Corridor Park. Both plans show many more trees in the corridor than today.
  • would increase usable open space by 53% while the surface solution would have a significantly smaller increase (30%). More travel lanes chew up open space
  • would provide a straightforward, simple street network. The surface solution would prohibit left turns at four key approaches requiring drivers to travel beyond the street they want and through additional signals.
  • would have little impact on economic development, as there are no development parcels fronting on the corridor. The project is not an economic development project. The concept plans appropriately show the two potential development parcels fronting on Hyde Park Avenue and Washington Street where new commercial development would strengthen those existing business areas.
  • would best serve local businesses. Keeping surface-street traffic volumes reduced and allowing normal turning movements help make an attractive business area. The convoluted traffic pattern created by eliminating key left turns would require some drivers to go through 6 intersections instead of 1 to get to local businesses.
    Example:  driving from Olmsted Green on Morton Street to the Dogwood Café, a driver would 1) cross at the first signalized bowtie 2) cross at the Washington Street signal 3) cross at South Street 4) cross at the second signalized bowtie to reverse direction 5) cross at South Street again (!) and 6) finally make a right turn onto Washington Street/Hyde Park Avenue.