I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

True, but I image that if the buildings or at least the podiums are build at the same time the highway is built there would be considerable cost savings compared to building over an active highway. Once the highway is active there is no advantage to these air rights parcels over the ones further into the city.
To justify that expense we'd have to have some faint idea of what Harvard wants to build on BP. Is it going to be real urban density, or a lazy car-centric Alewife clone? We don't know, because Harvard hasn't said a thing and is just land-parking the whole slab to appreciate in value. Getting them to cooperate has thus far been futile. I'm sure they'd want air rights decking as a further value-appreciator for the land, but until they get specific about plans we have no idea if that would be a worth-it provision.

This is in a deadlock in large part because Harvard has been such a consistently unreliable partner. MassDOT is just taking wild guesses at that chunky, car-centric street grid; it's not backed by any real, specific institutional development plans.
 
The "throat area" is likely not of particularly large expense itself. It's basically just asphalt at-grade, where there's already a road or flat area, at-grade. Adding or removing lanes here is not going to shift the cost of the project substantially that I can see.
I think removing SFR from the throat could have a bigger cost impact than you're suggesting. Part of the cost at the throat is the complicated staging required to keep all 12 lanes (Pike + SFR) open during construction. I don't know the current state of those plans, but they've generally required lots of temporary structures, some putting the road or highway partially over the river. That's expensive. If we eliminate SFR, then the staging could be simplified a lot. I couldn't guess how much cheaper this would be, but it's more than just the cost of the half mile of asphalt.
 
I think removing SFR from the throat could have a bigger cost impact than you're suggesting. Part of the cost at the throat is the complicated staging required to keep all 12 lanes (Pike + SFR) open during construction. I don't know the current state of those plans, but they've generally required lots of temporary structures, some putting the road or highway partially over the river. That's expensive. If we eliminate SFR, then the staging could be simplified a lot. I couldn't guess how much cheaper this would be, but it's more than just the cost of the half mile of asphalt.
God Mode pitch: Build a deep bored tunnel so that all 12 lanes can remain open for car lovers during construction, as long as they love driving so much that they're willing to pay for it.

(Not a serious proposal)
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
Seeing those highway numbers increase year over year kinda does prove the point of them being a self fulfilling curse, and shows you why MassDOT is skittish about lane reductions -- of course we need to support 150k cars on the pike, nevermind that it was 5k fewer last year, and 5k fewer the year before, and then before that fewer... Let's say the 94k users in peak covid are people who for whatever reason will perish if they don't have access to the road and work from there.
 
I think removing SFR from the throat could have a bigger cost impact than you're suggesting. Part of the cost at the throat is the complicated staging required to keep all 12 lanes (Pike + SFR) open during construction. I don't know the current state of those plans, but they've generally required lots of temporary structures, some putting the road or highway partially over the river. That's expensive. If we eliminate SFR, then the staging could be simplified a lot. I couldn't guess how much cheaper this would be, but it's more than just the cost of the half mile of asphalt.

Are we actually planning to keep every lane open on both roads during all/nearly all phases of construction? I'd agree that seems excessive and very expensive, but it also doesn't seem particularly consistent with what we've been doing with roadwork in the region of late. If this is both the plan and a major cost driver, it certainly seems like an easier thing to get regional acceptance for than permanent reductions are.

The public has been pretty tolerant of the "shut it down more drastically for longer blocks of time at cost of greater disruption if it gets the work done significantly faster + cheaper" with regards to both transit + road closures of late - at least when the government manages to deliver on their end of that.

Seeing those highway numbers increase year over year kinda does prove the point of them being a self fulfilling curse, and shows you why MassDOT is skittish about lane reductions -- of course we need to support 150k cars on the pike, nevermind that it was 5k fewer last year, and 5k fewer the year before, and then before that fewer...

The MAPC region is probably the closest proxy we have to a "you are very much in the Boston urban region employment market" - possibly a bit too restrictive (Lowell, Lawrence, Brockton, etc are outside it - as well as satellite metros that some people do commute from like Worcester or Providence). That shows a ~270,000 person population gain in the 2010-20 decade. It also shows an increase of ~290,000 jobs in the region - so not only have we added lots of people and jobs they need to get to, we've added more jobs than we've added population (and of course, a decent chunk of people do not work for age/other reasons), and even more people can be expected to be commuting from out of the MAPC region entirely to fill them.

Boston + Cambridge alone have added approximately 145,000 of those jobs, and about 100,000 of the population.

I'd expect to see increases to usage over the decade on basically every mode of transportation - there are more people, there are more jobs, there should be more trips everywhere, on everything.

Instead, for the decade we basically failed at transit. Ridership in 2019 was well below 2010. A few modest expansions/improvements counteracted by lots of backsliding elsewhere. That the road usage is only up that much is almost surprising.

I do not think the solution to Boston's transportation challenges lies in building a pile of new road expansions and trying to outdo Houston. However, I also take a pretty skeptical view of the premise that a place that has been objectively failing at delivering other means of effective or attractive transportation to our growing population, is a place that can just rip out/drastically downsize significant pieces of highly utilized infrastructure with some vague handwave that they'll just go find some other way to get there.

Let's say the 94k users in peak covid are people who for whatever reason will perish if they don't have access to the road and work from there.
At peak covid nearly all the offices and most things to do were closed. That the road was kind of empty then is not particularly useful to any sort of planning just as it isn't useful to say we should have shut down most of the T, it's unnecessary since most people weren't using it in 2020. For somewhat obvious reasons, the peak covid state of affairs would be an apocalypse for the city long-term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
I think removing SFR from the throat could have a bigger cost impact than you're suggesting. Part of the cost at the throat is the complicated staging required to keep all 12 lanes (Pike + SFR) open during construction. I don't know the current state of those plans, but they've generally required lots of temporary structures, some putting the road or highway partially over the river. That's expensive. If we eliminate SFR, then the staging could be simplified a lot. I couldn't guess how much cheaper this would be, but it's more than just the cost of the half mile of asphalt.
how about just temporarily closing SFR in the throat area during construction, and reopening it when construction is complete? Surely they can do without SFR through there for a couple of years.
 
Are we actually planning to keep every lane open on both roads during all/nearly all phases of construction?
Yeah, basically. Looks like I was off by one. The latest plans I can quickly find show 11 lanes open through most of construction (starting on page 16). Briefly, for one stage, that number drops to 10. And just going from memory, I'm pretty sure past plans haven't even given up one lane, and all 12 were planned to be open during construction. (Again, getting rid of SFR would mean only having to deal with 8 lanes)

how about just temporarily closing SFR in the throat area during construction, and reopening it when construction is complete? Surely they can do without SFR through there for a couple of years.
Yeah, that would surely make this project cheaper. Maybe even fundable. I'm really curious how much a savings that would be, because this isn't my wheelhouse. I wouldn't even hazard even an estimate.

But also, probably no surprise, I feel like if we can do without SFR for the several years of construction, that's a sign we need to at least consider doing without it indefinitely.
 
Instead, for the decade we basically failed at transit. Ridership in 2019 was well below 2010. A few modest expansions/improvements counteracted by lots of backsliding elsewhere. That the road usage is only up that much is almost surprising.
Dang.

I do not think the solution to Boston's transportation challenges lies in building a pile of new road expansions and trying to outdo Houston. However, I also take a pretty skeptical view of the premise that a place that has been objectively failing at delivering other means of effective or attractive transportation to our growing population, is a place that can just rip out/drastically downsize significant pieces of highly utilized infrastructure with some vague handwave that they'll just go find some other way to get there.
While most of your points are very valid, I think this is also where we need to further instill the mindset that investing in transit (and by extension, biking etc) infrastructure is actually worthwhile and will serve as attractive alternatives to driving. If people continue to not only be dependent on driving, but also remain pessimistic about (if not hate) such investments towards the "objectively failing" modes, it practically guarantees that nothing other than more car infrastructure will get built. (I mean, look at how the new Red and Orange line fleet orders got sabotaged.)

The problem is, the more you cater to the needs of these drivers, the more you give them arguments their infrastructure is vital while transit infrastructure is not. So it becomes a vicious cycle.

While actually working towards improving these alternative modes of transportation is certainly a part of breaking the vicious cycle, I don't think that alone can work without also tackling car-dependent mindsets from residents, MassDOT, legislature, etc. While we're not as bad as Houston etc on that front, it's still a problem here. Doing everything possible to ensure no highways ever lose a lane even temporarily (Pike, SFR, Bowker Overpass, etc), while putting off transit investments and expansions for whatever reason, only exacerbates that.
 
To justify that expense we'd have to have some faint idea of what Harvard wants to build on BP. Is it going to be real urban density, or a lazy car-centric Alewife clone? We don't know, because Harvard hasn't said a thing and is just land-parking the whole slab to appreciate in value. Getting them to cooperate has thus far been futile. I'm sure they'd want air rights decking as a further value-appreciator for the land, but until they get specific about plans we have no idea if that would be a worth-it provision.

This is in a deadlock in large part because Harvard has been such a consistently unreliable partner. MassDOT is just taking wild guesses at that chunky, car-centric street grid; it's not backed by any real, specific institutional development plans.
I can see that Harvard isn't helping, but this seems to be putting too much blame on them. If Harvard won't say what kind of development it wants, we (the state, representing the people) can just build the transportation infrastructure we think is best, and essentially decide for them. If we really prioritize building public transit and don't build a "chunky, car-centric street grid," then Harvard can't develop a car-centric neighborhood. (And really, I don't think Harvard's opinion should matter much. That's what we should build.) Unfortunately, it seems like we really are deciding for Harvard, and we're opting for a "chunky, car-centric street grid." We're making the decisions that allows them to build a car-centric neighborhood.
 
Ctrl+C Ctrl+V the old west end street grid on the site. Open photoshop and fix up the connections to cambridge st so they are sensible. Suddenly nobody will want to drive a car in there cause it's too narrow
Yep. Just build narrow streets in the new area. That makes too much sense!
 
I can see that Harvard isn't helping, but this seems to be putting too much blame on them. If Harvard won't say what kind of development it wants, we (the state, representing the people) can just build the transportation infrastructure we think is best, and essentially decide for them. If we really prioritize building public transit and don't build a "chunky, car-centric street grid," then Harvard can't develop a car-centric neighborhood. (And really, I don't think Harvard's opinion should matter much. That's what we should build.) Unfortunately, it seems like we really are deciding for Harvard, and we're opting for a "chunky, car-centric street grid." We're making the decisions that allows them to build a car-centric neighborhood.
Yes...and "chunky, car-centric street grid" is exactly the type of decision you'd expect MassHighway the agency to make if they were the only one behind the wheel. They don't know better, and they lack the expertise in institutional development planning to cook up an urban-density grid on their own. That's exactly why Harvard's disengagement is Harvard's own fault. The highway agency is well out of its element and isn't being given any steering by the entity that's going to be doing all the development. The result is an imbalanced disaster, and the lack of a Harvard steering presence is the primary reason it's a disaster.

It'd be one thing if Harvard had a well spelled-out IMP for here calling for a neighborhood-like feel and MassHighway just dictated over their heads "NO...CHUNKY BLOCKS AND LANES FOR U!!!" leading to a planning stalemate. But they've literally just left the slab blank. What do you think is going to fill the blank if MassHighway is the only party forced to act?
 
Yes...and "chunky, car-centric street grid" is exactly the type of decision you'd expect MassHighway the agency to make if they were the only one behind the wheel. They don't know better, and they lack the expertise in institutional development planning to cook up an urban-density grid on their own. That's exactly why Harvard's disengagement is Harvard's own fault. The highway agency is well out of its element and isn't being given any steering by the entity that's going to be doing all the development. The result is an imbalanced disaster, and the lack of a Harvard steering presence is the primary reason it's a disaster.

It'd be one thing if Harvard had a well spelled-out IMP for here calling for a neighborhood-like feel and MassHighway just dictated over their heads "NO...CHUNKY BLOCKS AND LANES FOR U!!!" leading to a planning stalemate. But they've literally just left the slab blank. What do you think is going to fill the blank if MassHighway is the only party forced to act?
I agree with most of that, but I feel like the obvious take away is that the blame for deadlocks and bad design really falls on the State, not Harvard.

If Harvard is totally absent in this planning, yeah, that sucks, they should step up. They might be pressured to do better, but ultimately, they're a private org and they'll do what they want. What is so much worse, though, is he State is failing us. Road building is the most classic state function. The State is in charge. It's their decision and they're keep coming up with bad, car-centric plans for the new neighborhood, and highway plans so overpriced the Feds decline to help (again). That's where the blame lies. That's what needs fixing here.

I can't even tell that we're disagreeing here, except maybe that you seem to see MassDOT's car-centric attitude as inevitable and unchangeable. I don't. I know that's a huge task, but they actually have to change if we're going to improve traffic or transit or hit any climate change target. MassDot (and electeds) have got to take the blame here because they are in charge and need to do better.
 
I can't even tell that we're disagreeing here, except maybe that you seem to see MassDOT's car-centric attitude as inevitable and unchangeable. I don't. I know that's a huge task, but they actually have to change if we're going to improve traffic or transit or hit any climate change target. MassDot (and electeds) have got to take the blame here because they are in charge and need to do better.
Change doesn't happen overnight. It happens through pressure and time. However, this is a project that should've started years ago and is now costing them $86M in temp repairs to the to-be-demolished viaduct because they simply spent too much time squabbling over 'throat' details. Squabbling that has also diverted any attention from improving the proposed street grid from the current underwhelming concept dated to several years ago. We don't have more time to help MassHighway learn the ropes and shake off mistakes. This was all supposed to be done yesterday.

This project needs all stakeholders firing on all cylinders if we ever expect it to realize its full potential. That's very hard to do with an absentee landlord. Nearly impossible when you're tasking a road-building agency to learn a LOT on-the-fly about neighborhood-building. We can hope MassHighway learns something for the future from this experience, but right now we've wasted years of time for little forward progress and a big cog in the partnership just...doesn't seem to care. We wouldn't be in this place we're currently in if Harvard were the least-bit engaged.
 
Nearly impossible when you're tasking a road-building agency to learn a LOT on-the-fly about neighborhood-building.
I think the assumptions here are that 1) Harvard knows how to design an urban neighborhood, and 2) they want to do so. Do we know if they're actually the case?

Obviously I want to believe they're true, but that's a different question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
I'm coming in late to this discussion, but why does this need to be either a Harvard or State/MassDOT led endeavor? Surely, this is the sort of thing where municipal government, the City of Boston, would be best able to grasp, and coordinate with all relevant stakeholders. In fact, I would like to point out that the City is actively-right-now working on it.

Firstly, BPDA and Harvard are currently in the process of soliciting public comment on the Harvard ERC District and Greenway Plan. Why should you care? Because the ERC district currently includes everything north of Cambridge Street. As the ERC streets will perforce need to interface with the street grid built for Allston Multimodal on what was Beacon Park Yard (hereafter referred to as AM and BPY). If ERC is served by smaller roads, the impetus for connecting roads on the BPY site to be as oversized as proposed by AM could be vastly reduced; one street grid will impact the other. Secondly, BPDA just a couple of weeks ago published the Allston Brighton Needs Assessment. While it only makes spare references to BPY or Allston Multimodal, I'd expect this document to guide how the city approaches uses on this site; in addition, there is currently an RFP out for an Allston Brighton Community Plan that also includes the BPY area as part of its scope.

Finally, the city is actively leading something called the Beacon Park Yard Regional Framework Plan. To quote the website, its mission is to "establish a regional, community vision for dense urban development to support and inform the transformational urban infrastructure project." Apparently, the Harvard ERC buildout included Harvard's participation in this planning effort as a mitigating benefit, but it appears to involve almost every stakeholder you can think of to "create a new neighborhood" on a 20 year time horizon. Now, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever if any of that is going to sway MassDOT, but they're participants in the process and I believe they're still making refinements to the project especially in the wake of failures to win any major grants to date.
 
Last edited:
It strikes me that I'm not sure Harvard are the right owners of this land. Given this project's importance and the amount of land at stake, it might make more sense for the city to expropriate the land to ensure it's put to its highest use. Cambridge should probably be shouldering more 'enterprise research' in the Harvard Square area instead of single family houses, whereas this area could be more well suited to high density residential with connections to transit and various employment hubs.
 
I'm coming in late to this discussion, but why does this need to be either a Harvard or State/MassDOT led endeavor? Surely, this is the sort of thing where municipal government, the City of Boston, would be best able to grasp, and coordinate with all relevant stakeholders. In fact, I would like to point out that the City is actively-right-now working on it.
Exactly. The BRA used to come up with detailed area plans for neighborhood development back in the 60s, and as flawed as they were, they were at least comprehensive plans. The City of Boston needs to employ capable planners now to do a detailed area plan for the development of the transportation, land uses (zoning), and layout of streets and blocks for this large parcel of land.
 
It strikes me that I'm not sure Harvard are the right owners of this land. Given this project's importance and the amount of land at stake, it might make more sense for the city to expropriate the land to ensure it's put to its highest use. Cambridge should probably be shouldering more 'enterprise research' in the Harvard Square area instead of single family houses, whereas this area could be more well suited to high density residential with connections to transit and various employment hubs.
Good luck with trying to eminent domain this from Harvard. The State couldn't get Harvard to play-ball on the Red Line realignment, I don't see the City of Boston having a chance at this.

What the city can do, as @Charlie_mta points out, is create the master street grid plan and zoning which would "guide" Harvard in how the city wants the land redeveloped - both of which should be within the rights and purview of the City.
 

Back
Top