I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

[FK4]

Re: Minimizing impact of highway on the Charles River paths

The design for the Throat selected by MassDOT needs to be improved to minimize the impact of having 12 highway lanes immediately adjacent to the Charles River parkland. This can be done in a way that is both effective and visually attractive. Some possible solutions for this at: https://twitter.com/PeoplesPike/status/1084244059819003905

So if the diagram a few replies to that thread down is correct, it shows 4 commuter rail tracks in the rail ROW. Referencing to my earlier post, I am again not clear where the Grand Junction actually ends... and if 2 of those 4 tracks are for GJ, that means the commuter rail + Lakeshore Ltd Amtrak is left with two tracks only? That seems less than ideal. I know the tracks pinch back further west but it would seem preserving as much commuter rail width as possible would be ideal - to allow for bypasses for the future shorter runs to Riverside we always talk about.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Sigh. I’ve followed all the GLX shit in great detail for years but not everyone is a railroad encyclopedia. It’s NOT clear. Maps of the GJ show it ending at the junction with the Worcester Line at the foot of the BU Bridge. So either the maps I’ve seen are wrong, or there’s more ROW reserved parallel to the Worcester line on track space I would otherwise just assume IS the Worcester line, and consequently not called the GJ and not just “reserved” for a future extension. So either the maps are wrong and the GJ ROW actually (under that name) goes as far as future West Stn, or the state has just planned ahead to save an additional two track ROW for future use. Given the state of idiocy at the MBTA, forgive me for being skeptical that they are in fact planning ahead. Urban Ring also calls for tunnels la de da thru Kenmore and Longwood with a glaring absence of planning on any of the details or feasibility... so unless somehow the GJ is its own separate thing all the way to West, I would be quite worried it’s not as safe as you say it is... but i certainly hope that’s not the case and there is some foresight here.

The GJ does not end at the foot of BU Bridge. Never did, never will. You're not looking at the renders in 3 dimensions.

Today the Grand Junction splits off from the Worcester Line behind Nickerson Field, a full 2000+ ft. west of BU Bridge. The split happens there because the line has to climb a grade of no more than 2% to get 11 ft. off the ground for overpassing Storrow Dr., and make a sharp curve onto that Storrow overpass after it's finished ascending. It takes nearly 2000 ft. of runup to accomplish those tasks.

In the future with the at-grade Pike option the 2 Grand Junction tracks and 2 Worcester tracks won't meet at-grade until behind Agganis Arena, barely a block sooner than they do today. The tracks will cross the at-grade Pike on an overpass, but because federal regs require 14 ft. of overclearance for an urban-build Interstate highway the tracks must elevate an additional 3 ft. coming off the water. The new Pike overpass will be diagonal, meaning the line must finish curving when it reaches the Worcester Line side...and only then start descending from 14 ft. to at-grade. Curve would end behind the BU College of General Studies building, and then the incline would stretch from there to Agganis.

However, the actual junction that ties the lines together cannot be behind Agganis Arena, because it's unsafe to have one end of a Grand Junction train crossing switches while the other end of the train is still taking the incline. So they'll wait for enough level running room off the incline to safely contain a max-sized train before placing the junction...meaning: behind Nickerson Field, same as before. That is the earliest possible spot 2 Grand Junction + 2 Worcester Line tracks can merge into 4 Worcester Line tracks. And it's at the site of West Station on the Babcock-Agganis Way block, so in reality the junction will be a set of crossovers just off the east end of the station platform.


Is this clear yet??? Because I can't possibly dumb it down any further.

-------------------------

The Worcester Line can't make use of 2000 ft. of tracks that are way up high on a different level, so all points east of West Station they are officially separate ROW's. Thus, if you were to convert the Grand Junction to light rail, you would have a reserved ROW straight to the foot of West Station because there's no other possible RR use for those tracks. If you take any action on the Urban Ring NW quadrant that ends RR service on the line, then West-BU Bridge comes available for mode conversion simultaneous with the UR mainline through Cambridge. The rest of the Harvard spur of the UR would be a separate entity to flesh out with further study, since it is slated to turn north from West and take a reserved path through Harvard's Beacon Park land on a path still TBD. But setting the table as far as West is not in doubt.

It's not necessarily even "planning ahead", so much as this Pike project has to preserve existing service (including the unused 2nd track). And since the ROW geometry is what it is, any revamp that preserves existing service serendipitously maintains a separate ROW to the foot of future West Station, which in turn preserves access to West in the event of a mode conversion.

Of course a project that hasn't been touched in any way/shape/form in 15 years needs a full re-study, but that's not what we're talking here. You asked an if/when question about preserving a light rail ROW to West that could be hooked up to Green and/or UR. ↑↑Here↑↑ it is. It's there....100%. Question answered.

 

[Harry Mattison]

hope this plan view from the MassDOT consultant team is helpful
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WdZDaHHlzInTEtpJUQK8JwcuywjbCfIA

 

[Charlie_mta]

Too bad they have to "unchoke the throat" with an SFR viaduct next to the river.

However, I can guarantee that filling in the Charles River to avoid a viaduct is impossible. I've been directly involved in road projects as an engineer where we tried to fill into a river, putting a road back into it's original location after it had been wiped out by storm damage, and it's just about impossible to get past all the regulatory burden and opposition from environmentalists.

 

[HenryAlan]

You're both right: the elevated road way will be closer to the river but the nearest roadway (elevated or surface) will be farther. Currently the elevated roadway is buffered by the four-lane surface SFR, which is right next to the path and the river. In the future there will be an additional 20 foot green buffer between the river/path and the road, but the nearest road will be elevated and not surface.

So yes, there will be more space between infrastructure and river compared to now but that infrastructure will be elevated whereas now it is surface.

I thought the location of the viaduct (ie which side of the Pike) was yet to be determined. The graphic does show it on the river side, but I don't think that's a definitive placement. But the larger point is definitely true -- car infrastructure, elevated or otherwise, will definitely be further from the river than before.

 

[Equilibria]

I thought the location of the viaduct (ie which side of the Pike) was yet to be determined. The graphic does show it on the river side, but I don't think that's a definitive placement. But the larger point is definitely true -- car infrastructure, elevated or otherwise, will definitely be further from the river than before.

At least according to the Globe, that's correct. Given that reasonable community requests have generally been accepted with this project (going back to tossing the car-centric initial ramp concepts in the trash back in 2013) I'd expect MassDOT to put the viaduct over the EB (inside) lanes unless the geotechnical evaluation is definitive against.

The benefit of that is very compelling: the ability to do an attractive sound wall without messing up ventilation.

 

[navigator4]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this project. The cost of replacing the I-90 viaduct is $600M. It seems everything else is intended to benefit Harvard. Either Harvard should pay the additional $1B+ or the state should get a dedicated portion of the profits that Harvard makes on development. Its obscene that drivers on I-90 have to subsidize a $100B endowment funded university.

 

[FK4]

The GJ does not end at the foot of BU Bridge. Never did, never will. You're not looking at the renders in 3 dimensions.

Today the Grand Junction splits off from the Worcester Line behind Nickerson Field, a full 2000+ ft. west of BU Bridge. The split happens there because the line has to climb a grade of no more than 2% to get 11 ft. off the ground for overpassing Storrow Dr., and make a sharp curve onto that Storrow overpass after it's finished ascending. It takes nearly 2000 ft. of runup to accomplish those tasks.

In the future with the at-grade Pike option the 2 Grand Junction tracks and 2 Worcester tracks won't meet at-grade until behind Agganis Arena, barely a block sooner than they do today. The tracks will cross the at-grade Pike on an overpass, but because federal regs require 14 ft. of overclearance for an urban-build Interstate highway the tracks must elevate an additional 3 ft. coming off the water. The new Pike overpass will be diagonal, meaning the line must finish curving when it reaches the Worcester Line side...and only then start descending from 14 ft. to at-grade. Curve would end behind the BU College of General Studies building, and then the incline would stretch from there to Agganis.

However, the actual junction that ties the lines together cannot be behind Agganis Arena, because it's unsafe to have one end of a Grand Junction train crossing switches while the other end of the train is still taking the incline. So they'll wait for enough level running room off the incline to safely contain a max-sized train before placing the junction...meaning: behind Nickerson Field, same as before. That is the earliest possible spot 2 Grand Junction + 2 Worcester Line tracks can merge into 4 Worcester Line tracks. And it's at the site of West Station on the Babcock-Agganis Way block, so in reality the junction will be a set of crossovers just off the east end of the station platform.


Is this clear yet??? Because I can't possibly dumb it down any further.

-------------------------

The Worcester Line can't make use of 2000 ft. of tracks that are way up high on a different level, so all points east of West Station they are officially separate ROW's. Thus, if you were to convert the Grand Junction to light rail, you would have a reserved ROW straight to the foot of West Station because there's no other possible RR use for those tracks. If you take any action on the Urban Ring NW quadrant that ends RR service on the line, then West-BU Bridge comes available for mode conversion simultaneous with the UR mainline through Cambridge. The rest of the Harvard spur of the UR would be a separate entity to flesh out with further study, since it is slated to turn north from West and take a reserved path through Harvard's Beacon Park land on a path still TBD. But setting the table as far as West is not in doubt.

It's not necessarily even "planning ahead", so much as this Pike project has to preserve existing service (including the unused 2nd track). And since the ROW geometry is what it is, any revamp that preserves existing service serendipitously maintains a separate ROW to the foot of future West Station, which in turn preserves access to West in the event of a mode conversion.

Of course a project that hasn't been touched in any way/shape/form in 15 years needs a full re-study, but that's not what we're talking here. You asked an if/when question about preserving a light rail ROW to West that could be hooked up to Green and/or UR. ↑↑Here↑↑ it is. It's there....100%. Question answered.

F line, I always enjoy your posts because they are extremely detailed. That being said, there is no need to get testy or uncivil. We are all here for similar reasons and interests, although some of us have more knowledge than others. The details of my questions were not previously discussed or made explicit in the recent threads here, nor were they clear in the referenced diagram. While I also tend to not suffer fools gladly, nor people who are too lazy to attempt to figure out the answer themselves, there’s a difference between those things and simple knowdge gaps from lack of expertise. Anyway, carry on.

hope this plan view from the MassDOT consultant team is helpful
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WdZDaHHlzInTEtpJUQK8JwcuywjbCfIA

Thank you, yes this is an image that makes it nicely clear.

 

[tangent]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this project. The cost of replacing the I-90 viaduct is $600M. It seems everything else is intended to benefit Harvard. Either Harvard should pay the additional $1B+ or the state should get a dedicated portion of the profits that Harvard makes on development. Its obscene that drivers on I-90 have to subsidize a $100B endowment funded university.

This project is an obscene subsidy to Harvard.

 

[tangent]

However, I can guarantee that filling in the Charles River to avoid a viaduct is impossible. I've been directly involved in road projects as an engineer where we tried to fill into a river, putting a road back into it's original location after it had been wiped out by storm damage, and it's just about impossible to get past all the regulatory burden and opposition from environmentalists.

Maybe, but then they should take 14' of BU's land by eminent domain as a fall back. Building another damn waterfront elevated road at hundreds of millions of dollars extra expense with a mediocre result is an abomination just to avoid the difficult politics of it.

Regardless, the road is fine for another 30 years with responsible maintenance. Don't do anything.

 

[fattony]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this project. The cost of replacing the I-90 viaduct is $600M. It seems everything else is intended to benefit Harvard. Either Harvard should pay the additional $1B+ or the state should get a dedicated portion of the profits that Harvard makes on development. Its obscene that drivers on I-90 have to subsidize a $100B endowment funded university.

You are suggesting the city should implement a capital gains tax, but only for this one landowner in this one area? What sense does that make? You want some sort of special tax to punish Harvard for investing here? As I recall, Harvard made the only offer. The city will collect a windfall of property tax on the newly developed land and the state will collect taxes on all business and 6-figure employees that will work here. That's the deal.

 

[navigator4]

You are suggesting the city should implement a capital gains tax, but only for this one landowner in this one area? What sense does that make? You want some sort of special tax to punish Harvard for investing here? As I recall, Harvard made the only offer. The city will collect a windfall of property tax on the newly developed land and the state will collect taxes on all business and 6-figure employees that will work here. That's the deal.

Everyone goes crazy when GE gets $10M and Liberty Mutual gets $10M in subsidies, but Harvard gets $1B and ... [crickets].

 

[fattony]

Everyone goes crazy when GE gets $10M and Liberty Mutual gets $10M in subsidies, but Harvard gets $1B and ... [crickets].

How is this a $1 billion subsidy? It is public infrastructure that will benefit the private landowners sure, but they pay taxes. Was the Big Dig a $20 billion subsidy to every landowner on the shawmut peninsula? If you want to see it that way you can twist words until it fits your narrative, but most people don't think of public infrastructure that way.

Is your beef that Harvard owns most of the land that will gain value following this project? I'm not even sure THAT is true. The economic impacts of this will stretch from Union Square (Allston) to Central Square to Coolidge Corner.

 

[FK4]

How is this a $1 billion subsidy? It is public infrastructure that will benefit the private landowners sure, but they pay taxes. Was the Big Dig a $20 billion subsidy to every landowner on the shawmut peninsula? If you want to see it that way you can twist words until it fits your narrative, but most people don't think of public infrastructure that way.

Is your beef that Harvard owns most of the land that will gain value following this project? I'm not even sure THAT is true. The economic impacts of this will stretch from Union Square (Allston) to Central Square to Coolidge Corner.

I'd thought Harvard's plan was to have a mix of commercial and institutional buildings, but I just looked through their 2013 long range plan and it pretty much is all institutional stuff. Still, if it becomes a massive new research hub, and also generates a level of density and commuter pressure to justify creating a light rail connection to Harvard Square, I'd say it's a regional win. I do think we should be skeptical of the way the big academic institutions often get carte blanche around here, but I don't think this particular project only helps Harvard.

 

[bigpicture7]

I can't seem to find the numbers for more recently than 2014, but Harvard has not been particularly generous to Boston in terms of their PILOT payments.

I'm not in the camp of saying Harvard is being "subsidized" by this development, but I simply think they could/should be substantially more generous to the city than they have been: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...yments-city/lV2JcTaoNsmbnZGNx7VOYI/story.html

Moreover, for-profit companies that send their employees to HBS's exec-ed short programs (housed in Boston proper) alone provide a substantial revenue stream.

I'm not out to get Harvard; I just think the "high road" thing for them to do would at least make (or exceed) their PILOT contribution.

 

[FK4]

^Agree. I also looked more extensively through their 2013 master plan for the area and it doesn't even mention the Urban Ring once, and doesn't mention the possibility of light rail at all. Not once. Furthermore, they do some bus analyses that ignore the broader picture of need (ie, the pressure on the downtown core that would be alleviated with a GLX to Harvard), and conclude that there is "sufficient capacity" with the current bus system, as is. I tried googling around but the only things that come up are ancient urban ring proposal, van's page, and Archboston. So unless there's stuff happening behind the scenes, the state is asleep at the wheel as far as ensuring a protected ROW thru the Allston campus.

 

[fattony]

I'd thought Harvard's plan was to have a mix of commercial and institutional buildings, but I just looked through their 2013 long range plan and it pretty much is all institutional stuff. Still, if it becomes a massive new research hub, and also generates a level of density and commuter pressure to justify creating a light rail connection to Harvard Square, I'd say it's a regional win. I do think we should be skeptical of the way the big academic institutions often get carte blanche around here, but I don't think this particular project only helps Harvard.

If you mean this IMP, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include any land directly related to the I-90 project.

There is going to be at least a Cambridge Crossing's worth of commercial and residential development here.

 

[FK4]

If you mean this IMP, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include any land directly related to the I-90 project.

There is going to be at least a Cambridge Crossing's worth of commercial and residential development here.

No, but Harvard owns Beacon Yards so it's directly connected to all of this.

 

[tangent]

The new development could be great... until they dropped transit, so it is an office park. Then they are just going to rebuild a new elevated highway next to the river which will have higher maintenance costs so people can forget retirement with all the taxes unless they move to New Hampshire or Maine.

And all those new employees, students and residents that could have been taking the T or commuter rail... just clogging up the highways to make all our commutes longer and more hellish.

Great that Harvard wants to grow, but it does appear that this is going to be at the direct expense of taxpayers who will be left with decades of debt for something that isn't going to generate enough taxes in either real estate, income or sales to justify the public investment way before those highways should need to be replaced.

How old is the Tobin bridge? How old is the I93-I95 interchange? How many crumbling bridges in the state have to fall down so Harvard can bump the line?

I was a big supporter of this project until it started sucking.

 

[Equilibria]

The new development could be great... until they dropped transit, so it is an office park. Then they are just going to rebuild a new elevated highway next to the river which will have higher maintenance costs so people can forget retirement with all the taxes unless they move to New Hampshire or Maine.

And all those new employees, students and residents that could have been taking the T or commuter rail... just clogging up the highways to make all our commutes longer and more hellish.

Great that Harvard wants to grow, but it does appear that this is going to be at the direct expense of taxpayers who will be left with decades of debt for something that isn't going to generate enough taxes in either real estate, income or sales to justify the public investment way before those highways should need to be replaced.

How old is the Tobin bridge? How old is the I93-I95 interchange? How many crumbling bridges in the state have to fall down so Harvard can bump the line?

I was a big supporter of this project until it started sucking.

Ok - first, this is actually one of the most "crumbling" bridges in the State, and one of the largest in poor condition. By your metric, replacing it should be a pretty high priority, and it has nothing to do with Harvard.

Second, this project still has "transit." It's never changed. In fact, it has more transit now than it had at the beginning, since West Station (a name I've always hated, since it overstates the prominence of the station in terms of service and functions mostly as a marketing gimmick for Dukakis and friends) wasn't included to start with. It was added, then scheduled for the end of the work which pissed people off, since they'd been misled into assuming that DMU service to Kendall would start on day one. Since then, MassDOT has promised to push that schedule up.

I think you're referring to the concept sketches I and others (most notably davem) tossed around on AB back in 2012 and 2013, which (like F-Line has also drawn more recently) included a Green Line extension through the cleared land. That's never been proposed as part of this project and has only been hinted at as a reservation by Harvard itself. If you want to see a Green Line extension, you should take it up with them, not with MassDOT.

By the way, the Allston Interchange as it exists today has more than one bridge, and more than one bridge in poor condition. Replacing those long ramp overpasses with shorter single-beam ones, as MassDOT is proposing to do, will reduce long-term maintenance costs at multiple locations while resolving the maintenance backlog.