I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

[BostonTrainGuy]

In 2021, we should be shrinking or removing highways, not taking private land for them. There are much simpler solutions to BU giving up land and having to partially demolish buildings in order to preserve an 8 lane highway and 4 lane "parkway."

I know it's all the rage lately to promote downsizing, eliminating, and calming (slowing down) every major roadway you can, but we simply can't keep choking the roadways and expect all will be fine. Not everyone can take the T to work. Businesses need things delivered reliably on time. Work crews need to move around the city to complete projects.

Traffic congestion wastes fuel and increases pollution. Road rage is increasing in numbers and severity. There is no magic wand. People still have to get to work and commerce still has to flow through the area. It's easy to say we should eliminate this road or that but there are consequences to making the area more and more difficult to transit.

Boston traffic has been getting worse every year and it is now the second most congested urban area in the country. Making things worst is not the best course of action. I know many here will attack me on this issue, and I do understand the livability argument, but as the area gets more and more gridlocked and travel times get longer and longer, the negative consequences have to be considered.

Researchers at Texas A&M University ranked traffic congestion in urban areas across the country, and found that the New York-Newark metropolitan area was the worst, followed by Boston, Mass.; Houston, Texas; and finally the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, California region.

 

[Charlie_mta]

It looks like the Grand Junction (GJ) RR dips under the Mass Pike in your proposal (shown above). If the Mass Pike is at grade here, I don't see how the GJ can drop from its overpass over SFR down to a below grade elevation under the Mass Pike in that short of a distance. That's why all the at-grade Mass Pike proposals show the GJ passing over the Pike and gradually ramping down on the south side of the Pike, as shown here:

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It looks like the Grand Junction (GJ) RR dips under the Mass Pike in your proposal (shown above). If the Mass Pike is at grade here, I don't see how the GJ can drop from its overpass over SFR down to a below grade elevation under the Mass Pike in that short of a distance. That's why all the at-grade Mass Pike proposals show the GJ passing over the Pike and gradually ramping down on the south side of the Pike.

See here for where that misconception got introduced:

And the Grand Junction Line should go the B line.

It's a nonstarter. Amtrak and CSX are instant veto filings in front of the Surface Transportation Board for any plan to take the Grand Junction immediately off the RR network. The bucket list of things that could be done to inoculate southside vs. northside equipment independence for the sake of a *someday* Urban Ring rapid transit conversion of the ROW are decade-level efforts, not something that can be queued up in 2 months' time to satiate the 'throat' decision. CSX won't have an in-house routing alternative until its acquisition of Pan Am is fully complete, which is not expected until Q1 2022 if it survives federal review. And stuff like the T developing full-service southside maint facilities are in their earliest design infancy too flimsily sketched at this early stage to get any Amtrak I.O.U.'s. Hell...it's too flimsily-sketched at this stage to even get Keolis' co-sign as Purple Line operator, given how precariously their contract performance incentives currently hedge on precision north-south equipment balancing.

The GJ is functionally sacrosanct for any five-alarm-urgent timetable where you could possibly hope to fish the 'throat' decision out of the dumpster fire. You can't move that much paper and that much nitty-gritty systemwide facilities planning in a remotely compatible timeframe.

 

[BostonTrainGuy]

It looks like the Grand Junction (GJ) RR dips under the Mass Pike in your proposal (shown above). If the Mass Pike is at grade here, I don't see how the GJ can drop from its overpass over SFR down to a below grade elevation under the Mass Pike in that short of a distance. That's why all the at-grade Mass Pike proposals show the GJ passing over the Pike and gradually ramping down on the south side of the Pike.

Yes but it looks like there is no way for the Pike to dip below the GJ as planned due to this recent flooding issue. It sounds like the Pike will have to be raised up a bit so it will be slightly elevated through the area anyway. At the point that I suggest the GJ run under the Pike, the Pike will raise up as the GJ dips down. I think there is enough distance to do that.

(Update: Incorrect response. See below.)

 

[Charlie_mta]

Yes but it looks like there is no way for the Pike to dip below the GJ as planned due to this recent flooding issue. It sounds like the Pike will have to be raised up a bit so it will be slightly elevated through the area anyway. At the point that I suggest the GJ run under the Pike, the Pike will raise up as the GJ dips down. I think there is enough distance to do that.

If one looks at the existing viaduct, the GJ slips under it, but for that to work the Pike needs to be fully elevated on the viaduct. So I don't see any way for the GJ to fit vertically through the throat without the Mass Pike being on a viaduct. That is, assuming the Pike cannot be at-grade due to the Feds' flooding restrictions.

 

[BostonTrainGuy]

If one looks at the existing viaduct, the GJ slips under it, but for that to work the Pike needs to be fully elevated on the viaduct. So I don't see any way for the GJ to fit vertically through the throat without the Mass Pike being on a viaduct. That is, assuming the Pike cannot be at-grade due to the Feds' flooding restrictions.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about my idea. The photo was not posted at the time I responded.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about my idea. The photo was not posted at the time I responded.

I like your idea, but it would require filling in the river which I don't think will be allowed by the Feds and various publics.

 

[RandomWalk]

Any opportunity for substantive takings from BU evaporated when BU demolished the old armory.

 

[BostonTrainGuy]

I like your idea, but it would require filling in the river which I don't think will be allowed by the Feds and various publics.

Not anymore than the "everything at level" plan. It just moves things around slightly. As originally planned in the "at level" scheme, there are four tracks running along the left edge, then the turnpike, Storrow Drive and parkland. My plan would have two mainline tracks on the left, the Pike, two tracks of the Grand Junction, Storrow Drive and parkland. The same things as in the "everything at ground level plan" but avoiding the problem of having the Pike dip under the Grand Junction which may not be possible due to the flood plan issue.

 

[Charlie_mta]

For the all at-grade alternative, I have an idea on how to pull the shoreline fill back 24 feet without infringing on BU property. Simply continue the Grand Junction RR on an elevated structure on top of the two mainline RR tracks thru the throat area. This would shift the roadways south 24 feet, and would create an elevated RR viaduct next to Harry Agganis Way in the same location as the current Mass Pike viaduct, so there would be no infringement on that street or BU property, I suppose BU would object to having a RR viaduct there, but the Mass Pike viaduct is there now,

Here is the Original Plan from MassDOT, with my Revised Plan below it. In the Revised Plan, the bright blue area along the Charles River shoreline is the 24 ft width of fill into the river that would be avoided with my plan:

 

[BostonTrainGuy]

I like it. It works and it visually opens up the entire area with the only obstruction being the GJ viaduct which is as far from the shore as possible. I hope there isn't an issue with the level of the Pike under the GJ bridge.

Start building it.

 

[Stlin]

For the all at-grade alternative, I have an idea on how to pull the shoreline fill back 24 feet without infringing on BU property. Simply continue the Grand Junction RR on an elevated structure on top of the two mainline RR tracks thru the throat area. This would shift the roadways south 24 feet, and would create an elevated RR viaduct next to Harry Agganis Way in the same location as the current Mass Pike viaduct, so there would be no infringement on that street or BU property, I suppose BU would object to having a RR viaduct there, but the Mass Pike viaduct is there now,

Here is the Original Plan from MassDOT, with my Revised Plan below it. In the Revised Plan, the bright blue area along the Charles River shoreline is the 24 ft width of fill into the river that would be avoided with my plan:

I like it, especially since it would need to rise anyways to get over the highways. but given railroad grade restrictions, it would probably have to start climbing immediately out of west station. Is there enough space to climb fast enough? I suppose you could undercut the Worcester line a few feet to help, though.

 

[Vagabond]

RE: the floodplain. Any engineers want to give more context here?

Is it driven by...
A. Riverine flooding from heavy rainfall
B. Coastal surge if the locks were overtopped/destroyed
C. Coastal surge because the locks aren't considered at all in sea level surge calculation?

 

[stefal]

For a refresher, here's what FHWA said:

“The Soldiers Field Road Hybrid and the At-grade alternatives as currently proposed violate Federal regulations as they lower the Interstate below the FEMA 50-year flood elevation…. This requirement cannot be waived nor are there any means of exception or mitigation. Therefore, these alternatives as currently presented are not viable and will need to be revised to meet this floodplain requirement. We are confident that feasible design solutions are available to address this requirement for both alternatives such they can viably move forward in the DEIS.”

And MassDOT says you can possibly waive the regulation:

A proposed action which includes a significant encroachment shall not be approved unless the FHWA finds that the proposed significant encroachment is the only practicable alternative. This finding… shall be supported by the following information:
– The reasons why the proposed action must be located in the floodplain
– The alternatives considered and why they were not practicable, and
– A statement indicating whether the action conforms to applicable State or local floodplain protection standards

But also, MassDOT says all their alternatives do not physically encroach on the 50-year floodplain, but they're going to review for increased flooding risks as a result of climate change, and they're "working through interpretation of 23 CFR Part 650 Subpart A"

One of the blurriest official images of recent:

Here's the modified at-grade option in section:

Issues with this refinement that they are assessing include:

• Searching for an additional 4 feet to take Storrow out of the Charles
• Increasing elevation of I-90 means increasing grade of Grand Junction Rail to meet standard clearances
• Raising WML and GJR means impacting the ramp length from Agganis Way to North-South Agganis Crossing to PDW Path and further impact access drive to BU Nickerson Field

They note that Buick Street/Agganis Way can not be obstructed so as to impede operations throughout construction, so taking it out seems like a no-go, for those unofficial options that have been discussed on here. As I said a while ago, that's likely not even for deliveries; I have a feeling that's a fire access requirement.

 

[BostonTrainGuy]

So what the heck are the Feds talking about?

 

[stefal]

So what the heck are the Feds talking about?

Well I don't think they want any fill in or on the Charles, as MassDOT is still in search of a magical 4 extra feet to make it work, and they can't take any additional space beyond the 7 feet from BU. It's been ruled out entirely. (maybe they should look at Charlie's alternative, though they seem to really be sticking to the at-grade option)

Note, this information is coming from MassDOT, who have to push their understanding and reasoning over the Feds if they want any chance of this happening. If there was a presentation given by the FHWA, I'm sure I'd be pulling slightly different information and arguments into here.

They said they're working with the FHWA to both come to an understanding of the flood plain regulation and what can or can't be done, which I don't understand why they'd be saying that when they should've been doing this from the start, as the Fed's letter said they've been telling them no since 2018.

 

[ccole]

For the all at-grade alternative, I have an idea on how to pull the shoreline fill back 24 feet without infringing on BU property. Simply continue the Grand Junction RR on an elevated structure on top of the two mainline RR tracks thru the throat area. This would shift the roadways south 24 feet, and would create an elevated RR viaduct next to Harry Agganis Way in the same location as the current Mass Pike viaduct, so there would be no infringement on that street or BU property, I suppose BU would object to having a RR viaduct there, but the Mass Pike viaduct is there now,

Here is the Original Plan from MassDOT, with my Revised Plan below it. In the Revised Plan, the bright blue area along the Charles River shoreline is the 24 ft width of fill into the river that would be avoided with my plan:

I really like this idea because the GJRR won't have much traffic any time soon and, even if it does in the future, it'll be much less frequent than an elevated interstate viaduct. It's a smaller structure (less costly to maintain?, less obtrusive), it's further from the river (less noise), and as Stlin pointed out, you need to get over the interstate for the crossover anyway. Does anyone know why this might not work or hasn't been considered yet? The only potential issue I can see is the pedestrian overpass at Harry Agganis Way, but seeing the height of the community path at the GLX interchange I know we could make it work if we wanted to.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I really like this idea because the GJRR won't have much traffic any time soon and, even if it does in the future, it'll be much less frequent than an elevated interstate viaduct. It's a smaller structure (less costly to maintain?, less obtrusive), it's further from the river (less noise), and as Stlin pointed out, you need to get over the interstate for the crossover anyway. Does anyone know why this might not work or hasn't been considered yet? The only potential issue I can see is the pedestrian overpass at Harry Agganis Way, but seeing the height of the community path at the GLX interchange I know we could make it work if we wanted to.

I think the operational question is whether there is enough room between West Station and the Throat to get the Grand Junction up to the required viaduct elevation, given RR grade constraints. Note in the proposals the Worcester Line is also somewhat elevated at the Throat, so that increases the elevation needed for Grand Junction even more.

This is probably conceptually much easier if Grand Junction is converted to Light Rail Transit!

 

[BostonTrainGuy]

I really like this idea because the GJRR won't have much traffic any time soon and, even if it does in the future, it'll be much less frequent than an elevated interstate viaduct. It's a smaller structure (less costly to maintain?, less obtrusive), it's further from the river (less noise), and as Stlin pointed out, you need to get over the interstate for the crossover anyway. Does anyone know why this might not work or hasn't been considered yet? The only potential issue I can see is the pedestrian overpass at Harry Agganis Way, but seeing the height of the community path at the GLX interchange I know we could make it work if we wanted to.

There actually have been some very interesting plans for buildings and open space over the Turnpike and they included pedestrian grade crossings across the GJ. There of course are existing pedestrian crossings in Cambridge now. Although it initially sounds like a non-starter, the overpass could cross the GJ "at grade" although one level up.

 

[BostonTrainGuy]

I think the operational question is whether there is enough room between West Station and the Throat to get the Grand Junction up to the required viaduct elevation, given RR grade constraints. Note in the proposals the Worcester Line is also somewhat elevated at the Throat, so that increases the elevation needed for Grand Junction even more.

That elevation looks pretty substantial. Maybe 8 feet or so? Probably no reason why the main line couldn't be lowered to make this happen if necessary.