I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

Here is a wild pitch (seeing as we are talking about drawing board revisions), could MassDOT Air Rights the space currently dedicated to the bus deck and open air to the east?

As we have learned from SS Tower, working over active train yards is remarkably tricky. Futureproofing any form of future development is also remarkably tricky. I'm sure though that a properly funded and hired design team could engineer an elevated deck that would allow for future development above the station. Obviously there would be concerns about ventilation (electrification please), and then there is the possible limitations of what that structure could hold down the road. But if MassDOT is already planning a deck over the station, some of the engineering has already been going on. Why not have the design team plan for a couple 30/40 towers above the station rather than an oversized busway?

So of the Air Rights projects we have seen in Boston are held up specifically because of decking over the infrastructure they cover. By removing that hardship (ie recoup the costs by building it into their ground lease rent) to developers, does that present the opportunity to add to the built environment?
 
Back in the Kerasiotes era, I recall him saying “no decking without us getting paid” in response to a question about why they don’t proactively deck the Pike.
 
CBCArch61 said:
Here is a wild pitch (seeing as we are talking about drawing board revisions), could MassDOT Air Rights the space currently dedicated to the bus deck and open air to the east?

As we have learned from SS Tower, working over active train yards is remarkably tricky. Futureproofing any form of future development is also remarkably tricky. I'm sure though that a properly funded and hired design team could engineer an elevated deck that would allow for future development above the station. Obviously there would be concerns about ventilation (electrification please), and then there is the possible limitations of what that structure could hold down the road. But if MassDOT is already planning a deck over the station, some of the engineering has already been going on. Why not have the design team plan for a couple 30/40 towers above the station rather than an oversized busway?

So of the Air Rights projects we have seen in Boston are held up specifically because of decking over the infrastructure they cover. By removing that hardship (ie recoup the costs by building it into their ground lease rent) to developers, does that present the opportunity to add to the built environment?
Click to expand...
I think that Harvard has air rights.
 
Tallguy said:
I think that Harvard has air rights.
Click to expand...
That is correct.

bankerandtradesman.com

Harvard Confirms Turnpike Air Rights Talks, Boston Oversight

A Harvard University official confirmed talks with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation on construction of an elevated deck at the planned MBTA West Station, which would open up development opportunities over the Massachusetts Turnpike in Allston.
bankerandtradesman.com bankerandtradesman.com

From our 2022 story:

Issued Wednesday, Lapp’s letter responds to an inquiry from state Rep. Michael Moran, whose district includes Allston, about Harvard’s latest intentions for development in the neighborhood following completion of the Interstate 90 multimodal project. The estimated $1.7 billion project will relocate the Massachusetts Turnpike south in the area of the former Allston-Brighton tolls and allow Harvard to build a large mixed-use development on land that it owns to the north.

“West Station needs to be woven into the transportation system and urban fabric, which is why Harvard has been focused on decking above and around the station since as far back as 2014,” Lapp wrote.

Discussions with Boston and state officials have focused on “preserving the technical viability” of decking, but Harvard has not determined any specific plans for development, Lapp wrote. The scope of development is tied to the cost of the deck project.
Click to expand...
 
This might have been asked to death here, but do the T/Amtrak need that layover in West Station?
 
BOS2BON said:
This might have been asked to death here, but do the T/Amtrak need that layover in West Station?
Click to expand...
No. It's been shrunk from 12 trainsets to 8 to now 4, so isn't much storage to begin with. And they net more storage than this when they build the Readville maintenance facility if they make the construction-temporary Yard 1 layover they've already negotiated with CSX permanent instead of abandoning it when the revamped Yard 2 layover is complete. Beacon Park layover is completely unnecessary. The only fig leaf they're claiming for it being necessary is that the Readville facility is unfunded, but that's BS because Beacon Park too is unfunded. They're digging in on it because they're afraid to send their hot-mess of an overall West Station design for major retooling. It doesn't work on multiple levels, but they won't admit that and are just pounding harder at the sunk cost fallacy.
 

The Path Forward for Allston’s Highway Megaproject Is Getting Narrower​


Is MassDOT ready to admit that Allston needs more trains and fewer lanes?

I90ThroatAerial.png


“Although parts of Interstate 90 through Allston are currently 8 lanes wide, MassDOT has told stakeholders to expect that the highway will be reduced to 6 lanes for the duration of the project's decade-long construction period.

Several members of the Allston project's stakeholder task force are beginning to wonder if the Turnpike should be designed to be 6 lanes for good – an idea that could considerably simplify the project's construction logistics.

“Can we survive with a 6-lane Turnpike? Sure we can, because we’re doing it right now,” observes Emily Norton, a Newton resident and executive director of the Charles River Watershed Association.

Norton points out that nearby segments of the Turnpike have already been narrowed to a 6-lane configuration for several years for the construction of air-rights developments in the Fenway neighborhood.

“If MassDOT wants to build 8 lanes here, then what we’re actually talking about is a highway expansion project. Because it’s been 6 lanes for over 5 years now. It would be 6 lanes through the decade-plus of construction (of the Allston Multimodal Project)," says Norton. "Can you tell me anywhere else in the state where you’re planning a highway expansion next to a new commuter rail stop?”…….”



“By similar reasoning, Norton thinks that the adjacent Soldier's Field Road should also be considered for a road diet. The agency in charge of that highway, the state's Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), has already endorsed plans to turn that roadway into a calmer 2-lane street on the other side of Allston, in Herter Park……”



“Mike Hall, a project consultant from TetraTech, presented data from MassDOT's automated toll collection gantry 13, which is located in the "throat" segment of the Turnpike.

"The capacity of the highway is about 1,760 vehicles per hour per lane, or a capacity of about 7,000 cars per hour on the highway" in each direction, said Hall…….”



“What Hall didn't mention, though, is that the numbers he was using were roughly 20 percent higher than actual observed traffic volumes from the present day.

StreetsblogMASS downloaded the actual eastbound traffic data from that gantry for the first quarter of 2025, which you can look at in this spreadsheet.

It shows that hourly traffic volumes on Interstate 90 rarely exceed 6000 cars per hour in either direction…….”



Renders showing how miluch more waterfront park space there could be with lane reductions:

Current plan
IMG_2259.jpeg


Mass pike minus 1 lane each direction
IMG_2260.jpeg


Mass pike and Sfr minus 1 lane each direction
IMG_2261.jpeg


https://mass.streetsblog.org/2025/0...BWvn1oj6_3nIAEXQeQ_aem_MoeUe0FeGbaevjHK2NTx2A
 
Last edited:
cubbe8 said:
usa.streetsblog.org

Breaking: House Moves to Rescind $3.1B for Reconnecting Communities Divided by Highways — Streetsblog USA

The House Transportation Committee wants to slash funding for one of America's most critical equity-focused grant programs — unless advocates speak out and get them to reverse course.
usa.streetsblog.org usa.streetsblog.org

It’s over
Click to expand...
The relevant grant was for $335M, about one-sixth the total project budget. It hurts for sure, but it's not fatal. And the fact that the project is such a godawful mess of infighting and conflicting design decisions right now means the chances of it actually getting construction starts within a Trump Administration are fading fast anyway.

Calm down. This is a long game.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The relevant grant was for $335M, about one-sixth the total project budget. It hurts for sure, but it's not fatal. And the fact that the project is such a godawful mess of infighting and conflicting design decisions right now means the chances of it actually getting construction starts within a Trump Administration are fading fast anyway.

Calm down. This is a long game.
Click to expand...
Would be nice to see the state find $300m in savings by cutting lanes on the Pike, SFR, and the new street grid. My fear is they cut West Station instead, but hopefully not an option due to Harvard opposition.
 
Badusername said:
Would be nice to see the state find $300m in savings by cutting lanes on the Pike, SFR, and the new street grid. My fear is they cut West Station instead, but hopefully not an option due to Harvard opposition.
Click to expand...
I dunno if there's that much to be clawed back just by deleting lanes. If it were that stark a difference on final configuration price tags, you probably would've seen more consideration towards that by now. You could, however, free up quite a bit if the requirement to preserve all lanes during construction weren't so rigid and ironclad...if we were allowed to have more rip-the-band-aid temporary reductions to facilitate construction staging. And you could probably free up $50M+ instantly just by changing West Station to a sane track layout with no layover yard like here...but that would entail them reconsidering the wisdom of their batshit current design instead of pounding ever harder and more defensively at the sunk-cost fallacy. And you might be able to justify self-funding the jeopardized funding if the street grid were made denser for more development to goose the revenue side. But so much is undercooked with the overall design slate we still don't have a firm idea of what this all is going to cost. That's why I question whether the imminent loss of those funds is truly going to move the needle one way or the other. We are so very depressingly far from shovel-ready with the current state of the plans it's not like that money is going to be spent before the end of this Administration, let alone before Congress potentially flips in '26 to and could end up restoring some of the infrastructure cuts.

I mean, it's not a good situation at all to have such unreliable federal funding commitments. But MassDOT has made it so much worse on themselves with the desperate flailing act that's turning this into a multi-decade design that might not see shovels turned until a third decade begins at the rate they're choking along at major design decisions. This should've been shovel-ready years ago, but we're still punching our own faces bogged down in pointless fights over abstract/existential parts of the plan. We're really not at an adequate state of readiness to use whatever funding we have been given.
 
I listened to the task force meeting today, there is a big lecture therein from who I think is a T person about them needing the space and a lot of scolding about people who continue to ask about the yard. Was kind of surprised.
 
Longfellow said:
I listened to the task force meeting today, there is a big lecture therein from who I think is a T person about them needing the space and a lot of scolding about people who continue to ask about the yard. Was kind of surprised.
Click to expand...
Don't be surprised. They're clueless about how to design the thing any better, so are just circling the wagons around an unworkable design and adopting an "us vs. them" battle mentality when they get called out on it with basic facts. Instead of trying to amble their way to consensus they're just throwing elbows and getting overly defensive. It's the circular firing squad stage of their design's ultimate implosion, and the desperation is why the "lectures" are getting increasingly shrill.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
I dunno if there's that much to be clawed back just by deleting lanes. If it were that stark a difference on final configuration price tags, you probably would've seen more consideration towards that by now. You could, however, free up quite a bit if the requirement to preserve all lanes during construction weren't so rigid and ironclad...if we were allowed to have more rip-the-band-aid temporary reductions to facilitate construction staging. And you could probably free up $50M+ instantly just by changing West Station to a sane track layout with no layover yard like here...but that would entail them reconsidering the wisdom of their batshit current design instead of pounding ever harder and more defensively at the sunk-cost fallacy. And you might be able to justify self-funding the jeopardized funding if the street grid were made denser for more development to goose the revenue side. But so much is undercooked with the overall design slate we still don't have a firm idea of what this all is going to cost. That's why I question whether the imminent loss of those funds is truly going to move the needle one way or the other. We are so very depressingly far from shovel-ready with the current state of the plans it's not like that money is going to be spent before the end of this Administration, let alone before Congress potentially flips in '26 to and could end up restoring some of the infrastructure cuts.

I mean, it's not a good situation at all to have such unreliable federal funding commitments. But MassDOT has made it so much worse on themselves with the desperate flailing act that's turning this into a multi-decade design that might not see shovels turned until a third decade begins at the rate they're choking along at major design decisions. This should've been shovel-ready years ago, but we're still punching our own faces bogged down in pointless fights over abstract/existential parts of the plan. We're really not at an adequate state of readiness to use whatever funding we have been given.
Click to expand...
We need to keep all the lanes during construction even though the decking projects further east have shut down some lanes......
 
Longfellow said:
I listened to the task force meeting today, there is a big lecture therein from who I think is a T person about them needing the space and a lot of scolding about people who continue to ask about the yard. Was kind of surprised.
Click to expand...
Is there a meeting recording anywhere?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top