stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 12,141
- Reaction score
- 19,057
The current plan was 8 lanes.
What she is saying is that there are other options for the area which would be cheaper and have many less lanes. Like this
Or this
Her argument is that the people/state that are arguing that we absolutely cannot drop the pike down to 6 lanes, and have to go with the full build 8 lane option, with the full price that entails because it would cause a traffic nightmare… are wrong. She says this because we've already dropped it down to 6 lanes for years now with the fenway air rights project and the parcel 12 air rights project and its been fine. Shes saying that going back up to 8 lanes would “essentially” be a highway expansion, because weve had 6 lanes now for years.
Its been 6 lanes already for years, its currently 6 lanes now, and it would continue to be 6 lanes throughout the duration of the construction of the throat project. So in total we would be getting by just fine with 6 lanes here for over a decade only to bring it back up to 8 lanes upon the completion of all of the different projects in the area. So thats what she means by it would essentially end up being a highway expansion. The difference between 6 or 8 lanes in such a confined space has huge ramifications not only for cost, but also the amount of room left over for green space and pedestrian/bike lanes, so the less lanes you can get by with the more room you have for other things.
“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?”
There are intelligent arguments to be made about whether or not we need the highway of a certain width here. But it just drives me up the wall here these stupid people when they say stuff about “highway expansion next to a commuter rail stop”. That one little statement reveals so much ignorance and simplistic reasoning. If you were talking about a massive reconstruction of the Worcester line to be high speed rail, sure. Or some other major transit investment. But to suggest that even the best case scenario for West Station, out in the hinterlands of western Boston, comes close in any way, shape or form to the vast and diverse uses of the highway, that is exactly the type of stupidity that makes car oriented people scoff and smell conspiracy.
If you want to actually invest in the future undergirded by a philosophy that represents a real change from auto culture toward public transportation, fine. Then do that. But we hear so many versions of this argument. Some random rail or bus station does not achieve the same thing as an interstate highway. Wanna fix the transit system? Please, do it! But so often we get these obnoxious and condescending arguments for reducing pavement while very little is done to make the alternative (transit) any better in any truly meaningful way.
What she is saying is that there are other options for the area which would be cheaper and have many less lanes. Like this
Or this
Her argument is that the people/state that are arguing that we absolutely cannot drop the pike down to 6 lanes, and have to go with the full build 8 lane option, with the full price that entails because it would cause a traffic nightmare… are wrong. She says this because we've already dropped it down to 6 lanes for years now with the fenway air rights project and the parcel 12 air rights project and its been fine. Shes saying that going back up to 8 lanes would “essentially” be a highway expansion, because weve had 6 lanes now for years.
Its been 6 lanes already for years, its currently 6 lanes now, and it would continue to be 6 lanes throughout the duration of the construction of the throat project. So in total we would be getting by just fine with 6 lanes here for over a decade only to bring it back up to 8 lanes upon the completion of all of the different projects in the area. So thats what she means by it would essentially end up being a highway expansion. The difference between 6 or 8 lanes in such a confined space has huge ramifications not only for cost, but also the amount of room left over for green space and pedestrian/bike lanes, so the less lanes you can get by with the more room you have for other things.
“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?”
Last edited: