128 Widening

[Charlie_mta]

This interchange and also the one at I-90 and I-290 south of Worcester both illustrate the basic question of what to do with these messes now that toll booths are going away.

Do you totally get rid of all the convoluted loop ramps, weaving and massive land footprint, by replacing the whole mess with a much more compact and efficient interchange of direct fly-overs? Or, do you make some minor ramp relocations to lessen the weaving here and there (as MASSDOT is proposing in this case)?

I vote for the former rather than the latter. Of course, that takes 100's of $ millions to do, maybe $ billions. And of course you also run head on into the infamous Massachusetts NIMBYs and their provincialism.

 

[WormtownNative]

This interchange and also the one at I-90 and I-290 south of Worcester both illustrate the basic question of what to do with these messes now that toll booths are going away.

Do you totally get rid of all the convoluted loop ramps, weaving and massive land footprint, by replacing the whole mess with a much more compact and efficient interchange of direct fly-overs? Or, do you make some minor ramp relocations to lessen the weaving here and there (as MASSDOT is proposing in this case)?

I vote for the former rather than the latter. Of course, that takes 100's of $ millions to do, maybe $ billions. And of course you also run head on into the infamous Massachusetts NIMBYs and their provincialism.

To be fair, those NIMBYs won't have much of a case if they could reconfigure interchanges within the existing footprint, which I wouldn't doubt would be possible.

 

[whighlander]

This interchange and also the one at I-90 and I-290 south of Worcester both illustrate the basic question of what to do with these messes now that toll booths are going away.

Do you totally get rid of all the convoluted loop ramps, weaving and massive land footprint, by replacing the whole mess with a much more compact and efficient interchange of direct fly-overs? Or, do you make some minor ramp relocations to lessen the weaving here and there (as MASSDOT is proposing in this case)?

I vote for the former rather than the latter. Of course, that takes 100's of $ millions to do, maybe $ billions. And of course you also run head on into the infamous Massachusetts NIMBYs and their provincialism.

Charlie_MBTA-- I think the other Charlie --the one in the State House corner office will propose some majpor redo after the toll booths are gone

The payout is enormous -- get a proper efficient, modern ramp design intersection is the goal

There is a huge additional benefit -- land which is very valuable

 

[tangent]

Charlie_MBTA-- I think the other Charlie --the one in the State House corner office will propose some majpor redo after the toll booths are gone

The payout is enormous -- get a proper efficient, modern ramp design intersection is the goal

There is a huge additional benefit -- land which is very valuable

I wouldn't emphasize any surplus land as a benefit. Having enough space for major reconstruction in the future will help our grandchildren be able to afford their infrastructure. Otherwise you end up with major disruption or major cost if you don't leave enough room for 50 years down the road.

 

[Equilibria]

It's just a tidying up of the toll plaza area when the plaza gets knocked down. Kinda depressingly limited and cosmetic in scope, and doesn't touch anything on the 128 level.

It's not entirely cosmetic. It cleans up the short merges on I-90, partly through a new ramp (as Mat mentioned). It's possible that they can't do 128 work with this project due to funding sources (tolls can only fund work on I-90 itself).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I wouldn't emphasize any surplus land as a benefit. Having enough space for major reconstruction in the future will help our grandchildren be able to afford their infrastructure. Otherwise you end up with major disruption or major cost if you don't leave enough room for 50 years down the road.

There's also limitations on how much of this can be developed by the anti-density zoning of the Town of Weston, and more practically the lack of much of a street grid. If, say, the cleanroomed interchange realigned the Pike to stay arrow-straight through the current grassy middle you'd probably gain land across Riverside Rd. to fill in the rest of the current office park with 2-3 more developments the size of the Collier Joseph campus if Riverside Rd. were turned into a winding wrap-around cul de sac. But the town will not allow such zoning along Route 30 or Park Rd. beyond what cat already got let out of the bag by allowing the Riverside Rd. offices in the first place. There already exists prime development acreage on 30 between Park Rd. and the tractor-trailer lot which they have refused for decades to zone for commercial anything because of the effects on the adjacent residential density. That decision won't change just because the Pike realignment doubles the depth of that currently forested land.

Best case scenario is you get some beneficial expansion of the existing office park. But it's still pinned down by Riverside Rd. where the existing commercial zoning can fan out onto MassDOT-freed land without the town contradicting its own past zoning decision to allow the office park. But that's it. In no way is such a rebuild going to be paid for by any private dev taxes. You can quibble with Weston being exclusionary in its zoning practices, but it's within their rights to pick and choose their own commercial tax base and they have been resolutely consistent about what they want their town to be like ever since the Postwar era. No one can claim shock or outrage at unyielding consistency.

 

[Equilibria]

There's also limitations on how much of this can be developed by the anti-density zoning of the Town of Weston, and more practically the lack of much of a street grid. If, say, the cleanroomed interchange realigned the Pike to stay arrow-straight through the current grassy middle you'd probably gain land across Riverside Rd. to fill in the rest of the current office park with 2-3 more developments the size of the Collier Joseph campus if Riverside Rd. were turned into a winding wrap-around cul de sac. But the town will not allow such zoning along Route 30 or Park Rd. beyond what cat already got let out of the bag by allowing the Riverside Rd. offices in the first place. There already exists prime development acreage on 30 between Park Rd. and the tractor-trailer lot which they have refused for decades to zone for commercial anything because of the effects on the adjacent residential density. That decision won't change just because the Pike realignment doubles the depth of that currently forested land.

Best case scenario is you get some beneficial expansion of the existing office park. But it's still pinned down by Riverside Rd. where the existing commercial zoning can fan out onto MassDOT-freed land without the town contradicting its own past zoning decision to allow the office park. But that's it. In no way is such a rebuild going to be paid for by any private dev taxes. You can quibble with Weston being exclusionary in its zoning practices, but it's within their rights to pick and choose their own commercial tax base and they have been resolutely consistent about what they want their town to be like ever since the Postwar era. No one can claim shock or outrage at unyielding consistency.

Agreed. One possible benefit of the expanded office park, though, would be that the Riverside CR station finally becomes plausible.

 

[mass88]

I would have just assumed the residents of Weston would prefer the interchange to be rebuilt. You put in flyover ramps for 90 east to 95 north and from 90 west to 95 south and the overall footprint of the interchange should be smaller than what it currently is.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Agreed. One possible benefit of the expanded office park, though, would be that the Riverside CR station finally becomes plausible.

The office park isn't nearly big enough to drive any transit access, even if the acreage is doubled. These are squat 1-2 story buildings, and any expansion along Riverside Rd. is likely to stay capped at that height because of local zoning. There are taller single office buildings one exit up 128 in Waltham and one exit down at Riverside station that hold more square footage than this entire Weston campus. Double its size at current capped height and you get...as many employees as the single Biogen building in Waltham? That's beneficial and all, but a bit shy of medium-potatoes.


The would-be Indigo Line station @ Riverside would slot adjacent to the Green Line platform on the turnout track. So that ends up a full mile walk from here via paths out of the station, path to Recreation Rd., and sidewalk-less Weston street grid after Rec Rd. crosses the highway. Physically it's an equidistant walk to Wellesley Farms CR station...which also has zero sidewalks till you hit the Wellesley town line. Because of the relatively diffuse square footage from lack of height you're not going to fill up a shuttle bus to Riverside from here, and not going to draw any neighborhood walkup from the lack of sidewalks. It most definitely will not float a mainline commuter rail stop immediately adjacent because without more height on these buildings the bodies aren't physically there to use it (see again: no neighborhood sidewalks). Mishawum-level ridership where the Worcester Line has way too many mouths to feed end-to-end to burn on an infill with that limited a ridership cap. Again...Weston is completely consistent decade after decade about its zoning choices, so more height is not a realistic hope here. Nor is saying "Fuck them!" and waging state-on-local nuclear war just because acreage exists and it's somebody's idea of manifest destiny to build something tall on it.

Best I think you can shoot for is altering the 558 bus' short end run between Comm Ave. and Riverside station on 128 where it pings between the 30 and Grove St. interchanges. Send it down Park Rd. instead during business hours and figure out a clean loop-back from Riverside Rd. The reconfigured Pike interchange will likely feature east-facing entrance and exit ramps at Park Rd. on the Pike that should be positioned for access to the new 128 ramps. If the post-reboot stars align around that level of access from Park Rd. then it's a very tiny alteration to the 558 that's well worth shooting for. Some beneficial value-added ridership without unduly distorting its route and schedule. It's probably the only option that's right-sized for the most ridership that built-out office park is capable of chucking in with its zoning limitations on height and square footage.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Here's my idea for the I-90/128 interchange. Yellow is new roadway, green is reclaimed roadway area.

 

[whighlander]

There's also limitations on how much of this can be developed by the anti-density zoning of the Town of Weston, and more practically the lack of much of a street grid. If, say, the cleanroomed interchange realigned the Pike to stay arrow-straight through the current grassy middle you'd probably gain land across Riverside Rd. to fill in the rest of the current office park with 2-3 more developments the size of the Collier Joseph campus if Riverside Rd. were turned into a winding wrap-around cul de sac. But the town will not allow such zoning along Route 30 or Park Rd. beyond what cat already got let out of the bag by allowing the Riverside Rd. offices in the first place. There already exists prime development acreage on 30 between Park Rd. and the tractor-trailer lot which they have refused for decades to zone for commercial anything because of the effects on the adjacent residential density. That decision won't change just because the Pike realignment doubles the depth of that currently forested land.

Best case scenario is you get some beneficial expansion of the existing office park. But it's still pinned down by Riverside Rd. where the existing commercial zoning can fan out onto MassDOT-freed land without the town contradicting its own past zoning decision to allow the office park. But that's it. In no way is such a rebuild going to be paid for by any private dev taxes. You can quibble with Weston being exclusionary in its zoning practices, but it's within their rights to pick and choose their own commercial tax base and they have been resolutely consistent about what they want their town to be like ever since the Postwar era. No one can claim shock or outrage at unyielding consistency.

F-Line -- you are missing an important point -- Suzerainty

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts through its created entity owns the land involved -- this is key.

We have had many discussion about how Boston can not tell the Fed's what to do at the Tip O'neill Building or the JFK Building -- because while a sovereign entity Massachusetts is subservient to the sovereignty of the United States of America and in this game the higher sovereign wins all the ties.

Weston is not even in the position of Massachusetts in the previous example; as Weston is just an administrative unit created by Massachusetts -- venerable to be sure. As a result being both the owner and the ultimate arbiter, Massachusetts can do anything it wants to do with its land - -Weston can scream and Massachusetts can chose to thumb its nose.

Not saying that such an action would be good Politics or even policy -- but those are the indisputable facts.

 

[whighlander]

Here's my idea for the I-90/128 interchange. Yellow is new roadway, green is reclaimed roadway area.

Charlie -- do a Dallas or Houston high stack of the ramps and you can move the flyover South [down] and open up a significantly large contiguous zone of green on your map

And given my reply to F-Line since the Commonwealth is sovereign they could chose to build a Pru 2 in the middle of all of it if they so chose

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line -- you are missing an important point -- Suzerainty

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts through its created entity owns the land involved -- this is key.

We have had many discussion about how Boston can not tell the Fed's what to do at the Tip O'neill Building or the JFK Building -- because while a sovereign entity Massachusetts is subservient to the sovereignty of the United States of America and in this game the higher sovereign wins all the ties.

Weston is not even in the position of Massachusetts in the previous example; as Weston is just an administrative unit created by Massachusetts -- venerable to be sure. As a result being both the owner and the ultimate arbiter, Massachusetts can do anything it wants to do with its land - -Weston can scream and Massachusetts can chose to thumb its nose.

Not saying that such an action would be good Politics or even policy -- but those are the indisputable facts.

No, those are utterly make-believe facts. Abolish town-level authority? Because one of the smallest office parks in a whole unbroken chain of them ringing that 128 quadrant happens to be in a town who are rote-consistent 50-year poopypants about clamping down on commercial zoning? And this of all things is the trigger that gets war declared when nothing else dev-related in the last 50 years has risen to that level? Yeah, the Legislature's going to take up that bill any second now.

Can we please get in the real world, where townies cast votes for their state reps to protect them over zoning issues like this?


It doesn't matter how many new acres you add behind the existing acreage when the entry points are all set by Town of Weston zoning and/or town-control transportation. There is nothing on the Route 30 parcels between Park Rd. and the interchange but trees. Double-up the depth of that acreage, and as long as the zoning along 30 is non-commercial and density-restricted you will continue to have just trees because there's no other way in. Or at best you can have one or two small structures like the Pediatric Associates of Wellesley building up the street, buffered by hundreds of feet from the next-nearest structure. Weston offers no surprises or grave inconsistencies about how it zones, so if you don't like that...go build somewhere else along 128. Like people have been doing ever since the first cladded boxes started going up along 128.

The current office park did not escape Weston zoning either. It's all two-story buildings with garden-level basements making them quasi- three stories. Riverside Rd. is a town-control street that's very narrow and not designed for high traffic volumes, and not permitted for sidewalks just like the whole rest of the neighborhood. You couldn't greenlight frickin' skyscrapers on the extra depth acreage offered up by MassDOT as a spite move against the town and make a profit hustling that real estate on the open market. The only available building access is a town-control street subject to town-control permitting that's incapable of handling the traffic. All roads...literally...go through Weston. You can only scale so much to a constrained level of access. If MassDOT truly wants to wrest control of Park Rd. and Riverside Rd. away from the town to widen the shit out of them for sake of the MassDOT parcels in the park, they're free to pay the going rate. But there is not enough revenue at stake to make that worth their while. The existing buildings in the park that were subject to local zoning are not suddenly going to get topped off with an additional 5 stories. Overcompensation on one half isn't going to magically turn that into a high-rent density pocket out of sheer contrast.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Charlie -- do a Dallas or Houston high stack of the ramps and you can move the flyover South [down] and open up a significantly large contiguous zone of green on your map.

I could have gone with more fly-overs, but wanted to keep it just New Englandy enough to keep the wealthy Weston NIMBYs from clutching their pearl necklaces too tightly.

 

[whighlander]

No, those are utterly make-believe facts. Abolish town-level authority? Because one of the smallest office parks in a whole unbroken chain of them ringing that 128 quadrant happens to be in a town who are rote-consistent 50-year poopypants about clamping down on commercial zoning? And this of all things is the trigger that gets war declared when nothing else dev-related in the last 50 years has risen to that level? Yeah, the Legislature's going to take up that bill any second now.

Can we please get in the real world, where townies cast votes for their state reps to protect them over zoning issues like this?


It doesn't matter how many new acres you add behind the existing acreage when the entry points are all set by Town of Weston zoning and/or town-control transportation. There is nothing on the Route 30 parcels between Park Rd. and the interchange but trees. Double-up the depth of that acreage, and as long as the zoning along 30 is non-commercial and density-restricted you will continue to have just trees because there's no other way in. Or at best you can have one or two small structures like the Pediatric Associates of Wellesley building up the street, buffered by hundreds of feet from the next-nearest structure. Weston offers no surprises or grave inconsistencies about how it zones, so if you don't like that...go build somewhere else along 128. Like people have been doing ever since the first cladded boxes started going up along 128.

The current office park did not escape Weston zoning either. It's all two-story buildings with garden-level basements making them quasi- three stories. Riverside Rd. is a town-control street that's very narrow and not designed for high traffic volumes, and not permitted for sidewalks just like the whole rest of the neighborhood. You couldn't greenlight frickin' skyscrapers on the extra depth acreage offered up by MassDOT as a spite move against the town and make a profit hustling that real estate on the open market. The only available building access is a town-control street subject to town-control permitting that's incapable of handling the traffic. All roads...literally...go through Weston. You can only scale so much to a constrained level of access. If MassDOT truly wants to wrest control of Park Rd. and Riverside Rd. away from the town to widen the shit out of them for sake of the MassDOT parcels in the park, they're free to pay the going rate. But there is not enough revenue at stake to make that worth their while. The existing buildings in the park that were subject to local zoning are not suddenly going to get topped off with an additional 5 stories. Overcompensation on one half isn't going to magically turn that into a high-rent density pocket out of sheer contrast.

F-Line you were doing fine until you decided to T-off on Weston. They actually have accommodated quite s bit of the key infrastructure of Greater Boston including the Largest Turnpike Interchange, Turnpike administration and maintenance, MWRA covered storage and the Golf Course. Cut them the right deal and the redevelopment of the Interchange area can proceed.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line you were doing fine until you decided to T-off on Weston. They actually have accommodated quite s bit of the key infrastructure of Greater Boston including the Largest Turnpike Interchange, Turnpike administration and maintenance, MWRA covered storage and the Golf Course. Cut them the right deal and the redevelopment of the Interchange area can proceed.

Please name a large commercial development in Weston outside of this office park. Not a recreational golf course built as Depression-era public works project, not a subterranean water tunnel, not a highway interchange built on empty farmland acquired 52 years ago before three-quarters of the residential street grid north of the Wellesley line and east of Oak St. existed. Name an example of how Weston has willingly zoned for dense commercial development such that this land will easily achieve--in your words from 3 posts ago--"enormous payout".

The largest private employer in Town of Weston is currently Health Advances at this office park in one of the 2-1/2 story buildings. That's it. Right there on Riverside Rd. is the biggest commercial revenue-generating site they've ever commercially zoned for. All of the constrained access points to the MassDOT land go through Riverside Rd. through this upper density limit they have curated through their own zoning, which places practical limits on how tall MassDOT can bid out for because you have to be able to cram commuters down the same narrow town-control neighborhood to get them there. You can't cram the bodies in there well enough to maximize the land value for something tall, and you can't snap one's fingers and make it so that town and state don't have to tango with zoning because MetroWest's small-town legislative delegation will pounce to the defense and make sure the state does not run scorched-earth over town control. There is a practical real-world limiter on height and square footage for the new land that isn't much denser than the existing 2-1/2 story buildings. This is what the town willingly chose. It is not an attack on the sovereignty of Weston to criticize them for being completely consistent. It very much is an attack on them to talk out of both sides of one's mouth about how the state could/would/maybe-should blink them out of existence over one office box because it doesn't like that consistency.

It is pure fantasy that snapping one's fingers makes Waltham-tall boxes appear by the side of the highway, because they'll be at 20% occupancy as long as Riverside Rd. is the sole access point under town control. It is sky-is-pink double-fantasy world where the Executive Branch can wake up on one side of the bed and decide by fiat that the concept of town control doesn't exist...because checks-and-balances with the more powerful Legislature don't ever work that way with the consequences a bloc of determined reps forced into a fight-or-flight response can inflict on the Executive over a town-control turf war. The situation is what it is. Want tall boxes lining 128? There's plenty of land still available in Waltham and Needham and Dedham and Sweet Home Lexington ready for zoning.



Now, do you want to present some evidence-backed counterpoint, Professor? Or are you going to continue making yourself look an idiot for AB's entertainment playing the usual shtick of leading with an attack on the poster for things never implied, then following with doubled-down fake arguments that don't address the topic which any reader with a 6th grade education instantly sees for the wanking motion it is? Your choice.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Charlie -- do a Dallas or Houston high stack of the ramps and you can move the flyover South [down] and open up a significantly large contiguous zone of green on your map.

 

[mass88]

That looks fantastic. A neat and clean interchange that has a much smaller footprint than what we have there now.

You could even have a path and footbridge to Riverside from that CR station.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

No new CR station there, though. Riverside already had a mainline atop the Charles River bridge (with platforms and former egresses still extant) until late-1977 when it was closed for anemic ridership and excessive duplication with Auburndale. For all the reasons explained earlier...there is so little density to be had there even with an expanded park that attempts some degree of keep-away from Weston town zoning because the park access road, Riverside Rd., is an intentionally narrow and sidewalkless town-control street and the Route 30-facing parcels between Park Rd. and the T-T lot are being purposefully kept un-zoned as a buffer for the residents across the street. MassDOT land or no MassDOT land, it scrapes up against a very finite density limit that is shaped by town policy. There aren't enough people there to float a dedicated transit stop. And there's extremely limited catchment from any of the surrounding residents because of no sidewalks.

Riverside-GL will have its adjacent Indigo platform someday, and being able to consolidate 700-series Pike express buses into less Indigo-duplicating routes frees up equipment for increasing bus frequencies to Riverside-GL via Comm Ave., where a road reconfig exactly like this can hit the office park en route at zero schedule penalty. For the limited feasible density, that's pretty much the only mode the office park is going to sustain. And it is plenty, plenty convenient at 2-minute shot to the Riverside superstation.

 

[Equilibria]

That looks fantastic. A neat and clean interchange that has a much smaller footprint than what we have there now.

You could even have a path and footbridge to Riverside from that CR station.

That's too neat and clean. Even for a crazy proposal, I doubt you can put another bridge over the Charles. You've got a bunch...

You also need to be careful of where the aqueduct is. Can't put it under the highway.