Not that I'm aware of, but that's a hard parcel to try and deck over because Lincoln and Surface are on inclines and the 93 portal retaining walls are at different levels from each other: http://goo.gl/maps/VLFtX. Not a bad candidate for a small park or adding another tennis court or complementary basketball court to the tennis court on the other side of Lincoln, but that parcel screams "not worth the effort" for going tall with the slant and how difficult the retaining wall cover-over is.Is anything planned for the block between Surface, Lincoln, South Station Connector and Kneeland in Chinatown?
Would the CR need to be dropped down at all for decking? I'd assume it would be decked at least to Beacon Street if not to Wilson Sq.
That parcel is getting development:Hudson St. can get the entire Kneeland-SS Connector block filled in, though. That's got a nice amount of open space to put a bunch of medium-size buildings on.
As long as even Porter Sq. itself is a sea of parking spaces, I don't really expect this land to be worth developing on... I guess maybe if the deck was built as part of a Union-Porter extension of GLX?
Most of that land is part of Lesley's IMP. I think that the only way that RoW will be decked is as part of just the sort of extension you describe.As long as even Porter Sq. itself is a sea of parking spaces, I don't really expect this land to be worth developing on... I guess maybe if the deck was built as part of a Union-Porter extension of GLX?
Cambridge and Somerville have wasted no time studying this and holding community meetings:Would the CR need to be dropped down at all for decking? I'd assume it would be decked at least to Beacon Street if not to Wilson Sq.
Also, if the GL was brought to Porter, it would need to duck under the CR right? Make Porter three-level. I assume then if it was ever continued to Watertown/Waltham, it would emerge somewhere after the Walden Street bridge.
Aside from Porter, the parcels along the NEC and the Orange Line stations are screaming for TOD, air-rights or not.
I meant the parcel across Surface Rd from there. Just east of the development you linked.That parcel is getting development:
I think this is where you're talking about.
It's on a slight curve when it ducks under the station canopy so there's some complications. Borderline case on whether the geometry would work on a full-high without too much of a platform gap. Most likely they wouldn't mess with it, just railing-off a dozen or two feet of platform at the northern tip into an extended egress, and extend the straight south end of the platform equivalently to make up for the lost length.Does anyone *cough*F-Line*cough* know if raising the Porter Commuter Rail platforms is possible or remotely feasible, with or without decking? IMO, even on semi-express trains, there are big dwell times as people climb into the train.
It's been done many places. There are historic structures all around the northeast that got modded for high platforms. It's just delicate, not cheap to do, and aggravating as hell with the towns running interference left and right about messing with their precious "town character". But watch what Amtrak and CTDOT are going to be doing on the Springfield Line retrofitting historic Berlin station for full-highs next year. That'll be instructive on how to handle a difficult retrofit.Concord has abuttments galore, so I'm guessing that station isn't fixed for decades. I can't speak for any others, but there really appears to be no good way to ADA the outbound Concord low level.
I think ADA compliance has varying levels of necessity to comply. It seems that grandfathering in a station is never a permanent solution to dodging ADA. Ridership and other accessibility factors seem to impact the timeframe on which stations must be upgraded. For example, stations with 2,000+ boardings a day should/will be all compliant by 2020 or something, whereas stations with 200 boardings a day might be good until 2040 or something.I was under the impression only new or "key" stations needed up be ADAed, and I didn't believe Concord was one of them. Is the MBTA required to upgrade Concord within any sort of timeframe, or would it depend on a lawsuit?
The Shaws and Crowne sites were developed when That portion of i90 was constructed, eliminating any construction/use conflicts. It's the same reason the Prudential/Copley was developed integrated into the highway infrastructure.What's the history behind the Shaws and the Crowne Plaza in Newton? Of all random places, how and why did air rights developments happen there? Any lessons for today?
As land available for development in core urban areas grows scarce, some cities have started to look to the air rights above transportation facilities, such as rail yards and freeways, as potential locations for growth. Unfortunately, building over this infrastructure, especially rail yards, only makes sense for high-margin projects in very built-up areas. To see why, let’s take a look at some existing air rights projects, and explore the challenges that confront the engineering for such projects.