General Infrastructure

[Equilibria]

Trying to parse the functional differences between Davems and Equilibrias diagrams.

Equib - If you eliminate SFR through the area, where does Storrow pick up again? At the University exit, or down at Chatlesgate?

I'm not really eliminating Storrow. It would still be limited access from the intersection with SFR on. SFR bends through the site and would meet Storrow at right angles instead of the flowing transition that exists now - it's an attempt to disconnect Storrow from the rest of the river roads (which are even worse places for traffic to flow than Storrow is) and ease the predominant movements in the area.

The primary differences between my concept and Davem's (which is excellent and using much better software than I've got) are these:

1) Dave is targeting an eventual removal of Storrow Drive or a downgrade in concert with the Riverbank Subway. His prior design actually cut Storrow off completely and made the highway interchange between I-90 and SFR only, while this one leaves the SFR/Storrow connection for the time being but cuts the connection to I-90.

I'm coming from the perspective that while Storrow might eventually be downgraded, it will still have a necessary function as a distributor of traffic to the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Kendall Square, and North Station. In fact, replacing its many ramps with at-grade intersections and adding additional connections will only make it more important as THE freeway access for large portions of Central Boston. Hence, I prioritized the same-direction links between I-90 and Storrow while Davem removed them entirely.

Also, I believe that the A/B rebuild WILL happen by 2020. The Riverbank Subway and Storrow downgrade are dream projects on this board, but unlikely to occur in reality beyond the removal of the Bowker Overpass. Likewise, no plans exist for F-Line's additional urban exits for the Pike, though I support them. Cutting links to Storrow at this point will only frustrate drivers from the west for a decade or more because functional removal of Storrow requires additional Pike exits to work.

2) Davem is pushing future development toward Allston, capitalizing on the existing neighborhoods and infrastructure and attempting to build connections between Beacon Park and BU. I used MassDOT's future alignment, which meant that the development would be pushed toward the river and Harvard. Both of these are good approaches. I think Dave's plan is better suited to the neighborhood, while mine is better suited to Harvard, which benefits if its version of Kendall is closer to Harvard Square.

3) Davem is focused on replicating the current interchange's ease of flow between major roads, meaning that he took up more space for ramps. I tried to constrain the highway to a diamond-like interchange and slip ramps to Storrow to maximize urban fabric and buildable land. Again, no clear better policy.

I'm a little concerned that by cutting off Storrow from the neighborhood (only access from SFR) Dave's robbing is new development of key connectivity to the Back Bay and Downtown. I ran Storrow straight through into Harvard to attempt to enhance connections through the site along the Charles. While it's nice that Dave made an attempt to build street access to BU, the opportunities for that will always be limited until the rail is decked, while the chance to build viable connections from "Harvard's Kendall" to the Back Bay is there as soon as the highway is moved.

Also, I realize that Dave probably assumes the MBTA won't want the yard he includes and that that land will become parkland, but I'm dubious about putting all of the parkland on the far side of highways. I'd rather hold the highway back toward the existing (and continuing) boundary of the railroad to keep the resulting neighborhood from becoming an island in a sea of freeway.

4) Dave put the Turnpike in a cutting. That's the right idea. MassDOT will never do it, because keeping I-90 operating through construction would require a Big Dig-like setup of digging under the current viaduct while supporting it temporarily, and that's way too expensive for their taste. Really, the highway would be better off buried under decks all the way past Cambridge St, with ramps surfacing to connect to a new Storrow running along the top the whole way. I planned that out in my head, but I didn't bother to draw it.

A plan which blended the best of these (and the many others possible on this blank slate) would probably need a free connection to I-90 from SFR (which I exclude) as well as one from I-90 to Storrow (which Dave excludes), in the smallest-footprint way possible, set as far back from the river as possible. It's a puzzle.

 

[davem]

Eq,

There does not currently exist a direct connection from the Pike to either Storrow nor SFR. In addition, my plan doesnt change the current egress to Storrow from Allston either.

To get on Storrow from either the Pike or Allston requires you to go all the way to the end of Cambridge St and make a right by the Double Tree. With my plan, coming off the Pike one would take that first exit, make a right onto Cambridge St and then a second right onto that new local street and take the SB onramp. Slightly longer but that is the least used direction, most traffic taking exit 18 is going towards Allston, Cambridge, or Fresh Pond, which I believe my plan accomidates for better then the current setup.
Coming from Allston, one would make a left and jump on the same onramp as above to access Storrow, I believe the distance is actually shorter then current, and one also no longer has to fight through all the Cambridge and Fresh Pond bound traffic as is currently the case. I also added a dedicated WB Pike onramp that is a right off Cambridge, which is also accessable from Comm Ave via Malvern St.

Speaking of Malvern St, it would have to be one way northbound. Linden St would then be made one way southbound for its entirety (with a generous left turn lane on Cambridge St), finally providing a real bypass to the choked Harvard Ave.


As for moving SFR substantially away from the river, its a concession. For automotive capasity, its already well over what it should handle. The exits back up onto the highway daily, the onramps are dangerous and lack merge lanes, the underpasses are too steep and cars bottom out (and they occasionally flood), and there is zero room for expansion. I couldn't dump all the traffic exiting the Pike onto it without an upgrade.
For utilizing the Charles, its also terrible. Where it comes up by Cambridge St there is zero parkland, just a 6' wide strip if asphalt, further narrowed by light poles and a guardrail. Riding bikes through there is really dangerous, and its a major bike route. The river trail also forces you to cross Cambridge and Western Ave at grade, something which it does not look like will get fixed with the bridge rebuilds.
So, I moved it. I put the onramps mid-block where possible and at right angles to urbanize them as much as possible. The ROW is only 80' wide and in a cut, so decking could be possible (especially with Harvards budget). The Pike is a 200' canyon in some places, making it far more difficult; 80' is less then the width of most of Harvards buildings.


I am going to make a few changes based off all your suggestions though

 

[Equilibria]

There does not currently exist a direct connection from the Pike to either Storrow nor SFR. In addition, my plan doesnt change the current egress to Storrow from Allston either.

A fair point. I was referring to the necessity of having such a connection and how easy it would be to add one, rather than to an existing link which needs to be maintained. Look, I'll take either one, as long as at least one of the SFR/Storrow pair ends up with a direct link to the Pike. Traffic loads simply demand it.

As for moving SFR substantially away from the river, its a concession. For automotive capasity, its already well over what it should handle. The exits back up onto the highway daily, the onramps are dangerous and lack merge lanes, the underpasses are too steep and cars bottom out (and they occasionally flood), and there is zero room for expansion. I couldn't dump all the traffic exiting the Pike onto it without an upgrade.

For utilizing the Charles, its also terrible. Where it comes up by Cambridge St there is zero parkland, just a 6' wide strip if asphalt, further narrowed by light poles and a guardrail. Riding bikes through there is really dangerous, and its a major bike route. The river trail also forces you to cross Cambridge and Western Ave at grade, something which it does not look like will get fixed with the bridge rebuilds.

Also true. I think counting on Harvard decking SFR is too wishful for my taste - this is really happening, so I think it behooves me (at least) to be making plans with a sense of plausibility. Of course what you've proposed all over the city is more than plausible, just not with these officials planning the city .

My big issue continues to be how this new neighborhood flows. Perhaps after Harvard completes its Allston campus, it really will be the best policy to have the neighborhood be the thin strip on the edge of Allston that you propose. I just can't shake the idea that by moving the ramps back from the river the resulting neighborhood can truly flow from Harvard to the Back Bay, improving through connectivity in more ways than by just building new highway ramps.

That said, my plan is a tad conservative and probably doesn't work for people coming from Route 2. I'm going to give it another shot as well.

EDIT: ...And here it is.

I left one pair of ramps directly from Cambridge St. (I and II) but had to eliminate the rest because of redundancy or merging distance. I've tried to plot a tight T-interchange between SFR and I-90, with a single signalized intersection governing most of the movements. This design reduces the number of stoplights required of travelers from Route 2 and SFR to 1 from the last time. That loop ramp is probably a smidge too tight for construction, but that's a limitation of my PowerPoint skills, not the concept. It could loop wider.

The cost of that is removing the free transfer from I-90 to Storrow. However, they also have only one light. This design makes things kind of difficult for folks from BU and Comm. Ave, but probably not much worse than they already are, toll delay included. An alternative could have Blandford St. elevate over the railroad and merge into I-90 EB.

This map also includes the light rail alignment in purple - the dots are for tunnels and the outline for surface, at least in theory.

 

[cden4]

I don't think a direct connection with the Pike and Storrow is desirable at all. There are a lot of people who want to downgrade Storrow as a major commuter route and make the Pike more appealing. Creating a direct ramp connection is simply going to flood Storrow with even more traffic and result in it being even more difficult to try to downgrade Storrow into a smaller, quieter, calmer road.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

From RR.net and someone with ins from the CSX side. . .

Houghton Chemical is putting its foot down about relocation. They ship bulk chemicals to Logan and want the highway access of their Allston location, so are refusing to consider any relocation options. That constrains the ramp and street grid design space, since they also ship by rail and the rebuild of the whole area post- engine yard demolition has to incorporate a long lead track to their siding with cumbersome tie-in to the rebuilt Worcester Line-Grand Junction split.

Clearly some gamesmanship at foot here. They're speaking in absolutes right now, but EVERY for-profit corporation has its price. The state and Harvard just have to pay up, find them a location within 3-5 miles of the airport with equally convenient highway and rail access, and do all the heavy lifting for them. Either that or eminent domain and a drawn-out legal battle. But I bet they do the overpay to put this to bed. The highway cost may increase if they have to design everything around Houghton, and it's less redevelopable land if Harvard really wants to bring the street grid that close in. Plus there are quite a few locations that would work for them if state heft made it happen.


CSX should also be coming in to tear up the main yard pretty soon. I'm guessing after ground thaw next Spring. That's their demolition responsibility while the state has to do the engine yard. They'll pull up all the yard rail for scrap or to recycle elsewhere on their system, raze the few buildings and sheds, raze the light towers. 2nd Worcester Line mainline track is definitely going in soon. Engine yard demo has probably just been delayed by the Houghton Chemical spat. No sense in starting that until they have clarity on whether they have to rebuild their siding or can meet their price for relocation.

 

[Equilibria]

I don't think a direct connection with the Pike and Storrow is desirable at all. There are a lot of people who want to downgrade Storrow as a major commuter route and make the Pike more appealing. Creating a direct ramp connection is simply going to flood Storrow with even more traffic and result in it being even more difficult to try to downgrade Storrow into a smaller, quieter, calmer road.

The people who want to downgrade Storrow are pretty much all reading this thread. Storrow is only redundant with the Turnpike until Charlesgate. After that, it serves entirely different destinations and neighborhoods. Most of these (MIT and Kendall, for example), have no other realistic way to get to them other than an equivalent road on the other side of the river. MGH and its surrounding medical area don't even have that, and while you can get to East Cambridge and the Science Museum from I-93 North it is not easy to do so.

Until the Bowker Overpass gets exits from the Pike, Fenway and Longwood also have no other freeway access (not that Storrow is a freeway, but it links to one). Given that the state only has considered replacing and repairing the road as is, and extra Turnpike exits only address the access issue until Back Bay, I think reducing Storrow falls well into the realm of fantasy. It certainly won't be done until decades after 2020, when this project is meant to be finished.

Anyway, the only way reducing Storrow is a good idea is WITH direct freeway access on both ends. Then, Storrow could be reduced to a C/D road with additional intersections to more efficiently move traffic from the highways into the city. Portland did this when they removed their riverfront freeway, and it works for them. Cutting it off cold turkey, however, is irresponsible.

 

[Matthew]

Similar to dave's proposal but with the Pike on a viaduct.

 

[cozzyd]

^^ Was that made with CiM2?

 

[Shepard]

Nice - What software did you use here?

My only comment is that the connection between the Pike and Cambridge Street becomes a lot more limited, a lot less convenient. It makes the Pike Allston exit less of an Allston/Brighton exit per se than a Cambridge/Arlington exit.

 

[Matthew]

Yes, CIM2. Got part of a Boston map sketched out...

 

[davem]

Nice - What software did you use here?

My only comment is that the connection between the Pike and Cambridge Street becomes a lot more limited, a lot less convenient. It makes the Pike Allston exit less of an Allston/Brighton exit per se than a Cambridge/Arlington exit.

Is it though? Right now you get dumped at the ass end of Cambridge Street. This doesn't change that, just now you have to make a turn or two on local streets to get on/off the highway, versus the current setup of everything on Cambridge St past North Harvard St being treated as a freeway interchange.


Matt, looks amazing.

 

[davem]

Allright I played with this a bit more.

I moved the merge with Storrow to it's own interchange down by BU. This freed up more room along the river, and made for a lot more merge/weaving room. It does allow for travel from the EB Pike to EB Storrow, but without tolls I suspect induced demand wouldn't be too bad. Should Storrow ever be removed the ramps could be repurposed as 1/2 an interchange with Comm Ave at BU, with the other half connecting to St Mary's St.

I decreased the curvature on everything, but particularly the Mass Pike mainline. This allowed me to create a much better street grid for development, and extend Babcock and Pleasant Streets through into Lower Allston. Should the rail yard not be used, a street grid could be superimposed onto there and it could be developed easily.

 

[dshoost88]

^^ Beautiful.

 

[coleslaw]

^the only problem i see is that the highway will split some of the lots, making it really hard to develop them. If you put the highway above only streets not also lots this problem would disappear.

 

[Shepard]

This is so insanely elegant. Please get on MassDOTs radar. Please.

 

[Equilibria]

That's it, Dave. That's what they should build. The only change I might make if you send it out is that MassDOT won't go for the full cut for I-90. That's not inherently a problem, though. Just put Babcock in a cut and build the highway over it.

This plan also assumes they get an easement on some of the Genzyme land. Do they have one? Can they get one?

 

[davem]

Thanks guys.

I'm thinking vs going at this alone (which will get nowhere) talking to the charles river conservancy, who likely have contacts everywhere. I'm sure they would be intrested in opening up so much parkland. Possibly uhub, the globe, and the ACA too. Thoughts?

Regarding Genzyme, not that I know of. My thoughts were they might be happy if they got a parking garage over one of the cuts in exchange for an easement. And their land would be worth more without SFR in front.

 

[mass88]

Nice looking plan.

Would your plan call for addition lanes on the Pike to be added for merging and exiting? So for example a half mile before the WB exit, the Pike would widen from 3 travel lanes to 4.

 

[Equilibria]

Would your plan call for addition lanes on the Pike to be added for merging and exiting? So for example a half mile before the WB exit, the Pike would widen from 3 travel lanes to 4.

My vision for the EB lanes would be to have 5 between the left-hand entrance and the left-hand exit to Storrow. Put a clear marking between the 3 lanes of I-90 and the 2 lanes of SFR/Storrow. That way, it looks less like a left hand ramp (which MassHighway has shown a tendency to hate).

I'm thinking vs going at this alone (which will get nowhere) talking to the charles river conservancy, who likely have contacts everywhere. I'm sure they would be intrested in opening up so much parkland. Possibly uhub, the globe, and the ACA too. Thoughts?

Send it everywhere. They may not build it, but the point is to keep the DOT from being the only voice on what happens. I'd hate for people to realize something's wrong only when shovels are already in the ground.

To that end, I wrote this last night.

"Professor Mehrotra,

I am writing to you in regard to the Massachusetts Transportation Department’s recent decision to rebuild the Allston-Brighton highway interchange by 2020, freeing up a substantial amount of buildable land, much of which is owned by Harvard.

The conceptual designs for new highway ramps recently released by MassDOT have left me concerned that this opportunity will largely go to waste, as they cover much of the site in roads and leave little contiguous land for development. I have an MS in Transportation Engineering, so I am aware that good highway designers are taught to use as much room as is given to them to ensure that travel is easy and safe for drivers. MassDOT’s engineers have done their jobs well. However, theirs are not the only voices that should determine the future of the site.

A leading tenet of Urban Planning, as you no doubt know much better than I, is that transportation and land use have significant mutual impacts. Future development constrained to dead-end streets on peninsulas in a sea of asphalt is not given much of a chance to become lively or urban. Instead, I fear that the ramps will, in several decades, be surrounded by low-rise office buildings on dead side streets.

As a student of City and Regional Planning at UC Berkeley (and a native of the Boston area), I would be incredibly excited – were this type of undertaking being conceived for UC land – about the voice my department could have in planning it. I have no request other than that your department be aware of this project, its promise, and the dangers inherent in doing it wrong. The rewards for Harvard, the project’s neighbors, and the region as a whole are too great to let it stay under the radar."

And the response about an hour ago:

"many thanks for bringing this to my notice and will share this with my faculty too.
Rahul"

 

[Matthew]

This is very much on the radar of the local Allston community.