I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

CSTH said:
Couldn't disagree with this more - and I do the length of the pike from Logan to Weston every day.

The capacity of the pike within 128 is constrained by the access points. Between Weston and Copley all you're talking about is Newton Corner and Allston (and Rt. 16, WB). Those are two of the top traffic hot spots in the Boston area.

We'd all be better off if they took it to three continuous travel lanes and took the extra space new ramps and merges - and worcester line capacity to flood the zone with DMUs.
Click to expand...

I also totally agree with this. For being mainly traffic engineers, I feel like folks at MassDOT don't actually do a very good job looking at the big picture when it comes to traffic. Their views often seem as simplistic as the general public, who automatically thinks more lanes = better for traffic and fewer lanes = worse for traffic. The Mass Pike has physical constraints to the west and east of Allston that will never be fixed (not without lots of land takings at least). If you have 3 lanes at Newton Corner and 3 lanes past the Prudential exit, what's the point of a 4th lane in Allston that will never actually be fully utilized?

It just seems like the engineers say "oh well we need shoulders and we have 4 lanes now and we don't want to risk screwing up traffic by removing one so we'll just widen it". It just seems like intellectual laziness rather than actually looking at what's going on and trying to come up with a solution that doesn't create any further negative impacts.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

cden4 said:
I also totally agree with this. For being mainly traffic engineers, I feel like folks at MassDOT don't actually do a very good job looking at the big picture when it comes to traffic. Their views often seem as simplistic as the general public, who automatically thinks more lanes = better for traffic and fewer lanes = worse for traffic. The Mass Pike has physical constraints to the west and east of Allston that will never be fixed (not without lots of land takings at least). If you have 3 lanes at Newton Corner and 3 lanes past the Prudential exit, what's the point of a 4th lane in Allston that will never actually be fully utilized?
Click to expand...

It's a little more nuanced than that. The key isn't whether you add lanes for segments of road that have the AADT to demand them, it's how you add and remove them. What you never want is a lane drop that just drops - merges back in on the far side of an interchange. That's how 128 works, and why the widening project there was so critical. The Turnpike is better, actually, since the lanes bear off into exits in both cases, at Newton Corner and at the Pru.

That means that the lane drops shouldn't be causing traffic issues. You can certainly make an argument that the lack of breakdown lanes is. If, however, the traffic flow between Newton Corner and Boston is heavy enough to warrant 4 lanes, there should be 4 lanes. One should assume that all 4 lanes will be utilized, since traffic will distribute and cars entering at Newton Corner will stay in the right lane if it's faster.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

One way they are considering is to have a lane drop at a westbound exit headed toward Cambridge Street, then have it go back up to 4 when the entrance rejoins the Pike westbound. This is a pretty typical way to do it. Then that lane can be grade separated in a way that reduces the overall footprint of the viaduct. We'll see.

If you guys are really interested in this project then you should come to the task force meetings. Next one is July 16th 6pm @ Fiorentino Center in the new Charlesview. And as I said last week, the DOT team is looking for public input at any time, so feel free to email them. Just be aware that your emails will go on the record.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Equilibria said:
It's a little more nuanced than that. The key isn't whether you add lanes for segments of road that have the AADT to demand them, it's how you add and remove them. What you never want is a lane drop that just drops - merges back in on the far side of an interchange. That's how 128 works, and why the widening project there was so critical. The Turnpike is better, actually, since the lanes bear off into exits in both cases, at Newton Corner and at the Pru.

That means that the lane drops shouldn't be causing traffic issues. You can certainly make an argument that the lack of breakdown lanes is. If, however, the traffic flow between Newton Corner and Boston is heavy enough to warrant 4 lanes, there should be 4 lanes. One should assume that all 4 lanes will be utilized, since traffic will distribute and cars entering at Newton Corner will stay in the right lane if it's faster.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Totally agree. Having lane drops that force traffic to merge into the remaining lanes cause all kinds of problems, whereas making the right lane exit only and having it start up again at another on-ramp seems to work much better.

Even today, the 4th lane east of Allston in both directions comes on at Allston going eastbound and exits at Allston going westbound. And further east at the Copley/Pru exit/entrance they drop off again. Is that 4th lane really needed between Allston and Copley based on traffic demand? Based on when I drive on the Pike it doesn't seem like it. I'd have to see the numbers to be sure though.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Harry Mattison said:
Boston Globe op-ed today about this project and the involvement of Mayor Walsh
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...aza-project/ynl9ivbQ0qON5N0NrijDpM/story.html
Click to expand...

I applaud the Mayor's decision to take the lead on the urban planning of Lower Allston, but again (and I know I'm not widely supported on this), I don't like his tone. MassDOT is not an urban planning agency, and it does not bear any responsibility for laying out local roads (or bike paths, or transit). That's the BRA's job, and it really seems like the waited until they could be as confrontational as possible before saying they'd do it.

Should the highway be designed to accommodate development, bike/ped, and transit? Of course it should. That's the MBTA, DCR, and BRA's responsibility to point out to the highway designers at MassDOT. It's a give-and-take, and should be a collaborative relationship. Talk like this isn't collaborative at all.

MassDOT's project is viaduct removal and bridge replacement. Look in the CIP - that's all that's budgeted. Local roads aren't there. West Station isn't there. Any DCR stuff with Storrow or SFR wouldn't be in the CIP to begin with. It isn't MassDOT's project to do the BRA or DCR's jobs for them by designing and paying for their infrastructure. All they can be asked to do is not preclude the construction of needed infrastructure by other agencies. With West Station, that's exactly what they did, and the Globe's ignorant misrepresentation blew that up in their faces.

If Mayor Walsh wants the BRA to take control of urban planning in Boston, it's about damn time. It's just annoying to see him angrily lay at MassDOT's feet the responsibility for making him do his own job.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

The MBTA is part of MassDOT. Laying out local roads, bike paths and transit IS part of MassDOT. That was the point of the merger. It's not just MassHighway anymore.

You are right that the city should be making the designs but MassDOT builds a lot of things that the city designs. Comm Ave, for instance.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Isn't this what the article was saying, the city is now getting more involved to affect the end result.

But in the Turnpike fight, Walsh’s administration has seized a populist role. The city’s chief planner, Kairos Shen, drew cheers two weeks ago when he said that nothing MassDOT had put on the table was acceptable to Walsh because “this seems all about the highway.”
Click to expand...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...DpM/story.html

nice that Shen can finally speak now that Menino is out of office.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Matthew said:
The MBTA is part of MassDOT. Laying out local roads, bike paths and transit IS part of MassDOT. That was the point of the merger. It's not just MassHighway anymore.

You are right that the city should be making the designs but MassDOT builds a lot of things that the city designs. Comm Ave, for instance.
Click to expand...

You are halfway correct. The MBTA is a semi-attached subsidiary of MassDOT. They share administrators and the MBTA Director nominally answers to the Secretary, but in practice they operate almost independently. The MassDOT Rail and Transit Division oversees the regional transit authorities, but doesn't oversee the MBTA day-to-day.

This is a Highway Division project (the agency formed when MassHighway merged with the Turnpike Authority). The allocation supporting it was requested for and assigned to the Highway Division. What the Globe messed up was that budget allocations for large projects like this are typically called out item-by-item, and the only 2 items called out here were for the viaduct and for the Cambridge St. bridge. If the MBTA wanted to built West Station by 2019, that would have appeared as a separate item under the Rail and Transit Division.

In essence, the Highway Division, and thus the PM for this project, bears no responsibility for West Station. That would be a completely separate project, for which the neighborhood should advocate to the T (and yes, to MassDOT as a whole). It wouldn't be functional prior to about 2020, though, because with Boston Landing opening there are probably too many Worcester Line stations inside 128 until DMUs come in.

You're correct that MassDOT builds city designs, but that's not the issue. I've argued for inter-agency collaboration and been concerned about the highway-centric nature of this project since October, and that hasn't changed. The problem, however, is not that the Highway Division is focused on building highways. That's their job. The problem is that the BRA, MBTA, and DCR have to date left the big-picture planning in the hands of highway engineers who aren't trained or funded to do it.

It's great that this is all getting attention now, and hopefully the project will be better for it. I just feel sympathetic to the highway project manager who is being lambasted (albeit anonymously) in the press and berated by Karios Shen in person for doing his job, while the Mayor plays this for political points rather than doing his own.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Oh I'm not saying anything specific to West Station. I already expected it to work out this way. The Rail and Transit Division rep is there at every meeting, but he is just there to answer questions it seems.

The problem, however, is not that the Highway Division is focused on building highways. That's their job. The problem is that the BRA, MBTA, and DCR have to date left the big-picture planning in the hands of highway engineers who aren't trained or funded to do it.
Click to expand...

I think this one is on MassDOT. It took us 6 months to get DOT to even come out to a public meeting. I presume the change of administrations threw some things, but I don't think that DOT was moving behind the scenes any more than they were moving in front. And I think that bringing these issues up in front of the public task force is part of the point: rather than being secretive, they're being open. It's just also being slow.

In the first meeting one of us (can't remember) asked whether or not DOT had any urban planning consultants or expertise available. They said no. Perhaps the city's response is hinging off of that?

BTW, does anyone else find it amusing that a Boston Globe opinion article is citing Wicked Local Allston? (So far the only press to actually show up at task force meetings). Pretty sure McMorrow has not been at any meetings himself, although I'm sure he has plenty of friends on the task force.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

The T's track easement here is also off-limits to the highway folks to plan around. That's all tied up in inter-agency red tape dating back to when the Turnpike Authority owned the inside-128 ROW and then conferred that ownership to the T when the TA was dissolved. They get X tracks width on the south side of the project limits no matter what, and that only changes if they request expansion of that easement for a bigger layover yard (in which case some land-swappy multi-party negotiations involving Harvard have to take place).

Inter-agency separation of powers is a necessary evil here. You can't have MassHighway abusing its outsized influence with the MassDOT mothership to compel the Transportation Secretary to do a unilateral land grab of transit space every time the asphalt addicts want to widen an adjacent road. If it were winner-take-all the Red Line around Savin Hill would've long ago been busted down to 2 tracks and more gridlock at the relocated branch split all in the name of widening 93 for more HOV lane gimmicks. Some amount of separation of powers is necessary when state sub-agencies have competing interests. Even if that means West Station has to be an MBTA-floated line item because of whose land off-limits to others that it sits on. The T may have taken it on the chin with highway debt from the Big Dig that it's still lugging around, but the loophole for further abuses got significantly narrowed with the mercy killing of the unaccountable Turnpike Authority. It's not a great balance of power by any means, but it's worlds better than it used to be.


Sucks they find themselves at the bottom of the priority pile yet again. But the financial reform elephant is still in the room. You didn't really expect these DMU dreams on the Worcester Line were going to be gimmes with the Legislature taking another punt on the debt load?
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Matthew said:
In the first meeting one of us (can't remember) asked whether or not DOT had any urban planning consultants or expertise available. They said no. Perhaps the city's response is hinging off of that?
Click to expand...

May 7 Task Force meeting minutes -https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Por...cts/AllstonInterchange/taskMeeting_050714.pdf

Q: Is there an urban designer on the consultant team? For example, someone may need to consider future Air rights developments.

A: We do not have a specific firm however inside the various companies we do have urban designers and as we progress, they will be incorporated. If there is an urban design need identified and we need some help, I think we could bring someone on. It is a fluid team picked by a variety of folks at MassDOT. You bring up a good point.​
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Is Wicked Local Allston a thing that publishes more than two articles a week? The TAB is god-awful these days.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Matthew said:
I think this one is on MassDOT. It took us 6 months to get DOT to even come out to a public meeting. I presume the change of administrations threw some things, but I don't think that DOT was moving behind the scenes any more than they were moving in front.
Click to expand...

I wasn't there, but I'm fairly certain MassDOT is compelled by law to hold public meetings on these projects. Now, you might have moved them to share their concepts earlier than they otherwise would have wanted to, and that's a good thing. I've actually been struck by how much the designs that I've seen have changed to reflect public comment, which is why I'm so surprised at your frustration in these past weeks (not just yours, of course).

Matthew said:
In the first meeting one of us (can't remember) asked whether or not DOT had any urban planning consultants or expertise available. They said no. Perhaps the city's response is hinging off of that?
Click to expand...

It's better for the project if they employ a designer, for sure, but again, it isn't their task. Their task is to build highway ramps. The MBTA's is to build the station. Harvard's is to build the buildings, and the city's is to coordinate the planning. Had the BRA taken responsibility here from the get-go, this question would never have needed to be asked, because the planning agency would be doing the planning work.

The "Allston I-90 Interchange Improvement Project" may be headed up by the Highway Division, but there's absolutely no reason why the BRA couldn't have been performing the "Lower Allston Urban Improvement Plan" this whole time, covering all of these issues through an agency which is actually supposed to cover them. Instead of doing that, the BRA and the Mayor are hijacking MassDOT's meetings to pressure them to do their jobs (and Harvard's) for them.

F-Line to Dudley said:
Sucks they find themselves at the bottom of the priority pile yet again. But the financial reform elephant is still in the room. You didn't really expect these DMU dreams on the Worcester Line were going to be gimmes with the Legislature taking another punt on the debt load?
Click to expand...

Well, the DMUs in the CIP are only for Fairmount, so whatever the map said (and the map had next to nothing to do with the actual projects in the CIP) I don't think anyone believes its a gimme. I do think that it's the most cost-effective rail expansion they can do, they'll have already built the maintenance capacity, and if the press holds up people will be expecting it any day now. That's a good recipe for getting it done someday.

It took what, 20 years for Fairmount to get this far, using the same basic strategy?

By the way, that's my first multi-quote post in a while, maybe since you left, F-Line. You bring it out in me...
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Could anyone have really known prior to October that Beacon Park would be redeveloped within the next twenty years? I honestly thought that the kind of project that the I-90 Interchange Improvement Project is would happen sometime in the 2030s or later, after Harvard had done its usual slow dance of land banking and state-compelled environmental remediation.

Regarding visioning processes and master plans, North Allston has had a few over the years. They've mostly led to nothing at all.

Even if MassDOT only focuses on building the highway and ramps (which they shouldn't do) they will still have a massive impact on the developable land that is more than just "ensuring the proper link-ups are in place." Most of the proposed ramps slice directly into the developable land area and the concepts for those ramps are in flux. In fact, it was only at the last meeting that we learned of MassDOT's concept for the ramps in three dimensions: several of the alternatives look a lot less appetizing when you find out that they imply large earthen berms cutting the developable land into walled-off pieces!

I think my major point here is that it's not possible to do the transportation and the land use planning separately, and that is the point that the city and the BRA are raising as well.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Matthew said:
Could anyone have really known prior to October that Beacon Park would be redeveloped within the next twenty years? I honestly thought that the kind of project that the I-90 Interchange Improvement Project is would happen sometime in the 2030s or later, after Harvard had done its usual slow dance of land banking and state-compelled environmental remediation.
Click to expand...

I wondered that myself as I was writing. The AET kind of blew up suddenly there.

Matthew said:
Even if MassDOT only focuses on building the highway and ramps (which they shouldn't do) they will still have a massive impact on the developable land that is more than just "ensuring the proper link-ups are in place."
Click to expand...

They will, and that's why they need to be taking account of all the comments that come their way. Again, I'm surprised at the shock and anger here - those 3D plans must have been quite something. I'm not arguing that they should be myopic.

Going back to your last point, when those plans came out in October, how long did it take Dave, F-Line, and I (among others) to put together road diagrams and land use maps? A day? Two? The BRA could have done the same thing in the same amount of time, taken that to MassDOT, and said "hey, we hear you're doing a big project in Allston. Want to talk about planning the area?"

The big study doesn't have to be done, it just has to be going on, and the City's had all the time that MassDOT's had. In that time, MassDOT has organized a project team, hired a design and engineering consultant, and gone through at least 3-4 (probably more in private) rounds of alternatives, including public comment. The BRA has written an angry speech.

Matthew said:
I think my major point here is that it's not possible to do the transportation and the land use planning separately, and that is the point that the city and the BRA are raising as well.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. My point is that the City and the BRA shouldn't be raising that point, they should be freaking doing it.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Well you guys are a lot more imaginative and nimble than the folks downtown.

I don't know what the politics are behind the scenes here.

I do know that MassDOT has done some strange things. Like introduce plans to take the parkland owned by DCR, without telling DCR. And then making a request for GIS data as an aside during the task force -- "Hey, that reminds me, can you send me the files with the high resolution land maps. Thanks, Joe!"

I shit you not.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I think that if its your job to design highways, particularly a highway in an urban area, you should have knowledge of basic urban planning concepts yourself let alone have an urban planning specialist look over your work. If you don't account for the effects your design is going to have then you aren't really doing your job are you?
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Matthew said:
Well you guys are a lot more imaginative and nimble than the folks downtown.
Click to expand...

But that's the problem. We shouldn't be. If you, or I, or probably anyone else on this thread were offered the position of BRA chief, we would wake up every single day thrilled to death to do that job, and looking for every cool thing we could accomplish. If I was in charge of the BRA and woke up one morning in October to see that the freeway was coming down, I would have called Richard Davey at 9:01 that morning to discuss the possibilities, and you know what? He would have taken the call, because he's passionate about what he does.

Passion is not waiting 8 months, then declaring yourself Allston's white knight because you have the guts to stand up to a guy several rungs below you on the ladder without offering any clear ideas of your own.
 
Last edited:
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Freeway's not coming down. Now THAT would be exciting.

Okay, putting that fantasy aside, I have often wondered why the various officials don't take stronger action. Especially the ones that claim to be all about "healthy transportation" and "urbanism" and such. Supposedly the people at the top share our values, yet it's an incredible uphill climb to get anything fixed in this town. Even when the opportunity presents itself.

So either they are just mouthing slogans, they aren't that imaginative, or, they are operating under constraints about which I can only begin to speculate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top