That's way out-of-date. The most recent renders had a 2-platform/3-track station that swapped berths with the layover yard (i.e. layover yard to the south, station north...not station south, layover north like the '18 render). And of course it's all going back into redesign now that the layover yard is being deleted.
I guess I wasnt clear enough but I was saying its old and out dated but it has some 3d angles that havent been shown before that can help you squint and imagine better what itll look like without the layover yard compared to the top down views.That's way out-of-date. The most recent renders had a 2-platform/3-track station that swapped berths with the layover yard (i.e. layover yard to the south, station north...not station south, layover north like the '18 render). And of course it's all going back into redesign now that the layover yard is being deleted.
All of it's obsolete. There's 1 fewer platform, 1 fewer station track, a completely different expressing pattern, the roadway platform over the layover yard doesn't exist anymore, the shared-use path platform over the station doesn't exist anymore, and the 2 Alts. for the busway designs are completely different. Virtually nothing in the 3D renders represents the most recent concepts.
Who knows? The previous designs really didn't do any provisioning. As it stands the design needs a lot of work, because the current iteration's split between the express tracks and the local/station tracks is going to create traffic conflicts galore for Worcester express + Amtrak meets/overtakes of the locals. They're looking to start VE'ing it, so I bet the shuttle island platform gets deleted entirely as the Grand Junction dinky is not in a study state where it would be anywhere close to being ready by the time the station starts. That could leave a blank space for later infilling. The top level needs some VE'ing too as the only buses slated to use the station busways are 3 private shuttle jitneys (one to Harvard, one to Kendall, one to the LMA), while the current design is an overbuilt mess that berths a much-excessive 6 simultaneous buses they can't explain where will come from.
Interesting new and rerouted bus routes shown in that document.
Also out-of-date. Of the jitney routes, BU dropped out. And the T dropped out of any re-routing of the 66.
Option 5: 8 lane Mass Pike and no Soldiers Field Rd
Yes it is over. MassDOT has said that many, many times already, the money is now flowing to design/construct to the basic designs...and the advocate groups continuing to attempt to drag this out are in an ever-shrinking minority. The fat lady has sung. These groups are now doing themselves a great disservice by ignoring smaller details and debates therein on the configuration of the parklands by continuing to tilt at windmills on settled business. The more they focus on the lanes and not the configuration of the interface with the Charles, the less they are going to get their way on the interface with the Charles. It's not a productive fight in the slightest.
As F-Line said, if you fight for lost causes, you divert your attention from the ones you can win.
The longer we're in analysis paralysis over the 'throat', the more design inattention there is to that horrible car-centric Beacon Park street grid and dumpster-fire of a West Station design. Virtually nothing has been done in 10 years to correct those problems, because all the energy and attention has been sucked up by the 'throat' controversies. We're going to be very dissatisfied with the overall end results here if we don't learn to let go of lost battles and get going on the other project dependencies. As it stands, re-litigating the old sucks all the oxygen out of the room for pinning down exactly what the path/parkland configuration vis-a-vis the waterfront is going to be. And we really need to pin that down or else 'shovel-ready' is going to keep slip-sliding away.
