I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

Charlie_mta said:
It's doable. I pasted the preferred Pike-on-the-surface Throat option onto Google Maps and got this. It looks like they'd be no spatial and connection problems with building just the Throat section first and tying it in with the existing Allston Pike interchange.

View attachment 58566
Click to expand...
Yea this is basically what I was thinking just with a viaduct for grand junction since that gets cut off at grade.
 
That’s interesting; I hadn’t considered Amtrak as an interested party. Ultimately, while a layover facility are not the greatest use of space in Allston, it does open up rail operational options in the near term and land-banks some space for a west station expansion in the long term.

Of all my qualms with the current design of this project, this doesn’t rank particularly high.
 
astroTrain27 said:
That’s interesting; I hadn’t considered Amtrak as an interested party. Ultimately, while a layover facility are not the greatest use of space in Allston, it does open up rail operational options in the near term and land-banks some space for a west station expansion in the long term.

Of all my qualms with the current design of this project, this doesn’t rank particularly high.
Click to expand...
This will add at least 250M to the project
 
I invite Amtrak to pay for it if it's so important for them. Until then I'm sure there's lots of layover space out west if the ultimate goal is storage for future east-west service. Land is cheap closer to Worcester or Albany or whatever. That land is far too valuable for a layover/maintenance yard.
 
What is the issue here? It's currently a rail yard. Before it was a rail yard, it was a wetland. It has no historical precedent as being anything other than those two things. They are asking to keep some of it a rail yard, significantly less mind you, because it makes intercity rail functional. What is the alternative here? I know what the dream is: put it outside the city! That's unrealistic because we also need that type of space in the city to make those services work. You cannot run a rail system of any kind without layover space, especially in the parts that have the most frequent traffic such as downtown Boston. What better place to put rail storage than in a former rail yard that used to be a swamp? We cannot take every single functional space for necessary amenities in urban Boston and turn them into residential. It's bad planning, FULL STOP.
 
Per the Globe article above and the articles linked therein, the issue is that the highest transpo official said there would not be additional space used for a layover and then apparently (secretly) changed course after lobbying from Amtrak. As I noted above, my main gripe is that if it does add cost to the project, then Amtrak should be on the hook since it's their desired outcome rather than shifting onto taxpayers (it's unclear from the articles if Amtrak is proposing to shoulder such costs). See below:

www.thecrimson.com

MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal | News | The Harvard Crimson

A massive project to realign the I-90 highway in Allston will include a train layover for Amtrak and the MBTA, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation announced last week, an unexpected reversal after the MassDOT secretary said the layover would not be included in the project in April.
www.thecrimson.com www.thecrimson.com

The layover addition could add to the project’s $1.9 billion price tag — even as the financing is already tight — and potentially add hundreds of millions in future decking costs for Harvard, which owns the land and plans to develop buildings over the project’s new train infrastructure.

To your point about the layover tracks being necessary, that apparently wasn't the case at the last round of plans when the focus of West Station was the commuter rail and not Amtrak facilities. Its former condition as a swamp doesn't matter here; the general point is that elimination of the old rail yard for a new important passenger rail link and developable land is a good outcome and one that shouldn't be eroded for East-West rail service that isn't yet guaranteed. This is especially the case if local and state taxes are funding such change.

So if there's an integrated plan to really make the Springfield/Boston link reality, and there needs to be a Boston/Boston-proximal layover yard to support that, AND those new costs are covered by the transit agency necessitating those changes, then it's all good. My sense is that basically none of that is the case here and so it seems like a bad deal.
 
The Crimson is not the place to get this information; The Boston Globe is. The difference is that many urbanists, like yourself and including Mayor Wu, don't have any experience understanding the actual needs of rail transit. When they made this plan, that was also true of the MBTA. Phil Eng, who absolutely does understand it, has come in and put the kibosh on using Widett, which was the desired replacement for East-West layover needs, because the MBTA needs it for its current operations and also to implement Regional Rail (which is necessary for Boston). Now that someone who knows how to actually manage the T has stepped in, Amtrak has made it again clear that they also still need layover space for East-West Rail which is a service the State of Massachusetts is pushing for and funding, NOT Amtrak. If we want both East-West Rail and Regional Rail, we need yard space IN BOSTON as made clear by the parties with expertise in the matter. And, for the record, this will be true for ANY rail expansion in Boston. It's kind of at the point where we need to lock some of that abandoned industrial space down now if we want to have functional rail in Everett, Chelsea, and wherever because new lines will require a certain amount of centrally located yard space to function correctly. In order for Boston to thrive, it needs transit expansion; so this is a guaranteed need down the road despite how useful that land may be for other urban uses.

Why, do you think the Hudson yards project exists? That space is exponentially more desirable than anything in Boston for the next 100 years at least, and yet they still had to pay to deck over it because New York needs that space for it's network.
 
Justbuildit said:
So if there's an integrated plan to really make the Springfield/Boston link reality, and there needs to be a Boston/Boston-proximal layover yard to support that, AND those new costs are covered by the transit agency necessitating those changes, then it's all good. My sense is that basically none of that is the case here and so it seems like a bad deal.
Click to expand...
I mean, I'm not sure that you can separate Amtrak from MassDOT when it comes to East-West Rail. While Amtrak would be the operator, it's not the project proponent - MassDOT is. That said, two tracks is what, ~25ft? That's ultimately not going to break any decking plans. At the moment, Amtrak Southampton yard is squeezed to the gills, and is likely a service limiter in its own right even after whatever nooks and crannies the T is using move to Widett.

Frankly, if you want to support decking over these sites, the way to do it is to have footings built and ready as an integral part of the overall project, "For but not with," to prevent the developer needing to spend lots of money and effort to work around live track after the fact.
 
jbray said:
The Crimson is not the place to get this information; The Boston Globe is. The difference is that many urbanists, like yourself and including Mayor Wu, don't have any experience understanding the actual needs of rail transit. When they made this plan, that was also true of the MBTA. Phil Eng, who absolutely does understand it, has come in and put the kibosh on using Widett, which was the desired replacement for East-West layover needs, because the MBTA needs it for its current operations and also to implement Regional Rail (which is necessary for Boston). Now that someone who knows how to actually manage the T has stepped in, Amtrak has made it again clear that they also still need layover space for East-West Rail which is a service the State of Massachusetts is pushing for and funding, NOT Amtrak. If we want both East-West Rail and Regional Rail, we need yard space IN BOSTON as made clear by the parties with expertise in the matter. And, for the record, this will be true for ANY rail expansion in Boston. It's kind of at the point where we need to lock some of that abandoned industrial space down now if we want to have functional rail in Everett, Chelsea, and wherever because new lines will require a certain amount of centrally located yard space to function correctly. In order for Boston to thrive, it needs transit expansion; so this is a guaranteed need down the road despite how useful that land may be for other urban uses.

Why, do you think the Hudson yards project exists? That space is exponentially more desirable than anything in Boston for the next 100 years at least, and yet they still had to pay to deck over it because New York needs that space for it's network.
Click to expand...
I certainly do not pretend to be an authority on rail operations or logistics but the impression I got from much of the early design and planning for this project was that West Station would be infill akin to Boston Landing as a nod to the relative transit desert that is the northern section of Allston. Now with express tracks as well as a layover facility it seems like either all of the planning leadership including Tibbetts Nutt was either uninformed of the additional capacity needs or chose to hide the ball from the public until recently. So if the upshot is after all this there’s need for a few hundred million to satisfy all of these needs it looks like pretty awful planning especially with the handwringing around how best to thread the needle near BU.
 
Justbuildit said:
I certainly do not pretend to be an authority on rail operations or logistics but the impression I got from much of the early design and planning for this project was that West Station would be infill akin to Boston Landing as a nod to the relative transit desert that is the northern section of Allston. Now with express tracks as well as a layover facility it seems like either all of the planning leadership including Tibbetts Nutt was either uninformed of the additional capacity needs or chose to hide the ball from the public until recently. So if the upshot is after all this there’s need for a few hundred million to satisfy all of these needs it looks like pretty awful planning especially with the handwringing around how best to thread the needle near BU.
Click to expand...
There's been nearly no conceptual development on West Station in years because all the oxygen was sucked out of the room by the 'throat' controversies. Now that the throat configuration is settled business they're forced to turn an eye belatedly back to what a dumpster fire the whole rest of the slab is...the station, the layover, the car-centric street grid, everything.

And they're panicking. They don't know how to reconceptualize the pieces so they actually fit, and there was so much work left on the table that they simply haven't tended to for most of the past decade. So they're just hastily pouring cement over their half-baked renders from years ago and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" at the howls from the community that it's...still hella half-baked. I fear the worst is yet to come in terms of planning gaffes if this is how the headless chicken is running around.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
There's been nearly no conceptual development on West Station in years because all the oxygen was sucked out of the room by the 'throat' controversies. Now that the throat configuration is settled business they're forced to turn an eye belatedly back to what a dumpster fire the whole rest of the slab is...the station, the layover, the car-centric street grid, everything.

And they're panicking. They don't know how to reconceptualize the pieces so they actually fit, and there was so much work left on the table that they simply haven't tended to for most of the past decade. So they're just hastily pouring cement over their half-baked renders from years ago and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" at the howls from the community that it's...still hella half-baked. I fear the worst is yet to come in terms of planning gaffes if this is how the headless chicken is running around.
Click to expand...
That's why I'm thinking it would be good to build the project in phases. Phase 1 would be the "early action" project recently proposed by MassDOT in the area around the Cambridge Street bridge over the Pike, Phase 2 would be to build SFR, Mass Pike and the offshore shared path in the Throat area, and Phase 3 would be to build the street grid, West Station and the realigned Pike between the Throat and Cambridge St. At least this way the Pike viaduct would be removed sooner than later, and there would be some time created to better plan the proposed street grid, any layover trackage, and West Station.
 
Charlie_mta said:
That's why I'm thinking it would be good to build the project in phases. Phase 1 would be the "early action" project recently proposed by MassDOT in the area around the Cambridge Street bridge over the Pike, Phase 2 would be to build SFR, Mass Pike and the offshore shared path in the Throat area, and Phase 3 would be to build the street grid, West Station and the realigned Pike between the Throat and Cambridge St. At least this way the Pike viaduct would be removed sooner than later, and there would be some time created to better plan the proposed street grid, any layover trackage, and West Station.
Click to expand...
I am willing to bet you cannot phase the project without a pretty strong overall vision for the final design which includes a lot of details. These areas are all tied together in the final analysis. Decision in one phase would likely cut off options or at least severely complicate them for the next phase. A phased project would likely see costs balloon as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
JeffDowntown said:
I am willing to bet you cannot phase the project without a pretty strong overall vision for the final design which includes a lot of details. These areas are all tied together in the final analysis. Decision in one phase would likely cut off options or at least severely complicate them for the next phase. A phased project would likely see costs balloon as well.
Click to expand...
Connectivity between the phases is not difficult, as discussed a few posts above. Also, the layout of each phase would be independent from the other. I do agree with you about the costs. Breaking the project in phases would probably raise the overall cost.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
There's been nearly no conceptual development on West Station in years because all the oxygen was sucked out of the room by the 'throat' controversies. Now that the throat configuration is settled business they're forced to turn an eye belatedly back to what a dumpster fire the whole rest of the slab is...the station, the layover, the car-centric street grid, everything.

And they're panicking. They don't know how to reconceptualize the pieces so they actually fit, and there was so much work left on the table that they simply haven't tended to for most of the past decade. So they're just hastily pouring cement over their half-baked renders from years ago and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" at the howls from the community that it's...still hella half-baked. I fear the worst is yet to come in terms of planning gaffes if this is how the headless chicken is running around.
Click to expand...
I am so utterly tired of Boston/state redevelopment schemes that lead to giant, box shaped buildings on super blocks. This has stunk of the same from inception. Depressing.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
There's been nearly no conceptual development on West Station in years because all the oxygen was sucked out of the room by the 'throat' controversies. Now that the throat configuration is settled business they're forced to turn an eye belatedly back to what a dumpster fire the whole rest of the slab is...the station, the layover, the car-centric street grid, everything.

And they're panicking. They don't know how to reconceptualize the pieces so they actually fit, and there was so much work left on the table that they simply haven't tended to for most of the past decade. So they're just hastily pouring cement over their half-baked renders from years ago and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" at the howls from the community that it's...still hella half-baked. I fear the worst is yet to come in terms of planning gaffes if this is how the headless chicken is running around.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the important context and apparent lack of coordination here. Not to be a pest, but hoping to get at the core of the issue, the Globe is reporting that the new layover tracks in Allston would be solely for the benefit of Amtrak, not the T. Perhaps Widett would provide sufficient capacity to address both agencies' needs, but maybe we'll learn more after the next round of reviews.

That’s provoked howls from transit and housing advocates, who want the land used for housing instead. Eng, in an interview with the Globe, made it clear that the change was made solely for Amtrak’s benefit, not for the T: The Allston yard “is something we will not need,” he said.

[...]

Eng says that in the next stage of review for the Allston project, officials will fully analyze all options — including letting Amtrak use the planned Widett facilities. Another option would be for the T, once it builds the Widett yard, to stop using Amtrak’s neighboring Southampton yard, which in turn would open up space for Amtrak at its own facility. Both of those alternatives could potentially obviate the need for the Allston tracks.

www.bostonglobe.com

The Boston Globe

www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
 
Justbuildit said:
Thanks for the important context and apparent lack of coordination here. Not to be a pest, but hoping to get at the core of the issue, the Globe is reporting that the new layover tracks in Allston would be solely for the benefit of Amtrak, not the T. Perhaps Widett would provide sufficient capacity to address both agencies' needs, but maybe we'll learn more after the next round of reviews.

That’s provoked howls from transit and housing advocates, who want the land used for housing instead. Eng, in an interview with the Globe, made it clear that the change was made solely for Amtrak’s benefit, not for the T: The Allston yard “is something we will not need,” he said.

[...]

Eng says that in the next stage of review for the Allston project, officials will fully analyze all options — including letting Amtrak use the planned Widett facilities. Another option would be for the T, once it builds the Widett yard, to stop using Amtrak’s neighboring Southampton yard, which in turn would open up space for Amtrak at its own facility. Both of those alternatives could potentially obviate the need for the Allston tracks.

www.bostonglobe.com

The Boston Globe

www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
Click to expand...
The T vacating AMTK Southampton Yard and Front Yard for Widett should by all logic give Amtrak enough layover space for East-West. The T currently uses 5 of the 16 berths at Southampton on the midday, and 3 of the 5 Front Yard tracks. Widett is worth +24 MBTA berths, +30 if they subsequently choose to eminent domain the abutting cold storage warehouse. West Station's layover is +8 berths, cut down from +12 berths in the renders 10 years ago due to pressure from Harvard.

Amtrak already gets +8 berths all for itself by virtue of the T building Widett and vacating Southampton + Front. That's more than enough to absorb a full 8 RT's East-West schedule, plus post-Gateway growth on the NEC. If they need more than that, they should be pooling in with the T to acquire the Widett cold storage facility as that's larger future-proofing at less daily ops cost chew than deadheading 4 miles to Beacon Park all day long amid Regional Rail traffic. Or expanding Southampton even further on the west (I-93) side of the complex by moving some signal bungaloes to the buildings roof and trenching under the Fairmount Line to connect a few more yard tracks to the Widett Loop. They're not exploring any of those options; they're digging in on BP's pre-Widett renders with a lot of hyperbole.

To make a case for Beacon Park they have to explain with numbers why that space is needed for Amtrak, because the math as we currently understand it does not add up at all. They're not doing that; they're just fearmongering that ops are going to collapse if they don't do all of this at BP. It's not credible, and the advocates and community are correctly balking at it. It's a fairly steep numerical argument they have to make to justify this, but if they can justify this with numbers and ops facts...fine, then there's something meaty and substantive to talk about. But they're not even feigning trying to live up to that burden of proof.
 
jbray said:
What is the issue here? It's currently a rail yard. Before it was a rail yard, it was a wetland. It has no historical precedent as being anything other than those two things. They are asking to keep some of it a rail yard, significantly less mind you, because it makes intercity rail functional. What is the alternative here? I know what the dream is: put it outside the city! That's unrealistic because we also need that type of space in the city to make those services work. You cannot run a rail system of any kind without layover space, especially in the parts that have the most frequent traffic such as downtown Boston. What better place to put rail storage than in a former rail yard that used to be a swamp? We cannot take every single functional space for necessary amenities in urban Boston and turn them into residential. It's bad planning, FULL STOP.
Click to expand...
The bad planning is provision for 50+ layover spaces.
 
Worth noting at least a few things. 1, the T did already ED the cold storage site as part of the 2023 taking, so that's already done and dusted - the T just needs City of Boston owned roadway parcels. 2, my understanding is that the T can only layover in Southampton during the day? The 2013 analysis is definitively out of date, but I'm given to believe that they Amtrak occupies all tracks overnight, and that Front St yard tracks simply are too short @ 525ft for most MBTA Southside sets, let alone Amtrak purposes. If Amtrak needs more overnight layover, I'd like to know if any of the conceptual Widett design can accommodate Amtrak set lengths - I believe the NEC standard is up to 1050', vs the MBTA's 800ft.
1000039275.jpg

Lastly the current Amtrak investment plan might result in fairly significant Southampton reconfiguration - no plans have yet emerged, but it's out to bid. My understanding is that beyond reconfiguring the existing service buildings, 2 existing yard tracks will the site of the new M&I building, in addition to 2 tracks becoming daytime servicing tracks for Amtrak.
1000039277.jpg
 
Living in Allston-Brighton, it is really difficult to be upset about adding a yard here. As Stlin mentioned, the loss of developable land can be almost completely mitigated by building footings up front, and Harvard can basically be forced into funding them (it's not like a few hundred million would ruin their ROI here). Walking to the station from south of the Pike might be a minute longer, but that's small potatoes. And assuming there will be diesel equipment here for the foreseeable future, having shore supply at all the berths will prevent any of the problems associated with idling.

Any issues with the rail yard are minimal in comparison to the existing 8 lane highway that will continue running through Allston. Poor use of urban land, noise and particulate pollution, and a lack of neighborhood connectivity are going to be problems as long as the Pike is there and not decked over.

By having the yard, significantly fewer limits are placed on future Springfield service. It is not hard to imagine a future (even if it's decades out) where there are 30+ daily round trips to Springfield, in a combination of service to Albany and the NEC inland route. F-Line is correct that expanding Southhampton and using more space adjacent to Widdett is operationally ideal, but it's hard to fault Amtrak for wanting to reserve some space in one of the only places within miles of downtown suitable for a southside yard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top