I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

BeansTheCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think this is pretty much where I'm at with the yard. I've been pretty solidly convinced that it's not operationally necessary, or if there's some reason to believe it will be in the future it's up to the state and Amtrak to lay that out, but I also just...don't really think it's a big deal in the scheme of things. Time and energy used on this is better served elsewhere.
 
JeffDowntown said:
The commentary about preparing in advance to deck over the yard raises the question -- why is the 8-lane Pike not also being prepared for decking over? Recover that land right up front?
Click to expand...
This is definitely a point of discussion. West Station will effectively be built as a deck over Worcester line, and I'm pretty sure current plans are to integrate development with it. As for the rest of the site, the only decking reference I could quickly find are here, as part of BPD's Beacon Park Yard plans. I believe this is just a proposal, without any commitments from the city or state in terms of decking. It would also leave large chunks of the rebuilt Pike without decking.

1734552794417.png
 
Harry Mattison said:
Here is a more recent presentation from the City's BPY Planning work with more decking over the highway. As Beans says, there is no commitments from the city, Harvard, or state for this much decking

BPY Regional Framework Planning - PF-4_Draft-Scenarios_Boards.pdf

drive.google.com drive.google.com
View attachment 58874
Click to expand...
Every new bit of information I hear about this project makes it sound like more and more of a disaster. It's an excellent case study in why centralized planning and agency cooperation is important.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Every new bit of information I hear about this project makes it sound like more and more of a disaster. It's an excellent case study in why centralized planning and agency cooperation is important.
Click to expand...
The proposed street system obviously is primarily for the movement of cars between SFR, the Mass Pike, and Cambridge Street, period. For that reason, the proposed streets are designed very wide, pretty much like designing an expressway interchange in the form of a superblock street grid. My advice: is to trash the current street and ramp design, and instead have as much of the Mass Pike on and off ramps feed as directly as possible to Cambridge St only, and as close to the realigned Mass Pike as possible. Also, forget the new on/off ramps from SFR into the new development area. Keep the through traffic out of the new development area, which will enable smaller blocks and smaller streets.
 
For a pedestrian/bike/bus bridge at Babcock Street over the tracks and Mass Pike, there is a way to fit it in with no taking of buildings, or any substantial right-of-way acquisition. Build the ramp to it right on Babcock street starting at Gardner St, then at Ashford St it becomes a viaduct over that portion of Babcock St. The buildings along the east side of Babcock st don't have any driveways or garage doors that would be blocked by the ramp. Here's a depiction of it:

1735158337345.png


I've updated my plan for the area to incorporate this type of Babcock St overpass:

54215879063_72b644f3ce_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
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.
View attachment 58856
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.View attachment 58857
Click to expand...
So, a five car Amtrak West East consist would be able to fit in the Front Yard. Mm And I have not seen anything longer on the Southside than seven cars, which would be 690ft, and most are six or five.
 
Charlie_mta said:
This is a quick and dirty concept of what I have in mind:

54215879063_ba13ec3557_b.jpg
Click to expand...
A. There is no reason to have TWO express tracks. The only train which should not be stopping is an hourly(max build) Springfield train.
B. How many trainsets will they need for service? Bi-hourly service would require three trainsets with two in motion. So 4, with a backup, two overnights assuming storage at both ends. Hourly would require five, again mostly actually moving.
C. You could fit 4 trainsets WEST of Cambridge St, except the T wants to put a third track all the way to Market St.
This is overbuilding. Even the most wild fever dream service patterns should not put more than 12-13 tph through Allston
 
Tallguy said:
A. There is no reason to have TWO express tracks. The only train which should not be stopping is an hourly(max build) Springfield train.
B. How many trainsets will they need for service? Bi-hourly service would require three trainsets with two in motion. So 4, with a backup, two overnights assuming storage at both ends. Hourly would require five, again mostly actually moving.
C. You could fit 4 trainsets WEST of Cambridge St, except the T wants to put a third track all the way to Market St.
This is overbuilding. Even the most wild fever dream service patterns should not put more than 12-13 tph through Allston
Click to expand...
Totally agree. The tracks were just copied from that particular MassDOT plan iteration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top