I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

[davem]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I think they were projecting a year or two. The viaduct is a logistical nightmare, so I wouldn't be suprized if that blows its schedule. The rest of the project, however, is being built on vacant land where the transload area was, so they have lots of room to work. Lack of abutters and not too many elevated structures (not including the viaduct) should make the process pretty straight forward.

Its the building stuff on Harvard owned land that could take decades. Everyone's great fear right now is were going to have a bunch of beautifully laid out blocks with grass, or worse, parking lots.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I think they were projecting a year or two. The viaduct is a logistical nightmare, so I wouldn't be suprized if that blows its schedule. The rest of the project, however, is being built on vacant land where the transload area was, so they have lots of room to work. Lack of abutters and not too many elevated structures (not including the viaduct) should make the process pretty straight forward.

Its the building stuff on Harvard owned land that could take decades. Everyone's great fear right now is were going to have a bunch of beautifully laid out blocks with grass, or worse, parking lots.

Last night's presentation had construction from 2017-2020.

The good news with Harvard is that they don't have a profit motive and do have unlimited money, so they can take risks no commercial developer would take. The bad news is they can landbank like a boss. I hope their desire to compete with MIT and Kendall wins out over their desire to store land for future academic use.

 

[Matthew]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I noticed that they did not cover some things last night. One of those things was the staging plan for viaduct construction. The other was the fact that the new viaduct will be 131' wide, about 30' wider than the current one, and that they have approached DCR about taking parkland for this purpose.

Well on second thought, they might have mentioned that last bit, since 4(f) came up. But I don't remember exactly what they said.

In any case, just for review, the plan for building the viaduct (probably the trickiest portion as Dave says), was planned to involve building a 4-lane viaduct above Soldier's Field Road next to the existing viaduct, then demolishing a portion of the existing viaduct, building 2 lanes of the new viaduct, demolishing another portion, doing another 2 lanes, and then finally finishing up the seventh and eighth lane + newly widened shoulders. The plan they presented would maintain 8 lanes of travel throughout the entire project period. However, it would also result in massive impact to the parkland.

Needless to say, the task force was not happy. Especially Joe Orfant from DCR, who was not even informed of these plans beforehand. So the whole "slide SFR under the viaduct" plan is one response to that. And I guess they haven't finished sketching the new staging plans out.

 

[davem]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Im okay with a wider viaduct I'd it means 27' or more of usable parkland. The stink they're making about taking parkland to build the new viaduct is kind of retarded. Since there is no way to access bit. Its basically a median now.

I would like to see them get a bit more aggressive with relocating SFR under the new viaduct, but from trying to do it myself I can say its a very large challange.

 

[Matthew]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

We wouldn't have that 27' of usable parkland added without raising a stink over the "median".

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I think they were projecting a year or two. The viaduct is a logistical nightmare, so I wouldn't be suprized if that blows its schedule. The rest of the project, however, is being built on vacant land where the transload area was, so they have lots of room to work. Lack of abutters and not too many elevated structures (not including the viaduct) should make the process pretty straight forward.

Its the building stuff on Harvard owned land that could take decades. Everyone's great fear right now is were going to have a bunch of beautifully laid out blocks with grass, or worse, parking lots.

That's pretty good as construction schedules go. Compare with Hartford which is going to spend $5B to sink the I-84 viaduct before it pancakes on the city below and kills a couple thousand people. That's going to take 10 years...and would've cost the same and taken just as much time if they rebuilt the viaduct in place. $260M and a 2-year blitz plus the inevitable cost overrun and schedule overrun allowances looks like a bargain. Tolls and land use revenue return that quickly back into the coffers with profit. I don't blame them for being giddy to go on this one. The financials and construction impacts come out fantastic given the complexity of the project.

It helps that SFR, the Worcester Line, and 3-4 car trains assigned to the D can absorb some short-term pain for traffic inbound of 128 and they've got all the staging area in the world out in Beacon Park for temp bridge segments, then permanent bridge segments rapidly assembled. Not so sure about preserving all 8 lanes during construction (yes afterwards, because it's contiguous 8 down to the Copley exit). That section of roadway past the tolls is so under-capacity I don't think it would be carmageddon if they installed a toll gantry way back at Everett St. and had whatever Allston exit exists during construction just be an exit-only lane so they can lop the viaduct down to 6 w/no shoulder during construction.

But...that's the kind of detail that can evolve over time. If it saves that much money and complexity they can be persuaded to do it.




Still think there's too many goddamn train tracks right there and they'd be way better off expanding all that unused space at Readville or making a Godfather relocation offer to the private businesses at Widett Circle so that much storage doesn't have to go right here. That's just too big a moonscape--still!--to be stringing a coherent street grid across. It's like double the width of the unpleasant walk across the existing Pike overpasses and a 1/3 Beacon Park staying put.

There's got to be a better way to do it than that. I mean...where the hell was the BRA when the state tried to buy that cold storage building at Widett Circle to put more T storage there??? The owners of the building noisily balked and lawyered up because they wanted to build that opulent recycling center that's a wretched fit for the area...and now the Southie pols are now attacking that recycling center proposal with fire and pitchforks so nothing's going to happen there and the state has already washed its hands of wading into that clusterfuck. Isn't our intrepid city planning fiefdom supposed to have the land management huevos to rise over that kind of provincial, intra-city developer spat?

I really hope that evolves too to something more sensible. We're not at a loss for tucked-away transportation storage moonscapes that no living resident gets physically close enough to to be bothered by; that's what South Bay and Readville exist for, right? At least this part of the project area is on the flat, fungible earth part of Beacon Park and affects not one single bridge structure until they do the street gridding. Design changes wouldn't really be changes at all to anything except the location of flat asphalt.

 

[davem]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Last night's presentation had construction from 2017-2020.

I pulled it from memory, what struck me was the EIS was projected to take longer than actual construction. I'm all for the environment, but its crazy how long it all takes.


Matt - I ment more the deal the DCR made, in general I agree its nice leverage.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

The BSA presentations have been posted. Lots to digest.

http://www.architects.org/programs-and-events/urban-design-workshops

Quick Take: The major issue with the CBT vision (the second one) is that they modify the MassDOT ramp structure in a way that impedes on the layover yard. I realize they didn't have the latest designs to work with, and that MassDOT plans can and will change, but the layover yard is pretty sacrosanct. The station can't be on the curve as they propose it to be.

CBT has the better looking neighborhood vision, though I did like how Krieger/Mountjoy derived theirs from the Back Bay grid.

Krieger/Mountjoy curiously fails to include the bridge to Cambridge in their 3D massing models, but they do introduce an interesting idea to essentially split the Cambridge/SFR intersection in half, with all SFR movements to the East of all Cambridge movements. I like that idea a lot, though it does presume the removal of the Houghton track and possibly some serious regrading of the riverbank. Notably, MassDOT's own SFR EB access road assumes that Houghton closes, though all of its plans include the track.

Both plans suggest a modification to MassDOT's "roads on embankments" theme by regrading the entire site (probably more where building entrances are than where the foundations are) to accommodate more at-grade intersections within the new neighborhood. That probably jacks up the cost for the City of Boston to build the roads, but may do wonders for the urban feel of the place.

 

[bobthebuilder]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I don't think this was linked yet, so here:

http://peoplespike.com/AllstonEsplanade/

 

[CSTH]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I don't think this was linked yet, so here:

http://peoplespike.com/AllstonEsplanade/

Intro text there states:

Additional new Charles River parkland along the Mass Pike viaduct. This can be achieved by moving one inbound lane of Soldiers Field Road beneath the viaduct and moving the remaining lanes as far from the river as possible. To maximize this parkland, the width of the new viaduct should be no wider than that of the current viaduct.

..and I know many of us have advocated this approach as well.

My questions is - what is the potential to 'stack' the two directions of SFR entirely under the viaduct? Given that the clearance of SFR is already constrained at ~11ft. by the GJ rail overpass, why not squeeze three levels of traffic (90 WB, SFR WB, and SFR EB) in a single footprint? Assuming the grade level below the viaduct could be lowered by just a few feet if necessary, without incurring all the pain of a 'deep cut', then i think the geometry works, at least. (n.b. this would leave the space under 90 EB for continued use by trains)

...And we don't necessarily need to be talking about anything exotic 'son of the BQE cantilever' here, but with some efficient spacing and some thoughtful design this stretch of the river could become a very pleasant place indeed - and get a lot more land a lot closer to its 'highest and best use;...

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Intro text there states:

Additional new Charles River parkland along the Mass Pike viaduct. This can be achieved by moving one inbound lane of Soldiers Field Road beneath the viaduct and moving the remaining lanes as far from the river as possible. To maximize this parkland, the width of the new viaduct should be no wider than that of the current viaduct.

..and I know many of us have advocated this approach as well.

My questions is - what is the potential to 'stack' the two directions of SFR entirely under the viaduct? Given that the clearance of SFR is already constrained at ~11ft. by the GJ rail overpass, why not squeeze three levels of traffic (90 WB, SFR WB, and SFR EB) in a single footprint? Assuming the grade level below the viaduct could be lowered by just a few feet if necessary, without incurring all the pain of a 'deep cut', then i think the geometry works, at least. (n.b. this would leave the space under 90 EB for continued use by trains)

...And we don't necessarily need to be talking about anything exotic 'son of the BQE cantilever' here, but with some efficient spacing and some thoughtful design this stretch of the river could become a very pleasant place indeed - and get a lot more land a lot closer to its 'highest and best use;...

See for yourself: http://goo.gl/maps/QKUdb.

You have nowhere near enough room to play weird tri-level stacking games. That thing would have to be halfway up to the sky to do it, and would never be able to get back down into the cut by Comm Ave. Forget that.

You DO have room under the current--today's current--viaduct structure to fit both directions of SFR around the abutment layouts. So a rebuild on that footprint would only have to deal with these engineering challenges: 1) the Grand Junction lateral crossing, and 2) the abutment arrangement when SFR has to spit back out on alignment at BU Bridge.

1) Can be accomplished by doing a SFR duck-under where the track diagonally crosses. Same as the roadway does at River St., Western Ave., and JFK St. equally close to the river. No big deal.

2) They're not rehabilitating the viaduct, they're replacing. So this is moot...it will get all-new abutments and will be engineered so SFR can slide under at BU Bridge.


So this gives you a layout tucked underneath of:

BU-side abutments
<==>
2 Worcester Line tracks
<==>
jersey barrier
<==>
2 SFR eastbound lanes + shoulders
<==>
center abutment + jersey barrier
<==>
2 SFR westbound lanes + shoulder
<==>
jersey barrier
<==>
1 Grand Junction track + slack space (future-proofing for second track in event of Urban Ring conversion)
<==>
Charles-side abutment


Somewhere on the western end of the viaduct SFR does its brief dip-under and the Grand Junction crosses. Somewhere on the east end before the viaduct drops towards the Comm Ave. overpass everything gets back on its original alignment by the river. Including leaving the alignment to the truck-eating Grand Junction bridge unchanged, because it's got to stay level with the water crossing.


Assume this consideration is a default:

-- They are widening the viaduct a little to give the Pike on top full-regulation width shoulders. This will space out the side abutments enough to carve out whatever few feet of space the current structure may be short for fitting 2 Worcester tracks next to a SFR carriageway with the requisite jersey barriers.


And assume that anywhere your width below must not skimp on this:

-- There MUST be full-regulation shoulders on SFR underneath.
1) In a disablement there is nowhere for a passenger or driver to get out of the way with the fenced jersey barriers separating the roadway from active train tracks.
2) It's a viaduct, so a firey crash needs extra side space to safely exit from and get away from the flames/smoke, and for emergency vehicles to get in there when access from the train tracks side isn't going to be easy (you can have secured doors in the fence/barrier from trackside for getting firehoses and whatnot in there and obviously stop train traffic in an emergency, but the lateral access isn't anywhere near as wide open as it is now).
3) The truck-eating overpass is still there, so crews will have to drag some idiot's crumpled delivery truck back underneath the viaduct to clear the scene. Leave space if you want the ever-recurring delays from one of those bloopers to be any better than it is today.

So...don't narrow the profile. If the Pike on top has to have those supersize 128-style left shoulders because you need more space below, it's still the better bet for getting maximal greenspace and the minimum amount of asphalt and steel rail out in the daylight bogarting the view from your riverside jog.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

The cost to relocate SFR under the new Mass Pike viaduct would be very minimal. SFR could fit entirely under the westbound part of the Pike viaduct, with enough room for 2 lanes of SFR each way, a Jersey barrier SFR median, and discontinuous SFR breakdown lanes, interrupted only by the viaduct piers. Up to 3, possibly 4, tracks could fit under the eastbound side of the Mass Pike viaduct.

If MASSDOT doesn't propose and design this, they're crazy. It would add so much park space along the river for very little cost.

 

[Downburst]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

The governor will be down at the rail yards (Lincoln St. @ Cambridge St.) tomorrow making an announcement on "multi-modal inclusions" in the I-90 project. 2:30. Davey, DePaola, and Scott will be there too.

 

[Shepard]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

To me, these proto-plans strike me as far too similar Newton Corner: short stubby ramps with local "streets" that essentially become high-speed one-way access roads.

 

[davem]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

To me, these proto-plans strike me as far too similar Newton Corner: short stubby ramps with local "streets" that essentially become high-speed one-way access roads.

Newton Corner has only one entrance and exit point, made worse by that batshit rotary. This plan is far more permeable; each side has two streets serving it, and access to the westbound and eastbound frontage roads are grade separated from each other.

As Equilibria and I were discussing the other day, what would really help with traffic issues here and in Newton would be to add another set of ramps between North Beacon and Market streets, replacing the redundant and utterly useless Birmingham Parkway and allowing a direct connection to Soldiers Field Road. This would also offer an opportunity to shift the Pike slightly north and rebuild the old Faneuil stop on the Worcester line.

 

[Shepard]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

^ YES. I really wish that had been considered.

 

[CSTH]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

^ YES. I really wish that had been considered.

It's really a scandal that it hasn't been.

And I keep coming back to a nagging, unresolved question: does this project have a real objective? 'Straighten the Pike' seems like a bizarre mandate.

Are there hard objectives that would read something like 'increase peak access to and from SFR from x to y' or 'expand riverside park acreage from y to z'? If those kind of objectives were in place, we could have a meaningful evaluation of system-level alternatives and implications like this one.

Without them....well, 'Straighten the Pike' is a means, not an end...

 

[Matthew]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Get rid of the old tollbooth cruft once AET goes into place.

Improve geometry on that section of the Pike.

Replace aging viaduct that is falling apart.

Fix the many, many mistakes of the Callahan-era Pike: insane traffic patterns, complete lack of pedestrian access.

Open up land by the river as parkland.

Free up tons of developable land that, by the way, Harvard owns (hint hint: Harvard gets what Harvard wants).

 

[Equilibria]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

And I keep coming back to a nagging, unresolved question: does this project have a real objective? 'Straighten the Pike' seems like a bizarre mandate.

Are there hard objectives that would read something like 'increase peak access to and from SFR from x to y' or 'expand riverside park acreage from y to z'? If those kind of objectives were in place, we could have a meaningful evaluation of system-level alternatives and implications like this one.

Without them....well, 'Straighten the Pike' is a means, not an end...

The objective of this project is, and always has been: "Replace the I-90 viaduct, which is structurally deficient and will deteriorate to the point of dangerous within the decade."

That is MassDOT's only objective at this site. Now, behind that are some other objectives, such as serving current and projected traffic demand between the edges of the site, that have been numerically assessed. MassDOT has performed a traffic study of their current alternative and determined that it satisfies traffic-related objectives.

You're exactly right that straightening the Turnpike is a means, not an end, although building the new road inside the curve of the old cuts construction costs and schedule considerably. Any business about planning a new neighborhood or increasing parkland is simply not MassDOT's responsibility, it's the City's, DCR's and Harvard's.

Reading some comments on the current round of plans highlighted something similar for me, though. This site, regardless of how it does so, must serve as a gateway to Allston, Brighton, Cambridgeport, Central Square, and Harvard Square from the Turnpike. There is a "through" element to Beacon Park that cannot be sacrificed to serve the "to" elements, and while MassDOT has designed a road pattern that can handle the demand, there are also the issues of wayfinding and ease of use for drivers (yes, drivers) trying to access those areas.

I'm starting to get concerned, for instance, about the number of at-grade intersections a grid would impose on the Pike access points from Cambridge St. some of that can be addressed with signal arrangements and permitted turns, but four or five stoplights to reach the right turn into Cambridge is not an acceptable constraint to place on that movement, particularly as transit access into Cambridge from the West is really crummy until the Urban Ring comes online in 2175. MassDOT has hidden a lot of those intersections from their analysis because they aren't going to build them - Boston will.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

It's really a scandal that it hasn't been.

And I keep coming back to a nagging, unresolved question: does this project have a real objective? 'Straighten the Pike' seems like a bizarre mandate.

Are there hard objectives that would read something like 'increase peak access to and from SFR from x to y' or 'expand riverside park acreage from y to z'? If those kind of objectives were in place, we could have a meaningful evaluation of system-level alternatives and implications like this one.

Without them....well, 'Straighten the Pike' is a means, not an end...

No, that's not the primary objective.

1) The Pike shearing off the Beacon Park development from the rest of Allston is the primary reason for doing it. Stringing a street grid together that fits with Cambridge St. would've been too hard otherwise, and really diminished interest in developing the parcels anytime soon because of how isolated they were. The existing truck access tunnels under the embankment are small and dank, and any new tunnels under the toll plaza area would've been much longer and not much more inviting. Probably the biggest boon from the realignment is the entire south side of Cambridge St. past the overpass being opened to street-facing development.

2) It increases the acreage available for development by packing the transportation infrastructure side-by-side instead of dividing the property. Under the old alignment the CSX engine house yard would've been so sheared off from the rest it probably would've been impossible to ever do anything there. Buildings, parkland, or otherwise.

3) The land swap expedites the environmental mitigation. If Harvard had to build on top of the existing rail yard the amount of nasty stuff in the soil from over 150 years of freight use would've delayed any development by years on end. Too expensive, and because of #1 the motivation to get started would've been much lower. This saves Harvard and their developers a lot of time and money getting started, and gets the development contributing tax revenue and overall economic revenue back into the city's and state's coffers years sooner.
-- Now, a lot less mitigation needs to be done because the primary area of contamination is just being sealed by a hard-pack roadbed capped by an asphalt roadway. It's a cheaper way of getting a de facto landfill cap so the nasty stuff underneath is sealed in-place and doesn't move with time. And because it's just hard roadway that strip of soil can be held to a lower standard of mitigation than the land that will be built over.
-- Scooping out the landfill on the embankment the current Pike alignment sits on will remove any contaminated soil on the north end (gas spills, salt and chemical runoff from the roadway, etc.) and be much easier to mitigate on the ex-roadbed than the ex-railbed. Saves more mitigation money.
-- The only areas that will need a full dose of mitigation now is the center strip of the main yard where the intermodal trucks used to line up, and the engine house. Engine house is going to be a royal pain. But most of the intermodal area in the main yard is either pavement or hard-pack gravel. There'd be a little less to clean up there than the track area (to be covered by the new Pike alignment) where leaky freight cars contaminated softer ground.



As I said, the only thing I really don't like about this is that the MBTA train yard is way too large and still chews up way too much space, inhibiting connections to the BU side with how long the connecting street bridges will have to be. A little cooperation from the BRA could get them exactly as much if not more space at a far better and more inocuous location in Widett Circle by land-swapping some/all of the private businesses there that aren't exactly making full-tilt use of their space. And expanding the space they already own at the commuter rail yard at Readville Yard 2 (the dirt parcel they lease next door along the Neponset is just a crappy little private recycling center drop-off). Readville + a smaller/narrower strip of Pike yard would accomplish the same thing at roughly the same operational flexibility. It seems to be somebody's political cause at MassDOT to do new-new-new! right here because reasons rather than something the actual Commuter Rail division and Keolis are advocating for or otherwise felt too strongly about.