I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

[George_Apley]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Save the damn GJ for the Urban Ring that no one's bothering to talk about... The state has this DMU bug, as if it's the cure for all of our transit ills... it's another useful tool in the box, but it won't solve our cross-town or seaport transit issues.

 

[Deetroyt]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

So is West station going to be an eventual stop for LRV UR? I thought the plan for Urban Ring was for it to connect with the B line. But this seems to indicate that GJ would lead into West station. I'm confused here.

 

[Arlington]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

http://www.skokie69.k12.il.us/Staff/Admin/district/docs/DowntownSkokie&OaktonStreetCorridor.pdf

There is no carmageddon at that intersection. Not even close. In fact, the CTA recently added a station right after it that forces the trains to slow down as they approach, and they faced basically no local opposition in doing so (the town paid for the station).

I am not arguing that Grand Junction DMUs should be a high priority project. I am not arguing that they are cost-effective or will justify their costs with ridership. However, arguing that the equivalent of a hugely favorable signalized intersection will destroy the flow of Mass Ave just doesn't hold up. Just because Cambridge freaked out at a couple of extra minutes of delay doesn't mean they were right to.

I think the Skokie Swift crossings are a pretty good analogy (Fairly serious arterials cross it at a half dozen level crossings) I also think that with the gates down, you have lots of time to do all the other intersection transactions that don't need to cross the tracks (like left or right turns to/from Albany& Vassar Streets) and frankly to accommodate a growing number of cyclists who want to cross Mass Ave. In many ways, it can siphon off conflicting flows and let Mass Ave get good "straight across" flows while the gates are up.

And just as the Skokie Swift slows down for its station at Oakton, a DMU slowing for a Mass@Vass station would be popular enough to outvote any objectors.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

And just as the Skokie Swift slows down for its station at Oakton, a DMU slowing for a Mass@Vass station would be popular enough to outvote any objectors.

I'm not so sure about that one. Oakton is popular because it serves commuters from Skokie. A Mass/Vass station might be useful for Cambridgeport, but is primarily for commuters headed to Cambridge, and they don't vote there.

Actually, it's kind of interesting that Deval cited Assembly as the envisioned destination, not North Station. Now, he was selling in in Allston, a neighborhood that already has Green Line access to North nearby, but given that no track exists to allow that movement at present, it was an interesting choice.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

So is West station going to be an eventual stop for LRV UR? I thought the plan for Urban Ring was for it to connect with the B line. But this seems to indicate that GJ would lead into West station. I'm confused here.

They're not thinking about the Urban Ring at all. Presumably a Grand Junction UR branch would still join the B-Line at BU. A Harvard spur of the UR that cannibalizes the westernmost parts of the Grand Junction (west of the BU Bridge) could transfer with Indigo DMU at a West Station on its way to Comm Ave.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

We have been over this before, and it still doesn't pass the smell test. First off, there is no Grand Junction DMU study. There is a Grand Junction Transportation Study that did not mention DMUs because DMUs outside of Fairmount was never proposed by MassDOT until the map that went out with the CIP last year. I'm sure you did something more complex than simply "multiplying by TPH", because that study assumed commuter rail train lengths and speeds, both of which would be improved upon by DMUs.

The closest thing we have to a Grand Junction DMU study is this thesis paper from MIT:

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/73788

In it, the author quotes a "gates down" time of between 3-5 minutes during the peak hour for all rail alternatives, with the DMU performing (as one would expect) better than commuter rail. Now, he assumes higher frequencies than are realistic, so with 4TPH, the math is simple: 20s lead time on the gates + 15s time to clear the intersection + 10s to raise the gates, all multiplied by 4 = 3 minutes, and that's being generous with the raising time (I guessed).

You don't have to do complex queuing theory to evaluate that. It's the equivalent of a signalized intersection weighted 20-to-one in favor of Mass Ave. It's not unreasonable at all.

In fact, it's done elsewhere. Oakton St. in Skokie, IL, for example, has crossing gates for HRT: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0255652,-87.7472286,687m/data=!3m1!1e3

The 2009 PM Peak traffic count for that intersection is slightly less than the 2035 no-build identified for Mass Ave. in the GJTS (very slightly, and the frequency is higher):

http://www.skokie69.k12.il.us/Staff/Admin/district/docs/DowntownSkokie&OaktonStreetCorridor.pdf

There is no carmageddon at that intersection. Not even close. In fact, the CTA recently added a station right after it that forces the trains to slow down as they approach, and they faced basically no local opposition in doing so (the town paid for the station).

I am not arguing that Grand Junction DMUs should be a high priority project. I am not arguing that they are cost-effective or will justify their costs with ridership. However, arguing that the equivalent of a hugely favorable signalized intersection will destroy the flow of Mass Ave just doesn't hold up. Just because Cambridge freaked out at a couple of extra minutes of delay doesn't mean they were right to.

And that was explained too several pages ago on this thread. CTA is not a valid comparison at all. That's a rapid transit line, not an FRA railroad. You deal with common-carrier FRA rails, you deal with common-carrier FRA gate timings. Railroad gates can make no assumptions about what vehicle is running on the line--DMU, push-pull, or freight (of which this line does/would see all 3 on a given day)--and whether the train is going to make a station stop of keep cruising through, so the timings are always the same. And with a railroad the train always has the right of way so there can be no give-and-take coordination with traffic signals like LRT obeying traffic lights or HRT getting an enforced slowdown from its much tighter-spaced signal system within precision distance of a crossing (the more appropriate comparison here would be the Eastern Route in Chelsea where Everett Ave. forces a slowdown--or rather a 'never speed-up'--coming off the curve a whole half-mile away).

This is why the grade crossings on the Grand Junction work at high frequency when the mode is BRT/LRT on the Urban Ring and not as DMU on the Indigo Line. The difference in modes is the difference between 100% train / 0% car right of way and being able to share queues proportionately at a regular traffic signal. There's no way around it to do different timings a la the RiverLINE because there's no time separation to be had with any DMU proposal in the whole state...it can't leave North Station or enter the Worcester Line without running in mixed traffic, therefore the Grand Junction is in mixed traffic.

Live by all the FRA's rules, or build the Urban Ring. There's no exemptions to be had here, and no way to squint at or hack this into something better. It is what it is on this mode.




And no, the DMU acceleration isn't going to make a big difference here because the curves keep the speeds low. BU Bridge is going to be restricted to 25 MPH (+/- 3 MPH) both directions because of the curve and incline. Mass Ave. to Broadway inbound and Broadway to the MIT power plant outbound will be restricted to 25 +/- 3 MPH because of the sharp Main St. curve and restrictred sightlines. Past Cambridge St. outbound and to Medford St. inbound will be 25 +/- 3 because of the sharp curve and junction at the Fitchburg Line. That leaves a decent 3/4 mile stretch between BU Bridge and Mass Ave. where it can push 35-40 MPH and a short half-mile stretch between Broadway and Cambridge where 30-35 is doable. Except strike that last one if Kendall's going to have a stop because then all the space to/from Binney is station approach.

Main and Broadway, since they're joined partially at the hip on that block and are on the absolute slowest segment of track...will be the crossings of most concern for traffic queues. Much moreso with a station stop there. Mass Ave. isn't good, but it isn't amplified by as many different factors as Main and Broadway. Mass Ave.'s furthest-reaching impacts to gate queues are the #1 and CT1 buses not making schedule because they get caught up in too many ripples around the gates (and that's a big problem in itself because the daily bus ridership dwarfs the wildest-dream DMU ridership by a wide margin).

Also, this isn't the Fairmount Line where the DMU's have a chance to hit 40 or 50 between every stop and show their stuff at more conventional commuter rail track speeds. And this isn't a reference comparison between a stock DMU vs. an under-powered F40PH weakling struggling like hell with wheels slipping like crazy at getting 7 packed bi-level coaches started out of a dead stop at Yawkey. 0-25 MPH in a DMU vs. 0-25 MPH in an HSP-46 on a line that for all practical purposes never gets above that is an acceleration difference that's less than the built-in schedule margin for variable station dwells and door closing times. It's zero. The Worcester train and the DMU will get minute-for-minute the same schedule on the Grand Junction because the difference doesn't even round up to 1 tick on the clock.



There is no magic DMU re-study that's going to produce a different result. The Grand Junction Transportation Study with Worcester push-pulls is the baseline for railroad speeds, railroad gate timings, and railroad grade crossing queue management. And Cambridge had big problems with that one the first time around. There's no rock to look under for whatever alchemy is going to make it spit out a different result. FRA-compliant DMU pixie dust does not work that way.

 

[Matthew]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I thought I heard Deval say "Assembly Square" and that caught my ear but I let it go. Weird. He did make sure to praise the work of Tim Murray the "Lieutenant Governor" (I shit you not) in making West Station "happen". Curious.

You know, Chicago has a lot more HRT grade crossings than just Skokie. I rode thru many grade crossings on Pink, Brown, Purple and Yellow lines on my tour this year. The trains don't stop or anything for the crossings, they blast right thru. Now I can understand that Cambridge is a uniquely whiny city and has a lot of heft to throw around. But maybe if it was approached properly it might not be impossible. I can understand F-Line's points and I wouldn't be surprised to hear them back off. Honestly, I'm more interested in making sure that we see every-15-minutes to South Station.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I thought I heard Deval say "Assembly Square" and that caught my ear but I let it go. Weird. He did make sure to praise the work of Tim Murray the "Lieutenant Governor" (I shit you not) in making West Station "happen". Curious.

You know, Chicago has a lot more HRT grade crossings than just Skokie. I rode thru many grade crossings on Pink, Brown, Purple and Yellow lines on my tour this year. The trains don't stop or anything for the crossings, they blast right thru. Now I can understand that Cambridge is a uniquely whiny city and has a lot of heft to throw around. But maybe if it was approached properly it might not be impossible. I can understand F-Line's points and I wouldn't be surprised to hear them back off. Honestly, I'm more interested in making sure that we see every-15-minutes to South Station.

FWIW...I do think the original study was absolutely manhandled. Tim Murray sprung that one on them by surprise without talking to anyone, and the community presentations were hasty and rushed. Murray's a Worcester guy...Worcester-North Station was his paean to his hometown, and he broke Rule #1 in Massachusetts politics: all politics is local. Nobody at the state pressed the flesh in Cambridge or MIT, so they were pissed off and in a mood to cockblock it on principle without hearing a word they said. It was savaged and basically D.O.A. before the final study report was issued in full. I find it hard to get too worked up about Cambridge/MIT's opposition...it was an appropriate response for the bypassed locals to assert their leverage on the process when it was the process that got fucked up. Ultimately it didn't matter what the project was when the process was handled with such incredible tone-deafness. Maybe if Patrick had picked up the reins after Murray got booed offstage things would've settled down and gotten to business. But he didn't; this was Murray's pet project, so it went down with him.


One of their biggest mistakes is that they just talked about the Worcester service. They did not say a word in their dealings with the city or MIT about what track upgrades they were going to do: the top speeds, the gate protection, the basic trackbed work and how good track has way better sound/vibration abatement than crap/left-for-dead track (which MIT was concerned about). It was basically...who cares if the daily 5 MPH, earth-shaking freight train is your only reference point...picture passengers on it because Uncle Timmy's got a cush gig at the Worcester Chamber of Commerce waiting for him!




Really, for 5 AM peak and 5 PM peak runs the impacts were reasonable. The study's a good read. 1 train movement every half hour. Nothing in the off-peak except the usual freight and non-revenue moves. Possibly room for some future Amtrak slots in that midday. Nothing needed whatsoever in the off-peak or on weekends because Orange from Back Bay matches the travel time from Beacon Park to North Station almost to the minute, and keeping Worcester frequencies robust to one terminal throughout the off-peak generated more total trips vs. divide-and-conquer to two terminals. And the study published the gate projected gate timings, which could be direct-compared to the freights, and detailed the level of track upgrades from which you can extrapolate conclusions about noise/vibrations.

They probably would've listened had Murray not been a complete dumbass about it. But he was an extra-achievement dumbass at how he pitched it.


I think you could revive that GJ study and build your adjacent West Station platforms to run this AM/PM Worcester run. It's just...not gonna be a DMU at anything approaching Indigo headways. 15 minute headways is what makes it Indigo, not the shiny vehicle whose novelty will wear off as quickly as the Silver Line buses did if it doesn't run nearly as frequently as promised. Here...it physically can't run that frequently.

What was the major conclusion of that study? That except for the peak hours when the subway was overloaded, it was better to keep the Worcester Line frequencies ALL concentrated to ONE terminal so the frequencies remained stiff enough to carry good ridership. Back Bay + Orange Line transfer served the North Station needs better on a frequent commuter train vs. a direct on an infrequent commuter train. It's no different here.

If the GJ can only take a train movement every 20-25 minutes, they are better off putting all eggs in the SS-West DMU basket and not even bothering with North Station except for those 5 morning/evening Worcester trips (which can absolutely stop at West and serve the Zone 1A'ers when Orange/Red are at their most overloaded). Get on-the-dot 15 min. headways on the bread-and-butter SS-West routing maximizing those Orange transfers at Back Bay and Red transfers (for Kendall) at SS. Otherwise...if people want to get to NS or Kendall they're going to have way more frequent options from West walking up Malvern or Babcock Streets and catching the B to downtown vs. waiting 20 minutes to take a pretty slow 20-minute trip. And won't ever ride it. And the biggest ongoing story about the Grand Junction DMU will end up being the crisis summit that has to get convened over the #1 bus and all the times it blows its schedule at gate queues waiting for a DMU with a dozen people onboard to cross.

Frequencies > one-seat...every damn time. Frequencies are the service. There's no "close enough" here if track capacity dips below the ID'd threshold for what qualifies as real Indigo. People won't ride if they have to check the schedule for the next train instead of counting up minutes from the last train.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Boston Globe article; comments from a Matthew D.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/09/30/weststation/ZB4d0trnj1VGo66u7kkkZP/story.html

Herald article and video link

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2014/09/t_rail_rides_into_allston

 

[Equilibria]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

And that was explained too several pages ago on this thread. CTA is not a valid comparison at all. That's a rapid transit line, not an FRA railroad. You deal with common-carrier FRA rails, you deal with common-carrier FRA gate timings. Railroad gates can make no assumptions about what vehicle is running on the line--DMU, push-pull, or freight (of which this line does/would see all 3 on a given day)--and whether the train is going to make a station stop of keep cruising through, so the timings are always the same.

Yep. That's why I took my gate timing numbers from the MIT paper that took its numbers from (I assume) the GJTS. Even if it didn't, his analysis also included commuter rail, so I have to assume his 20s closing time was accurate. I assumed 10s opening from my memory of how long it takes these gates to open.

You're a railfan, so if you have a more accurate number in your head, please share and I'll redo the calculations. I don't think it will change the picture much, though.

EDIT:

This is a video of an FRA-compliant DMU on an FRA line clearing an intersection in Portland. Now, they never hold the camera long enough to see the gate come all the way up or start all the way down, but if you go to 12:00 (when the gate is down and the train is approaching), the gate is about halfway up by 12:15 when they cut to the next clip. You're arguing that it takes more than 3 times that long from when the gate begins to lower to when the cars begin to move. I simply don't think that's true.

And no, the DMU acceleration isn't going to make a big difference here because the curves keep the speeds low. BU Bridge is going to be restricted to 25 MPH (+/- 3 MPH) both directions because of the curve and incline. Mass Ave. to Broadway inbound and Broadway to the MIT power plant outbound will be restricted to 25 +/- 3 MPH because of the sharp Main St. curve and restrictred sightlines. Past Cambridge St. outbound and to Medford St. inbound will be 25 +/- 3 because of the sharp curve and junction at the Fitchburg Line. That leaves a decent 3/4 mile stretch between BU Bridge and Mass Ave. where it can push 35-40 MPH and a short half-mile stretch between Broadway and Cambridge where 30-35 is doable. Except strike that last one if Kendall's going to have a stop because then all the space to/from Binney is station approach.

This and everything that follows is simply irrelevant to the argument. The question isn't whether DMUs can accelerate faster than commuter rail. That matters when you're talking about fuel efficiency and travel times, but not when the issue is the time it takes a train to clear an intersection. DMUs have a spectacular advantage over conventional rail in that area for two reasons:

1) They are two cars long instead of 10; and
2) They are moving faster than the 5-10mph a conventional train would tend to.

Even if the train can only go 25mph on any segment of the GJ with a grade crossing for all of the reasons you listed, it's still way faster than a conventional train, and it's still way shorter. The grade simply makes no difference.

Even if it did, it's a difference on the order of seconds. Using what I believe to be good assumptions, I came up with 3 minutes of peak hour gate closure. Even if the gates take twice as long to close and to open and the train goes half as fast across the road, that's still only 6 minutes of closure time.

Because cars queue the same for a train crossing or a stoplight, it's the same exact thing as a signalized intersection. If Cambridge decided to signalize Albany St, with its approximately 15-20 minutes per hour of red time, would you be saying it would cause carmageddon? Would you be claiming that the 1 Bus would be ruined by that?

Again, you can criticize this from a demand perspective and from many other angles, but traffic simply isn't one of them. The math is against you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7S-lHtvk3o

 

[Arlington]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I'm going to guess that if they can't get the gates to go up/down quickly with an FRA-compliant signal system, then they'd also have the option of having a human in a hut push a button when the DMU has cleared, so at least the gates spring up after each train (even if they have to go down FRA-early, they won't have to go up long-train-late or FRA-late)

Not cheap, obviously, but it's done at W. Medford, where the Lowell is on 15 min headways (4 TPH) at rush hour and is grade-crossing a busy rush hour road (Rt 60).

 

[Shepard]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Did the press conference give any indication of whether the now-proposed GJ segment would be double tracked over the bridge?

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Did the press conference give any indication of whether the now-proposed GJ segment would be double tracked over the bridge?

I'm going to say no considering that if you read what the Governor said it's obvious they don't really have a serious plan. The whole thing was a show (nothing wrong with that) but it's obvious they just picked up a couple ideas floating around and threw it in the speech with no regard for the practicalities of what they were proposing.

I'd say forget the North Station/Assembly line... that alone would take a multi million dollar study and possibly end up costing just as much to make practice as the whole I-90 realignment. Get MIT on board and see if they will throw down 1/3 the cost to bury the GJ.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Also reading 2020 seems so far off and futuristic but then I realized that's really only 5 1/2 years away... which makes 2020 seem so less cool sounding

 

[Matthew]

It's depressing that's what it is (getting old). 2020 used to be the far future.

Speaking of two tracks on the GJ, I am hearing informally that the second (unused) berth on the bridge may be "structurally deficient" to the point where the engineers wouldn't even want to reuse it for ped/bike without replacement. Make of that what you will.

 

[George_Apley]

It's depressing that's what it is (getting old). 2020 used to be the far future.

Speaking of two tracks on the GJ, I am hearing informally that the second (unused) berth on the bridge may be "structurally deficient" to the point where the engineers wouldn't even want to reuse it for ped/bike without replacement. Make of that what you will.

I imagine that the bridge will need to be completely rebuilt if it's going to ever be regularly used for passenger service.

But man, I don't like this DMU to North Station plan at all...

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I'm going to guess that if they can't get the gates to go up/down quickly with an FRA-compliant signal system, then they'd also have the option of having a human in a hut push a button when the DMU has cleared, so at least the gates spring up after each train (even if they have to go down FRA-early, they won't have to go up long-train-late or FRA-late)

Not cheap, obviously, but it's done at W. Medford, where the Lowell is on 15 min headways (4 TPH) at rush hour and is grade-crossing a busy rush hour road (Rt 60).

All of the crossing tender positions on the system are legacy. The one in West Med, the one at Greenwood, the one on Route 1A in Beverly on the Rockport Line...those have been around in some cases since before the T existed with every attempt at getting rid of them ensnarled in town-level red tape. They aren't creating new crossing tender positions. They're happy to have been withering enough in their past elimination attempts to knock the tender roster down to these last stubborn grandfathered few at locations where the host towns fight the hardest. There is no way in hell they are opening Pandora's Box by creating new ones. Set that precedent and they start getting bills rammed through the Legislature left and right creating new tender positions in every suburb that wants a quiet zone at a crossing that doesn't qualify for a quiet zone through conventional means. Terrible idea. It cedes control of a strictly-ops function to the whims of local politicians. It's bad enough the state has no jurisdiction over town-control traffic lights near a grade crossing when some alderman wants to shave 15 seconds off his commute. They don't need to be giving a measure of control to the towns to force a tender installation then pressure and bully for a quicker trigger finger on the "up" position to get another 4 seconds shaved off. That is A Really Bad Idea™.


Here's how the extra human element and political element manifests itself: tender at center of unrelenting pressure to mind the stopwatch develops a quick hook. Pressure and time modifying behavior. Bicyclist coming at full-clip 200 feet away with earphones blasting sees rear of train crossing, assumes gates will be going up soon. Locks eye on the gates and treats train as past-tense. Brake-or-cruise split decision predicated on whether the gates start moving within braking distance. Itchy-trigger tender releases the switch early, biker hedges on "cruise", smacks back edge of train or gets front wheel entangled in rear coupler...thrown into middle of the street. Now, no car is harmed and no pedestrian on-foot is harmed by the train because they can't physically move fast enough to get there before the train has exited. But this guy is taking a nice trip to the emergency room. The first motorist who floors it at at gates-up is immediately slamming the brakes at the flailing cyclist hitting the pavement in the middle of the street, and leadfoot possibly gets rear-ended by the guy behind him who floors it in-tandem but can't see the cyclist. And that tender who the alderman makes it an extra-special point to get out of his car and yell at and intimidate at least once a week is losing his pension, appearing on the evening news, getting his fellow co-workers harrassed on camera by Hank Investigates, and getting hauled into court. With the T getting slapped by lawsuits from the biker, Larry Leadfoot in the rear-ended car, and Lenny Leadfoot in the car that did the rear-ending (though Lenny's suit probably gets dismissed).

All in a situation that would not exist as any possibility whatsoever if consent had not been voluntarily granted...then perverted...to lather another layer of human error onto train ops.


Now relocate this scenario from Montserrat station to Kendall Square and play the odds.

The T really should be telling West Medford: "We will install maximum-protection quadrant gates like they use for the Acela in Connecticut, and you will GTFO of our faces about us removing the tender". But they aren't empowered to do that because somebody's state rep will immediately be on-scene with a Wicked Local reporter in tow to stand in the middle of the road and angrily gesture at the crossing for the photo op. Then introduce a bill in committee to make the West Med tender legal and binding.

Nope. They'll keep a wide berth around their legacy tenders and not poke the dynamite monkey into setting new fires, thank you. If it doesn't work at automated timings at FRA spec...it doesn't work. Move on.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Can we rename this thread to "West Station - Olympic Village" since that's the only reason any of this project is taking place?

 

[davem]

Can we rename this thread to "West Station - Olympic Village" since that's the only reason any of this project is taking place?

You've got it backwards. West Station is happening because they are replacing the structurally defecient viaduct and myriad crazy bridges and ramps thanks to open read tolling allowing the curve to be straightened. The thread title is very much appropriate.

 

[Arlington]

West Station is happening because they are replacing the structurally defecient viaduct and myriad crazy bridges and ramps thanks to open read tolling allowing the curve to be straightened. The thread title is very much appropriate.

I agree. Harvard and the Turnpike had a no-Olympics-needed land swap deal almost as soon as the state closed its purchase of the line from CSX (Harvard having earlier bought the rest)

The rail component has taken a little longer, but is still very much a non-Olympic thing.

To recap:

The Turnpike's interest is shedding all the expensive-to-maintain structures--most of which are nearing the need for full-rebuild and replacing all the bridges and toll plazas with just a e-toll gantry and simple offramps, straightening the Pike itself and ditching a lot of circuitous routings.

The State & City like returning all the land underneath to uses that can power economic growth and even expediting car trips with a straighter pike, no toll booths, and simpler network connections. Boston might not get taxes from Harvard, but it'll probably get some PILOT payments.

And Harvard's non-Olympic interests are well known too: attach more of the yards it owns to its Allston campus and serve it with a street grid and get it served with transit. Initially, this powered the land swap, but the logic, extended, leads pretty quickly to a need for transit. Which is why Harvard (and not the Olympic committee) has pledged the next 1/3

Recent Insights on West Station:

Infill Stations are all the rage in transitland since they offer good bang-for-buck. And the MBTA likes getting the most out of its purchase of the Worcester Line from CSX. So the state putting up 1/3 of the cost is a good deal (and a win Worcester/Framingham, which gets easy access to "Harvard" jobs)

And then there's Boston University. Asked by a reporter, the Governor answered "no comment" to the question of whether BU is the obvious party to pay the "other 1/3rd" I have to believe that even now arms are being twisted to get BU to think of West Station as a natural place for gateway, and research, and vertical growth.

For me, the final 1/3 should come half from the City of Boston and half from BU. BU can't really afford 1/3...it doesn't have a huge speculative parcel whose access is at stake like Harvard does...but 1/6th of the Station's cost seems fair.

And then Boston, who is way behind on the trend of cities (NYC, Chicago, & DC) that are spending their own money to upgrade their urban transit at key places. Boston should pay 1/6th just for the brand polishing that comes from getting "Boston West Station"