I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

From MassDOT Board meeting yesterday:

https://d3044s2alrsxog.cloudfront.n...13-joint-fmcb-massdot-allston-interchange.pdf

There will be a DEIR released by 12/6 (dated 11/30/17). Funding hasn't been lined up, but construction is tentatively scheduled for 2020-2025.

The DEIR alternative considers 3 throat alternatives, but it seems like they shanked the ones they didn't want, and I have a very hard time understanding how the road construction costs $457M for a viaduct and $353M for at-grade. The difference should be way bigger than that. I'm looking forward to Ari Ofsevit ripping this apart.
 
Equilibria said:
From MassDOT Board meeting yesterday:

https://d3044s2alrsxog.cloudfront.n...13-joint-fmcb-massdot-allston-interchange.pdf

There will be a DEIR released by 12/6 (dated 11/30/17). Funding hasn't been lined up, but construction is tentatively scheduled for 2020-2025.

The DEIR alternative considers 3 throat alternatives, but it seems like they shanked the ones they didn't want, and I have a very hard time understanding how the road construction costs $457M for a viaduct and $353M for at-grade. The difference should be way bigger than that. I'm looking forward to Ari Ofsevit ripping this apart.
Click to expand...

Was just reading through that... looking at page 17 I think they were including a lot of extra environmental permitting cost because they would have to fill in some of the Charles to make room to do it at grade and it completely eliminates the sloped riverbank with a wall instead. There will be a lot of pushback on that approach and a lot of remediation required.

Also this would require a longer viaduct for GJ to go over the surface road and the highway which offsets some of the savings, where today it just goes over the surface road and then goes under the highway.

Personally I think putting the highway at ground level makes a lot of sense and makes it easier to maintain in the long term, but that "throat area" is constrained.
 
5 year project huh? Man, the traffic on the Pike eastbound during those 400+ Red Sox games is going to be awful. Hour long rides the 6 miles from Newton to Boston will be the norm. Hopefully they can upgrade the commuter rail service during those 5 years.
 
Just imagine....

2014-10-Allston-Esplanade-CAMERA_1_-Aerial_10-2-2014.jpg
 
Im also in the boat where I think they should try to keep it at ground level. With the track record we have in MA we like to let things deteriorate until they're so bad that they have to be torn down and rebuilt. Thats just what we do. So knowing this I think if we keep it at ground level it will help us out a lot in the future so we don't have to tear it all down again in 50 years and rebuild. Do the extra work and go through the extra headache now so that way down the road we don't get stuck footing the bill (again) to rebuild the entire thing all over again. Just do it right the first time and then we can worry about other things. Not to mention if we do this we can probably fit a few more bridges over the highway connecting one side to the other to better stitch the areas on both sides together.
 
stick n move said:
With the track record we have in MA we like to let things deteriorate until they're so bad that they have to be torn down and rebuilt. Thats just what we do.
Click to expand...

For clarification, no amount of money prevents bridges from deteriorating. The money prevents them from falling down. Periodic mid-life rehabs can put off the end and extend life, but it's not like with more money a bridge lasts forever.

MassDOT is spending $800K per year on this thing to keep it safe. They aren't neglecting it.
 
I disagree completely. Im not saying bridges will last forever, but bridges and really all structures last a lot longer with scheduled maintenance than when they are left to the elements without being maintained. Repainting metal and patching cracked concrete will add decades of life to a structure. A rebar reinforced concrete bridge that cracks and then has the rebar left exposed to the elements is going to deteriorate very fast vs the concrete being patched and the rebar not being allowed to rust from within. Also metal structures that are allowed to rust without the rust being cleaned and repainted are not going to last anywhere near as long as the same bridge that is maintained.

You can see bridges all around Massachusetts with concrete that has cracked and fallen off of the bridge and now the rebar is exposed and rusting exacerbating the problem. Im not specifically saying only this structure is neglected Im saying as a whole in MA we seem to leave structures to deteriorate. If they had patched the concrete on many bridges in the state it would not allow the rebar to rust which is now deteriorating the structures from within. Structures that are maintained can last a very long time. Look at the Brooklyn Bridge. Its over 100 years old and still standing because it is maintained. Same with the Empire State Building, the metal is not exposed to the elements so the building can stand for very long periods of time. Some of the bridges we put up here are not maintained and are already falling down after 20 years because the salt on the roadways and water gets into cracks and rusts the rebar and cracks the structure from within. With constant maintenance we wouldn't have to keep replacing structures that are not even old. Look at the JFK train station, that thing is a rust bucket and already falling apart.

Thats why Im saying if we keep this at ground level its one less structure that we have to keep maintaining allowing the focus to be put elsewhere. Then eventually if its elevated we will have to replace it again in the future. If we have the option we might as well keep it on the ground so once its done its done.
 
Based on history I think the on-ground alternative for the Mass Pike is a no-go. I remember back in the early 60's when the Pike extension was first being proposed, the Turnpike Commission at the time wanted an at-grade location instead of a viaduct. The Cambridge NIMBYs said no, and it was dropped. I don't see why it would be any different today.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Based on history I think the on-ground alternative for the Mass Pike is a no-go. I remember back in the early 60's when the Pike extension was first being proposed, the Turnpike Commission at the time wanted an at-grade location instead of a viaduct. The Cambridge NIMBYs said no, and it was dropped. I don't see why it would be any different today.
Click to expand...

Why would the Cambridge NIMBYs have a say? The site is in Boston.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Based on history I think the on-ground alternative for the Mass Pike is a no-go. I remember back in the early 60's when the Pike extension was first being proposed, the Turnpike Commission at the time wanted an at-grade location instead of a viaduct. The Cambridge NIMBYs said no, and it was dropped. I don't see why it would be any different today.
Click to expand...

It is different today. In 1963 the Turnpike Authority proposed filling 8 acres of the river. Today's at-grade proposal does not add fill to the river.

https://books.google.com/books?id=H...s river mdc fill&pg=PA260#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
I know its not actually an option, but i still think it should be below grade between the bridge and beacon yards. The 'cost' of land consumption is undercounted in the other options.
 
CSTH said:
I know its not actually an option, but i still think it should be below grade between the bridge and beacon yards. The 'cost' of land consumption is undercounted in the other options.
Click to expand...

As someone who walks over the BU Bridge daily, I've often wished that I-90 was below grade here. Was the scenario ever explored for putting that road underground at the throat and moving Soldier's Field Road over on top of it? It would certainly add to the public realm by potentially reducing noise and opening up land for a better Allston Esplanade from the BU Bridge to River Street. I can't imagine the cost of such a project would be that much more than a viaduct and its subsequent maintenance.
 
All of them show partial filling in of the Charles. Its highlighted in red in the proposals. Its not much, but its there.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Kinda odd they don't have the tallest buildings along Storrow and the River.
Click to expand...

I am very confused by that image. It seems to show a whole host of streets "T"ing into Soldiers Field Road, when I thought the only new connection was for Cambridge Street?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top