I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

[stellarfun]

Because it would require taking BU land and BU said no. But it really is a lost opportunity.

Don't blame BU entirely, or even mostly.

Harvard owns all the land that would be used to extend Babcock or Malvern. To give an idea of Harvard's landholding, it owns the land under the Pike between 855-859 Comm Ave. on the east end, and Linden St on the west end. It even owns the land under Houghton, and paid Houghton a significant sum to help Houghton re-locate. The only land not owned by Harvard in these schematics is that under Soldiers Field Rd., which is owned by the Commonwealth.

 

[Equilibria]

Globe illustration:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ston-future/QzEBwhuHqMLhA4lV5cSaJP/story.html

I still don't think that the smaller bridge being $200M more expensive passes the smell test, and I'm surprised that Ari hasn't posted defending his idea when he's trashed MassDOT for similar tricks in the past (RBX). Hopefully that means he's actually talking to people.

 

[JumboBuc]

One thing i don't get is why they don't connect to Babcock street, and even maybe Malvern st. Two roads head directly towards them and then just end at west station.

It seems to me like eminent domain could be an appropriate tool to facilitate making this connection. Obviously you don't want to go there and ruffle too many feathers if you don't have to, but I'd love to see the Commonwealth push for it.

 

[dshoost88]

It seems to me like eminent domain could be an appropriate tool to facilitate making this connection. Obviously you don't want to go there and ruffle too many feathers if you don't have to, but I'd love to see the Commonwealth push for it.

1/3 of the funding for West Station was initially pledged by Boston University a few years back (article) with conditions that no north-south vehicular connections be made through the BU campus--apparently not even for bus service. It's unclear what ever came of that, except that the current road patterns proposed are consistent with BU's conditions that no vehicular connections be made through the campus (namely at Babcock & Malvern Streets).

From an urban planning standpoint, I'm conflicted on whether this is good or bad planning. On one hand, it protects the pedestrian-orientation that West Campus has taken baby steps to foster for years. But on the other hand, it's bad for vehicular, bus, and freight trips that have to circumnavigate around the campus and continue to choke Cambridge Street to the west or the BU Bridge to the east.

 

[stick n move]

You wouldnt even need eminent domain to connect those streets. I was not aware BU was leaving these streets disconnected on purpose. Not sure how I feel about that. If its that or West Station though I'd choose the station.

 

[Rover]

I think BU's right on this one. There's no way those narrow streets on West Campus can handle thru traffic. Babcock is bad enough as it is because it the only street that you can use to turn left down Comm Ave. Pedestrian traffic/bikes sure. Busses maybe although I'm curious what the route would be (as in from where to where?). Cars wouldn't work IMHO.

 

[fattony]

I think BU's right on this one. There's no way those narrow streets on West Campus can handle thru traffic. Babcock is bad enough as it is because it the only street that you can use to turn left down Comm Ave. Pedestrian traffic/bikes sure. Busses maybe although I'm curious what the route would be (as in from where to where?). Cars wouldn't work IMHO.

Agree to not allow cars, but the CR station will be a less effective hub without thru-running bus service. Not creating this bus connection will lock-in circuitous routes for another generation or 2.

 

[sm89]

Maybe it's time for someone to play the "emergency response route" card.

 

[bosdevelopment]

It seems to me like eminent domain could be an appropriate tool to facilitate making this connection. Obviously you don't want to go there and ruffle too many feathers if you don't have to, but I'd love to see the Commonwealth push for it.

Red Diaper Doper for sure.

 

[tobyjug]

From an urban design point of view, this looks like huge fun.

But can someone say whether the chief beneficiaries of the heavy public money being proposed are the two tax exempt gigantic landowners with a collective endowment in the scores of tens of billions?

Hopefully there is more public benefit than a little more "beach" space for the students.

I'd like to hear more about what's in it for the average city dweller as well as citizens of the Commonwealth.

 

[Equilibria]

From an urban design point of view, this looks like huge fun.

But can someone say whether the chief beneficiaries of the heavy public money being proposed are the two tax exempt gigantic landowners with a collective endowment in the scores of tens of billions?

Hopefully there is more public benefit than a little more "beach" space for the students.

I'd like to hear more about what's in it for the average city dweller as well as citizens of the Commonwealth.

The chief beneficiary is Harvard, not BU, but I get your point. Harvard can afford to spend a billion dollars on a building. This project will create enormous value for their property. They should be expected to contribute hundreds of millions for this. They won't, of course.

FWIW, their commercial land IS taxable, I believe, so the massive increase in the value of Beacon Yard will be taxed as long as that land is not used academically. Same as MIT's ownership of Volpe. MIT's paying for that project, though.

 

[tobyjug]

E,
If that's the case I wouldn't spend public dime one on anything other than improvements justified by good engineering practice, unless there is a massive contribution from Harvard. The "super adequate" proposals might increase City property tax revenue, which would be good for the City, and assumes taxable use. But even increased property tax won't compensate the Commonwealth for the money it spends (i.e. the entire project cost.)

 

[Equilibria]

E,
If that's the case I wouldn't spend public dime one on anything other than improvements justified by good engineering practice, unless there is a massive contribution from Harvard. The "super adequate" proposals might increase in property tax, which would be good for the City. But increased property tax won't compensate the Commonwealth for the money it spends (i.e. the entire project cost.)

It's a little more complicated than that. I think MassDOT isn't paying for a lot of these inner streets, and the major ones are necessary to access the Pike. A lot of the flyover ramps are deficient, and replacing them in kind locks in the current layout for 50 years.

They do indicate where infrastructure would need to be "built by others", meaning the City of Boston or Harvard.

The real problem here is that MassDOT has their backs against a wall by waiting well beyond the life of the viaducts to start this conversation. If you replace the viaducts, you need to do it in such a way that allows Turnpike access, doesn't impede/proscribe urban development on the site, and resolves the River St. Bridge bottleneck (the Storrow Underpass). Doing all of that represents the vast majority of the project cost. A few feeder roads is a drop in the bucket.

I believe Harvard should pay hundreds of millions for this project. I don't believe that the sections of the project that benefit them alone cost that much.

 

[tobyjug]

Thanks for the deeper look.
Harvard can play the "long game". Either today or for the life expectancy of whatever gets built. 50 years is nothing. (The "new Storrow Drive" seems like yesterday.)

 

[dwash59]

You wouldnt even need eminent domain to connect those streets. I was not aware BU was leaving these streets disconnected on purpose. Not sure how I feel about that. If its that or West Station though I'd choose the station.

Why do you think you wouldn't need eminent domain? Malvern street doesn't even run all the way to where the connection would be made, you would need to take that land from Barnstead to even put in a road. And Babock has several buildings at the same elevation as the tracks/pike, at least one of which would need to be taken and demolished to allow Babcock to run through the elevation of West Station.

 

[dwash59]

But can someone say whether the chief beneficiaries of the heavy public money being proposed are the two tax exempt gigantic landowners with a collective endowment in the scores of tens of billions?

What a weird grouping together of Harvard and BU's endowments, Harvard at $36 billion, BU at $1.6 billion. Or Harvard at $1.7 million/student and BU at $51,000/student.

 

[bigpicture7]

^ a more apt comparison, though I'd guess still in Harvard's favor, would be a comparison of their collective property values

 

[Proposition Joe]

Unless there is a good bus connection someone wants to propose I'm fine with keeping it at just bike and pedestrian crossings from BU to Beacon Park. But even then you could make a dedicated bus bridge and ban automobile traffic.

 

[tobyjug]

What a weird grouping together of Harvard and BU's endowments, Harvard at $36 billion, BU at $1.6 billion. Or Harvard at $1.7 million/student and BU at $51,000/student.

Not weird at all. Billionaire tax exempt landowners. Were there some other billionaire tax exempt land owners affected that I omitted?

 

[FK4]

All this talk about no cars crossing is just nuts. We need greater connectivity in Boston; it's one of the major problems in this city and this is one of the greatest crunch points. There is absolutely no reason to not have multiple crossings on this site, and the fact that a massive street grid is being laid out directly across the tracks from a major artery (Comm) — one that has severely limited access to the N Harvard/Cambridge St corridor —*without so much as a peep from the Globe's editorial page or anyone else is mind boggling.

Yes, Babcock and Malvern are small streets: well, so are Harvard and Linden. The likely net effect would be a reduction in traffic, not an increase, since overall pressure would be eased.

The bus situation on the 66 is just beyond outrageous and no amount of traffic jiggering and signal prioritizing will ever mitigate that nightmare loop thru Union Sq.

The site Harvard plans to build will be, among others things, yet another life sciences hub. There is very little connection between Longwood and here, particularly in the north to south direction. There should be robust connections for ALL modes of transit, with plans built in for a future spur off the Green.

Building a massive development and deliberately not connecting it to a major thoroughfare just because a local college wants to wall itself off is not justified, not in the city's best interest, and makes no sense whatsoever.