Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
Thank you everyone for all your feedback! It really helps a lot, there are silly things you don't notice when you dont have a proofreader or ten...
In no particular order, some responses:
A couple other thoughts
1) Rebuilding the pedestrian overpass that connects Franklin & Lincoln Street to Cambridge Street, such as this proposal for a Boston Marathon bombing memorial gateway
http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/boston-marathon-historian-wants-memorial-running-bridge
2) Connecting to the
Grand Junction Path for cyclists & pedestrians
3) Can Cambridge Street be reduced in width from its current configuration?
I can definitely include that. I didn't even know about that proposal!
2) Outside the scope, but the project certainly does not preclude that. I could certainly include the connection on the map though, particularly if it would get some support from more people.
3) I believe I have it at 72' which is 7'Parking|7'bike|11'Travel|11'Travel||11'Travel|11'Travel|7'bike|7'Parking. You could probably chop that down to 70' if you make each travel lane 10'6", but that can be worked out as the design progresses. It's only slightly wider than the section in Allston proper, and that width is to accommodate wide bike lanes.
How would you feel about having two versions of this plan - Phase One & Phase Two? This would differentiate what needs to be part of this MassDOT project, and what elements are made possible by this MassDOT project but could be built later.
For example, extending streets like Rena, Amboy, Windom, Seattle, and Hopedale, bringing Babcock from Cambridge St to Western Ave, etc. seem like they could be part of a Phase Two that are good to think about now but don't need to be built in this project.
Separating this into two (or more phases) might make it less controversial in at least two ways. One is stellarfun's comment about carving up Harvard land, and second is the opposition that will come from residents of Hopedale, Windom, etc who don't want more traffic on those roads. Perhaps making Phase One more public and Phase Two less public would lead to more support and less resistance.
What would you think of the orange local streets that are 100% necessary to be extended to be solid, and then dashed lines for the streets mentioned above? Or would residents still flip out?
Alternatively, I was thinking of having one ways reverse at Hefferan Street, so while residents living in that neighborhood could exit out, traffic could not get in. DO you think that would be palatable? They just extended a few existing streets through Charlesview by me over here, and it's been nothing but positive.
As for Babbock, Pleasant and Malvern, extending them will be important for circulation of traffic not clogging up Harvard Ave and pedestrian connectivity, a large part of this plan. Or is it specifically Babcock you believe would be an issue?
Harry, I really appreciate your feedback since you've got the ear of most Allston residents and a CRC board seat (which, btw, my instructor Jennifer Gilbert also sits on, the world's a funny small place).
Beautiful! A few comments on signs:
* MassDOT wouldn't have exit numbers on SFR, it would just say "EXIT" or nothing at all.
* All exit numbers in MA must be mile-marker based by 2020, so this project would have them from the start, probably. It's not a big deal, but it allows for you to give SFR and Storrow different numbers - 136 for SFR and 137 for Storrow.
* It might be nice from a wayfinding perspective to have "Central Sq." and "Allston" on the Cambridge St/Western Ave. signs. You have Harvard Sq. on the other ones. Maybe just "Allston" if space is tight.
Nitpicking, of course, but if you're going to include the signs, I figured I'd offer my two cents.
I did the signage primarily to make the project easier to understand for the general public rather than actual signs. It's how most drivers interact with the road. SFR being upgraded is why I used exit numbers, but of course they could be used however. While they will eventually switch to a mile based system, I decided to go with what people know. As for extra destinations, MUTCD suggests three or less destinations per sign, no more. Because of that and the fact this is more for presentation than actual signs, you've got the street names.
My only suggestion is that there should be signage for vehicles carrying hazardous materials heading eastbound on I-90 to use Exit 19A-B. Hazardous vehicles are prohibited from traversing the highway tunnels in Boston. I'm not 100% sure what the restrictions are currently for I-90, but if vehicles must exit the highway in Allston-Brighton, it would be thoughtful including the signage in your proposal considering how far you've come with it so far.
See above, its more for presentation.
Why not move the site of the possible commuter rail station in between Malvern and Babcock?
As currently configured, I've got a fifth track for reverse moves out of the storage yard so trains running around the wye won't foul the main line where a CR platform would go. However this could be rearranged, the CR station could go there as well. What would you think about putting in two station locations and change the label to "Possible Commuter Rail Station Sites"?
However, you essentially are carving up Harvard's land. How does this design benefit Harvard? IIRC, from the IMP, Harvard (and the city) intend this land to be used for tech-related business and industry, a re-creation of Kendall. Harvard characterizes it as being developed in a private-university partnership. In that context, a long-term nexus probably exists between this property and MIT property in Cambridgeport, which is where I assume MIT will go next in development. I could envision a bridge across the Charles linking the two areas. I do not know whether Harvard has talked with BU about any BU interest in some of this property.
The "carving up" of the parcels above Cambridge Street are based off of Harvard's IMP, with a few changes. So it's what they want. They haven't released anything firm on their plans for Beacon Park, but anything needs roads. The blocks are still quite large and could support development. I doubt the grid would be all built right away anyway, its just a way to show the potential. Based off Harrys feedback I am probably going to be "ghosting" in the majority of those roads anyway.
As for BU, IIRC they were in a bidding competition with them over the land and they lost, so there may be bad blood. A pedestrian bridge to MIT is always possible, but that's definitely outside the scope of this project.
A commuter rail storage yard should not occupy prime real estate.
Honestly, there is a 2% chance that the yard will be built, it's probably going to be in Widett Circle or Readville. The MBTA studied it and it was included on MassDOTs two drafts, so I included it here. But that would almost 100% be developed. If you look closely, I dotted an orange line across the yard to drive the point home (perhaps not bold enough). What if I had the CR yard lighter, showed the road across it regularly, and labeled it "possible location for CR storage yard"?
Is there still not a high speed left lane exit into a sharp curve? If so, unlikely to win approval. This would be a major design issue for trucks exiting the Piike to get to Cambridge.
The only left exit is getting off the EB pike onto Storrow, and that's more of an interchange than an exit. Or do you mean where exit 19A and 19B split at Babcock? In that case there is a longggggg deceleration lane, although it could be modified if the curve is still too steep. Since I'm not actually a traffic engineer, I didn't calculate curve speeds, and simply based them off existing roads.
