I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

[navigator4]

Magic Wand? We're talking about spending $1B+ to develop an area of vacant land that's the size of the Back Bay. And we're going to re-route a mainline interstate and multiple railroad lines in the same process.

Excuse my ignorance, but why is the Commonwealth paying for this? It seems like the only goal is to create open, developable space for a private landholder (here, Harvard University). How is it in the public interest to spend tax dollars to benefit Harvard?

 

[fattony]

Excuse my ignorance, but why is the Commonwealth paying for this? It seems like the only goal is to create open, developable space for a private landholder (here, Harvard University). How is it in the public interest to spend tax dollars to benefit Harvard?

Because the land cannot be developed to maximum tax-paying potential as-is. With the ramps cleared out, there will be many times more developable land. This land will also be vastly more TOD oriented with the CR station and new street grid, which is clearly in the city's interest.

 

[bigpicture7]

^ Also, wasn't construction of West Station supposed to be part of the urban ring transit concept (e.g., related to using the Grand Junction as a circumferential transit line)?

Was the name "west station" used consistently to refer to the same thing in both concepts, or is it just a naming coincidence?

 

[FK4]

I definitely wouldn't consider Babcock St. "BU's campus". It borders the campus. BU owns buildings on the west side, but I believe the only high-traffic facility for students is the brand-new New Balance Field. It's not like this is Harvard Yard.

The logic that applies to people should apply to institutions. If you want a quiet, traffic-free campus, go to Wellesley. If you're going to sell yourself as an urban school, that comes with some noise and traffic. Tough noogies.



Your logic assumes that the streets stay narrow and the intersecting road plan stays as-is. In that case, you're right. Ideally, though, a Malvern connection could involve a full redo at Packard's Corner into a four-way intersection with a wider road continuing down Malvern. Take the parking garage down. Shift the baseball field onto the parking lot and build a structure there to replace the spaces. Buy that last property to change elevation.

Magical thinking? Sure, but they're doing much more large-scale stuff on the other side of the tracks. This is about remaking a neighborhood.

Exactly.

These proposals are getting more absurd by the minute. Some examples:

1) We're supposed to obliterate basically the only grocery store in the area, and one directly on the green line.

2) We're not just going to redo the rail yard (a huge undertaking in of itself), we're also going to redo the whole other side of the proposed station as well even though that area isn't a blank slate. I'd also note that the Planned Parenthood building is next door to the supermarket, and good luck getting pols to run them out as well.

3) BU is going to willingly give up the relatively new tennis center they built and the brand new lacrosse field as well. They're also going to be cool with a massive ramp blocking access to the Case Gym in order to get traffic from West Station down to Babcock.

4) Lastly, we're going to completely redo Packards Corner which I will note includes the tracks for the B line.

Look, whoever has the magic wand to get this all done, can I please borrow it for 5 minutes in order to put an addition or two on my house?

The problem is these streets were never planned to be connected as when they were laid out (I believe around 1900) the rail yard was already there. Also I'll point out there are several residential apartment buildings on Malvern that you're also going to have to deal with.

Nope. Stop saying "magic wand". No, this is not just drawing lines on a map a la crazy transit pitches and "oh this line would look great connecting here". This is a project that will cost over a billion dollars to create an entirely new neighborhood, reroute a major artery and rebuild a portion of an interstate highway. Oh, and reroute and reconstruct a rail yard and build a new commuter rail station. Tell me about that magic wand?

Simply because you have an opinion that this would be an intractably difficult project because Babcock is narrow and so is Malvern is no excuse for seriously studying a connection given the significance of this project and the extreme lack of connectivity around two critical areas. The fact is that a large part of the reason this isn't being done is because BU wants their little turfdom, which is understandable from their perspective but not a justifiable reason for a very serious consideration of overriding them on this.

You can go fullsteam ahead on here about blowing up arenas and courts and supermarkets in an effort to support your opinion; I am asking for a SERIOUS design study of exactly what would be entailed. Nobody is going to be blowing up major new BU buildings, but if you're talking about the layout of Packard's corner (a disaster of an intersection that has needed redesign for decades) or the location of a supermarket parking lot as preventing something of this importance, I'll wait to here results of a formal study before believing anything I see on here. If the study refutes the possibility, so be it... but I think at bare minimum, a bus connection is critical and should be very, very seriously considered regardless of cost.

 

[dwash59]

Excuse my ignorance, but why is the Commonwealth paying for this? It seems like the only goal is to create open, developable space for a private landholder (here, Harvard University). How is it in the public interest to spend tax dollars to benefit Harvard?

I don't see how anyone can claim this only impacts Harvard. If you ever walk this stretch, you realize it is one of the most horrid pedestrian experiences in the city. There is a whole neighborhood of folks for whom this project will be a major improvement to their quality of life.

There are major traffic issues that for suburbanites headed to Central and Kendall Squares. That has nothing to do with Harvard.

And why would anyone want to rebuild it in the old configuration? That would be unnecessary as it would just be replicating all the lane layouts that were necessary for toll booths.

There is a viaduct. It needs to be replaced. We can rebuild in a way where the pike is straightened, improving the quality of life in a neighborhood, giving fast transit to downtown for residents via commuter rail and bus, improving the connections into the street network for those heading to Cambridge, etc. Why would we want something different? Make life worse for everyone just so Harvard can't develop their land?

 

[bigpicture7]

In short: sometimes partnerships between landowners and gov't can actually result in net benefit for everyone.

 

[Rover]

As I've said several times, I'm all for a bus connection, with one BIG caveat...

How do you make the connection? Babcock and Malvern dead end at the tracks on the same level. If West Station is a platform above the tracks, there's little real estate to build the ramp on either street without completely blocking Ashford (cross street) which is the street that both the tennis center and lacrosse field empty out on. You'll also be putting a ramp 2 feet in front of the front door of a new apartment complex on Malvern, or in front of the Case Gym and lacrosse field on Babcock.

Of course I'm all for a study, but don't reflexively blame BU for some legitimate concerns. I don't see how they have the room to make the connection and handle the traffic getting onto Comm Ave.

 

[tangent]

^ Also, wasn't construction of West Station supposed to be part of the urban ring transit concept (e.g., related to using the Grand Junction as a circumferential transit line)?

Was the name "west station" used consistently to refer to the same thing in both concepts, or is it just a naming coincidence?

Same thing... hopefully in the planning they are maintaining room for two tracks when they rebuild the connection to GJ.

 

[tangent]

As I've said several times, I'm all for a bus connection, with one BIG caveat...

How do you make the connection? Babcock and Malvern dead end at the tracks on the same level. If West Station is a platform above the tracks, there's little real estate to build the ramp on either street without completely blocking Ashford (cross street) which is the street that both the tennis center and lacrosse field empty out on. You'll also be putting a ramp 2 feet in front of the front door of a new apartment complex on Malvern, or in front of the Case Gym and lacrosse field on Babcock.

Of course I'm all for a study, but don't reflexively blame BU for some legitimate concerns. I don't see how they have the room to make the connection and handle the traffic getting onto Comm Ave.

Also, the pedestrian connections need to fit... and it looks like the plan/option was for a pedestrian connection with ramp at the end of Malvern and a station entrance with elevators and stairs at the end of Babcock. Personally I don't see Malvern as a good option considering the narrow space, but you could conceivably put in a bus lane there instead of or with a bit of widening in addition to the pedestrian ramp they were looking at doing.

I think if Mass DOT goes with the at-grade option for the Pike and Rail then you could see Babcock with grade change to extend down a road overpass there and then you shift the station entrance to the West side of Babcock.

 

[Rover]

Also, the pedestrian connections need to fit... and it looks like the plan/option was for a pedestrian connection with ramp at the end of Malvern and a station entrance with elevators and stairs at the end of Babcock. Personally I don't see Malvern as a good option considering the narrow space, but you could conceivably put in a bus lane there instead of or with a bit of widening in addition to the pedestrian ramp they were looking at doing.

I think if Mass DOT goes with the at-grade option for the Pike and Rail then you could see Babcock with grade change to extend down a road overpass there and then you shift the station entrance to the West side of Babcock.

That might work, or looking at the map and using your suggestion about the possibilities if the Pike is at grade, they could run a bridge from west station behind the dorms and arena over to Harry Agganis way for a bus connection. That would work a lot better IMHO as there's a light there, its a wider street and you can got right or left on Comm Ave or straight into Brookline. A much better plan IMHO.

 

[navigator4]

Because the land cannot be developed to maximum tax-paying potential as-is. With the ramps cleared out, there will be many times more developable land. This land will also be vastly more TOD oriented with the CR station and new street grid, which is clearly in the city's interest.

Is the Commonwealth going to collect $900M-$1B extra in tax revenue due to this development? Likely not for many, many years. The Commonwealth needs to start acting like a business and only making investments that will pay off.

 

[navigator4]

In short: sometimes partnerships between landowners and gov't can actually result in net benefit for everyone.

It seems like the benefit to Harvard is giant and the benefit to the tax payers is miniscule.

 

[Gameguy326]

Is the Commonwealth going to collect $900M-$1B extra in tax revenue due to this development? Likely not for many, many years. The Commonwealth needs to start acting like a business and only making investments that will pay off.

The state is not a business. It is not here to make a profit. It is here to improve the lives of its citizens.

 

[bigpicture7]

...The Commonwealth needs to start acting like a business and only making investments that will pay off.

Whoah. No sir/ma'am.

Government's job is to provide max value to society that can be achieved with a break-even profit (e.g., balanced budget). Businesses, on the other hand, aim to sell the minimum viable product while earning a maximum profit. Not diss'ing business...just saying it is not the same equation.

Now, fairness is a different issue. If Harvard is being treated with an unfair bias in their favor, then that's a problem.

But, as has been mentioned:
1) the viaduct needs to be replaced anyway. Why rebuild it in the same spot, which is optimized for NO ONE (Harvard or otherwise)
2) this project relates to numerous traffic and transit benefits for folks well beyond Harvard

So, if there's unfairness in Harvard's favor, let's hear it. But just because Harvard gets a benefit from this does NOT mean the government is failing.

 

[FenwayResident]

Is the Commonwealth going to collect $900M-$1B extra in tax revenue due to this development? Likely not for many, many years. The Commonwealth needs to start acting like a business and only making investments that will pay off.

Let's put some numbers up to your "acting like a business" requirement.

Property tax revenue is a perpetuity; the government will collect on developed land for as long as it exists.

The present (cash) value of a perpetuity can be determined by a simple formula:

PV(Perpetuity) = P / i

where P = annual payment and i = current annual interest rates

Therefore, at current low interest rates, a $1B tax break would only need to see tax receipts increase by ~$30M/year to break even. There would need to be either $2.8B in residential new growth, $1.2B in commercial new growth, or some combination of the two to get to $30M/year in additional tax receipts.

Could a $1B investment from the state spur $1.2B - $2.8B in new growth? Probably, but I don't know and don't really have any way to estimate that. But this simple analysis is also excluding other sources of revenue such as additional income tax and additional sales tax. My wager is that even from a "business perspective" this is a really good deal.

 

[bigpicture7]

Let's put some numbers up to your "acting like a business" requirement.

Property tax revenue is a perpetuity; the state will collect on developed land for as long as it exists.

The present (cash) value of a perpetuity can be determined by a simple formula:

PV(Perpetuity) = P / i

where P = annual payment and i = current annual interest rates

Therefore, at current low interest rates, a $1B tax break would only need to see tax receipts increase by ~$30M/year to break even. There would need to be either $2.8B in residential new growth, $1.2B in commercial
assessed growth, or some combination of the two to get to $30M/year in additional tax receipts.

So the question is - could a $1B investment from the state spur $1.2B - $2.8B in new growth?

Gotta be careful here with the math...the state needs to spend some large number of $$ either way to replace the decrepit viaduct. All of that money isn't directly an investment in development...the portion that could be considered an investment in development may be less...

 

[tobyjug]

Careful with the assumptions.
First, the Commonwealth will put up the project money, not the City. The Commonwealth does not receive the property taxes, these go to the City. These are different entities (duh) with different leaders, clients and objectives. The Commonwealth will need to see something out of this.
Next, can "perpetuity" be a factor in an equation if it presumes perpetually taxable land use? Given the non-profit landowners, it might be risky to assume that their use of their land will remain taxable.
A nice grid by the proponents balancing the cost of any super-adequate improvements against benefits to the Commonwealth would be interesting to see!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

West Station bus service

Busses maybe although I'm curious what the route would be (as in from where to where?).

I'd like to see 32 extended along 39's route along South St, Centre St, and S Huntington, then follow 66's route from there to Coolidge Corner, then follow Babcock to West Station to Harvard Sq.

We might also want Harvard to BU Green Line running along Babcock.

 

[dwash59]

Careful with the assumptions.
First, the Commonwealth will put up the project money, not the City. The Commonwealth does not receive the property taxes, these go to the City. These are different entities (duh) with different leaders, clients and objectives. The Commonwealth will need to see something out of this.
Next, can "perpetuity" be a factor in an equation if it presumes perpetually taxable land use? Given the non-profit landowners, it might be risky to assume that their use of their land will remain taxable.
A nice grid by the proponents balancing the cost of any super-adequate improvements against benefits to the Commonwealth would be interesting to see!

The Commonwealth is seeing a benefit, a replacement for the viaduct.

I mean, the no build option is $426.1 million. And then, you still have an old ass viaduct that you have to replace in 2030 instead of 2020. That's a genius idea!

I have no idea what your complaint is. What do you want to be done differently?

 

[Arlington]

Let's put some numbers up to your "acting like a business" requirement.

Property tax revenue is a perpetuity; the government will collect on developed land for as long as it exists.

The present (cash) value of a perpetuity can be determined by a simple formula:

PV(Perpetuity) = P / i

where P = annual payment and i = current annual interest rates

Therefore, at current low interest rates, a $1B tax break would only need to see tax receipts increase by ~$30M/year to break even. There would need to be either $2.8B in residential new growth, $1.2B in commercial new growth, or some combination of the two to get to $30M/year in additional tax receipts.

Could a $1B investment from the state spur $1.2B - $2.8B in new growth? Probably, but I don't know and don't really have any way to estimate that. But this simple analysis is also excluding other sources of revenue such as additional income tax and additional sales tax. My wager is that even from a "business perspective" this is a really good deal.

The problem where is that the State makes the outlay and the City collects the property taxes. So the state is being asked to act like a benefactor rather than an investor.

What mystifies me is how the cities, out of learned helplessness, don't offer to accelerate projects like West Station through TIF / bonding of their future increased property taxes.