I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

navigator4 said:
How many stops are they planning to add to the Worcester commuter rail line? They already added Boston Landing. Soon its going to take 2 hours to get from Worcester to Boston. Only people with a Boston-centric view think screwing suburban commuters makes sense.
Click to expand...

That's what express trains are for.
 
tysmith95 said:
That's what express trains are for.
Click to expand...

Could they actually have express trains on any commuter rail line? My understanding is that most lines are no more than double tracked and even then it's only double tracked for portions of the lines.
 
Express train leaves a few minutes before the local train,

then, the frequency stretches out down the line.
 
mass88 said:
Could they actually have express trains on any commuter rail line? My understanding is that most lines are no more than double tracked and even then it's only double tracked for portions of the lines.
Click to expand...

The Worcester line already has express trains? They don't pass other trains, but for instance, the express 502 goes from Framingham -> South Station from 5:56->6:35, or 39 minutes. The local 508 leaves a few minutes later, and makes the trip from 6:04->6:58 or 54 minutes. So, the 502 takes 15 minutes less as it doesn't stop. And there's the 552 that leaves Worcester and has its next stop at Yawkey, which allows it to know another ~15 minutes off the schedule. Really, very few trains on the Worcester line serve all the stops on the line.
 
Although with the commuter rail platform, what makes the thing so damn elaborate that it costs 100 million plus to build? You just have the elevator, some stairs, and a concrete platform. Maybe a small shelter for the rain. How the heck does that all cost 100 million dollars to build?
 
It's sandbagging. The station has 4 tracks, but is planned for three platforms. Not only is the third platform unnecessary and expensive (by increasing required vertical circulation by 50%), the service actually works better with two, since cross-platform transfers between Worcester and Grand Junction are simple.
 
graft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graft_(politics)

Country Club Pinnacle

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
- Woodrow Wilson (1913)
 
tysmith95 said:
Although with the commuter rail platform, what makes the thing so damn elaborate that it costs 100 million plus to build? You just have the elevator, some stairs, and a concrete platform. Maybe a small shelter for the rain. How the heck does that all cost 100 million dollars to build?
Click to expand...

Read the NYT article on how unions explode the cost of public construction. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html

"Trade unions, which have closely aligned themselves with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and other politicians, have secured deals requiring underground construction work to be staffed by as many as four times more laborers than elsewhere in the world, documents show."

This is why it cost $100M to build a simple commuter rail platform in Mass.
 
Harry Mattison said:
WalkBoston and the Charles River Conservancy are proposing options to "unchoke the throat" and create wider paths along the river near the BU Bridge
https://twitter.com/WalkBoston/status/958686527231610882
Click to expand...

The Fill option is fine, but then if you go with the at-grade option for the highway and rail then that means an even narrower Charles River unless you widen the Charles on the other side.

Having another elevated structure to maintain sounds like a bad idea though, especially when the whole point of doing the throat area at-grade was to reduce short and long term costs.

An elevated "boardwalk" or pedestrian bridge just sets us up for another multi-million dollar sub project and sets us up with higher maintenance cost down the road. With additional fill in the river you at least get solid ground to work with which can go longer with just the cost of maintaining the paths and regular landscaping costs.

Ultimately if there is concern about reducing the width of the Charles, then I see some room on the Cambridge Side to widen the river an equal amount by a 10 to 20 feet over there with minimal effect on the use of the park.
 
tangent said:
Ultimately if there is concern about reducing the width of the Charles, then I see some room on the Cambridge Side to widen the river an equal amount by a 10 to 20 feet over there with minimal effect on the use of the park.
Click to expand...

They just spent a ton of money re-doing the Cambridge side of the river. No way this will happen.
 
mdd said:
They just spent a ton of money re-doing the Cambridge side of the river. No way this will happen.
Click to expand...

Ton of money is relative in a billion dollar project, but yes I see where the push back and costs would come from if they had to move the walking paths back 20 feet and redo the river bank on the Cambridge side... basically just the idea of involving Cambridge in a project in Boston causes me a headache... personally I think planners should look a lot harder at taking some space from BU on that side.

I see 10, 15 or maybe 20 feet of space on that side some of which can be gained just by eliminating some strips of landscaping or some parking. BU losing 15 or so parking spots and some throw away landscaping between the road and surface parking lots shouldn't cause the project to fill in more of the river than needed.
 
If we had some progressive political leadership in Mass we might spend more time on rethinking Soldiers Field Road and Storrow Drive and maybe... get rid of the pseudo-highway directly adjacent to the highway?
 
Proposition Joe said:
If we had some progressive political leadership in Mass we might spend more time on rethinking Soldiers Field Road and Storrow Drive and maybe... get rid of the pseudo-highway directly adjacent to the highway?
Click to expand...

Could maybe drop a lane on the West bound Soldiers Field Road side if you added a flyover on ramp to I-90 West... but that complicates things a bit.
 
The fact that there's a very real proposal to build 12 lanes of ground-level freeway hard by the banks of the Charles, in the middle of three very vibrant and growing university communities, and with zero transit component, in 2018, is astounding and outrageous.

I support the work and effort evident in the 'unchoke the throat' material, but I think the main event has to be finding a way to NOT build 12-lanes of ground level freeway hard by the banks of the Charles, in the middle of three vibrant and growing university communities.

This should be a southwest-corridor level public outrage & advocacy event.
 
CSTH said:
The fact that there's a very real proposal to build 12 lanes of ground-level freeway hard by the banks of the Charles, in the middle of three very vibrant and growing university communities, and with zero transit component, in 2018, is astounding and outrageous.

I support the work and effort evident in the 'unchoke the throat' material, but I think the main event has to be finding a way to NOT build 12-lanes of ground level freeway hard by the banks of the Charles, in the middle of three vibrant and growing university communities.

This should be a southwest-corridor level public outrage & advocacy event.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's get rid of the Turnpike entirely! Revolt! Revolt!
 
^ Should clarify - I'm talking about putting it at least partially below grade and/or dropping a lane or two from the pike / SFR combo. Southwest corridor probably an imperfect comparison.

I stand behind the broader point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top