I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

Poor comparison, this is about making existing transportation infrastructure better and not about creating new lanes of highway and inducing demand where it doesn't already already exist.

If you oppose ground level lanes then by default they are going to replace with elevated viaducts which are literally going to set in concrete the number of lanes and/or rail lines for the next 50 years. At least with a ground level build you have an opportunity for lane re-configurations or reductions as more affordable projects in the next 50 years if we can shift transportation demand.

Last I checked the favored by the locals and cheapest solution is grounding the Pike through that area.
 
tangent said:
Poor comparison, this is about making existing transportation infrastructure better and not about creating new lanes of highway and inducing demand where it doesn't already already exist.

If you oppose ground level lanes then by default they are going to replace with elevated viaducts which are literally going to set in concrete the number of lanes and/or rail lines for the next 50 years. At least with a ground level build you have an opportunity for lane re-configurations or reductions as more affordable projects in the next 50 years if we can shift transportation demand.

Last I checked the favored by the locals and cheapest solution is grounding the Pike through that area.
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough. I'll withdraw the SW corridor comparison.

A more apt comparison is to the I-90 extension in the seaport. We made a choice to build that underground between the Channel and the Ted. Like Beacon Yards, that area was at the time of construction mostly brownfield, with some well-depreciated adjacent buildings. Building I-90 in a tunnel there was an investment in making a dense, urban, attractive city neighborhood possible.

Here's what I'm asking for - at least put this thing in a trench so we can build some reasonable at-grade connections over it and ponder the possibility of future air rights construction. (Or a psedo-trench, where the roadway could be below current ground level, but the tops of the walls necessary for 13'6" clearance would be above current ground level, and consistent with a planned future-state district grade a few feet above that ... for example, like the ground level of the north end parks is a few feet above the ground level pre-big dig, in order to make vertical room for the tunnel ramps etc....).

But 12 lanes at ground level here is just not good use of this land.
 
On the viaduct alternative for the Pike, it seems the "throat" would be unchoked much better if the eastbound SFR lanes, instead of the stormwater BMP strip, were placed under the Mass Pike viaduct. The fist rendering is the current proposal, and the second rendering is my revision of it. Putting the stormwater BMP strip on the outside of the corridor alongside the trail would provide a nice buffer between the trail and SFR.

25180538477_397babe4d7_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
On the viaduct alternative for the Pike, it seems the "throat" would be unchoked much better if the eastbound SFR lanes, instead of the stormwater BMP strip, were placed under the Mass Pike viaduct. The fist rendering is the current proposal, and the second rendering is my revision of it. Putting the stormwater BMP strip on the outside of the corridor alongside the trail would provide a nice buffer between the trail and SFR.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be much nicer. Unfortunately MassDOT rejected that idea. From DEIR Appendix B:

The purpose of this memo is to document our evaluation of the alternative for the relocation of Soldiers Field Road
(SFR) that would place SFR under the proposed I-90 highway viaduct.
This SFR realignment alternative involves moving the eastbound barrel under the viaduct within what is known as
the “throat” area. The alignment of SFR and the proposed I-90 alignment are only coincident in this area for a
length of approximately 1,200 feet. Horizontal curves are required to transition SFR under the viaduct. These
curves must satisfy the parkway geometric standards. The remaining tangent portion of SFR that will be under the
viaduct in this alternative is therefore limited. The length that SFR eastbound can be placed under the viaduct is
approximately 850 feet (See Figure SFR1).
The objective of this alternative is to create a larger shift of SFR away from the river in order to create more usable
parkland. This alternative does create slightly more parkland in the throat area than the alternative where the
viaduct overhangs SFR (approximately 6 feet on average). However, there are several disadvantages of this
concept. This concept requires that the northernmost columns be located closer to the river, straddling over the
SFR eastbound lanes. This will require a wider median for SFR and the construction of new columns within the
current SFR footprint. This will most likely require lane reductions along SFR during construction of these columns.
In addition, the new columns in the median become a sight line obstruction for traffic along SFR, greatly reducing
stopping sight distance for this segment of SFR. Lastly, the majority of the required northernmost columns will also
be located directly over the existing MWRA sewer line as shown in the section in Figure SFR2. This sewer would
have to either be relocated or bridged by the new foundation both of which would be of great expense and impact
to SFR traffic during construction.
Based upon all of these disadvantages, this alternative is not recommended. The SFR relocation alternatives
where the viaduct overhangs SFR is preferred.
 
Thanks for the citation from the DEIR. I think the objections in the DEIR are lightweight and could be solved.

"...lane reductions along SFR during construction" seems like an acceptable short-term impact. Why does everything have to be ruled by cars? Narrowing SFR to one lane in each direction during construction wouldn't be the end of the world.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Why does everything have to be ruled by cars? Narrowing SFR to one lane in each direction during construction wouldn't be the end of the world.
Click to expand...

MassDOT will have to narrow SFR to one lane during construction whether 2 lanes of SFR moves under the viaduct or not.

Your comments to MEPA could include asking for a more complete analysis of the cost to relocate the sewer line to under the new parkland. Regarding the sight-line obstruction it could also be noted the Storrow Dr inbound goes into a tunnel at Clarendon St which seems to operate adequately. Would the sight line issues at the viaduct be any worse than that?
 
One thing that really bugs me (and please correct me if this has changed) is that MassDOT wants to rebuild this stretch of the Mass Pike with 4 lanes plus a wide shoulder on the inside and outside. Today it's 4 lanes with very narrow shoulders, throughout this entire stretch within the City of Boston. They claim they need the new wide shoulders/breakdown lanes to meet the interstate standards and for safety, which may technically be true, but at some point in the past, someone decided that they weren't so important that we need them today. The highway could have easily been 3 lanes each direction with nice wide shoulders within the existing right of way, but someone decided that capacity is more important. MassDOT needs to make up their mind. They can't have it both ways. Either you want capacity or you want wide shoulders/breakdown lanes. Widening the existing highway is not an acceptable solution.
 
cden4 said:
One thing that really bugs me (and please correct me if this has changed) is that MassDOT wants to rebuild this stretch of the Mass Pike with 4 lanes plus a wide shoulder on the inside and outside. Today it's 4 lanes with very narrow shoulders, throughout this entire stretch within the City of Boston. They claim they need the new wide shoulders/breakdown lanes to meet the interstate standards and for safety, which may technically be true, but at some point in the past, someone decided that they weren't so important that we need them today. The highway could have easily been 3 lanes each direction with nice wide shoulders within the existing right of way, but someone decided that capacity is more important. MassDOT needs to make up their mind. They can't have it both ways. Either you want capacity or you want wide shoulders/breakdown lanes. Widening the existing highway is not an acceptable solution.
Click to expand...

You can't rebuild a highway and just decide that "eh, safety doesn't matter so much". Also, the reason shoulders are important isn't just safety. It also gives disabled vehicles a place to pull off the road, which prevents crashes and breakdowns from causing traffic jams.

This entire conversation is just ridiculously vindictive. Providing infrastructure that works is the goal, with respect to everyone. People seem to want MassDOT to throw $110 Million out the window for a West Station that's unsupported by proper services but building a safe highway is "not acceptable?" And shutting down 2/3 of Storrow Drive for 3 years is? Give me a f-ing break.
 
Equilibria said:
This entire conversation is just ridiculously vindictive. Providing infrastructure that works is the goal, with respect to everyone.
Click to expand...

Respectfully - building (and re-building) a great city is the goal. I recognize that infrastructure is critical and not easy, and that money doesn't grow on trees.

But I think in 2018 its totally appropriate to have a spirited discussion about how much money and space to give to freeways in a dense urban environment (and about how much money to spend burrying or otherwise hiding those freeways, in the context of other priorities).
 
Also, on a different note, it continues to amaze me that the rest of I-90 through the fens and back bay has granite curbs.
 
I'm not arguing that they should build an unsafe highway. If they think breakdown lanes are important, fine, make I-90 three lanes instead of four. But widening the highway will have a negative impact on everything around it, and it's already done enough damage to the urban fabric. We should be trying to lessen that impact, not make it worse.

Regarding West Station, you HAVE to build transit before development or you can't really have transit-oriented development. Look at how they do it in other countries. You'll see a subway station pop up in practically the middle of a field, and within a few years a new neighborhood is built around it. When you don't have the transit to begin with, you get too many cars and too much parking. And once that happens, it's hard to fix it after the fact.
 
cden4 said:
I'm not arguing that they should build an unsafe highway. If they think breakdown lanes are important, fine, make I-90 three lanes instead of four. But widening the highway will have a negative impact on everything around it, and it's already done enough damage to the urban fabric. We should be trying to lessen that impact, not make it worse.
Click to expand...

If I-90 can support 3 lanes in each direction through there, maybe. Study that. But it's still the most important transportation artery in Boston. Not any rail line. The Turnpike is Boston's primary link to New York, and that's not changing for at least a few more decades. It needs to work.

cden4 said:
Regarding West Station, you HAVE to build transit before development or you can't really have transit-oriented development. Look at how they do it in other countries. You'll see a subway station pop up in practically the middle of a field, and within a few years a new neighborhood is built around it. When you don't have the transit to begin with, you get too many cars and too much parking. And once that happens, it's hard to fix it after the fact.
Click to expand...

Sometimes that happens, but sometimes this happens:

https://nextshark.com/caojiawan-subway-stop-china/

Those extensions in other countries come with investments in service - people don't move to a place because an edifice is there, they move because a service is there. I haven't seen any workable plan for service to West Station yet beyond "eh, the Worcester Line trains already stop at Boston Landing". I know there's plans for EMUs and Grand Junction, but you need the NSRL to be done for the latter and the MBTA needs to electrify the line for the former.

Spend your $110M electrifying the Worcester Line so that West Station CAN work. Or use it to build the bridge over the tracks with a bus shelter on it to create the desperately needed linkage. Or spend it pushing the Orange Line to Roslindale. All better investments than a white elephant West Station.
 
Re: Comments due Friday

Harry Mattison said:
Send them to alexander.strysky@state.ma.us
RE: EEA # 15278

Address the comments to
Matthew Beaton, Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs
Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office
Alex Strysky, EEA # 15278
100 Cambridge St Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

Please include your full name and mailing address

A sample letter is at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13n8IbgB8c-5tDIoXd3cvKwAVhwc21sMehcnxKpqCk-Q/edit?usp=sharing
Click to expand...

If you've done this, you might tweak it and ask for West Station to be included in the 2040 State Rail plan (you can also advocate for West Station & Electrification as down payments on NSRL)

Attn: Jennifer Slesinger - State Rail Plan
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4150
Boston, Ma 02116

or

Email: Planning@dot.state.ma.us

Visit the site: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/rail-plan
Read the draft plan: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/01/26/2018PubComm_1.pdf
 
Re: Comments due Friday

Arlington said:
If you've done this, you might tweak it and ask for West Station to be included in the 2040 State Rail plan (you can also advocate for West Station & Electrification as down payments on NSRL)

Attn: Jennifer Slesinger - State Rail Plan
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4150
Boston, Ma 02116

or

Email: Planning@dot.state.ma.us

Visit the site: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/rail-plan
Read the draft plan: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/01/26/2018PubComm_1.pdf
Click to expand...

You can advocate for it, but they've been pretty clear that the Rail Plan doesn't speak to MBTA projects, which West Station is...
 
CSTH said:
Ok fair enough. I'll withdraw the SW corridor comparison.

A more apt comparison is to the I-90 extension in the seaport. We made a choice to build that underground between the Channel and the Ted. Like Beacon Yards, that area was at the time of construction mostly brownfield, with some well-depreciated adjacent buildings. Building I-90 in a tunnel there was an investment in making a dense, urban, attractive city neighborhood possible.

Here's what I'm asking for - at least put this thing in a trench so we can build some reasonable at-grade connections over it and ponder the possibility of future air rights construction. (Or a psedo-trench, where the roadway could be below current ground level, but the tops of the walls necessary for 13'6" clearance would be above current ground level, and consistent with a planned future-state district grade a few feet above that ... for example, like the ground level of the north end parks is a few feet above the ground level pre-big dig, in order to make vertical room for the tunnel ramps etc....).

But 12 lanes at ground level here is just not good use of this land.
Click to expand...


I am not a big fan of putting infrastructure below the water table, right next to a dammed tidal basin and the rail would require a gradual incline. At least with the ground level plan you can build the trench up rather than digging it out, which is roughly what the plan is.

A lot of rail and roads around Boston appear to be in trenches because the streets around them were built up afterwards. With the at grade option you can deck over the pike when and where it makes economic sense to do so and building up helps to mitigate against sea level rise and flooding risks.
 
cden4 said:
Regarding West Station, you HAVE to build transit before development or you can't really have transit-oriented development. Look at how they do it in other countries. You'll see a subway station pop up in practically the middle of a field, and within a few years a new neighborhood is built around it. When you don't have the transit to begin with, you get too many cars and too much parking. And once that happens, it's hard to fix it after the fact.
Click to expand...

Here here. Just build the bare bones platform at least AND make sure there are pedestrian connections over to BU and the green line. Boston Landing station cost $20 million. A similar West Station would probably be $25 to $30 million in ten years.
 
tangent said:
I am not a big fan of putting infrastructure below the water table, right next to a dammed tidal basin....
Click to expand...

...I think we've got that one more or less solved around here.... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top