I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

[odurandina]

Just curious. Putting the costs aside for 1 moment;

Would it be desirable to just have the Charles as a viaduct right here?

Or is my altitude sickness badly in evidence?

 

[Charlie_mta]

Basically all the cost of an elevated structure plus you need continuously working pumps to keep a major road out of the city from flooding.

Actually I agree with you. Why not just put the westbound Mass Pike lanes on a viaduct in the same location I show the westbound tunnel, and slip SFR under that viaduct? I read that the concern with this concept has to do with sight distance, but I'm a civil engineer, have designed highways and know that concern can be mitigated.

This would relocate SFR inland as I show on my drawing, but have a viaduct over the relocated SFR instead of a tunnel beneath it.

 

[tangent]

Actually I agree with you. Why not just put the westbound Mass Pike lanes on a viaduct in the same location I show the westbound tunnel, and slip SFR under that viaduct? I read that the concern with this concept has to do with sight distance, but I'm a civil engineer, have designed highways and know that concern can be mitigated.

This would relocate SFR inland as I show on my drawing, but have a viaduct over the relocated SFR instead of a tunnel beneath it.

Can mitigate just about anything with more engineering... To me the simplest and most efficient approach is the alternative that keeps most of the transportation infrastructure on-grade where practical. Comparing the total cost of an on-grade road or rail line to the cost of engineering and building something either elevated or buried.

You are still going to need road overpasses and a viaduct/bridge for the rail across the river to grand junction, but keeping the highway(s) and the commuter rail lines on-grade seems like a clear win on cost and maintenance (and gives you more flexibility to reconfigure in a more transit oriented future if you say need to add rail lines by reducing a lane of road then you can do so more easily).

Seems to me the benefits are worth filling in a modest amount along the bank of the Charles to get the additional width you need to make a nice path along the river. Given that whole area is already fill I think it makes sense to fill a bit more to get the best possible and most overall sustainable result.

 

[stellarfun]

First, I am convening an independent team of engineers, designers, and permitting experts to develop the best possible version of viaduct and at-grade options for the throat. This 90-day independent review began on Wednesday and is modeled on one that successfully brought fresh eyes to the MBTA Green Line Extension. The team will help people visualize the different options and document the benefits and challenges of each. We will also solicit public and stakeholder feedback before using this new information to select the preferred alternative.

Second, to address immediate transit needs raised by the neighborhood, we’ve worked with the City of Boston to launch a near-term transit planning process that will complement the city’s broader Allston/Brighton multimodal planning study.

From Secy Pollack op ed in the Globe.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...-plan-right/xgEhUnAn2dobTJDID6N9aP/story.html

 

[ErnieAdams]

Encouraging in some respects. But not exactly a reset of the kind that yielded results for GLX, at least not yet. Pollack dropped one paragraph into this that hopefully receives strong pushback, including from the teams that run the revised analysis:

And West Station? Many argue the state must build the large, multimodal station immediately so as not to discourage development in Allston and on Harvard University’s land holdings in the former Beacon Park Yards. The station cannot physically be built before 2025, when the Mass. Pike construction is scheduled to be completed. While it can be built soon thereafter, the point of the station is to support new regional bus and rail services — which no one has yet planned or committed to fund or provide.

Saying you're taking a fresh look at everything, then imposing a decade-long horizon on the component you didn't want to build for at least two decades before, doesn't strike me as being totally forthright. Yes, realistically, that's how long it might take for them to get their act together anyway. But if you take MassDOT at its word that a project in this large of an area, with this much completely vacant space surrounding it, couldn't possibly be phased to allow work to proceed on the station and the highway at the same time, then I have a crumbling viaduct in Allston I'd like to sell you.

ETA: And isn't the last sentence self-evident? It's correct that nobody has planned to fund or provide service to a station that doesn't exist yet. You got us there?

 

[Equilibria]

Encouraging in some respects. But not exactly a reset of the kind that yielded results for GLX, at least not yet. Pollack dropped one paragraph into this that hopefully receives strong pushback, including from the teams that run the revised analysis:



Saying you're taking a fresh look at everything, then imposing a decade-long horizon on the component you didn't want to build for at least two decades before, doesn't strike me as being totally forthright. Yes, realistically, that's how long it might take for them to get their act together anyway. But if you take MassDOT at its word that a project in this large of an area, with this much completely vacant space surrounding it, couldn't possibly be phased to allow work to proceed on the station and the highway at the same time, then I have a crumbling viaduct in Allston I'd like to sell you.

ETA: And isn't the last sentence self-evident? It's correct that nobody has planned to fund or provide service to a station that doesn't exist yet. You got us there?

Remember that the railyard itself is the construction site for the new Pike alignment, which is to run right through it. That would render it completely inaccessible from the north through the opening of the road network. It's not just a staging area, like it is this summer for the Comm. Ave. bridge.

Of course things could be phased, for more money and more time. It was also possible to do Government Center or the Comm. Ave. bridge in phases so that they never closed. MassDOT and the MBTA chose not to do that on purpose, to save money and hassle overall. Sec. Pollack is a big fan of "rip off the band-aid".

Also, plenty of planned stations have funded service. The whole of GLX does, for instance. If Harvard and BU and MIT and the Kendall Square businesses and MASCO said "this is the shuttle service we'd provide in 2025 and here's how much we're putting forward for it", that takes us a long way toward a realistic plan for what West Station is. Right now, it's a magical pony that will solve everyone's problems simply by existing, and that's not how transit works.

 

[ErnieAdams]

Not to simplify things in a project that defies simplicity, but the exact land in question will either be a railyard under construction as a highway, or a completed highway (dispensing with the notion that they would ever just start the station first, which obviously will never occur). It's not intuitive to me that this gets easier to stage when a new highway is built and in operation hard by the station site. The point is that the re-evaluation about phasing of the whole project, not just the highway replacement, should be allowed to take place without prejudgments about when things are or aren't possible. She sounds like she's trying to steer her department to a conclusion before the re-evaluation has started.

One wonders whether MassDOT can ever be brought around to the notion that this is an essential element of this project and the next several decades of the neighborhood's growth, and not just a "nice to have" add-on that can be sloughed off for the expedience of the highway replacement. In that respect, it seems that the window of opportunity to demonstrate the worth of this portion of the project has briefly reopened, and maybe for the last time. Your last point on proposed service is tricky, though, because anyone proposing service patterns for this station would have to be careful not to pull a Tim Murray and send Cambridge back into conniption fits (or Brookline or some other well-funded hair-trigger constituency), thereby preventing the political will from reaching critical mass.

 

[Equilibria]

Not to simplify things in a project that defies simplicity, but the exact land in question will either be a railyard under construction as a highway, or a completed highway (dispensing with the notion that they would ever just start the station first, which obviously will never occur). It's not intuitive to me that this gets easier to stage when a new highway is built and in operation hard by the station site. The point is that the re-evaluation about phasing of the whole project, not just the highway replacement, should be allowed to take place without prejudgments about when things are or aren't possible. She sounds like she's trying to steer her department to a conclusion before the re-evaluation has started.

It's impossible (and irresponsible) not to have some prejudgements about a project you've been studying for years. In any case, I think the same could be said of the West Station advocates: you have a prejudgement about what's a good idea, and any study that says anything else must be a conspiracy. Good government is about getting to yes between groups with competing interests, not conducting blank sheet studies until you get a set of experts that take your side.

One wonders whether MassDOT can ever be brought around to the notion that this is an essential element of this project and the next several decades of the neighborhood's growth, and not just a "nice to have" add-on that can be sloughed off for the expedience of the highway replacement. In that respect, it seems that the window of opportunity to demonstrate the worth of this portion of the project has briefly reopened, and maybe for the last time. Your last point on proposed service is tricky, though, because anyone proposing service patterns for this station would have to be careful not to pull a Tim Murray and send Cambridge back into conniption fits (or Brookline or some other well-funded hair-trigger constituency), thereby preventing the political will from reaching critical mass.

I think MassDOT definitely feels that transit is an essential element. They've demonstrated that. The question of whether the station opens in 2025, 2030, or 2040, and what service it provides when it does open, is just a part of the transit picture. We'll see what the study finds, but I suspect the vast majority of the transit in the neighborhood will be bus-based, even if this station sees Boston Landing levels of ridership.

 

[Semass]

It seems that a great deal of the difficulty and expense of the West Station full build is the platform serving the Grand Junction. This to me is what can be phased to later if not never. There are no plans for service here. I'm all for future-proofing but this seems like an unnecessary complication for the project. If the basic elements are there, and the eventuality is considered, new parts of a station can be added later. See New Haven State Street expansion for Hartford service.

 

[tangent]

It seems that a great deal of the difficulty and expense of the West Station full build is the platform serving the Grand Junction. This to me is what can be phased to later if not never. There are no plans for service here. I'm all for future-proofing but this seems like an unnecessary complication for the project. If the basic elements are there, and the eventuality is considered, new parts of a station can be added later. See New Haven State Street expansion for Hartford service.

I agree you don't need a platform dedicated to GJ, but you do need a heavy rail connection to service the existing need to periodically move trains around between the North and South. And I would say two lines (or maybe one line with a dedicated bus lane that could be converted later) makes the most sense at nominal cost difference of replacing the existing bridge that at least has space for two lines. And that means a new bridge/viaduct over the river and over the road. I don't see why there would need to be a separate platform at West Station for GJ versus just a switch to the a line that will eventually have a platform.

 

[tangent]

The point is that the re-evaluation about phasing of the whole project, not just the highway replacement, should be allowed to take place without prejudgments about when things are or aren't possible. She sounds like she's trying to steer her department to a conclusion before the re-evaluation has started.

Well she should be giving some guidelines on what kind of trades they are going to make... To me reducing costs, reducing disruption and minimizing total project time while meeting all the primary transportation, development and livability goals should all be on the table.

Too many times we oscillate between cost and minimizing some aspect like disruption and we end up wasting years of planning and then coming up with the most costly and most disruptive project in a plan that seems designed to maximize billable hours from engineering and environmental consultants and maximum complexity just to keep people moving dirt around.

One wonders whether MassDOT can ever be brought around to the notion that this is an essential element of this project and the next several decades of the neighborhood's growth, and not just a "nice to have" add-on that can be sloughed off for the expedience of the highway replacement. In that respect, it seems that the window of opportunity to demonstrate the worth of this portion of the project has briefly reopened, and maybe for the last time. Your last point on proposed service is tricky, though, because anyone proposing service patterns for this station would have to be careful not to pull a Tim Murray and send Cambridge back into conniption fits (or Brookline or some other well-funded hair-trigger constituency), thereby preventing the political will from reaching critical mass.

There in lies the problem. All the benefit goes first and primarily to Harvard... it is their land and the state and city approach seems very much like a long slow negotiation to get them to put more money in. I think everyone realizes that this could be a really great project. Basically the next Seaport scale development. (Which if you are Suffolk Downs or a Seaport Developer or North Point then you want to stall this as a competitor)

As a taxpayer I am not entirely sure if Harvard shouldn't be paying for the whole thing as the transportation case is really hard to make on its own merits. Basically the cost of maintenance versus the cost of the cheapest reconfiguration option. If this were Amazon, they would be getting tax breaks... but as a nonprofit University Harvard can already get tax breaks pretty much whenever it wants to move educational uses around to different properties.

As someone who just wants to see it happen sooner rather than later I am happy to count the increased property tax revenue towards the infrastructure costs in a partial TIF scheme, assuming they increase height/density and don't make too much of it non-taxable educational use.

I think this is a dance... a negotiation. I don't think this is the state being dumb to the potential. I think this is Harvard counting its pennies and taking the long view and the State saying that if you want us to jump sooner rather than later you need to come to the table with hundreds of millions not just tens of millions. Tens or hundreds of millions more from Harvard for this scale of development seems reasonable and would push Harvard towards a higher and best use for the land.

But like the post office moving from Fort Point Channel, the math needs to be made to work.

 

[Equilibria]

While we wait for the presentation:

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/new-option-for-pike-redesign/

This is the first time I'm hearing of some things:

1) "The Neck" can be wider by taking land from BU, presumably by Eminent Domain or securing an easement.

2) Presumably in exchange, a ped/bike bridge from BU to the River is in the cards.

3) This team has edited Ari Ofsevit's "hybrid" approach to put SFR on top of the Turnpike. A Better City prefers putting the bike path on a "High Line" (read: viaduct) and everything else at-grade, though the article doesn't go into detail on why.

4) The viaduct alternative does not eliminate the "curve", presumably on the eastern end by the Comm Ave. bridge, since I think all the interchanges on the western end look the same. Salvucci is concerned about this.

 

[tangent]

While we wait for the presentation:

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/new-option-for-pike-redesign/

This is the first time I'm hearing of some things:

1) "The Neck" can be wider by taking land from BU, presumably by Eminent Domain or securing an easement.

We had some mention of that in this thread. Seems better to take some back alleys from BU than to fill in the Charles River.

2) Presumably in exchange, a ped/bike bridge from BU to the River is in the cards.

I think that was always in the cards. Or at least implied with a pedestrian connection from BU to West Station and then from there connections to the river.

3) This team has edited Ari Ofsevit's "hybrid" approach to put SFR on top of the Turnpike. A Better City prefers putting the bike path on a "High Line" (read: viaduct) and everything else at-grade, though the article doesn't go into detail on why.

It was mentioned or implied that this was to make it an easier grade change for bike riders. Makes some sense, but hopefully it wouldn't break the bank or cause problems with other aspects of the project.

4) The viaduct alternative does not eliminate the "curve", presumably on the eastern end by the Comm Ave. bridge, since I think all the interchanges on the western end look the same. Salvucci is concerned about this.

I didn't really get what was being talked about there. Seems the "curve" is reduced in any plan, but there is still somewhat of a curve because... well because the direction changes.

 

[CSTH]

I didn't really get what was being talked about there. Seems the "curve" is reduced in any plan, but there is still somewhat of a curve because... well because the direction changes.

I think this refers to the zig-zag in the alignment between approx. St. Mary's st. and approx. Buick st.

If you're traveling westbound, the pike curves to the right as you cross under St. Mary's, then left again after you come under comm ave, then immediately right again as you come onto the viaduct.

The turns are pretty subtle, but they come in quick succession.

This is basically just what's necessary to transition from 'next to the train tracks' to 'above the train tracks. (The turn after St. Mary's has to stay in any configuration because the road changes direction - but the zig zag immediately after Comm Ave is only necessary if youre trying to get onto a viaduct above the tracks)

 

[Equilibria]

Here's the presentation (with renders):

https://www.mass.gov/doc/task-force-meeting-presentation-92618/download

For clarity, they present at-grade, viaduct, and hybrid alternatives twice, once for the DEIR and once after their revisions. That results in two hybrid designs - one with the Grand Junction and a multi-use path raised and one with SFR raised (and no multi-use path to Cambridge).

For all the constructability benefits of keeping the Grand Junction at-grade, I just don't see why we should be building road viaducts at all. The Grand Junction doesn't see much traffic, which means the viaduct would last longer than a road bridge. I get that SFR is half as much viaduct as I-90, but it's still four lanes of bridge that would become an eyesore and maintenance headache once again in 40 years.

Just build it all at grade and sacrifice the green strip. That's what looks best in the renders anyway. Maybe BU can deck some of it and get the green space back.

 

[stevebikes]

These are all fatally flawed because none of them challenge the rotten heart of the matter: the idea that we need twelve lanes of car traffic jammed up against the river here.

 

[mass88]

These are all fatally flawed because none of them challenge the rotten heart of the matter: the idea that we need twelve lanes of car traffic jammed up against the river here.

What would you propose? The Pike is a vital roadway into and out of the city, 4 full travel lanes in each direction should be maintained. Having breakdown lanes in each direction will also be nice.

There's no easy fix and the roads are not going anywhere. Unless of course they were to spend the money and bury some of them.

 

[Wonk]

Completely uneducated comment here. I like the last hybrid proposal the best because it impacts the river the least and has more greenspace. Who cares if it’s ugly from the BU side. That said, why not a wall and landscaped berm on the path side close to the river? Further isolates vehicles from pedestrians and bikers, and makes that space even better.

Also, should this be in the transit forum?

 

[CSTH]

These are all really terrible. I think these proposals are being generated by a team of engineers and what's desperately needed is a design person.

 

[Equilibria]

These are all really terrible. I think these proposals are being generated by a team of engineers and what's desperately needed is a design person.

So.... what would you suggest, design-wise? Can you fit 8 lanes of Interstate, 4 lanes of regional highway, and 4 tracks of rail in this narrow space in a way that looks better? Because the only way I can think of to do that is to bury it all at a cost of billions.