I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

tangent said:
How is it an improvement to move an elevated road way closer to the river? There will be more shade, more noise, more of a sense of thousands of cars racing over your head as you stroll along the river.

And by not grounding the whole thing you are adding a hundred million to the project and adding tens of millions long term to the maintenance.

All while blocking a better plan because you created some phantom menace in your head about the twelve environmentalists that are going to show up and be pissy at your meetings over ten feet of waterway and/or you are too afraid of BU to take their land.

It would cost very little to go and at least ask regulators to approve the at grade option.

This is a terrible plan which should be DOA.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's going to be closer to the river. That's the whole point -- that there will be more green space between the infrastructure and river in this design.
 
tangent said:
How is it an improvement to move an elevated road way closer to the river?
Click to expand...

HenryAlan said:
I don't think it's going to be closer to the river. That's the whole point -- that there will be more green space between the infrastructure and river in this design.
Click to expand...

You're both right: the elevated road way will be closer to the river but the nearest roadway (elevated or surface) will be farther. Currently the elevated roadway is buffered by the four-lane surface SFR, which is right next to the path and the river. In the future there will be an additional 20 foot green buffer between the river/path and the road, but the nearest road will be elevated and not surface.

So yes, there will be more space between infrastructure and river compared to now but that infrastructure will be elevated whereas now it is surface.
 
FK4 said:
Since SFR is narrower than the pike, I wonder if it could also leave room for a GLX viaduct ...
Click to expand...

Asked/answered a half-dozen posts ago. You don't need any additional rail infrastructure whatsoever; it's already there. The Grand Junction is given 2 tracks' worth of space in this Pike design; it's given 2 tracks' worth of space in every Pike design.

Light rail goes in-play only with a mode conversion of the Grand Junction for the Urban Ring...no other way. The GJ from BU Bridge through Cambridge becomes the Ring mainline; the portion of GJ from BU Bridge to West ends up the start of the Harvard Branch.

See here: http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=336872&postcount=590.


You can change this design 1000 other ways on the road and bike/ped sides, but the rail reservations are an ironclad project requirement so every revision from here on out to first shovel provides the means for bringing rapid transit direct to West via a mode-converted GJ.
 
JumboBuc said:
A Schuylkill Banks-like bike and pedestrian path would not constitue fill, right? It's 2,000 feet long and only cost $18 million five years ago. There already is a bike/pedestrian boardwalk over the river in this stretch that passes under the BU bridge. Couldn't a nicer/brighter/wider version of that be extended the entire length of "the throat" for way less than the cost of elevating SFR?

And besides this, the current regulatory framework by which the cost of turning any water into land is basically infinite is NOT good policy.
Click to expand...

From the image at the link, I'd say Schuylkill Banks technically would be considered fill, but easily permitted. However, if you filled in the land from the actual riverbank out to the boardwalk, that is the type of fill that would not be permitted without significant offset. The Commonwealth clearly could not identify offsets within the Charles River watershed that would allow a low-controversy filling of the Charles for this proposed project. If there were such offsets, the Commonwealth would have put them on the table. They didn't even bother.
_______________________________
The cost is not 'basically infinite'. The proposed offset for increasing SFO by about 600 acres (for new runways) was restoration of thousands of acres of damaged wetlands in the Bay. The city of San Francisco considered the offset cost to be reasonable.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Asked/answered a half-dozen posts ago. You don't need any additional rail infrastructure whatsoever; it's already there. The Grand Junction is given 2 tracks' worth of space in this Pike design; it's given 2 tracks' worth of space in every Pike design.

Light rail goes in-play only with a mode conversion of the Grand Junction for the Urban Ring...no other way. The GJ from BU Bridge through Cambridge becomes the Ring mainline; the portion of GJ from BU Bridge to West ends up the start of the Harvard Branch.

See here: http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=336872&postcount=590.


You can change this design 1000 other ways on the road and bike/ped sides, but the rail reservations are an ironclad project requirement so every revision from here on out to first shovel provides the means for bringing rapid transit direct to West via a mode-converted GJ.
Click to expand...

Yes but where is the right of way for GLX from GJ/BU Bridge to West? You mean they are reserving - and intentionally so - a double track space along the current commuter rail tracks just for this possible extension in the future, even tho it’s barely ever been proposed in the way we talk about it on this forum!
 
Perhaps most importantly, they should absolutely not try to keep these roads open for the duration of the project. Close the roads, knock it all down, replace the roads and reopen. Save 800 million dollars and 6 years of construction.
 
tangent said:
Perhaps most importantly, they should absolutely not try to keep these roads open for the duration of the project. Close the roads, knock it all down, replace the roads and reopen. Save 800 million dollars and 6 years of construction.
Click to expand...

What they need to do in all these projects is to put a dollar amount equivalent to road closure time required, so that bidders can propose less expensive alternatives and know exactly what the trade is worth on the bid. They have the traffic numbers so they should be able to put values on how much keeping the roads open are worth at various times.

For instance the project closes the highway for the month of August three years straight, but saves $200 million. Some numbers would make sense.
 
Any official sketches? (Beyond Globe reporting)?
 
FK4 said:
Yes but where is the right of way for GLX from GJ/BU Bridge to West? You mean they are reserving - and intentionally so - a double track space along the current commuter rail tracks just for this possible extension in the future, even tho it’s barely ever been proposed in the way we talk about it on this forum!
Click to expand...

The Grand Junction is that ROW. You convert it to light rail to get Harvard Branch rapid transit to West, and have a junction at BU Bridge to tie it in with the Urban Ring mainline and/or a short Comm Ave. GL subway extension. This is exactly, precisely how the official Urban Ring scoping study specs Phase III.


Please, please read the linked post with visual renders. It should not take this much re-explanation to convey what the bog-standard UR build is. It's all repurposement here; there never is/was/will be any need ever to create new cleanroom ROW in the Pike project area to execute this.
 
stellarfun said:
From the image at the link, I'd say Schuylkill Banks technically would be considered fill, but easily permitted. However, if you filled in the land from the actual riverbank out to the boardwalk, that is the type of fill that would not be permitted without significant offset. The Commonwealth clearly could not identify offsets within the Charles River watershed that would allow a low-controversy filling of the Charles for this proposed project. If there were such offsets, the Commonwealth would have put them on the table. They didn't even bother.
_______________________________
The cost is not 'basically infinite'. The proposed offset for increasing SFO by about 600 acres (for new runways) was restoration of thousands of acres of damaged wetlands in the Bay. The city of San Francisco considered the offset cost to be reasonable.
Click to expand...


There is plenty of opportunity to offset all along the Charles. The issue is that it has been made easier to spend $100 million dollars or more in taxpayer's money than to bother trying.
 
Would it even be possible to submerge the Pike under a surface level Storrow and rail ROW along the throat? Put the western portal somewhere in the former Beacon Park, and the eastern portal in the vicinity of St Mary’s St.
 
RandomWalk said:
Would it even be possible to submerge the Pike under a surface level Storrow and rail ROW along the throat? Put the western portal somewhere in the former Beacon Park, and the eastern portal in the vicinity of St Mary’s St.
Click to expand...

The concern would be the likely flooding of the Mass Pike tunnel in storm events. IMO, it would be better to have the rail tracks and the Pike side-by-side on the surface, and tunnel SFR beneath the Pike. At least then, the tunnel flooding would affect SFR and not the Pike.
 
tangent said:
Perhaps most importantly, they should absolutely not try to keep these roads open for the duration of the project. Close the roads, knock it all down, replace the roads and reopen. Save 800 million dollars and 6 years of construction.
Click to expand...

Ah ha ha ha. This is non starter for anyone west of Boston.
 
Charlie_mta said:
The concern would be the likely flooding of the Mass Pike tunnel in storm events. IMO, it would be better to have the rail tracks and the Pike side-by-side on the surface, and tunnel SFR beneath the Pike. At least then, the tunnel flooding would affect SFR and not the Pike.
Click to expand...

The cynic in me would consider the Pike flooding a feature, not a bug. Let the folks take the dry commuter rail.

More seriously, I would expect it to be built with considerable dewatering capacity and/or flood doors like the Green Line.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The Grand Junction is that ROW. You convert it to light rail to get Harvard Branch rapid transit to West, and have a junction at BU Bridge to tie it in with the Urban Ring mainline and/or a short Comm Ave. GL subway extension. This is exactly, precisely how the official Urban Ring scoping study specs Phase III.


Please, please read the linked post with visual renders. It should not take this much re-explanation to convey what the bog-standard UR build is. It's all repurposement here; there never is/was/will be any need ever to create new cleanroom ROW in the Pike project area to execute this.
Click to expand...

Sigh. I’ve followed all the GLX shit in great detail for years but not everyone is a railroad encyclopedia. It’s NOT clear. Maps of the GJ show it ending at the junction with the Worcester Line at the foot of the BU Bridge. So either the maps I’ve seen are wrong, or there’s more ROW reserved parallel to the Worcester line on track space I would otherwise just assume IS the Worcester line, and consequently not called the GJ and not just “reserved” for a future extension. So either the maps are wrong and the GJ ROW actually (under that name) goes as far as future West Stn, or the state has just planned ahead to save an additional two track ROW for future use. Given the state of idiocy at the MBTA, forgive me for being skeptical that they are in fact planning ahead. Urban Ring also calls for tunnels la de da thru Kenmore and Longwood with a glaring absence of planning on any of the details or feasibility... so unless somehow the GJ is its own separate thing all the way to West, I would be quite worried it’s not as safe as you say it is... but i certainly hope that’s not the case and there is some foresight here.
 
Last edited:
Minimizing impact of highway on the Charles River paths

The design for the Throat selected by MassDOT needs to be improved to minimize the impact of having 12 highway lanes immediately adjacent to the Charles River parkland. This can be done in a way that is both effective and visually attractive. Some possible solutions for this at: https://twitter.com/PeoplesPike/status/1084244059819003905
 
Re: Minimizing impact of highway on the Charles River paths

Harry Mattison said:
The design for the Throat selected by MassDOT needs to be improved to minimize the impact of having 12 highway lanes immediately adjacent to the Charles River parkland. This can be done in a way that is both effective and visually attractive. Some possible solutions for this at: https://twitter.com/PeoplesPike/status/1084244059819003905
Click to expand...

You're more engaged than I am, but the way that tweet was written made it sound like MassDOT endorsed the SFR viaduct being over the WB lanes of the Pike. According to Adam Vaccaro today, they didn't:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ugh-allston/BAUAGwNy3UI5763B1yh7hJ/story.html

That said, I like all the thinking about barriers.
 
Re: Minimizing impact of highway on the Charles River paths

SFR over I90 Westbound is what MassDOT's consultants proposed in their October 2018 report and that is what is shown in all of MassDOT's drawings and renderings.

A Better City made the first proposal to put SFR over I90 Eastbound. The City of Boston and others have asked MassDOT to consider it. Secretary Pollack did write that "The placement of the Soldiers Field Road viaduct will need to be determined" which hopefully is an openness to evaluate and compare putting SFR over either I90 EB or WB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top