I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

SFR viaduct over the westbound surface Pike vs. over the eastbound surface Pike (I did the eastbound version):

45832982015_95d016852f_b.jpg
 
Nice job Charlie with the layout.

Aesthetically, putting SFR over the eastbound side of Pike is preferable, imo. But I am sure that would add cost and time. I still can't get over the fact that they're projecting this will take 8 years. That seems excessive. How come this can't be done in 3 years?

They're adding what looks to be a pretty substantial amount of space for bikes, pedestrians and open space all while maintaining the much needed road infrastructure. Should be a nice upgrade.
 
fattony said:
If you mean this IMP, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include any land directly related to the I-90 project.

There is going to be at least a Cambridge Crossing's worth of commercial and residential development here.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The most recent IMP very briefly discusses what Harvard calls Allston Landing North.
Over a longer-term time horizon, develop an Enterprise Research Campus in Allston Landing North, creating a gateway to a collaborative community for business, investment capital, research, and science development.
Click to expand...

I read this as the start of Kendall in Allston. Allston Landing North is between Western Ave and Cambridge St. Allston Landing South is nostly Beacon Yards.

In 2017, MIT paid Cambridge about $55 million for 6.3 million gsf of commercial real estate owned by MIT. So the city of Boston is looking for Harvard to be paying a pretty penny for all the commercial property that is built in Allston Landing North and Allston Landing South.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/Planning/TownGown/tg2017/town_gown_2017_mit.pdf?la=en
 
One somewhat unintentional plus is that the need for the Grand Junction to overpass the at-grade Pike on a regulation Interstate-clearance overpass means they likely have to jack up the infamous 11 ft. SFR rail overpass by a modest 1 to 1.5 feet to accommodate a slight incline between edge of the water crossing and edge of the Pike crossing. An increase to 12 ft.--par with the Silber Way ped overpass--is literally enough to eliminate 95% of the Storrowings. That pays for itself on saved police OT and lost commute hours alone.
 
mass88 said:
Nice job Charlie with the layout.

Aesthetically, putting SFR over the eastbound side of Pike is preferable, imo. But I am sure that would add cost and time. I still can't get over the fact that they're projecting this will take 8 years. That seems excessive. How come this can't be done in 3 years?

They're adding what looks to be a pretty substantial amount of space for bikes, pedestrians and open space all while maintaining the much needed road infrastructure. Should be a nice upgrade.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why it would be more expensive or take longer... in the long run, though, it could create problems with maintenance/ops, since any repairs to the viaduct would impact both sides of I-90, not just one.

In any case, if the WB lanes can vent with the river side of the viaduct closed in, it's a moot point anyway. The important thing is building the sound/visual enclosure along the park.
 
This plan to put SFR on a viaduct seems to be a step in the right direction.

The next step in that direction is to say that SFR will be closed entirely during construction in order to save money on phasing and maintain traffic on Masspike.

The third step is to observe, as has been observed in every case of removing a waterfront highway, that people did in fact adjust, and life did in fact go on while this closure was in effect.

The key at this point is to let people get a taste of what things are like with no traffic on SFR/Storrow between Charlesgate and Cambridge Street. Let people walk and bike on the closed segments. Call it a "temporary bike path."

The fourth step is to declare that rebuilding SFR is put off indefinitely.

The final step is to cancel it altogether and revert the road in its entirety, along with most of Storrow, to parkland.
 
I like your thinking orulz! That's pretty much a text book version of how many transit upgrades are cancelled #RedBlueConnector #ArborwayService. If it works for rail projects, why not for highways?
 
Congestion pricing would render the capacity of SF/Storrow unnecessary in the first place. You can set the congestion price to whatever brings demand below the capacity of your roads.

Although I do love the city, I don't live in Boston (live in NC) so I don't have a dog in this fight, but this may be the best opportunity to close these horrible river front highways that will ever come up. Y'all better seize it!
 
Congestion pricing would render the capacity of SF/Storrow unnecessary in the first place. You can set the congestion price to whatever brings demand below the capacity of your roads.
Click to expand...

This distracts the discussion but this annoys me every time I see this idea come up. Of course you put congestion pricing then traffic would reduce itself that you don't needs roads. But if everything else is the same, the only difference is you made something less attractive.

Of course everything I get into this, I sound like some car lover, which I have to put a whole paragraph to explain every time that I'm not a fan of Storrow Drive as much as anyone else on these boards. That I know the history and read previous discussions on traffic engineering.

But throughput remains throughput. A system (system mean not just roads but I mean in all sense of able to transport people to their destinations), can carry so many people. Reduce one line, you'll reduce the maximum capacity of that throughput. Putting congestion pricing on it doesn't change the desire. People will point out every time that people will go in other times or other modes or other means. But that's the thing, the reason people chose what they choose is from what is find to be the most optimal for their lives. Thus to start charging is not solving the desire for so-and-so person wanting to drive at so-and-so time, but making it less attractive. Not making the other options better - the other options remains the same, just the previously chosen options worse.

Of course, someone will point out that congestion pricing can be used to fund other modes to make them better. But that doesn't disprove my point.

-----

That said I do think Storrow Drive should be "fixed" in some way. But I also view that in providing equivalences - like adding ramps to the turnpike or other means (like bringing back the A-Line or Urban Ring or more driver centric like covering up Storrow) so true throughput in the transit of people remains the same (quality of replacement also needs to be factored - turning to the A-line to replace Storrow is not equivalent if it has to deal with the B-line's speed). Just throwing in congestion tolling does not achieve this.
 
ant8904 said:
That said I do think Storrow Drive should be "fixed" in some way. But I also view that in providing equivalences - like adding ramps to the turnpike or other means (like bringing back the A-Line or Urban Ring or more driver centric like covering up Storrow) so true throughput in the transit of people remains the same (quality of replacement also needs to be factored - turning to the A-line to replace Storrow is not equivalent if it has to deal with the B-line's speed). Just throwing in congestion tolling does not achieve this.
Click to expand...

I think nearly anybody who talks about congestion pricing is implicitly making this argument. The revenues from congestion pricing should be dedicated toward non-car transportation. You do want to maintain the same throughput of people, after all.

On the other hand, I do actually believe that congestion pricing alone, with the only equivalent being the corresponding improvement in transit productivity due to less congestion, might actually result in a higher throughput of people. You could do the same thing by implementing lots of bus lanes and vigorously enforcing them, but IMO congestion pricing might actually be an easier lift, politically.

Removing cars from the city makes the city more desirable and increases demand. This allows still more road space to be dedicated towards other uses like pedestrians, bikes, and transit, and this becomes a self reinforcing virtuous cycle.

This requires acknowledging that, in cities at least, the liberation that cars provide is, on balance, more than outweighed by the oppression that they cause through their tyranny over the public realm. Boston, and every other major American city for that matter, continue to stand on the precipice of making a change, but so far none have taken the plunge. But this is what you see in many European cities so, to me, there's no reason to think otherwise.

But to be honest, the specific case of Soldier Field Road and Storrow Drive, to me, seems more like the Embarcadero situation in San Francisco, where the status quo is absolutely insanely ridiculously bad, contributing nothing to the area beyond noise, pollution, and increased VMT, and tearing it down with basically no replacement turned out to be just fine. The sort of situation you see in London, Stockholm, or Oslo is much further along in that cycle, where congestion pricing is being gradually leveraged to turn already nice urban environments into even better ones through transit improvements, road diets, bike facilities, and the like. This is the end game for Boston and every US city, but things like SFR/Storrow are an important first step.
 
Equilibria said:
Ok - first, this is actually one of the most "crumbling" bridges in the State, and one of the largest in poor condition. By your metric, replacing it should be a pretty high priority, and it has nothing to do with Harvard.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see those metrics... looking at it it seems like any other overpass on the highway that is rusty and in need of a paint job and maybe a little refurbishment at much lower cost than $1B. The support columns on the I93-I95 overpass/interchange are literally crumbling and split down the middle in some places and I haven't heard of any planning for that recently.

This is a terrible missed opportunity to ground both the highway and soldiers field road for the cost of taking a few feet of BU's land
 
Equilibria said:
https://geo-massdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/8fa67bf47651417283813a29bfc31545_0

Use the "Structurally_Deficient" field. Deck area isn't in here, but you can use the length as a reasonable proxy for the "bigness" of a structure.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that data doesn't tell you anything very useful. Nothing like a point by point inspection. I believe I did see some estimates on maintenance costs and they were well below the $1 billion mark. So there is no reason to think they can't simply maintain and refurbish the existing structure like they do with other much older bridges.

Heck the part they need to move to make way for the Harvard development is mostly at ground level anyway, so they could just keep the throat as-is and spend a fraction of the money to just make a new connection to the existing elevated section of I90, like they did connecting the Big Dig to the existing elevated highway.
 
Let's keep this in perspective folks. The proposed viaduct is only about a 1/4 mile long. That's about half the length, less than half the width, and shorter height than the existing structure. With even an ounce of design effort this can be as visually appealing as any bridge in Boston. It could be a 1/4 mile long mural that becomes an icon of the city. The assumption that an all at-grade solution would be more visually appealing is short sighted, I think. The idea that an at-grade solution would/could be decked and developed is pretty unlikely.
 
I think nearly anybody who talks about congestion pricing is implicitly making this argument. The revenues from congestion pricing should be dedicated toward non-car transportation. You do want to maintain the same throughput of people, after all.
Click to expand...

Every activist speaks like this. But every laymen - including politicians and other decision makers does not. Congestion pricing and where the revenue goes not inextricably linked. Things that congestion pricing are inextricably linked are things like it would generate revenue and people would use that road less around at its most expensive prices. Where the revenue goes is completely dependent on politics and society. If one proposes congestion pricing to fund a project, then in that instance, would it be inextricably linked. If one is discussion how to fund a transit budget first and bring up congestion pricing as a way to acquire revenue, then they are linked. But congestion pricing first and alone is not. The people who keeps going to public meetings raising this or brings this to various local media needs to recognize that the implementation does inevitably not mean a better MBTA. Not to mention the lag time between any congestion pricing in the name of improving other transit services - the projects we need to make out transit functional are multi-year or even decades produce.

Funding transit is a political problem, not a revenue problem. The state of our transit is not because we don't have enough money, but the people in charge don't want to do it. When the state looks at highways projects that cost a billion, they start to discussing how to fund it. When the state looks that a subway project that cost a billion, they start asking if they really have to do it.

Removing cars from the city makes the city more desirable and increases demand. This allows still more road space to be dedicated towards other uses like pedestrians, bikes, and transit, and this becomes a self reinforcing virtuous cycle.


This requires acknowledging that, in cities at least, the liberation that cars provide is, on balance, more than outweighed by the oppression that they cause through their tyranny over the public realm. Boston, and every other major American city for that matter, continue to stand on the precipice of making a change, but so far none have taken the plunge. But this is what you see in many European cities so, to me, there's no reason to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

I do not view any singular mode inherently better than any other mode. Thus my view as a society we should provide the necessary services for the various modes people wish to use. What this means is not zero-sum games of choosing between funding highways or rail lines but continue to do both as long the merits that is worth the costs. For Boston (not necessarily for true places like LA or Houston), is doing not quite well in balancing though the maintenance and expansion since the Big Dig has been stuck

But to be honest, the specific case of Soldier Field Road and Storrow Drive, to me, seems more like the Embarcadero situation in San Francisco
Click to expand...

The thing is is that few infrastructure are so critical that its effects are too undeniable to ignore. Once a new status quo arrives people can get used to it. Storrow still serves thousands of people a day and their lives would be negatively affected. Yes, most are suburban "outsiders", but as long I count them, I want to still factor them - though I know many in these circles have been saying we value their needs over the local residents far too long, I still try to factor them. That why in my post history when I am on this topic, my ideas have been looking for engineering solutions (plausibility questions of covering up Storrow, comments about burying it, posts of ideas adding on-ramps to the Pike around the Charlesgate, that A-line question a on the last page), rather than just straight up advocacy for closure.
 
Last edited:
fattony said:
Let's keep this in perspective folks. The proposed viaduct is only about a 1/4 mile long. That's about half the length, less than half the width, and shorter height than the existing structure. With even an ounce of design effort this can be as visually appealing as any bridge in Boston. It could be a 1/4 mile long mural that becomes an icon of the city. The assumption that an all at-grade solution would be more visually appealing is short sighted, I think. The idea that an at-grade solution would/could be decked and developed is pretty unlikely.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've discounted the decking concept... I just don't see the benefit in spending 8 years of disruption, spending tens of millions... even hundreds of millions more over an in-place refurbishment to simply shuffle things around a bit and end up with basically the same elevated highway in the "throat" area but even closer to the river than before.

Just leave the existing configuration alone if you can't significantly improve it.

We can save a lot of money (enough to fix maybe 5 or 6 other bridges) and just keep the throat area using the same highway configuration refurbishing the existing structures just shifting lanes back and forth to do the work.

They can realign the ground portion to make way for Harvard (let Harvard pay for it) and just build a short new span to ramp up to the existing elevated viaduct.

Seems people had grand ideas and then we have gotten compromised back down to a plan that spends a lot of money without really much benefit except for the companies spending 8 years doing a lot of busy work shuffling stuff around.
 
tangent said:
Yes, I've discounted the decking concept... I just don't see the benefit in spending 8 years of disruption, spending tens of millions... even hundreds of millions more over an in-place refurbishment to simply shuffle things around a bit and end up with basically the same elevated highway in the "throat" area but even closer to the river than before.

Just leave the existing configuration alone if you can't significantly improve it.

We can save a lot of money (enough to fix maybe 5 or 6 other bridges) and just keep the throat area using the same highway configuration refurbishing the existing structures just shifting lanes back and forth to do the work.

They can realign the ground portion to make way for Harvard (let Harvard pay for it) and just build a short new span to ramp up to the existing elevated viaduct.

Seems people had grand ideas and then we have gotten compromised back down to a plan that spends a lot of money without really much benefit except for the companies spending 8 years doing a lot of busy work shuffling stuff around.
Click to expand...

I think you are glossing over an awful lot of engineering here. You want to keep the existing configuration, but also realign it and build new ramps. Which is it? Do you think there is a chance that the people who actually spent a couple years exploring the alternatives instead of 30 seconds typing an internet post might have ironed out some of those details you glossed over?
 
ant8904 said:
But throughput remains throughput. A system (system mean not just roads but I mean in all sense of able to transport people to their destinations), can carry so many people. Reduce one line, you'll reduce the maximum capacity of that throughput. Putting congestion pricing on it doesn't change the desire. People will point out every time that people will go in other times or other modes or other means. But that's the thing, the reason people chose what they choose is from what is find to be the most optimal for their lives. Thus to start charging is not solving the desire for so-and-so person wanting to drive at so-and-so time, but making it less attractive. Not making the other options better - the other options remains the same, just the previously chosen options worse.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring that people make stupid decisions, and externalities arent priced.

So yes, making a trip less attractive is a valid choice.

I was just reading an article in NYC about a person complaining about a new bicycle lane. This person was someone who lived in New Jersey, but drove into downtown Manhattan to drop off their kid at an expensive private school. They said the bike lane near a school was dangerous. That is not the kind of trip anyone else should give a shit about, and if a change in road design or pricing makes that trip more difficult or less attractive...well, good.

Thats an extreme example (although a real one), but there are tons of trips that can and should be shifted. Maybe retired uncle Barry wants to go shopping on Newbury Street, and because theyre retired, their time is worth zero. So they decide to drive in at the hight of rush hour because they have nothing else going on with their life. Congestion pricing might cause them to shift their trip to 11am when there is no congestion. At the end of the day, making their shopping trip at 11am isn't really less optimal, we're just letting them know that their decision affects the rest of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top