I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

orulz said:
This is absolutely true. In my estimation this is at the core of the conflict driving the "yellow vest" protests in France - and pushing too far, too fast can get extremely ugly. But I should also point out that France/Paris are way, way, way further down the road in terms of doing "harmful" things (like raising fuel taxes and/or closing highways) in the name of principles (like fighting climate change and enabling more active lifestyles) than anywhere in the US is.

The setpoint for what might trigger real unrest in the US may well be lower than that of France, nor would I imply that we should try to push things to the brink - but in my estimation, as of January 2019, we're not anywhere close. Not even remotely in the ballpark. This is mostly because our political system makes it very difficult to make broad, sweeping policy changes that you see overseas. For that reason, when an opportunity (like this!) presents itself, I think it is all the more important to seize it - or at least look into it, rather than fatalistic preemptive resignation to maintaining the status quo.
Click to expand...

One of the issues here is that SFR just isn't the focus of this project - dealing with I-90 is (FWIW, I'd expect that the Turnpike itself is the most expensive part of the project even at grade, and by a wide margin). MassDOT started with a simple bridge replacement project and, for a lot of valid reasons, has had scope creep explode on them already with this project. Already, it's become about straightening the road, rebuilding the whole ramp system, laying out surface streets for redevelopment by Harvard, building a whole new separated intersection with SFR to help with the horrible intersection of SFR and Cambridge Street, building a Taj Mahal West Station before service is ready to make it useful, building a "Peoples' Pike" mixed-use path through the whole site, expanding the Charles River reservation parkland, and building the MBTA a new South Side layover yard.

On top of all of that, there's just not room in this effort to rethink the whole western access strategy for Boston's employment centers. I'm not complaining about the mission creep here - everything I listed above either will immediately or potentially be awesome for the city, but planning out a retirement plan for Storrow Drive is simply beyond what MassDOT can handle here. I certainly wouldn't call this project "resignation to the status quo." There is nothing status quo about this - it is transformative and without precedent in the design of Massachusetts highway projects.
 
Equilibria said:
On top of all of that, there's just not room in this effort to rethink the whole western access strategy for Boston's employment centers. I'm not complaining about the mission creep here - everything I listed above either will immediately or potentially be awesome for the city, but planning out a retirement plan for Storrow Drive is simply beyond what MassDOT can handle here. I certainly wouldn't call this project "resignation to the status quo." There is nothing status quo about this - it is transformative and without precedent in the design of Massachusetts highway projects.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - if all of these extra elements do actually get built, this is far from a status quo highway project - but just because something makes it *harder* doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The fact that MassDOT has bent this far already shows that they actually are listening. In the past year or two, a switch seems to have flipped, and recent inroads by activists like TransitMatters and the groups proposing alternatives for Allston, have clearly demonstrated that Boston is actually leading the nation in terms of effective public engagement. Why pre-emptively declare that this will be a bridge too far, without even trying?
 
Fair enough - if all of these extra elements do actually get built, this is far from a status quo highway project - but just because something makes it *harder* doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The fact that MassDOT has bent this far already shows that they actually are listening. In the past year or two, a switch seems to have flipped, and recent inroads by activists like TransitMatters and the groups proposing alternatives for Allston, have clearly demonstrated that Boston is actually leading the nation in terms of effective public engagement. Why pre-emptively declare that this will be a bridge too far, without even trying?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying to not push for this dream. In the end, seeing Storrow Drive end is a noble and desirable goal.
I'm giving my dissent on the terms (like straight up closure of Storrow) and on arguments like "people can just move closer to the city" or "Induced Demand we don't have to worry the lost trips".
 
The analog is Octavia Boulevard. Traffic shifted from the demolished Central Freeway to neighborhood streets even as traffic volume on Octavia Boulevard (which replaced the freeway) was significantly lower than on the old freeway.

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/09/29/new-study-analyzes-traffic-around-former-central-freeway/

^^^ This is from 2010, five years after Octavia Boulevard opened. It is now 2018 and city authorities are still trying to figure how to address the neighborhood congestion.
 
This:
Equilibria said:
Every trip someone chooses not to make has value to them. When you make them eliminate those trips, their lives get worse. That's the bottom line. They may learn to live with a new reality, and "good" is entirely a matter of context, but it bothers me when people in my profession are simply arrogant and callous about harming people in the name of principle.
Click to expand...

and this:
ant8904 said:
Yes, in this forum, the concept of induced demand is common knowledge. But I have not interpret this means we are free to reduce throughput of networks. Just because a network will adjust itself so the congestion will reduce to something reasonable, it doesn't mean free reign to think everything is unnecessary. Impacts on people are real. And just because it doesn't mean wall-to-wall traffic, it doesn't mean there's no negative impacts. That is why that when these topics comes up, I tend to look equivalent replacements - try to make every mode of transit to have more than perform trade offs. And I keep in mind that impacts on people is more than just traffic - both hard-to-measure positives and hard-to-measure negatives.
Click to expand...

If people choose to sit in traffic, they do so because sitting in traffic is better for them than the next-best alternative option. Taking away the option to sit in traffic does not improve people's lives, it forces people into the next-best alternative options that they had previously declined (which, by definition, are inferior from their perspective).

The way to improve welfare is to give people better options than the ones they have. It is not to take away the not-so-good-but-still-the-best-choice-available options they do have.
 
JumboBuc said:
The way to improve welfare is to give people better options than the ones they have. It is not to take away the not-so-good-but-still-the-best-choice-available options they do have.
Click to expand...

This is the way to improve welfare one individual at a time. But at the same time, if we freely make available an option that actually has enormous negative externalities, you can't necessarily fault an individual for making that choice to benefit themselves, but in this case, the fact that SFR/Storrow are appealing options is because the individual has been insulated from those externalities by the pro-road political regime that has held sway in the US for going on a century now. In those cases, point blank, I don't have a problem with taking that option away.

In this case, the negative externalities cover everything from pedestrian deaths, obesity, and children with asthma, to wars in the middle east, to runoff pollution of the river, to climate change, to loss of public park land, to depressed property values facing the road. I would argue that the negative externalities of SFR/Storrow are especially extreme due to its location on the banks of the river on former park land.

Alternatively, rather than simply taking the option away, we can do something to cause them to internalize those externalities (congestion pricing or tolls, for example) and then use the revenue from that to fund offsetting improvements elsewhere.
 
Advocates have been in a tough position of "do we push for things that are already tough for MassDOT to say yes to but would result in a pretty good end result" or "do we push for things that we have <1% chance of getting and risk that MassDOT just ignores us and does something terrible that we all end up hating". I personally like to push for what I think is the right vision as much as possible, but others tend to take a more pragmatic approach (and it's often good to have advocates pushing for both simultaneously.)
 
orulz said:
My basic argument is that Storrow/Soldier Field is insignificant enough (not saying it's objectively insignificant, just that it's insignificant *enough*), and that it has enough negatives in terms of making the river, perhaps Boston's greatest natural asset, that much less accessible and enjoyable, that when you are at a position of potentially spending as much as a $billion to include it in plans for the 'throat' area (over a hypothetical plan that does not restore it) you have an obligation to at least consider alternative uses for that $billion.

Specifically, the point where you and I seem to differ is that I am of the opinion that the alternatives need not be constrained to transportation.

One alternative use for that $billion would be to provide equivalent transportation routes, in terms of improvements to transit like the NSRL and/or improving road connections elsewhere in the network.

Another alternative use would be to spend it somewhere else beneficial such as on parks or affordable housing.

Still another would be to use it to pay down debt (Haven't heard about the Big Dig debt lately; is that still a thing?)

Yet another alternative would be to not spend it at all and let it revert indirectly to the public, in the form of reduced taxes, so they can use it to buy groceries and cell phones or whatever.
Click to expand...

And all of those alternatives can be trivially ruled out, especially since a substantial portion of the billion is required regardless for the Pike even if you ignored Storrow/SFR entirely.

$200-500m does not buy you anything substantial in mitigation for the loss of Storrow. It doesn't buy the NSRL, it doesn't implement the whole Indigo/Urban Ring/whatever plan, etc.

No one is going to accept money thrown at affordable housing or other unrelated topics as mitigation for a self-induced transportation problem.

----------

The Pike does not serve any of the intermediate destinations that Storrow/SFR does, which leaves surface streets as the alternative, as you mention.

None of the people who live along said streets are going to be happy about the drastically increased traffic volume and the impacts on quality of life it has. I lived on a main road that would be impacted by such a thing (Washington St, Brighton). It was busy at rush hour, but late in the evening? I could sleep with a window open, I could sit on the porch and not hear constant cars/frustrated traffic. Storrow/SFR removal would change that and I'd certainly be showing up to meetings protesting, as would just about anyone in the region. I don't care about a highway on the river, it's way over there and keeps the cars away from my neighborhood and where I want to walk/be in the off-hours, making for a quieter neighborhood.

The point is not my specific point of view, but that the people who would be angry about such a thing are not just car commuters coming in from outside the city. This would be a big, long, drawn-out fight that will not necessarily have the support of the local neighborhoods who would supposedly benefit.

For one of many examples, look at the other end. Imagine what Beacon Hill is going to say to when you propose to dump everything coming off the Leverett Circle Connector Bridge into their neighborhood because you're getting rid of Storrow.
 
orulz said:
This is the way to improve welfare one individual at a time. But at the same time, if we freely make available an option that actually has enormous negative externalities, you can't necessarily fault an individual for making that choice to benefit themselves, but in this case, the fact that SFR/Storrow are appealing options is because the individual has been insulated from those externalities by the pro-road political regime that has held sway in the US for going on a century now. In those cases, point blank, I don't have a problem with taking that option away.

In this case, the negative externalities cover everything from pedestrian deaths, obesity, and children with asthma, to wars in the middle east, to runoff pollution of the river, to climate change, to loss of public park land, to depressed property values facing the road. I would argue that the negative externalities of SFR/Storrow are especially extreme due to its location on the banks of the river on former park land.

Alternatively, rather than simply taking the option away, we can do something to cause them to internalize those externalities (congestion pricing or tolls, for example) and then use the revenue from that to fund offsetting improvements elsewhere.
Click to expand...

First, most of what you just listed as externalities can be resolved by a long-term shift to electric vehicles. I'd argue that doing that is where we should be focused, not on eliminating transportation options.

Second, all behavior has externalities. I'd love to ban voting Republican, for example, since it causes basically all the ills you list above. Personally, bicycling has a ton of negative externalities for me. It decreases my personal safety to have to dodge cyclists on foot, it consumes resources that could go to pedestrian or transit infrastructure, it creates a legion of entitled activists who dominate public engagement, etc. I think a lot of people are in my boat, but I don't advocate tearing up bike lanes, nor do I advocate charging registration and excise taxes for bicycles to pay for all of the infrastructure costs (1/3 of road reconstruction costs per mile, btw).

In practice, "pricing externalities" just means "taxing other people for behavior I don't like".
 
cden4 said:
Advocates have been in a tough position of "do we push for things that are already tough for MassDOT to say yes to but would result in a pretty good end result" or "do we push for things that we have <1% chance of getting and risk that MassDOT just ignores us and does something terrible that we all end up hating". I personally like to push for what I think is the right vision as much as possible, but others tend to take a more pragmatic approach (and it's often good to have advocates pushing for both simultaneously.)
Click to expand...

So they have already agreed to the design with SFR on a viaduct with all the extra elements. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is little to no possibility that they will walk that back at this point, even if activists try to push for more.

The next step in getting rid of Storrow and SFR is just that - a step: suggest a phasing plan that builds SFR last, and requires it to be closed "temporarily" for part of the construction period. It is, coincidentally, likely that such a phasing plan could save a LOT of money, since maintenance of traffic requirements are one of the main drivers of cost in any transportation project. Maybe the pitch could be "IF you promise to build West Station right now, then we will agree to allow closure of SFR/Storrow from Cambridge to Charlesgate during construction."

So Boston plans for life without SFR for a 12 month long construction period.

But then, during the balmy summer months of that period, the public realizes that the path by the river is SO much nicer without all the traffic from that narrow, noisy expressway right on top of it. This gets a few more voices to speak up, which builds into a movement. Call the movement "Save Our River/ Save Our Park!" to take a page out of the typical NIMBY playbook.

The movement successfully argues to put off construction of SFR for another twelve months while the issue is studied. By the time the study is complete, the new improved river path is so popular that even if the study comes back showing the impacts to traffic are worse than I think they will be, the momentum to revert SFR, and the segment of Storrow west of Charlesgate, entirely back to parkland is too strong and it wins.

Sigh, just a dream.
 
Equilibria said:
Every trip someone chooses not to make has value to them. When you make them eliminate those trips, their lives get worse. That's the bottom line. They may learn to live with a new reality, and "good" is entirely a matter of context, but it bothers me when people in my profession are simply arrogant and callous about harming people in the name of principle.
Click to expand...

JumboBuc said:
If people choose to sit in traffic, they do so because sitting in traffic is better for them than the next-best alternative option. Taking away the option to sit in traffic does not improve people's lives, it forces people into the next-best alternative options that they had previously declined (which, by definition, are inferior from their perspective).

The way to improve welfare is to give people better options than the ones they have. It is not to take away the not-so-good-but-still-the-best-choice-available options they do have.
Click to expand...

Holy status quo bias, Batman!
 
Giving people better options - absolutely.

But the idea that people are necessarily choosing what would make them happiest is neoclassical bullshit. People make mistakes all the time. Just look at drug and alcohol consumption, eating habits, smoking, lack of exercise, problem gambling, sexual hangups/addictions, etc. etc. etc. "Utility maximization" is wonderful as far as it goes, and I'm not saying "government knows better," but the idea that people are always choosing what would necessarily make their lives the best is highly dubious.

Also: not all externalities are created equal. Some are mere inconveniences. Some are highly fatal.
 
Status Quo Bias, whether people are truly choosing the best option, and dreams about hypothetical scenarios, I'm not going to dismiss impacts of taking away an option with no new option or some equivalent to replace it. It's not status quo bias, it's giving respect and factoring all parties.

Sigh, just a dream.
Click to expand...

Your dream seems to not care about an impact to the users to SFR/Storrow - even if the one metric (much less much harder to measure impacts) in study finds Storrow is needed, you would hope that it is just ignored rather than such a study finding Storrow is redundant. As much good is created in having an Esplanade to goes all the way up to the brownstones and university campuses. All impacts should be weight.
 
ant8904 said:
Your dream seems to not care about an impact to the users to SFR/Storrow - even if the one metric (much less much harder to measure impacts) in study finds Storrow is needed, you would hope that it is just ignored rather than such a study finding Storrow is redundant. As much good is created in having an Esplanade to goes all the way up to the brownstones and university campuses. All impacts should be weight.
Click to expand...

I don't think the impact would be all that huge, certainly not along the lines of turning neighborhood streets into 24/7 bumper-to-bumper so residents can no longer sleep with the windows open, as some have suggested.

In addition, although current users of Storrow/SFR are likely to feel the impacts of the change most acutely, I don't think it wouldn't be quite as narrowly focused on them as you seem to suggest. I think it will cascade to other routes and as a result be rather thinly spread out in the end. Some people currently on SFR will decide their trip is no longer worth it (un-induced un-demand?), while some will go to other roads like Memorial, the Pike, Commonwealth... which would probably add to the *peak period* congestion on those routes, which might cause the most marginal users on those routes decide their trip is no longer worth it, and move others from the peak period to shoulder hours, making for a slightly longer period (NOT 24-7) of peak traffic, etc, and move still others to other routes. As was mentioned by another poster upthread, (and unlike I-95 in southern Virginia for example,) it's a highly connected network, and as such, it can absorb the change and keep on functioning.

I think that even if I'm underestimating the traffic impacts, there's a good chance that the benefits would still be worth the costs, although it would mean the cost:benefit ratio is closer to 1 than I initially thought.

If a real, level headed, broad-based cost benefit analysis shows that removing Storrow/SFR is a net loss, then of course, keep it! At least we tried. I have a hunch that these routes may be some of the lowest-hanging fruit in the city, but if that turns out to not be the case, by all means, commence searching for the actual lowest hanging fruit.

I'm also DEFINITELY not opposed to providing equivalences in terms of new transit alternatives, either - to me this is getting the best of both worlds. The Urban Ring project's Harvard Square spur would be *great* to have. It's just that in this case, the window of opportunity here may close very quickly. This means there is not enough time to build a consensus in terms of scope and funding for alternatives. Therefore, for now, moving forward without a clear plan for equivalences/mitigations/etc, on balance, is still IMO in the best interest of the city.


And the way that I am pitching this is, start out with a temporary closure during construction. Save some money on phasing. Try it out for a year. If the impacts are apocalyptic and no movement in favor of keeping it closed materializes, then just go ahead and build it back.
 
Last edited:
I do like this "close SFR for a year during construction and see what happens" approach. I think people will indeed really enjoy it.

One question: where do you start and stop the closure (which locations)?

EDIT: Oh you already answered it. Cambridge St to Charlesgate.
 
cden4 said:
I do like this "close SFR for a year during construction and see what happens" approach. I think people will indeed really enjoy it.

One question: where do you start and stop the closure (which locations)?

EDIT: Oh you already answered it. Cambridge St to Charlesgate.
Click to expand...

...and that right there is the problem. People would enjoy it. The people who would enjoy it aren't the people who need or use it.

It's intentionally creating a situation where city residents are pitted against suburban residents, for the sake of forcing a solution that benefits the former. This isn't a City of Boston project. MassDOT is a STATE agency for a reason.

And in this case, the city residents would be the richer, more privileged party.
 
Equilibria said:
One of the issues here is that SFR just isn't the focus of this project - dealing with I-90 is (FWIW, I'd expect that the Turnpike itself is the most expensive part of the project even at grade, and by a wide margin). MassDOT started with a simple bridge replacement project and, for a lot of valid reasons, has had scope creep explode on them already with this project. Already, it's become about straightening the road, rebuilding the whole ramp system, laying out surface streets for redevelopment by Harvard, building a whole new separated intersection with SFR to help with the horrible intersection of SFR and Cambridge Street, building a Taj Mahal West Station before service is ready to make it useful, building a "Peoples' Pike" mixed-use path through the whole site, expanding the Charles River reservation parkland, and building the MBTA a new South Side layover yard.

On top of all of that, there's just not room in this effort to rethink the whole western access strategy for Boston's employment centers. I'm not complaining about the mission creep here - everything I listed above either will immediately or potentially be awesome for the city, but planning out a retirement plan for Storrow Drive is simply beyond what MassDOT can handle here. I certainly wouldn't call this project "resignation to the status quo." There is nothing status quo about this - it is transformative and without precedent in the design of Massachusetts highway projects.
Click to expand...

At this point they should have stuck to just a bridge refurbishment project. Some paint and some concrete work. All this shuffling things around to try and meet various stakeholder needs and we have ended up with a very mediocre plan with a mediocre result that doesn't justify the great expense to the taxpayer.

This should be a $600 to $800 million project that involves a slight track realignment onto BU property, a surface highway paving project, and a single viaduct to carry two tracks of grand junction over both Soldiers Field Road and now the Mass Pike and a demo of most of the elevated structure... and oh ya, at least a West Station platform for the commuter rail.
 
Last edited:
fattony said:
Holy status quo bias, Batman!
Click to expand...

This isn't status quo bias at all. Give people better options! Change can be good.

But just eliminating existing options that people use because, basically, "they'll deal with it" is good for nobody.
 
Is the "People's Pike" bike path along the Pike still happening as part of this project? I haven't found any references to it lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top