I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

Just like the footbridges at the BU Beach & Silber Way, a new footbridge at Agganis Way would serve the BU community and many other people too.
 
Harry Mattison said:
Just like the footbridges at the BU Beach & Silber Way, a new footbridge at Agganis Way would serve the BU community and many other people too.
Click to expand...

Even if that's true, Pioneer isn't honestly presenting the trade-off here. MassDOT's plan includes a widened park along the bike path. The at-grade solutions not only fill in the Charles permanently, they do it for essentially a concrete strip enbankment.
 
MassDOT's plan puts Soldiers Field Road on a structure in the river, replaces 1/2 mile of riverbank with metal sheet piling, and adds fill to the river at the approaches to the SFR Bridge. Then after ~10 years MassDOT proposes to tear all that out and rebuild the shoreline in its current location.
I don't think Pioneer or anyone else is proposing a permanent concrete strip embankment.
 
Count me as one who would rather see the bicycle and pedestrian accommodation at the throat to be a new viaduct over the river with the roadways (pike and SRF) both at-grade.

The costs for a non-vehicular viaduct would be significantly less expensive and at the same time could provide and opportunity to really construct something with some actual architectural flourish.
 
Harry Mattison said:
MassDOT's plan puts Soldiers Field Road on a structure in the river, replaces 1/2 mile of riverbank with metal sheet piling, and adds fill to the river at the approaches to the SFR Bridge. Then after ~10 years MassDOT proposes to tear all that out and rebuild the shoreline in its current location.
I don't think Pioneer or anyone else is proposing a permanent concrete strip embankment.
Click to expand...

That's what the at-grade solution requires. If you put all this stuff next to each other, you end up with a path in the river. It stands to reason that that path would be hardscape, with a vertical embankment, unless you go with North Shore's solution and build it as a viaduct, or unless you fill even more of the river to build a lawn around the path.

And surely you understand the difference between doing things temporarily and doing them permanently. The reason that MassDOT is proposing a project this complicated and high-impact is because they're meeting six years worth of demands from activists such as yourself. So far that's resulted in a much better project than the widespread high-speed ramps MassDOT proposed back in 2013 (so kudos to you and others), but there comes a point when perfect becomes the enemy of good, and we're at that point.

The way to do this with the least impact on the river and the Worcester Line was to rebuild the viaduct in situ. Ari Ofsevit and others punted that idea. Ever since then, the proposed alternative can't be described as "MassDOT's". It's yours, Harry, and Ari's, and ABC's, etc.
 
No, MassDOT isn't "meeting six years worth of demands from activists". Why do you think they are?
Do you like what MassDOT proposes for West Station?
 
Harry Mattison said:
No, MassDOT isn't "meeting six years worth of demands from activists". Why do you think they are?
Click to expand...

Is the "People's Pike" not included in the current design alternative? Was the initiation of at-grade alternatives in the throat not by Ari Ofsevit and picked up by A Better City before the Secretary chose a modified version of it in January? Has West Station not been (a) added to the newly "Multimodal" project at the demand of local activists and (b) been moved up in the schedule after an uproar about it being done at the end?

I'm not saying that those were bad things, by the way, not at all. But this project was supposed to be a viaduct replacement. Not one thing that has happened since - the adding and selection of an "urban" alternative, the addition of West Station, the addition of a bus bridge to serve West Station, the grounding of the Turnpike, the widening of the river park, the secondary access to SFR from the Turnpike... they've all been activist driven. MassDOT has surrendered to scope creep and come up with plans to make the whole damn thing constructable every step of the way. Yet somehow, this is always "MassDOT wants to close a track of the Worcester Line" or "MassDOT wants to build a temporary viaduct in the river." MassDOT wanted to build three bridges. They've got a second Big Dig on their hands thanks to activists.

Harry Mattison said:
Do you like what MassDOT proposes for West Station?
Click to expand...

West Station as currently proposed has been flipped backwards and provided with a bus bridge at the behest of activists, so calling it "what MassDOT proposes" is again inaccurate. This has been a collaborative process. With that said, no. MassDOT shouldn't be building West Station until Urban Rail is ready to provide the service to Kendall that everyone assumes will magically appear the day West Station opens. Also, "West Station" is a dishonest brand name (invented by politician Michael Dukakis, of course) that implies far more prominence for the station than it is ever likely to have. Just call it "Allston".
 
Ugh... let this Urban Rail to Kendall die... it won't work and it's better served by some sort of Urban Ring solution.
 
George_Apley said:
Ugh... let this Urban Rail to Kendall die... it won't work and it's better served by some sort of Urban Ring solution.
Click to expand...

Fine, but that's the clear and present danger that West Station advocates use to push an opening date before 2040. It's not "West Station will provide a convenient way for 500 people a day to get from Wellesley to their teaching jobs at BU and Harvard", it's "West Station will provide a critical rail link to Cambridge from the west".
 
You think Harvard University, owner of all the land under the highway, was going to sit back and let MassDOT's "suburban off-ramp" design get built?
Or accept the huge layover yard that MassDOT initially proposed?

No, I don't see a People's Pike in MassDOT's current plan. The People's Pike many people want MassDOT to include is the off-road path between Wadsworth Street and the Worcester Line that Harvard proposed a few years ago.

The 3-track West Station requiring inbound trains to cross outbound tracks is absolutely a MassDOT proposal.
 
Harry Mattison said:
You think Harvard University, owner of all the land under the highway, was going to sit back and let MassDOT's "suburban off-ramp" design get built?
Or accept the huge layover yard that MassDOT initially proposed?
Click to expand...

MassDOT has an easement. Harvard doesn't really get a choice.
 
Harry Mattison said:
Have you read this? https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0Mv_n6nNyOTRkZNYzRxdWZuWFF2OWlNbzdNSjA3ck5leGEw
Click to expand...

That's from 2014. MassDOT had already selected the urban alternative when they signed it. I'm not sure what the state of play was before then.

Harry Mattison said:
No, I don't see a People's Pike in MassDOT's current plan. The People's Pike many people want MassDOT to include is the off-road path between Wadsworth Street and the Worcester Line that Harvard proposed a few years ago.
Click to expand...

I shouldn't have used that term, because it means what you and your group decide that it does. Nonetheless, to connect to PDW, that path requires a bridge that necessitates (a) an all at-grade throat, meaning that the river gets filled and the PDW is a concrete berm (see below) and (b) ramps to access the bridge from PDW that require even more width and fill of the river. MassDOT has proposed routing a multi-use path north of the tracks, making the connection to PDW much easier and still connecting to Franklin Street. What's wrong with that?

1576010724486.png
 
Last edited:
Equilibria said:
Fine, but that's the clear and present danger that West Station advocates use to push an opening date before 2040. It's not "West Station will provide a convenient way for 500 people a day to get from Wellesley to their teaching jobs at BU and Harvard", it's "West Station will provide a critical rail link to Cambridge from the west".
Click to expand...

Well, I think the advocates made a mistake, to be frank. The purple line connection is not going to happen as envisioned. The reasons why have been detailed numerous times on this forum. Never say never, I guess, but if they *do* implement a shuttle from an Allston Yards stop (call it whatever you want) to North Station via GJ it won't be good service.

Harry Mattison said:
What sort of Urban Ring solution?
Click to expand...

Things that we've discussed to death in other threads. Ideally a Green Line branch out of Lechmere that runs along the Grand Junction and ties into the system at BU (by tunneling the B line to the bridge). Bonus points if a branch through lower Allston to Harvard gets tacked on with optional routings to Grand Junction or into the Central Subway.
 
Equilibria said:
MassDOT has proposed routing a multi-use path north of the tracks, making the connection to PDW much easier and still connecting to Franklin Street. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with using Cambridge Street South to get to the river?
  • It doesn't do anything to help people south of the Pike
  • The crossing to the river is only on the north side of the street
  • You need to cross multiple 5-lane intersections
Why is a path north of Wadsworth Street that connects to the Franklin Street footbridge and an Agganis Way footbridge better?
  • Connects to the heavily used Franklin Street footbridge, and creates space for the footbridge to have a straight ramp instead of the triple switchback designed by MassDOT that requires spending millions to take a 7,000 sq ft property
  • Useful for people south of the Pike
  • Connects West Station, Comm Ave, and BU to the river paths
  • Creates a buffer for people living on Wadsworth Street who are most harmed by the noise & pollution of the Pike & trains
Capture.JPG

Capture1.JPG
 
Harry Mattison said:
  • Connects to the heavily used Franklin Street footbridge, and creates space for the footbridge to have a straight ramp instead of the triple switchback designed by MassDOT that requires spending millions to take a 7,000 sq ft property
Click to expand...

The Franklin Street footbridge connects to Lower Allston. Accessing the Cambridge Street South route is more convenient from Lower Allston and doesn't require crossing the bridge at all. Why would people in Lower Allston want to go south to go north? Also, how are you creating the space for the straight ramp (which requires more room than switchbacks) without property takings? I assume you're relocating the tracks. If MassDOT says that's not a good idea, I believe them and their engineers more than you.

Harry Mattison said:
  • Useful for people south of the Pike
Click to expand...

I concede that, but the Cambridge Street South routing is better for people north of the Pike. It's kind of a tradeoff either way.

Harry Mattison said:
  • Connects West Station, Comm Ave, and BU to the river paths
Click to expand...

Connecting Comm Ave and BU to the river paths is accomplished with a bridge and has nothing to do with the longer bike path - a bridge that MassDOT has traded for a wider park and nicer PDW path with less environmental impact. Connecting West Station to the PDW path requires improving the currently proposed bike lanes on one block of connecting road between the station and Cambridge Street South.

Harry Mattison said:
  • Creates a buffer for people living on Wadsworth Street who are most harmed by the noise & pollution of the Pike & trains
Click to expand...

A buffer of, like, 15 feet. MassDOT has proposed sound walls for that area, I believe. Also, people don't tend to be too thrilled with the idea of bike paths in their backyards, though I don't know the Wadsworth Street folks.

Having a bike path that doesn't cross intersections is good - that's inarguable. That said, this is a multimodal project and constructability matters. What you propose hasn't (AFAIK) been publicly presented in an engineered, constructable way. We spend a ton of time on aB drawing lines on maps and having people (F-Line) tell us why they aren't possible. However nice it might be in theory, I haven't seen it presented as practicable (which other people outside of MassDOT have done on this project, see Ari Ofsevit and ABC's work on the at-grade alternatives that probably saved the Commonwealth many millions in long-term maintenance).
 
We don't need to be choosing either a Cambridge St South cycletrack OR a People's Pike & Wadsworth Path. They have different functions and both make sense. Anyway, these ideas have been publicly presented and the point of tomorrow's comment deadline is to ask for alternatives to be more fully studied, not to make a final decision.

People in North Allston trying to bike downtown might not feel safe crossing the big intersections on South Cambridge Street to get to the river paths. A slightly longer, much safer route, is a worthwhile option.

The Wadsworth path that Harvard proposed is 30' wide, not 15'. People also don't tend to be too thrilled with 20' sound walls on their property line.

Harvard's in-house team, their consultants at Parsons Brinckerhoff, and other professional engineers think the tracks can be shifted to the north to make space for the Franklin St Footbridge ramp and avoid property takings. It is not "MassDOT vs. Harry Mattison".

Harvard presentation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0Mv_n6nNyOTd0VSbDdFRTJ5T1kzR3lXZF9fOVR2clp5WjV3
MassDOT January 2019 presentation: https://www.mass.gov/doc/allston-task-force-meeting-presentation-012319/download
 
Harry Mattison said:
Harvard's in-house team, their consultants at Parsons Brinckerhoff, and other professional engineers think the tracks can be shifted to the north to make space for the Franklin St Footbridge ramp and avoid property takings. It is not "MassDOT vs. Harry Mattison".

Harvard presentation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0Mv_n6nNyOTd0VSbDdFRTJ5T1kzR3lXZF9fOVR2clp5WjV3
MassDOT January 2019 presentation: https://www.mass.gov/doc/allston-task-force-meeting-presentation-012319/download
Click to expand...

I retract my statement about this not being engineered - I didn't realize you were referring to the "flip".

You're leaving out that MassDOT's engineers studied the "flip" and rejected it in Harvard's form - I was watching the meeting on a livestream. I don't remember exactly why (maybe you do and clearly you don't agree) but the "flip" was studied and a modified version adopted (yet another example of MassDOT changing the project in response to activist requests).

We've been studying alternatives for six years now. The point of this phase of the process is to move on and f-ing build something that's way better than what's there now. Asking for more studies and more studies and more studies and more alternatives just delays any benefits of this project further into the 2030s.
 
Activists asked MassDOT to improve the Harvard Flip and Wadsworth Path. No activist asked MassDOT for a 3-track West Station and 2 tracks to bypass West Station.

MassDOT asked FHWA to let them "move on an build something". FHWA said: No you will do the full EIS process. So actually the next two years of the process are absolutely about studying alternatives.
MassDOT / FHWA correspondance: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dQj2Xy1cpZfbDxaFA3cQr02nDtCheULM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top