I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

stefal

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
940
Reaction score
514
I think that Chicago offers us a solution. Tracks and highway at ground level with complete deck over and continue with a gradual slope down to Cambridge St. You create an artificial "ground level". Recall the chase scenes from Blues Brothers. But of course, it will look wacky until developed. But that is how they did Back Bay.
That's what I had in mind, but I wasn't sure how feasible that would be..
 

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
150
Reaction score
29
Well, steeper toward the western end, but you have a 1000ft to drop 20-25 ft plus whatever natural drop. Ideally, you wouldn't even realize the highway was there.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
1,668
Reaction score
295
This is a lot better, but how do you account for elevation change? Those bridges going over I-90 have to meet up with the grid pretty quick, and that might make for an awkward development/dead street presence for whatever building goes in there. That being said, the pedestrian experience is about 10x better than the overlapping bridges and differing levels that MassDOT currently has planned.
I measure about a 9% grade, If the railway were lowered a bit you could get it down to 8%, a typical maximum for an arterial street. I think it could be done.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,977
Reaction score
1,337
Howabout chop some off from the Cambridge side on the left and add it to the Allston side on the right. That way youre not making the river any thinner here. Adding to the right would make it pretty thin, so this could be a solution. Its a pretty wonky shape anyways, clean it up a bit.
FCFE3D6E-17EA-4C9A-91AA-BFB8EB578914.jpeg
 
Last edited:

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
6,409
Reaction score
1,273
Howabout chop some off from the Cambridge side on the left and add it to the Allston side on the right. That way youre not making the river any thinner here. Its a pretty wonky shape, clean it up a bit.
The whole reason the conservation folks didn't want temp-anything overhanging the Charles was that modification of the riverbank was verboten in their eyes. This idea would get shot out of the sky with equal vigor for the same exact reason. It's a nonstarter.


Yeah, yeah...we all know the entirety of the Charles Basin is artificial human creation. But this wouldn't qualify under purely "environmental" remediation because the bend in the river isn't contributing to any ecological crisis...not like the Muddy River outflow remediation project into the Basin was/is "environmental" with capital-E. This is the part of the riverbank that's supposed to flood so the Esplanade doesn't. Therefore it doesn't matter whose mutual convenience it works towards...the riverbank isn't modifiable in any shotgun with a transpo project because there's no burning ecological crisis to solve. That would be poking the same bear that went on a head-biting rampage during the temp-bridging negotiation fiasco.
 

vanshnookenraggen

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
364
The environazis don't want to fill in the river and want to get rid of roads for cars. They don't want compromise either. So instead we get a half assed design that won't make anyone happy.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,977
Reaction score
1,337
I know they wont, the point is theres lots of potential ways to fix the throat but theyve eliminated every option that could lead to this being a success, and then wonder why what theyre left with sucks. The only options left are are crap, so pick a crappy option. The only choices allowed are rebuild whats there or elevate sfr, so flip a coin and get to it.

The option stated above would be the best, least destructive, but again even it is a non starter. Shitty options = shitty result. Cant wait.
 
Last edited:

tangent

Senior Member
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
55
The Army Corps would never issue a permit for placing fill in the river.
They would if the bank was moved back an equal amount on the Cambridge side.

I agree it probably would never happen, but I also don't think this project should happen unless they ground the major road ways either by filling in the river, eliminating lanes or eliminating pedestrian infrastructure. Lane reduction would be the best solution at this point. Or maybe even a Boring Company tunnel or 4.

Otherwise just maintain and overhaul the existing infrastructure.
 

jklo

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
500
Reaction score
35
Looking at it some more, yeah the best thing is to just wholesale replace the viaduct at the throat and then ground once you past it. It's really only a quarter of a mile. Any other option is overthinking it.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
4,578
Reaction score
966
Looking at it some more, yeah the best thing is to just wholesale replace the viaduct at the throat and then ground once you past it. It's really only a quarter of a mile. Any other option is overthinking it.
You want to overthink it, though. The increase in lifetime cost of a viaduct vs. a grounded highway makes it very much worth it.
 

jklo

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
500
Reaction score
35
You want to overthink it, though. The increase in lifetime cost of a viaduct vs. a grounded highway makes it very much worth it.
The viaduct would be a lot shorter than it is now. If you dumped Grand Junction, maybe you could reduce the viaduct to only eastbound. Or maybe you could dig a tiny enough hole underneath the now grounded WB Pike just to give Grand Junction a way to get across. And if that gets flooded, well it gets flooded.
 
Last edited:

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
1,668
Reaction score
295
They would if the bank was moved back an equal amount on the Cambridge side.
I tried that on a smaller project and the Army Corps wouldn't budge, plus the weight of the environmentalists thrown in for good measure. Their case is that existing established riparian areas along the banks would be destroyed.
 

Top