I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

Tallguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what I had in mind, but I wasn't sure how feasible that would be..
 
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.
 
stefal said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
stick n move said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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:
Charlie_mta said:
The Army Corps would never issue a permit for placing fill in the river.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
jklo said:
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.
Click to expand...

You want to overthink it, though. The increase in lifetime cost of a viaduct vs. a grounded highway makes it very much worth it.
 
Equilibria said:
You want to overthink it, though. The increase in lifetime cost of a viaduct vs. a grounded highway makes it very much worth it.
Click to expand...

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:
tangent said:
They would if the bank was moved back an equal amount on the Cambridge side.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top