I had a feeling Pollack was a lot of the reason for the continued resistance to this alternative, but it's still shocking to see how quickly consensus is building now that she's gone.https://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/on-allston-project-tone-changes-but-challenges-remain/
With Pollack out of the picture, MassDOT has moved to at-grade with the path in the river, and it at least sounds like everyone's working together now.
I had wondered if the Readville layover was going to pull the Allston layover off the table, and it has.
I still don't particularly care for any river intrusion myself. I would, however, say that taking the 4ft from the roadways, or even convincing BU to give up another foot or two would be ideal.To do this right they need to take only four feet from the river. The river is very wide at this point. I think it has to be the answer since that will allow the best solution.
It is the answer - no reason or need to take away from roadway when you can claim 4 feet of the river.To do this right they need to take only four feet from the river. The river is very wide at this point. I think it has to be the answer since that will allow the best solution.
Depends on *how* they treat the river. If it requires re-dredging new pilings to move the retaining wall a few feet out, that's going to touch the dirty-dirt on the riverbed. The river has a "clean" bill of health because the truly nasty accumulations of industrial runoff are below the top layer of silt, below the point where river currents or incidental touches by a crew oar are going to stir up the nasty stuff. But go below that topmost/last-25-years of layering and you've engaging tons (literally) of problematic pollution.I still don't particularly care for any river intrusion myself. I would, however, say that taking the 4ft from the roadways, or even convincing BU to give up another foot or two would be ideal.
Further Comm Mag reading on that subject: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/tr...ds-with-earlier-statements-by-pollack-poftak/I had wondered if the Readville layover was going to pull the Allston layover off the table, and it has.
Don't need to do any advance provisioning. Right now they're planning an extra CR platform to enable shuttle service via the Grand Junction, with trajectory side-by-side to the Worcester mainline island platform. In the event of a mode conversion that side-by-side running just gets fenced off with pick-a-platform RR crossovers deleted, and the extra platform gets leveled down from a CR full-high to an LRT low. The station egresses would be largely unchanged under such a conversion. Consequently there's nothing really to pre-plan for because the trajectory for 2 tracks from the Grand Junction is fully RR-provisioned in any/all 'Throat' designs, and ports straight over to LRT if you change the mode.This is probably the wrong thread but are they preprovisioning West Station for eventual green line station with UR?
A good portion of the Junction is single track. There is room for the most part but you'd have to lay new track and move the existing one. It's a big project in and of itself to get it usable.Also with the many proposals like the recent AmeriStarRail (https://ameristarrail.com) plan that envision through service on the Grand Junction, I think West Station could be a sensible alternative to going into North Station and reversing out. Seems like there are many ideas on new services that would use West Station and this is the time to plan for a more substantial station that can serve commuter rail, Urban Ring and some long distance services. The very thought that they plan to keep the Grand Junction as a double track connection is very promising for any future services.
I'd have figured they'd want that traffic to stay on the Pike and 93 North, given those are the largest-capacity pipes in the network.It's really too bad that they couldn't somehow configure a direct connection from the Pike EB to Storrow Dr EB where you wouldn't have to go through any traffic lights or intersections. I think a lot of people would get off there and take Storrow to the Tobin Bridge, Everrett, Somerville, etc vs staying on the Pike and taking 93 NB. During a good part of the day, it takes 10-15 minutes just to get through the lights at the end of the Allston Off-ramp to get on to Storrow EB, which doesn't give you much of an incentive to get off the Pike to get to the above mentioned points.
So they claim. Given that Harvard has been absentee to-date with all manner of planning, appears to just be engaging in a cynical 25+ year land-park, and hasn't shown its hand with *where* exactly that transit ROW is going to be...it's not a set-it-and-forget-it promise. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming on things like street grid design, lest we get stuck with things like that chunky mess currently placeholdered. I don't think it would be hard per se to make them keep their promise, but "make them" is the operative term given who we're dealing with.Oh wow didnt know Harvard had to leave room for a transit ROW through their propwrty from west station. Awesome!
Doubly so if we intend to tear down the Bowker, make well-timed Charlesgate signals handle the Fenway loading, and disappear some considerable induced demand traffic in the process. Expressway-free movements encourage more induced demand rather than tame it.I'd have figured they'd want that traffic to stay on the Pike and 93 North, given those are the largest-capacity pipes in the network.
Discouraging people from thinking Storrow is "another highway" to speed between is exactly the point, and exactly where the induced demand ends up getting substantially reduced. That is, in essence, the "feature" over the "bug".If the desire line is to go from one highway to another, switching to local a local arterial is the exact wrong move.
Yeah, opinions are always gonna vary. But this was beyond-thoroughly debated in the literally decades of public debate over rebooting the Allston exits, and whither direct onramps was a big part of that debate. The consensus that emerged was that the stakeholders wanted to pivot away from this being a highway-to-highway interchange, wanted to make it an exit to surface arterials for the essential-most access at the minimum-most induced demand potential, and wanted to tee up a future where things like the Bowker could be made more expendable instead of less by virtue of their leading decisions on the Pike exit.I guess I kind of consider Storrow already being a quasi-highway and was just thinking it wouldn't hurt to take several thousand cars a day off of the central artery which isn't exactly without its' own traffic headaches.