I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

RandomWalk said:
It seems to boil down to choose two:
- Grand Junction
- 8 lanes of the Pike at ground level
- Zero filling of the Charles
Click to expand...

You mean "doing the viaduct as is or do nothing until the bridge falls down"
 
Ok, in response to RandomWalk's "choose 2" paradox...An all at-grade solution except:
For a short stretch at the throat, elevate just the walking/jogging path above the outer lanes of SFR, but squeeze the bike path at-grade along the river. Motivate walkers/joggers to take the elevated route by making it a cool "scenic view"/highline-type "park" experience. Fit everything else at-grade. Commuting cyclists want speed, everyone else wants either/both a view or a workout. Vehicle-less people are the cheapest thing to elevate.

EDIT: OK, I realize this is basically the physics-defying cantilevered path thing posted upthread...except, just put support posts in the SFR median and don't attempt to elevate the cycle track and call it a day.
 
jklo said:
You mean "doing the viaduct as is or do nothing until the bridge falls down"
Click to expand...
Pretty much.
- Grand Junction
Click to expand...
Locked in at full RR geometry, because federally-regulated and there are 2 immediate tenant objectors to deleting it outright from the network. Concessions functionally won't come from here.
- 8 lanes of the Pike at ground level
Click to expand...
MassDOT already nixed any proposals that reduce number of lanes, any proposals that reduce width of lanes and drawn a red line in the sand on that. Concessions functionally won't come from here.
- Zero filling of the Charles
Click to expand...
MassDOT doesn't want to do it, Feds are being bastards about allowing it. In my heart I think this one probably has more *actual* functional leeway in the real world, but both state+feds are playing a kabuki dance with their synced objections to net a desired outcome that excludes other outcomes. Extremely unwilling parties for any concessions means they aren't coming from here.

$75M in wholly temporary patch repairs has already been programmed/lit on fire because of the delays in reaching a decision, so ponderous new levels of navel-gazing about any of these isn't going to do anything except dig the temp-patch hole ever deeper. Which in turn is going to further constrain the amount of accommodation leeway in the deferred perma-fix.

--------------------

bigpicture7 said:
Ok, probably stupid, but at this point why not...An all at-grade solution except:
For a short stretch at the throat, elevate just the walking/jogging path above the outer lanes of SFR, but squeeze the bike path at-grade along the river. Motivate walkers/joggers to take the elevated route by making it a cool "scenic view"/highline-type "park" experience. Fit everything else at-grade. Commuting cyclists want speed, everyone else wants either/both a view or a workout. Vehicle-less people are the cheapest thing to elevate.
Click to expand...
Oddly, this is probably the most feasible out of anything. But will the now incredibly factionalized advocacy go for it??? Everybody's kind of stuck in a "No! No! No!" rut right now and in such a fighting mood / unwilling to give an inch that this too might not stand a chance. I get the feeling textbooks are gonna get written on the community input-gone-awry/outreach-begats-self-immolation aspect of this whole travesty.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the ambiguous “it”. I should have said “Any non-viaduct solution”.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Ok, in response to RandomWalk's "choose 2" paradox...An all at-grade solution except:
For a short stretch at the throat, elevate just the walking/jogging path above the outer lanes of SFR, but squeeze the bike path at-grade along the river. Motivate walkers/joggers to take the elevated route by making it a cool "scenic view"/highline-type "park" experience. Fit everything else at-grade. Commuting cyclists want speed, everyone else wants either/both a view or a workout. Vehicle-less people are the cheapest thing to elevate.

EDIT: OK, I realize this is basically the physics-defying cantilevered path thing posted upthread...except, just put support posts in the SFR median and don't attempt to elevate the cycle track and call it a day.
Click to expand...
Am I misunderstanding that the issue is not the path out in the river but the four feet of SFR that needs to have that landfill to be possible? This would not solve that issue.
 
jbray said:
Am I misunderstanding that the issue is not the path out in the river but the four feet of SFR that needs to have that landfill to be possible? This would not solve that issue.
Click to expand...
I agree. The only way to eliminate SFR fill into the river in an all at-grade alternative is to eliminate, or elevate and stack, the GJ through the throat. Otherwise the SFR fill will spill into the river which the Feds are allegedly dead-set against, and other publics actually are against. And F-Line is right about the impossibility of eliminating the GJ in the foreseeable future. Even if someday N-S freight traffic and maintenance is set up so the GJ isn't needed, a 2 track RR ROW (in addition to the 2 track Worcester line) thru the throat will still be needed for an LRV line to West Station (and beyond).
 
^Damn, my apologies for failing to fully grasp the magnitude of how eff'd this situation is
 
Let's just throw it all in an elavated viaduct (multi-tier if needed). Ground level underneath is developed as retail/pedestrian/parks and inherinantly connected to the Charles.
 
Ok, here's my last attempt. What if, just at the throat area, we create one large subtly banked turn, where all of these ROWs stair-step up a very slight angle. Think of a banked turn on a race track or indoor running track. Then we carve out a space underneath for bike path and running/walking path. This would not require much headroom because we're not talking about vehicles here. And the angle on which all the vehicular ROWs sit would be just enough to buy us the 4 freaking feet we need along the hypotenuse.

I90_angle.png
 
^Everything's out of the flood zone, so the Feds would be okay with it....
 
stefal said:
^Everything's out of the flood zone, so the Feds would be okay with it....
Click to expand...

Make it taller and might as well just cantilever it over the river instead of banking. Then I get my land to develop under it :ROFLMAO:
 
BostonTrainGuy said:
Not everyone can take the T to work
Click to expand...
But almost everyone commuting from MetroWest to downtown should in fact be able to take the 'T to work. We don't need 12 lanes to satisfy the other road use elements you've identified. Spend some of the money saved by lane reduction on building a solid, high frequency, high capacity rail line between Worcester and South Station, and we can actually increase the number of trips, despite reducing car capacity.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Ok, in response to RandomWalk's "choose 2" paradox...An all at-grade solution except:
For a short stretch at the throat, elevate just the walking/jogging path above the outer lanes of SFR, but squeeze the bike path at-grade along the river. Motivate walkers/joggers to take the elevated route by making it a cool "scenic view"/highline-type "park" experience. Fit everything else at-grade. Commuting cyclists want speed, everyone else wants either/both a view or a workout. Vehicle-less people are the cheapest thing to elevate.

EDIT: OK, I realize this is basically the physics-defying cantilevered path thing posted upthread...except, just put support posts in the SFR median and don't attempt to elevate the cycle track and call it a day.
Click to expand...
I would leave the pedestrian path at grade and elevate the bike path. Most bike riders would be okay with a short climb if it meant avoiding mixing with pedestrian users.
 
What is the possibility of grabbing four feet from the present design? I have circled four places where there appears to be a foot or more of leeway available.

1 - Could they reduce the four foot (mostly useless) "Mini Breakdown Lane" on the Pike to three feet?

2 - Do we really need 18 feet between the track centers of the two center tracks of the GJ and the Mainline when there is only 13 feet between the other tracks? Can there be something else constructed here more like a foot thick metal cofferdam sheet? I'm not an engineer but right there you have five feet (18'-13') to play with.

Maybe exemptions would be required in these cases but perhaps the powers that be can make that work since the other alternatives just seem out of reach at this point.
Throat.jpg
 
Last edited:
The width between the edges of the GJR and WML may be required for worker/operator/emergency safety. You need a space to stand if a train ends up passing by while you are out there/if you are evacuating a train for whatever reason, and that's usually dedicated on the sides. With the change in terrain, you need that clearance between the tracks and either the edge of the wall for the WML or the top of the wall/edge of the guard rail for the GJR. There's a pretty good chance that 5 feet is going to be needed no matter how you arrange those railroads.

To your point of the shoulders, that's a tricky game to play. I imagine any disabled cars are going to use that few extra feet to stay a little more to the side.

Is a zipper lane out of the question here? I can imagine there might be required lane widths that aren't feasible here, but might be worth asking.
 
BostonTrainGuy said:
2 - Do we really need 18 feet between the track centers of the two center tracks of the GJ and the Mainline when there is only 13 feet between the other tracks? Can there be something else constructed here more like a foot thick metal cofferdam sheet? I'm not an engineer but right there you have five feet (18'-13') to play with.
Click to expand...
I think the horizontal distance between the GJ and the Mainline is because the GJ is higher up than the Mainline, so the GJ can pass over the Pike and SFR at the BU Bridge, The GJ slopes down (at 1.5% grade) to meet the elevation of the Mainline at the west end of the Throat area. The additional horizontal distance between the two lines is needed for a fence along each line because of the elevation difference.
 
Many advocates are very interested in the possibility of elevating some or all of the paths. We even worked with CBT and Perkins&Will (who very generously did an award-winning pro bono design project with us).

https://www.abettercity.org/news-an...ign-exploration-with-cbt-and-perkins-and-will

1628629741311.png


F-Line to Dudley said:
Ok, probably stupid, but at this point why not...An all at-grade solution except:
For a short stretch at the throat, elevate just the walking/jogging path above the outer lanes of SFR, but squeeze the bike path at-grade along the river. Motivate walkers/joggers to take the elevated route by making it a cool "scenic view"/highline-type "park" experience. Fit everything else at-grade. Commuting cyclists want speed, everyone else wants either/both a view or a workout. Vehicle-less people are the cheapest thing to elevate.
--------------------
Oddly, this is probably the most feasible out of anything. But will the now incredibly factionalized advocacy go for it??? Everybody's kind of stuck in a "No! No! No!" rut right now and in such a fighting mood / unwilling to give an inch that this too might not stand a chance. I get the feeling textbooks are gonna get written on the community input-gone-awry/outreach-begats-self-immolation aspect of this whole travesty.
Click to expand...
 
The trees look pretty in the renders, but there is almost zero chance of them being healthy enough to grow beyond little saplings.
 
I thought it was settled that the Feds aren't going to allow filling in the river at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top