I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

[shmessy]

I wonder how much BU is getting for that land.

From the article:

"(Harvard has committed $58 million to West Station, and BU has pledged at least $8 million.)"

For good reason: BU is definitely going to benefit from this overall.

 

[JumboBuc]

Mass. Pike in Allston will be grounded, state says, vowing to move forward with mega transportation project - The Boston Globe

The megaproject — now projected to cost $1.7 billion — would straighten out the Turnpike’s curve in the area, build a new transit station on the Worcester/Framingham commuter rail line, and open up around 100 acres of land for development in Allston.

www.bostonglobe.com

Finally. Such a win-win-win.

Is this a situation where Pollack had dug herself in too deep and we needed a new Secretary for a fresh reboot?

 

[Charlie_mta]

Finally. Such a win-win-win.

Is this a situation where Pollack had dug herself in too deep and we needed a new Secretary for a fresh reboot?

Nice renders of the grounding project in the article. Most of the $1.7 billion cost is not funded, which makes me a bit wary about it actually happening.

 

[Equilibria]

Finally. Such a win-win-win.

Is this a situation where Pollack had dug herself in too deep and we needed a new Secretary for a fresh reboot?

Nah, it's a situation where the House is about to approve a Brinks truck worth of capital infrastructure funding and they didn't want to miss their share.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

View attachment 17301View attachment 17302

I really don't look at these renderings and think "wow what a win for pedestrian and car free advocates" at all. This is wide, loud, and encroaches on the river. It takes what little strip of coastline is left where the current path is and paves over it while putting the bike path on a boardwalk.

Finally. Such a win-win-win.



Is this a situation where Pollack had dug herself in too deep and we needed a new Secretary for a fresh reboot?

Pollack is now heading the FHWA and will inevitably be the one approving this project's funding and approving the variances to make it happen

 

[bigpicture7]

i'm sorry, my heart bleeds in the direction that yours does (finding a way to get rid of cars), but I feel compelled to push back on pretty much this entire post.

I really don't look at these renderings and think "wow what a win for pedestrian and car free advocates" at all. This is wide, loud, and encroaches on the river. It takes what little strip of coastline is left where the current path is and paves over it while putting the bike path on a boardwalk.

1) Have you ever (with any substantive frequency as part of a commute or workout routine) tried to run/walk/bike on the terrifying narrow strip of "path" that is there now at the throat? The microscopically thin strip of weeds and litter that sits between the current path and the river is so narrow and sloped (at the narrow part) that nothing human- or environmentally-friendly could ever come of it with the existing infrastructure configuration. At the very least, simply maintaining the status quo would have eventually involved a retaining wall at some point just to sustain the thing, and then there goes your "coastline" anyway.
2) So you thought that The Massachusetts Turnpike was going to get cancelled as part of this project? What's more realistic is that half of the at-grade solution be turned into a linear green park in the future, rather than, as part of this deal, expecting a substantial reduction of The Pike or Storrow. Meanwhile, hauling away all of that rusted steel and concrete is going to happen.

For all users involved on all modes, the present proposal is an improvement and presents a path forward out of the years-long gridlock.

Pollack is now heading the FHWA and will inevitably be the one approving this project's funding and approving the variances to make it happen

Come on, the aspect that made this project vexing was negotiating with all the stubborn-as-hell local parties, especially BU and Harvard. If BU had offered up those 7 feet years ago, this would have been a totally different ballgame. Handing out cash or checking off boxes from afar is not the same thing. All politics is local.

 

[Brattle Loop]

2) So you thought that The Massachusetts Turnpike was going to get cancelled as part of this project? What's more realistic is that half of the at-grade solution be turned into a linear green park in the future, rather than, as part of this deal, expecting a substantial reduction of The Pike or Storrow. Meanwhile, hauling away all of that rusted steel and concrete is going to happen.

This. Someone (possibly F-Line) went through this not too long ago. It's apparent that lane reductions, particularly for the Pike, were not ever on the table from the powers that be. Lament that all you want (I can't say I trust that such decisions were made on the basis of sound analysis of traffic and throughput impacts rather than the highway lobby and fear of NIMBYs, but I also wasn't in the room and frankly haven't followed this thread all that closely). But as long as the lane numbers remaining the same was effectively a project requirement, that severely limited the options that would get approved. I entirely agree that there's little point moaning about the fact that the Pike didn't get cancelled when it's been clear for months if not years that that was never going to happen, not now, not as part of this project.

 

[JumboBuc]

Another render:

1) Have you ever (with any substantive frequency as part of a commute or workout routine) tried to run/walk/bike on the terrifying narrow strip of "path" that is there now at the throat? The microscopically thin strip of weeds and litter that sits between the current path and the river is so narrow and sloped (at the narrow part) that nothing human- or environmentally-friendly could ever come of it with the existing infrastructure configuration. At the very least, simply maintaining the status quo would have eventually involved a retaining wall at some point just to sustain the thing, and then there goes your "coastline" anyway.

Agreed, the proposed bike / ped "boardwalk" looks way better than the current "shoreline." This is a situation where building in the river will lead to a better outcome than trying to squeeze in next to it. The best parts of the Esplanade itself are, after all, fill built out into the river.

A few "street beach" floating docks in the river moored to this ped / bike "boardwalk" (like already exist over on the Esplanade) would also be a nice low-cost improvement down the road.

 

[mass88]

That render, with the path in the water, makes me think of the Schuylkill path in Philadelphia.

 

[Charlie_mta]

^ Looks a bit like Le Corbusier's contemporary city. But all kidding aside, I thinks it's the best solution possible.

 

[mass88]

^ Looks a bit like Le Corbusier's contemporary city. But all kidding aside, I thinks it's the best solution possible.

It is the best solution - the sooner they get the shovels in the ground, the better.

 

[RandomWalk]

The renders remind me of the Inner Belt Charles River crossing.

 

[donkeybutlers]

A few "street beach" floating docks in the river moored to this ped / bike "boardwalk" (like already exist over on the Esplanade) would also be a nice low-cost improvement down the road.

Or maybe a floating park like this in Chicago could help extend the natural area under and around the boardwalk.

 

[stellarfun]

Slide deck with one additional rendering here.

https://public.flourish.studio/story/998925/?utm_source=showcase&utm_campaign=story/998925

 

[BostonTrainGuy]

No renderings of what the new Grand Junction bridge is going to look like.

That nice sleek pedestrian bridge is probably going to end up being an ugly chain-link fence tube however.

Best solution. Thankfully they came to their senses.

 

[stick n move]

“There are still aspects of the plan that have critics. The Charles River Watershed Association is not happy that the bike and pedestrian path will be moved into the river, citing disruption of sediment and harm to the ecosystems.

“River intrusion is river intrusion, particularly when there are 12 lanes of roadway that are unnecessary,” said Emily Norton, the association’s executive director.

Another unresolved environmental question involves resiliency. The Federal Highway Administration has raised concerns that the at-grade highway option could make the turnpike susceptible to flooding. Gulliver said state transportation officials are confident that an agreement can be reached that will satisfy the FHA’s concerns on flooding issues by the end of the year.”


- So in the end the issues of building over the river and the flood risk werent as insurmountable as they had led on. Thank god because although at grade had the issues noted above, it was still by far the most beneficial proposal to everybodys needs. There was just no way to fit everything in there without building over the river, and doing so was the least disruptive and frankly still better option vs what else there was. Im glad they were able to reach a compromise here for the greater good. Its not perfect, its still slamming a huge amount of car infrastructure through a small space, but given the options at hand this was the best way to do it. Its great to see.

 

[North Shore]

Upon reading this news, I am very much content with the proposed solution!

 

[ulrichomega]

Would you rather I beat around the bush for 25 minutes or point out the obvious? Jee-zus...knock it off with the backhanded compliments. You offered it up for critique on a messageboard, didn't you?!?! Don't pretend it's not fair game for critique.


"Some structures removed" is burying the lede just a weeeeeeeee bit, don't you think? The primary Housing Services administrative building housing the bulk of the University's residential support staff would get nuked in the process, as would an entire wing of the College of Fine Arts. Plus an entire new-construction dorm would have its primary loading docks rendered nonfunctional.

Those are not minor impacts. They're major. And BU would be well within its rights to demand the absolute moon in compensation for the disruption it would cause. That moon they'd demand is very surely going to be more than enough to sink the prospects of said land grab.

How does this new plan interact with these concerns? The fact that it's 7 feet as opposed to 30 definitely makes things easier. I'm tempted to say that dismissing the idea out-of-hand wasn't the right move if that's the direction the state ended up going in.

 

[BeyondRevenue]

This is a great outcome. And I’m stunned that BU suited up and actually publicly participated! Also I agree that the present bike path sucks (narrow, loud, scary, stinky). I believe you can add a few feet of shoreline at the throat as needed and then subtract it elsewhere because the routing of the Charles through the city is 100% man-made. Anyone who fights for the status quo on purely environmental grounds is missing out on a great opportunity to do more good for the entire watershed by getting mitigation cash worked into a smarter overall solution. Smug indignance needs to step off.

 

[BeyondRevenue]

How does this new plan interact with these concerns? The fact that it's 7 feet as opposed to 30 definitely makes things easier. I'm tempted to say that dismissing the idea out-of-hand wasn't the right move if that's the direction the state ended up going in.

I think BU is kicking in some cash as well. They know they’ll benefit big from this. There is more gracious and common sense feedback from BU here: https://mass.streetsblog.org/2020/1...es-for-at-grade-allston-turnpike-alternative/