I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

[matredsoxfan]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Project website been launched http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/high.../AllstonI90InterchangeImprovementProject.aspx

 

[mass88]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

In isolation, nothing -- beyond cost, anyway. But the viaduct is constrained on several sides by the railroad infrastructure, the Soldier's Field Road/Charles River Reservation, and Boston University buildings. Widening the shoulders seems to necessitate cutting back on one of those constraints, and DOT unilaterally decided they could take a portion of the Charles River Reservation without even consulting DCR in the matter. That's when things went downhill.

There should not be a highway in the metro area that lacks breakdown lanes. I don't see why they cannot allow the viaduct to be wider considering this re-alignment is going to open up a lot of space nearby. In the end, they're not talking about that much addition space for the viaduct. According to the slides they'll be adding 9 feet for the shoulders.

 

[Matthew]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

There should not be a highway in the metro area that lacks breakdown lanes. I don't see why they cannot allow the viaduct to be wider considering this re-alignment is going to open up a lot of space nearby. In the end, they're not talking about that much addition space for the viaduct. According to the slides they'll be adding 9 feet for the shoulders.

Most of the Mass Pike Extension lacks breakdown lanes, including before and after the viaduct, on solid land. The shoulders that they plan would require an expansion of the viaduct by at least 23 feet, not 9 feet. The MassDOT spokesman said that they are looking at taking away a slice of approximately 30 feet wide and about half a mile long from the Charles River reservation, protected parkland.

Does the taking of parkland not register as significant in your mind? Either way, by law, if such a taking is desired then the Commonwealth is required to mitigate it in some way that more than makes up for the loss. So we shall see what they come up with. There are a number of good things they could do but so far they have not talked about it.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

The MassDOT spokesman said that they are looking at taking away a slice of approximately 30 feet wide and about half a mile long from the Charles River reservation, protected parkland.

How is this possible? It's only 18' from the edge of Storrow Drive to the river, so are we talking about the grass strip between Storrow and the edge of the current viaduct? Allowing that the visible roadway is not actually at ground level, that's about 35' on Google Earth.

If that's the issue, I'm not sure it's such a big one. That area is like a freeway median strip, and no one bemoans those.

Don't get me wrong, I love Dave's layout that relocates Storrow and makes the riverfront strip as wide as possible, but I can't picture how the riverfront could be threatened here. I guess I'll have to wait for the slides.

 

[Matthew]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

How is this possible? It's only 18' from the edge of Storrow Drive to the river, so are we talking about the grass strip between Storrow and the edge of the current viaduct? Allowing that the visible roadway is not actually at ground level, that's about 35' on Google Earth.

If that's the issue, I'm not sure it's such a big one. That area is like a freeway median strip, and no one bemoans those.

The distance between the viaduct and Soldier's Field Road ranges from 20 to 30 feet depending on precise location. And yes, right now it is a "freeway median strip" (with a lot of trees, I might add).

However it may look, that "median strip" enjoys the full legal protection afforded all parkland in the Commonwealth, and to take it for the highway would invoke Section 4(f) and all that implies.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

However it may look, that "median strip" enjoys the full legal protection afforded all parkland in the Commonwealth, and to take it for the highway would invoke Section 4(f) and all that implies.

I wasn't referring to the legal element, merely the emotional one. I totally get the problem you have with MassDOT trampling on the DCR's legal protection.

 

[ant8904]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

The MassDOT spokesman said that they are looking at taking away a slice of approximately 30 feet wide and about half a mile long from the Charles River reservation, protected parkland.

Does the taking of parkland not register as significant in your mind?

Going by what the discussion raised by Equilibra. I have to side that what wrong? No, the part that DCR is not being treated as an equal party. I get that part and I can see the predictable reaction.

I don't get is calling it calling this the taking of "protected parkland". This is only technically parkland. It's so narrow that there's not really an environment variable. So cut off that it is not really a park to any humans. If I was trying to communicate this, I would have to use the words in quotes to not miscommunicate a picture that MassDOT is an actual park for a highway. The question is only valid if one take the view that that "parkland" as actually parkland.

 

[cden4]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Their logic for adding a shoulder is the same flawed logic that allowed them to widen Route 128 for many millions of dollars. At some point in the past, the viaduct was striped with 4 lanes and no shoulder (as was much of the rest of the Turnpike Extension), just as at one point in time someone made the decision to allow rush hour travel in the shoulders of Route 128. The solution to both of these supposed safety issues is to restripe and re-regulate using the space available. In the case of the viaduct, if a shoulder is that important, then they can stripe it as 3 lanes instead of 4. And actually that would allow them to add a shoulder in all the other locations further east where physical constraints would NEVER allow for widening the Turnpike further. (And with Route 128, if shoulder use is so dangerous, MassDOT can simply stop allowing it. Problem solved.) I'm getting tired of these backdoor ways of expanding roads in the name of "safety". It's disingenuous and insulting to the intelligence of the public.

 

[davem]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

^They are rebuilding the viaduct no matter what, and shoulderless breakdowns cause massive backups. Additionally, with open road tolling, a breakdown on the viaduct has the potential for a much higher-speed accident than the current setup with the tolls throttling traffic speeds somewhat. I'm not one for unnecessary roadway expansions, but honestly the Pike could easily be 5 lanes in each direction from 128 to Copley. Four is sufficient, but three would be insanity.

What I'd advocate for is allowing the viaduct to be built per code: 10' shoulders, four 12' travel lanes. In exchange for a wider viaduct, Storrow Drive should be moved beneath it, freeing up accessible parkland along the river.

 

[Matthew]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

The current proposal calls for 10' outer shoulder and 4' inner shoulders, with 12' travel lanes.

12*8 + 10*2 + 4*2 = 124' of the 130' planned viaduct and the remaining 6' will be used for concrete barriers and supporting infrastructure.

I have no problem with shoulders, although I agree with cden4 that if they really cared about safety then they would have striped 3 lanes plus shoulders yesterday. I told them as much, in fact. But we all know that safety is yet another factor that is often traded off for other priorities, like cramming as many lanes as possible into the structure.

All we are asking for is that the DOT also respects our priorities when designing their structure, and those priorities include a greatly improved Charlies River reservation. If that means that they cannot do the full fat 10' + 4' shoulders then so be it. Or maybe they can find a way to make everyone happy, but they need to actually try.

I'm aware of the breakdown lane advantage, but I'll would like to note that their primary concern with the shoulders was drainage. That's what they spent most of the last meeting discussing, in fact.

Again, Antoine, it does not matter that you think the parkland in question is shit (I agree, that section is shit) all that matters is that it is legally protected and taking it invokes section 4(f). That means that DOT must do something in return. Hint hint. That's called negotiation. It would be nice for people not to denigrate the major bargaining chip that we have as a mechanism to force the DOT to actually do something nice for us, like say, putting Soldier's Field Road under part of the viaduct and shifting it away from the river to free up that land.

The latest slides (when they are uploaded) will include a section that is titled "Relocating Soldier's Field Road" that essentially concludes with: needs further study. So that's where it's at for now.

 

[davem]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I whipped up a quick example of how they could widen the viaduct, and have a net gain of parkland by moving Storrow Drive under it. Instead of descending as it does now, the grand junction would stay at the same grade coming off the bridge, and cross Storrow, the Pike, and the Worcester Line. From there it would descend, meeting up with the Worster Line near the curve and the new "West" Station.

 

[Uncivil_Engineer]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Would the Grand Junction be crossing the Worcester Line at grade or on a flyover? Another thing to keep in mind when moving Storrow is that at last check Houghton Chemical will still require a rail spur to their location next to the Doubletree, as they have chosen not to relocate.

 

[mass88]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Their logic for adding a shoulder is the same flawed logic that allowed them to widen Route 128 for many millions of dollars. At some point in the past, the viaduct was striped with 4 lanes and no shoulder (as was much of the rest of the Turnpike Extension), just as at one point in time someone made the decision to allow rush hour travel in the shoulders of Route 128. The solution to both of these supposed safety issues is to restripe and re-regulate using the space available. In the case of the viaduct, if a shoulder is that important, then they can stripe it as 3 lanes instead of 4. And actually that would allow them to add a shoulder in all the other locations further east where physical constraints would NEVER allow for widening the Turnpike further. (And with Route 128, if shoulder use is so dangerous, MassDOT can simply stop allowing it. Problem solved.) I'm getting tired of these backdoor ways of expanding roads in the name of "safety". It's disingenuous and insulting to the intelligence of the public.

Most of the highways in and around the city of Boston and the metro area are substandard and not wide enough. I am not saying this region needs to become Houston, or Los Angeles, but widening 128 to 4 full travel lanes makes sense. There are situations where widening and improving interchanges will go a long way to helping traffic more smoother during peak times.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Would the Grand Junction be crossing the Worcester Line at grade or on a flyover? Another thing to keep in mind when moving Storrow is that at last check Houghton Chemical will still require a rail spur to their location next to the Doubletree, as they have chosen not to relocate.

It doesn't matter what they've chosen to do. The City or State will take the land by eminent domain eventually if they don't sell.

 

[ant8904]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Again, Antoine, it does not matter that you think the parkland in question is shit (I agree, that section is shit) all that matters is that it is legally protected and taking it invokes section 4(f). That means that DOT must do something in return. Hint hint. That's called negotiation. It would be nice for people not to denigrate the major bargaining chip that we have as a mechanism to force the DOT to actually do something nice for us, like say, putting Soldier's Field Road under part of the viaduct and shifting it away from the river to free up that land.

If you are just trying to stay in character negotiation with MassDOT, very well. But if you are not, then we’re not MassDOT. The line “Does the taking of parkland not register as significant in your mind?” is an ethos argument (appealing in the wrongness of losing parks to highways) and pathos (the emotionality of the image). Thus, asking what’s the big deal about shoulders. Because there’s really isn’t anything significant about that “parkland.” But if you prefer to act like you do, though it doesn’t change the law’s requirement, but I guess keeping a face that you do care about the loss doesn’t hurt.

In terms of efficiency, it is sensible to a move to what Davem made a picture.

 

[CSTH]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

the Pike could easily be 5 lanes in each direction from 128 to Copley. Four is sufficient, but three would be insanity.

Couldn't disagree with this more - and I do the length of the pike from Logan to Weston every day.

The capacity of the pike within 128 is constrained by the access points. Between Weston and Copley all you're talking about is Newton Corner and Allston (and Rt. 16, WB). Those are two of the top traffic hot spots in the Boston area.

We'd all be better off if they took it to three continuous travel lanes and took the extra space new ramps and merges - and worcester line capacity to flood the zone with DMUs.

 

[paperless paul]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Couldn't disagree with this more - and I do the length of the pike from Logan to Weston every day.

The capacity of the pike within 128 is constrained by the access points. Between Weston and Copley all you're talking about is Newton Corner and Allston (and Rt. 16, WB). Those are two of the top traffic hot spots in the Boston area.

We'd all be better off if they took it to three continuous travel lanes and took the extra space new ramps and merges - and worcester line capacity to flood the zone with DMUs.

Definitely, this.

On a similar topic, I took the commuter rail from Back Bay to Yawkey yesterday for the Red Sox game, just to see how it functioned. Just prior to the game both directions arrived simultaneously and there was a good several hundreds of fans disembarking.

It wasn't horrible, but there was a stark contrast in quality to some recent trips of mine on the Milan suburban railway service. The contrast highlights the potential opportunity for a better medium distance / RER style service, as an example.

Milan is a very similar size to Boston (4.5m to 5.5m urban metro). And certainly Italy is in no better shape financially than the US. Although it is #2 national city, and #1 financial, compared to Boston being a less prominent city amongst many. And Milan does not have the difficult geography (river, ocean), or history (dropping mass transit from 60's through 80's).

But I strongly feel that the Turnpike / Worcester service could for the beginnings of a service that the majority of people would be happy to use. In Milan, the speed, the short dwell times, the quality and comfort of the cars, the relative attractiveness of the stations / waiting areas, the schedule and timeliness, multiple private companies, twice hourly freq., 6am to 12pm service (look up Milan passante / Youtube for further details) would make for a highly-used service.

We need to up our game, but the objective is wholly feasible, the goal is not for something futuristic or unobtainable. And Milan is not perfect either, there is graffiti on some trains, and missed schedules etc. I think a service of this quality would be appreciated by an even broader section of the public.

 

[paperless paul]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I whipped up a quick example of how they could widen the viaduct, and have a net gain of parkland by moving Storrow Drive under it. Instead of descending as it does now, the grand junction would stay at the same grade coming off the bridge, and cross Storrow, the Pike, and the Worcester Line. From there it would descend, meeting up with the Worster Line near the curve and the new "West" Station.

Sorry for the DMU/EMU digression, but back to the topic at hand. Although the MassDot proposals appear to be improving with time. I still have not seen a version which combines some of Davem's and others best ideas.

These include placing New Soldier's Field Rd (NSF) south of the river, on a straight alignment and then straight through Harvard Business School (HBS).

Maybe similar to Option 3B of MassDot proposal, and combined with Davem's putting NSF under a new Mass Pike viaduct. This path would align directly with the proposed HBS Stadium Way Road. It might be an underpass at any of Cambridge, Western or N. Harvard Sts similar to this.

After a slight curve between N Harvard and Western it would duck south of Harvard Stadium and intersect old Soldiers' Field Rd around the Charles River Canoe & Kayak.

At some future point, a new bridge could be built, with some land taking on the west side of the Charles near the American Legion Marsh Post, and the whole Rte 3, 3A, Elliot Bridge intersection could be rearranged.

Harvard would have to rearrange it's fields, but the main road - Stadium way is already planned for, and Harvard would massively benefit by removing SFR from it's front yard and replacing with either parkland or a double lane road. Much of this project could also be done in phases and require very little taking. It may not get us all the way to end of Storrow Drive. But it might not foreclose the idea, and it might be a right step in the direction.

The main question would be how to connect the SFR and Mass Pike interchange in this proposal. Perhaps it works if Storrow West does not easily connect to Pike East. And Storrow East does not easily connect to Pike West. Or perhaps it is impossible to make work. I would be interested to see a potential solution.

However, it would require a strategic / long-term view, exceptional co-ordination with Harvard and DCR and be beyond a 'highway' project and MassDot would be capable of proposing. All of these issues may put it into a Crazy pitches place. And ultimately they require political leadership.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Harvard owns the land on which Houghton Chemical sits.

 

[Uncivil_Engineer]

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

It doesn't matter what they've chosen to do. The City or State will take the land by eminent domain eventually if they don't sell.

I completely agree that they probably could, but all of the design alternatives in the May presentation include a rail spur to Houghton. There was some discussion over on railroad.net about this; from what I could tell the issue is that Houghton serves Logan (de-icer, etc) and that any relocation will need to have a surface route to the airport (no tunnels because of the placards). Chelsea/Revere would have made sense, but after the whole Global ethanol debacle a year or so ago, any mention of "chemical train" in that area is going to stir up some politics. They still could be relocated, but they're only moving for the right price.