I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

BeyondRevenue said:
Still doesn’t change the fact that we funnel all the Allston Cambridge N-S traffic through 1 bridge. It’s a mistake that should have been fixed 40 years ago. This project needs more crossings.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree. This is actually a problem that Boston as a whole has. Tons of roads going east-west to get downtown and back, almost no roads going north to south across the city. Trying to go from Dorchester across the city to Brookline, Allston, Brighton is a nightmare.

As far as here Babcock makes a lot more sense than Malvern which they plan to extend over, because Babcock goes all the way to Harvard st., Malvern just ends at Brighton ave. Maybe if there was a way for buses to turn from Commonwealth to Malvern it would work, but that would be a massive clusterfuck. They really need to extend both Malvern and Babcock. I would even say finding a way to extend Harry Agganis way would be good, because its pretty wide. Babcock is also muuch wider than Malvern. The more connections though the better.
 
stick n move said:
Definitely agree. This is actually a problem that Boston as a whole has. Tons of roads going east-west to get downtown and back, almost no roads going north to south across the city. Trying to go from Dorchester across the city to Brookline, Allston, Brighton is a nightmare.

As far as here Babcock makes a lot more sense than Malvern which they plan to extend over, because Babcock goes all the way to Harvard st., Malvern just ends at Brighton ave. Maybe if there was a way for buses to turn from Commonwealth to Malvern it would work, but that would be a massive clusterfuck. They really need to extend both Malvern and Babcock. I would even say finding a way to extend Harry Agganis way would be good, because its pretty wide. Babcock is also muuch wider than Malvern. The more connections though the better.
Click to expand...
The way our public feedback approach to design goes: a handful of Babcock bordering blue-hair boomer property owners would stop the whole project because they would suddenly be getting traffic on the streets we own. Malvern is all absentee landlord owned student slums = no power, no objections, no problem.
Build a bunch of bridges. Agganis, Babcock, Malvern, Pratt, Franklin. Build em all.
 
BeyondRevenue said:
The way our public feedback approach to design goes: a handful of Babcock bordering blue-hair boomer property owners would stop the whole project because they would suddenly be getting traffic on the streets we own. Malvern is all absentee landlord owned student slums = no power, no objections, no problem.
Build a bunch of bridges. Agganis, Babcock, Malvern, Pratt, Franklin. Build em all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I didn't follow the initial phases of the design closely enough, but were those actual objections raised that got us to our current design?

My impression is that Malvern is the only low-impact choice with current built environment for a bus connection. If you're not trenching the rail line significantly, you can't get the bridge grounded before Ashford St.

At Malvern, you buy out a single small moving/storage facility and you're all set.

At Babcock that would cut a moderately significant BU facility off from road access with no obvious way to create an alternate - and one that legitimately does need load-in/out capabilities by vehicle.

No opposition to additional ped/bike links (and there is the one planned at Babcock + the Franklin replacement), although I do think Pratt would be pretty low-value under the current plans.

-------

Ignoring the huge open question of what bus routes we're actually coming up with to use this bridge, I think you can solve if you want to send something inbound on Comm or south on Babcock pretty easily: Just use Babcock anyway - via Ashford. The Ashford/Malvern corner won't be a problem since you're taking the whole parcel anyway, Ashford/Babcock has the space to adjust the corner significantly. If there's delay at the light knock out the last 2 blocks of parking for a queue jump/bus lane from Gardner to Babcock - it's only about a dozen spaces.
 
millerm277 said:
Perhaps I didn't follow the initial phases of the design closely enough, but were those actual objections raised that got us to our current design?

My impression is that Malvern is the only low-impact choice with current built environment for a bus connection. If you're not trenching the rail line significantly, you can't get the bridge grounded before Ashford St.

At Malvern, you buy out a single small moving/storage facility and you're all set.

At Babcock that would cut a moderately significant BU facility off from road access with no obvious way to create an alternate - and one that legitimately does need load-in/out capabilities by vehicle.

No opposition to additional ped/bike links (and there is the one planned at Babcock + the Franklin replacement), although I do think Pratt would be pretty low-value under the current plans.

-------

Ignoring the huge open question of what bus routes we're actually coming up with to use this bridge, I think you can solve if you want to send something inbound on Comm or south on Babcock pretty easily: Just use Babcock anyway - via Ashford. The Ashford/Malvern corner won't be a problem since you're taking the whole parcel anyway, Ashford/Babcock has the space to adjust the corner significantly. If there's delay at the light knock out the last 2 blocks of parking for a queue jump/bus lane from Gardner to Babcock - it's only about a dozen spaces.
Click to expand...
It's about more than buses, it's about tying the two neighborhoods together
 
Tallguy said:
It's about more than buses, it's about tying the two neighborhoods together
Click to expand...

If we're talking about general motor vehicle usage, I suspect BU would be the far more vehement opposition than the "boomers" to turning the quiet back of their campus into a busy and frequently congested area with non-BU travel.

I'm not disagreeing about the many reasons why our current planning process fails to the whims of loudest/best-connected (or that the current traffic flow is absurd), I just don't think the forces of likely loudest opposition are being correctly identified here.

For the rest, in short:

The new Malvern/Babcock connections are going to do a lot (actually, there's an Agganis one as well it looks like) for tying the neighborhoods together as a pedestrian/cyclist. The only piece of this wish-list not happening is Pratt, which I don't see much value in with the proposed street grid.

For bus I think it's workable enough (in that respect at least...).
 
I think a Babcock St overpass over the RR tracks might be physically possible without the need to acquire any property. The ramp up to the new Babcock St bridge would start at the intersection with Gardner St, then climb up to be fully above Ashford St., which would cross under the elevated Babcock St at the existing grade, thus providing street access to the BU properties there. Then the elevated Babcock St would continue north over the tracks. I'll sketch it out later when I have time. It looks doable because Babcock St drops off a bit between Gardner and Ashford, and there are no driveways or garage entrances between those two points along Babcock St.
 
I would accept bike/ped (and maybe bus) only connections!
 
cden4 said:
I do not understand why they are keeping it as a two lanes eastbound at Harvard Ave when it is only ever fed by one lane from that intersection. It's such a waste of space in the most constrained part of the bridge!
Click to expand...

Not quite true as the road has traditionally been marked. If you're on Cambridge EB from the driveway before the piercing place forward to the light, it's not parking (or bus stop) anymore and that's a second queue lane that holds probably 4-5 cars. If utilized correctly you'd flush more cars through on a light cycle.

While I don't think the utilization of that is frequently that great with oft-missing/always appalling markings/signage, the secondary functions are worth giving a bit of consideration to. Not saying they're necessarily worth it, just explaining:

- Right before that on Cambridge EB is a heavily served/used bus stop for the 66 (+64 + 501) that just stops in the lane. Being a second lane through the intersection lets it serve as a queue jump of sorts - bus doesn't have to merge back into traffic before getting through the light, it can just pull forward. The exact stop position/markings have been moved back and forth a bunch with construction, but this April 2016 shot illustrates how the western side of the intersection is traditionally set up: https://goo.gl/maps/79kbbjYzS4LRBQ6KA.

- Much rarer w/Regina closed but the unprotected left from Cambridge EB risks losing an entire light cycle of throughput if traffic can't get around them in some way.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I think a Babcock St overpass over the RR tracks might be physically possible without the need to acquire any property. The ramp up to the new Babcock St bridge would start at the intersection with Gardner St, then climb up to be fully above Ashford St., which would cross under the elevated Babcock St at the existing grade, thus providing street access to the BU properties there. Then the elevated Babcock St would continue north over the tracks. I'll sketch it out later when I have time. It looks doable because Babcock St drops off a bit between Gardner and Ashford, and there are no driveways or garage entrances between those two points along Babcock St.
Click to expand...
I measured the distance and elevation change on Google Earth Pro, and the bridge approach would only be 3% to 5%, so it is geometrically doable, would fit within the exiting street footprint, and be compatible with the adjacent buildings. So, Babcock Street bridge it is!
 
millerm277 said:
Perhaps I didn't follow the initial phases of the design closely enough, but were those actual objections raised that got us to our current design?

My impression is that Malvern is the only low-impact choice with current built environment for a bus connection. If you're not trenching the rail line significantly, you can't get the bridge grounded before Ashford St.

At Malvern, you buy out a single small moving/storage facility and you're all set.

At Babcock that would cut a moderately significant BU facility off from road access with no obvious way to create an alternate - and one that legitimately does need load-in/out capabilities by vehicle.

No opposition to additional ped/bike links (and there is the one planned at Babcock + the Franklin replacement), although I do think Pratt would be pretty low-value under the current plans.

-------

Ignoring the huge open question of what bus routes we're actually coming up with to use this bridge, I think you can solve if you want to send something inbound on Comm or south on Babcock pretty easily: Just use Babcock anyway - via Ashford. The Ashford/Malvern corner won't be a problem since you're taking the whole parcel anyway, Ashford/Babcock has the space to adjust the corner significantly. If there's delay at the light knock out the last 2 blocks of parking for a queue jump/bus lane from Gardner to Babcock - it's only about a dozen spaces.
Click to expand...
It's about more than buses, it's about tying the two neighborhoods together
Charlie_mta said:
I measured the distance and elevation change on Google Earth Pro, and the bridge approach would only be 3% to 5%, so it is geometrically doable, would fit within the exiting street footprint, and be compatible with the adjacent buildings. So, Babcock Street bridge it is!
Click to expand...

So, I'm under the impression that Harvard wants to deck over the highway and the tracks, creating a new "ground" floor comparable with the BU side.
 
Tallguy said:
So, I'm under the impression that Harvard wants to deck over the highway and the tracks, creating a new "ground" floor comparable with the BU side.
Click to expand...
As much as parties say they want to deck over the highway, I haven't seen anything suggesting it will actually happen. That's not in any of the plans that I know of, and no one has said they'll put up the money. Decking over the highway would be expensive now, and even more expensive after the project is done. When Harvard or MassDOT says it will be "possible" to deck over the highway later, that seems like some free BS they can throw in to make the project sound better.

I would really, really like to be proven wrong. For $2 billion, we should at least get a mile of Mass Pike decked over. But in the past six decades, we've only covered maybe 10-15% of the Pike in Boston. Unless this stretch gets decked over during this construction project, it will probably stay an open-air trench.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I measured the distance and elevation change on Google Earth Pro, and the bridge approach would only be 3% to 5%, so it is geometrically doable, would fit within the exiting street footprint, and be compatible with the adjacent buildings. So, Babcock Street bridge it is!
Click to expand...

Hmm I see what youre saying. I always kind of just assumed it would start at the intersection of ashford st and the ramp would be made out of fill, but youre right if it started further back it could be built on regular concrete or steel supports allowing access underneath. Ashford would just turn into a dead end that ends on that little part of babcock and it would allow everybody access to their properties.

With both babcock and malvern able to handle buses it could allow a better flow where they go up babcock, stop at the station, and come down malvern, vs having to do some type of loop around at the station. Plus then you would only have buses going in 1 direction on each street vs having buses coming both ways on the extremely skinny malvern street.
 
stick n move said:
With both babcock and malvern able to handle buses it could allow a better flow where they go up babcock, stop at the station, and come down malvern, vs having to do some type of loop around at the station. Plus then you would only have buses going in 1 direction on each street vs having buses coming both ways on the extremely skinny malvern street.
Click to expand...
What buses will be using this entryway? Are we talking about rerouting the 66? If there's a new bus line, I could see one originating from Kenmore and travelling down Comm ave to Lower Allston. I would think the Malvern crossing would be sufficient for that. I don't see West Station being a huge bus transfer if that's what the thought process is.
 
BosMaineiac said:
What buses will be using this entryway? Are we talking about rerouting the 66? If there's a new bus line, I could see one originating from Kenmore and travelling down Comm ave to Lower Allston. I would think the Malvern crossing would be sufficient for that. I don't see West Station being a huge bus transfer if that's what the thought process is.
Click to expand...
It's too much of a time chew to loop the 66/T66 and 64 there the way the proposed street grid is laid out. Chances are that's not going to happen...especially not with the proposed T66 because of the time sensitivity of its load-bearing route.

The gigantic busways depicted at West in the renders are designed with the hope that intercity coach buses on the Pike en route to South Station will pit-stop a mere 3 miles out for campus access. Which is probably also a faulty assumption, since there's excellent transit access from South Station to Allston for students and pretty small margins involved for the bus companies at even attempting the pit-stop.

I think at the end of the day you're looking at just campus shuttle buses there, which doesn't require much bus infrastructure. Malvern's indeed probably sufficient for that lone BU shuttle bus, if BU even bothers to run a shuttle bus to what's going to be an all-Harvard property. What we'll have to see is whether the gigantic busways in the West render get VE'd down, because right now there's a LARGE discrepancy between projected bus capacity (too much by a lot) and projected bus utilization (or lackthereof).
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
I think at the end of the day you're looking at just campus shuttle buses there, which doesn't require much bus infrastructure. Malvern's indeed probably sufficient for that lone BU shuttle bus, if BU even bothers to run a shuttle bus to what's going to be an all-Harvard property. What we'll have to see is whether the gigantic busways in the West render get VE'd down, because right now there's a LARGE discrepancy between projected bus capacity (too much by a lot) and projected bus utilization (or lackthereof).
Click to expand...

I could see a few intercity buses using it as a terminal rather than pitstop.

If Coolidge Corner can find a market for 4x roundtrips a day direct to NYC (Flixbus current schedule), the built out version of this area probably can too. That said, a single digit number of discount buses per day needs very little to no infrastructure and certainly doesn't warrant that expensive sea of bridge/concrete, no disagreement with your overall point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top