I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

[Jeremi]

Not really. It sucks, but what they are really doing is trying to achieve it through the political means they have available to them. Better to have something, than nothing. It's like the piecemeal implementation of bike lanes. The people in charge of that plan absolutely know what is truly required. I've been to a good amount of the local meetings for Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford and it's very clear that the teams putting this all together are dedicated to its resolution but they are REQUIRED to play the long game. A street here or there over time creates a connected network. Look at the voting public's backlash to the bike lane overhaul on major roads. It doesn't matter that the data shows that businesses are better off and that mobility flow through the network increases overall, the majority of voters want to drive and are upset that bike lanes have made that harder in the short term. SO now you have to ease an angry public opinion into the unwanted but necessary solution instead of implementing it wholesale only for its supporters in power to be thrown out. It's pretty awful and demoralizing, but it's necessary. You need the political alliance of people who could come round to the solution but currently are against your position for enduring change.

All of these people are local transit officials. Big city DOTs is where all the pedestrian scale thinking occurs. State transit is all gas no brake. Have a look at the 27/9 interchange in Natick, the Bowker Overpass disaster, this entire stretch of the Pike, and the streets proposed in the design of this very project.

 

[Jeremi]

There is no small amount of literature about the throughput-obsessed thinking that guides most state transit thinking. The recent book “Killed By a Traffic Engineer” (written by a traffic engineer!) dives deep into the problem.

 

[KCasiglio]

I think it can be true at the same time that:

A) MassDOT has come a LONG way in the past 10 years on this.

B) There are many incredibly dedicated people at all levels of MassDOT that make safety and sustainability pillars of their work.

C) There remains a culture of following public opinion (or their conception of what public opinion is as informed by being a statewide office) rather than trying to lead public opinion through effective communication/education/marketing/however you want to frame it. Consider whether MassDOT would have come close to the recommendations BTD put out when they assessed Western Ave in Allston just around the corner from this project.

 

[Equilibria]

All of these people are local transit officials. Big city DOTs is where all the pedestrian scale thinking occurs. State transit is all gas no brake. Have a look at the 27/9 interchange in Natick, the Bowker Overpass disaster, this entire stretch of the Pike, and the streets proposed in the design of this very project.

I understand the ideological nature of what you're saying, but State DOTs are REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to pursue Vision Zero and report on their progress. It's slander to suggest that MassDOT isn't doing that, however much you and the authors of the thinkpieces and books you read think it isn't working.

I think it can be true at the same time that:

A) MassDOT has come a LONG way in the past 10 years on this.

B) There are many incredibly dedicated people at all levels of MassDOT that make safety and sustainability pillars of their work.

C) There remains a culture of following public opinion (or their conception of what public opinion is as informed by being a statewide office) rather than trying to lead public opinion through effective communication/education/marketing/however you want to frame it. Consider whether MassDOT would have come close to the recommendations BTD put out when they assessed Western Ave in Allston just around the corner from this project.

I agree with this in broad strokes, but there are also very different roles for these agencies. MassDOT's job is to protect all road users, but it is also to make sure people and goods move through the state efficiently. The City's job (under this particular mayor) is to promote car-free living and livable urban spaces. Urban planning is not MassDOT's job, it's Boston's, and that's why they should work together on projects like this.

 

[jbray]

All of these people are local transit officials. Big city DOTs is where all the pedestrian scale thinking occurs. State transit is all gas no brake. Have a look at the 27/9 interchange in Natick, the Bowker Overpass disaster, this entire stretch of the Pike, and the streets proposed in the design of this very project.

Then let's get bigger than that. Monica Tibbits-Nutt, the current Secretary of Transportation has time and time again argued for these principles from center running bus lanes, separated bike infrastructure, road narrowing, daylighting, tight turn radii, angle of approach, bus and train frequency, electrification, congestion pricing, tolling, etc., etc., etc. and is constantly stymied by the politics including the pretty public sidelining that happened from Governor Healey over the conversation around funds for the MBTA coming from drivers. Another example is Kathy Hochul and the congestion pricing debacle where she took it off the table leading into an election where it was unpopular only for her to reintroduce it following the election, albeit at a compromise pricing because it remains unpopular. Or Pete Buttigieg whose role at the national level has been implementation of vision zero on a national level and getting those projects funded as part of the infrastructure bill. It is disingenuous to say that the conversation isn't changing.

 

[Equilibria]

And I’m sorry, it is laughably untrue that “every DOT in the country,” even our own MassDOT is “incredibly serious about pursuing zero fatalities on our roads.” They make daily design decisions that they know will kill people and they do it in the name of traffic throughput.

I'm sorry, but saying that the people who work at MassDOT knowingly kill people in the name of traffic throughput is disgusting. You are effectively accusing them of manslaughter. "Killed by a Traffic Engineer" may be the figurative title of a book, but you're way, way over the line.

 

[Jeremi]

I'm sorry, but saying that the people who work at MassDOT knowingly kill people in the name of traffic throughput is disgusting. You are effectively accusing them of manslaughter. "Killed by a Traffic Engineer" may be the figurative title of a book, but you're way, way over the line.

I accuse them directly.

 

[Jeremi]

I understand the ideological nature of what you're saying, but State DOTs are REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to pursue Vision Zero and report on their progress. It's slander to suggest that MassDOT isn't doing that, however much you and the authors of the thinkpieces and books you read think it isn't working.


I agree with this in broad strokes, but there are also very different roles for these agencies. MassDOT's job is to protect all road users, but it is also to make sure people and goods move through the state efficiently. The City's job (under this particular mayor) is to promote car-free living and livable urban spaces. Urban planning is not MassDOT's job, it's Boston's, and that's why they should work together on projects like this.

I understand the ideological nature of what you're saying, but State DOTs are REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to pursue Vision Zero and report on their progress. It's slander to suggest that MassDOT isn't doing that, however much you and the authors of the thinkpieces and books you read think it isn't working.


I agree with this in broad strokes, but there are also very different roles for these agencies. MassDOT's job is to protect all road users, but it is also to make sure people and goods move through the state efficiently. The City's job (under this particular mayor) is to promote car-free living and livable urban spaces. Urban planning is not MassDOT's job, it's Boston's, and that's why they should work together on projects like this.

It’s also a complete fantasy to claim that any state agency is required to comply with some kind of nationwide Vision Zero standard in any way with teeth. Nobody is getting their highway funds cut off.

 

[nortor]

As Clock Ticks On Federal Funds, MassDOT Proposes Smaller 'Early Action' Project for Allston I-90 - Streetsblog Massachusetts

As state officials continue to struggle to overcome major financing shortfalls and design conflicts in MassDOT’s proposed Interstate 90 realignment in Allston, state highway officials have floated a proposal to spend the majority of the project’s committed federal funding on a...

mass.streetsblog.org

These items seem like good ideas, though I’m not sure they should be so expensive based on the short descriptions.

 

[NHMaples]

As Clock Ticks On Federal Funds, MassDOT Proposes Smaller 'Early Action' Project for Allston I-90 - Streetsblog Massachusetts

As state officials continue to struggle to overcome major financing shortfalls and design conflicts in MassDOT’s proposed Interstate 90 realignment in Allston, state highway officials have floated a proposal to spend the majority of the project’s committed federal funding on a...

mass.streetsblog.org

These items seem like good ideas, though I’m not sure they should be so expensive based on the short descriptions.

What they are proposing makes sense to me as well. Sometimes the best way to rescue an unwieldy project is to break it into smaller parts. If this early work can help bring neighborhoods together, why should residents have to wait?

 

[Charlie_mta]

What they are proposing makes sense to me as well. Sometimes the best way to rescue an unwieldy project is to break it into smaller parts. If this early work can help bring neighborhoods together, why should residents have to wait?

Another breaking up into phases could be to build the "Throat" section of the project next, taking out the Mass Pike viaduct and placing the Pike at-grade, shifting SFR over as planned, and constructing the multi-use path off the riverbank. That would require a lot less funds than building the entire project, and provide some more time to plan a decent urban development with smaller new streets between the Throat area and Cambridge Street, including coming up with the optimal solution for West Station and the layover track conundrum.

 

[stefal]

$200 million for that scope of work seems intense. Better be some nice bridges by the end of it.

 

[Stlin]

Another breaking up into phases could be to build the "Throat" section of the project next, taking out the Mass Pike viaduct and placing the Pike at-grade, shifting SFR over as planned, and constructing the multi-use path off the riverbank. That would require a lot less funds than building the entire project, and provide some more time to plan a decent urban development with smaller new streets between the Throat area and Cambridge Street, including coming up with the optimal solution for West Station and the layover track conundrum.

To be fair, the throat probably is like 65+% of the entire project by itself, and I don't know that you *can* separate it from the overall project or the new street grid which would be pulling double duty as a new interchange/ highway exit. Keep in mind that the existing I-90 ramp structures are connected at the viaduct. You'd have to build at least one "temporary" bridge structure to land the ramps, and I'm almost certain that the grade to connect to the existing ramp structures from an "at-grade” pike would violate all the interstate incline guidelines.

 

[cubbe8]

There is 1.3 billion dollars for the project. 675 million from the TIP, the 335 million federal grant, and some money from Harvard, BU, and the City. This should be enough to do the throat part of the project.

 

[cubbe8]

To be fair, the throat probably is like 65+% of the entire project by itself, and I don't know that you *can* separate it from the overall project or the new street grid which would be pulling double duty as a new interchange/ highway exit. Keep in mind that the existing I-90 ramp structures are connected at the viaduct. You'd have to build at least one "temporary" bridge structure to land the ramps, and I'm almost certain that the grade to connect to the existing ramp structures from an "at-grade” pike would violate all the interstate incline guidelines.

I think @Charlie_mta means ground the whole pike, not just the part paralleling SFR.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I think @Charlie_mta means ground the whole pike, not just the part paralleling SFR.

I do mean that. The Pike through the existing Allston interchange is already at-grade, so grounding the Pike through the Throat area would not introduce any new ramps or grades to connect the grounded Throat segment of the Pike to the existing interchange.

 

[stick n move]

I do mean that. The Pike through the existing Allston interchange is already at-grade, so grounding the Pike through the Throat area would not introduce any new ramps or grades to connect the grounded Throat segment of the Pike to the existing interchange.

What about these ramps?

The exit ramp on the right could be put at grade following its existing route, but the on ramp on the left wouldnt be able to be connected without a new connection to ground level.

I’m no traffic engineer but I imagine that you could just sever the old on ramp and then build a standard dirt fill ramp down to ground level to meet the new at grade road like what already exists at the other end of the interchange seen below:

So requires a little bit more than just putting the pike at grade and using existing ramps, but its some pretty easy stuff. It would also require realigning the westbound commuter rail right of way which impedes into where the grounded pike would go and it would also sever the connection to the grand junction line. So building the rail viaduct over the pike may also need to be done as well unless that can be waived for a bit somehow idk. Overall though I think breaking it up into phases as suggested could definitely be a good idea for getting it started before all of the funding is secured. This would mean pushing out the moving over of the pike right of way, building west station, all of the new on and off ramps, the new street grid, the new ped/bike bridge, the new babcock street connection/bridge, the new seattle st/cattle dr bridges… for a later phase.

 

[Equilibria]

Another breaking up into phases could be to build the "Throat" section of the project next, taking out the Mass Pike viaduct and placing the Pike at-grade, shifting SFR over as planned, and constructing the multi-use path off the riverbank. That would require a lot less funds than building the entire project, and provide some more time to plan a decent urban development with smaller new streets between the Throat area and Cambridge Street, including coming up with the optimal solution for West Station and the layover track conundrum.

Not to mention that unless Trump crashes the economy, it will always be cheaper to do the work now than 10 years from now.

 

[Charlie_mta]

What about these ramps?

View attachment 58530

The exit ramp on the right could be put at grade following its existing route, but the on ramp on the left wouldnt be able to be connected without a new connection to ground level.

I’m no traffic engineer but I imagine that you could just sever the old on ramp and then build a standard dirt fill ramp down to ground level to meet the new at grade road like what already exists at the other end of the interchange seen below:
View attachment 58531

So requires a little bit more than just putting the pike at grade and using existing ramps, but its some pretty easy stuff. It would also require realigning the westbound commuter rail right of way which impedes into where the grounded pike would go and it would also sever the connection to the grand junction line. So building the rail viaduct over the pike may also need to be done as well unless that can be waived for a bit somehow idk. Overall though I think breaking it up into phases as suggested could definitely be a good idea for getting it started before all of the funding is secured. This would mean pushing out the moving over of the pike right of way, building west station, all of the new on and off ramps, the new street grid, the new ped/bike bridge, the new babcock street connection/bridge, the new seattle st/cattle dr bridges… for a later phase.

It's doable. I pasted the preferred Pike-on-the-surface Throat option onto Google Maps and got this. It looks like they'd be no spatial and connection problems with building just the Throat section first and tying it in with the existing Allston Pike interchange.

 

[BeansTheCat]

I believe the federal funds referenced in the Streetsblog article are from the "Reconnecting Communities" grant program. Spending them on the throat would probably be in violation of grant requirements, even if did include an Agganis Way ped/bike bridge. The work proposed seems to be almost everything that promotes local travel across the Pike that doesn't involve significant highway reconstruction. Also, if this funding is only good until late 2026 (as suggested in the article), it would make sense to focus on work that can be comfortable completed by then. Project documents show MassDOT thinking it will take the better part of a decade for the whole project, with Throat construction being the longest part of the project.

As a side note: it seems likely that the People's Pike could be funded with the federal grant. It should not cost $80 million (the remaining grant funds) to build a bike/ped path from Cambridge St to Agganis Way, but it might come close considering the necessary track movement.