MassPike Allston

[davem]

Hey, if we're dreaming, why use Hypertrophic Back Bay as a template? Streets are too wide, blocks are too long, as was the fad in the 19th century. Go smaller

I'm shamelessly moving my post to this page, below. I hate being the last post on a page when it's substantial. To answer your question, I consider the Back Bay to the the most successful project in the history of the city at turning a blank slate into a vibrant, cohesive neighborhood. In short, I'm not going to mess with that formula. My blocks and streets are slightly smaller then their back bay counterparts, but that is due more to connecting up to the existing grid in places.

Previous Post:(Now deleted)
This is part of my grand-scheme Allston map. Some of my ideas have already evolved beyond what is pictured (I'm in the process of making a new one with better resolution google earth imagery), but the core elements are:

1) Extend the Esplanade through the narrow section between the BU Bridge and the HBS to connect it with the parks on the tip of Allston.
2) Elimanate all tolls inside 128.
3) Eliminate Solders Field/Storrow between Charlesgate and Beacon Park.
4) Lower the pike into a trench, GIVE the air rights between Market St and Everett St to New Balance, and the section behind BU to BU. It is worth more to have the tax income and the pike decked then the amount that the air rights would(nt) sell for.
4) Create a new neighborhood with a back bay sized streetgrid and lots, use the money from this to partially fund the project.
5) Utilize the underused section of Solders Field Road as an interstate feeder for all Watertown, Cambridge and Arlington Traffic.

I'm going to let the pictures speak for themselves, ask any questions, and I will be more then happy to share the sketchup file with anyone who wants it.

I apologize for the poor legebiity in places, it's a work in progress and far from complete.

Project Overview:

Pike & Soldiers Field Interchange

Soldiers Field & Cambridge/Western Ave Interchange.

 

[massmotorist]

I thought we were talking about the Mass Pike, which is already tolled, albeit in an inefficient manner.

My point is that there's no rhyme or reason for the current system, which funds all Massachusetts highways through the gas tax except for the Turnpike and then gives Turnpike users an income tax break on all their tolls plus a refund on Massachusetts gas tax paid for gas used to drive on it. It's solely a function of path dependency and politics.

The Pike Authority was a construct created by Bill Callahan to finance, build, and maintain the Pike until its debt was paid off. It was supposed to wind itself down and hand its assets to the state DPW after the bonds were paid. Instead it became a self-perpetuating nightmare of a political entity as its board and its directors saw its mission to keep itself in existence and its positive financial footing was used by its unions to negotiate salaries far higher (by 30-40% when MassDOT took over) than state DPW (subsequently MassHighway) engineers and employees. It became a patronage dump for legislators who, in turn, protected it from its scheduled elimination when its 30-year bonds were paid off in 1988.

But now that the Pike Authority is no more, and the toll collector's union is pared way down, a lot of the politics has resolved itself. It's time to get rid of the tolls, not expand them or invest more money in their infrastructure. Once you factor in the tax breaks and the overhead costs they bring in very little money anyway (tunnels and bridges excepted; those should keep the tolls). You could probably cover it with a penny on the gas tax - plus you'd get federal aid to do reconstruction and maintenance.

Couple sources of interest below:

Inspector general slams turnpike agency in report
October 30, 1991
by Frank Phillips and Peter J. Howe. The Boston Globe.

Inspector General Robert Cerasoli yesterday accused the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority of scheming to perpetuate itself by creating unnecessary debt, lavishing its workers with costly perks, and donating public money to private charities.

In his first report since taking office in July, Cerasoli also charged that the authority is a "wasteful anachronism" that he said drains a large portion of state transportation expenditures and makes capital decisions without regard for overall state highway needs.

"Survival has become the authority's hidden agenda," Cerasoli said. "The result has been that bondholders' interests have taken precedence over the public interest, and for the authority, that its own interests have become more important than those of the state," Cerasoli's report says.

Cerasoli's blast comes several months after Gov. Weld launched an effort to privatize the authority, fueled by the admnistration's fury at the agency's plans to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars. By floating bonds, the authority, which was scheduled to shut down its toll booths by the mid-1990s, assures its continued existence.

In his report, Cerasoli also focused on the deal the authority made last year with the Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency to float $47 million in bonds to pay for repairs to the Sumner and Callahan tunnels.

The previous inspector general, Joseph Barresi, had blasted the arrangement and received approval in March to subpoena records and to summon key players, including investment banker Mark Ferber of Lazard Freres, who helped broker the deal.

Barresi criticized the authority for floating the bonds when the tax-cutting referendum Question 3 was still before the voters. The authority is paying a 30-year note at 9.5 percent, a rate that some analysts say is excessive.

Turnpike officials said yesterday they had not yet received Cerasoli's report but that they are not surprised that the inspector general would have issued such an attack.

"All of this is as surprising and newsworthy as the news that the sun is going to rise in the morning and set in the west," said James A. Aloisi Jr., the turnpike's general counsel.

Aloisi said the turnpike issued the repair bonds because the Sumner and Callahan tunnels had become a major public safety hazard.

"We did that because there was a crying public safety need," Aloisi said. "It was in full public view. The inspector general can gamble with public safety. We don't, and we didn't in this case."

Cerasoli's report, which was distributed to legislative leaders and Gov. Weld yesterday, also focused on the authority's generous salaries and perks for its executives.

The report cites the policy that gives 34 current and retired employees free life insurance plans, worth an extra $1,000 to $9,393 a year. Cerasoli also faulted what he said are overly generous sick leave, vacation, and health insurance policies. He questioned whether retired turnpike employees deserve a $25-a-year "retiree pass" that gives them unlimited travel on the turnpike and tunnels.

Also, the authority paid a $2,300 catering bill for its annual outing in September 1989.

Partially as a result of its inflated operating costs, the authority spends 64 percent more per mile maintaining its toll road than the Department of Public Works spends maintaining interstate highways elsewhere in the state.

Cerasoli also questioned why the authority donates money to numerous private causes, which motorists ultimately must pay for through tolls. Among the donations were $4,000 to the Boston Society of Architects, $10,000 to the East Boston City Roots program, $10,000 to the 1989 United Way fund drive and $2,000 to "various food pantries through the commonwealth to be designated by the chairman."

Aloisi said the agency had canceled the life insurance arrangements, which he said came about under the previous administration.

"We agree it was lousy and we got rid of it. We inherited it," said Aloisi, who accused Cerasoli of "standing the truth on its head."

Copyright Boston Globe Newspaper Oct 30, 1991

Mass. Pike chief leads tour of tunnel problems
November 17, 1992
by Andrew Blake. The Boston Globe


Citing public safety, Massachusetts Turnpike Authority chairman Allan R. McKinnon sought yesterday to turn flaking concrete and rusting beams into political ammunition to stave off an attempt by the Weld administration to seize control of the Callahan and Sumner tunnels.

In the latest battle over control of the harbor tunnels, as well as some 1,500 patronage jobs, McKinnon and Mass. Pike administrators led reporters on a 2 1/2-half hour tour of the tunnels to prove they are in desperate need of repair financed through a separate $47 million bond issue.

The bonds would be floated by the Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency.

The Weld administration, taking its lead from state Inspector General Robert Cerasoli, asserts that the separate bond issue for the tunnel repairs means the tunnels have been paid off and should revert to the Massachusetts Highway Department. They also say that it is up to the Highway Department to determine whether the tunnels are in acceptable condition. McKinnon says that they cannot be turned over because of their need for extensive reconstruction lasting three or more years.

James J. Kerasiotes, Highway Department commissioner, said yesterday that a staged media event is no substitute for careful engineering inspections. He said he sent a letter to McKinnon, which should have reached him by late yesterday, asking for cooperation in setting up a schedule for Highway Department engineers and consultants not only to inspect the tunnels but to have access to all consultants and engineers' reports on tunnel conditions.

The Weld administration says the bond sale was designed to save the jobs of Dukakis-era employees at the Turnpike Authority, which controls the Massachusetts Turnpike in addition to the two tunnels.

"The MHD will determine whether the tunnels are acceptable, not the Turnpike Authority," said Kerasiotes. He said the tunnel enabling act of 1958 clearly states that the Highway Department shall determine whether the tunnels are acceptable.

The Weld administration, which has been trying to oust McKinnon, is like a truck headed down one entrance of the tunnel, driven by Kerasiotes while McKinnon and the Turnpike Authority are aiming head-on from the other direction. The collision is certain to end in court.

McKinnon cited a 1988 report from Jane Garvey, then head of the state Department of Public Works in the administration of Democratic Gov. Michael S. Dukakis saying the tunnels were unacceptable to be taken over unless they undergo at least $40 million in repairs.

But a handwritten note from Garvey to then DPW chief engineer Robert H. Johnson, obtained by the Globe yesterday, instructs Johnson in August 1988, "Bob we want to move very slowly on this," in reference to a joint inspection of the tunnels to determine their condition.

McKinnon said you don't have to be an engineer to see electrical equipment installed in the early 1930s, holes in the Sumner tunnel's deck and ceilings, and chunks of fallen concrete as reasons for the Turnpike Authority to keep control of the tunnels and complete some $47 million in repairs.

The state Highway Department, he said, "can't even complete it's own repairs. They have about 2,000 bridges in need of repair and they can't fix them. I don't know why they would want to get involved in the tunnels."

He agreed that the attempted takeover probably would end in court.

 

[massmotorist]

This is part of my grand-scheme Allston map. Some of my ideas have already evolved beyond what is pictured (I'm in the process of making a new one with better resolution google earth imagery), but the core elements are:

1) Extend the Esplanade through the narrow section between the BU Bridge and the HBS to connect it with the parks on the tip of Allston.
2) Elimanate all tolls inside 128.
3) Eliminate Solders Field/Storrow between Charlesgate and Beacon Park.
4) Lower the pike into a trench, GIVE the air rights between Market St and Everett St to New Balance, and the section behind BU to BU. It is worth more to have the tax income and the pike decked then the amount that the air rights would(nt) sell for.
4) Create a new neighborhood with a back bay sized streetgrid and lots, use the money from this to partially fund the project.
5) Utilize the underused section of Solders Field Road as an interstate feeder for all Watertown, Cambridge and Arlington Traffic.

Interesting. You should visit the State Transportation Library downtown. I'm sure you'd find plans that are similar to yours or that would give you ideas.

MassDPW and the Turnpike Authority originally studied a lot of potential routings. The Turnpike Authority actually took part of Soldiers Field Road and the Charles River by eminent domain, intending to demolish it for the Pike Extension (and rebuild Soliders Field on the filled Charles River land). The MDC sued them, and the SJC invalidated the land taking - giving us the viaduct we have today.

 

[dshoost88]

Excellent post, davem! I hope your vision comes to fruition one day.

 

[Kahta]

I'm shamelessly moving my post to this page, below. I hate being the last post on a page when it's substantial. To answer your question, I consider the Back Bay to the the most successful project in the history of the city at turning a blank slate into a vibrant, cohesive neighborhood. In short, I'm not going to mess with that formula. My blocks and streets are slightly smaller then their back bay counterparts, but that is due more to connecting up to the existing grid in places.

Previous Post:(Now deleted)
This is part of my grand-scheme Allston map. Some of my ideas have already evolved beyond what is pictured (I'm in the process of making a new one with better resolution google earth imagery), but the core elements are:

1) Extend the Esplanade through the narrow section between the BU Bridge and the HBS to connect it with the parks on the tip of Allston.
2) Elimanate all tolls inside 128.
3) Eliminate Solders Field/Storrow between Charlesgate and Beacon Park.
4) Lower the pike into a trench, GIVE the air rights between Market St and Everett St to New Balance, and the section behind BU to BU. It is worth more to have the tax income and the pike decked then the amount that the air rights would(nt) sell for.
4) Create a new neighborhood with a back bay sized streetgrid and lots, use the money from this to partially fund the project.
5) Utilize the underused section of Solders Field Road as an interstate feeder for all Watertown, Cambridge and Arlington Traffic.

I'm going to let the pictures speak for themselves, ask any questions, and I will be more then happy to share the sketchup file with anyone who wants it.

I apologize for the poor legebiity in places, it's a work in progress and far from complete.

Project Overview:

Pike & Soldiers Field Interchange

Soldiers Field & Cambridge/Western Ave Interchange.

This is great, thanks for sharing.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Davem,

That is a cool rendering. I like what you've done. I've always believed it's better to develop large new areas as an extension of the existing street grid, with normal city blocks, rather than as isolated superblocks, which was unfortunately done on the Northpoint development and, of course, Charles River Park and Government Center.

 

[mass88]

It's safe to say that tolls aren't going anywhere anytime soon. So why not have the road tolled in a faster and more efficient manner for drivers? Open lane tolling, which is being used in many other states including our neighbors to the north, Maine, makes sense. The less number of humans we have to pay ridiculous salaries to in the tollbooths, the better.

 

[massmotorist]

It's safe to say that tolls aren't going anywhere anytime soon. So why not have the road tolled in a faster and more efficient manner for drivers? Open lane tolling, which is being used in many other states including our neighbors to the north, Maine, makes sense. The less number of humans we have to pay ridiculous salaries to in the tollbooths, the better.

Who says they aren't going anywhere, and why? We have some upcoming changes coming to transportation financing that will be the most significant in 2 decades. Getting rid of the toll booths would be a great way to get a whole hell of a lot of political support from Metro West commuters. And Western Turnpike tolls are scheduled to disappear in 5 years regardless with the maturity of that section's bonds.

 

[bbfen]

Who says they aren't going anywhere, and why? We have some upcoming changes coming to transportation financing that will be the most significant in 2 decades. Getting rid of the toll booths would be a great way to get a whole hell of a lot of political support from Metro West commuters. And Western Turnpike tolls are scheduled to disappear in 5 years regardless with the maturity of that section's bonds.

The political support of MW commuters for what? They have an infantile, knee-jerk shit-fit about public transportation. Convincing them to build more roads won't be hard. So who needs their support?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

The political support of MW commuters for what? They have an infantile, knee-jerk shit-fit about public transportation. Convincing them to build more roads won't be hard. So who needs their support?

If I lived in a community where I had no choice but to drive because my shitty little municipality keeps getting spiked on commuter rail while a different shitty little municipality on the other side of the state is getting boosted by the state Cheer Squad like there's no tomorrow, I'd be pretty pissed about public transportation too. That doesn't mean I'm being infantile or having a knee-jerk shit fit.

In fact, it's really a terrible tragedy that the prevailing attitude seems to be "fuck the rest of the state" - because, with the exception of small outliers like Framingham and the deepest of the exurb communities such as Paxton or Ashburnham, I'm pretty sure that you'd find a lot of the malice and antipathy towards public transportation is going to evaporate once you stop telling the rest of the state - especially the parts of it that are on intact and complete rail lines - that they don't count and they should just shut up and get with the program because it's All About Boston.

Seriously, I can actually sympathize with anti-transit NIMBYs in, say, Leominster, when they work in Worcester and their only real commuting option is to drive because the mass transit option is riding the Fitchburg Line to Porter Square, the Red Line down into South Station, and then the Worcester Line all the way back out - and this is in a town that actually has a commuter rail station and, just glancing at it, an uninterrupted ROW for getting to Worcester via Ayer from it! I'd say it's pretty low-hanging fruit compared to South Coast Rail.

This is why I continue to advocate for Springfield Commuter Rail, by the way. I think the entire state, such where it's practical to have Commuter Rail, needs it - and I think that the symbolic benefit to places like Greater Worcester or MetroWest to back away from South Coast FAIL and say "look, we care about you too" is immense.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

I'm shamelessly moving my post to this page, below. I hate being the last post on a page when it's substantial. To answer your question, I consider the Back Bay to the the most successful project in the history of the city at turning a blank slate into a vibrant, cohesive neighborhood. In short, I'm not going to mess with that formula. My blocks and streets are slightly smaller then their back bay counterparts, but that is due more to connecting up to the existing grid in places.

Previous Post:(Now deleted)
This is part of my grand-scheme Allston map. Some of my ideas have already evolved beyond what is pictured (I'm in the process of making a new one with better resolution google earth imagery), but the core elements are:

1) Extend the Esplanade through the narrow section between the BU Bridge and the HBS to connect it with the parks on the tip of Allston.
2) Elimanate all tolls inside 128.
3) Eliminate Solders Field/Storrow between Charlesgate and Beacon Park.
4) Lower the pike into a trench, GIVE the air rights between Market St and Everett St to New Balance, and the section behind BU to BU. It is worth more to have the tax income and the pike decked then the amount that the air rights would(nt) sell for.
4) Create a new neighborhood with a back bay sized streetgrid and lots, use the money from this to partially fund the project.
5) Utilize the underused section of Solders Field Road as an interstate feeder for all Watertown, Cambridge and Arlington Traffic.

I'm going to let the pictures speak for themselves, ask any questions, and I will be more then happy to share the sketchup file with anyone who wants it.

I apologize for the poor legebiity in places, it's a work in progress and far from complete.

Project Overview:

Pike & Soldiers Field Interchange

Soldiers Field & Cambridge/Western Ave Interchange.

Nice , But It could use more Rotaries....

 

[choo]

If I lived in a community where I had no choice but to drive because my shitty little municipality keeps getting spiked on commuter rail while a different shitty little municipality on the other side of the state is getting boosted by the state Cheer Squad like there's no tomorrow, I'd be pretty pissed about public transportation too. That doesn't mean I'm being infantile or having a knee-jerk shit fit.

In fact, it's really a terrible tragedy that the prevailing attitude seems to be "fuck the rest of the state" - because, with the exception of small outliers like Framingham and the deepest of the exurb communities such as Paxton or Ashburnham, I'm pretty sure that you'd find a lot of the malice and antipathy towards public transportation is going to evaporate once you stop telling the rest of the state - especially the parts of it that are on intact and complete rail lines - that they don't count and they should just shut up and get with the program because it's All About Boston.

Seriously, I can actually sympathize with anti-transit NIMBYs in, say, Leominster, when they work in Worcester and their only real commuting option is to drive because the mass transit option is riding the Fitchburg Line to Porter Square, the Red Line down into South Station, and then the Worcester Line all the way back out - and this is in a town that actually has a commuter rail station and, just glancing at it, an uninterrupted ROW for getting to Worcester via Ayer from it! I'd say it's pretty low-hanging fruit compared to South Coast Rail.

This is why I continue to advocate for Springfield Commuter Rail, by the way. I think the entire state, such where it's practical to have Commuter Rail, needs it - and I think that the symbolic benefit to places like Greater Worcester or MetroWest to back away from South Coast FAIL and say "look, we care about you too" is immense.

Leominster to Worcester does not qualify as MetroWest. That's central mass, and we don't need transit so people can commute to worcester from worcester suburbs. It's all about Boston (Inner 128), because that's where the people, jobs, and money are. That's where the traffic is, and that is where the traffic and prices justify mass transit. While the MBTA wont work for every commuting situation, is there a single town in MetroWest that doesn't have a CR stop or border a town (likely 2) that doesn't have one.

I think a Springfield-Worcester-Boston Express would be great for the region, both economically and symbolically, but after that, we need to have some advocacy for Inner 128 subway investment. GLX, BLX, OLX! Signal upgrades! New rolling stock

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Leominster to Worcester does not qualify as MetroWest. That's central mass, and we don't need transit so people can commute to worcester from worcester suburbs. It's all about Boston (Inner 128), because that's where the people, jobs, and money are. That's where the traffic is, and that is where the traffic and prices justify mass transit. While the MBTA wont work for every commuting situation, is there a single town in MetroWest that doesn't have a CR stop or border a town (likely 2) that doesn't have one.

I think a Springfield-Worcester-Boston Express would be great for the region, both economically and symbolically, but after that, we need to have some advocacy for Inner 128 subway investment. GLX, BLX, OLX! Signal upgrades! New rolling stock

Again, I think we do need transit for Greater Worcester and Greater Springfield, because - in fact - there are people, jobs, and money in both of those communities. Maybe not as much as Greater Boston, but it's a far cry from "not worth caring about."

This isn't an either/or situation, and therein lies the problem. We're painting this as "either invest in the current operating range of the MBTA OR invest in the rest of the state." Or, "invest in this one project first and then forget the rest of the state." The best possible option is the one that isn't being discussed here - we should do both.

If I wanted to get the entire state backing a dramatic, renewed push for public transportation - I would be talking about the B&A mainline corridor. I'd be talking about commuter rail lines into and out of Worcester/Springfield, I'd booster the shit out of investing into NHV-HFD-SPG-WOR-BOS Regional runs now, not later: five daily round trips, plus the Lake Shore Limited round trip, plus the second Lake Shore Limited round trip that's been talked about. I'd also want to see a 4XX branch off of the Maple Leaf and Adirondack routes ALB-BOS, bringing the total number of daily Amtrak round trips SPG-BOS up to eight or nine.

I'd advocate for strengthened partnerships and cooperation between the MBTA and all the other, smaller, regional agencies around the state and with which the MBTA interacts - MVRTA, MWRTA, WRTA, SRTA, GARTA, RIPTA. I wouldn't ask for equal investment, because some places need more money than others - but I'd ask for broad investment. OLX, as an example, is not so critical that I wouldn't gladly spike it to use those funds for streetcars in Springfield and Worcester. (GLX and BLX are critical.)

If we have to fight for five times the amount of revenue to make statewide investment happen as opposed to just Boston, I'd gladly fight to the ends of the earth for it because it's time to drop the provincialism. We are one state, not two, and the state needs to be knit back together.

 

[omaja]

Leominster-Worcester doesn't even qualify as low-hanging fruit when we're talking about linking a suburban bedroom community of 40k to a smallish-sized city of 140k that are separated by 20+ miles of mostly undeveloped land. South Coast Rail is likewise a horrific fail of a proposition.

But all of this strays from the fact that spending on roads in rural/suburban MA is significantly higher than all of the transportation in Boston. You want to talk about MetroWest people complaining about public transportation, how about those of us in Boston that have to suffer with substandard service because road projects like 128 add-a-lane take precedence over any sort of urban traffic mitigation?

Getting back to the topic at hand, regardless of all of this, the Allston interchange definitely needs a complete overhaul. I like davem's proposal but am really confused by the Cambridge/Western interchange - looks like an unnecessarily sprawling mess when it could really keep a similar footprint that it does now and do a satisfactory job. Hell, I think a lot of Boston's traffic congestion would be alleviated with smart signaling as opposed to the ancient mechanical lights that are everywhere.

 

[massmotorist]

Leominster-Worcester doesn't even qualify as low-hanging fruit when we're talking about linking a suburban bedroom community of 40k to a smallish-sized city of 140k that are separated by 20+ miles of mostly undeveloped land. South Coast Rail is likewise a horrific fail of a proposition.

But all of this strays from the fact that spending on roads in rural/suburban MA is significantly higher than all of the transportation in Boston. You want to talk about MetroWest people complaining about public transportation, how about those of us in Boston that have to suffer with substandard service because road projects like 128 add-a-lane take precedence over any sort of urban traffic mitigation?

Do you have any data to support this? I would bet that if you looked at muni road spending or MassDOT Highway spending or both combined you'd get a much higher expenditure per capita in Boston on road spending alone. And that's not even factoring in spending on mass transit. Keep in mind I'm not saying that's not as it should be (Boston's important!)

Hell, I think a lot of Boston's traffic congestion would be alleviated with smart signaling as opposed to the ancient mechanical lights that are everywhere.

^THIS

The platooning of traffic using better and more coordinated traffic lights and systems is the future of increased non-highway urban road capacity - and it doesn't require more lane-miles.

 

[Matthew]

Do you have any data to support this? I would bet that if you looked at muni road spending or MassDOT Highway spending or both combined you'd get a much higher expenditure per capita in Boston on road spending alone. And that's not even factoring in spending on mass transit. Keep in mind I'm not saying that's not as it should be (Boston's important!)

Per-capita road subsidies are definitely much higher in western MA because of lower population density. The spending formula is primarily dictated by centerline-miles of road, so a small rural route counts just as much as a highway.

Here's a map of Chapter 90 road funding by municipality.

That doesn't count Federal dollars, just state money in the Chapter 90 program, however. About $200 million total was handed out FY2012 as part of Chapter 90.

 

[davem]

Getting back to the topic at hand, regardless of all of this, the Allston interchange definitely needs a complete overhaul. I like davem's proposal but am really confused by the Cambridge/Western interchange - looks like an unnecessarily sprawling mess when it could really keep a similar footprint that it does now and do a satisfactory job.

The cambridge/western interchange is the way it is because
1) it already backs up with just the traffic it has now, it will be a disaster with the pike exiting there too.
2) the current inbound lanes become outbound lanes, while the current outbound lanes become more parkland. This is the biggest reason.
3) By throwing the new inbound lanes on the opposite side of genzyme/doubletree, it allows for them to be below grade since they are away from the charles (thereby be built on top of, only the ramps would be above grade), as well as wind around a bit with grade seperation to better seperate traffic. Right now it all dumps out into the clusterfuck that is the intersection of cambridge st and soilders field road. If you notice as well, I left between 60-100' of land along the abutting surface roads to allow for development, so the whole thing would be filled in, not left a grassy wasteland.

Between the gain of parkland along the charles (which currently consists of a 6 foot wide path), putting soilders field inbound below grade, thereby allowing it to be built over, and reclaiming beacon park, I believe it is a net positive. Its also still pretty damn compact compared to most interchanges.

 

[massmotorist]

Per-capita road subsidies are definitely much higher in western MA because of lower population density. The spending formula is primarily dictated by centerline-miles of road, so a small rural route counts just as much as a highway.

Here's a map of Chapter 90 road funding by municipality.

That doesn't count Federal dollars, just state money in the Chapter 90 program, however. About $200 million total was handed out FY2012 as part of Chapter 90.

I was thinking the comparison would be total local expenditures + Ch. 90 grants + MassDOT direct spending on roads and highways under their administration within a particular region. Urban highways are a lot more expensive to maintain than rural ones (think Big Dig tunnels).

It may be rational for Ch. 90 money to be divided up that way if those areas pay more per capita in gas tax, since Ch. 90 is funded from the gas tax. Chances are, they do.

 

[Matthew]

Any idea where I can get that data? Else I'll keep my eye out next time I poke around the websites.

 

[bbfen]

I was thinking the comparison would be total local expenditures + Ch. 90 grants + MassDOT direct spending on roads and highways under their administration within a particular region. Urban highways are a lot more expensive to maintain than rural ones (think Big Dig tunnels).

It may be rational for Ch. 90 money to be divided up that way if those areas pay more per capita in gas tax, since Ch. 90 is funded from the gas tax. Chances are, they do.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Whatever makes the storyline what you want it to be.