MassPike Allston

[ant8904]

Without the same level of vitriol. There's needs to be a question of absolute expenditure versus spending for each individual. The Big Dig tunnel and mass transit is arguably very expensive, but dividing by the number of (tax paying) individuals can make a big difference. However, it may still mean a big number. Vice versa to the western end.

 

[omaja]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Whatever makes the storyline what you want it to be.

This.

I don't see how it can be difficult to comprehend that western MA is subsidized by Greater Boston. Just as MA pays into the federal tax system far more than it receives in return, so to does Boston's population pay into a system that redistributes funding across the state.

 

[massmotorist]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Whatever makes the storyline what you want it to be.

Huh? I was just asking the poster for data to support the idea that more is spent per capita on transportation in the suburbs/rural areas in Mass. I have nothing to gain from promoting that storyline, and I don't even object to more being spent on Boston per-capita since it's the economic hub of the area.

Just saying the idea that less is spent in Boston even on roads alone seems dubious to me. The Route 128 add-a-lane cost about the same as the Longfellow Bridge rehab ultimately will for example, and 128 moves for more people. They're both worthwhile projects. But let's work from the same facts.

 

[Equilibria]

The real problem with this Boston/Rest-of-MA dichotomy is that Boston is just as dependent on every single mile of the Turnpike, whether in the Fens, Framingham, or Lenox. Maybe some of that transportation money outside the city limits is spent on tiny local roads, but I bet most of it goes toward roadways anyone in Boston would use if they ever wanted to go anywhere else. Even if you never leave, you can bet you use a lot of products that get here using those roads and rail lines on the periphery.

Also, defining "Boston" as being within the city limits is insane. Just sayin...

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

I like the idea of realigning the Pike at the Allston interchange and redeveloping the resultant land.

In my plan below, the street grid is extended from the south and north, fully integrating the new area into the surrounding historic urban fabric.

Interesting but you must consult Harvard University which purchased the land below The Pike.


View their 50 year plan for the B school and Allston area in general."

--
Boston Officials Decry Land Deal
Harvard purchases Allston parcel that includes turnpike, rail yard

By ALEX L. PASTERNACK, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Monday, June 02, 2003
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/6/2/boston-officials-decry-land-deal-sparking/

Harvard's 50 year plan *does* speak of placing Soldiers' Field Road below ground and creating a park from the B-school down to the river's edge.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic130901.files/IMP_Exec_Summary_010907.pdf

I wish the state could collaborate more with the universities to jointly fund capital works that could be win-win between schools and the communities they reside in.

 

[davem]

Interesting but you must consult Harvard University which purchased the land below The Pike.


View their 50 year plan for the B school and Allston area in general."

--
Boston Officials Decry Land Deal
Harvard purchases Allston parcel that includes turnpike, rail yard

By ALEX L. PASTERNACK, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Monday, June 02, 2003
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/6/2/boston-officials-decry-land-deal-sparking/

Harvard's 50 year plan *does* speak of placing Soldiers' Field Road below ground and creating a park from the B-school down to the river's edge.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic130901.files/IMP_Exec_Summary_010907.pdf

I wish the state could collaborate more with the universities to jointly fund capital works that could be win-win between schools and the communities they reside in.

If eminent domain ever had a cause it would be to wrestle Beacon Park back from Harvard. They can't even keep the science complex plans coherent, or get their 10 year plan built. Harvard has royally fucked Allston with their landbanking, and it needs to stop. As of one year ago I was supportive of their plans and vision, but it has taken a drastic turn for the worst. They cried about the economy and loss of endowment, but the economy is recovering and they are now scaling back their plans more than ever. Check out Harry Mattison's blog chronicling it: (he posts here some times).
http://allston02134.blogspot.com/

Once CSX moves out it will nicely compliment the abandoned Sears warehouse pad across Cambridge St, and the newly constructed science complex pad; also a wasteland. Don't forget the entire reason A/B has a rat problem is because Harvard recklessly demolished all these buildings with no pest mitigation, releasing hordes of mutant rats into the neighborhood.

Don't be taken in with Harvard's glossy plans of what they want to do. If they retain ownership of Beacon Park it will remain an abandoned trash strewn brownfield through every person on this boards lifetime, and probably our children too. Harvard bought this land so BU couldn't, that is it. They have no idea what they are going to do with it, nor do they really care. I'm convinced they look at Allston like a giant monopoly board.

I don't support the efforts of the ACA or other NIMBYS to derail good plans such as the museum that was supposed to come in. However Harvard is recklessly and maliciously playing with gigantic swaths of land that are only going to become more and more valuable over the next 50 years. Someone could do much better with that rail yard then Harvard letting it rot.

 

[Shepard]

Harvard wants the best of both worlds - to spend money densifying and renovating in its core, but also holding onto strategic expansion land. For Harvard, I believe, the limiting factor on expansion is transportation and access. Already, students housed at the Radcliffe Quad up Garden Street complain about being too far out. Nobody, it seems, likes the bus shuttles.

Short of Harvard paying for an Allston-Cambridge rail transit line, I'm with Davem on this.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

For what it's worth, a real CTDOT engineer who posts on Somethingawful.com and designs interchanges for a living ran took up this one at the behest of our own Kahta. Here's what he came up with for a Pike straightening and interchange reconfig via the design software he uses for his job. Plus his professional opinion on what the design constraints are. This is about the best we're going to get in terms of real expertise on setting the design parameters, although there can be wide variance on the actual configurations applied here.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...rid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=176#post409431184

(Caveat: site is only freely available for viewing from the 16th to end of each month. 1st thru 15th Somethingawful blocks it behind a paywall. Fascinating thread on traffic engineering, though...I recommend bookmarking it.)

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

(Caveat: site is only freely available for viewing from the 16th to end of each month. 1st thru 15th Somethingawful blocks it behind a paywall. Fascinating thread on traffic engineering, though...I recommend bookmarking it.)

$10 isn't really all that steep of an asking fee when you get right down to it. You should seriously consider joining.

 

[Shepard]

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...rid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=176#post409431184

OMG

There goes the week

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

$10 isn't really all that steep of an asking fee when you get right down to it. You should seriously consider joining.

I joined way back in the day when they still had bitorrent. Best $10 I ever spent.

 

[Kahta]

For what it's worth, a real CTDOT engineer who posts on Somethingawful.com and designs interchanges for a living ran took up this one at the behest of our own Kahta. Here's what he came up with for a Pike straightening and interchange reconfig via the design software he uses for his job. Plus his professional opinion on what the design constraints are. This is about the best we're going to get in terms of real expertise on setting the design parameters, although there can be wide variance on the actual configurations applied here.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...rid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=176#post409431184

(Caveat: site is only freely available for viewing from the 16th to end of each month. 1st thru 15th Somethingawful blocks it behind a paywall. Fascinating thread on traffic engineering, though...I recommend bookmarking it.)

Yup, I submitted this request after I made my design to see how close I came to an actual professional.

(dates dont match because it usually takes me several days to design something)

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

Short of Harvard paying for an Allston-Cambridge rail transit line, I'm with Davem on this.

That's one of the plans of sorts. A bus tunnel going next to the Charles Hotel to bypass that chronic traffic laden intersection at Memorial Drive/JFK Street/North Harvard Street. It is supposed to travel underground between the Kennedy School and Charles Hotel go under the Charles River and emerge on the Boston side of the river

If the Commonwealth teamed up with Harvard on that it could become something longer IMHO extending a full train-line into Watertown (along what is the 70/86 route) OR along the current 66 route.

 

[Ron Newman]

That would in part use the Red Line tunnel under Brattle and Eliot streets, which used to lead to the Eliot Yards and was abandoned (but left intact) when the Red Line was extended north to Porter Square.

 

[Charlie_mta]

For what it's worth, a real CTDOT engineer who posts on Somethingawful.com and designs interchanges for a living ran took up this one at the behest of our own Kahta. Here's what he came up with for a Pike straightening and interchange reconfig via the design software he uses for his job. Plus his professional opinion on what the design constraints are. This is about the best we're going to get in terms of real expertise on setting the design parameters, although there can be wide variance on the actual configurations applied here.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...rid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=176#post409431184

(Caveat: site is only freely available for viewing from the 16th to end of each month. 1st thru 15th Somethingawful blocks it behind a paywall. Fascinating thread on traffic engineering, though...I recommend bookmarking it.)

I'm a highway engineer as well, and I don't like the design. For one thing, the weaving at the toll booths would be unacceptable. Also, the whole complex is way too sprawling, eating up a huge area that should be developed with streets and buildings.

Just my professional opinion.

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

I'm a highway engineer as well, and I don't like the design. For one thing, the weaving at the toll booths would be unacceptable. Also, the whole complex is way too sprawling, eating up a huge area that should be developed with streets and buildings.

Just my professional opinion.

As someone that had a family member as a toll taker, some of the redesigns would allow Newton Corner people to ride the pike for free. There's no toll at Newton Corner, so those people have their tabs caught-up at Allston/Brighton tolls for eastbound or Weston-tolls if getting on westbound at Newton Corner. After Allston/Brighton you pay and you're free to get off anywhere you wish within Boston. Copley/Pru, S/E Expwy, or continue into Ted Williams. Persons coming from S/E Expwy, Clarendon St.(below BackBay parking garage), Huntington Ave (next to Pru. ctr.). or Mass. Ave. are caught-up for the-Boston leg they've travelled free at Allston/Brighton. People along 95/93 should be happy they aren't tolled like east-west or Charlstown/East Boston people are.

I'll admit it is a funny rising and falling of elevation there. But some of that has to be some of the Commuter Rail/railyard below and the rail bridge above Storrow, but below B.U. Bridge(Grand Junction Railroad) and then pike below Commonwealth Ave. at the same time. Plus all the on/off ramps.

 

[Equilibria]

As someone that had a family member as a toll taker, some of the redesigns would allow Newton Corner people to ride the pike for free. There's no toll at Newton Corner, so those people have their tabs caught-up at Allston/Brighton tolls for eastbound or Weston-tolls if getting on westbound at Newton Corner. After Allston/Brighton you pay and you're free to get off anywhere you wish within Boston. Copley/Pru, S/E Expwy, or continue into Ted Williams. Persons coming from S/E Expwy, Clarendon St.(below BackBay parking garage), Huntington Ave (next to Pru. ctr.). or Mass. Ave. are caught-up for the-Boston leg they've travelled free at Allston/Brighton. People along 95/93 should be happy they aren't tolled like east-west or Charlstown/East Boston people are.

Well, in the US highways aren't expected to be tolled, as they generally are in Europe, and the FHWA has been pretty intense about keeping it that way. As to the location of tolls... the best way to handle it, I think, is to open-road toll the highway at key points as they do in Chicago, as opposed to keeping tolls on the ramps. Use the license plate cameras to charge those without transponders as they do in Texas, and you can rebuild the interchanges to have no toll plazas whatsoever. That gives you the ability to use real urban interchanges and save huge amounts of room at every interchange from Weston to A-B (probably doesn't mean as much west of that where there's much more open land).

Open-road tolling is possibly the most important urban planning innovation Boston can enact in the immediate future, like modern signalling is for the MBTA.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Well, in the US highways aren't expected to be tolled, as they generally are in Europe, and the FHWA has been pretty intense about keeping it that way. As to the location of tolls... the best way to handle it, I think, is to open-road toll the highway at key points as they do in Chicago, as opposed to keeping tolls on the ramps. Use the license plate cameras to charge those without transponders as they do in Texas, and you can rebuild the interchanges to have no toll plazas whatsoever. That gives you the ability to use real urban interchanges and save huge amounts of room at every interchange from Weston to A-B (probably doesn't mean as much west of that where there's much more open land).

Open-road tolling is possibly the most important urban planning innovation Boston can enact in the immediate future, like modern signalling is for the MBTA.

Plus if you do that you only really need to maintain 1-2 manual toll booth in the right lanes on each side to handle any special cases where people either don't have transponders or there's some other reason requiring a cash toll. It takes up a ton less real estate and might even allow them to move the tolls back...say, at the Cambridge St./footbridge overpass before/after the merging and splitting for the ramps. Let one unified set of tolls rule all traffic--thru and exiting--into Boston and all WB traffic. Permit free WB-to-Allston movements to ease the Storrow induced demand by encouraging more Pike intra-city travel. It would eliminate 3 separate sets of booths on the ramps, allow for MASSIVE simplification of the ramps, reduce the toll collector workforce from 25 to something like 2-4, sharply reduce weaving, and greatly improve traffic flow...especially from eliminating ramp backups onto the Pike or Cambridge St.

And if they did want to straighten it across Beacon Park, that's a massive amount of ramp concrete they can do away with with tolls set further back and total free movements on the ramps themselves. That's obviously not reflected in the CTDOT engineer's design since he's not familiar with the area or what Beacon Park land is coming available, and he designed on the assumption that the manual toll plazas have to stay. It netted a more complicated and less space-efficient design than we could get here with open-road tolling and relocated tolls.

 

[massmotorist]

Plus if you do that you only really need to maintain 1-2 manual toll booth in the right lanes on each side to handle any special cases where people either don't have transponders or there's some other reason requiring a cash toll. It takes up a ton less real estate and might even allow them to move the tolls back...say, at the Cambridge St./footbridge overpass before/after the merging and splitting for the ramps. Let one unified set of tolls rule all traffic--thru and exiting--into Boston and all WB traffic. Permit free WB-to-Allston movements to ease the Storrow induced demand by encouraging more Pike intra-city travel. It would eliminate 3 separate sets of booths on the ramps, allow for MASSIVE simplification of the ramps, reduce the toll collector workforce from 25 to something like 2-4, sharply reduce weaving, and greatly improve traffic flow...especially from eliminating ramp backups onto the Pike or Cambridge St.

And if they did want to straighten it across Beacon Park, that's a massive amount of ramp concrete they can do away with with tolls set further back and total free movements on the ramps themselves. That's obviously not reflected in the CTDOT engineer's design since he's not familiar with the area or what Beacon Park land is coming available, and he designed on the assumption that the manual toll plazas have to stay. It netted a more complicated and less space-efficient design than we could get here with open-road tolling and relocated tolls.

This I could go for, as a next-best option to toll removal, for A/B and Weston tolls (and certainly for harbor tunnel/bridge tolls, which no one is proposing removing). Wouldn't work for the Western Pike, but those are scheduled for decommissioning in 2017 anyway.

Side note - existing toll and ramp facilities at these locations do not meet modern interstate highway standards, but any reconstruction/reconfiguration would have to. That may be part of the reason that the CTDOT engineer's plans took so much real estate.

 

[Ron Newman]

Side note - existing toll and ramp facilities at these locations do not meet modern interstate highway standards, but any reconstruction/reconfiguration would have to.

I'd hope Massachusetts could get an exemption from this. Minimizing the land area taken up by freeway interchanges should always take precedence over 'modern interstate highway standards' (which are designed for the wide open spaces of the West, not crowded old Eastern cities).