1. Introduction.
2. Harvard’s situation.
3. Harvard’s Comments.
A. General.
B. Specific construction already planned or pending.
(1). Mass. Turnpike Reconstruction.
(2). Electronic Tolling.
(3). Street System Improvements.
(4). Expansion of Rail Track Service.
C. Existing rights in Beacon Park Yard.
D. Additional Considerations.
4. Conclusion, temporary.
1. Introduction.
Harvard University has recently made public comment on transportation planning in the area of the planned Harvard Medical School triangle, on the south side of the Charles River just east of the River Street Bridge / Cambridge Street, Boston, MA, USA / River Street, Cambridge, MA, USA. The comments are on line at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/25/Docs/ScannedLettersFromMEPA_ENF_042613.pdf. Harvard’s comments appear at pages 57 to 64.
The core habitat of the Charles River White Geese is the opposite side of this not particularly wide river, a mile habitat centered on the BU Bridge, the next bridge to the east.
I quote Harvard’s comments below in great detail. Harvard has been busy. Harvard’s listing of “Competing MassDOT Transportation Priorities” looks highly dangerous. I have thus quoted the most important comments verbatim.
Planning and maneuvers to make the planned Harvard Medical School Triangle work as a Medical School for Harvard University are rather clearly a core part of the environmental problems existing and being created in this area of the Charles River.
The massive amount of work pending in the area of the planned Harvard Medical School Triangle is incredible. And remember that Harvard bought this area after the local transit people showed a Mass. Turnpike off ramp could be constructed to Cambridge over the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
The wording of Harvard is that some very big work is imminent. And that work could greatly expand the environmental destruction, although, as usual, environmental destruction is never mentioned.
I have been deferring work on this report because its potential is so massive. However, I have been pulled out of my deferral of this work by my report on June 18, 2013, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/more-road-work-around-harvard.html, concerning replacement of the Cambridge Street bridge over the Massachusetts Turnpike. This bridge is located close to the northern tip of the planned Harvard Medical School Triangle.
I am quoting a lot and give you link to the full package. I would love to get your input. I, myself, will not further analyze except for background matters.
This report is too much work as it is without further new analysis.
2. Harvard’s situation.
Ever since I first became particularly concerned about the environmental problems on the Charles River, I have been increasingly aware of a vast amount of interrelationship of things going on or attempted to be going on.
I most recently directly reported on Harvard’s empire building at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-hospital-by-harvard-university-at.html.
Harvard’s relevant comments came concerning the expansion of South Station in Boston. The plans are to tear down the central mail processing facility (Fort Point Station) which is directly east of South Station and move the facility maybe a mile to the east. In place of the postal facility would be constructed additional railroad tracks. These tracks are needed for the addition of commuter rail service to Fall River and New Bedford, MA, the Massachusetts South Coast.
This is the second relatively recent expansion of South Station. This resumed service (after half a century) would service communities south of communities to whom service was resumed in 1997. The added service has its own difficulties since, as it is, South Station has a problem storing trains not needed during the middle of the day. The trains bring folks into Boston in the morning and are not needed again until the evening. There is not enough room for the trains to sit during the middle of the day with the addition of the South Coast service.
I most recently reported on the South Station expansion and Harvard’s comments at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/harvard-university-speaks-out-on-beacon.html.
Harvard’s problems come from the fact that, when Harvard purchased Beacon Park Yards and the Mass. Pike (I90) off ramps, the state included a proviso that Harvard’s use of the land purchased would be secondary to transportation use of the properties.
The environmental analysis includes consideration of various alternatives to park those trains during the day. The location which looks the most sensible to me is Beacon Park Yards. The freight railroad which has been using Beacon Park Yards is relocating the function to a new yard facility near Worcester, MA. From Harvard’s point of view, that leaves Beacon Park Yards as an ideal location for Harvard Medical School. Use of Beacon Park Yards to layover trains during the day on service to South Station would definitely put a cramp in Harvard’s plans.
3. Harvard’s Comments.
A. General.
Harvard says that use of Beacon Park Yard for layover of South Station trains during the day could kill its planned use of the property for relocation of its Medical School and other facilities. It requests that much more analysis be provided.
Harvard wants to separate the analysis of South Station expansion and the creation of layover facilities. One reason Harvard wants to separate the two issues is that South Station is already deficient for layover facilities without the expansion. “The expansion of South Station is clearly desirable with or without increased layover, so is in no way reliant upon achieving increased layover/layup capacity.”
Harvard argues that alternate layover locations should be greater considered.
Harvard thinks greater analysis should be made on Commuter Rail needs.
Harvard suggests that greater analysis should be made into alternative train technology with less layover needs.
B. Specific construction already planned or pending.
Harvard argues that other “Competing MassDOT Transportation Priorities” in the Beacon Park Yards area should be considered, as follows.
(1). Mass. Turnpike Reconstruction.
First is reconstruction of the Massachusetts Turnpike Brighton - Cambridge exit. Harvard says that this has been an urgent need in planning for the Massachusetts Turnpike.
“Harvard has assumed that significant portions of Beacon Park Yard will be required on an interim basis to support the Mass. Turnpike reconstruction work. Harvard also recognizes that there is an urgent need to minimize the impact of construction disruption on the surrounding communities and the area’s reginal and local roadway network. . . . Given that substantially the same land parcels are involved with reconstruction and repair of the Mass. Turnpike, an operational analysis and construction staging plan for the Mass. Turnpike reconstruction work must be part of any anslysis of the use of Beacon Park Yard for layover uses.”
(2). Electronic Tolling.
“Governor Patrick and MassDOT have publicly announced the State’s intention to implement electronic tolling along the Mass. Turnpike in the near term future, and this cannot be accomplished at the Allston toll location without the reconstruction or replacement of the Allston interchange / viaduct . . . Electronic tolling will require straightening out segments of the Mass. Turnpike adjacent to Beacon Park Yard, a reality not reflected in the ENF. This straightenint will compete with the need to expand the land available for passenger rail facility expansion within a constrained space. Thus, the revised design of this portion of the Mass. Turnpike should be considered in evaluating the viability of Beacon Park Yard as a layover facility.”
(3). Street System Improvements.
“The ENF also does not consider street system improvements that are needed in and around Beacon Park Yard to improve permanently, one of Boston’s worst intersections ‒ the confluence of the Mass. Turnpike Allston ramp, Cambridge Street, and a servicde drive with Soldiers Field Road and its adjacent service road. In additin, the current condition of the two 50± year old Cambridge Street bridges, over the Mass. Purnpike itself and over Mass. Turnpike off ramps, is poor. Reconstruction or replacement of these bridges is urgently needed. Further, as part of the on-going transportation planning work Harvard has undertaken subsequent to its acquisition of Beacon Park Yard a decade ago, Harvard has engaged in discussions with public agency officials and stakeholders about the need to create a viable street system in this area. The potential for planning and developing this series of new and reconfigured streets may be jeapardized if the heart of Beacon Park Yard is to be permanently utilized as an MBTA layover facility. The siting of a permanent layover facility in Beacon Park Yard must be evaluated against these transportation system needs.”
(4). Expansion of Rail Track Service.
“[ed: Paragraphing improved] There is a need to replace the single track-constrained Boston Main Line with a multi-track layout in order to provide adequately for a multitude of objectives, including
(i) expanded commuter rail service,
(ii) the introduction of DMU service [ed: the other type of rail technology mentioned by Harvard], and
(iii) the introduction of inter-city Ametrak service on the inland route. This must be accomplished in a manner that is well-integrated during the construction period for the Mass. Turnpike reconstruction work, i.e., in a manner that maintains rail access to South Station and addresses rail operations on the Grand Junction rail line.”
C. Existing rights in Beacon Park Yard.
Extensive discussion. Very important. The detail is massive. I definitely and simply do not consider it appropriate to even attempt to paraphrase Harvard’s position without major work.
D. Additional Considerations.
Analysis of Impacts on Amtrak Inter-city Service, design guidelines, consistency with area plans and development and west station / commuter rail service, air pollution, acquisition costs are all provided.
4. Conclusion, temporary.
As you can see, there is a massive amount of work needed to fully comprehend where Harvard is coming from.
I have quoted the transportation analysis in great detail because it scares me.
The Secretary has issued a response to all filings including the Environmental Notification Form and Harvard’s Comments.
The Secretary’s certificate may be read at http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepacerts/2013/sc/enf/15028enf.pdf.
The Environmental Notification itself is massive. It is posted at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/25/Docs/efs/EnvironmentalNotificationForm.pdf.
There is a lot of work needed to fully evaluate what is going on here.
