how to connect Harard's Cambridge & Allston campuses
PRC1234
in Allston. They actually have more land in Allston than in Cambridge.
Ultimately they will need to have some kind of connection between the two
campuses.
There already is a Red Line tunnel to the JFK School of Government left over
from when there was a car bark on that site.
How do people on this forum think Harvard should solve this problem?
I'd like to see a spur of the Red Line built using the existing tunnel,
crossing under the Charles River to the Allston campus. From here the would run
under Western Ave, then under the river again and joining the train tracks near
the Arsenal Mall in Watertown. From here the line could run through Watertown
Sq, Waltham Center and end at 128 by Brandies University.
Ron Newman
prc...@aol.com (PRC1234) wrote:
> I'm sure most people already know that the future on Harvard's growth is over
> in Allston. They actually have more land in Allston than in Cambridge.
> Ultimately they will need to have some kind of connection between the two
> campuses.
>
> There already is a Red Line tunnel to the JFK School of Government left over
> from when there was a car bark on that site.
>
> How do people on this forum think Harvard should solve this problem?
> I'd like to see a spur of the Red Line built using the existing tunnel,
> crossing under the Charles River to the Allston campus.
A Mattapan-like shuttle might work here, but not branching the
Red Line. We need all of the capacity we can get up at
Porter, Davis, and Alewife.
Jeff Kurland
"PRC1234" <prc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030123155700...@mb-ma.aol.com...
> I'm sure most people already know that the future on Harvard's growth is
over
> in Allston. They actually have more land in Allston than in Cambridge.
> Ultimately they will need to have some kind of connection between the two
> campuses.
>
> There already is a Red Line tunnel to the JFK School of Government left
over
> from when there was a car bark on that site.
I remember seeing that tunnel at least partially uncovered and filled with
rubble after the construction of the extension.
Mike C.
from Harvard to Allston.
"PRC1234" <prc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030123155700...@mb-ma.aol.com...
RTSPCC
>
>I remember seeing that tunnel at least partially uncovered and filled with
>rubble after the construction of the extension.
Part of the tunnel was demolished to build the lobby of the present Harvard Sq.
station. The short abandoned tunnel segment leading from the JFK school no
longer connects to the active tunnel.
Michael J. Saletnik
> Ultimately they will need to have some kind of connection between the two
> [Harvard] campuses.
I'm all for public transportation, but this is Harvard's problem, not
the Commonwealth's. I don't think state funds should pay for a link
between Harvard's two campuses beyond what is justifiable as standard
T routes for the commuting public.
--
{michael}
SPUI
> I'm sure most people already know that the future on Harvard's growth is
over
> in Allston. They actually have more land in Allston than in Cambridge.
> Ultimately they will need to have some kind of connection between the two
> campuses.
>
> There already is a Red Line tunnel to the JFK School of Government left
over
> from when there was a car bark on that site.
>
> How do people on this forum think Harvard should solve this problem?
>
You'll have to lay down to get past the arches.
--
Dan Moraseski - 15th grade at MIT
http://web.mit.edu/spui/www/ - FL NJ MA route logs and exit lists
David Z Maze
> I'd like to see a spur of the Red Line built using the existing
> tunnel, crossing under the Charles River to the Allston campus.
I think rapid transit is the wrong model here; as other people have
suggested, a streetcar line might work better.
> From here the would run under Western Ave, then under the river
> again and joining the train tracks near the Arsenal Mall in
> Watertown. From here the line could run through Watertown Sq,
> Waltham Center and end at 128 by Brandies University.
So, uh, you realize that you've routed part of this along the active
Fitchburg commuter rail line from Waltham Center to Brandeis? I also
have no idea what the state of the Watertown Branch is; a posting here
a few months ago suggested that at least part of it is still active,
and from looking at the tracks around Waltham I suspect that whoever
owns the right-of-way believes that the bridge across the Charles near
Waltham Center isn't sufficiently structural for train travel.
Who is this really benefitting? What does it offer over the status
quo (at the very least the 66 bus into Allston and the Fitchburg
commuter rail to Waltham)? Who's going to pay for it, and why?
--
David Maze dm...@mit.edu http://www.mit.edu/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell
Pete from Boston
> I'm sure most people already know that the future on Harvard's growth is over
> in Allston. They actually have more land in Allston than in Cambridge.
> Ultimately they will need to have some kind of connection between the two
> campuses.
>
> There already is a Red Line tunnel to the JFK School of Government left over
> from when there was a car bark on that site.
>
> How do people on this forum think Harvard should solve this problem?
Take a look at >http://www.gcassoc.com/planning/nallston/presentations/9_12_02Vollmer.pdf
and >http://www.gcassoc.com/planning/nallston/presentations/9_19_02%20Harvard%20University.pdf
for the transportation presentations of the ongoing land-use study
here.
Steven M. Paris
How about stopping Harvard from acquiring any more space - not one square
inch.....AND freezing their enrollment!
Let's see...they own a good chunk of Cambridge, Allston, Watertown, the
Arboretum, Harvard Observatory and who knows how much else land and
property....are they plannnig on adding another 50,000 students???
Oh and they're a rotten employer and a rotten neighbor. I see no reason to
spend a dime on that bunch.
pntx
">
> So, uh, you realize that you've routed part of this along the active
> Fitchburg commuter rail line from Waltham Center to Brandeis? I also
> have no idea what the state of the Watertown Branch is; a posting here
> a few months ago suggested that at least part of it is still active,
> and from looking at the tracks around Waltham I suspect that whoever
> owns the right-of-way believes that the bridge across the Charles near
> Waltham Center isn't sufficiently structural for train travel.
>
> Who is this really benefitting? What does it offer over the status
> quo (at the very least the 66 bus into Allston and the Fitchburg
> commuter rail to Waltham)? Who's going to pay for it, and why?
>
> --
> David Maze dm...@mit.edu http://www.mit.edu/~dmaze/
> "Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal."
> -- Abra Mitchell
If you mean the tracks that ran parallel to Pleasant St Watertown and
crossed the river behind the Chinese Restaurant on River St Waltham, they
have been torn up. The cold storage building has become an office building
with the ROW as its front lawn. There is a small building being built on the
section of the tracks next to the old Raytheon Plant. The bridge has a chain
link fence at either end now.
Pete from Boston
Do you have some legal grounds on which to bar Harvard from buying
land like anyone else? Public meetings are full of people who don't
like Harvard. It's a tired story. People come to these things in
Allston and again and again say "I don't know why you people have to
come into our neighborhood" as if Harvard hasn't been there for a
hundred years already, or is doing something against the law.
They're there, they're going to expand a lot, and this is going to
happen again in other places. I would suggest you get involved in
making it work for the areas affected if you're displeased, because
you're not going to stop it. It's just that simple. Empty "but I don't
like them" whining wastes good opportunities.
Disagree? Take a look at the Mahoney's plan (for the Harvard-owned
present site of the garden center on Mem. Dr.). Harvard was all set to
build an art museum on that site, a use that welcomed the public. The
plan would have also made the site open and traversable to
pedestrians. Neighbors yelled and screamed about Harvard building
anything, and Harvard said fine, no museum -- we'll just build housing
there instead, which contributes nothing to the neighborhood, and will
alienate neighbors further much like Peabody Terrace.
In Allston, much to Harvard's credit, they did give in to pressure
from neighbors and the city and are co-funding (with the BRA) a
land-use study that will produce guidelines for development. In this
process you have ignored issues in a neglected neighborhood getting
detailed examination for probably the first time ever. Yes, some would
like to derail this whole process because Harvard is involved. Others
are working constructively to get the most they can for the residents
out of this.
I'm not naive -- I know what goes on and how business has been done.
But spend your time fighting Harvard head-on and you're not likely to
be joined by the brightest of people.
Stuart Brorson
:> How do people on this forum think Harvard should solve this problem?
: How about stopping Harvard from acquiring any more space - not one square
: inch.....AND freezing their enrollment!
: Let's see...they own a good chunk of Cambridge, Allston, Watertown, the
: Arboretum, Harvard Observatory and who knows how much else land and
: property....are they plannnig on adding another 50,000 students???
The way in which Harvard deals with this is that they make a payment
to the city "in lieu of taxes". This is only fair, after all. I know
that Watertown was kind of peed off when Harvard Business School
bought up a large section of the Arsenal complex. Watertown had
invested lots 'o money into rennovating that space for commercial use
'cause they could reap bales of tax money from the corporations they
thought would come a-flocking to the new, trendy space. They were not
pleased that Harvard (a tax-exempt organization) took the space after
the .com bubble burst & no other tennants showed up. I believe that
Harvard had to negotiate some kind of "voluntary payment" in order to
get the space. That only makes sense for everybody concerned.
Anyway, as a Brighton property owner, I am all over having Harvard in
my back yard. The area they are developing was largely an abandoned
industrial wasteland (except for WGBH). Having Harvard move in means
that there will be lots of new jobs for local workers, as well as a
general "upscaling" of a formerly blighted area. This is good for
almost everybody, except perhaps two types of people: 1. The few who
currently rent there and won't be able to afford the nabe in the
future after it is upgraded, and 2. Soreheads who oppose any change
anywhere. The former people have my sympathy & support in finding an
equitable and just way to move forward with their lives. The latter
can get stuffed, as far as I am concerned. Which class do you fit in?
Stuart
David S Chesler
> campuses.
Why?
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Who spent plenty of time crossing the Larz Anderson Bridge
from Cambridge to 175 North Harvard St by foot, bike or motorcycle
in order to take the shuttle bus from Allston back to Cambridge
Dan Peltier
> Anyway, as a Brighton property owner, I am all over having Harvard in
> my back yard. The area they are developing was largely an abandoned
> industrial wasteland (except for WGBH). Having Harvard move in means
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I question your claim that the area
was an "abandoned industrial wasteland". Seems to me that most of the industrial
sites were, and still are, in use. Industrial uses may not be pretty to look at,
but they're useful in their own way.
Dan
Stuart Brorson
: Stuart Brorson <s...@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<v39bh0d...@corp.supernews.com>...
Well, it's hard for me to tell what's abandoned and what's e.g. a
functioning truck tranfer point, or a storage yard for concrete sewer
pipes. But the area is full of large yards which look abandoned, or
at least underutilized.
I *do* agree that industrial use is important. On the other hand, if
Harvard pays the property owners *more* for their land than the owners
can get from the current, industrial tenants, then bully for Harvard.
If you subscribe to the ideas behind capitalism, Harvard's use of the
property (as measured by their willingness to pay more) is of higher
value to the economy than an industrial use. Therefore, society at
large benefits when Harvard pays more for the property.
Anyway, while industrial uses are important, they can probably be
moved elsewhere -- most likely further out of the city than Allston.
Harvard, on the other hand, isn't going to move, so if they can pay the
extra price for the land, it makes sense for them to displace the
industrial uses.
Stuart
John F. Carr
Stuart Brorson <s...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>Well, it's hard for me to tell what's abandoned and what's e.g. a
>functioning truck tranfer point, or a storage yard for concrete sewer
>pipes. But the area is full of large yards which look abandoned, or
>at least underutilized.
The Boston Herald today has a legal notice from the Turnpike Authority
about a proposed sale of a large amount of land near the Allston interchange.
They ought to use that land to improve exit 18 so traffic can flow through
it during rush hour.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
David S Chesler
> I *do* agree that industrial use is important. On the other hand, if
> Harvard pays the property owners *more* for their land than the owners
> can get from the current, industrial tenants, then bully for Harvard.
> If you subscribe to the ideas behind capitalism, Harvard's use of the
> property (as measured by their willingness to pay more) is of higher
> value to the economy than an industrial use. Therefore, society at
> large benefits when Harvard pays more for the property.
This is true only to the degree that society at large benefits at
large from Harvard, and demonstrates this by waiving its taxes. (So
that s.a.l. doesn't change its mind, Harvard pays its host cities
sums in lieu of taxes. Anyone know how those compare to the commercial
taxes that commercial users would be paying?)
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
Stuart Brorson
Fastination question. I did a little research and found this web page
giving figures for PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) and RE taxes paid
by Harvard and MIT:
http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/~CDD/data/educ/towngown2001.html
The page also lists the square footage of tax-exempt and taxable
property owned by each institution. Using this information, I created
a spreadsheet calculating each institution's payment/ft^2 for both
PILOT and RE taxes. The results are:
Tax exempt property
School Sq ft Payment Payment/ft^2
----------------------------------------------------
Hvd 11 500 000 1 618 138 0.14
MIT 9 266 000 1 137 000 0.12
Taxable property
School Sq ft Payment Payment/ft^2
----------------------------------------------------
Hvd 995 100 4 322 500 4.34
MIT 3 137 160 11 899 200 3.79
So there you have it -- PILOT is roughly 3.1% the amount that
Cambridge gets for taxable property. No wonder Cambridge is squawking
all the time about losing land to the universities.
(Interestingly, the percentage of PILOT to the total payments made by
both MIT and Hvd agree to 4 figures:
Hvd: 0.14/(0.14+4.34) = 0.031376%
MIT: 0.12/(0.12+3.79) = 0.031337%
which suggests that both institutions carefully watch each other's
payment and make sure that they are paying *exactly* as much as the
other guy -- no more, no less.)
Although Cambridge certainly doesn't get its money's worth from PILOT,
one could ask the question: "How else is Cambridge benefitted by the
presence of the universities"? I think that the universities, and the
accordant concentration of educated, energetic young people is a major
reason for Cambridge's economic success. Without the universities,
Cambridge might just as well be Everett. It's hard to put a dollar
figure on the benefit, though.
Stuart
Allston Parking Refugee
> The Boston Herald today has a legal notice from the Turnpike Authority
> about a proposed sale of a large amount of land near the Allston interchange.
>
> They ought to use that land to improve exit 18 so traffic can flow through
> it during rush hour.
How would more land help? It seems that the problems result from the
MDC lights on Soldiers Field Road, especially the one at Cambridge
Street and the Pike exit. This light gives separate phases to the
Soldiers Field service road eastbound, and westbound, and Cambridge
Street northbound, and the Pike exit northbound, and the exit from the
Doubletree hotel (which would be a perfect application of a loop
detector, since often no vehicles use this green). The latter 3 all
have to split the phase for crossing Soldiers Field northbound.
IMO if Cambridge Street were only 2 lanes wide it might be able to
share a phase with the Pike exit. Maybe this intersection could be
SPUI-fied -- currently signal phases totally reverse the flow of
traffic across the Soldiers Field overpass every cycle and there are
no centerline markings on it. If left-turning traffic from the 2
service roads could share a phase it would save a lot of time.
Other problems result from tangles of traffic flows at this light and
the other 3 lights in the box formed by these streets, Mem Drive, and
Western Avenue. It would take some analysis to see if synchronization
might be able to improve things, but it's a very complicated problem.
-Apr
Dan Peltier
> The page also lists the square footage of tax-exempt and taxable
> property owned by each institution. Using this information, I created
> a spreadsheet calculating each institution's payment/ft^2 for both
> PILOT and RE taxes. The results are:
The taxable property probably has a much higher value per square foot (since
it is mostly commercial property), and probably is charged a higher rate
per assessed dollar than much of the tax-exempt property would be (if, as I
believe is true, Cambridge charges commercial properties at higher rates
than residential and "institutional" property). The distortion introduced
by these factors (thigher assessed value per square foot and higher rates
per assessed dollar) probably makes your numbers pretty meaningless, but
someone who knows better can correct me.
Dan
J Mello
> in Allston. They actually have more land in Allston than in Cambridge.
> Ultimately they will need to have some kind of connection between the two
> campuses.
>
> There already is a Red Line tunnel to the JFK School of Government left over
> from when there was a car bark on that site.
>
> How do people on this forum think Harvard should solve this problem?
I think the Commonwealth Avenue corridor should be extended across
Brighton Avenue, along Malvern Street, under the Pike and connect with
North Harvard Street at Cambridge Street. A simple four lane artery
would suffice, and a little demo would have to occur along Malvern
Street. Of course this would be dependent on the removal of most of
the tracks in the Beacon Yard (which would occur if it was devloped).
This would dramatically improve mobility in Allston. It would provide
the following benefits:
1. Relieve congestion on Harvard Avenue and Linden Street in Allston.
2. Remove through traffic from Commonwealth Avenue through BU.
3. Provide direct route to Cambridge and the MassPike from
Commonwealth Avenue corridor.
4. Provide pedestrian connection between BU, Allston Village, the
Green Line and Lower Allston.
5. Provide roue for express buses from Allston to teh Pike (relieving
overcrowding on the B Line).
6. Transform Commonwealth Avenue and Brighton Avenue into standard X
intersection, increasing pedestrian safety.
Some type of greenway connection should also be built from this
roadway to the Soldiers Field Road bikeway. This would provide
Allston residents with a better connection to the Esplanade, now
terribly inaccessible.
-JMello