The Storrow Drive NIMBYs
Elmer
people objecting to plans for rebuilding the crumbling Storrow Drive
tunnel are just too much! If this tunnel is not repaired or replaced,
it's going to fail sooner or later. Hopefully no one will be killed,
but traffic will be chaotic. Just closing one lane temporarily to
allow parking during Esplanade events, backs up traffic for miles on
all roads leading to the area. Just this morning, a too-tall truck
took down some sort of "wire across the road" which tied up traffic
during the morning commute and lasted for hours.
To shave several months and several million dollars off the
replacement tunnel plans, the state proposed a temporary detour route
parallel to the tunnel, but encroaching into the Esplanade . Well,
these people will hear nothing of the sort! The plan was met with
vehement opposition from an "advisory committee". While the media
reported their shrieks of "Shocking!", "Makes no sense!", and "Can't
happen!", no one asked the objectors what they'd do instead. Let the
tunnel collapse? Meanwhile, no one bothered to report the opinion of
the thousands of drivers sitting in traffic.
Please, Storrow Drive and it's tunnel is already in their backyard!
It's been there since 1953. What do they expect? Even the most modest
rebuilding plans will require almost as many trees to be removed and
nearly as much encroachment temporarily into the Esplanade. I'll bet
these are some of the same folks who favor replacing the many
footbridges with crosswalks and traffic signals. I just don't
understand their thinking, unless it's pure selfishness. Can anyone
else explain it?
Elmer
Links to stories:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/16/revived_plan_for_detour_on_esplanade_stirs_outrage/?page=1
http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/necn.html?catID=80780&clipid=1672247&autoStart=true&mute=false&continuous=true
Ned Sagernod
news:1187302704....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Opposing destructive highway projects is often a noble cause, but the
> people objecting to plans for rebuilding the crumbling Storrow Drive
> tunnel are just too much!
They're not objecting to the rebuilding of the crumbling tunnel.
> If this tunnel is not repaired or replaced,
> it's going to fail sooner or later. Hopefully no one will be killed,
> but traffic will be chaotic. Just closing one lane temporarily to
> allow parking during Esplanade events, backs up traffic for miles on
> all roads leading to the area. Just this morning, a too-tall truck
> took down some sort of "wire across the road" which tied up traffic
> during the morning commute and lasted for hours.
>
> To shave several months and several million dollars off the
> replacement tunnel plans, the state proposed a temporary detour route
> parallel to the tunnel, but encroaching into the Esplanade . Well,
> these people will hear nothing of the sort! The plan was met with
> vehement opposition from an "advisory committee". While the media
> reported their shrieks of "Shocking!", "Makes no sense!", and "Can't
> happen!", no one asked the objectors what they'd do instead. Let the
> tunnel collapse?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
> Meanwhile, no one bothered to report the opinion of
> the thousands of drivers sitting in traffic.
Actually, while you were shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU,"
at least one TV news organization did report the opinion of some
drivers. Amazingly, not all of them supported the idea of doing
such damage to an important city resource. I guess you didn't
see it. Or wouldn't.
> Please, Storrow Drive and it's tunnel is already in their backyard!
Relevance?
> It's been there since 1953.
More detail, yes. But relevance?
> What do they expect? Even the most modest
> rebuilding plans will require almost as many trees to be removed and
> nearly as much encroachment temporarily into the Esplanade.
Source?
> I'll bet
> these are some of the same folks who favor replacing the many
> footbridges with crosswalks and traffic signals.
Factoids invented out of whole cloth do wonders for
your "argument."
> I just don't
> understand their thinking, unless it's pure selfishness. Can anyone
> else explain it?
I don't think anyone can explain it in a way that
you won't refuse to understand. Perhaps you would
take a page from the Volpe songbook, and decide to
pave the entire area inside 128?
[To the irony impaired: please go to Home Depot
to purchase a clue-by-four. You'll be needing it.]
Hugo S. Cunningham
wrote:
>"Elmer" <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1187302704....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> Opposing destructive highway projects is often a noble cause, but the
>> people objecting to plans for rebuilding the crumbling Storrow Drive
>> tunnel are just too much!
>
>They're not objecting to the rebuilding of the crumbling tunnel.
Some of them are. There are proposals to degrade that segment of
Storrow Drive in various ways, eg by putting up traffic lights.
But some of them accept the tunnel in theory.
>> If this tunnel is not repaired or replaced,
>> it's going to fail sooner or later. Hopefully no one will be killed,
>> but traffic will be chaotic. Just closing one lane temporarily to
>> allow parking during Esplanade events, backs up traffic for miles on
>> all roads leading to the area. Just this morning, a too-tall truck
>> took down some sort of "wire across the road" which tied up traffic
>> during the morning commute and lasted for hours.
>>
>> To shave several months and several million dollars off the
>> replacement tunnel plans, the state proposed a temporary detour route
>> parallel to the tunnel, but encroaching into the Esplanade . Well,
>> these people will hear nothing of the sort! The plan was met with
>> vehement opposition from an "advisory committee". While the media
>> reported their shrieks of "Shocking!", "Makes no sense!", and "Can't
>> happen!", no one asked the objectors what they'd do instead. Let the
>> tunnel collapse?
There are proposals to detour the east-bound tunnel traffic through
Back Bay. There is no reason whatsoever to believe Back Bay can
handle the extra traffic.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
>
>> Meanwhile, no one bothered to report the opinion of
>> the thousands of drivers sitting in traffic.
>
>Actually, while you were shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU,"
>at least one TV news organization did report the opinion of some
>drivers. Amazingly, not all of them supported the idea of doing
>such damage to an important city resource. I guess you didn't
>see it. Or wouldn't.
[...]
A large portion of the $5 million the Administration suggests can be
saved should be set aside *in advance* to guarantee a fast and high
quality restoration of the proposed Esplanade detour strip. For
example, instead of ten-foot saplings, place substantially-grown
trees.
--Hugo S. Cunninghamn
Robert Coe
: Opposing destructive highway projects is often a noble cause, but the
Yes, I can explain it. The NIMBYs are afraid that once the encroachment onto
the Esplanade is accomplished, the road will be widened and they'll never get
that land back. I can't say for sure that they're wrong. Can you?
If your answer is "yes", you must be too young to remember how close we came
to having the "Inner Belt" shoved down our throats. Or the extension of I-290.
Or the "satellite" airport in Hopkinton (and at least four other towns) that
would have been THE LARGEST AIRPORT IN THE WORLD.
Or look at the "Big Dig". Does that reassure you?
Bob
Hugo S. Cunningham
[...]
>Links to stories:
>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/16/revived_plan_for_detour_on_esplanade_stirs_outrage/?page=1
>http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/necn.html?catID=80780&clipid=1672247&autoStart=true&mute=false&continuous=true
Does the Storrow tunnel detour and disruption have to take two years?
Or might it be possible, if we were willing to spend enough extra
money, to accelerate the actual shut-down to a couple of weeks one
summer, leaving most of the preparatory and finishing work to be done
around reasonably normal traffic?
I think of that collapsed bridge approach in Oakland CA that was fixed
in record time because (1) CA was willing to pay for it, and (2) CA
had lawyers competent to draw up a contract giving contractors the
right incentives.
-- Hugo S. Cunningham
Elmer
> "Elmer" <Elmer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1187302704....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Opposing destructive highway projects is often a noble cause, but the
> > people objecting to plans for rebuilding the crumbling Storrow Drive
> > tunnel are just too much!
>
> They're not objecting to the rebuilding of the crumbling tunnel.
I said they're objecting to the plans. You're not a very good reader,
are you?
Elmer
Elmer
> Yes, I can explain it. The NIMBYs are afraid that once the encroachment onto
> the Esplanade is accomplished, the road will be widened and they'll never get
> that land back. I can't say for sure that they're wrong. Can you?
>
> If your answer is "yes", you must be too young to remember how close we came
> to having the "Inner Belt" shoved down our throats. Or the extension of I-290.
> Or the "satellite" airport in Hopkinton (and at least four other towns) that
> would have been THE LARGEST AIRPORT IN THE WORLD.
>
> Or look at the "Big Dig". Does that reassure you?
To both of your questions, certainly not! The people in charge of
roads in our state are about the last people I'd trust. I began my
original post acknowledging the importance of fighting against
destructive highway projects. In fact, here's a video of one of my
best friends telling the story of how the citizens of Cambridge
blocked the inner belt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVRGKqYGHLk
But that's not at all the situation with Storrow Drive. It's not about
tearing down neighborhoods nor paving paradise. It's about maintaining
an essential flow of traffic. There's nothing ecologically pristine
about the Esplanade, a linerar park built on fill along the river.
Sure it's a beautiful place to bike, run, walk, etc. but it's not
"sacred".
The media reports claimed that even the least encroaching rebuilding
plan requires removal of almost as many trees and 18 feet of
intrusion, rather than the 40 feet the quicker rebuilding plan calls
for. Regardless of the which plan is used, the area will be a
construction site for the duration.
I like Hugo's idea of setting aside money for restoration in a trust
fund before beginning the project. I'd take that even further and make
sure the fund provided not merely for restoration, but also
improvements such as more trees, better pathways, additional
pedestrian bridges, park benches, trash receptacles and drinking
fountains.
None of you other opponents offered any suggestions of how else to
accomplish the work. Do you think that it shouldn't be rebuilt at all?
Would you prefer the tunnel be eliminated in favor of traffic signals?
What would be your plan?
Elmer
Charlie Denison
I would say that yes, the tunnel should not be rebuilt, and the
parkway should be reconfigured as at-grade with traffic signals. I
believe this for a number of reasons. When Storrow Drive was built,
it was extremely controversial, and arguably approved though
questionable measures (it was voted on multiple times until it finally
passed by one vote). It has become a second "Mass Pike" of sorts,
carrying as much traffic as the turnpike per day.
The DCR and those who use the park agree that it should not be this
way. It should be more like a parkway and less like a highway. By
rebuilding as an at-grade parkway, it allows the opportunity to reduce
the traffic capacity and the impact of the traffic on the adjacent
parkland. It also presents an opportunity to make it more pedestrian-
friendly. In addition, maintenance over time will be much cheaper for
an at-grade parkway than for a tunnel.
To those who are concerned where the traffic will go that it would no
longer have the capacity to carry, I would say that people will find
other routes (and not just parallel roads such as Beacon St), other
modes, other times to travel, and in some cases will move.
Many examples in recent history have shown that reducing road capacity
does not result in the traffic chaos that people are afraid of: The
Embarcadero in San Francisco, the West Side Highway in New York, roads
throughout Europe where general lanes are turned into bus lanes or
bike lanes have no resulted in traffic gridlock. The following recent
British study verifies this:
http://www.cts.ucl.ac.uk/tsu/tpab9828.htm
Charlie
Ron Newman
Esplanade in order to accommodate (mostly) out-of-town automobiles while
repairing or replacing the Storrow tunnel.
Instead, remove all the parallel parking from both sides of Beacon
Street, between Arlington and Clarendon Streets. With these two travel
lanes added, you now have plenty of room to detour the eastbound Storrow
traffic. The westbound Storrow traffic can stay where it is, since it's
not in a tunnel.
Ron Newman
Elmer <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll bet
> these are some of the same folks who favor replacing the many
> footbridges with crosswalks and traffic signals.
It's a road through a park. Why dismiss this option out of hand?
rotten
It's funny how road projects that would take 4 months in other states
end up taking 2 years in Massachusetts. All those hungry unions to
feed.
bill
>
> To those who are concerned where the traffic will go that it would no
> longer have the capacity to carry, I would say that people will find
> other routes (and not just parallel roads such as Beacon St), other
> modes, other times to travel, and in some cases will move.
>
What color is the sky in your world?
toffner
> It's funny how road projects that would take 4 months in other states
> end up taking 2 years in Massachusetts. All those hungry unions to
> feed.
To be perfectly fair, its not exactly a simple project. Dig up a 50
year old tunnel that was built in fill and completely rebuild it (in
fill), all while allowing traffic to continue to flow? Many other
areas have the luxury of being able to build a large detour around the
worksite. Here even the "radical" proposals involve detouring 50
yards.
Personally, I oppose the traffic-light idea simply because I prefer it
the way it is. I think the traffic lights and having to interact with
angry, honking traffic detracts from the park. Let the traffic sail by
and leave me be. I use that park several times a week, and I would be
willing to sacrifice some of it for a couple years for the greater
good if it were absolutely guaranteed. However, I am very skeptical of
what would happen 2 years from now.
toffner
> Instead, remove all the parallel parking from both sides of Beacon
> Street, between Arlington and Clarendon Streets. With these two travel
> lanes added, you now have plenty of room to detour the eastbound Storrow
> traffic. The westbound Storrow traffic can stay where it is, since it's
> not in a tunnel.
As someone who is in and about hte back bay every day, I would prefer
the traffic detour through a piece of the park than through the main
streets. Yikes.
Ron Newman
toffner <tof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As someone who is in and about hte back bay every day, I would prefer
> the traffic detour through a piece of the park than through the main
> streets.
Why?
Hugo S. Cunningham
wrote:
>There is no reason whatsoever to temporarily destroy part of the
>Esplanade in order to accommodate (mostly) out-of-town automobiles while
>repairing or replacing the Storrow tunnel.
>
>Instead, remove all the parallel parking from both sides of Beacon
>Street, between Arlington and Clarendon Streets. With these two travel
>lanes added, you now have plenty of room to detour the eastbound Storrow
>traffic.
Even if you could exit two lanes onto Clarendon St., two 90-degree
turns in close succession would still require a substantial slowdown.
Are you contemplating routing the detoured traffic back onto Storrow
Drive on the current Arlington-eastward entrance? Will that be wide
enough for two lanes of traffic, especially with construction
scaffolding around the tunnel exit?
Would you reverse the direction of Beacon St between Clarendon and the
Arlington re-entry? Or would you divide Beacon with a concrete
barrier, so that westward-bound local traffic and eastward-bound
Storrow Drive traffic could pass each other safely on the left?
The people on the impacted parts of Beacon St. would have their own
intense quality-of-life complaints. I don't mention the
Arlington-east entry because I don't recall many people living there.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Elmer
> In article <1187302704.623127.65...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Elmer <Elmer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll bet
> > these are some of the same folks who favor replacing the many
> > footbridges with crosswalks and traffic signals.
>
> It's a road through a park. Why dismiss this option out of hand?
It's not a dismissal "out of hand". My opinion comes not just from
driving along Storrow Drive, but from frequently crossing it by foot
and bicycle. Many of them could be designed better, but I always
prefer using footbridges instead of crosswalks. Sometimes I even have
a choice, such as negotiating the crosswalks at Leverett Circle vs.
the footbridge at Blossom Street. Using the footbridge is infinitely
more pleasant and than the crosswalks. Even in the winter when it's
covered with sheer ice, the footbridge is safer to use than the
crosswalks.
When driving, there's no contest. I can't imagine any driver who
prefers to stop at a crosswalk, rather than driving under a
footbridge. As you may remember, Leverett Circle used to have
footbridges instead of crosswalks. After suffering through years of
construction while the new tunnel was built under Leverett Circle,
there was a brief period when traffic flowed remarkably well. Then,
the footbridges were removed in favor of crosswalks and traffic became
as bad as ever. The additional signal timing the crosswalks require,
negate the positive effect of all the other improvements.
Don't throw up examples of poorly designed footbridges that require
pedestrians to travel longer distances or go back and forth on
switchbacks. Thoughtfully designed footbridges can be very convenient.
Please explain why you think crosswalks are better. I sincerely wish
to understand why some people have that opinion.
Elmer
Elmer
> Many examples in recent history have shown that reducing road capacity
> does not result in the traffic chaos that people are afraid of: The
> Embarcadero in San Francisco, the West Side Highway in New York, roads
> throughout Europe where general lanes are turned into bus lanes or
> bike lanes have no resulted in traffic gridlock.
New York, San Francisco, and most cities in Europe have functional and
practical mass transit systems. There's nothing like that in Boston.
Elmer
Elmer
> Instead, remove all the parallel parking from both sides of Beacon
> Street, between Arlington and Clarendon Streets. With these two travel
> lanes added, you now have plenty of room to detour the eastbound Storrow
> traffic.
Detour it to where? Only a small amount of traffic is headed into Back
Bay or Beacon Hill. How would you route through traffic to I-93, the
Tobin Bridge and McGrath/O'Brien? Some of those streets (e.g.:
Clarendon) already ban parking during rush hours with no dramatic
effect. I don't think you realize the volume of traffic that Storrow
Drive carries. IMO, some other solution(s) would be needed, such as
widening the Turnpike and adding C/D lanes that could accomodate lots
of local traffic.
Elmer
Ron Newman
says...
>
>On Aug 17, 10:08 am, Ron Newman <rnew...@thecia.net> wrote:
>> Instead, remove all the parallel parking from both sides of Beacon
>> Street, between Arlington and Clarendon Streets. With these two travel
>> lanes added, you now have plenty of room to detour the eastbound Storrow
>> traffic.
>
>Detour it to where?
Off Storrow Drive at Clarendon Street, east on Beacon to Arlington, back onto
Storrow there.
Ron Newman
says...
>
>>Instead, remove all the parallel parking from both sides of Beacon
>>Street, between Arlington and Clarendon Streets. With these two travel
>>lanes added, you now have plenty of room to detour the eastbound Storrow
>>traffic.
>
>Even if you could exit two lanes onto Clarendon St., two 90-degree
>turns in close succession would still require a substantial slowdown.
>
>Are you contemplating routing the detoured traffic back onto Storrow
>Drive on the current Arlington-eastward entrance?
Yes. I would also make these two blocks of Beacon a British-style two-way
street (traffic goes on the left instead of the right) to minimize the amount of
conflict with westbound Beacon Street traffic.
Elmer
> Off Storrow Drive at Clarendon Street, east on Beacon to Arlington, back onto
> Storrow there.
To even think something like that, I just can't imagine you realize
how much traffic depends on Storrow Drive as a West-East artery
through Boston. How often do you travel Storrow Drive by car?
Elmer
Ron Newman
says...
This is the shortest detour one could possibly have. I don't see why it would
have such a drastic impact, except on the local people whose street parking
spaces will be displaced.
Elmer
> In article <1187383766.100933.316...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Elmer
Trying once again:
To even think something like that, I just can't imagine you realize
how much traffic depends on Storrow Drive as a West-East artery
through Boston. How often do you travel Storrow Drive by car?
Elmer
Ron Newman
see it.
danib62
> Could you explain the problem you think this detour would cause? I simply don't
> see it.
How about you try driving this detour right now while you're the only
one doing it and see how much time it adds to your commute. Then
imagine throwing in all the other thousands of cars on storrow and
then you'll have a real mess on your hands.
Ron Newman
says...
>How about you try driving this detour right now while you're the only
>one doing it and see how much time it adds to your commute.
That would be impossible since the street is currently one-way in the opposite
direction.
Robert Coe
San Francisco's transit system is not demonstrably better than Boston's.
Bob
Robert Coe
I'd like to see the tunnel rebuilt to its present capacity and footprint. But
anyone playing the game with a full deck knows that it will not be. If it's
rebuilt, its capacity will be at least doubled, and all or most of the
Esplanade land taken for the construction phase will be permanently lost. If
you don't believe me, please at least remember where you heard it first.
Vindication will be cold consolation, but I will be vindicated.
Incidentally, I still stand by my prediction, made in this newsgroup in 1996,
that the Big Dig will end up costing $20B.
Bob
Elmer
> In article <1187391360.202243.106...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, danib62
I think it's also impossible because you either don't have a car, or
if you do, you don't live near Storrow Drive or would know how to
drive there from where you are. Otherwise, I can't understand why you
can't answer my questions about how often you, yourself ever travel
there by car.
If there's ever going to be any clear understanding of this problem,
people will have to talk about it in the real world, not how it looks
on a map or in your imagination. Please take the time to go for a
drive on Storrow, preferably on a weekday afternoon, but really almost
anytime. Storrow Drive handles a huge volume of traffic. You've got to
experience being stuck in it to grasp what I and some others are
trying to say.
If you've never walked or biked anywhere along Storrow Drive, I
encourage you to try that as well. The so called "Esplanade" is only
one small part of this beautiful resource. When you're there on foot
or bike, please do the circuit over the Blossom St. footbridge, then
up to Leverett Circle, crossing back to the other side via the
crosswalks and back. Please report back which crossing you preferred
and why.
Sometimes I think the people supposedly in charge of our
infrastructure, never actually take the time to go there and use it.
They need to do a reality check. The same goes for everyone else, if
they really want to come up with a solution that will work.
Elmer
Charlie Denison
Elmer,
You seem to be making the assumption that almost every person who
drives on Storrow will still use it during construction. I think it's
pretty safe to assume that many of them will find alternate routes
OTHER than the posted detour, whatever that may be. Some of them will
cross the river in other locations and use Memorial Drive, for
example. There are enough other routes into the city that the traffic
during construction can dissipate onto many of those other routes.
Charlie
Elmer
> I'd like to see the tunnel rebuilt to its present capacity and footprint. But
> anyone playing the game with a full deck knows that it will not be. If it's
> rebuilt, its capacity will be at least doubled, and all or most of the
> Esplanade land taken for the construction phase will be permanently lost. If
> you don't believe me, please at least remember where you heard it first.
> Vindication will be cold consolation, but I will be vindicated.
What good is vindication when the place is left a mess? Are you really
so apathetic that you don't believe it'll ever be possible to do
things in a better way? I would also like to see the tunnel rebuilt to
the same capacity and footprint. I thought that the temporary detour
the state proposed was worth considering as one way of accomplishing
the project. What plan would you use instead? Believe me, I am just as
skeptical of the state as you. But before I doom it all to failure, I
want to believe there could be a realistic solution. If "No" is said
to everything, then it really will be doomed.
Elmer
Charlie Denison
The crosswalks at Leverett Circle require little or no additional
signal time, as they are concurrent with phases of traffic.
Also, keep in mind that pedestrian bridges require huge switchback
ramps for ADA compliance (recall how much sidewalk space they took up
before) and they would have to serve not only the T station but Martha
St and the new Charles River reservation on the other side of the
viaduct.
Personally, I MUCH prefer Leverett Circle in its current
configuration. As a pedestrian, or a bicyclist using the path, I
would much rather wait a few seconds and cross at-grade than have to
climb stairs or a long ramp just to cross one street. Why should I
have to climb stairs for the convenience of a few seconds of
motorists' time?
(I have walked, biked, and driven all along Storrow and through
Leverett Circle, so I am familiar with all the issues.)
Charlie Denison
If you can find proof that this is a wrong assumption, I would be
happy to see it. I have given you examples and a study to support my
view.
Charlie
Elmer
> You seem to be making the assumption that almost every person who
> drives on Storrow will still use it during construction. I think it's
> pretty safe to assume that many of them will find alternate routes
> OTHER than the posted detour, whatever that may be. Some of them will
> cross the river in other locations and use Memorial Drive, for
> example. There are enough other routes into the city that the traffic
> during construction can dissipate onto many of those other routes.
I don't see how you can say that, Charlie. Just last Monday morning a
problem on Storrow Drive caused horrible backups from all directions.
Even when nothing's wrong, traffic on all the other roads is way over
capacity. Again, if you don't believe me, try using Memorial Drive and
those other roads during rush hour, and especially when there's an
accident or other problem on one of them! Sure some people may be able
to alter their routes, but not most, or not without encountering more
trouble elsewhere.
Elmer
Paul D. DeRocco
>
> I'd like to see the tunnel rebuilt to its present capacity and footprint.
> But
> anyone playing the game with a full deck knows that it will not be. If
> it's
> rebuilt, its capacity will be at least doubled, and all or most of the
> Esplanade land taken for the construction phase will be permanently lost.
> If
> you don't believe me, please at least remember where you heard it first.
> Vindication will be cold consolation, but I will be vindicated.
Since the Esplanade was built on fill (indeed, the entire Back Bay was built
on fill), there's no reason that they couldn't expand it into the river by
the same amount that they chop off on the inland side. You couldn't easily
move the Shell, but that's a block away from the tunnel. Expanding the
Esplanade into the river would be pretty cheap.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com
Charlie Denison
When an unexpected problem happens, backups of course occur. However,
if someone knows in advance that an option is not available or is
likely to be trouble, they can choose another route, another mode, or
another time to travel.
In and around Boston, if the roads are too congested, then people who
drive either need to live with that congestion or find another way to
get where they are going. The roads are already in place, and they're
not going to get any bigger (nor should they in my opinion).
Elmer
> The crosswalks at Leverett Circle require little or no additional
> signal time, as they are concurrent with phases of traffic.
Theoreticaly, or maybe on paper, but not in real life. Just this
evening, I was in traffic turning left to go north on McG/O'B. When
the signal finally turned to green for our direction, there were
pedestrians in the crosswalk and more pedestrians entered and
continued to cross against their "Don't Walk" signal. Just as traffic
started to move, the signal changed to red again. (Part of this
problem is caused by the so called "nuisance" "Don't Walk" phase,
where pedestrians see that crosstraffic still has a red signal and
understandably get impatient having to wait.)
> Also, keep in mind that pedestrian bridges require huge switchback
> ramps for ADA compliance (recall how much sidewalk space they took up
> before) and they would have to serve not only the T station but Martha
> St and the new Charles River reservation on the other side of the
> viaduct.
I don't agree that "huge switchbacks" are required. The Blosson Street
footbridge switches back only once. It's very easy to bike or walk
over, and I see people in wheelchairs using it frequently.
Yeah, I hated the "huge switchbacks" that used to be at Leverett
Circle, but because they were horribly designed, doesn't mean they
have to be like that. I can easily visualize beautiful ramps
connecting the T station with all other directions, especially towards
the Museum of Science where most pedestrians are headed. What I would
do differently is not have the ramps bring you back down to right to
the street corners, but take them gradually down in each direction
pedestrians need to go.
> Personally, I MUCH prefer Leverett Circle in its current
> configuration. As a pedestrian, or a bicyclist using the path, I
> would much rather wait a few seconds and cross at-grade than have to
> climb stairs or a long ramp just to cross one street. Why should I
> have to climb stairs for the convenience of a few seconds of
> motorists' time?
I'm not surprised you'd prefer the crosswalks to the old "huge
switchbacks" or the prospect of climbing stairs. But can't you
visualize better footbridges and ramps designed such that as a
pedestrian, you'd reach the higher level very gradually as you
approached the intersection, then crossed the footbridge(s) and again
gradually descend as you head off in the desired direction?
Elmer
Elmer
> Since the Esplanade was built on fill (indeed, the entire Back Bay was built
> on fill), there's no reason that they couldn't expand it into the river by
> the same amount that they chop off on the inland side. You couldn't easily
> move the Shell, but that's a block away from the tunnel. Expanding the
> Esplanade into the river would be pretty cheap.
That's an excellent suggestion, Paul. I had wondered that myself. If
more park is permanently created than is temporarily taken away, there
is a net improvement overall.
Elmer
Elmer
> When an unexpected problem happens, backups of course occur. However,
> if someone knows in advance that an option is not available or is
> likely to be trouble, they can choose another route, another mode, or
> another time to travel.
No they can't. If they need to get to the hospital in an emergency, go
to work, or another set appointment, they can't choose another time to
travel. Other modes of transportation are only available to some
people some of the time. Choosing another route is easier said then
done.
Elmer
Hugo S. Cunningham
>In article <nqebc39g0vjf43b52...@4ax.com>, Hugo S. Cunningham
>says...
>>
>>>Instead, remove all the parallel parking from both sides of Beacon
>>>Street, between Arlington and Clarendon Streets. With these two travel
>>>lanes added, you now have plenty of room to detour the eastbound Storrow
>>>traffic.
>>
>>Even if you could exit two lanes onto Clarendon St., two 90-degree
>>turns in close succession would still require a substantial slowdown.
>>
>>Are you contemplating routing the detoured traffic back onto Storrow
>>Drive on the current Arlington-eastward entrance?
>
>Yes.
I inspected that entrance today and, if parking were banned along it
and minor temporary improvements were made to the connection, it could
carry two lanes of slow-to-moderate traffic.
> I would also make these two blocks of Beacon a British-style two-way
>street (traffic goes on the left instead of the right) to minimize the amount of
>conflict with westbound Beacon Street traffic.
In other words, you would put up a concrete separation barrier.
Otherwise, the first drunk driver to show up would cause a disaster.
I am not convinced that, even with parking banned, you really would
have two *decent* lanes going each way. Keep in mind that a "lane"
for parked cars (or recovered by banning parked cars) is not as wide
as a travel lane.
The major problems are two:
(1) The 90-degree turns onto Clarendon, and especially from Clarendon
to Beacon, will disastrously slow things down, sharply reducing the
current capacity of east-bound Storrow Drive.
(2) The inhabitants of Beacon St between Clarendon and Arlington,
especially those on the north side, will suffer a disastrous decline
in living standards. (Either that, or they will make pick-ups and
deliveries as they please, bringing east-bound Storrow Drive to a
complete halt.) I suspect some of them (eg Fischer College?) have
deep enough pockets to tie things up in lawsuits.
Two problems with *any* solution.
(1) it looks like the pedestrian bridges at Arlington and perhaps
Dartmouth will have to be reconfigured temporarily. Are there plans
to put up temporary pedestrian bridges?
It looks like we are temporarily giving up the possibility to exit
west onto Arlington St. or to enter west from Berkeley St. I am not
complaining, however, about our inability to perform miracles.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Ron Newman
Hugo S. Cunningham <checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:
> > I would also make these two blocks of Beacon a British-style two-way
> >street (traffic goes on the left instead of the right) to minimize the
> >amount of
> >conflict with westbound Beacon Street traffic.
>
> In other words, you would put up a concrete separation barrier.
Actually, I'd just put in a line of orange cones and a bunch of "KEEP
LEFT" signs. After a week, people would get used to it.
Robert Coe
wrote:
: > "Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote
I assume that it would be impossible because of state and federal
environmental laws and regulations. Realistically, I'm probably right about
the laws and wrong about the possibility. :^|
Bob
Elmer
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:16:13 -0700, "Paul D. DeRocco" <pdero...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Since the Esplanade was built on fill (indeed, the entire Back Bay was built
> : on fill), there's no reason that they couldn't expand it into the river by
> : the same amount that they chop off on the inland side. You couldn't easily
> : move the Shell, but that's a block away from the tunnel. Expanding the
> : Esplanade into the river would be pretty cheap.
>
> I assume that it would be impossible because of state and federal
> environmental laws and regulations. Realistically, I'm probably right about
> the laws and wrong about the possibility. :^|
>
> Bob
Can't disagree with you there, Bob. I wish the governor and other
politicians would focus a bit on trying to overcome such obstacles.
Fixing those problems first would make it easier and cheaper to
accomplish the final objective of repairing our infrastructure.
Elmer
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> The roads are already in place, and they're
> not going to get any bigger (nor should they in my opinion).
Should the capacity remain fixed if popuation increases?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Joe the Aroma
"Elmer" <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187365312.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 17, 8:48 am, Charlie Denison <cdeni...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Many examples in recent history have shown that reducing road capacity
>> does not result in the traffic chaos that people are afraid of: The
>> Embarcadero in San Francisco, the West Side Highway in New York, roads
>> throughout Europe where general lanes are turned into bus lanes or
>> bike lanes have no resulted in traffic gridlock.
>
> New York, San Francisco, and most cities in Europe have functional and
> practical mass transit systems. There's nothing like that in Boston.
Explain why Boston usage of mass transit exceeds San Francisco's then?
1. New York, New York 54.35%
2. Jersey City, New Jersey 40.26%
3. Washington, D.C. 34.47%
4. Boston, Massachusetts 33.07%
5. San Francisco, California 32.64%
Joe the Aroma
Obviously not a lot. Funneling traffic into the backbay grid would make that
section of Boston utterly congested for the next two years.
Joe the Aroma
Do you think traffic could be diverted onto I-90? We could use the money
earned on the tolls to build the bridge. Not that I'd ever expect anything
competent like that from Boston.
Joe the Aroma
"Paul D. DeRocco" <pder...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Se2dnS2WI5fzy1vb...@adelphia.com...
The envirocrazies would have kittens if you did that.
Joe the Aroma
They should make more use of air ambulances IMO.
Elmer
> "Elmer" <Elmer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > New York, San Francisco, and most cities in Europe have functional and
> > practical mass transit systems. There's nothing like that in Boston.
>
> Explain why Boston usage of mass transit exceeds San Francisco's then?
>
> 1. New York, New York 54.35%
> 2. Jersey City, New Jersey 40.26%
> 3. Washington, D.C. 34.47%
> 4. Boston, Massachusetts 33.07%
> 5. San Francisco, California 32.64%
Huh? I'd like to understand what you're saying, but what do those
numbers mean? Percentage of what, who, where, when, if not also why?
Elmer
Elmer
> Funneling traffic into the backbay grid would make that
> section of Boston utterly congested for the next two years.
That's certainly true, Joe, as if it's not utterly congested already!
Elmer
Paul D. DeRocco
Kittens are good. I like kittens.
They'd have a hard time arguing that an expansion of the park into the river
would harm the environment. The "river" at that point is wide as a lake, and
taking another hundred feet wouldn't increase the current or noticeably
reduce the amount of space ducks and geese have for paddling around. It's
essentially a man-made waterway already, since it is unrecognizeable
compared to what it looked like in the 18th century before the Back Bay was
filled in.
Elmer
> Do you think traffic could be diverted onto I-90? We could use the money
> earned on the tolls to build the bridge. Not that I'd ever expect anything
> competent like that from Boston.
Much traffic could, if not should be diverted to the I-90 corridor,
but only if it was expanded to handle more traffic and included C/D
lanes serving additional local exits and entrances. Ouch! Yes, it's a
little too late to be doing that now. If expanding horozontally were
not difficult enough, expanding the Turnpike with double-decker lanes
is thwarted by all the vertical development now in place or air-rights
that have been sold away.
Still, I don't think it's impossible to add at least some additional
capacity, and/or functionality. Consider, for example, the Kenmore
Square/Boylston Street/Fenway area. It's currently undergoing huge
redevelopment, with many new tall buildings whose garages are adding
thousands of new parking spaces (more traffic). Besides the baseball
game traffic, this additional traffic will likely use Storrow Drive as
their route out to Alston to catch the Turnpike west, or else east
through Leverett Circle, to reach I-93.
It would make perfect sense if that traffic could get directly on the
Turnpike at the Bowker overpass, bypassing Storrow Drive entirely. By
the same token (or EZ-Pass, maybe) if traffic in the Back Bay could
access the Turnpike eastbound, as a direct route to and from I-93 and
the Airport, it would eliminate a great deal of congestion from other
Back Bay streets as well as Storrow Drive.
Actually, I don't think the Turnpike should be tolled at all. If at
least the extension from Allston east were toll-free, more drivers
would use it instead of Storrow Drive.
Elmer
Elmer
> > Since the Esplanade was built on fill (indeed, the entire Back Bay was
> > built on fill), there's no reason that they couldn't expand it into the
> > river by the same amount that they chop off on the inland side. You
> > couldn't easily move the Shell, but that's a block away from the tunnel.
> > Expanding the Esplanade into the river would be pretty cheap.
>
> The envirocrazies would have kittens if you did that.
So then it's necessary to point how crazy those cats are. The media
loves to paint every story with two extremes: "One side wants to pave
every inch of parkland while the other side won't let a single blade
of grass be disturbed". And they paint it as if everyone must be
either on one side or the other. In reality, no sane person feels
exactly either way. Yeah, it's hard to find the middle ground, it does
take a little effort, but if you throw up your hands then you're
giving in to the extremes. It's not doing any favors for the next
generation of people who will inherit the mess.
Elmer
Elmer
> They should make more use of air ambulances IMO.
I know you're just kidding now. Even if you were serious, the city has
some ordinance or agreement with MGH to limit the number of med-flight
helicopters that can land within a certain period, time-of-day, etc.
Of course, it's wildly expensive and is only practical for very
special cases when the standard network of ambulances wouldn't be fast
enough.
Elmer
Garrett Wollman
Elmer <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>the same token (or EZ-Pass, maybe) if traffic in the Back Bay could
>access the Turnpike eastbound, as a direct route to and from I-93 and
>the Airport,
The "slingshot" ramp is about to open. (The signs are already up,
covered in blue tarps.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Elmer
> The "slingshot" ramp is about to open. (The signs are already up,
> covered in blue tarps.)
Where is that, Garrett? Is it all the way out at the Alston tolls? Do
you have to pay a toll to use it? Do you think there's any other place
where an eastbound entrance could be added (Comm. Ave., Bowker Ovp,
Prudential, etc.)? Thanks,
Elmer
Joe the Aroma
Percentage of commuters using mass transit. San Fran's isn't so great
compared to Boston's.
Joe the Aroma
I wonder how many lives have been lost because ambulances get stuck on
Storrow and people just literally can't get out of their way fast enough?
I'd like to see greater daytime use of helicopters, period, but for
ambulances they work great.
Joe the Aroma
> On Aug 18, 2:04 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do you think traffic could be diverted onto I-90? We could use the money
>> earned on the tolls to build the bridge. Not that I'd ever expect
>> anything
>> competent like that from Boston.
>
> Much traffic could, if not should be diverted to the I-90 corridor,
> but only if it was expanded to handle more traffic and included C/D
> lanes serving additional local exits and entrances. Ouch! Yes, it's a
> little too late to be doing that now. If expanding horozontally were
> not difficult enough, expanding the Turnpike with double-decker lanes
> is thwarted by all the vertical development now in place or air-rights
> that have been sold away.
Is there a huge problem with traffic in that urban section of I90? I never
use it to be honest with you but the few times I have it never seemed to be
outright disastrous.
> Still, I don't think it's impossible to add at least some additional
> capacity, and/or functionality. Consider, for example, the Kenmore
> Square/Boylston Street/Fenway area. It's currently undergoing huge
> redevelopment, with many new tall buildings whose garages are adding
> thousands of new parking spaces (more traffic). Besides the baseball
> game traffic, this additional traffic will likely use Storrow Drive as
> their route out to Alston to catch the Turnpike west, or else east
> through Leverett Circle, to reach I-93.
>
> It would make perfect sense if that traffic could get directly on the
> Turnpike at the Bowker overpass, bypassing Storrow Drive entirely. By
> the same token (or EZ-Pass, maybe) if traffic in the Back Bay could
> access the Turnpike eastbound, as a direct route to and from I-93 and
> the Airport, it would eliminate a great deal of congestion from other
> Back Bay streets as well as Storrow Drive.
>
> Actually, I don't think the Turnpike should be tolled at all. If at
> least the extension from Allston east were toll-free, more drivers
> would use it instead of Storrow Drive.
It should either be tolled fairly or not tolled at all. The gas tax is the
best, easiest, and most efficient user fee out there. We should either fix
and equitize the tolls, or go entirely to the gas tax. It's completely
unfair that people in Metro West are tolled up the you know what to get to
go into Boston while people can use the Big Dig boondoggle scott-free. But
Massachusetts isn't about fairness is it?
Elmer
> "Elmer" <Elmer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I certainly agree with you there, Joe. It's even worse for North Shore
commuters who face a $3.00 toll on the Tobin bridge, Sumner or Frozen
Head tunnels. The gas tax has many advantages, but especially that
it's distributed more fairly by actual usage. to everyone.
Regarding I-90 between Allston and I-93, whenever I've been stuck in
traffic there, the problem was usually caused by some blockage at the
ends rather than the thru-mainline itself. However, if any other exits
or entrances are considered (e.g.: Bowker Overpass) I think there'd be
some expansion needed, at least to deal with exit/entrance ramp
merging. When you think of the advantages of removing considerable
traffic from Storrow Drive and Back Bay streets, in favor of sending
it directly down the Turnpike, it's such a compelling prospect that I
wish a way could be figured out to accomplish it.
Elmer
Garrett Wollman
Elmer <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 18, 11:32 pm, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>> The "slingshot" ramp is about to open. (The signs are already up,
>> covered in blue tarps.)
>
>Where is that, Garrett? Is it all the way out at the Alston tolls?
Yes. It connects the exit 20 off-ramp to the exit 20 on-ramp.
>Do you have to pay a toll to use it?
Yes, from what I've heard, it should be the same as the regular toll
at exit 20.
>Do you think there's any other place where an eastbound entrance
>could be added (Comm. Ave., Bowker Ovp, Prudential, etc.)? Thanks,
It hasn't really been an issue for me, since I don't need to go that
way. I've thought for a long time that there could be an entrance
added from the B.U. Bridge to the westbound 'pike, and that would be
in the right location for traffic to access the slingshot ramp. I
can't think of anywhere east of there that would even have the r-o-w
to construct an entrance ramp. Possibly it could be done in
conjunction with one of those air-rights developments, but remember,
the Turnpike Authority is depending on that $1.00 (soon to increase)
toll to pay for its share of the Big Dig, so don't expect any "free"
entrances to the eastbound 'pike any time in the next thirty years.
Garrett Wollman
Elmer <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The gas tax has many advantages, but especially that it's distributed
>more fairly by actual usage. to everyone.
Huh? What a bizarre assertion.
Tolls are (supposed to be) paid by the people who use a particular
facility. There is a direct connection between usage of the facility
and the cost to the driver. Facilities which are more expensive to
maintain charge more in tolls. The gas tax has no connection to any
particular facility and is subject to all manner of Beacon Hill
skullduggery (more so even than the Turnpike Authority, which at least
has bond covenants which would imperil the state's credit rating if
breached). Even worse, the gas tax is not *perceived* by users as
being at all connected with where they drive, and so has little or not
effect on behavior.
Robert Coe
:
: "Elmer" <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Bob
John S
> In article <1187541364.2...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> Elmer <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The gas tax has many advantages, but especially that it's distributed
> >more fairly by actual usage. to everyone.
>
> Huh? What a bizarre assertion.
>
> Tolls are (supposed to be) paid by the people who use a particular
> facility. There is a direct connection between usage of the facility
> and the cost to the driver. Facilities which are more expensive to
> maintain charge more in tolls. The gas tax has no connection to any
> particular facility and is subject to all manner of Beacon Hill
> skullduggery (more so even than the Turnpike Authority, which at least
> has bond covenants which would imperil the state's credit rating if
> breached). Even worse, the gas tax is not *perceived* by users as
> being at all connected with where they drive, and so has little or not
> effect on behavior.
If we're talking about Massachusetts, I have to disagree because what may be
supposed to be contrasts significantly with what is actual. I-90 drivers shell out
tolls and tolls (and soon significantly higher tolls), in addition to their fuel
tax (which isn't used toward the road they are traveling on). These tolls then pay
for a new horrifically expensive I-93 tunnel and bridge system, whose drivers pay
no tolls. Sure a handful of I-90 drivers might travel on a portion of I-93 or take
the harbor crossings (more tolls), but that's small potatoes.
It is a similar story (albeit a less expensive one) for US 1 drivers (and I-78,
etc.) who pay tolls to cross the Delaware River. Their tolls in part are used to
pay for a toll free bridge that I-95 users benefit from.
The state fuels tax is distributed among all people buying fuel in the state,
proportionate to the amount of fuel purchased. That's not perfect either, but it
is less unfair.
Sherman L. Cahal
> On Aug 17, 10:48 pm, Charlie Denison <cdeni...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > When an unexpected problem happens, backups of course occur. However,
> > if someone knows in advance that an option is not available or is
> > likely to be trouble, they can choose another route, another mode, or
> > another time to travel.
>
> No they can't. If they need to get to the hospital in an emergency, go
> to work, or another set appointment, they can't choose another time to
> travel. Other modes of transportation are only available to some
> people some of the time. Choosing another route is easier said then
> done.
>
But we are discussing _commuters_, not unexpected ambulance trips or
other low ocurrances. As demonstrated by the Interstate 5
reconstruction project in Seattle, the Interstate 64 restoration
project in Louisville, and with the Interstate 35W bridge fiasco,
drivers _will_ adapt to changes in traffic patterns for a long period
of time. There is no reason to believe the same will not occur here.
rotten
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:18:18 -0400, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
Elmer said SF's transit system was so much greater than our's, I think
that judging by those numbers, that's not the case.
toffner
this no longer true?
Ron Newman
says...
>Elmer said SF's transit system was so much greater than our's, I think
>that judging by those numbers, that's not the case.
One DISadvantage of SF's system compared to ours is that it is fragmented among
numerous different agencies -- Muni for San Francisco city streetcars and buses,
BART for regional subway, Caltrain for diesel commuter rail, Amtrak for some
other commuter rail, Golden Gate Transit for ferries and buses to Marin, AC
Transit for Oakland and Berkeley, still other transit authorities for San Mateo
and Santa Cruz ...
Elmer
> But we are discussing _commuters_, not unexpected ambulance trips or
> other low ocurrances. As demonstrated by the Interstate 5
> reconstruction project in Seattle, the Interstate 64 restoration
> project in Louisville, and with the Interstate 35W bridge fiasco,
> drivers _will_ adapt to changes in traffic patterns for a long period
> of time. There is no reason to believe the same will not occur here.
Well, sure, they'll adapt if forced to. If Storrow Drive shut down
tomorrow, people would have to find another way, but it wouldn't be
pretty!
Elmer
Elmer
> Elmer said SF's transit system was so much greater than our's, I think
> that judging by those numbers, that's not the case.
No, Elmer didn't say that. I said that Boston's was neither functional
nor practical, qualities that I know the New York system has, and I
thought San Francisco's had to some extent also. I'll gladly concede
if it doesn't.
That Montreal's transit system is "so much greater" than Boston's, is
a statement I'd have no hesitation in making, but that really doesn't
apply to this situation.
Anyway, this list of "precentages" really doesn't make sense to me,
because no one explained exactly what it's measuring. It certainly
can't be a measurement of how many people in the metropolitan Boston
area use public transit for all their travels! Is anyone purporting
that that's what it means?
Elmer
Elmer
> One DISadvantage of SF's system compared to ours is that it is fragmented among
> numerous different agencies -- Muni for San Francisco city streetcars and buses,
> BART for regional subway, Caltrain for diesel commuter rail, Amtrak for some
> other commuter rail, Golden Gate Transit for ferries and buses to Marin, AC
> Transit for Oakland and Berkeley, still other transit authorities for San Mateo
> and Santa Cruz ...
Like there's any sort of integration within the Boston system?!! None
of the schedules are arranged to offer practical transfers between
bus, subway, and/or commuter rail. There's no physical connections
where they could be easy like at North Station where the brand new
subway station is not connected with the brand new commuter rail
station next door. Same thing at South Station where transferring to
bus is a terrible ordeal.
It's been a while since I've been to California, so correct me if I'm
wrong, but aren't there intermodal stations that facilitate transfers
much better than here?
Elmer
Ron Newman
> There's no physical connections
>where they could be easy like at North Station where the brand new
>subway station is not connected with the brand new commuter rail
>station next door.
This is not the T's fault, it's Delaware North's, who own both the TDBankNorth
Garden and the empty lot that contained the old Garden. When they get around
to putting a building on that lot someday, there will be an indoor connection.
The current subway headhouse next to the New Garden is a placeholder for that.
>Same thing at South Station where transferring to
>bus is a terrible ordeal.
A one-block walk is a "terrible ordeal"? But here, too, future air-rights
development will connect the bus and train stations.
Charlie Denison
> In ne.transportation Charlie Denison <cdeni...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > The roads are already in place, and they're
> > not going to get any bigger (nor should they in my opinion).
>
> Should the capacity remain fixed if popuation increases?
>
> --
> The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
> certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
> -- Bertrand Russel
If population increases, they certainly could, but in an urban
environment such as Boston, that would be very difficult without
taking land. What's more important in and around the city is
increasing service of public transportation, since it is far more
efficient and doesn't have the negative externalities of driving.
If you're talking about regional roads such as highways and parkways,
I would say that the capacity in and around the city should not be
increased on those roads, because while the throughput on those roads
may increase, the local street grid would not be able to handle it.
Elmer
> In article <1187641674.966243.316...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Elmer says...
Nothing's ever the T's fault, is it now? Of course not, there's always
somebody else to blame, or some "excuse" why a project wasn't designed
properly. The problem lies above, with the governor, state
legislature, and other "officials" who cannot find a way to bring all
involved agencies together so that they can come up with solutions
that work, and will serve the greatest number of people.
Only someone who's never traveled to South Station by rail, and then
tried transferring to an intercity bus, would have a hard time
understanding how "terrible" the connection between the two modes
really is. Maybe someday there'll be better connections at both North
and South stations, but who knows when. Perhaps after the Blue line is
connected to the Red line and extended to Lynn, the Green line to
Medford, and the Silver line "one-seat-ride" from Logan airport to
Fall River is completed. Meanwhile, the facilities seem to exist more
for the profit of future developers, rather than the passengers
they're supposed to have been designed to serve. You'll never incerase
mass-transit ridership by building stations that do not consider the
riders first.
Elmer
Rozzie
(in article <1187665655.2...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
> Only someone who's never traveled to South Station by rail, and then
> tried transferring to an intercity bus, would have a hard time
> understanding how "terrible" the connection between the two modes
> really is.
I remember not all that long ago, when transferring between rail and
bus meant you had to get to Park Square, either by walking a half mile,
or taking a cab, or taking the Red Line to the Green Line. And to add
to the confusion, many out of towners didn't know that Park Square was
2 subway stops away from Park Street.
Those connections were truly "terrible." Having to walk a block to an
elevator is not "terrible." The South Station bus terminal is one of
the cleanest, best equipped, inviting bus stations in the country, and
I'd also contend that it's one of the top 10 easiest bus/subway/rail
connections in a major North American city.
Ron Newman
Elmer <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Only someone who's never traveled to South Station by rail, and then
> tried transferring to an intercity bus, would have a hard time
> understanding how "terrible" the connection between the two modes
> really is.
What exactly is so "terrible" about this connection? It is infinitely
better than before, when Bonanza served Back Bay station, Trailways was
in Park Plaza, and Greyhound was on St. James Avenue. Now all the
buses come to a single station which is a short walk to both subway and
railroad stations.
What other city does this better? Not New York, Chicago, San Francisco,
or Los Angeles.
Paul D. DeRocco
>
> Like there's any sort of integration within the Boston system?!! None
> of the schedules are arranged to offer practical transfers between
> bus, subway, and/or commuter rail. There's no physical connections
> where they could be easy like at North Station where the brand new
> subway station is not connected with the brand new commuter rail
> station next door. Same thing at South Station where transferring to
> bus is a terrible ordeal.
Not to mention the bizarre lack of a rail connection between North and South
Stations. And the Big Dig did nothing about that.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com
Joe the Aroma
> On Aug 20, 12:12 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Elmer said SF's transit system was so much greater than our's, I think
>> that judging by those numbers, that's not the case.
>
> No, Elmer didn't say that. I said that Boston's was neither functional
> nor practical, qualities that I know the New York system has, and I
> thought San Francisco's had to some extent also. I'll gladly concede
> if it doesn't.
>
> That Montreal's transit system is "so much greater" than Boston's, is
> a statement I'd have no hesitation in making, but that really doesn't
> apply to this situation.
I'll probably be visiting in a few weeks. I can't wait. I'll check it out.
Joe the Aroma
"The Etobian" <pdcor...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:o4bkc3t1gnkjvf2ld...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:00:57 -0000, Charlie Denison
> <cden...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>If population increases, they certainly could, but in an urban
>>environment such as Boston, that would be very difficult without
>>taking land. What's more important in and around the city is
>>increasing service of public transportation, since it is far more
>>efficient and doesn't have the negative externalities of driving.
It's one of the main reason I give to privatize mass transit, it can grow
faster that way. At least some of it used to be privately owned. And before
people scream at me red faced with spittal flying from their mouths, they do
it in some places in the all mighty, all knowing, all powerful "Europe",
which can do no wrong.
>>If you're talking about regional roads such as highways and parkways,
>>I would say that the capacity in and around the city should not be
>>increased on those roads, because while the throughput on those roads
>>may increase, the local street grid would not be able to handle it.
>
> Grid?
Joe the Aroma
"Rozzie" <rozzi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C2EFF21B...@news.verizon.net...
I'll agree with you there, South Station is wonderfull. You ever seen
Hartford's busstop? Bwahahaha, you think you got on the wrong bus to Iraq.
;)
But some of my best memories are stopping at South Station when I took the
bus up to school in Maine.
John W Gintell
I must I was impressed by the fact that CalTrain runs two specially
scheduled trains that leave shortly after a Giants home game (I took one
of them back to Palo Alto on Tuesday night). And there were a bunch of
streetcars waiting right in front of the ball park. The T doesn't really
properly accommodate RedSox fans leaving Fenway park, or concert goers
leaving Symphony Hall.
rsh...@gmail.com
> "The Etobian" <pdcorco...@myway.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alright Joe, we are privitizing the T, immediately. The Legislature
has voted to just give it to you. FOR NOTHING, it is all yours, you
are now the head honcho, you own it 100%, but there are certain
conditions since it cost you nothing.
You have to provide a certain level of service, you cannot cut losing
services if they average 6 riders a run.
The state will prvoide the equipment 100% but NO operating subsidies,
that is on you. You cannot cut drivers or maint workers, or their
salaries, but you can cut administrative people.
Now remember you are private, not the govt, you have to meet certain
operating standards, and YOU HAVE TO MAKE A PROFIT, since you are
private.
You keep talking and talking and talking, now tell me exactly what
you are going to do with the above conditions.
Randy
rsh...@gmail.com
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> > Now remember you are private, not the govt, you have to meet certain
> > operating standards, and YOU HAVE TO MAKE A PROFIT, since you are
> > private.
>
> that just doesn't piss away funding unnecessarily and have rude customer service
> (in many cases) to boot. The sweet 20 years - 23 years of service full retirement
> package would go away too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't live in MA, but I don't understand how you citizens of the
Commonwealth let the elected Legilature get away with an astonishing
lack of oversight of the T, Mass Hwy, Mass Pike, Massport.
Correct me if I am wrong, but they pass the laws creating these
agencies, they can regulate them and regulate their pension systems,
etc.
That I believe is the crux of the problem, what is the elected
Legislature doing?????
Randy
Levi Ramsey
> If we're talking about Massachusetts, I have to disagree because what may be
> supposed to be contrasts significantly with what is actual. I-90 drivers shell out
> tolls and tolls (and soon significantly higher tolls), in addition to their fuel
> tax (which isn't used toward the road they are traveling on). These tolls then pay
> for a new horrifically expensive I-93 tunnel and bridge system, whose drivers pay
> no tolls. Sure a handful of I-90 drivers might travel on a portion of I-93 or take
> the harbor crossings (more tolls), but that's small potatoes.
>
> It is a similar story (albeit a less expensive one) for US 1 drivers (and I-78,
> etc.) who pay tolls to cross the Delaware River. Their tolls in part are used to
> pay for a toll free bridge that I-95 users benefit from.
>
> The state fuels tax is distributed among all people buying fuel in the state,
> proportionate to the amount of fuel purchased. That's not perfect either, but it
> is less unfair.
The example of the MassPike and the Big Dig is, really, the exception that
proves the superiority of toll financing as far as fairness goes. The
reason that it's unfair is because the toll funds are redirected,
something that doesn't happen on a properly managed toll road (ie one that
doesn't take on such a boondoggle). While it is true that a tolling
authority with widely spread out assets may be tempted to redistribute
revenues from section to section, the solution is to have a variety of
different toll authorities, each with responsibility for one road or
section thereof. There really isn't a reason for the Northeast Extension
of the PA Turnpike to be under the same umbrella as the main-line (the
only extenstion that I figure has a good reason to be included is the
extension to connect to the Jersey turnpike).
The issue of double-payment is a thorny one. I've always thought that,
for a start, no gas excise taxes (or at least no gas taxes whose funds are
allegedly to be directed towards road expenditures) should be collected
at gas stations on land owned by a toll road authority where the sole
means of customer access requires payment of a toll. A further
improvement, though imperfect, would allow for a rebate of fuel taxes up to
the amount of tolls paid. But ideally, the federal gas tax would be
repealed (hopefully along with the other gas taxes) and the existing
interstates would gradually become toll roads as capital needs dictated.
As for roads that aren't highways, property taxes (since the roads
increase property values) can pay for them.
The nature of the Interstate system's funding is why it's been a
trainwreck: most of the mileage (I-90 from Wisconsin to Wyoming, et al:
I'm looking at you!) is overbuilt, and the areas that need more capacity
never got it. Had the system been built as a toll system, that would
never have happened, as those stretches where there's no reason to expect
massive amounts of traffic wouldn't be built and those areas with high
potential traffic would be built early, before NIMBY-ism took hold.
--
Levi Ramsey
le...@cygnetnet.net levi...@gmail.com
Linux 2.6.17-5mdv
23:33:01 up 33 days, 1:51, 23 users, load average: 0.34, 0.25, 0.27
Levi Ramsey
> That I believe is the crux of the problem, what is the elected
> Legislature doing?????
Hookers and blow...
--
Levi Ramsey
le...@cygnetnet.net levi...@gmail.com
Linux 2.6.17-5mdv
23:48:01 up 33 days, 2:06, 23 users, load average: 0.23, 0.12, 0.15
Robert Coe
: Only someone who's never traveled to South Station by rail, and then
: tried transferring to an intercity bus, would have a hard time
: understanding how "terrible" the connection between the two modes
: really is. Maybe someday there'll be better connections at both North
: and South stations, but who knows when. Perhaps after the Blue line is
: connected to the Red line and extended to Lynn, the Green line to
: Medford, and the Silver line "one-seat-ride" from Logan airport to
: Fall River is completed. Meanwhile, the facilities seem to exist more
: for the profit of future developers, rather than the passengers
: they're supposed to have been designed to serve. You'll never incerase
: mass-transit ridership by building stations that do not consider the
: riders first.
I guess you're too young to remember when the bus station was in Park Square,
a 2-seat subway ride from South Station. IMO, people transferring between the
train and the bus have it pretty easy now.
But lest you accuse me of shilling for the MBTA, I ask everyone to reflect on
the absurdity of there being no single-seat bus route between North and South
Stations. (There used to be one, but not for many years now.)
Bob
Ron Newman
Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> But lest you accuse me of shilling for the MBTA, I ask everyone to reflect on
> the absurdity of there being no single-seat bus route between North and South
> Stations. (There used to be one, but not for many years now.)
MBTA bus route #4 connects the two stations, but only weekdays during
rush hours.
Robert Coe
: In article <237cd3ts63rgdo6es...@4ax.com>,
Where's the Atlantic Avenue el when we really need it?! ;^)
Bob