New Lechmere station
mark...@hotmail.com
station to replace Lechmere, working with Guilford Transportation. It
will include stops for the Orange and Green lines, commuter rail,
buses, plus...a heliport!
There's a story on the boston.com website:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/30/lechmere.htm
Eric Hustvedt
mark...@hotmail.com wrote:
>There's a story on the boston.com website:
>
>http://www.boston.com/news/daily/30/lechmere.htm
The article doesn't include any real description of where the
station/heliport (what's next, an airship mooring mast? ;-)) will be
located on the Guilford property. I would guess that it would be built to
allow the future extension of the Green line to Medford.
A few question for those who know more about it than I do:
1) How is this going to affect Guilford's freight operations out of their
yard adjacent to Yard 14? Assuming, of course, that they wish to continue
using that yard.
2) How are they going to manage a connection to the Orange line? Highways
and active rail lines don't seem to be a hospitable way to encourage
transfers.
3) What is the timeline? Is it real or is it political bacon? (e.g. will
it happen in my lifetime?)
Ron Newman
> The MBTA announced today it will build an all new intermodal transit
> station to replace Lechmere, working with Guilford Transportation. It
> will include stops for the Orange and Green lines, commuter rail,
> buses, plus...a heliport!
Orange Line? How? It's quite a long distance from there. There are
already two connections between the Orange and Green Lines less than a
mile away, at North Station and Haymarket. Why add another?
Lechmere station right now serves East Cambridge and the Cambridgeside
Galleria Mall quite well. If you move it, you're taking service away
from both.
And what commuter rail lines will connect at Lechmere, and why do it
when North Station is just a half mile away?
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
n. coope01
I have this cyncial suspicion about the nature of this development where
the article didn't quite explicate: that office space is towers, retail
(though given the ambiguous modifier "neighborhood-oriented") is chain
stores, and residential use is condos. And to whom is the new station
"more accessible"? park-and-ride commuters, patrons of the new
McCommerce. If the station is to be moved across Route 28, it will almost
certainly be less accessible to the existing East Cambridge neighborhood.
More paranoia than logic, I know.
Was there any public dialogue about this project? Since the station is
moving and there's going to be new development, it is pertinent.
noah
wep...@bcmp.med.harvard.edu
Perhaps the MBTA feels it may be able to apply for federal money
to pay for this thing as an intermodal project - the more intermodal the
better- whether it is needed or not.
Karen Wepsic
>
> --
> Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
> http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
RTSPCC
><37a42db0...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
>mark...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> The MBTA announced today it will build an all new intermodal transit
>> station to replace Lechmere, working with Guilford Transportation. It
>> will include stops for the Orange and Green lines, commuter rail,
>> buses, plus...a heliport!
>
>Orange Line? How? It's quite a long distance from there. There are
>already two connections between the Orange and Green Lines less than a
>mile away, at North Station and Haymarket. Why add another?
Only a guess, but they could connect to the Orange Line at Community College
using a people mover like the one at Wellington. However with all the highway
work going on near Community College, it would be a tight, expensive squeeze.
I think the point of an Orange Line connection would be to provide access to
the Lechmere area from the Orange Line not to provide another Green/Orange
connection. Right now it is an awkward trip from Lechmere to the northen half
of the Orange Line. You can take an 80, 87, or 88 bus and change to the 86 or
91; or you can take the Green Line to North Station to connect back north to
the Orange Line. A direct link would improve Lechmere-Sullivan or
Lechmere-Malden trips.
>
>Lechmere station right now serves East Cambridge and the Cambridgeside
>Galleria Mall quite well. If you move it, you're taking service away
>from both.
Past plans have been to move it across the street to where the parking lot now
is. If they are ever going to be serious about extending the line north to
Somerville and Tufts, they are going to have to move the station anyway.
>
>And what commuter rail lines will connect at Lechmere, and why do it
>when North Station is just a half mile away?
The Fitchburg Line goes right past the land that Guilford owns and wants to
build on. Again, like the Orange Line connection, I think the point of the
commuter rail stop would be to improve the trip from the commuter rail line to
the Lechmere area, not to provide another point to transfer from commuter rail
to the Green Line or Orange Line.
Ron Newman
(RTSPCC) wrote:
> >> The MBTA announced today it will build an all new intermodal transit
> >> station to replace Lechmere, working with Guilford Transportation. It
> >> will include stops for the Orange and Green lines, commuter rail,
> >> buses, plus...a heliport!
> >
> >Orange Line? How? It's quite a long distance from there. There are
> >already two connections between the Orange and Green Lines less than a
> >mile away, at North Station and Haymarket. Why add another?
>
> Only a guess, but they could connect to the Orange Line at Community College
> using a people mover like the one at Wellington.
Now that *would* be nice; a moving sidewalk might be another
alternative. But I read the AP article, maybe incorrectly, to say
that the station was being moved so far towards the Orange Line that
it would be a common Green/Orange station (which doesn't make a whole
lot of sense).
> >Lechmere station right now serves East Cambridge and the Cambridgeside
> >Galleria Mall quite well. If you move it, you're taking service away
> >from both.
>
> Past plans have been to move it across the street to where the parking lot now
> is. If they are ever going to be serious about extending the line north to
> Somerville and Tufts, they are going to have to move the station anyway.
Today's Globe article talks of a "glassed-in walkway" from the new
station to the site of the current station. Of course, they'll have
to find some way to make that crossing ADA-compliant.
> >And what commuter rail lines will connect at Lechmere, and why do it
> >when North Station is just a half mile away?
>
> The Fitchburg Line goes right past the land that Guilford owns and wants to
> build on. Again, like the Orange Line connection, I think the point of the
> commuter rail stop would be to improve the trip from the commuter rail line to
> the Lechmere area, not to provide another point to transfer from commuter rail
> to the Green Line or Orange Line.
But like any proposal to add more local in-town stops, this will increase
commute times from the western suburbs. The concentration of industry
and commerce around Lechmere might justify it now.
NoahPlack
>Perhaps the MBTA feels it may be able to apply for federal money
>to pay for this thing as an intermodal project - the more intermodal the
>better- whether it is needed or not.
I think you missed the point of this public/private partnership. The T gives
Guilford the current Lechmere Station and Guilford gives the T a brand new
station and the land that it will sit on. There is apparently no need for
federal or state money. And, this fits with long term plans already on the
books--move the station to the other side of the highway so the Green Line can
be extended to Ball Square in Somerville.
Win-win situation, if Cambridge doesn't get upset about increased development
and the traffic that goes along with it. And, this all assumes that Guilford
can pull off the site remediation of the existing rail yard.
Perrea
is building busways in 1999 (i.e. the so-called Silver Line and replacement of
rail in Arborway), after the proven failure of busways to measure up to rail in
Pittsburgh, should be watched closely.
NoahPlack
>Any agency which
>is building busways in 1999 (i.e. the so-called Silver Line and replacement
>of
>rail in Arborway), after the proven failure of busways to measure up to rail
>in
>Pittsburgh, should be watched closely.
I'm not sure if I agree with you on the Silver Line, but anyone who wants rail
restored to the Arborway has got to have rocks in their head (or be a true
trolley jolly)!
The roadway geometry just isn't there for light rail vehicles, nevermind trying
to make it meet ADA. Oh, and how hard is the Honorable Mumbles Menino pushing
for the Arborway restoration? If he wanted it badly, Cellucci would give it to
him no matter how lousy an idea it is...
Now, I'm no opponent of trains. I would love to see train service from
Mattapan up Blue Hill Avenue and, don't ask me how it could ever work, but
Chelsea could use rail service. It has the worst transit access to Downtown of
any of the core cities/towns...
Now, if you're not opposed to taking out a bunch of buildings along South &
Centre Streets...
Noah
Ron Newman
noah...@aol.comzzz (NoahPlack) wrote:
> I'm not sure if I agree with you on the Silver Line, but anyone who wants rail
> restored to the Arborway has got to have rocks in their head (or be a true
> trolley jolly)!
>
> The roadway geometry just isn't there for light rail vehicles, nevermind
trying
> to make it meet ADA.
I don't agree. I saw long, articulated streetcars dealing with
more difficult road geometry than that every day in Amsterdam.
NE Transit
>Date: Sun, 01 August 1999 07:55 AM EDT
>Message-id: <rnewman-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>
>> I'm not sure if I agree with you on the Silver Line, but anyone who wants
>rail
>> restored to the Arborway has got to have rocks in their head (or be a
>true
>> trolley jolly)!
>>
>> The roadway geometry just isn't there for light rail vehicles, nevermind
>trying
>> to make it meet ADA.
>
>I don't agree. I saw long, articulated streetcars dealing with
>more difficult road geometry than that every day in Amsterdam.
Any double-parked cars there, Ron? Did it appear that parking enforcement was
active, or were there cars blocking the trolleys?
The problems with the Arborway Line are deeply seated, between the city not
wanting to maintain the streets the way they need to, and the MBTA not wanting
to deal with the problems that the city should be handling.
Based on that situation, I am forced to agree that buses are the better
alternative for the area - unless Mayor Mumbles decides to get off his butt and
make some policy changes to make streetcar service a viable mode of
transportation.
Scott Moore
The New England Transportation Site
http://members.aol.com/netransit
Robert Coe
: In article <37a42db0...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
:
: > The MBTA announced today it will build an all new intermodal transit
: > station to replace Lechmere, working with Guilford Transportation.
: > It will include stops for the Orange and Green lines, commuter rail,
: > buses, plus...a heliport!
:
: Orange Line? How? It's quite a long distance from there. There are
: already two connections between the Orange and Green Lines less than
: a mile away, at North Station and Haymarket. Why add another?
Maybe they're looking forward to the Urban Ring. One of the possibilities
under discussion is to make at least that part of the UR an alternate Orange
Line route (via the new Lechmere station) that would connect to the existing
Orange Line at Sullivan Square and Ruggles St.
: Lechmere station right now serves East Cambridge and the Cambridgeside
: Galleria Mall quite well. If you move it, you're taking service away
: from both.
Most of the Urban Ring layouts have a new station at the Galleria.
I'm surprised at the indifference to the Urban Ring of the participants in
this newsgroup. I think Karen Wepsic and I may be the only ones who have
attended a majority of the planning meetings. Maybe most people just think it
will never be built. Maybe they're right. :^|
--
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_____________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, MA 01776-2120 USA ** 978-443-3265
Christopher K Davis
> I'm surprised at the indifference to the Urban Ring of the participants
> in this newsgroup. I think Karen Wepsic and I may be the only ones who
> have attended a majority of the planning meetings.
They're not always practical for the rest of us to get to (especially
those during the work day); rest assured that there are those of us who
appreciate the reports you and Karen post about them.
> Maybe most people just think it will never be built. Maybe they're
> right. :^|
Unfortunately, I have to count myself in this group; I suspect it'll
either never be built, or (at best) it'll be built long after I've left
the area. Even a relatively "simple" project like the rebuilding of
Charles/MGH has languished for years (even if you ignore the proposed
Red/Blue connection there, which I suspect will never happen); given
that track record, how can we expect the Urban Ring to go anywhere?
Besides which, even if they come up with the Absolutely Perfect Plan
That Everyone Loves (and if you believe that I've got a Scheme Z to sell
you), we have the Big Dig and the South Boston Transitway sucking up the
bucks for a while yet. Odds on yet another huge capital transportation
project being funded? Ha ha ha.
--
Christopher Davis * <ckd...@ckdhr.com> * <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/ckd/>
Put location information in your DNS! <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/dns-loc/>
NSRailLink
>alternative for the area - unless Mayor Mumbles decides to get off his butt
>and
>make some policy changes to make streetcar service a viable mode of
>transportation.
How do we get the buses in the subway? When you figure that one out, let me
know!
It's really bad public policy to say to certain communities: "too difficult"
while the state/city moves heaven and earth for other more favored
communities(Transitway/South Boston Developers).
It's called disinvestment and, in the case of both Washington Street and the
Arborway, it's an important enough principle to go the whole distance on.
By the way, if they ever do abandon the Arborway, those #39 buses will
eventually end up going only as far as Ruggles Station, which will make the
remaining service even less desirable.
Ron Newman
netr...@aol.come-on.com (NE Transit) wrote:
[re Arborway]
> >> The roadway geometry just isn't there for light rail vehicles, nevermind
> >>trying to make it meet ADA.
> >
> >I don't agree. I saw long, articulated streetcars dealing with
> >more difficult road geometry than that every day in Amsterdam.
>
> Any double-parked cars there, Ron? Did it appear that parking enforcement was
> active, or were there cars blocking the trolleys?
That didn't seem to be a problem there, but on some very narrow streets,
I saw short sections of single-track. Also, I believe some streets were
one-way for car traffic but two-ways for trams.
NE Transit
>Date: Sun, 01 August 1999 10:20 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990801222046...@ng-fr1.aol.com>
>
>>Based on that situation, I am forced to agree that buses are the better
>>alternative for the area - unless Mayor Mumbles decides to get off his butt
>>and
>>make some policy changes to make streetcar service a viable mode of
>>transportation.
>
>How do we get the buses in the subway? When you figure that one out, let me
>know!
I (like you) do not expect to see buses in the Green Line's subway.
>
>It's really bad public policy to say to certain communities: "too difficult"
>while the state/city moves heaven and earth for other more favored
>communities(Transitway/South Boston Developers).
>It's called disinvestment and, in the case of both Washington Street and the
>Arborway, it's an important enough principle to go the whole distance on.
>By the way, if they ever do abandon the Arborway, those #39 buses will
>eventually end up going only as far as Ruggles Station, which will make the
>remaining service even less desirable.
...and don't forget that the trolleys will likely be cut back to Brigham
Circle...
I agree with you here, but without a good push from the mayor, these two
projects will continue on their current course. If Mayor Mumbles really wanted
trolleys on either or both routes, he'd likely get them from his "Bud" in the
corner office of the State House.
However, the Mayor is more concerned with other issues, those which will likely
help him get re-elected again, and doing something good for a community, like
somehow ensuring the success of an Arborway Trolley, does *not* appear to be on
*his* agenda. The Arborway Line's success (or lack thereof) hinges on the
city's wants, desires, and the level of commitment (money) that they decide to
throw at the project to work with the MBTA, and actually try to provide a
quality service. Without good traffic/parking enforcement, the trolleys get
stalled. You know that as well as I.
While the memories of the old "Banana" Line are fond, it is not the way to run
a true transit line...
NE Transit
>Date: Mon, 02 August 1999 02:52 AM EDT
>Message-id: <rnewman-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>
>> Any double-parked cars there, Ron? Did it appear that parking enforcement
>was
>> active, or were there cars blocking the trolleys?
>
>That didn't seem to be a problem there, but on some very narrow streets,
>I saw short sections of single-track. Also, I believe some streets were
>one-way for car traffic but two-ways for trams.
>
Maybe their parking enforcement is better than here. I doubt that the city of
Boston would convert Centre or South Streets to one way.
Also, as a rule, the MBTA (and many other U.S. systems) do not like to use
single-track. While there are examples of it in practice on the Commuter Rail
and on trolley systems in other cities, it is not the preferred method.
John McLachlan
Guilford has been planning to close & sell the yards for a few years
now. They're just announcing the plans now. UNfortunately, the AP
article quoted in the beginning of this thread is a real shitty article
loaded with half facts.
- the green line has been planning to move for 10+ years now. Most recent
plans had it where the yellow bernie & phils warehouse is located. It'll
probably be moved a little closer to somerville now (maybe where the corn
sweetener building is. As for the elevated coming down, it's not going to
happen. The concrete viaduct has been labeled historic so it can't be
taken down. This was a big discussion when the fleet center green line
tunnel was being built. Whenthe new lechmere stop is up,the T will go off
the concrete viaduct down to ground level, just going right now rather
than left. The original article also didn't say anything about
extendedin the green line - I think guilford is staying away from that...
--
remove nospam for correct e-mail replies...
John McLachlan
Draper Laboratory
Cambridge, MA 02139-3563
jmcla...@draper.com
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/johnmc
-----------------------------------
Imagine a whole pack of penguins; ready to explore your brain
dpel...@my-deja.com
> The Fitchburg Line goes right past the land that Guilford owns and
wants to
> build on. Again, like the Orange Line connection, I think the point of
the
> commuter rail stop would be to improve the trip from the commuter rail
line to
> the Lechmere area, not to provide another point to transfer from
commuter rail
> to the Green Line or Orange Line.
This seems like a kind of silly idea. Lechmere is only two stops
away from North Station. Fitchburg already has the best subway
connections of any line - Red, Green, and Orange. If they want
to improve service for riders on that line, they should think about
how to expand North Station, widen the bridge, and rejigger
the interlockings so that it wouldn't take so long to get through
the yard and into the station :-)
Dan
Ron Newman
jmcla...@nospam.draper.com says...
> As for the elevated coming down, it's not going to
>happen. The concrete viaduct has been labeled historic so it can't be
>taken down.
Presumably the "elevated coming down" referred to the short section of
elevated that crosses McGrath-O'Brien Highway and darkens Lechmere Square
itself.
I hope that the MBTA has the sense to coordinate this construction with
the connection to the new tunnel under the Fleet Center, which will require
the line to be closed for several months. I'd hate to see the line closed
twice for two separate construction projects, separated by just a half mile.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/home.html
Joshuah Mello
RTSPCC wrote:
> ...Right now it is an awkward trip from Lechmere to the northen half
> of the Orange Line. You can take an 80, 87, or 88 bus and change to the 86 or
> 91; or you can take the Green Line to North Station to connect back north to
> the Orange Line. A direct link would improve Lechmere-Sullivan or
> Lechmere-Malden trips.
That's why the CT2 bus needs to be extended to Lechmere and Community College. It
would provide better access to Lechmere, the Galleria,Kendall and MIT from the
north.
--
Joshuah D. Mello
5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
The Real Boston Transit/ Planning Site at http://members.aol.com/transpag
"The way a lot of suburbs have been built has led to a sense of isolation. There's
a loss of
the community support network that we used to have. Every single trip has to be
done in the car, and traffic congestion has
increased. All of this had led to a real decline in community life." -Congressional
Quarterly 10/3/97-
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> >From: rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
> >Date: Sun, 01 August 1999 07:55 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <rnewman-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>
>
> >> I'm not sure if I agree with you on the Silver Line, but anyone who wants
> >rail
> >> restored to the Arborway has got to have rocks in their head (or be a
> >true
> >> trolley jolly)!
> >>
> >> The roadway geometry just isn't there for light rail vehicles, nevermind
> >trying
> >> to make it meet ADA.
> >
> >I don't agree. I saw long, articulated streetcars dealing with
> >more difficult road geometry than that every day in Amsterdam.
>
> Any double-parked cars there, Ron? Did it appear that parking enforcement was
> active, or were there cars blocking the trolleys?
Lax parking enforcement is not justification for tearing up another set of tracks.
What excuse will be used to tear up the B and C lines???
Helen Rose
> RTSPCC wrote:
>> ...Right now it is an awkward trip from Lechmere to the northen half
>> of the Orange Line. You can take an 80, 87, or 88 bus and change to the 86 or
>> 91; or you can take the Green Line to North Station to connect back north to
>> the Orange Line. A direct link would improve Lechmere-Sullivan or
>> Lechmere-Malden trips.
> That's why the CT2 bus needs to be extended to Lechmere and Community
> College. It would provide better access to Lechmere, the Galleria,Kendall
> and MIT from the north.
But extending past Kendall Square is problematic. You have to make a
HUUGE loop through Kendall Square to leave it again. Down Vassar onto
Main, left on Ames, right on Broadway, right on Main, right on Ames,
right on Broadway, left on Third, etc.
So the T might be tempted to skip or move the Kendall Station stop,
neither of which is a good idea.
Or do you propose an alternate solution?
--Helen
Ron Newman
>> That's why the CT2 bus needs to be extended to Lechmere and Community
>> College. It would provide better access to Lechmere, the Galleria,Kendall
>> and MIT from the north.
>
>But extending past Kendall Square is problematic. You have to make a
>HUUGE loop through Kendall Square to leave it again. Down Vassar onto
>Main, left on Ames, right on Broadway, right on Main, right on Ames,
>right on Broadway, left on Third, etc.
Or just have the city of Cambridge add a curb cut in the median of
Main Street, so that northbound buses can make a U-turn after passing by
the station. To take care of southbound buses, have Cambridge add another
curb cut to allow buses to cross from Third Street directly onto Main.
Neither curb cut should cost very much to add.
RTSPCC
>
>> RTSPCC wrote:
>
>>> ...Right now it is an awkward trip from Lechmere to the northen half
>>> of the Orange Line. You can take an 80, 87, or 88 bus and change to the 86
>or
>>> 91; or you can take the Green Line to North Station to connect back north
>to
>>> the Orange Line. A direct link would improve Lechmere-Sullivan or
>>> Lechmere-Malden trips.
>
>> College. It would provide better access to Lechmere, the Galleria,Kendall
>> and MIT from the north.
>
>But extending past Kendall Square is problematic. You have to make a
>HUUGE loop through Kendall Square to leave it again. Down Vassar onto
>Main, left on Ames, right on Broadway, right on Main, right on Ames,
>right on Broadway, left on Third, etc.
>
>neither of which is a good idea.
>
>
>Or do you propose an alternate solution?
Plus loading/unloading a bus at Community College and looping a bus at
Community College seems like a problem too (sidewalk is only on one side of the
bridge, bus going to Community College would have to cross bridge, turn around
someplace, and come back to the station to unload). Then there is all the
traffic backup on the Gilmore bridge that the bus would be sittng in. Since the
CT2 is a somewhat long route to begin with, it would make it even more
difficult to maintain a schedule along the entire route.
Rik Ahlberg
: Joshuah Mello <5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> writes:
:> That's why the CT2 bus needs to be extended to Lechmere and Community
:> College. It would provide better access to Lechmere, the Galleria,Kendall
:> and MIT from the north.
: But extending past Kendall Square is problematic.
<snip>
: So the T might be tempted to skip or move the Kendall Station stop,
: neither of which is a good idea.
At the last Urban Ring meeting I went to, they floated a proposal to move
the Kendall Square station, though exactly where to I don't recall.
-Rik
--
Rik Ahlberg
r...@aie.com tel 617 522-7207 fax 617 983-0908
"...a pedestrian is a man in danger of his life;
a walker is a man in posession of his soul."
- David McCord, quoted in Boston: A topographical history
Joshuah Mello
Rik Ahlberg wrote:
> Helen Rose <hrose...@ckdhr.com> wrote:
> : Joshuah Mello <5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> writes:
> :> That's why the CT2 bus needs to be extended to Lechmere and Community
> :> College. It would provide better access to Lechmere, the Galleria,Kendall
> :> and MIT from the north.
>
> : But extending past Kendall Square is problematic.
> <snip>
> : So the T might be tempted to skip or move the Kendall Station stop,
> : neither of which is a good idea.
>
> At the last Urban Ring meeting I went to, they floated a proposal to move
> the Kendall Square station, though exactly where to I don't recall.
Probably to the intersection of Vassar and Main where the Red Line could connect
to the RR R-O-W being used for the Urban Ring.
Joshuah Mello
Helen Rose wrote:
> Joshuah Mello <5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> writes:
>
> > RTSPCC wrote:
>
> >> ...Right now it is an awkward trip from Lechmere to the northen half
> >> of the Orange Line. You can take an 80, 87, or 88 bus and change to the 86 or
> >> 91; or you can take the Green Line to North Station to connect back north to
> >> the Orange Line. A direct link would improve Lechmere-Sullivan or
> >> Lechmere-Malden trips.
>
> > That's why the CT2 bus needs to be extended to Lechmere and Community
> > College. It would provide better access to Lechmere, the Galleria,Kendall
> > and MIT from the north.
>
> But extending past Kendall Square is problematic. You have to make a
> HUUGE loop through Kendall Square to leave it again. Down Vassar onto
> Main, left on Ames, right on Broadway, right on Main, right on Ames,
> right on Broadway, left on Third, etc.
Moving the stop to Broadway, in front of the Marriott would allow left turns onto
3rd Street. The route would use Vassar, Broadway and 3rd in both directions. The
benefits of servicing the tech companies along 3rd and the Galleria area would far
outweigh the negative aspects of moving the stop a few hundred feet.
>
>
> So the T might be tempted to skip or move the Kendall Station stop,
> neither of which is a good idea.
>
> Or do you propose an alternate solution?
--
NE Transit
>Date: Wed, 04 August 1999 08:21 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37A83064...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>Moving the stop to Broadway, in front of the Marriott would allow left turns
>onto
>3rd Street. The route would use Vassar, Broadway and 3rd in both directions.
> The
>benefits of servicing the tech companies along 3rd and the Galleria area
>would far
>outweigh the negative aspects of moving the stop a few hundred feet.
And would eliminate the "line of sight" transfer with the Red Line. I doubt
that the Marriott would want to allow MBTA signage to be placed on both sides
of the hotel (and possibly inside the hotel) directing commuters through their
lobby to make transit connections.
But then the other points brought up by RTSPCC negate any advantage that this
"relocation" would bring.
NE Transit
>Date: Mon, 02 August 1999 02:41 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37A5E665...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>Lax parking enforcement is not justification for tearing up another set
>of tracks.
>What excuse will be used to tear up the B and C lines???
Funny, but the last time I looked at the Commonwealth Avenue and Beacon Street
lines, I noticed that the trolleys operated on a reservation - not in the
middle of the street in mixed traffic.
I also noticed that on Commonwealth Avenue and Beacon Street, on-street parking
rarely (if ever) fouls up trolley service.
But then maybe you know of information that I do not? When (and from whom?)
did you hear that the MBTA was considering eliminating trolley service on
Commonwealth Avenue or Beacon Street?
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> >From: Joshuah Mello 5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
> >Date: Mon, 02 August 1999 02:41 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <37A5E665...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
> >Lax parking enforcement is not justification for tearing up another set
> >of tracks.
> >What excuse will be used to tear up the B and C lines???
>
> Funny, but the last time I looked at the Commonwealth Avenue and Beacon Street
> lines, I noticed that the trolleys operated on a reservation - not in the
> middle of the street in mixed traffic.
That's why you and the T will have to devise some other plan to rip our transit
service away from us. The parking argument will work for the E Line but not the B
or C.
> I also noticed that on Commonwealth Avenue and Beacon Street, on-street parking
> rarely (if ever) fouls up trolley service.
> But then maybe you know of information that I do not? When (and from whom?)
> did you hear that the MBTA was considering eliminating trolley service on
> Commonwealth Avenue or Beacon Street?
I was merely being sarcastic. However, the T and MassHighway do plan to waste
ridiculous amounts of money to move the tracks on Comm Ave between Packard's Corner
and Warren Street to the middle of the Avenue. Instead of spending money on a
third track or preferential signals, tax dollars will be thrown out the window on
some stupid aesthetic project.
NE Transit
>Date: Wed, 04 August 1999 10:59 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37A8556C...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
>
>
>NE Transit wrote:
>
>> >From: Joshuah Mello 5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
>> >Date: Mon, 02 August 1999 02:41 PM EDT
>> >Message-id: <37A5E665...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>>
>> >Lax parking enforcement is not justification for tearing up another set
>> >of tracks.
>> >What excuse will be used to tear up the B and C lines???
>>
>> Funny, but the last time I looked at the Commonwealth Avenue and Beacon
>Street
>> lines, I noticed that the trolleys operated on a reservation - not in
>the
>> middle of the street in mixed traffic.
>
>That's why you and the T will have to devise some other plan to rip our
>transit
>service away from us. The parking argument will work for the E Line but
>not the B
>or C.
Excuse me? When was I trying to "rip away" transit services.
I said that I agreed with the MBTA running buses *if* the city of Boston would
not enforce parking regulations along Centre Street - because cars blocking the
trolley tracks cause delays, and a trolley service where nothing comes for 20+
minutes, and then 3 or 4 two-car trains come one after another is inefficient
and ineffective as a public service.
You know as well as I do that I would much rather see the city (i.e., Mayor
Menino) get off his butt and make something really positive happen on that
line. But if it's not going to be done *right* then don't bother at all...
>
>> I also noticed that on Commonwealth Avenue and Beacon Street, on-street
>parking
>> rarely (if ever) fouls up trolley service.
>
>> But then maybe you know of information that I do not? When (and from
>whom?)
>> did you hear that the MBTA was considering eliminating trolley service
>on
>> Commonwealth Avenue or Beacon Street?
>
>I was merely being sarcastic. However, the T and MassHighway do plan to
>waste
>ridiculous amounts of money to move the tracks on Comm Ave between Packard's
>Corner
>and Warren Street to the middle of the Avenue. Instead of spending money
>on a
>third track or preferential signals, tax dollars will be thrown out the
>window on
>some stupid aesthetic project.
Save your sarcasm. This project has absolutely nothing to do with the
restoration of trolley service along the Arborway Line.
But now that you're mentioning this project, wouldn't one of the *benefits*
from this reservation relocation project be the elimination of the need to hold
up streetcar service for the westbound traffic on Commonwealth Avenue at Warren
Street?
Maybe in you rush to be critical of such a project, you hadn't noticed that the
inbound and outbound trolleys at the Warren Street stop must wait not only for
the traffic crossing Warren Street, but also for the traffic going westbound on
Commonwealth Avenue.
Relocating the reservation to the median *between* the eastbound and westbound
lanes of Commonwealth Avenue (as was done between Warren Street and Chestnut
Hill Ave some 30 years ago), will eliminate this traffic arrangement, and
should speed up trolley service on Commonwealth Avenue.
I realize that this idea was *not* part of the Joshuah Mello plan to improve
service on Commonwealth Avenue, but it will provide for better trolley service
*and* a better automobile roadway.
RTSPCC
>Relocating the reservation to the median *between* the eastbound and westbound
>lanes of Commonwealth Avenue (as was done between Warren Street and Chestnut
>Hill Ave some 30 years ago), will eliminate this traffic arrangement, and
>should speed up trolley service on Commonwealth Avenue.
>
>I realize that this idea was *not* part of the Joshuah Mello plan to improve
>service on Commonwealth Avenue, but it will provide for better trolley service
>*and* a better automobile roadway.
Also will allow construction of stop platforms wide enough to meet ADA
requirements.
NE Transit
>Date: Wed, 04 August 1999 12:03 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990804120323...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
>Maybe in you rush to be critical of such a project, you hadn't noticed that
>the
>inbound and outbound trolleys at the Warren Street stop must wait not only
>for
>the traffic crossing Warren Street, but also for the traffic going westbound
>on
>Commonwealth Avenue.
Oops, forgot to note that this situation also exists at Brighton Ave as well...
wep...@bcmp.med.harvard.edu
netr...@aol.come-on.com (NE Transit) wrote:
> >From: rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
> >Date: Sun, 01 August 1999 07:55 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <rnewman-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>
>
> >> I'm not sure if I agree with you on the Silver Line, but anyone who wants
> >rail
> >> restored to the Arborway has got to have rocks in their head (or be a
> >true
> >> trolley jolly)!
> >>
> >> The roadway geometry just isn't there for light rail vehicles, nevermind
> >trying
> >> to make it meet ADA.
> >
> >I don't agree. I saw long, articulated streetcars dealing with
> >more difficult road geometry than that every day in Amsterdam.
>
> Any double-parked cars there, Ron? Did it appear that parking enforcement was
> active, or were there cars blocking the trolleys?
There are really only two blocks on Centre Street where double-
parking is a problem - between Green and Burroughs. Surely between
getting the business community to not accept commercial delivery by
trucks who are double-parked and a stepped up enforcement in that two
block area the issue could be addressed.
>
> The problems with the Arborway Line are deeply seated, between the city not
> wanting to maintain the streets the way they need to, and the MBTA not wanting
> to deal with the problems that the city should be handling.
>
> Based on that situation, I am forced to agree that buses are the better
> alternative for the area - unless Mayor Mumbles decides to get off his butt and
> make some policy changes to make streetcar service a viable mode of
> transportation.
As to the attitude of the Mayor remember he is not a king and will not
hold the office in perpetuity.
Karen Wepsic
>
> Scott Moore
> The New England Transportation Site
> http://members.aol.com/netransit
>
Helen Rose
> Helen Rose wrote:
>> Joshuah Mello <5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> writes:
>>
>> > RTSPCC wrote:
>>
>> >> ...Right now it is an awkward trip from Lechmere to the northen half
>> >> of the Orange Line. You can take an 80, 87, or 88 bus and change to the 86 or
>> >> 91; or you can take the Green Line to North Station to connect back north to
>> >> the Orange Line. A direct link would improve Lechmere-Sullivan or
>> >> Lechmere-Malden trips.
>>
>> > That's why the CT2 bus needs to be extended to Lechmere and Community
>> > College. It would provide better access to Lechmere, the Galleria,Kendall
>> > and MIT from the north.
>>
>> But extending past Kendall Square is problematic. You have to make a
>> HUUGE loop through Kendall Square to leave it again. Down Vassar onto
>> Main, left on Ames, right on Broadway, right on Main, right on Ames,
>> right on Broadway, left on Third, etc.
> Moving the stop to Broadway, in front of the Marriott would allow left
> turns onto 3rd Street. The route would use Vassar, Broadway and 3rd in
> both directions. The benefits of servicing the tech companies along
> 3rd and the Galleria area would far outweigh the negative aspects of
> moving the stop a few hundred feet.
So do you also move the stops for the 85, 64, and 68? Because people do
transfer from the CT2 to those buses. That's not even counting the red
line (Scott Moore mentioned that separately).
And even though you would be closer to "tech companies along 3rd", I'd
hazard a guess that MIT and Kendall Square proper are higher draws as a
whole to buses and the train than 3rd Street.
--Helen
Helen Rose
> In article <w3n1w8a...@kline-station.ckdhr.com>, Helen says...
>>> That's why the CT2 bus needs to be extended to Lechmere and Community
>>> College. It would provide better access to Lechmere, the Galleria,Kendall
>>> and MIT from the north.
>>
>> But extending past Kendall Square is problematic. You have to make a
>> HUUGE loop through Kendall Square to leave it again. Down Vassar onto
>> Main, left on Ames, right on Broadway, right on Main, right on Ames,
>> right on Broadway, left on Third, etc.
> Or just have the city of Cambridge add a curb cut in the median of
> Main Street, so that northbound buses can make a U-turn after passing by
> the station. To take care of southbound buses, have Cambridge add another
> curb cut to allow buses to cross from Third Street directly onto Main.
> Neither curb cut should cost very much to add.
Proposing a U-turn in the middle of Main Street is suicide. With cars
parked on both sides it's difficult for a bus to squeeze by *without*
trying to turn!
Why not just bring back the Kendall Square Rotary??
--Helen
Ron Newman
>Proposing a U-turn in the middle of Main Street is suicide. With cars
>parked on both sides it's difficult for a bus to squeeze by *without*
>trying to turn!
>
>Why not just bring back the Kendall Square Rotary??
That might be a better idea; it would allow buses to go any direction
they needed to. (Why was it removed?)
gre...@my-deja.com
> :
> : Orange Line? How? It's quite a long distance from there. There
are
> : already two connections between the Orange and Green Lines less than
> : a mile away, at North Station and Haymarket. Why add another?
>
> Maybe they're looking forward to the Urban Ring. One of the
possibilities
> under discussion is to make at least that part of the UR an alternate
Orange
> Line route (via the new Lechmere station) that would connect to the
existing
> Orange Line at Sullivan Square and Ruggles St.
>
True, except that plan was abandoned b/c it wasn't cost effective and
stops would have to be widely spaced. Using light rail "green-line" tech
nology would allow for closer-spaced stops and still cover the same
route. I know the UR is planning a New Lechemere connection to Sullivan
via the Cobble Hill Industrial Park area, with an extension to Assembly
Square.
How ironic that Lechemere is just now getting a new coat of paint.
gre...@my-deja.com
Plans call for the Lechmere Station to be moved to the opposite
side of Monsignor O'Brien Highway and overhead rail lines to be removed.
We've all discussed why Lechmere is being moved, but my issue is more
practical: "overhead rail lines to be removed"
Guilford wants to put a park where Bernie & Phyl's is, so they want to
take the el down there. Fine. When does the line go underground? The
North/Superstation is already rerouting the line off causway street to
reemerge behind the fleet center. So the green line goes up two levels,
crosses the Charles Dam, and goes back down two levels around Museum
Towers? That seems awkward. I'm sure with the new "historical arch"
recently added to the questionably safe viaduct, the concept of
tunnelling all the way from the Fleet Center to Lechmere is out.
-Greg Bowne
NE Transit
>Date: Wed, 04 August 1999 02:32 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7oa107$psk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> There are really only two blocks on Centre Street where double-
>parking is a problem - between Green and Burroughs. Surely between
>getting the business community to not accept commercial delivery by
>trucks who are double-parked and a stepped up enforcement in that two
>block area the issue could be addressed.
IIRC, this location was historically the area where service was most disrupted,
however, the business owners are also lobbyists, lobbying for lower prices for
their good when delivered, etc. The *bad* section need not be a big section to
disrupt service.
The city has not (to this point) found an acceptable alternative to meet the
needs of the stores along Centre Street (they do not want to force the delivery
truck drivers to park elsewhere, *and* they do not want to lose the on-street
parking).
Unless the city does find a solution that works with the residents, the
businesses, and the MBTA, the buses will likely remain (and since they *can*
get around a double-parked vehicle, they (given the current situation) are the
better mode for providing service), even though the residents do not want the
buses.
>>
>> The problems with the Arborway Line are deeply seated, between the city
>not
>> wanting to maintain the streets the way they need to, and the MBTA not
>wanting
>> to deal with the problems that the city should be handling.
>>
>> Based on that situation, I am forced to agree that buses are the better
>> alternative for the area - unless Mayor Mumbles decides to get off his
>butt and
>> make some policy changes to make streetcar service a viable mode of
>> transportation.
>
> As to the attitude of the Mayor remember he is not a king and will not
>hold the office in perpetuity.
Well, the only problem with this is that the Arborway Line's issues do not have
any bearing on the residents of Allston-Brighton, or East Boston, or Hyde
Park/Roslindale/West Roxbury. This issue is one of several that he is supposed
to be dealing with. Plus, you've got Joe Shortsleeve (not the one from Chammel
4) who has the mayor's ear *and* opposes the return of the trolleys.
However, the Arborway Line has not hit the front page of the "Globe" or the
"Herald" for a long time (unlike Massport's proposal for a new runway), and
without any real exposure, the issue gets lost in the mud of all of the other
issues...
The only other problem with saving the Arborway Line (and Washington Street for
that matter), is if the hope is to get a new mayor, you need to get one a) who
supports the restoration of the line, and b) before any contracts are let out
for the new buses - because, it's unlikely that once the ball is in motion to
completely eliminate the presence of the trolley line that the ball will be
stopped.
wep...@bcmp.med.harvard.edu
netr...@aol.compazine (NE Transit) wrote:
> >From: wep...@bcmp.med.harvard.edu
> >Date: Wed, 04 August 1999 02:32 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <7oa107$psk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>>
> any bearing on the residents of Allston-Brighton, or East Boston, or Hyde
> Park/Roslindale/West Roxbury. This issue is one of several that he is supposed
> to be dealing with. Plus, you've got Joe Shortsleeve (not the one from Chammel
> 4) who has the mayor's ear *and* opposes the return of the trolleys.
Actually his name is Robert Shortsleeve. Incidentally he is a
Brookline resident and although he does have the current mayor of
Boston's ear he can not vote for him.
Karen Wepsic
.
>
> However, the Arborway Line has not hit the front page of the "Globe" or the
> "Herald" for a long time (unlike Massport's proposal for a new runway), and
> without any real exposure, the issue gets lost in the mud of all of the other
> issues...
>
> The only other problem with saving the Arborway Line (and Washington Street for
> that matter), is if the hope is to get a new mayor, you need to get one a) who
> supports the restoration of the line, and b) before any contracts are let out
> for the new buses - because, it's unlikely that once the ball is in motion to
> completely eliminate the presence of the trolley line that the ball will be
> stopped.
>
> Scott Moore
> The New England Transportation Site
> http://members.aol.com/netransit
>
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 09:07 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7oc2b6$80l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> Actually his name is Robert Shortsleeve. Incidentally he is a
>Brookline resident and although he does have the current mayor of
>Boston's ear he can not vote for him.
Thanks for correcting his name. :)
Ron Newman
> My favorite line from the AP wire was:
> Plans call for the Lechmere Station to be moved to the opposite
> side of Monsignor O'Brien Highway and overhead rail lines to be removed.
>
> We've all discussed why Lechmere is being moved, but my issue is more
> practical: "overhead rail lines to be removed"
>
> Guilford wants to put a park where Bernie & Phyl's is, so they want to
> take the el down there. Fine. When does the line go underground? The
> North/Superstation is already rerouting the line off causway street to
> reemerge behind the fleet center. So the green line goes up two levels,
> crosses the Charles Dam, and goes back down two levels around Museum
> Towers? That seems awkward.
Why would it go underground at all near Lechmere? I assume it will simply
descend from the elevated to the surface somewhere west of the
Gilmore Bridge, just as it does now. It simply won't cross McGrath-O'Brien
Highway any longer.
Joshuah Mello
RTSPCC wrote:
They can do that without ripping up the current tracks. The roadway can be pushed
south a few feet.
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
>
> >> I also noticed that on Commonwealth Avenue and Beacon Street, on-street
> >parking
> >> rarely (if ever) fouls up trolley service.
> >
> >> But then maybe you know of information that I do not? When (and from
> >whom?)
> >> did you hear that the MBTA was considering eliminating trolley service
> >on
> >> Commonwealth Avenue or Beacon Street?
> >
> >I was merely being sarcastic. However, the T and MassHighway do plan to
> >waste
> >ridiculous amounts of money to move the tracks on Comm Ave between Packard's
> >Corner
> >and Warren Street to the middle of the Avenue. Instead of spending money
> >on a
> >third track or preferential signals, tax dollars will be thrown out the
> >window on
> >some stupid aesthetic project.
>
> Save your sarcasm. This project has absolutely nothing to do with the
> restoration of trolley service along the Arborway Line.
>
> But now that you're mentioning this project, wouldn't one of the *benefits*
> from this reservation relocation project be the elimination of the need to hold
> up streetcar service for the westbound traffic on Commonwealth Avenue at Warren
> Street?
>
> Maybe in you rush to be critical of such a project, you hadn't noticed that the
> inbound and outbound trolleys at the Warren Street stop must wait not only for
> the traffic crossing Warren Street, but also for the traffic going westbound on
> Commonwealth Avenue.
Why can't that be solved with a few thousand dollars with a preferential signal
allowing the trolley to trip a green when it was ready to leave. This would also
eliminate the wait for cross traffic and it would save taxpayers MILLIONS of
dollars.
>
>
> Relocating the reservation to the median *between* the eastbound and westbound
> lanes of Commonwealth Avenue (as was done between Warren Street and Chestnut
> Hill Ave some 30 years ago), will eliminate this traffic arrangement, and
> should speed up trolley service on Commonwealth Avenue.
How will it speed up service, they are going to install more at-grade crossings.
Currently the trains travel from Harvard Av. to Allston St. with no crossings.
There will be crossings installed at Griggs, Spotford, Walbridge and the other
cross streets. How will this save time. I apologize Scott, but I don't think you
know much about this plan/ project. Just keep in mind that I live right on the
debated section of track and ride the B-line everyday.
> I realize that this idea was *not* part of the Joshuah Mello plan to improve
> service on Commonwealth Avenue, but it will provide for better trolley service
> *and* a better automobile roadway.
How will it be a better auto roadway??? After the project, residents of the south
side of Comm Ave will have to make dangerous u-turns and travel far out of the way
to travel westbound. These residents are already boxed in by the dead-end streets
at the Brookline Line, now they want to further trap us.
You know where the money should go Scott...a tunnel should be built to carry the
inner lanes of Commonwealth Avenue and the trolley tracks under Harvard Avenue.
(It would be similar to the tunnels that carry Huntington, Comm, and Memorial under
Mass Ave.) This is the most dangerous ped and auto intersection in the city and
it needs to be done. Don't tell me there's no room either, I've surveyed it many
times and no land would have to be taken.
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> >From: netr...@aol.compazine (NE Transit)
> >Date: Wed, 04 August 1999 12:03 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <19990804120323...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
>
> >Maybe in you rush to be critical of such a project, you hadn't noticed that
> >the
> >inbound and outbound trolleys at the Warren Street stop must wait not only
> >for
> >the traffic crossing Warren Street, but also for the traffic going westbound
> >on
> >Commonwealth Avenue.
>
> Oops, forgot to note that this situation also exists at Brighton Ave as well...
>
Oops, I forgot to say that preferential signals would work there too and you can
probably pick them up at your handy suburban Target store :)
Joshuah Mello
wep...@bcmp.med.harvard.edu wrote:
>
> > Any double-parked cars there, Ron? Did it appear that parking enforcement was
> > active, or were there cars blocking the trolleys?
>
> There are really only two blocks on Centre Street where double-
> parking is a problem - between Green and Burroughs. Surely between
> getting the business community to not accept commercial delivery by
> trucks who are double-parked and a stepped up enforcement in that two
> block area the issue could be addressed.
The first few hundred feet of the side streets between Green and Burroughs can be
designated loading zones and "zero-tolerance double parking signs" could be posted on
Centre, directing people to use the new zones. Do you know that the fine for
blocking a transit vehicle in Philadelphia is $100?
Joshuah Mello
Helen Rose wrote:
> And even though you would be closer to "tech companies along 3rd", I'd
> hazard a guess that MIT and Kendall Square proper are higher draws as a
> whole to buses and the train than 3rd Street.
That's why residents of Everett, Malden and Charlestown need access to Kendall.
Ron Newman
netr...@aol.compazine (NE Transit) wrote:
> > There are really only two blocks on Centre Street where double-
> >parking is a problem - between Green and Burroughs. Surely between
> >getting the business community to not accept commercial delivery by
> >trucks who are double-parked and a stepped up enforcement in that two
> >block area the issue could be addressed.
>
> IIRC, this location was historically the area where service was most
disrupted,
> however, the business owners are also lobbyists, lobbying for lower prices for
> their good when delivered, etc. The *bad* section need not be a big
section to
> disrupt service.
>
> The city has not (to this point) found an acceptable alternative to meet the
> needs of the stores along Centre Street (they do not want to force the
delivery
> truck drivers to park elsewhere, *and* they do not want to lose the on-street
> parking).
Would a gauntlet track or single-track section, covering only
these two blocks, solve the problem? The Amsterdam gauntlet that
I saw was pretty short too. I don't think service will be so frequent
that this will cause delays.
Helen Rose
> Helen Rose wrote:
>> And even though you would be closer to "tech companies along 3rd", I'd
>> hazard a guess that MIT and Kendall Square proper are higher draws as a
>> whole to buses and the train than 3rd Street.
> That's why residents of Everett, Malden and Charlestown need access to
> Kendall.
So Everett, Malden, and Charlestown residents need access to MIT at
Kendall but the T should move the bus stop? This still isn't making
sense!
--Helen
NoahPlack
>However, the T and MassHighway do plan to
>> >waste
>> >ridiculous amounts of money to move the tracks on Comm Ave between
>Packard's
>> >Corner
>> >and Warren Street to the middle of the Avenue. Instead of spending money
>> >on a
>> >third track or preferential signals, tax dollars will be thrown out the
>> >window on
>> >some stupid aesthetic project.
I've been told that one aspect of this project will be to move all station
stops (or as many as practical ) to the far side of intersections so that
preferential signal systems can be installed. Priority systems do not work at
near side stations...
Joshuah Mello
Helen Rose wrote:
You must not be following the discussion. Or you're very unfamiliar with the
Kendall area.
Helen Rose
> Helen Rose wrote:
>> Joshuah Mello <5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> writes:
>>
>> > Helen Rose wrote:
>>
>> >> And even though you would be closer to "tech companies along 3rd", I'd
>> >> hazard a guess that MIT and Kendall Square proper are higher draws as a
>> >> whole to buses and the train than 3rd Street.
>>
>> > That's why residents of Everett, Malden and Charlestown need access to
>> > Kendall.
>>
>> So Everett, Malden, and Charlestown residents need access to MIT at
>> Kendall but the T should move the bus stop? This still isn't making
>> sense!
> You must not be following the discussion. Or you're very unfamiliar
> with the Kendall area.
Are you this derogatory to everybody who disagrees with you?
As for being "unfamiliar with the Kendall area", I work at MIT (i.e. near
Kendall), used to work *in* Kendall (for five years, only ended that last
year) and live a short distance away (i.e. near Kendall). So if you consider
somebody within ten minutes of Kendall Square "unfamiliar with Kendall",
then you certainly have a different definition than I.
Joshuah, unlike you, I use the Kendall Sq T station regularly, ditto for
the buses running out of Kendall Sq (most often the 64 and 68, rarely
the CT2, and hardly ever the 85).
--Helen
Ron Newman
>Helen Rose wrote:
>> So Everett, Malden, and Charlestown residents need access to MIT at
>> Kendall but the T should move the bus stop? This still isn't making
>> sense!
>
>You must not be following the discussion. Or you're very unfamiliar with the
>Kendall area.
Helen worked in the Kendall Square area for many years...
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/home.html
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 10:11 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37A99B8E...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>Why can't that be solved with a few thousand dollars with a preferential
>signal
>allowing the trolley to trip a green when it was ready to leave. This would
>also
>eliminate the wait for cross traffic and it would save taxpayers MILLIONS
>of
>dollars.
Well, for openers, prioritized trolley signals do not work well with near-side
trolley stops. If the stops are relocated to the far-side of the intersection,
a trolley operating at speed can trip the signal for a green light, and *then*
make the station stop, while the signal is again red allowing automobiles to
go.
>
>>
>>
>> Relocating the reservation to the median *between* the eastbound and
westbound
>> lanes of Commonwealth Avenue (as was done between Warren Street and Chestnut
>> Hill Ave some 30 years ago), will eliminate this traffic arrangement,
>and
>> should speed up trolley service on Commonwealth Avenue.
>
>How will it speed up service, they are going to install more at-grade
crossings.
>Currently the trains travel from Harvard Av. to Allston St. with no
crossings.
>There will be crossings installed at Griggs, Spotford, Walbridge and the
>other
>cross streets. How will this save time.
For openers, just because there are grade crossings there, that does *not* mean
that the trolleys will *always* have to stop at each one. Those grade
crossings will likely be used by people living along those and other adjacent
streets who will use those grade crossings occasionally. Any time (in general)
lost at these grade crossings will likely be made up on the whole by
eliminating the grade crossing at the intersection of Warren Street, when the
trolleys must sit at a red light to allow two or more minutes of Commonwealth
Avenue traffic to proceed.
>I apologize Scott, but I don't
>think you
>know much about this plan/ project. Just keep in mind that I live right
>on the
>debated section of track and ride the B-line everyday.
Save it, Joshuah. I really don't care where you live, and I know how qualified
you think you are...
>
>> I realize that this idea was *not* part of the Joshuah Mello plan to improve
>> service on Commonwealth Avenue, but it will provide for better trolley
>service
>> *and* a better automobile roadway.
>
>How will it be a better auto roadway??? After the project, residents of
>the south
>side of Comm Ave will have to make dangerous u-turns and travel far out
>of the way
>to travel westbound. These residents are already boxed in by the dead-end
>streets
>at the Brookline Line, now they want to further trap us.
Huh? Did you mean what you said above? There are no grade crossings there
now, but by *adding* grade crossings, people are going be further trapped, and
will have to travel further out of their way?
>You know where the money should go Scott...a tunnel should be built to carry
>the
>inner lanes of Commonwealth Avenue and the trolley tracks under Harvard
>Avenue.
Oh, yeah, Josh, that's my first choice for where to spend money...
>(It would be similar to the tunnels that carry Huntington, Comm, and Memorial
>under
>Mass Ave.) This is the most dangerous ped and auto intersection in the
>city and
>it needs to be done. Don't tell me there's no room either, I've surveyed
>it many
>times and no land would have to be taken.
How many years have you worked as a surveyor?
*Your* project would cost at least as much (if not more) than the relocation of
the entire reservation, and would do little to make the B-Line accessible with
the Type 8 cars (ADA compliant), and would still not eliminate the need for
trolleys to stop and wait for thge Commonwealth Avenue traffic at Packard's
Corner or Warren Street.
Also, what would you do with the trolley line here? Would it too go into this
"underpass"? How would you arrange the station (or would it be eliminated
completely)? And what about access with the disabled? The people in
wheelchairs need to get down there somehow. Would you install elevators, etc.?
What about police visibility down there? Sounds like a nice place for muggers
and the like to hang out during the late hours of service (the cops driving by
won't be able to see anything in the station, unless they get out of the
cruiser and go downstairs, would they? That's something that they *can* do
with the current station.).
But then again, maybe the trolleys aren't supposed to go into that underpass at
all, and will still have to deal with the street traffic on Harvard Ave, and
cars making left and right turns onto Harvard Ave (those cars will still be
able to do that, won't they?).
However, if you're *that* certain that this is what the area needs, maybe you
should send your proposal over to City Hall care of Mayor Menino, and see if he
agrees with you...
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 10:12 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37A99BD1...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>> Also will allow construction of stop platforms wide enough to meet ADA
>> requirements.
>
>They can do that without ripping up the current tracks. The roadway can
>be pushed
>south a few feet.
This still does not eliminate other problems which delay the trolleys...
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 10:19 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37A99D71...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>The first few hundred feet of the side streets between Green and Burroughs
>can be
>designated loading zones and "zero-tolerance double parking signs" could
>be posted on
>Centre, directing people to use the new zones. Do you know that the fine
>for
>blocking a transit vehicle in Philadelphia is $100?
Maybe this is a silly question, but if the city (i.e., the mayor's office) has
no intention of investing the effort and money needed to enforce zero tolerance
(ensure plenty of police/BTD personnel, and have a contracted tow-truck or two
in the area), then who's going to enforce this???
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 10:15 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37A99C86...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
>
>
>Helen Rose wrote:
>
>> And even though you would be closer to "tech companies along 3rd", I'd
>> hazard a guess that MIT and Kendall Square proper are higher draws as
>a
>> whole to buses and the train than 3rd Street.
>
>That's why residents of Everett, Malden and Charlestown need access to
Kendall.
I thought that's what the Orange Line and the Red Line combined to do?
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 11:32 AM EDT
>Message-id: <rnewman-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>
>Would a gauntlet track or single-track section, covering only
>these two blocks, solve the problem? The Amsterdam gauntlet that
>I saw was pretty short too. I don't think service will be so frequent
>that this will cause delays.
Well, for openers, you'ld have to arrange special signals for that section of
gauntlet track - to avoid collisions between the trolleys. I don't think
traffic in the area would be improved at all by autos piling up behind an
outbound trolley that is waiting for an inbound trolley to clear that gauntlet
section...
NE Transit
>Date: Fri, 06 August 1999 01:24 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37AB1A5A...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>You must not be following the discussion. Or you're very unfamiliar with
>the
>Kendall area.
I'll bet she knows more about the area than you do, and much more about the
topic...
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 10:14 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37A99C39...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>Oops, I forgot to say that preferential signals would work there too and
>you can
>probably pick them up at your handy suburban Target store :)
Yes, in aisle 9. That's where all of the prioritized signalling parts are
located...
Joshuah Mello
Helen Rose wrote:
> Joshuah Mello <5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> writes:
>
> > Helen Rose wrote:
>
> >> Joshuah Mello <5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> > Helen Rose wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And even though you would be closer to "tech companies along 3rd", I'd
> >> >> hazard a guess that MIT and Kendall Square proper are higher draws as a
> >> >> whole to buses and the train than 3rd Street.
> >>
> >> > That's why residents of Everett, Malden and Charlestown need access to
> >> > Kendall.
> >>
> >> So Everett, Malden, and Charlestown residents need access to MIT at
> >> Kendall but the T should move the bus stop? This still isn't making
> >> sense!
>
> > You must not be following the discussion. Or you're very unfamiliar
> > with the Kendall area.
>
> Are you this derogatory to everybody who disagrees with you?
It wasn't intended to be derogatory.
>
> As for being "unfamiliar with the Kendall area", I work at MIT (i.e. near
> Kendall), used to work *in* Kendall (for five years, only ended that last
> year) and live a short distance away (i.e. near Kendall). So if you consider
> somebody within ten minutes of Kendall Square "unfamiliar with Kendall",
> then you certainly have a different definition than I.
Then it falls on scenario #1: you're not following the discussion.
The extension of service to Lechmere and Charlestown and Charlestown would not
take service away from Kendall/MIT. The stop for the CT2 would merely have to be
moved 50-100 ft. to Broadway. The 64, 68 & 85 already serve Broadway, so with
the addition of stops, transfers would be easy between buses. The 64, 68 & 85
would continue to serve the T station. The only compromise in service would be
the extra 50-100 ft. one would have to walk to reach the Red Line from the CT2
and vice-versa. I don't believe that many transfer between these two routes
anyhow.
>
>
> Joshuah, unlike you, I use the Kendall Sq T station regularly, ditto for
> the buses running out of Kendall Sq (most often the 64 and 68, rarely
> the CT2, and hardly ever the 85).
>
> --Helen
--
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> >From: Joshuah Mello 5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
> >Date: Fri, 06 August 1999 01:24 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <37AB1A5A...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
> >You must not be following the discussion. Or you're very unfamiliar with
> >the
> >Kendall area.
>
> I'll bet she knows more about the area than you do, and much more about the
> topic...
Did I just step back into elementary school??? nananananana
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> >From: Joshuah Mello 5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
> >Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 10:15 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <37A99C86...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
> >
> >
> >
> >Helen Rose wrote:
> >
> >> And even though you would be closer to "tech companies along 3rd", I'd
> >> hazard a guess that MIT and Kendall Square proper are higher draws as
> >a
> >> whole to buses and the train than 3rd Street.
> >
> >That's why residents of Everett, Malden and Charlestown need access to
> Kendall.
>
> I thought that's what the Orange Line and the Red Line combined to do?
If they're going directly to Kendall this works. What about those destined
for the Galleria, 3rd Street, MIT, Vassar Street or Cambridgeport. They
should be forced to make two or three (most take buses to Orange Line)
transfers when only one or two would be required with the CT2 extension.
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> >From: Joshuah Mello 5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
> >Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 10:12 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <37A99BD1...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
> >> Also will allow construction of stop platforms wide enough to meet ADA
> >> requirements.
> >
> >They can do that without ripping up the current tracks. The roadway can
> >be pushed
> >south a few feet.
>
> This still does not eliminate other problems which delay the trolleys...
>
Neither does the track relocation.
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> Well, for openers, prioritized trolley signals do not work well with near-side
> trolley stops. If the stops are relocated to the far-side of the intersection,
> a trolley operating at speed can trip the signal for a green light, and *then*
> make the station stop, while the signal is again red allowing automobiles to
> go.
Yeah, that's in the MPO transportation plan. If the driver pushed a button to trip
the light when he was ready to go they would work with near-side stops as well.
> >>
> >> Relocating the reservation to the median *between* the eastbound and
> westbound
> >> lanes of Commonwealth Avenue (as was done between Warren Street and Chestnut
> >> Hill Ave some 30 years ago), will eliminate this traffic arrangement,
> >and
> >> should speed up trolley service on Commonwealth Avenue.
> >
> >How will it speed up service, they are going to install more at-grade
> crossings.
> >Currently the trains travel from Harvard Av. to Allston St. with no
> crossings.
> >There will be crossings installed at Griggs, Spofford, Walbridge and the
> >other
> >cross streets. How will this save time.
>
> For openers, just because there are grade crossings there, that does *not* mean
> that the trolleys will *always* have to stop at each one. Those grade
> crossings will likely be used by people living along those and other adjacent
> streets who will use those grade crossings occasionally. Any time (in general)
> lost at these grade crossings will likely be made up on the whole by
> eliminating the grade crossing at the intersection of Warren Street, when the
> trolleys must sit at a red light to allow two or more minutes of Commonwealth
> Avenue traffic to proceed.
They will still wait for Warren Ave. and Brighton Avenue traffic. The biggest
delays occur at Harvard Ave., which has your desired layout.
> ...it will provide for better trolley
> >service
> >> *and* a better automobile roadway.
> >
> >How will it be a better auto roadway??? After the project, residents of
> >the south
> >side of Comm Ave will have to make dangerous u-turns and travel far out
> >of the way
> >to travel westbound. These residents are already boxed in by the dead-end
> >streets
> >at the Brookline Line, now they want to further trap us.
>
> Huh? Did you mean what you said above? There are no grade crossings there
> now, but by *adding* grade crossings, people are going be further trapped, and
> will have to travel further out of their way?
Currently the location of the trolley tracks allow residents of the south side of
Comm Ave to cross eastbound traffic and head west without crossing tracks and no
auto crossings of the tracks are needed. If the tracks are relocated, auto
crossings (which will delay the trains) will be needed. If they aren't built, the
residents of the south-side will have to travel all the way to Harvard Ave or
Fordham Rd (both EXTREMELY dangerous intersections) to make a u-turn. If the
tracks are relocated, it is a lose-lose situation.
>
> >You know where the money should go Scott...a tunnel should be built to carry
> >the
> >inner lanes of Commonwealth Avenue and the trolley tracks under Harvard
> >Avenue.
>
> Oh, yeah, Josh, that's my first choice for where to spend money...
Heaven forbid we improve the most dangerous intersection in Boston for pedestrians,
autos and public transit. Let's just throw the money out the window on some
useless aesthetic project.
> *Your* project would cost at least as much (if not more) than the relocation of
> the entire reservation, and would do little to make the B-Line accessible with
> the Type 8 cars (ADA compliant), and would still not eliminate the need for
> trolleys to stop and wait for thge Commonwealth Avenue traffic at Packard's
> Corner or Warren Street.
No one is saying that they shouldn't rebuild the platforms.
> Also, what would you do with the trolley line here? Would it too go into this
> "underpass"? How would you arrange the station (or would it be eliminated
> completely)? And what about access with the disabled?
The middle lanes of the roadway would descend into a tunnel from Fordham Rd to
Spofford Rd. The trolley tracks would continue at grade across Harvard Ave and the
stops would remain at grade level. All turning vehicles would us the service lanes
of Comm Ave.
> What about police visibility down there? That's something that they *can* do
> with the current station.).
I mistakenly included the tracks in the tunnel proposal in my last post.
> But then again, maybe the trolleys aren't supposed to go into that underpass at
> all, and will still have to deal with the street traffic on Harvard Ave, and
> cars making left and right turns onto Harvard Ave (those cars will still be
> able to do that, won't they?).
The turning vehicles would use the service lanes of Comm Ave.
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> >From: Joshuah Mello 5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
> >Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 10:14 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <37A99C39...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
> >Oops, I forgot to say that preferential signals would work there too and
> >you can
> >probably pick them up at your handy suburban Target store :)
>
> Yes, in aisle 9. That's where all of the prioritized signalling parts are
> located...
Target...the store the MBTA has been waiting for.
RTSPCC
>Then it falls on scenario #1: you're not following the discussion.
>The extension of service to Lechmere and Charlestown and Charlestown would
>not
>take service away from Kendall/MIT. The stop for the CT2 would merely have
>to be
>moved 50-100 ft. to Broadway. The 64, 68 & 85 already serve Broadway, so
>with
>the addition of stops, transfers would be easy between buses. The 64, 68
>& 85
>would continue to serve the T station. The only compromise in service would
>be
>the extra 50-100 ft. one would have to walk to reach the Red Line from the
>CT2
>and vice-versa. I don't believe that many transfer between these two routes
>anyhow.
>
>>
Marriot would not allow a bus stop in their driveway, where else on Broadway
could the 64, 68, 85, and CT2 share a stop? And how will the CT2 turn-around at
Community College, considering there is a side walk on only one side of the
bridge and no easy place to turn a bus around at Community College?
Ron Newman
says...
>Marriot would not allow a bus stop in their driveway, where else on Broadway
>could the 64, 68, 85, and CT2 share a stop?
I agree. If you want the CT2 extended past Kendall, you need to convince
the city of Cambridge to restore the Kendall Square rotary. This would
probably be a good idea anyway, to improve traffic flow and remove an
unnecessary light (at Third/Broadway/Main).
With the rotary restored, a "northbound" CT2 bus could stop in front
of the inbound Kendall Square station entrance, and pass through the rotary
directly onto Third Street. A "southbound" CT2 bus would enter the
rotary from Third Street and exit it onto Main Street, stopping in front
of the outbound Kendall Square station entrance exactly where it does now.
Restoring the rotary wouldn't have any effect on the 64, 68, and 85 buses
which could continue to use the same routing they do now.
> And how will the CT2 turn-around at
>Community College, considering there is a side walk on only one side of the
>bridge and no easy place to turn a bus around at Community College?
This is actually not a problem; the bus would make a U-turn at Rutherford
Avenue after it arrives from Cambridge, and stop right in front of the
Orange Line entrance. I think there's even a dedicated U-turn ramp at
the Rutherford Avenue light; if not, one could be added.
Robert Coe
<5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> wrote:
: RTSPCC wrote:
: > ...Right now it is an awkward trip from Lechmere to the northen half of
: > the Orange Line. You can take an 80, 87, or 88 bus and change to the 86
: > or 91; or you can take the Green Line to North Station to connect back
: > north to the Orange Line. A direct link would improve Lechmere-Sullivan
: > or Lechmere-Malden trips.
:
: That's why the CT2 bus needs to be extended to Lechmere and Community College.
: It would provide better access to Lechmere, the Galleria,Kendall and MIT from
: the north.
The MBTA has totally bought into the doctrine that the Urban Ring must go via
Lechmere and Kendall Square (rather than via Union Square and Central Square),
yet they see no reason to even run a bus between Kendall Square and Lechmere.
Maybe I'm dense, but that sure seems inconsistent to me.
--
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_____________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, MA 01776-2120 USA ** 978-443-3265
RTSPCC
>In article <19990810130838...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, rts...@aol.com
>says...
>
>>Marriot would not allow a bus stop in their driveway, where else on Broadway
>>could the 64, 68, 85, and CT2 share a stop?
>
>I agree. If you want the CT2 extended past Kendall, you need to convince
>the city of Cambridge to restore the Kendall Square rotary. This would
>probably be a good idea anyway, to improve traffic flow and remove an
>unnecessary light (at Third/Broadway/Main).
>
>With the rotary restored, a "northbound" CT2 bus could stop in front
>of the inbound Kendall Square station entrance, and pass through the rotary
>directly onto Third Street. A "southbound" CT2 bus would enter the
>rotary from Third Street and exit it onto Main Street, stopping in front
>of the outbound Kendall Square station entrance exactly where it does now.
>
>Restoring the rotary wouldn't have any effect on the 64, 68, and 85 buses
>which could continue to use the same routing they do now.
I'm no fan of that steaming globe fountain/sculpture at Kendall Sq., but I
can't imagine the city of Cambridge would want to replace it with a pedestrian
unfriendly rotary
>
>> And how will the CT2 turn-around at
>>Community College, considering there is a side walk on only one side of the
>>bridge and no easy place to turn a bus around at Community College?
>
>This is actually not a problem; the bus would make a U-turn at Rutherford
>Avenue after it arrives from Cambridge, and stop right in front of the
>Orange Line entrance. I think there's even a dedicated U-turn ramp at
>the Rutherford Avenue light; if not, one could be added.
>
There are u-turn lanes for traffic coming from each direction from Rutherford,
but none from the Gilmore bridge. A 40-foot bus can't just turn around in the
middle of a roadway.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>The MBTA has totally bought into the doctrine that the Urban Ring must go via
>Lechmere and Kendall Square (rather than via Union Square and Central Square),
>yet they see no reason to even run a bus between Kendall Square and Lechmere.
>Maybe I'm dense, but that sure seems inconsistent to me.
Well, the Cambridgeside Galleria does runa bus between the mall and
Kendall Square (I think now it goes between the mall, the T station and
the movie theater) Maybe the MBTA thinks that that's sufficient and that
it lets them off the hook. [Besides, the mall bus is free]
BTW, I missed the original articles describing the plans for the new
Lechmere. I've been reading a lot of the interpretations here, so have a
vague idea what's being planned.
But could someone post a full description of the proposal and what stage
its at (public hearings, or whatever) and/or links to more information on
the plan?
Thanks.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Helen Rose
> NE Transit wrote:
>> >From: Joshuah Mello 5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
>> >Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 10:15 AM EDT
>> >Message-id: <37A99C86...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>> >Helen Rose wrote:
>> >> And even though you would be closer to "tech companies along 3rd",
>> >> I'd hazard a guess that MIT and Kendall Square proper are higher
>> >> draws as a whole to buses and the train than 3rd Street.
>> >That's why residents of Everett, Malden and Charlestown need access to
>> Kendall.
>>
>> I thought that's what the Orange Line and the Red Line combined to do?
> If they're going directly to Kendall this works. What about
> those destined for the Galleria, 3rd Street, MIT, Vassar Street
> or Cambridgeport. They should be forced to make two or three
> (most take buses to Orange Line) transfers when only one or two
> would be required with the CT2 extension.
But Joshuah, you can make that argument about ANY route. I mean, what
about me, living near Kendall Square, who needs to get to the
airport. Why should I be forced to go Red-Green-Blue-Bus?
Your argument doesn't fly. Yes, there are people in that area who need
to get to the MIT area (and face it, Kendall really *is* the MIT
area). But that doesn't mean the T has to offer a one seat ride to them
just because you think it's a good idea. If so, I can make the same
argument about north-side red line customers needing a one seat ride to
Logan!
--Helen
Ron Newman
>> If they're going directly to Kendall this works. What about
>> those destined for the Galleria, 3rd Street, MIT, Vassar Street
>> or Cambridgeport. They should be forced to make two or three
>> (most take buses to Orange Line) transfers when only one or two
>> would be required with the CT2 extension.
>
>
>But Joshuah, you can make that argument about ANY route. I mean, what
>about me, living near Kendall Square, who needs to get to the
>airport. Why should I be forced to go Red-Green-Blue-Bus?
>
>Your argument doesn't fly. Yes, there are people in that area who need
>to get to the MIT area (and face it, Kendall really *is* the MIT
>area). But that doesn't mean the T has to offer a one seat ride to them
>just because you think it's a good idea. If so, I can make the same
>argument about north-side red line customers needing a one seat ride to
>Logan!
But the whole purpose of the CT bus routes is to get people from one
near-periphery area to another, so that they don't have to ride the
rail lines at all. Since most of the area served by the CT bus routes is
also served by rail lines, your argument would justify eliminating
them entirely.
NE Transit
>Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 02:06 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7oppnq$20...@edrn.newsguy.com>
>> And how will the CT2 turn-around at
>>Community College, considering there is a side walk on only one side of
>the
>>bridge and no easy place to turn a bus around at Community College?
>
>This is actually not a problem; the bus would make a U-turn at Rutherford
>Avenue after it arrives from Cambridge, and stop right in front of the
>Orange Line entrance. I think there's even a dedicated U-turn ramp at
>the Rutherford Avenue light; if not, one could be added.
Um, how much bus driving experience do you have, Ron? Ever made a U-turn in a
bus?
Considering that there is no U-turn ramp to allow a turn back to the Gilmore
bridge, how would you propose U-turning a bus in that area? And even if you
do get a U-turn facility at the Charlestown end of the Gilmore Bridge, where
would the bus AGAIN U-turn on the East Cambridge side to continue to
Charlestown?
How much time would be lost in providing this type of service? How attractive
would the service really be?
NE Transit
>Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 10:06 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37B031FD...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
>
>
>> >They can do that without ripping up the current tracks. The roadway
>can
>> >be pushed
>> >south a few feet.
>>
>> This still does not eliminate other problems which delay the trolleys...
>>
>
>Neither does the track relocation.
So in your professional(?) opinion, eliminating the delays at Warren Street and
Packard's Corner will do little to improve trolley service on Commonwealth
Avenue?
NE Transit
>Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 10:10 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37B032BF...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>> I thought that's what the Orange Line and the Red Line combined to do?
>
>If they're going directly to Kendall this works. What about those destined
>for the Galleria, 3rd Street, MIT, Vassar Street or Cambridgeport. They
>should be forced to make two or three (most take buses to Orange Line)
>transfers when only one or two would be required with the CT2 extension.
You seem perpetually lost in the argument for limiting the number of transfers
for people going between two points. While this *does* make for a more
attractive service, it also costs significantly more to provide. (I know, I
know, you don't care about costs - budget is not in your vocabulary...)
How many riders boarding the Orange line at Wellington are going to these
locations? How many *new* riders would this service attract? What tells you
that there is a real need for this type of service? Or do you just have one of
your "gut feelings"?
The trip between Wellington and Kendall takes about 30 minutes (usually a
little less). A drive across the Gilmore bridge at rush-hour can take about 20
minutes, sitting in traffic and waiting for light cycles. Plus, you still have
nowhere to turn the bus around (twice! once at Rutherford Ave, and again at the
Charles River Dam) to continue a route toward Charlestown with a stop at
Community College station. So how can you call this efficient transportation,
likely to attract new riders???
NE Transit
>Date: Wed, 11 August 1999 06:37 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7osu01$v...@edrn.newsguy.com>
>But the whole purpose of the CT bus routes is to get people from one
>near-periphery area to another, so that they don't have to ride the
>rail lines at all. Since most of the area served by the CT bus routes is
>also served by rail lines, your argument would justify eliminating
>them entirely.
One of the real arguments for the CT bus routes is to eliminate congestion on
the Green Line, and provide faster connecting services in that region.
I am in full support of the Urban Ring from (say) Andrew (and Logan?) to
Kendall Square with connections at the Red Line (Kendall and Andrew) and the
Orange Line along the Southwest Corridor, and along the Green Line branches, as
taking the Green Line from any point, into town and then out again can be one
of the most time consuming trips on the MBTA. Much of this is because the
Green Line tunnels were State-of-the-Art over 100 years ago! The Green Line
has a top speed in the subway of 25 mph. Going into Park Street to make a
connection with the other lines running south or west of Boston can take far
more time than coming down (say) the Orange Line (from Malden) and taking any
of the other rail lines.
Because the Green Line is so agonizingly slow, the southern end of the Urban
Ring makes a lot of sense. For example, CT3 from Andrew to Longwood ~25
minutes. Andrew to Longwood via Red and Green Lines ~45 minutes.
The North-side routes (given the more recent incarnations of the Urban Ring)
would be pretty much a wash between the existing routes and the Urban Ring
time-wise.
So, while the southern part of the Urban Ring duplicates a number of services,
it would speed up service to those riders and would take some of the congestion
off of the Green Line (especially in the central subway area).
NE Transit
>Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 10:11 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37B03309...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>> >Message-id: <37AB1A5A...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>>
>> >You must not be following the discussion. Or you're very unfamiliar
>with
>> >the
>> >Kendall area.
>>
>> I'll bet she knows more about the area than you do, and much more about
>the
>> topic...
>
>Did I just step back into elementary school??? nananananana
Well I equate it to other postings you've made, expecting that you know a lot
more about this subject (and this region) than everyone else. You don't, so
stop expecting that you do...
NE Transit
>Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 10:12 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37B03346...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>> >Message-id: <37A99C39...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>>
>> >Oops, I forgot to say that preferential signals would work there too
>and
>> >you can
>> >probably pick them up at your handy suburban Target store :)
>>
>> Yes, in aisle 9. That's where all of the prioritized signalling parts
>are
>> located...
>
>Target...the store the MBTA has been waiting for.
Did you get a new job there, or is it just one of your favorite stores?
Ron Newman
netr...@aol.compazine (NE Transit) wrote:
> Considering that there is no U-turn ramp to allow a turn back to the Gilmore
> bridge, how would you propose U-turning a bus in that area? And even if you
> do get a U-turn facility at the Charlestown end of the Gilmore Bridge, where
> would the bus AGAIN U-turn on the East Cambridge side to continue to
> Charlestown?
I lost you there -- why would the bus need to make a second U-turn
in East Cambridge?
Joshuah Mello
Helen Rose wrote:
> Joshuah Mello <5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> writes:
>
> > NE Transit wrote:
>
> >> >From: Joshuah Mello 5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
> >> >Date: Thu, 05 August 1999 10:15 AM EDT
> >> >Message-id: <37A99C86...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
> >> >Helen Rose wrote:
>
> >> >> And even though you would be closer to "tech companies along 3rd",
> >> >> I'd hazard a guess that MIT and Kendall Square proper are higher
> >> >> draws as a whole to buses and the train than 3rd Street.
>
> >> >That's why residents of Everett, Malden and Charlestown need access to
> >> Kendall.
> >>
> >> I thought that's what the Orange Line and the Red Line combined to do?
>
> > If they're going directly to Kendall this works. What about
> > those destined for the Galleria, 3rd Street, MIT, Vassar Street
> > or Cambridgeport. They should be forced to make two or three
> > (most take buses to Orange Line) transfers when only one or two
> > would be required with the CT2 extension.
>
> But Joshuah, you can make that argument about ANY route. I mean, what
> about me, living near Kendall Square, who needs to get to the
> airport. Why should I be forced to go Red-Green-Blue-Bus?
Yeah you're right.
Why should lowly public transit riders be allowed to take the fastest and most
direct route between their two destinations??
That would be socialism. Real Americans transfer three times to get to their
destinations:)
> Your argument doesn't fly. Yes, there are people in that area who need
> to get to the MIT area (and face it, Kendall really *is* the MIT
> area).
Actually MIT stretches all the way along Vassar.
> But that doesn't mean the T has to offer a one seat ride to them
> just because you think it's a good idea. If so, I can make the same
> argument about north-side red line customers needing a one seat ride to
> Logan!
I'm talking a two or three seat ride not one.
Here's a scenario:
I live on Broadway in Everett and work for Genzyme at University Park
(Sydney@Mass Ave.) I think Central is too far to walk.
If I prefer public transit, tell me the best way to go, with a straight face.
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> >From: Joshuah Mello 5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
> >Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 10:10 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <37B032BF...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
> >> I thought that's what the Orange Line and the Red Line combined to do?
> >
> >If they're going directly to Kendall this works. What about those destined
> >for the Galleria, 3rd Street, MIT, Vassar Street or Cambridgeport. They
> >should be forced to make two or three (most take buses to Orange Line)
> >transfers when only one or two would be required with the CT2 extension.
>
> You seem perpetually lost in the argument for limiting the number of transfers
> for people going between two points. While this *does* make for a more
> attractive service, it also costs significantly more to provide. (I know, I
> know, you don't care about costs - budget is not in your vocabulary...)
>
> How many riders boarding the Orange line at Wellington are going to these
> locations? How many *new* riders would this service attract? What tells you
> that there is a real need for this type of service? Or do you just have one of
> your "gut feelings"?
The fact that the Kendall area is the third largest employment center in Central
Boston, and the fact that the Gilmore Bridge (currently not served by bus) is
perpetually gridlocked.
> The trip between Wellington and Kendall takes about 30 minutes (usually a
> little less). A drive across the Gilmore bridge at rush-hour can take about 20
> minutes, sitting in traffic and waiting for light cycles. Plus, you still have
> nowhere to turn the bus around (twice! once at Rutherford Ave, and again at the
> Charles River Dam)
Why would we be u-turning at the Dam?
> to continue a route toward Charlestown with a stop at
> Community College station. So how can you call this efficient transportation,
> likely to attract new riders???
I believe it would.
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
>
> >This is actually not a problem; the bus would make a U-turn at Rutherford
> >Avenue after it arrives from Cambridge, and stop right in front of the
> >Orange Line entrance. I think there's even a dedicated U-turn ramp at
> >the Rutherford Avenue light; if not, one could be added.
>
> Um, how much bus driving experience do you have, Ron? Ever made a U-turn in a
> bus?
>
> Considering that there is no U-turn ramp to allow a turn back to the Gilmore
> bridge, how would you propose U-turning a bus in that area?
This is semantics. The bus could easily make a loop in Thompson Square or service
the Bunker Hill Projects in Charlestown via a loop. Charlestown residents
currently have NO crosstown service.
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> >> >They can do that without ripping up the current tracks. The roadway
> >can
> >> >be pushed
> >> >south a few feet.
> >>
> >> This still does not eliminate other problems which delay the trolleys...
> >>
> >
> >Neither does the track relocation.
>
> So in your professional opinion, eliminating the delays at Warren Street and
> Packard's Corner will do little to improve trolley service on Commonwealth
> Avenue?
Little benefit relative to cost. And in your professional (?) opinion it will?
Joshuah Mello
NE Transit wrote:
> >> >Oops, I forgot to say that preferential signals would work there too
> >and
> >> >you can
> >> >probably pick them up at your handy suburban Target store :)
> >>
> >> Yes, in aisle 9. That's where all of the prioritized signalling parts
> >are
> >> located...
> >
> >Target...the store the MBTA has been waiting for.
>
> Did you get a new job there, or is it just one of your favorite stores?
No, I was making a joke, trying to lighten the mood Mr. Serious.
Ron Newman
>I live on Broadway in Everett and work for Genzyme at University Park
>(Sydney@Mass Ave.) I think Central is too far to walk.
>If I prefer public transit, tell me the best way to go, with a straight face.
How can Sydney and Mass Ave be too far to walk from Central Square station
in Cambridge? It's only three blocks. Less if you use one of the
unstaffed entrances to the station.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/home.html
Matt Crane
<5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> wrote:
>This is semantics. The bus could easily make a loop in Thompson Square
I don't believe your claim that a bus could "easily make a loop in
Thompson Square". There's no room for a U-turn there. There's no
right-of-way that would indicate a bus could easily loop around in
that area.
> or service
>the Bunker Hill Projects in Charlestown via a loop.
There's no easy way for a bus to get from Thompson Square to the
projects on the other side of the monument. You either have to go
down Main St and up Monument Ave (ain't gonna happen), or continue
down Main St, through City Square, up Chelsea St, to Bunker Hill St,
then negotiate back down to Thompson Square, or you can try making a
left onto Main St, negotiate the narrow streets that go up the hill
before Sullivan Sq (once again, ain't gonna happen).
> Charlestown residents
>currently have NO crosstown service.
I'm not so sure that there's much demand for such a bus.
-Matt
RTSPCC
>I'm talking a two or three seat ride not one.
>Here's a scenario:
>I live on Broadway in Everett and work for Genzyme at University Park
>(Sydney@Mass Ave.) I think Central is too far to walk.
>If I prefer public transit, tell me the best way to go, with a straight
>face.
I would just take the 104 or the 109 to Sullivan, transfer to the 91 and walk.
But if you really don't want to walk, there is now very frequent service from
Central to University Park since the 1, CT2, 70, 70A and off-peak 64 all cover
that stretch.
RTSPCC
>NE Transit wrote:
>
>>
>> >This is actually not a problem; the bus would make a U-turn at Rutherford
>> >Avenue after it arrives from Cambridge, and stop right in front of the
>> >Orange Line entrance. I think there's even a dedicated U-turn ramp at
>> >the Rutherford Avenue light; if not, one could be added.
>>
>> Um, how much bus driving experience do you have, Ron? Ever made a U-turn
>in a
>> bus?
>>
>> Considering that there is no U-turn ramp to allow a turn back to the Gilmore
>> bridge, how would you propose U-turning a bus in that area?
>
>This is semantics. The bus could easily make a loop in Thompson Square
>or service
>the Bunker Hill Projects in Charlestown via a loop. Charlestown residents
>currently have NO crosstown service.
But if you want people coming from East Cambridge to be able to connect with
the Orange Line at Community College then they must get off the bus across
Rutherford Ave. (the only safe place I can see to put a bus stop is after the
intersetion) and walk back to the station or stay on the bus and take a tour of
Thompson Sq. before the bus heads back to the front of the station. The time it
takes to do all this (coupled with the usual long backups on the Gilmore
bridge) suddenly makes a Kendall to Sullivan trip via the Red and Orange lines
seems very time competitive.
RTSPCC
>I would just take the 104 or the 109 to Sullivan, transfer to the 91 and
>walk.
>But if you really don't want to walk, there is now very frequent service
>from
>Central to University Park since the 1, CT2, 70, 70A and off-peak 64 all
>cover
>that stretch.
oops! meant to type CT1, not CT2
RTSPCC
>The fact that the Kendall area is the third largest employment center in
>Central
>Boston, and the fact that the Gilmore Bridge (currently not served by bus)
>is
>perpetually gridlocked.
The fact that its perpetually gridlocked seems like a good reason not to put a
bus route on it.
Ron Newman
says...
>But if you want people coming from East Cambridge to be able to connect with
>the Orange Line at Community College then they must get off the bus across
>Rutherford Ave. (the only safe place I can see to put a bus stop is after the
>intersetion)
Just before the intersection would be better, actually. Then people
could just cross Austin Street (which is what the Gilmore Bridge is technically
called at this point) at the light.
Historical note: When the Community College Orange Line station was first built,
there was a pedestrian bridge over Austin Street, precisely so that a bus headed
into Charlestown could stop and let off (or take on) passengers for the Orange
Line station. You'll notice a short sidewalk and a bus pullout for that very
purpose. A few years afterwards, an oversize truck slammed into the bridge
and knocked it down. It was never replaced -- but maybe it should be.
and walk back to the station or stay on the bus and take a tour of
>Thompson Sq. before the bus heads back to the front of the station. The time it
>takes to do all this (coupled with the usual long backups on the Gilmore
>bridge) suddenly makes a Kendall to Sullivan trip via the Red and Orange lines
>seems very time competitive.
--
NoahPlack
>The MBTA has totally bought into the doctrine that the Urban Ring must go via
>Lechmere and Kendall Square (rather than via Union Square and Central
>Square),
>yet they see no reason to even run a bus between Kendall Square and Lechmere.
>Maybe I'm dense, but that sure seems inconsistent to me.
>--
Not inconsistent at all: At the Urban Ring meetings, they say all of the
ridership projections are built on the development that will be in place in
2020. The study group appears to expect tremendous growth in the Kendall &
Lechmere area. The Guilford "European Village" development is apparently just
the beginning.
NP
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 12 August 1999 10:53 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37B2DFD8...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
>
>
>NE Transit wrote:
>> So in your professional opinion, eliminating the delays at Warren Street
>and
>> Packard's Corner will do little to improve trolley service on Commonwealth
>> Avenue?
>
>Little benefit relative to cost. And in your professional (?) opinion it
>will?
More so than your proposal...
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 12 August 1999 10:57 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37B2E0C5...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
>> >> I thought that's what the Orange Line and the Red Line combined to
>do?
>> >
>> >If they're going directly to Kendall this works. What about those destined
>> >for the Galleria, 3rd Street, MIT, Vassar Street or Cambridgeport. They
>> >should be forced to make two or three (most take buses to Orange Line)
>> >transfers when only one or two would be required with the CT2 extension.
>>
>> You seem perpetually lost in the argument for limiting the number of
transfers
>> for people going between two points. While this *does* make for a more
>> attractive service, it also costs significantly more to provide. (I know,
>I
>> know, you don't care about costs - budget is not in your vocabulary...)
>>
>> How many riders boarding the Orange line at Wellington are going to these
>> locations? How many *new* riders would this service attract? What tells
>you
>> that there is a real need for this type of service? Or do you just have
>one of
>> your "gut feelings"?
>
>The fact that the Kendall area is the third largest employment center in
>Central
>Boston, and the fact that the Gilmore Bridge (currently not served by bus)
>is
>perpetually gridlocked.
Again, how many new riders would this service generate???
How many people (total) would be able to take advantage of this new bus
route???
And, if the bridge is "perpetually gridlocked". then why would you want to run
a bus over it???
>
>> The trip between Wellington and Kendall takes about 30 minutes (usually
>a
>> little less). A drive across the Gilmore bridge at rush-hour can take
>about 20
>> minutes, sitting in traffic and waiting for light cycles. Plus, you still
>have
>> nowhere to turn the bus around (twice! once at Rutherford Ave, and again
>at the
>> Charles River Dam)
>
>Why would we be u-turning at the Dam?
I was under the impression that you wanted to service Charlestown with the bus.
If your idea of serving Charlestown with the CT2 is by looping the bus at
Rutherford Ave near BHCC, then I submit that the bus does not do a very good
job of serving that community...
...or were you planning on keeping the outbound riders (wishing to transfer
back to the Orange Line) on the bus while it goes through Charlestown? I'm
sure that all of those people will be waiting in line to take a daily tour of
Charlestown...
...also, you still haven't mentioned *where* you'ld U-turn in the vicinity of
BHCC...
>
>> to continue a route toward Charlestown with a stop at
>> Community College station. So how can you call this efficient
transportation,
>> likely to attract new riders???
>
>I believe it would.
So, a bus trying to negotiate a gridlocked bridge, and having to make two loops
over a given piece of road when going in one direction makes for efficient
transportation service?
I hope you get that one figured out *before* you begin to apply for
transportation planning jobs...
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 12 August 1999 10:46 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37B2DE29...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
>Yeah you're right.
>Why should lowly public transit riders be allowed to take the fastest and
>most
>direct route between their two destinations??
>That would be socialism. Real Americans transfer three times to get to
>their
>destinations:)
You don't seem to get the whole idea of mass transit do you? How much more do
you think it would cost to ensure that everyone, living everywhere in the MBTA
district could get to where they wanted to go with only one or two changes?
>I'm talking a two or three seat ride not one.
>Here's a scenario:
>I live on Broadway in Everett and work for Genzyme at University Park
>(Sydney@Mass Ave.) I think Central is too far to walk.
>If I prefer public transit, tell me the best way to go, with a straight
>face.
Well, if they can't walk three blocks from Central to Sindey Street, they're
probably not going to stand on Broadway waiting for the bus either...
NE Transit
>Date: Thu, 12 August 1999 10:59 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37B2E160...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
>
>
>
>NE Transit wrote:
>
>> >> >Oops, I forgot to say that preferential signals would work there too
>> >and
>> >> >you can
>> >> >probably pick them up at your handy suburban Target store :)
>> >>
>> >> Yes, in aisle 9. That's where all of the prioritized signalling parts
>> >are
>> >> located...
>> >
>> >Target...the store the MBTA has been waiting for.
>>
>> Did you get a new job there, or is it just one of your favorite stores?
>
>No, I was making a joke, trying to lighten the mood Mr. Serious.
Actually, I find many of your postings rather comical, this one less so...