Crazy Transit Pitches

[Matthew]

Crazy branching omaja. I count 11 on the south side, and 8 on the north side. Presuming 8 run through, I guess you're assuming a quad-tracked N/S link? And why does RER D have such a severe U-shape?

 

[George_Apley]

Thanks. I tossed this one together by heavily modifying an older map that I made (several of my maps are further back in the thread).

Ideally I'd have the whole MBCR electrified. I have an expanded commuter rail map that looks much like your RER system. How does the Paris RER system work? Is it like an EMU version of our Commuter Rail?

I ran the W Medford branch up to Anderson to allow it to spur northeast through Woburn Center before rejoining the Lowell Line. That line could terminate there. I stretched it to Anderson to create more of a transfer hub for those who want local service south from I-95/93 versus those looking for quicker service to Boston. The Red Line extension to the south would serve downtown Randolph; I brought it further southwest to allow a Park and Ride on Rte 24 among the big box strip in North Stoughton. Reading got the Orange Line extension due to my rerouting of the Haverhill Line to Lowell/Wildcat. There's enough space on the RoW for express service to Boston. For Salem, I envision the far end of the Blue Line having several stops through Salem, giving the city some local service with express riders taking the MBCR.

The Yellow Line is a version of my Urban Ring that's present in one form or another in all of my maps. The Brown Line was made kind of in an ad hoc way. It started as a spur off the Hunting Ave Green Line to Coolidge Corner and then I took it up to Harvard. From there I figured "why not?" and connected it with a Charlestown Branch of the Green Line I had made, with this new ring made I changed the color of the line even though it shares track with the Green Line from Government Center to Riverway. The part of the ring from Coolidge Corner to Sulluvan Square matches my original concept for an outer loop portion of the Urban Ring.

A question about your map Omaja: Does it presume the removal of the existing North and South Stations as surface terminals for Commuter Rail service in favor of underground N/S Connector stations?

It's very unfortunate that we don't have the money or the political will to move more projects forward (not even critical upgrades like Red/Blue at Charles/MGH, Blue Line to Lynn, signal priority on the Green Line etc.). The largest obstacle to many of these crazy transit pitches are NIMBYs. Towns like Belmont, Arlington, Winchester and Dedham fight anything they perceive as urbanization even though they're first tier suburbs. The best corridor to Waltham for instance, via the Fitchburg Line is effectively forever blocked by Belmont's stubborn opposition to mass-transit. Arlington did the same thing to Lexington back in the 80s. The best RoW to Dedham (branching south off of the Needham Line) was allowed to be developed into residences! Poor management by an Authority that doesn't fight for expansion only emboldens and enables NIMBYs...

 

[whighlander]

....

It's very unfortunate that we don't have the money or the political will to move more projects forward (not even critical upgrades like Red/Blue at Charles/MGH, Blue Line to Lynn, signal priority on the Green Line etc.). The largest obstacle to many of these crazy transit pitches are NIMBYs. Towns like Belmont, Arlington, Winchester and Dedham fight anything they perceive as urbanization even though they're first tier suburbs. The best corridor to Waltham for instance, via the Fitchburg Line is effectively forever blocked by Belmont's stubborn opposition to mass-transit. Arlington did the same thing to Lexington back in the 80s. The best RoW to Dedham (branching south off of the Needham Line) was allowed to be developed into residences! Poor management by an Authority that doesn't fight for expansion only emboldens and enables NIMBYs...

Buses -- its not quite that simple -- when there are proposed expansions there have to be justifications to the effect of demographics users and places they want to go, as well as construction feasibility. Then there can be some preliminary designs made and the whole process is repeated with public input -- finally if it can be justified, afforded and built -- there will be a project started.

Studies have been performed over the past decade or so for most of the kinds of extensions which you are mapping -- There's actually a substantial body of information including ridership counts, destination surveys, simulations, etc. which goes into these scoping and concept studies.

Most just can not be justified on the basis of demographics (no growth or even decline in populations) and some such as the Urban Ring or N/S link are just too expensive so after some preliminaries the concepts are in the deep freeze for at least a couple of decades.

However, there are some where the Cost Benefit Analysis comes out favorable enough to support some design work (25% or so). Then comes the task of convincing the Feds of the merit of receiving a New Start or Small Start Financing. For example if you go to the T's projects page -- there is a plan to improve the Fitchburg CR Line -- the area beyond I-495 has the demographic trends such that there can be significant increases in usage of the Line if the speed can be improved a bit -- to date preliminary work is underway -- in a couple of years the work (few hundred Million $) will result in an estimated reduction of 10 minutes in trip from Fitchburg to Porter Sq.-- leading to a significant increase in boardings at Fitchburg

-- for example see the following:

http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/About_the_T/T_Projects/T_Projects_List/AA Report.pdf
and
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/A...ist/Fitchburg Update Presentation 1-13-12.pdf

 

[George_Apley]

^ I get all that. Cost/Benefit analysis is the biggest obstacle to widespread enhancements of the T. My point was more that if the cost issue magically vanished, and the State, City and Authority actually pushed expansion rather than fought it, a lot of these expansions would still be pipe dreams. I mean you support a Red Line extension to I-95/Hanscom in the modern era; do you really think that will EVER happen? Even if the financing appears, Arlington will block it, and east Lexington probably will be on their side this time.

 

[HenryAlan]

If only we had the political will, community support and budget to give us a true public transportation renaissance. Such a shame we're lacking in the political visionary department.

I agree, this is a major issue. Whighlander makes a valid point about cost/benefit studies killing many of these ideas, but in some cases, the right leadership can make a difference, especially if the analytical argument is inconclusive. Every time I read about what's going on in L.A., I drool and turn red with envy. It's amazing how much rail construction is actively happening, in the planning stages, or at least being discussed on the big stage. And the creative funding mechanisms they have developed are directly dependent on political leadership. We don't have that here. Part of why, I suppose is that we already have a significantly more extensive rail network than L.A., but when it is arguably still not as good as it should be, the question has to be asked -- where is the leadership?

 

[Equilibria]

I agree, this is a major issue. Whighlander makes a valid point about cost/benefit studies killing many of these ideas, but in some cases, the right leadership can make a difference, especially if the analytical argument is inconclusive. Every time I read about what's going on in L.A., I drool and turn red with envy. It's amazing how much rail construction is actively happening, in the planning stages, or at least being discussed on the big stage. And the creative funding mechanisms they have developed are directly dependent on political leadership. We don't have that here. Part of why, I suppose is that we already have a significantly more extensive rail network than L.A., but when it is arguably still not as good as it should be, the question has to be asked -- where is the leadership?

I think Boston has had its 20-year period of creative leadership with regard to transportation, and it went into the Big Dig. With all the crap surrounding that project, some people forget what a visionary and impressive scheme that was, and it took multiple gubernatorial administrations from both parties to get it done, albeit over-budget and with questionable quality.

LA has to build rails out of necessity. The metro area is huge, the freeways are congested, the air is polluted, and the city has a negative reputation as car-centric. The argument for transit become very different when, as here in the Bay Area, it becomes impossible to cross bridges to Downtown at 6am and stays that way for most of the day.

Boston has a reputation as a progressive city with fairly free-flowing freeways compared to other cities and an extensive transit system. Most people don't see the T as lacking (except when they propose service cuts or fare increases), and don't want service if they don't already have it. If all of the people along the path of a line want neither the service nor the new development at the terminus - as is the case with the Red Line - it's difficult to defend forcing it down their throats for the sake of one planner's "vision". That's been done too - it's how the West End was destroyed.

 

[Matthew]

I agree that there's plenty of work to be done in places that want transit, like Somerville or Lynn, without having to go to extremes with extensions and such into Belmont and other NIMBY-riffic areas. On the other hand, this is the "Crazy Transit Pitches" thread, so I suppose "crazy" is on-topic. Maybe we need a "Reasonable Transit Pitches" thread where ideas are critiqued based on their realistic prospects and proper design.

 

[Riverside]

On the other hand, this is the "Crazy Transit Pitches" thread, so I suppose "crazy" is on-topic. Maybe we need a "Reasonable Transit Pitches" thread where ideas are critiqued based on their realistic prospects and proper design.

This. Look at it this way: if economic conditions in the Greater Boston changed significantly enough in such a way that meant most residents could not afford a car, then suddenly a lot of these rail-centric proposals seem a lot less crazy.

Imagine, for example, that the price of gas tripled (say, because China and India's markets grow and OPEC decides to really start sticking it to the US so that we get the hell out of the Middle East), alternative auto fuels are not aggressively pursued and that the federal government decides to massively subsidize mass transit projects across the country in a huge effort to get people out of cars. To that end, the feds also impose new taxes that strongly discourage people from owning cars. Carsharing companies like Zipcar get a tax break, so people can still afford cars for occasional use, but people of most socioeconomic statuses become reliant on public transit for everyday stuff.

Okay, now that ^^^ is crazy. (And not something I am advocating, though I, of course, want to see Washington spending money on building stuff here as opposed to blowing stuff up elsewhere.) But if that actually came to pass, and goodness knows, stranger things have, omaja's proposal and the like suddenly look a lot less crazy.

But I agree that it might a good idea for a "Reasonable (but hopefully innovative!) Transit Pitches" thread.

 

[itchy]

In all fairness, this:

The feds also impose new taxes that strongly discourage people from owning cars. Carsharing companies like Zipcar get a tax break, so people can still afford cars for occasional use, but people of most socioeconomic statuses become reliant on public transit for everyday stuff.

plus this:

(And not something I am advocating, though I, of course, want to see Washington spending money on building stuff here as opposed to blowing stuff up elsewhere.)

suggests a bit of cognitive dissonance, no?

What you're saying is not so much that defense spending should be re-routed toward infrastructure projects, but that taxes should be used to achieve a social and economic outcome (i.e., people cannot afford cars) that you like but which also prevents people from having the mobility they desire.

Why force people to use a rigid form of transportation that gives them less choice if they don't want it? Is the purpose of government to deprive people of the transportation option they themselves want in order to achieve the aesthetic or moral goals of others?

I myself haven't owned a car in my entire adult life and currently live in an apartment that allows me to walk to my office; however, I don't think everyone should be forced via punitive taxation to adopt my own life decisions ... people with kids, for instance, have every reason to prefer to have a yard and a car that allows them to easily make multiple trips, don't they?

 

[Riverside]

In all fairness, this:



plus this:



suggests a bit of cognitive dissonance, no?

What you're saying is not so much that defense spending should be re-routed toward infrastructure projects, but that taxes should be used to achieve a social and economic outcome (i.e., people cannot afford cars) that you like but which also prevents people from having the mobility they desire.

Why force people to use a rigid form of transportation that gives them less choice if they don't want it? Is the government's purpose to deprive people of the transportation option they themselves want?

I myself haven't owned a car in my entire adult life and currently live in an apartment that allows me to walk to my office; however, I don't think everyone should be forced via punitive taxation to adopt my own life decisions ... people with kids, for instance, have every reason to prefer to have a yard and a car that allows them to easily make multiple trips, don't they?

Sorry, I should have made my point clearer: I am not advocating anything I mentioned in that second paragraph. I don't think such actions by the federal government would be a good idea, and I wouldn't support them, particularly if they were done so drastically.

That entire second paragraph described a hypothetical "crazy" scenario, parts of which are more plausible than others, in which cars became much less feasible for individual use and ownership. Such a scenario would make these "crazy" transit pitches more realistic.

My general point, however, is that these pitches become more plausible as car ownership becomes less feasible. The way in which car ownership becomes less feasible is beside the point.

My apologies for the lack of clarity.

 

[Matthew]

Why force people to use a rigid form of transportation that gives them less choice if they don't want it? Is the purpose of government to deprive people of the transportation option they themselves want in order to achieve the aesthetic or moral goals of others?

The implications of this statement are probably much more than you intended. Following it to the logical conclusion, it says that we should pave over everything in order to be sure that government is not denying anyone of their transportation options.

Ultimately, we do make some aesthetic or moral choices about transportation regardless of whether that produces highways, busways or railways. Most people hold the opinion nowadays that it is not morally nor aesthetically worthwhile to bulldoze neighborhoods in order to build superhighways. That was not always the case.

Large numbers of people also find it perfectly acceptable to require the purchase of an automobile in order to access certain locations, even though that takes away from the flexibility and choice of non-drivers. Again, a moral and aesthetic decision.

 

[whighlander]

I agree, this is a major issue. Whighlander makes a valid point about cost/benefit studies killing many of these ideas, but in some cases, the right leadership can make a difference, especially if the analytical argument is inconclusive. Every time I read about what's going on in L.A., I drool and turn red with envy. It's amazing how much rail construction is actively happening, in the planning stages, or at least being discussed on the big stage. And the creative funding mechanisms they have developed are directly dependent on political leadership. We don't have that here. Part of why, I suppose is that we already have a significantly more extensive rail network than L.A., but when it is arguably still not as good as it should be, the question has to be asked -- where is the leadership?

Henry -- I went to grad school at UT in Austin with a native Angelino -- he still remembered when there were remnants of the Red Cars -- a bit before his time his mother used to travel from the coastal mountains to the beaches without leaving the Inter-Urban Transit system. Today despite a lot of investment LA is no where close to recreating what they had -- and for a huge Metro Region they have far less of their travel per (capia / area) than the T provides to the Hub

 

[omaja]

Ideally I'd have the whole MBCR electrified. I have an expanded commuter rail map that looks much like your RER system. How does the Paris RER system work? Is it like an EMU version of our Commuter Rail?

While it is EMU, the Paris RER is much, much more than that. It is something of a hybrid between true commuter rail and an express Metro. Because Paris's Metro network has such a high concentration of stations, it wasn't feasible for them to extend the network much outside of the city, so they layered the RER as an express network to serve the suburbs. Thus you have a speedier way to get from major stations in Paris, along with extensive, regular and efficient service to the greater commuting region.

A question about your map Omaja: Does it presume the removal of the existing North and South Stations as surface terminals for Commuter Rail service in favor of underground N/S Connector stations?

Yes, though some surface tracks would probably remain for short turns and the like.

Boston has a reputation as a progressive city with fairly free-flowing freeways compared to other cities and an extensive transit system. Most people don't see the T as lacking (except when they propose service cuts or fare increases), and don't want service if they don't already have it. If all of the people along the path of a line want neither the service nor the new development at the terminus - as is the case with the Red Line - it's difficult to defend forcing it down their throats for the sake of one planner's "vision". That's been done too - it's how the West End was destroyed.

Have I missed the memo about Boston? Free flowing freeways? Boston is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 most congested areas in the country. I'm also not sure who would vouch for the T being adequate for a city and region as large as Boston. It has a very long way to go before it has a size-appropriate network, reliable service and efficient operations.

While I can agree that suburban extensions are certainly lower priority than increasing mobility within the immediate Boston-Cambridge-Brookline-Chelsea-Revere area, infrastructure investments (especially rail) are the type of things that must be positioned correctly. Whereas we have made road improvements a foregone conclusion no matter where we are, we've left out nearly every other mode of transportation from the mix. That's a policy and PR issue that can be fixed with the right leadership.

Crazy branching omaja. I count 11 on the south side, and 8 on the north side. Presuming 8 run through, I guess you're assuming a quad-tracked N/S link? And why does RER D have such a severe U-shape?

All of the lines would run through--you'd just have some branches seeing more service than others based on demand. A quad-tracked North-South link would be a definite. I tried to match up the existing commuter rail lines based on current ridership to align demand across the north and south portions. The Fitchburg and Worcester lines were basically what was left.

But if that actually came to pass, and goodness knows, stranger things have, omaja's proposal and the like suddenly look a lot less crazy.

But I agree that it might a good idea for a "Reasonable (but hopefully innovative!) Transit Pitches" thread.

Thing is, I don't see how a network like any of the ones we've mapped is really all that crazy. Compare to networks in Lisbon, Frankfurt, Madrid, Munich, Barcelona, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Buenos Aires, and the lost goes on and on; Boston is comparable in terms of metropolitan area population an density, certainly deserving of a much more extensive rail network than what it currently has.

All it takes is good leadership and proper messaging to rally communities around rail as a quality of life increase. But alas, we're severely lacking that and, as a consequence, every cost-benefit analysis will come out the same: in favor of the status quo of letting infrastructure decay and never offering more options to mobilize the population.

 

[whighlander]

Thing is, I don't see how a network like any of the ones we've mapped is really all that crazy. Compare to networks in Lisbon, Frankfurt, Madrid, Munich, Barcelona, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Buenos Aires, and the lost goes on and on; Boston is comparable in terms of metropolitan area population an density, certainly deserving of a much more extensive rail network than what it currently has.

All it takes is good leadership and proper messaging to rally communities around rail as a quality of life increase. But alas, we're severely lacking that and, as a consequence, every cost-benefit analysis will come out the same: in favor of the status quo of letting infrastructure decay and never offering more options to mobilize the population.

Omaja -- Cost Benefit analyis has been used because it works -- when you don't use it you waste resourses. Thus for a long time the Soviets didn't account for interest as a part of the cost of a project -- so they built huge hydro power projects out in Siberia -- far from the population centers and ignored vast amounts of coal -- why the water power was practically free. Some neo-Com economist introduced the cost associated wih borrowing money -- suddenly no more Siberian hydro projects.

I know that you don't like suburbs and cars -- but in the western developed world the vast majority of people do. They live in the suburbs and commute to the central city or to other suburbs for their employment. Even in the NYC metro region more people live in Connecticut, NJ, Westchester, LI and commute to NYC than live and work indigenously in mostly car-free Manhattan.

 

[omaja]

You aren't remotely comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about adding options to a developed area with proven demand (see: overburdened MBTA network), not building a Maglev between Framingham and Worcester (the Siberian hydro plants you referenced).

For the record, I own a car and very much enjoy the freedom it provides for certain types of trips. Since when does owning a car and preferring to live in the suburbs automatically make one anti-rail? I want to see more money overall invested in our infrastructure. Just so happens that our road network is vastly superior to our rail one so it makes little sense to keep throwing money on expansion when another mode could greatly improve efficiencies across the board.

 

[whighlander]

You aren't remotely comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about adding options to a developed area with proven demand (see: overburdened MBTA network), not building a Maglev between Framingham and Worcester (the Siberian hydro plants you referenced).

For the record, I own a car and very much enjoy the freedom it provides for certain types of trips. Since when does owning a car and preferring to live in the suburbs automatically make one anti-rail? I want to see more money overall invested in our infrastructure. Just so happens that our road network is vastly superior to our rail one so it makes little sense to keep throwing money on expansion when another mode could greatly improve efficiencies across the board.

Omaja -- actually since you mention Maglev (for which I did some work back in the 1980's) if you want a "Realistic Crazzy Transit Pitch" -- try this one:

Build a Maglev line from Boston to Springfield (1 hour including stops) with intermediate stations in: Worcester; Westborough on I-495; Framingham; Newton / Waltham on Rt-128 plus one or two in Boston before arriving at South Station

at each of the intermediate stops provide both parking for people boarding the train and also a fleet of all-electric ZipCars for those whose commute beyond the station needs a car.

Make the train run on schedule of half hour departures each way during rush hours and hourly during the middle of the day and throughout the evening

the Worcester and Springfield stations will provide the Hub with plenty of bedrooms both in the city and out in exurbs

 

[omaja]

That would be crazy (and thus justifiably belonging to this thread ). But where's the value in doing something like that when traditional light/heavy/EMU rail technologies reaching more areas of the Greater Boston area would spur additional developments and allow for increased densities where people actually want to be?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

If we get Commuter Rail to Springfield, can we send all of our old subway stock that-a-way and build the WesT subway system?

I kind of enjoy the sound of hopping onto a train at South Station, getting off at Springfield Union Station and transferring to the Red Line to Six Flags.

And I don't even like thrill rides.

 

[whighlander]

If we get Commuter Rail to Springfield, can we send all of our old subway stock that-a-way and build the WesT subway system?

I kind of enjoy the sound of hopping onto a train at South Station, getting off at Springfield Union Station and transferring to the Red Line to Six Flags.

And I don't even like thrill rides.

Commute -- don't forget the Basketball Hall of Fame

 

[cozzyd]

Charles River Shuttle, bane of boaters, route negotiable. Faster than the Green line.