HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,159
- Reaction score
- 4,400
If that is indeed the case, that both towns favor the move, then I think that's the end.
MBTA Buses & Infrastructure
- Thread starter Arlington
- Start date
They are not. Cambridge City Council came out in favor of them last year
Then I hope they do something real soon then. Else they have either collectively changed their mind (it's not like they got voted out the past year) or their favor was just empty words.
The proof is if we'll see any public statement, legal challenges, or change of policy in the next few weeks from Cambridge (and Watertown).
There's actually a public meeting about this scheduled for February 15th. I'm sure the cities of Cambridge and Watertown will have statements prepared for that.
In other bus news... It looks like the MBTA very quietly published a master plan for it's Charlestown Facility (pdf) back in September 21. Tentatively planned to be the last major bus facility rebuilt in 2036-2038 at a total cost of $1 billion, design to begin in 2026-2028. it includes provisions for relocation of MBTA headquarters out of the State Transportation Building to here, locating office uses to the "front" of the site to be part of the streetwall with Sullivan developments. Full plan requires road takings as well as 2 private parcels in addition to overall raising of the site out of the floodplains.
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,514
- Reaction score
- 10,261
https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/b...n-opinion-saying-goodbye-trolleys/9253551002/
Sen. Brownsberger rubs his two functioning brain cells together, types out series of semi-sentient words parroting T talking points in support of dieselstitution. Probably will reverse himself next week after his constituents chime in, but whatever. Stay useless, Willy.
Sen. Brownsberger rubs his two functioning brain cells together, types out series of semi-sentient words parroting T talking points in support of dieselstitution. Probably will reverse himself next week after his constituents chime in, but whatever. Stay useless, Willy.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,530
- Reaction score
- 6,393
Too bad it has to be built there. I was hoping for a residential/commercial development for that corner to help establish a dense and diverse urban environment for Sullivan Square. But of course it makes fiscal sense to build the bus facility there as the land is already owned by the MBTA (site of the former Sullivan Square el station).
Phase 1 construction is scheduled for 2026-2028, and 2036-2038 for Phase 2, placing Charlestown last in line in the Bus Garage Rehab "program." Phase 1 includes the E&M and MOW buildings, Phase 2 includes the Bus Garage.
While a lot of this is smart, the building fronting Sullivan Square can't be a more depressing looking building to serve as a HQ and office for hundreds to work in.
I would say this seems like a logical move. The HQ operations could benefit from E&M and MOW's "main" offices adjacent to them, and E&M and MOW require a good amount of ground space that are best located out of downtown. The STB was beneficial pre-COVID, but where HQ employees won't necessarily be in the offices every day, it seems like a smart idea to me, opening up office space for MassDOT/potentially selling off the STB, and unifying offices/personnel that are physically separated today.
Also note: the HQ relocation plan is considered an option, so not entirely set in stone yet
Last edited:
guitarguynboston
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 304
Render 9 looks like a combo of the building next to the Convention Center on Summer Street and a jail. Yikes 
This just feels disjointed and an all around poor integrated design effort...
1. Why orient a giant blank wall nearest the water? Flip the 2 buildings, and turn 45 along the tracks.
2. Why have the primary bus entrance continuing to disrupt the merge of the underpass, when you have the opportunity to improve existing traffic flow?
3. Why not adjust the new harborwalk to properly connect paths?
4. If they integrated the parking lot into the building and leased out a commercial property in the open space, it would pay for half the project.
millerm277
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 520
- Reaction score
- 607
Not saying these are good answers, but:
1. Why do they care? The water has no abutters and they put the more pleasant looking buildings near Sullivan/actual neighborhood frontage. Swapping the E&M MOW building with the bus garage would be even uglier if that's what you're saying, it'd be like a junkyard along the river. Arguably the "wall"-like nature of the bus buildings is a feature - it blocks the view of the much messier facilities behind it.
Additionally, you'll note in the phasing that they're looking to do the engineering and maintenance in 2026-2028, no changes to the bus facility at that time. They're not going to have the money for the bus portion for another decade after that. Rebuilding in place/limiting construction disruptions to existing bus operations is likely a consideration. Flipping buildings around would require doing the whole thing at once.
2. Lets the buses use the underpass, which is probably helpful to reliability. This would be a full signalized intersection, so they'd also be able to use it Northbound as well, unlike now. If it only triggers for buses/pedestrians I assume it won't disrupt much.
3. I imagine they don't want to give up a single foot more of their property than necessary for the Harborwalk. There might be some design considerations with the seawall.
I'd say they are good answers.
Additionally, for 4, I'm not sure what parking lot you're referring to, but they all look essential to me. If anything, the only place I see a potential private developer coming in would be on the stretch facing Sullivan Square, where MBTA personnel would occupy the first several floors, and a developer could build and lease out a dozen or so floors. Even then, it would be pretty difficult to argue with the T for why they should give up a building they have on their own for a few million from a developer.
For how much of the MBTA's operations and lifeline go through Charlestown, I'd say what they have proposed here is adequate and smart. In general, a lot of the 4 questions posed seem to indicate this campus has a better use elsewhere in search of a more optimal urban use here, but there is nowhere with this much space close by that would serve the MBTA as well as this campus does without it costing the T much more than the current price tag, or without entering crazy development pitches with elaborate land swaps.
I mean... It's a conceptual master plan, not proposed build conditions. Actual build plans will hopefully be better designed. Besides, the gap between the OL and Rutherford this site occupies isn't exactly prime real estate, having a long history of industrial uses. I have to imagine the remediation for residential/mixed use would be a budget breaker. Plus, I have to imagine even in a world of electric buses that this facility wouldn't be particularly quiet... I don't think I would want to live above or next to it.
That said, I would like them to do a better job of:
A) aligning the garage to Alford, and not putting storage out front. Put the generators etc in back or something. Perhaps some ground level retail there angled out to interface with the street wouldn't be amiss.
B) that's a lot of empty asphalt fronting Alford between the parking garage and the bus garage. I assume a large amount of it is absolutely needed to manuever around the bus garage, but I would like to see it optimized and minimized.
That said, I would like them to do a better job of:
A) aligning the garage to Alford, and not putting storage out front. Put the generators etc in back or something. Perhaps some ground level retail there angled out to interface with the street wouldn't be amiss.
B) that's a lot of empty asphalt fronting Alford between the parking garage and the bus garage. I assume a large amount of it is absolutely needed to manuever around the bus garage, but I would like to see it optimized and minimized.
Great point. I think the SL has always been a sham in terms of putting it on the map as if it were a rapid transit line. The T should instead figure out a system of line heaviness to designate heavily used routes, bus routes that have protected lanes etc, and finally true BRT. If this would result in a too-convoluted map, then they should at least make a line designation for all bus routes / route legs that are better than regular bus but still show honestly that they are still bus, not trains.
Brattle Loop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 2,084
While I like it conceptually, I think a system of line heaviness would be unworkable in practice, at least outside of something like a dedicated bus map. The current system map is first and foremost a rapid transit map, with the key bus routes, the Commuter Rail, and the ferries as distinctly secondary elements, which is probably why the Silver Line's designation as rapid transit feels so out of place, because it's much closer to some of the bus routes (at least in places) than it is to the rapid transit lines (particularly the heavy rail lines). The problem, though, is that any line weighting system that reduces the weight of the RT lines (for the sake of clarity) unnecessarily and problematically deemphasizes the highest-capacity trunk lines, and any system that doesn't risks being fiddly and hard to distinguish. I imagine there's probably some way of threading that needle, though whether it'd be workable in all of the different sizes and conditions the map is reproduced in is hard to say.
I do like the idea of some kind of designation for the improved buses, like how the MTA in New York has the Select Bus Service with the SBS and + sign designators to set it apart from the normal buses. Something like that is probably more easily implementable. Ironically, the Silver Line designation itself is essentially serving that function for at least some of the "improved" routes, albeit given misleadingly equivalent emphasis to the proper RT lines (not entirely unlike the Green Line surface branches, which used to be treated differently on older maps). Of course, changing the Silver Line designation on Washington Street would mean admitting that it's not actually a proper replacement for the Elevated (while that's a plain and obvious truth, 'admitting' as much is probably not something any of the politicians want to have to deal with).
I think what you do for the sake of legibility and good design is you simply leave the current map as is — with colored rapid transit lines, and the highly used bus routes being also shown in light lines, and simply make anything that's BRT (and anything that's justifiably BRT-esque for more than a single block) a MBTA bus-colored yellow, with the thickness of the transit lines. This would include scrapping the silver line (and the whole thing is stupid and should be scrapped and renamed, anyway). For now, that would include, what, the SL's, Wash from FH to Rozzie Sq, Columbus Ave in JP, Broadway in Everett, right?
I think this actually would move things along on the acceptance angle, too—you need to deliver what you're advertising. Ordinary citizens aren't stupid and they're cynical about anything the T claims in part because the T just bullshits them day and night, with the SL a prime example. It's not a Iine, it clearly is not a line, and it very clearly was a bullshit move to placate a certain contingent of the city and play pretend they're making good on a legal promise. Instead of lying about an inferior product, why not actually draw attention to ways in which things like the SL (that might not yet be true BRT) are still better than a regular bus route? And by connecting this, graphically, with other BRT-esque corridors across the city, it "brands" these new bus projects not as individual, local projects, but as a whole new 'thing' that's citywide. I think you'll get increasing buy in simply by printing this on every MBTA map across town and having the image of a Gold- or Yellow Line etched into the minds of the riders.
Brattle Loop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 2,084
It's not a bad idea to revise how the branding is done, though I don't know that scrapping the Silver Line only to replace it with transit-line-size yellow for BRT-ish necessarily is the best solution (though that might only be because I'm having trouble visualizing it in my head and don't have time at the moment to mock up what it might look like to actually be able to see).
I think it's exaggerating a bit to say that the Silver Line was clearly a bullshit move by the T. It was never completed properly because Phase III collapsed under the weight of the enormous engineering difficulties blowing the cost out beyond all recognition. If it had been built, it would still be a fairly-cruddy line, especially on Washington Street and outside the Transitway, but it probably would have worked as a functional (if somewhat subpar) transit line. Of course, those engineering difficulties were the result of them shotgun-marrying two unrelated transit needs, which was a cynical decision and unforced error, and the fact that Phase III wasn't built means that now the Silver Line label is meaningless, so I agree that as-implemented it is bullshit, but I would at least in part disagree with the implication that it always was (though I agree that it was stupidly designed from the get-go and an inherently inferior Elevated replacement).
I’m not saying SL as an ideally executed concept is bullshit. I’m just saying that as an average citizen, who keeps his eyes open and looks around, this is what I saw:
MBTA and state tout this grand new line
What’s delivered is a fancy bus that doesn’t even have stoplight activation and for the first many years, has an incredibly corny logo of SILVERLINE asymmetrically pasted on the front of every bus. The bus stops similarly are silly, they offer no more shelter than a regular bus shelter, they’re just bigger and more attention grabbing. And then they slapped another “line” on the map, when anyone knows this is NOT a “line”. I don’t need some transit scientist to tell me what is and is not a line; I know damned well the SL is not a line.
All this boils down to a lot of propaganda/image making that IS in effect designed to minimize the absence of real transit reforms that were promised. Is it better than a regular bus? Yes. And if they simply said, “we’re putting in a deluxe bus route and that’s it for now” then that would have been honest. But slapping a bunch of paint and calling something a line when it’s not does not make it so. I hate saying “lipstick on a pig” since for whatever reason that’s something people are obsessed with saying on here, but it’s an apt description in this case.