Reasonable Transit Pitches

i don't know why you wouldn't do an island platform or if you must do side - offset?
 
as02155 said:
i don't know why you wouldn't do an island platform or if you must do side - offset?
Click to expand...
You cannot fit the Ink Block/Peters Park stations with island platforms, travel lanes, and bike lanes. There just is not enough space. (Tufts does barely fit with an Island platform but obviously it makes no sense if you have to then go back to the side.) You're right that staggered platforms would save width but for the Tufts station that's not really workable because it makes the transfer to the Orange Line absolutely miserable and for Herald St it doesn't work because you need to have at least one platform's width available to use, which this section does not. You have to take parking lot space for the former and use a combined sidewalk/platform for the latter. The Peters Park station which I'm working on now does use offset platforms, and somewhere around Monsignor Reynolds Way the plan is to switch to a median for the rest of the route. I've been trying to do some research as to how to make a junction like that not super deadly. From there down to Melnea Cass street width is mostly not a problem.
 
The missing ped refuges would be between - e.g. a turn lane and the transitway. You have to remember that cockamamie designs like this are what kills BRT projects - e.g. Pie IX in Montreal basically lost all BRT for about 20 years because of bonkers pedestrian hostile designs like this.
 
as02155 said:
The missing ped refuges would be between - e.g. a turn lane and the transitway.
Click to expand...
The transitway is frankly what I'm least concerned about. In terms of places for pedestrians to wait a few seconds, the transitway is one of the least bad. Vehicles would only be coming about once ever 3 minutes on average, and it's not difficult to put indicators at crossings to alert pedestrians when a vehicle is coming.

1780476947308.png

as02155 said:
You have to remember that cockamamie designs like this are what kills BRT projects - e.g. Pie IX in Montreal basically lost all BRT for about 20 years because of bonkers pedestrian hostile designs like this.
Click to expand...
No shit. You'd never choose a design like this if you have a comfortable width for platforms, travel lanes, bike lanes, street parking, and pedestrian islands. (Parts of) Washington St do not have this. So the questions are:
  1. How can the 'cockamamie' design be made less bad
  2. Are the inevitable tradeoffs that come from the narrow street justified?
The answer to #1 is a work in progress, the answer to #2, in this case and in my opinion, is probably. Light rail service is something generally desired by local leaders, there is existing infrastructure (The Tremont St subway) to take advantage of, and the corridor is very high in terms of transit demand. All of those factors (probably) justify 1/3 mile of street that is less friendly to pedestrians than the 'ideal' street.
 
TheRatmeister said:
You cannot fit the Ink Block/Peters Park stations with island platforms, travel lanes, and bike lanes. There just is not enough space. (Tufts does barely fit with an Island platform but obviously it makes no sense if you have to then go back to the side.) You're right that staggered platforms would save width but for the Tufts station that's not really workable because it makes the transfer to the Orange Line absolutely miserable and for Herald St it doesn't work because you need to have at least one platform's width available to use, which this section does not. You have to take parking lot space for the former and use a combined sidewalk/platform for the latter. The Peters Park station which I'm working on now does use offset platforms, and somewhere around Monsignor Reynolds Way the plan is to switch to a median for the rest of the route. I've been trying to do some research as to how to make a junction like that not super deadly. From there down to Melnea Cass street width is mostly not a problem.
Click to expand...
Isn't this why some short sections may need to be tunneled rather than surface?
 
JeffDowntown said:
Isn't this why some short sections may need to be tunneled rather than surface?
Click to expand...
That is certainly an option, but I think it's worth avoiding it if possible because god that be a nightmare. Washington St is one of the oldest parts of Boston and the stretch around East Berkeley St has particular historical significance. The original town wall and gate of Boston on the neck was located here, so I have to imagine any digging here would need to be preceded by extensive archeological work. I don't know for certain but I have to imagine that's at least part of why the proposed subway that would have replaced the El used Shawmut Ave instead.

Over a half-mile that's probably $250m+ which is a lot to pay if a surface design is merely 'sub-optimal'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top