General Infrastructure

TheRatmeister said:
Not quite what it says. Broadly the argument is as follows:

Neither the MBTA nor the roads currently have enough capacity for local demand, therefore traffic. If you want to 'fix traffic' then your options are as follows:
  1. Massive highway projects that bulldoze neighborhoods and cost loads. Pay for it with either taxes or tolls.
  2. Massive transit projects that are less destructive but just as expensive (if not more). Pay for it with either taxes or tolls.
  3. Do nothing and be happy with how things are.
TL;DR - Infrastructure expensive, pay up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Just to add, this was also in response to a recent Jacoby opinion piece on how great Dallas and all their highways are
 
Jeremi said:
A Texas driver is three times more likely to die behind the wheel than a Massachusetts driver, but I don't think that Jeff cares about that.
Click to expand...

It's somehow worse than that. I was ready to do a whole "well that's not fair Texas is really big and rural" but just isolating for Dallas it's apparently just under 5x as likely (2017-2021). Only NYC beat Boston.
 
KCasiglio said:
It's somehow worse than that. I was ready to do a whole "well that's not fair Texas is really big and rural" but just isolating for Dallas it's apparently just under 5x as likely (2017-2021). Only NYC beat Boston.
Click to expand...
It's also weird to hear Jeff Jacoby extol the necessity of zipping at highway speeds everywhere at all times. He doesn't have anywhere to go, ever! He doesn't work. He's had a conservative sinecure for his entire life!
 
TheRatmeister said:
Not quite what it says. Broadly the argument is as follows:

Neither the MBTA nor the roads currently have enough capacity for local demand, therefore traffic. If you want to 'fix traffic' then your options are as follows:
  1. Massive highway projects that bulldoze neighborhoods and cost loads. Pay for it with either taxes or tolls.
  2. Massive transit projects that are less destructive but just as expensive (if not more). Pay for it with either taxes or tolls.
  3. Do nothing and be happy with how things are.
TL;DR - Infrastructure expensive, pay up or shut up.
Click to expand...
That is a kind of binary view presented by the Globe article: massive highway projects or massive transit projects. The massive highway projects are definitely off the table due to NIMBY opposition; the I-93/I-95 interchange in Woburn being one example. The massive transit projects have virtually no Federal funding available lately, and also face a good amount of NIMBY opposition, though not as much as highway expansion projects.
The third way apparently not addressed by the article is to massively expand the bus lane, bike lane, and e-bike network, along with increased enforcement reducing illegal use of those bus and bike lanes.
 
Massachusetts did very well in the most recent Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant awards: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/ss4a/2025-awards

14 entities were awarded a total of $13,534,965 in funding. The three largest awards are most of that funding, with the others being small grants to update safety action plans. Those three are:

Boston Region MPO, $5M, "This award will be used by Central Transportation Planning Staff to develop analytical tools, conduct pilots, and update the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization's Comprehensive Safety Action Plan for the Boston region (3.3 million residents, 97 cities and towns). Work includes behavioral-psychology-based High Stress Network modeling, International Road Assessment Programme star ratings, child-focused education, quick-build demonstration activities with before-and-after evaluation, and regional peer exchanges to prioritize Proven Safety Countermeasures and inform future investments."

Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District, $2.4M, "This award will be used by Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District to fund subgrants to up to 10 municipalities to implement pilot programs, systemic quick-build demonstration activities, and supplemental planning activities from the Regional Safety Action Plan. Deliverables include quick-build installations (including median islands and rectangular rapid-flashing beacon), pilot policy and education programs, before-and-after evaluations, and case studies to inform Action Plan updates."

MBTA, $2.23M, "This award will be used by Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to retrofit 160 buses with collision avoidance technology designed specifically for buses with extended blind spots operating in crowded urban environments to improve safety for passengers as well as all roadway users by providing visual and audio real-time alerts to warn the driver to react quickly to avoid collisions. This technology will also collect safety data that will inform updates to the Boston 2023 Vision Zero Action Plan and the Lynn Safety Action Plan."
 
www.bostonglobe.com

Boston should buy snow-melting machines for cleanup after storms, city councilor says - The Boston Globe

Councilor Ed Flynn said he had received dozens of requests for the city to improve its snow removal.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
City Councilor Ed Flynn wants Boston to purchase snow-melting machines after many constituents reported problems getting around after the recent storm that brought nearly two feet of snow.
“Based on the feedback I continue to receive from our seniors, persons with disabilities, [and] young families with strollers, I’m respectfully requesting that the City of Boston pursue purchasing snow melting machines, or any other pertinent equipment,” Flynn, of South Boston, wrote in a letter to Mayor Michelle Wu and interim Chief of Streets Nick Gove on Jan. 30.
Flynn said New York has had success with the technology. “I’ve read reports that New York City has used melting hot tubs for nearly 20 years, with 8 currently in use, to melt 60-120 tons of snow per hour,” Flynn wrote.
He said he’s also spoken with Massport, the agency that runs Logan International Airport, about the machines. “On account of the concerns I’ve heard on public safety, accessibility, and quality of life — I believe it is critical that we deliver these enhanced basic city services to support both our neighbors and Boston’s economy as well.”
City officials said in response that workers removed over 89,000 cubic yards of snow from Boston’s streets last week, working round the clock. Over 900 pieces of equipment were deployed at the peak of the response, officials said.
Click to expand...
 
themissinglink said:
www.bostonglobe.com

Boston should buy snow-melting machines for cleanup after storms, city councilor says - The Boston Globe

Councilor Ed Flynn said he had received dozens of requests for the city to improve its snow removal.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
Click to expand...
I mean... from a on-the-ground perspective, the process would look the same? Snow from intersections and streets gets loaded into dump trucks, and driven off and dumped somewhere else. The only difference is how it melts - either in a "snow farm" where it slowly melts until June (famously in 2015) in some parking lot, or then loaded into a melter. The things are usually stationary, somewhere where theres drain and fuel - its not a traction city foraging for snow. Arguably the storm drain is worse because of all the stuff in the snow - its why MA typically bans dumping it in rivers and the harbor. It makes sense in Logans case - lots of area to clear, no where to pile it since they need to keep things flat, hard to truck it out, stormwater treatment system. That said, Ymmv on whether its what the better use of the diesel is - in the convoy of dump trucks hauling it to dorcester, or powering a melter.

Besides... as I recall, the things are available to rent in the event of major snowfall.

 
  • Like
Reactions: HBH
Stlin said:
I mean... from a on-the-ground perspective, the process would look the same? Snow from intersections and streets gets loaded into dump trucks, and driven off and dumped somewhere else. The only difference is how it melts - either in a "snow farm" where it slowly melts until June (famously in 2015) in some parking lot, or then loaded into a melter. The things are usually stationary, somewhere where theres drain and fuel - its not a traction city foraging for snow. Arguably the storm drain is worse because of all the stuff in the snow - its why MA typically bans dumping it in rivers and the harbor. It makes sense in Logans case - lots of area to clear, no where to pile it since they need to keep things flat, hard to truck it out, stormwater treatment system. That said, Ymmv on whether its what the better use of the diesel is - in the convoy of dump trucks hauling it to dorcester, or powering a melter.

Besides... as I recall, the things are available to rent in the event of major snowfall.

Click to expand...
Maybe the city is concerned with running out of space to pile the snow? Now that the Seaport isn't just one big parking lot, I'm guessing they lost out on a pretty big dumping area.
 
Longfellow said:
Just car brained nonsense
Click to expand...
Not saying I endorse this idea in the specific, but we do need to be considering how we can better manage major snow events (particularly as the climate is heading towards higher intensities of precipitation when they do come) and it's people who aren't driving that are presently most impacted.
 
KCasiglio said:
Not saying I endorse this idea in the specific, but we do need to be considering how we can better manage major snow events (particularly as the climate is heading towards higher intensities of precipitation when they do come) and it's people who aren't driving that are presently most impacted.
Click to expand...
Snow melting equipment doesn't really address the system limiting step in the cleanup process post major storm. We have been able to use natural melting over extended time at remote locations pretty effectively once the snow is removed.

The limiting step is picking up the snow, for either melting or transport to a remote melt location. To do that you need a lot of wheel loaders (more than we are willing to buy and have on standby), and the streets clear of parked cars, traffic and people for an extended period after the storm. We don't have the patience or discipline to implement that.
 
KCasiglio said:
Not saying I endorse this idea in the specific, but we do need to be considering how we can better manage major snow events (particularly as the climate is heading towards higher intensities of precipitation when they do come) and it's people who aren't driving that are presently most impacted.
Click to expand...
Agreed, though somehow I doubt that Five Car Flynn is thinking of wheelchair and bike users impacted by the storm... it's most definitely people on FB who can't park.
 
JeffDowntown said:
To do that you need a lot of wheel loaders (more than we are willing to buy and have on standby), and the streets clear of parked cars, traffic and people for an extended period after the storm.
Click to expand...
That's not that overwhelmingly difficult - much of Montreal's haulage in the innercity to sewer access locations where they dump locally collected snow into the sewer system for treatment. It's akin to those "built-in" vaccum systems with access locations throughout an area.
 
as02155 said:
That's not that overwhelmingly difficult - much of Montreal's haulage in the innercity to sewer access locations where they dump locally collected snow into the sewer system for treatment. It's akin to those "built-in" vaccum systems with access locations throughout an area.
Click to expand...
Not difficult from an engineering perspective. But more expensive than most American cities are willing to implement.

Montreal has a fleet of over 2,500 snow removal vehicles, over 3,000 snow removal employees, and they move about 300,000 truckloads of snow to the 29 snow dumping sites. Boston has 170 public plows and 800 contractors (with generally inferior equipment).

There is no rocket science here, just the need for political will.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Not difficult from an engineering perspective. But more expensive than most American cities are willing to implement.

Montreal has a fleet of over 2,500 snow removal vehicles, over 3,000 snow removal employees, and they move about 300,000 truckloads of snow to the 29 snow dumping sites. Boston has 170 public plows and 800 contractors (with generally inferior equipment).
Click to expand...

They haven't been having a banner year themselves.

There is no rocket science here, just the need for political will.
Click to expand...

Sadly I think you could apply this statement to a host of issues in urban planning. And yet here we are. Planning best practices have a huge messaging/marketability problem. Part of the broader rejection of "experts", though I think this one precedes the 2020 collapse in trust.
 
Canada clearly will pay it's own people and we won't, so we outsource it and get crap results like in the winter of 2014-15 when ambulances couldn't get people in and out of the major hospitals for weeks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top