Search results

Honestly they just need to keep redoing their existing exhibits to remove the chain link fences. The giraffe area is great in part because it's partially hidden from the main path by vaguely-correct-looking grasses, and you're separated from the animals by a wooden fence. Many of the other...

It's a somewhat common scheme over on the Design a Better Boston subforum. You basically have two different systems at that point. A streetcar system fed from Kenmore and a light rail system fed by the outer tracks at Boylston that connect to some new subway to the south. That way you reduce...

That aisle looks awfully narrow. Which section is that?

Even a basic Patreon would probably at least cover some of the hosting costs, and I know I'd throw a few bucks at it. Despite the fact that this isn't a non-profit type, charity situation, I think the site provides enough of a resource to be worth supporting. How does making the site not...

Given that passenger numbers are approaching pre-pandemic levels, is bringing back the APM plans a good move? Has there been any talk of that at any relevant meetings recently? Better rapid-transit connections would definitely alleviate some of the parking concerns.

Be the Shore Line East Propose leaving the shoreline and heading inland Shaking my head

RE: Terminal station placement. I think it's a given for this project that you need to be tunnelling under the terminal buildings themselves, otherwise none of this works. That said, could we share terminals for E/C and A/B? I make this out to be ~800 ft radius between the two terminal stations...

I know we're talking in the hypothetical of a hypothetical of a hypothetical of a hypothetical (I think there's actually one more layer here, given that NSRL doesn't actually exist yet), but I would push back against running express through Chelsea. People in Chelsea deserve better connections...

I guess my question is: Is the cost of a TBM for that length worth it when we can probably get away with reusing the existing ROW and then a much shorter (probably doable without a TBM) tunnel segment under Chelsea Creek and 1A. It's a longer trip, but it seems like it would save a lot of money...

On the one hand, hopefully any work they do can leave provisions for a station down the line (maybe even with room for an express track??), but on the other hand I'm not sure if there were any substantial changes from any of the other studies going back to 2006, so maybe it's good they're not...

It doesn't look like the past studies they link to mention anything meaningful about the commuter rail at all, so I would lean towards "no" and that it's just studying what to do about the supercollider. EDIT: Amusingly, the 2006 study goes as far as to completely remove the tracks from the...

Curiosity? That's my question? How much is this actually costing (from both a capital and operational perspective) and how much would it cost to fix?

Random questions: The Blue Line runs dual-mode (catenary and third rail) because of how close it runs to the ocean. Is this an actual issue that can't be overcome? What are the costs (operation and capital) to this? Could we switch to single-mode if we make some changes to the tracks? Has...

So starting with the existing routes, I think the thing that immediately leaps out at me is that if we could somehow interline all of the lines this is an almost trivial problem. A few choice tunnels in downtown and you can thru-run any line to any destination and technically solve the prompt...

Can you please understand what I'm actually trying to argue here, and who I'm disagreeing with? This is all because Tallguy said we should just fill in the Canal; a proposal which we can all agree is never going to happen. I'm not saying we should do this! I'm saying that filling in the Canal...

Given that drawbridges exist over navigable waterways, I'm going to say that it's far more possible to build a bridge over a canal than it is to fill the canal in. Obviously both filling in the canal and constructing a fixed span are illegal, I literally said as much. But to say that eliminating...

But, again, all of these are simpler problems to solve than filling in the entire canal, a move that has no tangible benefits over just building a shorter bridge. Seriously, why do you seem to think I'm actually proposing this? I'm saying that filling in the canal is ridiculous.

Is there any sort of map showing the maximum theoretical speeds (given track geometry, curves, etc.) achievable on the system? As in, if the cars supported it, maintenance weren't an issue, and signals/etc. were sufficient. What's the ceiling here, and what are we currently getting?

Okay, let me make my point clear: 1) Waterways are protected. 2) Filling in waterways is therefore illegal. 3) It is possible to change 2), but only theoretically. 4) Building bridges over waterways is legal. 5) Building low bridges over waterways is illegal. 6) Making 5) legal is way, way...

I understand, that's why I said the first step is just to build lower bridges, not fill the whole thing in.