C
cozzyd
Guest
Big Dig would be fine if there were no exits downtown.
Additional lane on the Southeast Expressway
- Thread starter Kahta
- Start date
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 128
So does this project include the addition of tolls? It should.
I don't care if it's $1, just do it.
I don't care if it's $1, just do it.
Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,168
- Reaction score
- 1
No they wouldn't.
Make a triangle out of a ramp facing in each direction. They meet in the middle, and another ramp takes them up to the bridge. Bridge halfway across the road, repeat on the other side. The average sidewalk is 6 feet wide, but only 3 of those feet would be needed for a ramp. (The other 3 for non-crossing traffic.)
The only real problem is making these ADA compliant, as you've said. Using stairs keeps the space impact down, but...
Well, the obvious thing to do is just not build any more parking and point the people asking me where the parking is to any of the garages that exist already.
We can talk about building underground garages once the ones we have now are all full on a consistent basis - which, as far as I know, they aren't.
Going back to what I said earlier, not every road project needs to include or immediately result in more parking.
As for the other, burying the access highways could be folded into the project, with the ultimate goal being to move as much of the road infrastructure underground as possible.
The other option, of course, is to go the opposite direction - assuming we want more people in our cities and less moving 'through' the cities, we could replace the fast moving access highways with slower roads and traditional exit ramp systems. I'm a lot more flexible with regards to crushing an access road than I am on crushing an interstate/quasi-interstate a la 24 or 3.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
Did the feds suddenly lift their moratorium on adding new tolls to Interstate Highways?
I think we should have more widespread highway tolling too, but it's legally restricted.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,966
- Reaction score
- 3,897
A dedicated bus lane would be a far more useful public transit improvement, too, than rationalizing the Red Line/Old Colony ROW. As for a couple billion dollars on public transit, generally speaking, there are a half dozen other projects that could be done with this money that would all yield greater benefit.
And let's remember what this project actually means -- taking land from folks in the city in order to benefit folks in the suburbs. If we have to do any takings, let's widen the Fairmont ROW instead, so that we can have real HRRT instead of enhanced commuter rail. That would significantly benefit the people living in the project area. Widening 93 does nothing for Dorchester.
Game over.
C
cozzyd
Guest
3 feet isn't enough space for people going both directions. And having to climb stairs to cross the street is not something I would like to do...
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Proposing bridges to cross streets is also ridiculously insane. You might be fine as an able-bodied person, but for those who are disabled, elderly, or handicapped, this is an absolute nightmare. Is anyone sane here?
If you're going to propose bridges to cross streets, you might as well just go all Corbusian and sink all auto-traffic. At least that has merit.
If you're going to propose bridges to cross streets, you might as well just go all Corbusian and sink all auto-traffic. At least that has merit.
First, I believe that BostonUrbEx in the Grounding of the McGrath thread mentioned in that thread that traffic on that overpass have decline to Mass Ave levels. This makes grounding seems very possible. It seems the cause of the decline is because of the Big Dig. And this is without the building of the GLX that is also coming as well as the idea of making the I-93-28 exchange better to soak up more traffic. This seems to fly against your argument that building the Big Dig is causing more blight for Somerville.
----
That said, I am seeing your a core tenet of your thinking is increasing highway capacity is futile based on not just congestion is the equilibrium fed by enticing cars from other routes, but also bringing in brand new drivers from whatever source as well .
I think this is the fundamental disagreement. Unlike you're retorts of religious centrism - basically saying I'm operating on ungrounded assumption, but also making an ad hominem attack by making me feel shame by associating religion as something to be ashamed of (which is a separate discussion). I am not just making central statement on the assumption the middle way always works, I actually don't think it will cause the damage you see - it will bring more good than harm.
Since my thinking says not every improvement to roads and highways leads to more cars, many times a redistribution of cars, this means it is reasonable to make improvements to certain issues. Thus, design still matters. Poorly designed interchanges at I93-I95, the inability to handle as much traffic on the Southeast Expressway versus the tunnel, and other similar issues should be redesigned and improved upon.
We can improve the highway network that can run better without leading to the destruction of the city as you fear. That's because you're assuming it will bring in new drivers which mean more demand for parking that leads to the destruction of Boston's cityscape. However, that assuming the paradox does that triggered, that's a big if since interchange improvements is not the same as adding a full-on entire lane (this is an HOV lane for like 3 miles) or an outright new highway. Even if the paradox get get triggered, the first level is might just be redistribution of drivers rather than attraction of new drivers or your worse fears, attraction of new drivers away from public transportation. This seems plausible to me as I believe many drivers are drivers because they have to be as they go to work.
Basically much of the paradox you fear is a game of redistribution rather than induction of demand. Redistribution of traffic does not means the parking blight you take issue. It does mean it is acceptable to make improvements and not snarky lines of *grumble grumble* Highways! Parking! Blight! *grumble grumble*" that you are making.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Incredibly eloquent, ant. Well done.
Livablestreets reports that McGrath has seen a 15% decline in traffic over the past decade. That could be due to improvements to I-93 (which still blights Somerville, btw), changes in the economy, or even just the fact that the McCarthy overpass is falling apart. The state was originally planning to push ahead with the bridge rehab program without any community input until recently; they've already voted, and today's meeting was added after much protest. So it's quite possible that McCarthy will continue to blight Somerville against everyone's wishes.
I don't know where you're going with your insinuations about religion. It has nothing to do with what I said.
I have no objection in principle to getting interchange design right, or HOV lanes, as long as getting it "right" doesn't mean bulldozing neighborhoods.
But I am extraordinarily suspicious of this project because it is outlandishly designed. Why would anyone propose billions of dollars of railroad improvements in order to obtain "3 miles of HOV lane?"
You may not be familiar with the old "HOV Bait-n-switch": essentially, highway builders propose HOV lanes to placate centrists. After all, carpooling is a nice compromise between buses and single-occupancy vehicles. A few years later, drivers get angry because they perceive the HOV lanes to be "empty all the time" even if they're not. That builds a populist political movement to convert the HOV lanes to mixed traffic. This drags the "centrist" position along with it as drivers become more and more strident. Soon enough, politicians bend to those demands and open the HOV lanes to all traffic; thus, enabling "stealth" highway widening.
Will the Southeast Expressway be subject to this treatment? I don't know, I can only speculate at this point. I just came across this article though: HOV lane into Boston gets little use. That sure sounds like the beginning of pressure to open up the lanes.
If the state really wanted to show their commitment to HOV lanes and busways, they could start by designating one of the existing lanes for that purpose. A contraflow lane could work: for example the Lincoln tunnel XBL works by annexing an outbound lane as an inbound bus lane in the morning. There is no bus lane in the evening. On I-93 that would translate to annexing a southbound lane for buses going north in the morning.
I don't know where you're going with your insinuations about religion. It has nothing to do with what I said.
I have no objection in principle to getting interchange design right, or HOV lanes, as long as getting it "right" doesn't mean bulldozing neighborhoods.
But I am extraordinarily suspicious of this project because it is outlandishly designed. Why would anyone propose billions of dollars of railroad improvements in order to obtain "3 miles of HOV lane?"
You may not be familiar with the old "HOV Bait-n-switch": essentially, highway builders propose HOV lanes to placate centrists. After all, carpooling is a nice compromise between buses and single-occupancy vehicles. A few years later, drivers get angry because they perceive the HOV lanes to be "empty all the time" even if they're not. That builds a populist political movement to convert the HOV lanes to mixed traffic. This drags the "centrist" position along with it as drivers become more and more strident. Soon enough, politicians bend to those demands and open the HOV lanes to all traffic; thus, enabling "stealth" highway widening.
Will the Southeast Expressway be subject to this treatment? I don't know, I can only speculate at this point. I just came across this article though: HOV lane into Boston gets little use. That sure sounds like the beginning of pressure to open up the lanes.
If the state really wanted to show their commitment to HOV lanes and busways, they could start by designating one of the existing lanes for that purpose. A contraflow lane could work: for example the Lincoln tunnel XBL works by annexing an outbound lane as an inbound bus lane in the morning. There is no bus lane in the evening. On I-93 that would translate to annexing a southbound lane for buses going north in the morning.
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 128
Woops, my mistake, thought it said 40%.
Either way, it is still declining and is at Mass Ave levels now.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Mathew -- do your homework
The HOV Lane was not due to widening of the SE Expressway -- rather it was developd in reaction to the inability to widen the SE Expressway to cope with unacceptable levels of traffic despite the parallel presense of the Red Line
the HOV Lane was created in 1995 by rearganging the existing 8 equipartitioned lanes by realizing underutilized capacity in the opposite direction -- but rather than simply designating the two innermost lanes to be express lanes in the direction of the majority of the commute -- they chose to introduce the concept of a reversible HOV Lane
And as predicted -- the HOV aspect (originally 3 or more occupants per vehicle eventually reduced to 2 or more occupants per vehicle0 has been under utilized
The obvious solution -- ope road tolling of the HOV for anyone willing to pay to have 6 miles of expressway conditions during the commuter peak hours with the 4-4 configuration at other times. If the open road tolling is inpracticable for whatever reason -- then just let anyone wanting travel in an express-only lane for the 6 miles enter it with some sort of metering at the ingress end
I'm not talking about 1995, I'm talking about an article written in 2011 and a proposal from last month.
And as you said yourself, people have the perception that the HOV lane is underutilized. That's going to lead to the downfall of the HOV lane in the future. Even though that perception is an illusion. It's a classic example of the "Empty lane attack" at work. Here's some more examples.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Mathew -- No -- you are talking something like the HOV lane on I-84 east of Hartford -- that was virgin pavement added when I-86 (redesignated as I-84) was created by reconstructing and somewhat re-routing the old US-15 -- in turn based on the much older Boston-New York Post Road (laid out by Franklin)
The SE expressway never aquired any additional width -- it was 8 lanes 4-4 -- the reversible HOV was created by removing the median barrier and then installing the zipper with the Zipper mover creating todays 3+3 + 1 reversible HOV -- in point of fact reducing the capacity of the highway
what should have been done then and can still be done now is to leave the 3 N 3 S and reconvert the HOV + zippper barrier into 2 express lanes N in morning S in evening -- althugh for safety the express lane might end up as only 1 lane -- still marginally better than 4 traffic clogged lanes
Sorry, I see how I was confusing. I did mean that there is pressure to convert the Zipper lane to general use, even though as of now it does not constitute highway widening.
However, this proposal under discussion does involve highway widening. Let's suppose it is funded and built sometime in the future. Then, motorists pressure politicians to open up the lane to general use because they perceive it as being "empty" all the time. It seems likely this could happen because there are already calls for it to be opened even in its current state.
If the state accedes to that pressure, then the combination of the two actions would constitute "stealth highway widening" although it would not be as dramatic as in the cases where whole new HOV lanes were constructed and then repurposed.
However, this proposal under discussion does involve highway widening. Let's suppose it is funded and built sometime in the future. Then, motorists pressure politicians to open up the lane to general use because they perceive it as being "empty" all the time. It seems likely this could happen because there are already calls for it to be opened even in its current state.
If the state accedes to that pressure, then the combination of the two actions would constitute "stealth highway widening" although it would not be as dramatic as in the cases where whole new HOV lanes were constructed and then repurposed.
When did motorists last have success on pressuring politicians? We haven't had a car-friendly government in this state since the 1960s.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Ant -- an excelent statement of the key distinction between creation and redistribution
As I just posted the 2010 US Census Survey estimated that 310,000 people (16+ age) work within the Boston city limits and that about 15% walk to work and 4% work at home
of the remaining 250,000 or so:
most drove or traveled in a car, truck, taxi, van (140,000)
the vast majority of the rest took the T (101,000)
We also know from the same tables that 2/3 of the people working in Boston live in Boston
Worked in place of residence 67.5% 209,000
Worked outside place of residence 32.5% 102,000
So of the 140,000 people driving to work -- a fair number must have driven only within Boston. Although we do not know how many we can place bounds. The max is all 140,000 -- by assuming all of the drivers are internal with the T filling the remainder (69,000) and minimum is 108,000 assuming that all T commutes are internal to Boston (101,000) with cars filling the residual (108,000)
That means that there are bounds on the commuting drivers who originate outside of Boston city proper and presumably most use the major highways
There are 102,000 people who enter Boston from outside its ciiy limits
The max is 32,000 -- if you allocate the minimum number of drivers to internal to Boston
The min is 0
These numbers seem totally wierd by comparison with the much larger Big Dig design capacity numbers for I-93 through Boston at the I-90 Interchange or even the numbers associated with the old elevated Central Artery