Re: Assembly Square Redevelopment
Yes, I post a lot more actively in the transit threads as a result of from whence I came. So sue me...it's where I've got more to contribute..
F-Line -- I'm vey appreciative of your contributions with respect to the operational and technical matters involved with the T and Amtrak
Where we overalp is that I have a technical interest in the T and rail and such. It seems that where we disagree is that I look at the T and Amtrak as a utilitarian part of the overall transportation system. i don't love the T and hate the Turnpike. Both provide the Greater Boston Area with important services.
When I referred to "rail/transit at all costs" -- what I was referring to was someone who is so wedded to rail public transit that they are unable to intelectually grasp the fact that the planet as a whole is moving (both figuratively and litteraly) to personal motor vehicles.
Yes, there may in fact be some local deviations from the trend -- but the trend is unmitakable. Crowds of cars, scooters, motor cycles, 3 wheelers, etc., on crude streets or even raw dirt trails are the unmistakeable indicator of the transition of a region.from subsistence agriculture to a more developed lifestyle -- cell phones follow shortly.
Why -- because the motor vehicle is the manifestation of personal and economic freedom -- with a motor vehicle you can carry yourself, your tools and your products to where your customers are located -- beyond the limits of where you can go on foot.
In developed urban areas, rail is a supplement to, not a replacement for the personal motor vehicle. This is mostly because of rail's inability to rapidly evolve with the economy. With rail you are tied to the rails, or the area within a distance which you can effectively walk to/from the rail vehicles. The correlary of the above is that the rails are effective in dense western-style cities, and as feeders from the surrounding denser amd closer suburbs as they have developed. The Boston T is a perfect example -- the rails expanded to bring people into downtown Boston from neighborhoods in the "Street-car suburbs" such as Sommerville, Brookline, Medford and Newton.
Unfortunately, for the T -- the development of modern metropolitan regions such as Boston has favored more or less far-flung places for people to live, shop and work -- e.g. Burlingtom, Burlington Mall, New England Executive Park. With the exception of limited narrow dense radial coridors these modern development paterns don't work well with rail because of immutable laws of geometry -- as you get further out the distance between raidial lines gets too great to allow the "walk-to coridors" to overlap.
So what does all this mean for the future:
Positive:
The combination of personal vehicles and rail can work together effectively -- if the suburban housing has effecient highway access to the rail terminal -- e.g. Alewife, Riverside.
On the Negative side:
Outside of the core - - reverse commutes, and off-peak useage will always be minor compared to the in-bound commuter usage. For the most part even so-called Transit Oriented Developments are just a way to plunk a bunch of appartments next to an Alewife. Any non-housing in such a place as Alewife will insignificantly result in many reverse commutes.
In the middle:
Some people may chose to live next to work in the TOD and then may use the T off-peak without parking in the garage.
As long as the T and its adherants understand the above the T will be compatible with the growth and development of Greater Boston.
