Boston 2035

[Kahta]

http://g.co/maps/zvvey

To be paid for by adding electronic tolls.

North Shore plans are here:

http://g.co/maps/5emk8

Not mapped: Transit extensions of Red, Orange, and Blue lines out to 128.


I know I'm going to get a lot of unfavorable reactions to this, but the reality is that the highway system in MA is basically entirely built to 1960 or 1965 capacities. 128 was upgraded to 8 lanes when there were still farms on both sides of the highway-- even the northern end that is 6 lanes does have extra room on the bridges for an additional lane. The reality is that outside of 128, no amount of transit service will reduce dependency on cars, and even inside 128, many areas do not have high enough population density to support current transit systems. The idea of putting shuttle buses on 128 to relieve congestion is a joke-- tens of thousands of parking spaces would need to be added to remove a difference making amount of cars. Secondly (and this is why park and ride transit often fails) is that the time it takes to park and then change to a train and get to work is more than the amount of time that sitting in horrendous traffic takes under the current system. Transit utilizing park and ride should be used, but the transit systems should be upgraded to allow for express (no stop) access from the park and ride to downtown or the employment clusters (Cambridge, Longwood) to make up for the wasted time in changing mode of transit.

The T receives a huge subsidy from non-T users, so naturally, the playing field should be tilted in favor of self-funding transportation system and where future job growth is going to come from. The only place that this shouldn't happen is with access to downtown Boston and because of the takings required to expand the roads, transit utilizing park and ride should be used, but the transit systems should be upgraded to allow for express (no stop) access from the park and ride to downtown to make up for the wasted time in changing mode of transit. Additionally, the passenger volume on the T isn't going to change appreciably because of the archaic zoning laws in residential areas that want to keep the 1880s population density.

Source of subsidy claim: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/0/downloads/InfoCenter/financials/T_CaucusDay_32311.pdf Page 2 and 3

25% of revenue comes from T users, fares should be doubled and operation of the T should be outsourced to sidestep the union and lottery hire system so that wages and benefits don't consume almost half of all revenue. That would at least generate some incremental dollars to eliminate the backlog and then increase borrowing to pay for capital improvements. Oh, also, eliminate prevailing wage on construction projects so save money.

Self funded roads:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/0/downloads/InfoCenter/financials/FY12_BudgetHearing.pdf Page 13 and 14 (Sales tax revenue is presumed to come from the sales tax on cars, even if this is fully backed out, 79% of revenue is self-funded)

 

[BostonUrbEx]

12 lanes? Whoa, what is this? Atlanta? Toronto? No way.

 

[Kahta]

2+2 Express lanes in the middle with Jersey barrier, 4+4 travel lanes, 1 Auxillary lane when needed..... 128 is terrible right now for 3 hours for each rush hour and only going to get worse with the projected 50% increase in jobs there over the next 10 years. Pretending that a road that was built in 1960 is sufficient for 2011 is a joke.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Or we could spend 0$ additional tax dollars by simply changing zoning codes so that 50% increase is well inside of 128. Pretending that zoning codes written in the 60s are sufficient for 2011 is a joke.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

You are right in your assessment that the highways Boston has today are designed for the traffic of yesterday, not today or even tomorrow. To go further into it, the system we have and much of the reason that the traffic is bottlenecked is because more roads were meant to distribute the traffic better. These roads ( I-95 Southwest Corridor, I-695 Inner Loop, Route 2 and Route 3 extensions ) would, admittedly, be just as packed today. However as designed they would have allowed for traffic to have multiple options to reach Boston or bypass the city. I'm sure we could argue at length about "what-ifs" but right now I'll only comment on your plan.

************************************************

I like the idea for express lanes. The current HOV lanes operate on the honor system and, let's be honest, don't end up being that honorable. Express lanes would help for the commuters coming in from past 495 and would also help with long distance bus travel. A toll would be charged on the express lanes to pay for the expansion.

Route 2 through Concord would benefit from grade separation. This seems like a no brainer.

The Cambridge/Downtown Access Rd would be better routed along Rutherford Blvd since it would mean less traffic through a dense residential area and the grade separation already exists. A new bypass road could be built around what will be Assembly Sq which would have the added benefit of giving better access to the new development / new T station.

What "improvements" do you suggest for the Alewife Brook Pkwy/Route 2?

I don't see why we should spend the money to eliminate Memorial Drive. It is a good alternative if Storrow is backed up and is a very pleasant urban drive. If anything eliminate the grade separation at the Harvard Bridge.

Electronic tolling has a two-fold benefit: speeds up traffic and opens up land for development / preservation / more efficient interchanges.

Route 9 would benefit from some sort of expansion but I'm against grade separation unless done surgically. I'd much rather see Route 9 converted into a boulevard type road with inner express lanes (with grade separation like at Comm Ave and Mass Ave) and outer local lanes separated by landscaped medians.

Your I-95 Northeast Expressway plans are all poor options. The best, or should I say least objectionable, option is to upgrade Route 1 to full Interstate standards with frontage roads on each side to serve the existing development (which will have to be shaved back). Extending Route 1A up through Revere to an interchange at either Route 16 or Route 60 would distribute the traffic into Boston better to take pressure off the Tobin Bridge. Traffic looking to head west can use the Ted Williams Tunnel as a bypass around downtown Boston.

Finally, I'm not convinced that your Braintree Bypass will work. I can see it just kicking the can down the road, so to speak, so that the new road will be just as congested and the new interchange (built over a nature preserve) will be just as clogged. A better option would be to expand the current interchange since there is much more free land through which to build.

The Southeast Expressway has so many problems but even worse solutions. This really is the only place where increased train service will make a difference. The best "highway" alternative would be a full build of the Southwest Expressway and that is never going to happen, ever. The best we could hope for would be to upgrade the "spoke" roads that go from Route 128 into Boston to handle more traffic but at this distance no one is going to take that option even if they have to sit in I-93 traffic.

 

[Kahta]

Or we could spend 0$ additional tax dollars by simply changing zoning codes so that 50% increase is well inside of 128. Pretending that zoning codes written in the 60s are sufficient for 2011 is a joke.

The reason that companies are locating outside of the city/alongside 128 is the same as it has been-- much lower costs for the property, better facilities, better access to skilled employees, etc. If 128 isn't upgraded, then they'll just move to the 495 corridor. My company has an office in Mansfield for that specific reason, the RVP making the decision didn't want to deal with the traffic at the upper end of 95 and the 128 traffic.

You are right in your assessment that the highways Boston has today are designed for the traffic of yesterday, not today or even tomorrow. To go further into it, the system we have and much of the reason that the traffic is bottlenecked is because more roads were meant to distribute the traffic better. These roads ( I-95 Southwest Corridor, I-695 Inner Loop, Route 2 and Route 3 extensions ) would, admittedly, be just as packed today. However as designed they would have allowed for traffic to have multiple options to reach Boston or bypass the city. I'm sure we could argue at length about "what-ifs" but right now I'll only comment on your plan.

Yeah, I own an original copy of the 1962 Inner Belt/southwest expressway plans and the 1948 Expressway Policy for the city. I'd really like to find a copy of the 1968 plans for the whole state, but I've so far been unsuccessful. I think that if those roads were built, Boston could have had a recovery as a city sooner-- the lack of transportation access from the suburbs undoubtedly encouraged companies to leave the urban core. However, the current major drivers of employment (education, biotech, FIRE, and medical care) also didn't arise until the 1980s, so it's probably a washout either way.

I like the idea for express lanes. The current HOV lanes operate on the honor system and, let's be honest, don't end up being that honorable. Express lanes would help for the commuters coming in from past 495 and would also help with long distance bus travel. A toll would be charged on the express lanes to pay for the expansion.

Well, having a state trooper stand there with his arms crossed at the lower end of the southeast expressway seems to work.... but on I-93S inbound, I don't think it's enforced at all. Even so, HOV lanes aren't effective today because the traffic backs up so far behind them-- I-93 up to montvale ave and the expressway can be back to 24 or even I-95.

The Cambridge/Downtown Access Rd would be better routed along Rutherford Blvd since it would mean less traffic through a dense residential area and the grade separation already exists. A new bypass road could be built around what will be Assembly Sq which would have the added benefit of giving better access to the new development / new T station.

Agreed, though I wanted to route it through a dense residential area to allow for better highway access-- I generally disagree with the notion of building highways in unsettled areas-- all it does is create more sprawl. It's better to have the short term loss of housing and impact than to have 50 years of sprawl building up around a highway. Granted, there are other factors at play, but by opening up land it creates ultra low density suburbs that don't even have high enough population densities to even support buses.

What "improvements" do you suggest for the Alewife Brook Pkwy/Route 2?

Build it to a standard similar to the pinnacle hills parkway (below) and add grade separations where appropriate. Originally, there was supposed to be a fully built expressway there, but I don't think that is an advisable solution-- the traffic would just slam into I-93S or Storrow/I-90 The road is designed to probably a 35 mph standard and handles considerable volumes, but doesn't require a substantial number of signalized intersections because the slow speed allows for making turns between traffic gaps caused by traffic lights at both ends of the parkway-- one at the I-540 interchange and another at the other interchange. I'd also try to avoid signalized interchanges and build more rotaries. Even continuing up that road to SE Walton Blvd, it's quite pleasant to drive because of the relatively slow speed. However, the volumes handled are quite different.

http://g.co/maps/xs9kq

I am actually moving to AR for job, my future office is off of that road. That area actually has a much better long range plan than the Boston area, which I think is kind of sad because of all the self-worship that goes on around here.

http://www.nwarpc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=79

I don't see why we should spend the money to eliminate Memorial Drive. It is a good alternative if Storrow is backed up and is a very pleasant urban drive. If anything eliminate the grade separation at the Harvard Bridge.

Electronic tolling has a two-fold benefit: speeds up traffic and opens up land for development / preservation / more efficient interchanges.

In the long range, I would like to see additional capacity, a C/D system to allow for local access, or an at grade boulevard created on the masspike ROW to allow for eliminating as much of Storrow and Memorial as possible (if a grade separation isn't feasible) and returning those areas to parks.

Route 9 would benefit from some sort of expansion but I'm against grade separation unless done surgically. I'd much rather see Route 9 converted into a boulevard type road with inner express lanes (with grade separation like at Comm Ave and Mass Ave) and outer local lanes separated by landscaped medians.

Agreed. Inner express lanes are probably a better alternative than what I suggested. Improving access on here would substantially improve access for commuters in this area and access to longwood.

Your I-95 Northeast Expressway plans are all poor options. The best, or should I say least objectionable, option is to upgrade Route 1 to full Interstate standards with frontage roads on each side to serve the existing development (which will have to be shaved back). Extending Route 1A up through Revere to an interchange at either Route 16 or Route 60 would distribute the traffic into Boston better to take pressure off the Tobin Bridge. Traffic looking to head west can use the Ted Williams Tunnel as a bypass around downtown Boston.

The goal was to try to improve access to Lynn-- by doing so it would dramatically enhance the transportation access of the city and improve it's prospects.

At some point in the future when the tobin needs to be replaced, I think that another alternative that I didn't highlight would be building an elevated highway along the 16 alignment to 99 and then down 99 with an interchange in the rail yards to connect to I-93S. It would take traffic and put it into a largely industrial area, while also improving access to transportation access for Everett.

Finally, I'm not convinced that your Braintree Bypass will work. I can see it just kicking the can down the road, so to speak, so that the new road will be just as congested and the new interchange (built over a nature preserve) will be just as clogged. A better option would be to expand the current interchange since there is much more free land through which to build.

The goal is also to improve transportation access to that area (Dorchester, Hyde Park, Mattapan) that undoubtedly would improve if it had better access to 128. Many of the less desirable places to live around Boston (crime, property values) are that way because of highway access and long commute times associated with getting to areas of employment.

The Southeast Expressway has so many problems but even worse solutions. This really is the only place where increased train service will make a difference. The best "highway" alternative would be a full build of the Southwest Expressway and that is never going to happen, ever. The best we could hope for would be to upgrade the "spoke" roads that go from Route 128 into Boston to handle more traffic but at this distance no one is going to take that option even if they have to sit in I-93 traffic.

I agree. The Southwest Expressway could be built below grade with minimal disruption, but it's easy to successfully exploit the cultural aversion to change and fear in associated with building it. It was probably the second most needed road in Boston behind the Inner Belt, but based on the plans that I have, that would have been extremely disruptive, especially in the Comm ave/BU area where it called for a double deck elevated highway.

 

[Kahta]

Btw, I love your website.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

The reason that companies are locating outside of the city/alongside 128 is the same as it has been-- much lower costs for the property, better facilities, better access to skilled employees, etc. If 128 isn't upgraded, then they'll just move to the 495 corridor. My company has an office in Mansfield for that specific reason, the RVP making the decision didn't want to deal with the traffic at the upper end of 95 and the 128 traffic.

Property is more expensive inside of 128 because it is artificially capped. With the tight development restrictions, of course properties will be priced high. By freeing things up, people can live closer to the city and businesses can fit in in the city.

 

[Kahta]

Property is more expensive inside of 128 because it is artificially capped. With the tight development restrictions, of course properties will be priced high. By freeing things up, people can live closer to the city and businesses can fit in in the city.

Apart from my support of giving people freedom to choose where they live-- adults with young children generally do not want to live in a 2 bedroom apartment in 25 story apartment in allston, given a choice, they'd much rather live within a decent commute to their job that also gives them a yard, removes the uncertainty of the lottery system, and easy access to the city/shopping/modern conveniences. The places that offer that happen to be the most expensive to live in (Brookline, Weston, Newton, Arlington, Concord, Wayland, Lexington, etc.) almost as a direct correlation to relatively access to high value jobs-- either 128 or downtown. A functional highway/transit system can offer that by creating a commute that may be 30 or even 40 miles, but forty five minutes to an hour long from door to door.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against what you are suggesting-- I agree with you on removing zoning/density restrictions-- I'm just advocating giving people a choice in where they live relative to where they work, and a functioning transit/highway system does that. In an ideal world, we'd have HSR access across eastern Mass that would make it 20 minutes from 495 to downtown and 10 minutes to 128, giving shuttle buses an actual chance at working because of the low travel times involved.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

I'm all for choices, too, but I feel government involvement has been misleading and is misguiding many people in their "choices". The school lottery system in Boston-proper is of course a complete local government failure, causing many to flee out of the city. This led to even worse socioeconomic issues, and schools went into a downward spiral. And the government also perpetuates this idea that home ownership is some sort of pinnacle in life, and there's constant incentives being pushed for people to purchase a home, even if they can't afford it, and they're heavily subsidized as it is due to the way the government places utilities and infrastructure.

Trying to cater to what people "want" makes sense, but what if they don't actually want that? What if land use laws are loosened up and everyone wants to be in lively, dense, walkable areas? Which I think they would if the choice was really up to the person, and not so heavily subsidized and favored by the government in one direction.



One thing I can agree with is the I-190 extension. But I believe I-190/I-195/MA-146/RI-146 should be bolstered in favor of 495 being downgraded. It's more intercity and a bit less sprawl-inducing, or has the potential to be so.

Also, a highway (I-95) through Lynn Woods or any undisturbed parts of Rumney Marsh will never fly, and going through Lynn will further depress an already struggling city. Upgraded US-1 would probably be a better option.

 

[bbfen]

Apart from my support of giving people freedom to choose where they live-- adults with young children generally do not want to live in a 2 bedroom apartment in 25 story apartment in allston, given a choice, they'd much rather live within a decent commute to their job that also gives them a yard, removes the uncertainty of the lottery system, and easy access to the city/shopping/modern conveniences. The places that offer that happen to be the most expensive to live in (Brookline, Weston, Newton, Arlington, Concord, Wayland, Lexington, etc.) almost as a direct correlation to relatively access to high value jobs-- either 128 or downtown. A functional highway/transit system can offer that by creating a commute that may be 30 or even 40 miles, but forty five minutes to an hour long from door to door.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against what you are suggesting-- I agree with you on removing zoning/density restrictions-- I'm just advocating giving people a choice in where they live relative to where they work, and a functioning transit/highway system does that. In an ideal world, we'd have HSR access across eastern Mass that would make it 20 minutes from 495 to downtown and 10 minutes to 128, giving shuttle buses an actual chance at working because of the low travel times involved.

25 story apartment buildings in Allston?

 

[Kahta]

I'm all for choices, too, but I feel government involvement has been misleading and is misguiding many people in their "choices". The school lottery system in Boston-proper is of course a complete local government failure, causing many to flee out of the city. This led to even worse socioeconomic issues, and schools went into a downward spiral. And the government also perpetuates this idea that home ownership is some sort of pinnacle in life, and there's constant incentives being pushed for people to purchase a home, even if they can't afford it, and they're heavily subsidized as it is due to the way the government places utilities and infrastructure.

Home ownership is a way to build equity instead of paying off someone else's loan or someone elses bills. Renting an apartment is the same as leasing a car-- just throwing money into a black hole.

Edit: I'm not going to get into a housing market debate, but I don't think renting or home ownership should be subsidized, the government has no business declaring winners, and losers in home ownership. Consumers should choose where to live and whether to rent or buy based what makes the most sense for them based on their finances and stage of life.

Trying to cater to what people "want" makes sense, but what if they don't actually want that? What if land use laws are loosened up and everyone wants to be in lively, dense, walkable areas? Which I think they would if the choice was really up to the person, and not so heavily subsidized and favored by the government in one direction.

As I mentioned in my original post, the cost of highways and roads is paid for largely by the users through excise taxes, gas taxes, tolls, etc-- the MBTA is only about 25% funded by fares and the rest comes from everyone else. If prevailing wage and other price floors were removed on highways, it's likely they would be 100% self funded-- even if costs of operating the T was cut in half, fares would still need to be doubled just to maintain the current levels of operation, let alone all the capital spending or expansions that could happen if population density were higher.

One thing I can agree with is the I-190 extension. But I believe I-190/I-195/MA-146/RI-146 should be bolstered in favor of 495 being downgraded. It's more intercity and a bit less sprawl-inducing, or has the potential to be so.

By downgrading 495, you are definitely not giving people an option to live in the suburbs and commute to jobs--- it would make life incredibly inconvenient for anyone that lives and works in the area. It's less expensive to simply maintain the current system than any combination of mass transit/resettlement. I'm from that area and people choose to live there for a reason-- the relatively rural lifestyle that's possible while still having access to a quality, high value add job. Improving highway access to more jobs and the city would only give more people the option to pursue that lifestyle if they wanted it. If they don't want it, then they don't have to live there, they can live wherever they want, but if highways are downgraded it does nothing but remove choice. It's a simple fact that the only way that long distances can be covered in a normal amount of time is highways.

As an example: I live in Brookline and until a my promotion, I worked in Mansfield. I could have taken the T to South Station, and then out to Mansfield-- it would have taken 2+ hours door to door. Or I could have driven 35-40 minutes, what choice is the rational choice? For the opposite way, taking the train from Mansfield to Boston would have been about an hour, plus travel time to the station (15 minutes) and from the station to work (15 minutes). Who wants to waste 3+ hours a day commuting?

Also, a highway (I-95) through Lynn Woods or any undisturbed parts of Rumney Marsh will never fly, and going through Lynn will further depress an already struggling city. Upgraded US-1 would probably be a better option.

How would improving highway access for Lynn make it worse? Look at Haverhill over the past 25 years. Haverhill isn't unlike Lynn, and because of 495 and access to 93, Haverhill is on the rebound, lowell isn't far behind. Those communities turned around because of highway access, not because of top-down approaches to put yoga centers and indoor batting cages in old mills. Giving Lynn direct access to 128 and Boston would do nothing but encourage people to move there, as they could live in a somewhat walkable area and drive to work. Given the outbound traffic coming from the Boston area into the suburbs, a lot of people have made a similar choice.

An upgraded Route 1 would minimally require 8 lanes, plus a C/D to appropriately handle current volumes and additionally, just for the volumes right now, capacity needs to be added after the tobin bridge, right now all the traffic is funneled onto I-93 or the Leverett connector, which starts filling up at 6 in the morning and doesn't clear out until after 10.

25 story apartment buildings in Allston?

Referring to if zoning restrictions were eliminated.

 

[choo]

I think it is fair that some of the funding from the T come from the state. First of all, Highways are not fully self-funded, those subsidies only cover a fraction. Further more, having the T or any public transit eases the burden on the roads. Imagine the traffic, and highway construction costs and scale that would have to be built in boston if you took everyone off the red line and put them in a car on the southeast expressway?! or cambridge?!. Imagine the Tobin with no blue line or commuter rail? Imagine the drive from JP or Medford without the orange line.

mass public transit and autos don't have to be direct competitors if you look at them as part of the overall transportation picture. people need options that are supportive of one another and cost effective. You drive to Mansfield for work from Brookline, obviously makes sense. But I bet you take the green line to go to fenway or the garden to see a game.

 

[Kahta]

I think it is fair that some of the funding from the T come from the state. First of all, Highways are not fully self-funded, those subsidies only cover a fraction. Further more, having the T or any public transit eases the burden on the roads. Imagine the traffic, and highway construction costs and scale that would have to be built in boston if you took everyone off the red line and put them in a car on the southeast expressway?! or cambridge?!. Imagine the Tobin with no blue line or commuter rail? Imagine the drive from JP or Medford without the orange line.

mass public transit and autos don't have to be direct competitors if you look at them as part of the overall transportation picture. people need options that are supportive of one another and cost effective. You drive to Mansfield for work from Brookline, obviously makes sense. But I bet you take the green line to go to fenway or the garden to see a game.

I'm not opposed to transit at all-- I think it's an excellent option where the population density can support it and building other alternatives isn't feasible. As an example, in my plan I call for additional Park and Ride facilities with express trains because building out highways inside 128 isn't a feasible option. I would just like to see the locations where the T runs upgrade their zoning to a degree (comparable to the B-Line level on Comm Ave), instead of running a train through essentially a neighborhood of triple deckers. It would increase demand for the T and the revenue would be almost 100% incremental with a minimal impact on fixed costs.

I'd be fully in favor of more park&ride options for the commuter rail and the blue line north of Boston because those would definitely improve access to Boston, but those don't resolve the lack of access to 128.

I actually don't take the T that much because it takes so long to get anywhere-- I live a few stops inbound from Cleveland Circle-- and then it doesn't run late at night when the bars get out.


Regarding who pays for the T vs Highways-- highways are >80% directly self-funded, the T is 25% directly self-funded.

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/0/downloads/InfoCenter/financials/T_CaucusDay_32311.pdf Page 2 and 3


Self funded roads:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/0/downloads/InfoCenter/financials/FY12_BudgetHearing.pdf Page 13 and 14 (Presumably the sales tax calculation comes from the sales tax on the sale of an automobile)

 

[whighlander]

I'm all for choices, too,...



One thing I can agree with is the I-190 extension. But I believe I-190/I-195/MA-146/RI-146 should be bolstered in favor of 495 being downgraded. It's more intercity and a bit less sprawl-inducing, or has the potential to be so.

Also, a highway (I-95) through Lynn Woods or any undisturbed parts of Rumney Marsh will never fly, and going through Lynn will further depress an already struggling city. Upgraded US-1 would probably be a better option.

Urb -- obviosly you don't travel on I-495 very often -- if any road system near to Boston needs enhancing its the I-495 ring with several of the connectors such as I-290 to the east (non existent) and Rt-2 to the east (very inadequate) -- and then there can be futher development out to the next outer layer of highways I-290 I-190, rt-2 + Rt 101 in NH in the north and I-195 in the south

I-495 often grinds to a crawl in the sector between I-90 and Rt-2 this is starting to spread to the south near Franklin

Eventualy the Hub as City-State will ned to encompas Worcester, Manchester and Providence and the as yet early stage of development road systems in the fringes will play the role of I-495 today -- bypassing the core for people / stuff headed to Maine, Nortehrn NH and the South Coast and providing a wide open space for things like warehouses that need lots of cheap land with highway and rail access

You may not remember --- but in the Halcyon days of DEC (say 1990) -- I-495 was considered the same way that RT-128 was considered in the early 1950's -- i.e. the Road from Nowhere to Nowhere

Today I-495 in the area from I-290 to Rt-2 is home to Intel, Cisco and IBM with EMC not that far away

 

[whighlander]

Apart from my support of giving people freedom to choose where they live-- adults with young children generally do not want to live in a 2 bedroom apartment in 25 story apartment in allston, given a choice, they'd much rather live within a decent commute to their job that also gives them a yard, removes the uncertainty of the lottery system, and easy access to the city/shopping/modern conveniences. The places that offer that happen to be the most expensive to live in (Brookline, Weston, Newton, Arlington, Concord, Wayland, Lexington, etc.) almost as a direct correlation to relatively access to high value jobs-- either 128 or downtown. A functional highway/transit system can offer that by creating a commute that may be 30 or even 40 miles, but forty five minutes to an hour long from door to door.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against what you are suggesting-- I agree with you on removing zoning/density restrictions-- I'm just advocating giving people a choice in where they live relative to where they work, and a functioning transit/highway system does that. In an ideal world, we'd have HSR access across eastern Mass that would make it 20 minutes from 495 to downtown and 10 minutes to 128, giving shuttle buses an actual chance at working because of the low travel times involved.

No-one with a family wants to live in a place where they need to take a train and a shuttle bus to get to/from -- given the choise they will drve or move

That's the same reason that ride sharing and car pooling doesn't work well in most cases -- people with young kids want the ability to get home when needed -- on their own time if necessary

In addition -- many companies, particularly those with manufaccturing (contrary to misconception it does still exist even in our fair CommonPoor) or large scale r&d faclites want campus type suburban workplaces -- what should be encouraged is development of town houses and such on the firnges of the campuses to minimize the suburb to suburb commutes (circumferntial belt commutes which dominate Rt-128)

Suburbs and outer lower deinsity cities such as Waltham where you can live and drve to a relatively close work place -- fill the need for these kinds of lifestyles as do inner city neighborhoods with neighborhood schools where you can walk to work (even some hightech such as Google) or take a frequent transit -- what doesn't work is ex-urbs with convoluted commutes and so-called reverse comutes from the city to diffuse employment

 

[NJBostonFan]

Can we see your transit maps now?

 

[Kahta]

Can we see your transit maps now?

Are you talking to me or whighlander?

 

[DZH22]

Just returned from my time machine trip... here is Boston in 2035.

 

[whighlander]

Are you talking to me or whighlander?

Kahta -- must be you

I have no maps

My optimal T would extend all heavy transit lines out to Rt-128 (Red past Alewife, Orange past OakGrove, Blue past Lynn to Salem and perhaps Peabody, Orange past ForestHills)

At Rt-128 there is a specially zoned large region (size of Boston Common) encouraging moderately intensive development (12 to 15 stories) with office, retail, commercial, light industry / R&D & mixed income appartment, highrise condos and town houses

This junction would also feature commuter rail amd where appropriate intercity rail to expand the commuter collection area further radially and then large parking garage with "kiss and ride" large bus terminal with both local and circumferential dedicated shuttle buses

Thrat's my plan

note outside of the existing Riverside Line I would not extend the Green Line out to Rt-128