Boston's Comprehensive Transportation Plan Unveiled 3/7/2017

[bakgwailo]

The OL to Rozzie Square and GL to Hyde Square I think both have vision. I agree that some of the rest of the plan is weak, but, really, what is the City going to do with the State running the MBTA? Getting any rail extension at all in the next 10 years would be a miracle. Also, the hints at creating something separate/city run from the MBTA is also interesting.

 

[CSTH]

Compared to the 1949 MTA Expansion Plan that laid out rail expansion for the next 100 years, this Go Boston 2030 Plan has no vision at all; a weak, pointless plan.

I see it differently. This is a city of boston plan, focused on the levers that the city has available. The city is not going to build rail extensions on its own. Some of them are in there, but that's not the City's sweetspot.

The real news here, to my mind, is that the city wants to its streets as community space rather than car space. The complete streets focus on outlying squares is a really big deal.

In other words a big part of this 'transportation plan' is 'we want to use a bigger part of more streets as a way for people to get short distances by foot and bike, rather than as a way for people to go long distances by car.'. That's a big deal.

 

[kingofsheeba]

Compared to the 1949 MTA Expansion Plan that laid out rail expansion for the next 100 years, this Go Boston 2030 Plan has no vision at all; a weak, pointless plan.

It doesn't have vision...

With that said, I think that we also need to keep in mind that this is Boston. In terms of city and urban planning, we march to the beat of our own drummer. Considering the fact that the city has been controlled by old NIMBY money for the past four-hundred some odd years, I think that we've made a lot of small, incremental progress.

Is Vision 2030 perfect? Hardly. I think that plan is weak. It's also a testament that this is Boston. We're not going to get everything that we want. OL to Rozzie? A small step in the right direction. GL to Hyde Square? Small, baby steps are the key. This is how the GLX to Somerville should've been handled. Instead of extending the GL to Tufts, just extend it to Union Square.

I'm extremely impressed with the bike plans. Boston is one of the unsafest cities in the country if you're a cyclist. Hopefully this alleviates some of the fears that my cyclist friends face on a daily basis. Even that bike plans aren't perfect. But it's as close to perfect as can be (considering were we are).

I'd love to see in the future some final decision on the R/BL Connector. Also, and this is is probably more suited for the "Design a Better Boston" threads, but I'd love to see a plan for Route 1 between Chelsea and Saugus. Why not bury a section of Route 1 underground between Everett and Saugus along with a GL extension that runs along Route 1 up towards Chelsea.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Also, and this is is probably more suited for the "Design a Better Boston" threads, but I'd love to see a plan for Route 1 between Chelsea and Saugus. Why not bury a section of Route 1 underground between Everett and Saugus along with a GL extension that runs along Route 1 up towards Chelsea.

Tunneling is the most expensive kind of transportation construction, so it's only going to happen in places where the tunneling is very high value, and that doesn't seem like a location that has any chance of moving to the top of the priority list for at least a few decades.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: SL1 traffic delays

Isn't the point of a 15 year plan to have projects that take a few years to build?

For important problems that can only be solved with expensive, multiyear projects, it's fine to pursue those large scale projects.

But this is a case where there's an opportunity to solve the problem where tolling is nearly immediate, approximately free, and probably just about as good as the new harbor tunnel would be, so we can take the money that might be spent on the harbor tunnel and spend it on something else that would be more useful (perhaps the Blue Line extension to Charles/MGH, for example).

It's reasonable to want better connections between the bus tunnel and I-90, but I think that can be done without a new cross-harbor tunnel.

In particular, once we know that we have working battery-only buses for the SL1 route (or at least hybrids that can keep the diesel engine off in the bus tunnel), we should look at building:

• a new ramp which would allow SL1 to take the left fork at the Congress/B vs I-93 split, as if going toward I-93, but which immediately after that fork would have a new bus-only right exit that would immediately descend, passing underneath the Congress/B intersection and into the bus tunnel.
• a new bridge from the Congress/B or Congress/E Service intersection toward Massport Haul Road to lead to the entrance ramp toward the Ted Williams Tunnel, along with a new portal for buses to exit from the bus tunnel to reach this new bridge

(I think something vaguely along these lines may have been in some official plan at some point, but I'm not clear on exactly what was being proposed there.)

 

[Charlie_mta]

I see it differently. This is a city of boston plan, focused on the levers that the city has available.

I agree there is a place for a short-term Plan comprised of achievable, fundable initiatives.

It would have been nice to have an appendix to the Plan, or another parallel Plan, that would be, as someone above said, a 2050 Plan. Why? Because nothing will happen on a grander scale unless there is first a larger vision and stated official support for these grander long-term projects.

I think of the 1965-1975 Plan for Boston, published in 1965 by the BRA, that did indeed lay out a massively ambitious plan on all fronts: transit, urban renewal, highways, and housing. Granted, that was a different time, before the rise of virulent NIMBYism, before society as a whole imploded into provincialism, not just Boston.

But, hopefully as a Nation, a State, a City, we are still capable of dreaming big, and making at least some of that dream into reality.

 

[CSTH]

^ right on I can agree with all of that

 

[millerm277]

Re: SL1 traffic delays

For important problems that can only be solved with expensive, multiyear projects, it's fine to pursue those large scale projects.

But this is a case where there's an opportunity to solve the problem where tolling is nearly immediate, approximately free, and probably just about as good as the new harbor tunnel would be, so we can take the money that might be spent on the harbor tunnel and spend it on something else that would be more useful (perhaps the Blue Line extension to Charles/MGH, for example).

It's reasonable to want better connections between the bus tunnel and I-90, but I think that can be done without a new cross-harbor tunnel.

In particular, once we know that we have working battery-only buses for the SL1 route (or at least hybrids that can keep the diesel engine off in the bus tunnel), we should look at building:

• a new ramp which would allow SL1 to take the left fork at the Congress/B vs I-93 split, as if going toward I-93, but which immediately after that fork would have a new bus-only right exit that would immediately descend, passing underneath the Congress/B intersection and into the bus tunnel.
• a new bridge from the Congress/B or Congress/E Service intersection toward Massport Haul Road to lead to the entrance ramp toward the Ted Williams Tunnel, along with a new portal for buses to exit from the bus tunnel to reach this new bridge

(I think something vaguely along these lines may have been in some official plan at some point, but I'm not clear on exactly what was being proposed there.)

You can improve the SL1 at zero cost tomorrow. All you have to do is let the SL1 use the State Police ramp instead. That pretty much solves access outbound to Logan in my view. Ari explains it pretty well here. It's absurd that it hasn't been done.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I agree. I'm a highway engineer and have looked at the aerial photos of the merge length of that ramp onto the main Ted Williams tunnel roadway. It's probably not the ideal merge length, but for bus-only use it would be adequate. The bus drivers are generally more skilled and careful than the average car or truck driver, so I am also puzzled why the bus use of the ramp hasn't been allowed.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I agree. I'm a highway engineer and have looked at the aerial photos of the merge length of that ramp onto the main Ted Williams tunnel roadway. It's probably not the ideal merge length, but for bus-only use it would be adequate. The bus drivers are generally more skilled and careful than the average car or truck driver, so I am also puzzled why the bus use of the ramp hasn't been allowed.

Jurisdictional pissing contest.

Staties to the MassDOT -- "it's our ramp, nah, nah, nah!"

 

[kmp1284]

It doesn't have vision...

Vision would be a subway line under Blue Hill Ave and a spur of the Red Line under W/E Broadway.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: SL1 I-90 ramp

When I was proposing a new bridge for the SL1 to enter I-90, I was forgetting about the state police ramp, probably in large part because I'd been assuming that there was a major safety problem with buses using that ramp (and people seem to be making a good case that that assumption may be dubious). Obviously if there is a good way to get the SL1 onto I-90 efficiently without the expense of a new bridge I'm all for it.

If the ramp were reconstructed to move its intersection with Massport Haul Road about 250' or 300' to the west, would that add more merging distance that might make people more comfortable with letting buses use it?

 

[Arlington]

Re: SL1 I-90 ramp

If the ramp were reconstructed to move its intersection with Massport Haul Road about 250' or 300' to the west, would that add more merging distance that might make people more comfortable with letting buses use it?

I still think the solution is upgrading the ramp we have--in-pavement snow melters or grooved pavement for traction. Entry gate security. Lasers! Whatever! Almost any tweak you can name on the ramp we have is a way better value than new construction.

 

[AdamBC]

Tunneling is the most expensive kind of transportation construction, so it's only going to happen in places where the tunneling is very high value, and that doesn't seem like a location that has any chance of moving to the top of the priority list for at least a few decades.

Hopefully Elon Musk brings about the next generation of tunnel transit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-02-16/elon-musk-is-really-boring

 

[curcuas]

As has been said many other places, tunneling costs aren't the problem in the US. Everything else is - land acquisition, stations, contracting, needless beautification etc. US transit construction costs run an order of magnitude higher than those in Europe. Our tunneling costs are only a factor of two higher - and that's almost entirely explainable by union mandated overstaffing of the TBMs. Like hyperloop, musk is barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[CSTH]

^ ... or maybe just trying to tap into yet another federal funding / subsidy stream.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: SL1 I-90 ramp

In looking at the Ted Williams tunnel approach in the Google Maps app on Android, it seems that the street view images may be depicting a different configuration of where the painted lines cause merges than what's in the satellite view, although the web satellite view seems to be in sync with the Android street view.

In particular, at the portal just to the east of D street, there's a mainline I-90 tunnel section, and the HOV I-90 tunnel section, and the more popular depiction seems to show that the on ramp within that main tunnel section gets merged into the mainline well before reaching the HOV lane merge; the Android satellite view seems to suggest that maybe the on ramp within the main section of the tunnel stays a third lane, merges with the HOV lane, and then the combination of that on ramp from the main section after merging with the HOV lane finally merges with the mainline.

If the state police on ramp only has to merge with the HOV lane before the combined HOV lane + state police on ramp merges with the rest of the traffic, then if the HOV lane is low volume, that low volume also ought to help to simplify the merge for a bus if the SL1 was allowed to use the state police ramp.

The more general and subtle question is whether any changes could be made to the location of the paint marking where the lanes are to improve safety for buses potentially using the state police ramp.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: SL1 I-90 ramp

Does Governor Baker have the authority to unilaterally declare that the State Police ramp will be used for the SL1 going forward?

Which politicians should we be asking about this in the next election campaign cycle?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: Oak Square Bus Service

Page 182 has some discussion of improved Oak Square bus service.

What I'd like to see:

• Continue the route 57 bus service.
• Add a variant of route 22 which would follow the current route from Ashmont to Jackson Sq, then follow Heath, South Huntington, a small bit of Huntington, then follow bus 65's route from Brookline Village to Brighton Center and 57's route from Brighton Center to Oak Square to Watertown Square.
• Bus service which might be designated as 57C (for Cambridge) in its less ambitious version, which would follow 57's route from Oak Square to Allston's Union Square, and then largely follow 64's route to Cambridge's Central Square, though for trips heading to Central Square, the bus should follow 70's route through Cambridge and not 64's. In the more ambitious version, continue to Somerville's Union Square, Sullivan, go past the casino, continue along Beacham, and then somewhere around the busway transition onto 117's route continuing to Wonderland, and call the whole thing 117.
• Page 176 talks about LMA to JFK/Umass Red Line bus service. It seems absurd that they don't seem to be proposing to extend that to the UMass Boston campus, and I think having a route starting on the UMass campus, continuing to the Red Line station, then following Columbia Rd, E Cottage St (there may be a need to build new ramps at the north end of the Uphams Corner platforms if those platforms don't currently connect to E Cottage), Dudley St (including the Dudley station), Malcolm X Blvd, Tremont St, St Alphonsus St, Longwood Ave all the way to Coolidge Corner, Beacon St, Washington St to Brighton Center, then follow 57's route through Oak Square and Watertown Square.

 

[millerm277]

Re: Oak Square Bus Service

Page 182 has some discussion of improved Oak Square bus service.

What I'd like to see:

• Continue the route 57 bus service.
• Add a variant of route 22 which would follow the current route from Ashmont to Jackson Sq, then follow Heath, South Huntington, a small bit of Huntington, then follow bus 65's route from Brookline Village to Brighton Center and 57's route from Brighton Center to Oak Square to Watertown Square.
• Bus service which might be designated as 57C (for Cambridge) in its less ambitious version, which would follow 57's route from Oak Square to Allston's Union Square, and then largely follow 64's route to Cambridge's Central Square, though for trips heading to Central Square, the bus should follow 70's route through Cambridge and not 64's. In the more ambitious version, continue to Somerville's Union Square, Sullivan, go past the casino, continue along Beacham, and then somewhere around the busway transition onto 117's route continuing to Wonderland, and call the whole thing 117.
• Page 176 talks about LMA to JFK/Umass Red Line bus service. It seems absurd that they don't seem to be proposing to extend that to the UMass Boston campus, and I think having a route starting on the UMass campus, continuing to the Red Line station, then following Columbia Rd, E Cottage St (there may be a need to build new ramps at the north end of the Uphams Corner platforms if those platforms don't currently connect to E Cottage), Dudley St (including the Dudley station), Malcolm X Blvd, Tremont St, St Alphonsus St, Longwood Ave all the way to Coolidge Corner, Beacon St, Washington St to Brighton Center, then follow 57's route through Oak Square and Watertown Square.

As someone that's recently lived in Oak Square, I'm not sure I'd exactly support that.

Long bus routes mean worse bus bunching, worse timekeeping, and more difficult dispatching. You're proposing making a lot of long routes on local roads with heavy traffic. I don't see a way that something like your UMass Boston to Watertown Square bus is ever going to be even remotely on schedule without significant BRT features along much of that route. Even if the T improved their current incompetence in these departments, it still seems like it's going to be difficult.

If we're going to make a route extension to Oak Square, I'd go with extending the 65 to it and some more frequencies rather than some other longer route. This also makes it possible for people boarding at Kenmore to take whichever bus is first from Kenmore out to Oak Square.

I'd rather see your "57C" buses go to improving the 64's abysmal afternoon/night and weekend frequencies. A bus that's every 35-70min is not useful, which is what the 64 is right now. It's the reason I wound up just paying for an Uber most of the time I wanted to get back from Cambridge. Doubling or tripling those frequencies is much more useful than making another confusing sub-route in my view. This also plays into trends in the area. Boston Landing CR station is opening up soon, and the 64 is the closest bus to serve it, as well as the various other adjacent development projects like what Stop & Shop is proposing.

As an additional factor, while Google tries to tell me that the 57 is faster from Oak Square to Union Square than the 64, in practice I found the 64 much quicker. Some BRT features on Washington Street may change this, but I could walk from Lake Street to Brighton Center at rush hour currently and get there 2 blocks ahead of a 57 starting from the same point. It is an incredibly slow half mile.