Does Boston really need the E line anymore?

Presently, the O line is under-burdened by its passengers and is waiting for all the college kids and to grow some hair on their chests and use the better line.

I commuted on the Orange Line from both the north and south living in both Charlestown and Roslindale for years. During rush hours I was sometimes not able to board the train at Charlestown (Bunker Hill) due to crowds. Train was always standing room only and packed. I often chose the 92 bus instead due to Orange line crowding, so I wouldn't call the O-Line under-burdened as a whole.
 
There's no way to make it work.

You can't dump the E line riders on the #39 and the Orange Line because the other two are already ridiculously full most of the time. You may have parallel service right now, but that is because the service offered is being heavily utilized.

Which raises an interesting side question. Why aren't other areas of the city with similar densities not as well served? I agree that the corridor in question can support HRT, LRT, and bus, and needs it. Too bad the rest of the city isn't so well provisioned. Nobody thinks it's odd in Paris for so many lines to be so close to one another.

Armpits of Lame should be demanding similarly complete transit options for Dorchester and Allston rather than demanding lowering the standard in JP/Roxbury.
 
Nobody thinks it's odd in Paris for so many lines to be so close to one another.
HenryAlan, there are many, many reasons why Boston is not like Paris, and most of these are apologias for inferiorities.

If Boston adopted Paris' 500 meter rule for transit station spacing, it might not be another Paris, but it would surely be a better Boston.
 
I'd like to see a map of which areas fall within a 500 meter radius of rapid transit in Boston. I think I've seen similar "half mile radius" maps on the T website (half mile = ~800 meters) and it isn't pretty outside the very epicenter - except for Brookline north of Route 9.
 
I'd like to see a map of which areas fall within a 500 meter radius of rapid transit in Boston. I think I've seen similar "half mile radius" maps on the T website (half mile = ~800 meters) and it isn't pretty outside the very epicenter - except for Brookline north of Route 9.

well since the mbta considers busses to be rapid transit we probably kick Paris' ass by that standard
 
Armpits of Lame should be demanding similarly complete transit options for Dorchester and Allston rather than demanding lowering the standard in JP/Roxbury.

Hardly anybody uses the E line from Health to the Fenwood Street Station, so how exactly is this lowering transit standards if these stations are removed? Once you're beyond these T stops, the O line is close enough to the remaining E line stations that it becomes pointless to have two transit lines since the O is faster and can handle all of the E's customers. Henry, why are you afraid of using your own two feet to get a little exercise and walk? I think your support for laziness and obesity is outrageous and you need to stop supporting people like this:

539w.jpg


And here's her story that goes with it
Big influence
Lesley Kinzel?s Fatshionista is helping plus-size women see themselves in a new light

By Leah Mennies, Globe Correspondent | January 12, 2010

Lesley Kinzel is fat.

Not ?Does this dress make me look fat??? fat, which requires the obligatory reply, ?Of course not!?? At 300 pounds, Kinzel is fat in a way that is absolute. It?s who she is. She?s happy to be fat, and she?s happy to use the dreaded word.

?I benefit from owning this word, because if someone wants to use it against me, it takes away its power to hurt me,?? she says. ?If I am walking down the street and someone [calls me a name], I say, ?Ha ha, you can?t use that against me.? ??

Kinzel, 32, of Revere, is the face and voice of Fatshionista, a fat-activist blog (www.fatshionista.com) containing a blend of personal narrative and commentary on social justice issues, popular culture, and fashion advice through her judicious critical lens. The blog, which receives 70,000 hits a month, is her way of controlling her representation as a fat woman in a society where she is often marginalized.

?With a blog, you can put yourself out there the way you want to, which is an option fat people don?t get in media to see yourself the way you want,?? Kinzel says.

Kinzel is an important presence in the fat blogosphere, where roughly 30 active blogs at any given time range in focus from body politics to fashion. Such blogs provide an antidote to the common caricature of fat people in the media when concern is growing over the country?s obesity epidemic and more than a third of American adults are obese.

But while television shows like ?The Biggest Loser?? garner top ratings and the sizes of celebrity waistlines dominate the tabloid headlines, a burgeoning trend of size-acceptance is emerging. Glamour magazine recently began featuring plus-size models; Marie Claire runs a column from 220-pound stylist Ashley Falcon; and this month, high-fashion V magazine is releasing ?The Size Issue,?? devoted to plus-size models wearing runway styles typically modeled by waifs. The young actress in the title role of one of the year?s Oscar contenders, ?Precious: Based on the Novel ?Push? by Sapphire,?? is obese; 2009?s best-selling album came from the portly singer Susan Boyle; and one of the hippest woman in indie rock is Beth Ditto, the proudly heavy woman who fronts the band Gossip.

Kinzel says the cultural trend toward size acceptance can be transforming for some women, who may think, ?How empowering is it to see a picture in this fashion magazine, to see a woman who actually looks like me? It?s a radical act to have that experience if you have never seen that before. Just everyday people saying, I don?t want to be part of this compulsory skinniness.??

BEING HERSELF IN BOSTON
On a Wednesday evening, Kinzel is at the Museum of Fine Arts, checking out the contemporary ?Picturing Music?? exhibit. She?s wearing pink and purple striped knee socks, black Mary Jane clogs, and a black-and-gray striped scarf. Her shoulder-length auburn curls are worn loose, framing a pair of bold Buddy Holly-style glasses.
Kinzel, who works in Graduate Studies admissions at Simmons College, posts an ?Outfitblog?? segment on Fatshionista containing photos of herself accompanied by a breakdown of what she?s wearing and why.

?I tend to prefer to dress in ways that are sort of ostentatious,?? Kinzel says. ?I want people to notice I am walking around, like, you know what? This is who I am, and if you don?t like it, then that?s not my problem.??

In a video installation at the MFA exhibit, 30 Madonna fans on 30 TV screens jam to ?Express Yourself.?? They?re all writhing and swaying, fists pumping and shoulders shimmying as they sing in a wacky, cacophonous unison. Kinzel bobs her head to the beat as she watches, rapt by the madcap display. ?I love seeing people just being themselves, not holding back,?? she says. ?There?s no artifice. I suppose I identify with that in a way.??

It took Kinzel roughly two decades to reach such a steadfast point of self-acceptance. ?If you don?t aspire to look a certain way, people won?t let you forget it,?? she says of the looks-centered culture of South Florida, where she grew up. Bullied in school because of her weight, Kinzel dieted steadily from the age of 9.

She left Florida to study at Boston University, where she graduated with a film degree, and her thinking soon began to shift.

?My first week in Boston was like this unbelievable revolution,?? she says. ?I felt that people up here were a lot more laid back, were a lot more accepting. . . . I was actually comfortable in my skin for the first time in my life.?? Around that time, Kinzel discovered two books: ?Fat!So??? by Marilyn Wann, a central figure in the fat activist movement, and ?Fat Girl Dances With Rocks,?? a coming of age story about a fat 17-year-old by Susan Stinson.

?When I read these two, that made me sort of step back,?? says Kinzel, who has a master?s degree in family culture and society from Wheelock College and a second master?s in gender and cultural studies from Simmons. ?It made me want to step back and want to interrogate culture about bodies and what is acceptable.??

A BLOG INHERITANCE
In 2004, Amanda Piasecki, 34, of Oakland, Calif., started a LiveJournal community called Fatshionista after growing frustrated with being unable to find clothes that fit. ?I had done a lot of fat activism and spur of the moment decided to create a community that surrounded fat fashion,?? Piasecki says. Almost from the beginning, Kinzel was a vocal part of the online community and was appointed as a moderator. Piasecki eventually lost interest and asked Kinzel to step in, giving her the Fatshionista moniker and domain.
Kinzel launched Fatshionista as a blog in 2007. ?If I want to post something that is really deep and critical or something that is social justice-oriented, I can,?? she says. ?Whereas a LiveJournal community is just huge. You post something there, it is more likely to result in an argument than a productive discussion.??

Fatshionista is a unique mix of personal memoir, social commentary, and fashion tips. In addition to her ?Outfitblogs,?? recent posts include a response to the media?s treatment of the movie ?Precious,?? a photo of her newly adopted 26-pound cat, and a piece about being fat in public called ?Sometimes, the Elephant in the Room Is Me.??

Marianne Kirby, 32, of Orlando, Fla., who does her own blogging from TheRotund.com, connected with Kinzel through LiveJournal, and the two have become friends. ?There are [fat] fashion blogs that do not handle the politics of being fat,?? Kirby says. ?I think that it is important to talk about the politics of fat fashion, so I have a strong preference for Lesley?s take on it.??

COUPLES ACCEPTED, TOO
While obesity can bring dire consequences to one?s health, Kinzel maintains that sometimes trying to lose weight can do the same thing. When she was 24, Kinzel had her gall bladder removed because of gallstones. Frightened of the fat that had caused the stones, Kinzel embarked upon the most restrictive diet of her life. In six months she lost 3 pounds. But she discovered that yo-yo dieting can actually cause the kinds of gall bladder problems that led to her surgery.
?To say that it enraged me is a major understatement,?? she says. ?If I hadn?t started dieting at 8 or 9 or gone on as much as I did and been on that roller coaster, I might still have this organ in my body. . . . It really made me think, wow, I am really questioning everything I have always assumed about my body.??

Kinzel and her husband, Dennis Scimeca, are featured in a offshoot of her blog, an online gallery called Museum of Fat Love that features pictures and stories of fat and happy couples. The gallery, which launched in September, was inspired by the Fox reality show ?More to Love,?? which Kinzel calls ?The Bachelor? for fat people.??

?The contestants would spent 50 percent of the show crying about how ?no one will ever love me because I am fat. ?No one will ever accept me.? It was so, so, depressing,?? Kinzel says. She countered with Museum of Fat Love, which has been so popular that she has a backlog of nearly 40 couples hoping to get their pictures and stories published alongside the 70 couples already there.

But her online success is not her greatest triumph.

?My greatest success, to be honest with you, is the fact that I am here and I am happy, and I do, truly, accept myself as I am. That I don?t have moments of doubt anymore,?? Kinzel says. ?I even have a hard time even imagining what that was like, because I spent so many years doubting myself. I feel like a different person almost. That really is my proudest accomplishment.??
 
Being okay with your self image doesn't make the health consequences of obesity go away.

EDIT: Didn't read the preceding comment. I was wondering what the hell this had to do with architecture and/or planning.
 
EDIT: I was wondering what the hell this had to do with architecture and/or planning.

I don't give a shit about architecture, only planning. Anyway, my message for you lazy motherfuckers is to take that extra .2 mile walk to get to your destination so you don't become a fat fuck like that girl in the article.
 
Tourists don't ride busses: the city needs the E-Line at least to Ruggles Street to catch the museums, which is also the last (and one of only 3) stops that is within a half mile walking of the orange line.... And as mentioned before, the E-Line gives a one-seat ride between Longwood and Park Street.

Now, a better idea than ending it would be to somehow jog it over to the Jamaicaway and somehow find space within that right of way to run it to Forest Hills......
 
I don't give a shit about architecture, only planning. Anyway, my message for you lazy motherfuckers is to take that extra .2 mile walk to get to your destination so you don't become a fat fuck like that girl in the article.

And to think I was under the impression that architecture and planning are closely related. Silly me.

I think that the girl in the article might need a bit more than a .2 mile walk.
 
Which raises an interesting side question. Why aren't other areas of the city with similar densities not as well served? I agree that the corridor in question can support HRT, LRT, and bus, and needs it. Too bad the rest of the city isn't so well provisioned. Nobody thinks it's odd in Paris for so many lines to be so close to one another.

Paris is the most densely populated large city in the western world. Do posters on message boards in Fitchburg wonder why their city doesn't implement Boston's "3 heavy rail subway line rule"?

Nobody in Boston seems to think its odd that the majority of our downtown jobs would be accessed by public transportation rather than the private automobile. I wonder why all but two other cities in the United States don't get it?
 
Now, a better idea than ending it would be to somehow jog it over to the Jamaicaway and somehow find space within that right of way to run it to Forest Hills......

Eh? The E line somehow down the Jamaicaway? Not sure about that.

My idea for an E expansion would be the opposite direction: have the E line anchor a northern arc as part of the urban ring. Extend it down Route 9 to Harvard Street then turning north over the bus route 66 to Harvard, then reconnecting back into the mainline green at Lechmere via the 69 bus route.
 
I don't give a shit about architecture, only planning. Anyway, my message for you lazy motherfuckers is to take that extra .2 mile walk to get to your destination so you don't become a fat fuck like that girl in the article.

Please, if you're only interested in planning, then you are a terrible planner. You do not do research or observation on how many people use the E line or the O line. You first claim that the community does not need both lines when clearly, the E line is often overcrowded with passengers coming the many universities/colleges/high school and medical facilities that it serves. You also claim the O line is underused in this section when it's not (the O line is almost always standing room only by Mass Ave and certainly by Back Bay Station). You proposed that the T can save money by ridding the E line and replacing with a dedicated lane for a BRT without looking at the cost to fill the tracks and congestion caused by doing so. My suggestion to you good sir is to get your fat lazy ass off the computer, take eithers line to this area, and see for yourself. And do so during rush hours.
 
Paris is the most densely populated large city in the western world. Do posters on message boards in Fitchburg wonder why their city doesn't implement Boston's "3 heavy rail subway line rule"?

Nobody in Boston seems to think its odd that the majority of our downtown jobs would be accessed by public transportation rather than the private automobile. I wonder why all but two other cities in the United States don't get it?

The 'T does a very good job of getting people from outlying areas to downtown. I'm a booster, not a critic. But we can still dream of something that does more than that. One of the problems with the E-line (and most of the green line for that matter) is that it tries to do too much. Street cars are perfect for local service in dense corridors because they are more efficient than buses. But they are not suited for longer distance transportation. When I lived in Washington Square, I was a frequent user of C, D, and B lines, depending upon my purpose. The B was great for getting to places in Allston, but there is no way I would have taken it to work in the Back Bay. The D was good for transit in and out of town, but I tended to use it only outbound, when it happened to be the first car to arrive. The C served me for local transit and for commuting, but it was not an optimal commute. I live in Roslindale now, and find it much faster to take the Orange Line than the C Line used to be for me. And I can't imagine commuting by E if it still terminated at Forest Hills.

My vision for the Green Line would involve keeping the existing surface routes, adding some additional surface routes, and making most of them terminate at heavy rail stations or cross heavy rail lines rather than being incorporated into the downtown subway. Imagine a line that ran from Heath Street to West Roxbury via Forest Hills and the Needham ROW, and another line that ran from Mattapan to Ruggles via Blue Hill Ave. and Dudley. That is the sort of structure that would provide enhanced local service over the buses, and still feed commuters into the downtown heavy rail network. Having the B line terminate at Kenmore, reserving the subway for just the C and D is another example of this concept. The problem is that politicians refuse to accept the idea that sometimes the best plan is one that involves more than one seat for many of the potential trips.
 
The 'T does a very good job of getting people from outlying areas to downtown. I'm a booster, not a critic. But we can still dream of something that does more than that.

The problem is that politicians refuse to accept the idea that sometimes the best plan is one that involves more than one seat for many of the potential trips.

We can always dream. But if you are to accept the findings of this independent review of the T's financial state: (http://www.mbtareview.com/) our dreams probably need to be something more realistic than the construction of multiple heavy rail lines. Perhaps getting the buses to run more reliably?

The politicians are always convenient whipping boys. But in this case, at this time, with across the board budget cuts to nearly every public service provided by government, do we really believe the problem is that we don't have enough visionary politicians calling for Paris Metro station spacing in places like West Roxbury and Roslindale?
 
We can always dream. But if you are to accept the findings of this independent review of the T's financial state: (http://www.mbtareview.com/) our dreams probably need to be something more realistic than the construction of multiple heavy rail lines. Perhaps getting the buses to run more reliably?

The politicians are always convenient whipping boys. But in this case, at this time, with across the board budget cuts to nearly every public service provided by government, do we really believe the problem is that we don't have enough visionary politicians calling for Paris Metro station spacing in places like West Roxbury and Roslindale?

Yeah, actually, I do. How did we get the big dig? Politicians pushed for it. I'm not talking about finding Paris under Boston tomorrow. But if we want something better, it is possible long term with the right use of political muscle. $10 billion would buy a lot of the kind of light rail I've described and Shephard has demonstrated in his map. To say "it can't be done, so let's just focus on buses," is the same as saying "let's give up on rail." I don't accept that as the only answer.
 
To be fair, there was a ton of political will behind tearing down the Central Artery . That thing was hated from the day it was erected. Plus the Big Dig promised less traffic congestion. So it had the unified urban/suburban/business nexus going for it.
Having lived in both West Roxbury and Roslindale I don't think you would find a large group of people clamoring for rapid transit running through either town, in fact I think both communities would put up one hell of a fight.
 
Yeah, actually, I do. How did we get the big dig? Politicians pushed for it. I'm not talking about finding Paris under Boston tomorrow. But if we want something better, it is possible long term with the right use of political muscle. $10 billion would buy a lot of the kind of light rail I've described and Shephard has demonstrated in his map. To say "it can't be done, so let's just focus on buses," is the same as saying "let's give up on rail." I don't accept that as the only answer.

The Big Dig was brought home in an era when 90% federal funding was available for highway projects. The current federal match for transit capital projects is 50%.

If MA pursued federal funding for a $10 billion transit project it would be the most expensive proposal in the country. At a time when we have much less clout nationally than we did when the Big Dig funds were secured.

Even if we were able to win a competitive federal grant for a multibillion dollar transit project, we would not have any money to pay for the state share (unless we decided to stop maintaining the current system--see http://www.mbtareview.com/)

That Big Dig went over budget by billions of dollars, and after the federal support was capped, MA was on the hook for the rest. That project and its outstanding tab is the biggest reason why MA does not have funding to do other big things now, not political incompentence (I'm sorry--I know that's the easiest target for our frustration, but its the truth).

I think the political muscle everyone is REALLY talking about, is the political muscle at the federal level to convince a majority of the Senate (the vast majority of whom do not represent states were urban rail transit is a viable option) and a majority of the House (the vast majority of whom represent districts where urban rail transit is not a viable option) that we should be spending a much greater share of federal tax dollars expanding urban rail service in the few places where it makes sense (NY, Chi, SF, Boston, Philly, DC).
 
I think the political muscle everyone is REALLY talking about, is the political muscle at the federal level to convince a majority of the Senate (the vast majority of whom do not represent states were urban rail transit is a viable option) and a majority of the House (the vast majority of whom represent districts where urban rail transit is not a viable option) that we should be spending a much greater share of federal tax dollars expanding urban rail service in the few places where it makes sense (NY, Chi, SF, Boston, Philly, DC).
That is exactly what I'm talking about. And incidentally, I think we can get by with less than $10 billion. I just through that out there to illustrate the point that large amounts of money can be found when the Feds are interested enough.
 

Back
Top