Elevated Rail: Boston and Beyond

[tocoto]

I like the idea of trains using the ROW of existing highways...seems like an idea Boston should copy from Chicago,

 

[Matthew]

Or BART. Or even Paris. The main problem with doing this is that it hurts pedestrian accessibility. Who wants to cross a highway? Also, a lot of times it is used to justify highway expansion. "Sure we'll add rapid transit. But we're gonna need another lane."

 

[Shepard]

Not sure how useful this is in Boston. 93 North has the Orange Line, South has the Red Line, Mass Pike has the Worcester Line and and relatively aligned Riverside Line. A Red Line extension up Route 2 to Lexington would be better off cut-and-covering the Minuteman Trail. The only place where I really see this working would be using the Northeast Expressway ROW in Chelsea - but running as light rail under the expressway, not on it (not sure if there have ever been proposals like that).

 

[Ron Newman]

Suggestions that the Red Line be extended west along Route 2 have never made much sense to me, as this is a very low-density residential area. Not to mention the long steep hill climb.

 

[HenryAlan]

Not sure how useful this is in Boston. 93 North has the Orange Line, South has the Red Line, Mass Pike has the Worcester Line and and relatively aligned Riverside Line. A Red Line extension up Route 2 to Lexington would be better off cut-and-covering the Minuteman Trail. The only place where I really see this working would be using the Northeast Expressway ROW in Chelsea - but running as light rail under the expressway, not on it (not sure if there have ever been proposals like that).

No, we don't have too many applications for the idea, but there are some short stretches where it could be useful. Where the Orange Line descends underground just after Back Bay, you could have a second branch rise up above the Pike, then follow it as far as Fort Point, then snake it's way into the Seaport. Longer term, such an extension could find it's way to the airport if there were ever money for another tunnel.

 

[whighlander]

Suggestions that the Red Line be extended west along Route 2 have never made much sense to me, as this is a very low-density residential area. Not to mention the long steep hill climb.

Ron -- not for a place to which people take the bus from their houses -- such as the Lexpress and whatever the Arlington and Waltham equivalents are called
There is more than enough density for 3 stops up Rt-2 that are residential and then 2 stops from Walham Street that are business

Hayden Avenue has several million sq ft of development along it one block from the Rt-2 ROW including the Shire Campus at the corner with Rt-128

But the key to any Red Line extension to the NW has to be an Uber-Alewife on Rt-128 with about 3,000 parking spaces for cars and a few hundred for bikes

 

[CSTH]

But the key to any Red Line extension to the NW has to be an Uber-Alewife on Rt-128 with about 3,000 parking spaces for cars and a few hundred for bikes

I've always thought the same. Would be particularly strong at the end of Rt-3, combined with gradually creating a walkable urban node out of the Middlesex Turnpike area, with a reinvented Burlington Mall at its nucleus

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Not sure how useful this is in Boston. 93 North has the Orange Line, South has the Red Line, Mass Pike has the Worcester Line and and relatively aligned Riverside Line. A Red Line extension up Route 2 to Lexington would be better off cut-and-covering the Minuteman Trail. The only place where I really see this working would be using the Northeast Expressway ROW in Chelsea - but running as light rail under the expressway, not on it (not sure if there have ever been proposals like that).

The Worcester Line sort of does this. Unfortunately there isn't quite enough space to return it to its pre-1965 4-track layout and bring back the old MTA proposal for a rapid transit line to Riverside on half of it. It would take some retooling to even get 3-track passing sidings west of Everett St. Too bad, because that alignment would've screamed for a "relocated A-line" branching to H2O Square from Newton Corner where the street-running would be a Heath St.-like half-mile. As is, though, "Indigo Line'ing" it with dense headways and infill stops makes a lot of sense.


Only other place I can think of is a new North-South connection--commuter rail, single-track--shoehorned next to 128 from Riverside to Route 20 where "Indigo'ed" Worcester and Fitchburg Lines can pingback each other through the inner 'burbs and serve the 128 redevelopment there with an intermediate stop at the redeveloped Polaroid facility. Plus a less-congested, higher-capacity Worcester-North Station turnout than going through Cambridge. An option if the N-S Link never gets built but they need to cannibalize the Grand Junction for the Urban Ring. It's like 1.5 miles, grade separated, there's only 3 or 4 houses abutting the whole northbound side of the highway for your easy-to-defeat NIMBY resistance, and plowing above/below the maze of Pike ramps is negotiable if combined with a much-needed reconfiguration of that interchange for high-speed tolling (current configuration is extreme overkill ramp space if there are no longer any tollbooth queues to buffer around).

But I think EIS'ing next to Stony Brook Reservoir is going to be a real bitch, so no way this goes on the table unless N-S is a definite no-go and GJ-to-UR is a definite go-go.

 

[cozzyd]

I think HSR alignments inside highways might work in some places. And also effective advertising (having a 150mph train go past you on the freeway would certainly make you wanna take it).

 

[whighlander]

I think HSR alignments inside highways might work in some places. And also effective advertising (having a 150mph train go past you on the freeway would certainly make you wanna take it).

Cozz -- the Red Line from Quincy runs alongside the I-93 SE Expressway. During the typical morning rush hour the train is much faster than the traffic -- yet there are lots of people still driving

Highspeed Rail between cities doesn't directly compete with people driving it competes with people flying

The people who are driving do so because:
1) they need the car after they get to the other city,
2) they are not going to the center of the other city
3) or they are making intermediate stops, etc.

 

[Shepard]

I think HSR alignments inside highways might work in some places. And also effective advertising (having a 150mph train go past you on the freeway would certainly make you wanna take it).

For example, a possible I91-I84 alignment for a new inland HSR between NYC and Bos. That's a possibility on the table, as far as I know (?)

 

[Matthew]

More feasible is the possibility of using the median of I-95 to straighten out portions of the Shore Line road, particularly around New London. Alon wrote a nice article about this proposal.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

The people who are driving do so because:
1) they need the car after they get to the other city,
2) they are not going to the center of the other city
3) or they are making intermediate stops, etc.

4) there's a lack of dense development centered on transit options due to crappy regulations and the state's ineffectiveness at allowing/pushing TOD.

 

[whighlander]

4) there's a lack of dense development centered on transit options due to crappy regulations and the state's ineffectiveness at allowing/pushing TOD.

Urb -- not to belabor the point -- BUT -- People like driving -- as it offers a freedom of action not possible with rails and schedules

That's why as soon as they could drive with a reasonable prospect of arriving hale and hearty -- train travel started to decline {e.g. South Station 38 million served back in 1913 } -- far fewer today

Note that this was far before there were:
1) loose, low density suburbs
2) air transit as an option
3) any really well designed highways

No amount of wishful thinking or fancy clusters of words (e.g. Transit Oriented Development) and even more obscure acronyms is going to change that fact of human behavior

 

[Matthew]

Public transit started to fall off sharply in the 1950s, right around the time that massive government subsidized highways started appearing, and also around the time that Federally guaranteed, subsidized mortgages were popularized.

After 50 years of the automobile experiment, I think people are pretty tired of it. In an ideal world, a car is freedom. In the real world, a car means sitting in traffic congestion and hunting for parking spots. There are some trips for which a car is the best vehicle, and the world is much better off with the internal combustion engine than without. But within cities, personal cars are almost always more trouble than they're worth, especially when compared with frequent (under 10 min headway) rapid transit.

 

[Kahta]

After 50 years of the automobile experiment, I think people are pretty tired of it. In an ideal world, a car is freedom. In the real world, a car means sitting in traffic congestion and hunting for parking spots. There are some trips for which a car is the best vehicle, and the world is much better off with the internal combustion engine than without. But within cities, personal cars are almost always more trouble than they're worth, especially when compared with frequent (under 10 min headway) rapid transit.

So apart from Boston and NY (the places you described), would you agree that cars are still a viable option?

 

[whighlander]

Public transit started to fall off sharply in the 1950s, right around the time that massive government subsidized highways started appearing, and also around the time that Federally guaranteed, subsidized mortgages were popularized.

After 50 years of the automobile experiment, I think people are pretty tired of it. In an ideal world, a car is freedom. In the real world, a car means sitting in traffic congestion and hunting for parking spots. There are some trips for which a car is the best vehicle, and the world is much better off with the internal combustion engine than without. But within cities, personal cars are almost always more trouble than they're worth, especially when compared with frequent (under 10 min headway) rapid transit.

Mathew -- even in Metropolitan London more people drive than take the Underground -- you are living in some-sort of Utopian or Distopian fantasy land

Take the crowed subway platforms, crowded commuter rail trains - that's pretty much a wash with the traffic on the highways

On the commuter rail you can work on some project if there is room to spread-out or you've got a first class ticket -- in your car stuck in traffic -- ? Getting to the commuter rail or subway station may require driving on the outer-lower density end as well as looking for parking -- and walking some distance on the inner-higher density end -- I call that a toss-up with parking in-town and walking to the office

The primary reasons that people prefer driving
1) you are not tied to the schedule and the inevitable delays
2) if you are going to be stuck waiting -- its better to do it in your own warm or cool car than some remote CR station platform or even a typically short-headway urban subway platform
3) you can easily stop for something along the way -- not always on the main line or whatever line

 

[Matthew]

Hmm? What are you talking about, whighlander? According to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/travel-in-london-report-3.pdf

2009: 41% transit, 21% walk, 2% cycle vs 37% private transport.

Non-car commuting = 64% vs private transport = 37%, in London.

Parking in town is not an option for many people. There simply isn't enough space to store that many cars. This is one of the lessons we've supposedly learned over the past fifty years -- it's impossible to build enough city parking lots to meet all the demand, without destroying the city. Parking lots, even garages, just take up too much room.

Non-car mode shares from ACS 2009:

NYC: 65.8% (Manhattan itself is much higher, I remember)
Boston: 50.8% (Notably, we have the most walking%)
DC: 50.4%
SF: 45.1%

After that it drops off. Although, public transit is still a very good option for Philly, Chicago and Seattle.

So, Kahta, it really depends where you're commuting. I don't have the statistics with me, but I bet that the "L" and Metra have a really high share of commuters going to the Loop, even if that's countered by many crosstown drivers.

Update:

"Driving alone" shares from ACS 2009:
NYC: 23.5%
Boston: 37%
DC: 36.5%
SF: 38.9%

What really strikes me about Boston is that despite the horribleness of the MBTA, people continue to use it in large and growing numbers.

 

[whighlander]

Hmm? What are you talking about, whighlander? According to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/travel-in-london-report-3.pdf

2009: 41% transit, 21% walk, 2% cycle vs 37% private transport.

Non-car commuting = 64% vs private transport = 37%, in London.

Parking in town is not an option for many people. There simply isn't enough space to store that many cars. This is one of the lessons we've supposedly learned over the past fifty years -- it's impossible to build enough city parking lots to meet all the demand, without destroying the city. Parking lots, even garages, just take up too much room.

Non-car mode shares from ACS 2009:

NYC: 65.8% (Manhattan itself is much higher, I remember)
Boston: 50.8% (Notably, we have the most walking%)
DC: 50.4%
SF: 45.1%

After that it drops off. Although, public transit is still a very good option for Philly, Chicago and Seattle.

So, Kahta, it really depends where you're commuting. I don't have the statistics with me, but I bet that the "L" and Metra have a really high share of commuters going to the Loop, even if that's countered by many crosstown drivers.

Update:

"Driving alone" shares from ACS 2009:
NYC: 23.5%
Boston: 37%
DC: 36.5%
SF: 38.9%

What really strikes me about Boston is that despite the horribleness of the MBTA, people continue to use it in large and growing numbers.

Mathew -- non-car versus car is not the comparison of interest

We want to compare those who drive versus those taking the T or equivalent - -walking, biking, being carried in a sedan chair or peddled in a rickshaw don't count

Nor does taking the bus running on the public roads exclusively -- as what we are ultimately looking at are roads versus tunnels, protected ROWs at grade or elevated structures -- places where cars can't go

My argument is not that there are not people taking the T, MTA, Underground, U-Bahn, etc -- but that in a modern major metropolitan area (I'll hazard the statement "any metropolitan area") more people arrive at work driving than taking the rail-based transit

So you need to rework the statistics cutting out the walkers, bikers and others in the "non-car" category who are not taking rail-based transit -- and you need to include the places of business outside the CBD such as Shire Pharmaceutical on Hayden Avenue in Lexington just off Rt-128

 

[Matthew]

I argue that it is the comparison of interest, because public transit and walking are complementary modes. On the other hand, automobile infrastructure is almost invariably detrimental to walking and certain types of transit (mixed ROWs). Remember, we just spent $22 billion because people hated walking under the "Green Monster" (and also it was falling apart).

It is irrelevant to me if the transit is provided by steel wheels or rubber tires.

I also don't care -- for this purpose of discussion -- about places out on Rt 128. I said "within cities" and Rt 128 is clearly not inside a city. Cars will always be best for sprawl-to-sprawl transportation.