Equal or Better: The Story of the Silver Line

Ron Newman said:
But why tunnel at all? If you have redundant streets, all going the same direction, make some of them for cars, others for transit only.
Click to expand...

Some car drivers would feel horribly, horribly oppressed by this, and act like whiny, singled-out little children about the whole thing.

Also, the leadership in Boston and MA in general doesn't have the ability to make things like that happen.
 
Ron Newman said:
But why tunnel at all? If you have redundant streets, all going the same direction, make some of them for cars, others for transit only.
Click to expand...

We'd have to have a whole other thread for the discussion on what makes a "redundant" street, but I'm pretty certain that no part of Washington Street qualifies for that.
 
I have to go with CBS (lol CBS). That would be true if there is redundancy for Washington Street. What other street really parallel Washington Street?

I have to tunneling is the only real option. Shutting down Washington Street will do more than just make a couple of car drivers whine.
 
Shawmut Ave, Harrison Ave, and Albany Street all parallel Washington Street. Move the car traffic to one or more of these, and reserve the narrowest part of Washington Street for transit only.
 
Good luck getting the cacophony of South End associations to ever agree to that.
 
This is simple, I think:

Washington: northbound traffic only from Dudley to Downtown, plus two-way light rail transit.

Shawmut: southbound traffic only (as is already the case) from Downtown to Dudley.
 
I guess that seems plausible. The area just to Dudley (I was thinking extending it beyond Dudley) does have Shawmut and Harrison. I don't really have a feel for traffic there. So I can imagine making Washington one way can work.
 
Shephard, that's probably the best bet for leaving Washington open to some traffic which leaving room for LRV.

ant, beyond Dudley in which direction? Continue down Wash to Egleston? Or bear onto Warren to Blue Hill Ave to serve Franklin Park and Mattapan? Washington St gets pretty narrow for a ways past Dudley, and Warren St pinches off in Grove Hall. It would probably be doable as a street car in both cases if street parking is tossed out. Blue Hill Ave should be able to easily support sequestered LRV once it gets there.

Of course, if it's gonna be a hypothetical street-car, they sure as hell had better give the trollies signal priorities, lest it go the way of the B & C line traffic light hell...
 
You can see here that Tremont Street looks to have been narrowed at some point (the brick on both sides). Columbus Ave must have been, too, since you look at the old photos of the parades down that street (and the Hassim photo?) and it's definitely wider or perhaps that's just artist perspective.

Washington Street must have been, too. Does it need to be widened to get BRT there? I wouldn't think so, it fit an elevated trolley, right? As everyone mentions, though, the problem is when you get past the Mass Pike.

I am gun-shy about tunnels, which is why I am not eager for them to build the final phase of the Silver Line. So expensive.

How about up Charles Street South?

Boston-20120415-00192.jpg
 
Also tunnels through the South End will cause tons of ground water problems.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Also tunnels through the South End will cause tons of ground water problems.
Click to expand...

Do you think? In decades past, sure, there was damage done due to ignorance of redeveloping filled land, but isn't it a simple design and permitting factor now? Same way you need HVAC, plumbing, electrical, the groundwater recharge is another box to be checked.
 
It can be mitigated, for sure, but it's a modern problem that has caused problems even very recently.
 
I think the idea of electric buses (trackless trolleys) should be explored again. The idea that the wires are "unsightly" is simply bunk. I will personally take anyone on a field trip to Cambridge or Watertown to see what they think of the wires there (but mainly how quiet and non-polluting the buses are). Sitting at a sidewalk cafe when the Silver Line comes roaring down the street and spewing diesel exhaust really adds to the ambiance.
 
Seemingly not a week went by when I was living by the trolleybuses in Cambridge when one didn't lose the connection to its catenary and die in the middle of a busy intersection, forcing a maintenance crew to be dispatched from the T with a long stick to get the circuit flowing again while a traffic jam built up in every direction around...

So yeah, don't get why these are seen as an acceptable substitute to light rail (which doesn't face that problem thanks to its fixed alignment).
 
Trolley buses are cool because they are quiet and they cut down on local pollution. Areas served by many bus lines with high asthma rates should consider them. But you are right, I too have seen them come off their wires many, many times.
 
It shouldn't require a maintenance crew. When I was visiting SF, I saw a trolleybus on Van Ness that looked pretty screwed: one pole had diverged on a branch while the bus stayed on the mainline. But it was moving again in a minute. The driver just got out and tugged on a pull-cord and moved the pole back into position.

Batteries would also help if they lose connection temporarily.
 
I remember Cambridge buses going off their tracks and the bus operators were always heavy enough to get it pulled down and back on track by themselves.

So, if we do it on Washington Street, we have to have a weight minimum requirement.
 
Aren't some (all?) Silver Line busses equipped to run on overhead wires? If they already have that capability let's just get those wires strung!
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Aren't some (all?) Silver Line busses equipped to run on overhead wires? If they already have that capability let's just get those wires strung!
Click to expand...

Not all of them but the ones running the waterfront are. I wonder if they studied putting wire up on Washington St.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Trolley buses are cool because they are quiet and they cut down on local pollution. Areas served by many bus lines with high asthma rates should consider them. But you are right, I too have seen them come off their wires many, many times.
Click to expand...

They do that in Cambridge because the overhead and switches are olllllllllllllllllld and years overdue for replacement. Some of that overhead and guidewire is probably approaching 50 years old and getting quite ragged. The switches probably haven't been done over in spots in 25 years, long past their rated lifespan. It is a (*sigh*...unfunded, of course) FY2016 line item to wholesale-replace the overhead, guide wires, and all past-lifespan switches. Once they do that you'll no longer see so many de-wires (esp. around Cambridge Common where they loop non-revenue between runs). That is not nearly, nearly as big a problem on the other 4 U.S. TT systems in San Fran, Seattle, Philly, and Dayton that actually give one-eighth a crap about the health of their networks.

As for Silver Line, the fixed guideway makes a big difference in addition to just having new infrastructure. The articulateds would probably be de-wire city if used in Cambridge. But that wouldn't be nearly a problem on Washington with dedicated bus lanes. Cambridge TT's don't even have continuous bus/bike striping on most routes outside of Huron Ave. Definitely not on Mass Ave. or Mt. Auburn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top