General Infrastructure

dwash59 said:
Does anyone else face the issue as a cyclist that they cannot trigger the green light at certain intersections? Even worse is when a car pulls up behind, but refuses to get close enough to me to trigger the signal so we can go.
Click to expand...

I heard that for a while the City had stopped installing bike detection loops at intersections, but they are doing it again now.

On a related note, I'm sick of being forced to follow "car rules" when the signals do not accommodate bikes. "Adding extra clearance time would make the intersections less efficient; besides the MUTCD says nothing about providing clearance time for bikes". When I come across the BU Bridge I have a green light, but by the time I make it across 4 travel lanes, 2 railroad tracks, and then 4 more travel lanes, the signal can turn yellow then red and the cross traffic can get a green light and hit me. wtf.
 
I like the way Cambridge does it, they give pedestrians a couple of seconds to enter the crosswalk before turning drivers get a green light. It's much easier to see a pedestrian in the crosswalk then it is to see a pedestrian in a dark street corner.
 
That's a Lead Pedestrian Interval (LPI). Boston has a few of these and is adding more to some prominent intersections that currently have exclusive ped phases.

cden4 said:
The other most frustrating thing is when there is a concurrent walk but then it doesn't last as long as the green that it is concurrent with. So you're left with somewhere between 5 and 30 seconds where it says don't walk but the signal is still green. When I report these to 311, I often get the response that the allocated time is adequate to cross the street. That's not the point! There is NO reason why the walk signal shouldn't be as long as the green. It needlessly inconveniences and confuses pedestrians and basically just communicates "we don't care about you." Which clearly, they don't.
Click to expand...
This happens at intersections where the green time for vehicles has a minimum time and a maximum time that it can be extended to if there is a continuous volume. The minimum time equals the walk and flashing don't walk (which is predetermined based on crossing distance). If there are still vehicles being detected the green time will extend but there isn't a way to extend the ped time.
It is confusing to peds and leads to jaywalking because peds assume the signal isn't timed properly for them. Most cities with high volumes of peds don't use min/max and just use a predetermined green time based on time of day and match the ped time to that. This also helps with coordinating intersections for vehicles.
 
It does indeed seem like most other major US cities (a) don't have pushbuttons and (b) have fixed length cycles that automatically give concurrent walk signals that last as long as each phase. It's such a treat as a pedestrian. I just got back from Chicago recently, and they definitely do this. I don't know why Boston insists on being different.
 
I just came back from 2 weeks in Melbourne, Australia and here are some observations:

Metro population is about 4.5 million, comparable to metro Boston.
Suburban trains are clean, fast, and efficient. The line I used ran every 20 minutes on DMU service, like the T wants to implement on the Indigo Line.
All trains and trams have a Proof of payment system that works like a charm.
All center-city trams are FREE within a specified zone that allows you to hop off and hop on with amazing ease.
Trams have ALL NIGHT weekend service.
Almost every downtown street has a tram line! I didn't see any accidents, but I did hear that cars do sometimes run into trams in the street. I still don't see why the Green E Line has such a problem in that respect.
Tram stations and streets were an "integrated" system of bikes, pedestrians, trams, and cars. In my opinion, the trams, pedestrians, and bikes had infrastructure priority over the car systems. (It took us twice as long to take a taxi to a business meeting vs. the tram.)
The two main train stations. (Flinders and Southern Cross) were architecturally stunning with shops, restaurants, and all kinds of conveniences for travelers.
They are building their version of the North-South Train link, called the Metro Tunnel.
http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/


I took a restaurant tram that traveled the streets of Melbourne in historic tram cars with amazing white table cloth service. This was the absolute highlight for a train fan like me.
http://tramrestaurant.com.au/

The economy seemed to be booming and there were cranes and construction everywhere.

So my question to this forum:

Why not us? What can we do to improve our "Third-World" transit infrastructure? I can't believe it's all about taxes. Does Melbourne tax their citizens to extreme? I really don't know, but we certainly seem to be doing something wrong here in Boston. Do we need to change our car-centric mentality to demand a first-class transportation infrastructure?
 
Taxes are far higher in Australia. Top tax rate of 45%, GST of 10%, etc. The US has some of the lowest tax rates in the first world, but people are convinced that the only way to make the country better is to keep lowering them. We'll never make infrastructure improvements of any significance until (if ever) that changes and/or we spend less on medical and military expenses.
 
Remember that Melbourne doesn't really get winters, and that counts for a lot. It's also a younger and more grid-oriented city.

That being said, I have a good friend from Melbourne who's also a transit planner (he would be all over this site if he was from here). He's traveled extensively around the US, and he says Boston and Seattle are the American cities that most feel like Melbourne to him. Granted, he's never been here when it was below freezing.

Last time he was in Boston (last fall) we walked around the Seaport, and he was (to my surprise) impressed! Apparently Melbourne has their own Seaport ("Melbourne Docklands"): a former port area on the water directly next to the CBD that is being converted into a new mixed-use neighborhood. He thought that Boston is doing a better job with our Seaport of creating a dense, active, walkable, urban neighborhood integrated into the city than Melbourne is doing with their Docklands.
 
Java King said:
I just came back from 2 weeks in Melbourne, Australia and here are some observations:

Metro population is about 4.5 million, comparable to metro Boston.
Suburban trains are clean, fast, and efficient. The line I used ran every 20 minutes on DMU service, like the T wants to implement on the Indigo Line.
All trains and trams have a Proof of payment system that works like a charm.
All center-city trams are FREE within a specified zone that allows you to hop off and hop on with amazing ease.
Trams have ALL NIGHT weekend service.
Almost every downtown street has a tram line! I didn't see any accidents, but I did hear that cars do sometimes run into trams in the street. I still don't see why the Green E Line has such a problem in that respect.
Tram stations and streets were an "integrated" system of bikes, pedestrians, trams, and cars. In my opinion, the trams, pedestrians, and bikes had infrastructure priority over the car systems. (It took us twice as long to take a taxi to a business meeting vs. the tram.)
The two main train stations. (Flinders and Southern Cross) were architecturally stunning with shops, restaurants, and all kinds of conveniences for travelers.
They are building their version of the North-South Train link, called the Metro Tunnel.
http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/


I took a restaurant tram that traveled the streets of Melbourne in historic tram cars with amazing white table cloth service. This was the absolute highlight for a train fan like me.
http://tramrestaurant.com.au/

The economy seemed to be booming and there were cranes and construction everywhere.

So my question to this forum:

Why not us? What can we do to improve our "Third-World" transit infrastructure? I can't believe it's all about taxes. Does Melbourne tax their citizens to extreme? I really don't know, but we certainly seem to be doing something wrong here in Boston. Do we need to change our car-centric mentality to demand a first-class transportation infrastructure?
Click to expand...

DO you want to see me cry? Because this is how you do it.
 
Schorschico said:
DO you want to see me cry? Because this is how you do it.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't want to make anyone cry! Keeping this thread focused on Boston area infrastructure, it looks like President Trump is trying to push his 1 Trillion Dollar Infrastructure Plan:

https://apple.news/Ad8cBTiiyQbyUeTa_kuhPwg

I'm extremely skeptical. However, the best thing we all can do on this forum is to continue to push for logical infrastructure improvements to our system. I think the recent outcry from people on this forum and the neighborhood around Auburndale Station "improvements" is EXACTLY the kind of pressure we all need to keep pushing for to make positive change. Thank goodness, the T dropped that half-baked station proposal. It's also good news to hear that the Mass. Democratic Convention endorsed the North-South Rail link as part of their platform. I'm hopeful but still very skeptical of our infrastructure plans and spending.
 
JumboBuc said:
Remember that Melbourne doesn't really get winters, and that counts for a lot. It's also a younger and more grid-oriented city.

That being said, I have a good friend from Melbourne who's also a transit planner (he would be all over this site if he was from here). He's traveled extensively around the US, and he says Boston and Seattle are the American cities that most feel like Melbourne to him. Granted, he's never been here when it was below freezing.

Last time he was in Boston (last fall) we walked around the Seaport, and he was (to my surprise) impressed! Apparently Melbourne has their own Seaport ("Melbourne Docklands"): a former port area on the water directly next to the CBD that is being converted into a new mixed-use neighborhood. He thought that Boston is doing a better job with our Seaport of creating a dense, active, walkable, urban neighborhood integrated into the city than Melbourne is doing with their Docklands.
Click to expand...

At the risk of going too off topic, yes I agree. We had several meetings with architecture and engineering firms in the Melbourne Docklands area. It did seem very "office park" and suburban, and certainly vastly more quiet compared to the CBD. We did have a nice lunch along the waterfront. However most of the restaurants seemed to cater to the office workers in the area. There were also a couple of cool bridges over the water that was about the size of the Fort Point Channel. The Melbourne Docklands had some really cool architecture and art, but for the most part, it was very suburban with too much open, dead, space.
 
Java King said:
I certainly don't want to make anyone cry! Keeping this thread focused on Boston area infrastructure, it looks like President Trump is trying to push his 1 Trillion Dollar Infrastructure Plan:

https://apple.news/Ad8cBTiiyQbyUeTa_kuhPwg

I'm extremely skeptical. However, the best thing we all can do on this forum is to continue to push for logical infrastructure improvements to our system. I think the recent outcry from people on this forum and the neighborhood around Auburndale Station "improvements" is EXACTLY the kind of pressure we all need to keep pushing for to make positive change. Thank goodness, the T dropped that half-baked station proposal. It's also good news to hear that the Mass. Democratic Convention endorsed the North-South Rail link as part of their platform. I'm hopeful but still very skeptical of our infrastructure plans and spending.
Click to expand...

The last thing I want is to this devolve into another political shitfest (oh please god no) but Trump's budget actually cuts infrastructure spending over the long run.

Trump's plan includes a $200 bn infrastructure initiative in the near-term, which largely comes in the form of tax incentives that subsidize private for-profit projects. This will thus "support $1 trillion" of spending that comes mostly from the private sector. But in 2021 the budget calls for a major permanent cut in Highway Trust Fund spending (these are federal dollars that go directly to fund needed projects, not tax incentives that support profitable private projects). So when you go out beyond 2023, the total change in infrastructure spending relative to what we have now planned actually goes into the negative.

This plan is not a good-faith attempt to put up more government money in order to repair and improve our infrastructure and keep everything in better shape in the future. It's a bait-and-switch.
 
Bait and Switch? Not so fast. Deficit spending under Obama put us in a terrible place. Its time for sensible spending. The Dems in this state think you can just spend spend spend and it will never catch up to us. Unfortunately, the millennial generation will be paying the price for the out of control deficit spending we've had in this country.
 
Deficit spending under every President in recent history put us in a terrible place. Republicans claim to be the party of small government yet they've never seen a corporate tax break or military spending project they didn't like.
 
The actual problem is that nobody willing to fund transportation adequately, D or R. Transportation use tax is pathetically low. You can call Obama's spending deficit spending, but it was still far lower than where it needs to be.
 
cden4 said:
Deficit spending under every President in recent history put us in a terrible place. Republicans claim to be the party of small government yet they've never seen a corporate tax break or military spending project they didn't like.
Click to expand...

republican-or-democrat.jpg


Not going to say anything more about this, just felt this needed to be said.
 
falcon42 said:
Bait and Switch? Not so fast. Deficit spending under Obama put us in a terrible place. Its time for sensible spending. The Dems in this state think you can just spend spend spend and it will never catch up to us. Unfortunately, the millennial generation will be paying the price for the out of control deficit spending we've had in this country.
Click to expand...

I say "bait-and-switch" because when the President was a candidate for the office, he ran on the platform of increasing infrastructure spending. It was a central part of his stump speech and he brought it up in the debates. He was going to be the one to buck the trend and invest in rebuilding our "crumbling roads, bridges, and airports". Even today, he and his administration are making much fanfare about his "$1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan". It totally flies under the radar that his actual budget plan calls for a decrease in infrastructure spending, not an increase.

Nothing I said had anything to do with "Obama", "Dems", "the millennial generation", "out of control deficit spending", "Republicans", or any of that stuff. I was commenting, in the "General Infrastructure" thread, about the general infrastructure budgeting plans of the current administration. I'm not going to address any of the content of the subsequent posts that followed mine, because this is not the appropriate forum for that.

This is why we can't have nice things. You cannot raise germane, relevant issues related to government or public policy in any way on this board without it devolving into petty political shit over the space of approximately one reply.
 
JumboBuc said:
I say "bait-and-switch" because when the President was a candidate for the office, he ran on the platform of increasing infrastructure spending. It was a central part of his stump speech and he brought it up in the debates. He was going to be the one to buck the trend and invest in rebuilding our "crumbling roads, bridges, and airports". Even today, he and his administration are making much fanfare about his "$1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan". It totally flies under the radar that his actual budget plan calls for a decrease in infrastructure spending, not an increase.

Nothing I said had anything to do with "Obama", "Dems", "the millennial generation", "out of control deficit spending", "Republicans", or any of that stuff. I was commenting, in the "General Infrastructure" thread, about the general infrastructure budgeting plans of the current administration. I'm not going to address any of the content of the subsequent posts that followed mine, because this is not the appropriate forum for that.

This is why we can't have nice things. You cannot raise germane, relevant issues related to government or public policy in any way on this board without it devolving into petty political shit over the space of approximately one reply.
Click to expand...


So you are pretty factually incorrect on your statements. Also, saying "bait and switch" is a pretty accusatory and biased statement, when you, nor anyone, knows all the facts yet.
 
^FFS

He ran on one thing and his budget proposes the opposite. This isn't even political. You can love the guy and still try to touch base with reality every so often.
 
Again see-- WormtownNative POST--
Free choice is an illusion--

Do you really believe you have a choice between Coke or Pepsi when the same group owns both companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top