General Infrastructure

TheRifleman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, alternative facts.

Pepsi & Coke are not owned by the same company.
 
Has anyone else heard the plan to close off access from Charles River Road in Watertown from the Watertown Square intersection? I just heard of this tonight.
 
Yes that is one proposal as part of the MassDOT Arsenal Street corridor study. It would take one leg out of that complicated intersection, which would allow them to eliminate a signal phase, giving more time to all the others.
 
For the railroad people out there:

My office overlooks (and is well within earshot) of the grand junction RR in cambridge. Is it just me, or has utilization of GC RR increased recently? Both mornings and afternoons, there seem to be several more trains than there had been over the past few years. A mix of MBTA equipment shuttling...gravel transport...the usual produce run...

Maybe I am crazy...but if someone's got the stats: am i correct in perceiving that I am hearing that whistle blaring a lot more than usual?
 
matredsoxfan said:
Has anyone else heard the plan to close off access from Charles River Road in Watertown from the Watertown Square intersection? I just heard of this tonight.
Click to expand...

That is very interesting. What would they change? Dead-end the road? Tear up part of it for park land?
 
cden4 said:
Check out slide 24 here. They would make the western end of it one-way eastbound, fed by Riverside Street. The part of the road between Riverside Street and Watertown Square would be turned into parkland. Westbound traffic would be forced to turn right onto Wheeler Ln, I believe.
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/ArsenalStreet/MtngPres_3217.PDF

Here's the project site:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/plan...ies/ArsenalStreetCorridorStudy/Documents.aspx
Click to expand...

I had never seen this before. Thanks for posting! Some comments:

"Identify if 5’ bike lanes may be acceptable to town in locations where travel lanes could be reduced to 10.9"
On such a high volume street, 4.5ft bike lanes are laughable. The vulnerable users need as much separation as possible. The fact that about 2" less than 11ft for the travel lanes might be a sticking point for the town......

I find it funny that one "alternative" is to simply refresh the markings. Routine maintenance shouldn't be a recommendation as it probably happened while they were studying the corridor.

On slide 24, closing that road somehow didn't lead to much change in the footprint of the intersection. Still two 6 lane crossings. The FDW for those will make pedestrian intervals have a huge impact on the vehicular efficiency of the intersection. At a minimum they really should consider crossing islands.

And I love that proposed "cyclist kill zone" where cars from Arsenal St onto N Beacon St have 100-200 ft to mow them down as they weave to stay on Arsenal St...
 
On my drive to Hartford this morning the 128/I-95 interchange was all screwed up. They have moved traffic to the new exit ramp (just west of the existing). Gotta hand it to MassDOT and the contractors, didn't waste anytime with getting that thing up and running
 
CBCArch61 said:
On my drive to Hartford this morning the 128/I-95 interchange was all screwed up. They have moved traffic to the new exit ramp (just west of the existing). Gotta hand it to MassDOT and the contractors, didn't waste anytime with getting that thing up and running
Click to expand...

Is this praise or warning?
 
Arlington said:
Is this praise or warning?
Click to expand...

Little bit of both? haha The warning would be for anyone on the Pike to be aware of the traffic change. Praise for getting the ramp online quickly, especially when you compare it to other MA highway projects currently underway
 
Big Apple to Berkshires by rail? Mass. lawmakers want to study returning train service

Lawmakers included in the new state budget a provision to have the Department of Transportation establish a working group to “identify and evaluate the economic and cultural benefits and political, legal or logistical challenges to the Berkshire and western Massachusetts regions” of seasonal weekend train service between Pittsfield and New York City.

Such a service would be modeled on the seasonal weekend CapeFlyer service, which shuttles passengers between Boston and Barnstable during summer weekends. The working group would be required to contact New York officials in an effort to collaborate, and to submit a report to the Legislature by next March.

....Reconnecting scenic western Massachusetts to the nation’s largest city is not a new idea, even in recent years. In 2010, the Housatonic Railroad Company, which operates freight service through Connecticut and the Berkshires, optimistically projected about 2 million annual fares if daily, year-round service resumed.

The Berkshire Regional Planning Commission also studied the idea earlier this decade, getting to the point of identifying potential station locations. And in early 2015, the state finalized the purchase of nearly 40 miles of rail between Pittsfield and the state’s southwestern border, seen as a potential precursor to establishing new passenger service to New York through Connecticut.

But in the time since, Hinds said, Connecticut’s government has been mostly uninterested in helping establish a north-south route. Hinds thinks Massachusetts and New York could work together to establish a different route that bypasses Connecticut, instead heading west toward Albany before cutting south to the city. The legislation would not require MassDOT to consider this route exclusively.
Click to expand...


https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...ain-service/LAgb14OA0od5CdOHjMA6iI/story.html
 
Problem with going west on the B&A and then turning south is that the junction with the Hudson Line points west, so they'd either need to change ends or build a full wye.
 
Running in reverse isn't a big issue. Amtrak's Keystone Service, Downeaster, and [New Haven-Springfield] Shuttle all run in reverse using cab cars or a second locomotive.
 
This comes up a lot: Should motorized vehicles get priority on roads because "they pay for it"

The Tax Foundation says that fees on (motorized) vehicles pay between 12% and 76% of the cost of State and Local Road spending, With the Median State falling at about 49% (eyeballed average of #24 and #26)

Massachusetts pays 56% of State & Local road spending from user fees, meaning that 44% comes from things like property tax (and implying that "fair" transportation spending would be of a kind that placed about equal weight on maximizing property values (mobility per $ or per sq ft) rather than which maximized SOV movement).

 
Arlington said:
Massachusetts pays 56% of State & Local road spending from user fees, meaning that 44% comes from things like property tax (and implying that "fair" transportation spending would be of a kind that placed about equal weight on maximizing property values (mobility per $ or per sq ft) rather than which maximized SOV movement).
Click to expand...

Interesting graphic, but of that 44%, how much comes from people who drive for all of their travel? In those cases, investing in SOV flow and investing in property values would be largely the same.
 
Equilibria said:
Interesting graphic, but of that 44%, how much comes from people who drive for all of their travel? In those cases, investing in SOV flow and investing in property values would be largely the same.
Click to expand...

You seem to be treating all real estate as if it were a suburban owner-occupied house. In the core, the taxpayer is not "the homeowner."

If you want to picture a "who" that pays, you still endup with either an inanimate building or, its owner, which is likely to be a REIT or non-residentt, or an employer trying to maximize access to the talent pool/labor market. In that core (essentially where MBTA "double-digit" buses run), what's demanded is pure "access" and pure "mobility" and does not begin with "I already own this car..."
 
Arlington said:
You seem to be treating all real estate as if it were a suburban owner-occupied house. In the core, the taxpayer is not "the homeowner."

If you want to picture a "who" that pays, you still endup with either an inanimate building or, its owner, which is likely to be a REIT or non-residentt, or an employer trying to maximize access to the talent pool/labor market. In that core (essentially where MBTA "double-digit" buses run), what's demanded is pure "access" and pure "mobility" and does not begin with "I already own this car..."
Click to expand...

Okay, so if it's a business owner or non-occupant, how does that change the calculus? If there's no transit, they'd want better roads too. Your argument is that transportation spending should maximize property values, but congestion and poor auto mobility reduce those outside of the MBTA service area. You also limit your argument to that area, but you're citing a statewide metric.

In any case, highways and transit receive approximately equal shares of Mass. transportation spending:

http://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=dea0a851b5dd4285a3bf985c8d91e6e0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top