General Infrastructure

fattony said:
For one thing, you don't need state police to wave at people to "move along." They should be paying teenagers or 20-somethings $10 per hour and have a whole army of them moving traffic and giving directions to travelers.
Click to expand...

People routinely ignore the large shouty men with a gun, badge and the legal authority to put them in jail. I'm sure a burger flipper will certainly get people to move along quickly and efficiently.
 
statler said:
People routinely ignore the large shouty men with a gun, badge and the legal authority to put them in jail. I'm sure a burger flipper will certainly get people to move along quickly and efficiently.
Click to expand...

Actually people usually do what they are told. They don't do what they are supposed to do when nobody is looking - like stop at stop signs or drive 25 mph or not park at the airport - but when someone is physically directing them, it is hard for all but the most sociopathic to ignore it.

I bet you get 80% compliance using just the burger flippers and even better compliance if you keep one cop around who shows up with lights flashing to write a couple tickets per day.
 
I'm pretty sure SFO uses non-police officers at arrivals and departures to keep things moving (there are significantly less buses and more cars), and they're pretty strict about it. You can't sit for more than ~1 minute without them flagging you to go back around.
 
fattony said:
For one thing, you don't need state police to wave at people to "move along." They should be paying teenagers or 20-somethings $10 per hour and have a whole army of them moving traffic and giving directions to travelers.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But sadly, there were airport workers attempting to direct traffic. Either they choose not to or were not able to get drivers to move along.
 
statler said:
People routinely ignore the large shouty men with a gun, badge and the legal authority to put them in jail. I'm sure a burger flipper will certainly get people to move along quickly and efficiently.
Click to expand...

Well then what is there to lose, according to your own post?

It would save the Commonwealth tens of millions of dollars each year. Down here in Maryland we have flag guys. Using cops for that kind of thing is ridiculous. Massachusetts has the smartest minds on earth but loses ground to other states because of the unionized police/state trooper extortionists. No one has more respect for them in their APPROPRIATE role of crime fighting but the side hustle tax theft is plain wrong. In the words of Bill Belichick “Do your job”.

Target #2 for the Commonwealth would be to end the town/city administration for county government. That would save hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

With the cost efficiency and savings of those 2 changes, we could build the NSRL, connect Blue and Red, build a major league soccer stadium, expand South Station and cure every cancer known to mankind.

(Ok , that was a bit of hyperbole- - the soccer stadium will never happen)
 
Last edited:
This is what transportation leadership looks like:

SF's newly (re-) elected mayor, London Breed: https://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1045054989222084608
I’m tired of waiting for months, and often years, for important Vision Zero safety improvements. I’ll be personally reviewing pending proposals on high-injury corridors and directing the SFMTA to move quicker on these projects, starting with Valencia St.
Click to expand...

And the Chron piece she links to:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Breed-Speed-up-safety-improvements-for-13257823.php

Although [Valencia] street currently has a painted bike lane, cyclists and pedestrians say it’s often clogged with ride-hail cars or other vehicles dropping off people and goods. For years, members of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition have urged the city to put up a barrier to separate the lane from traffic — a plan that seems to have broad support but has been stalled by a bureaucratic process that coalition members say is too onerous.

Now Breed has told the agency to get moving. She’s asked SFMTA staff to create a protected bikeway along Valencia Street between Market and 15th streets within the next four months, by shifting the bike path closer to the curb and girding it with a parking lane.
...
Breed has also directed the agency to reaffirm its commitment to creating a rapid-response team to assess the scene of a serious traffic collision within 24 hours, and recommend possible street improvements. And she’s asked MTA officials to evaluate their process for funding and delivering safety projects, which are essential to the city’s “Vision Zero” goal of eliminating traffic deaths by 2024.

“I refuse to accept that these public safety projects are dragging on for months and years,” the mayor said Tuesday. “Our streets should be safe for everyone, whether you are a child walking to school or a senior running errands in your neighborhood.”

She described the protected bike lanes on Valencia Street and the rapid-response team to collisions as “an important first step” to expedite safety throughout the city.
Click to expand...

(Sorry if this doesn't belong here—mods, move it if it should be elsewhere.)
 
By that she means that she will kill projects faster than the usual process wherein car-owned rich people complain to their supervisors, who then kill the project.
 
The EGE said:
By that she means that she will kill projects faster than the usual process wherein car-owned rich people complain to their supervisors, who then kill the project.
Click to expand...

I didn't get that vibe from her, especially considering her record.
 
jklo said:
I'd be happier if they were doing the Newton stops instead but OK.
Click to expand...

It's needed for schedule-keeping. Worcester's layout amidst the busy freight yards makes the T's single-track layover + platform turnout a P.I.T.A. for turning around a train, such that when rush slots are closely packed they frequently chew up all their allotted time getting clear of the single platform before the next train is due. Terminal stop needs to allow for 2 trains to occupy the platforms so they aren't under so much time crunch. It's worth another peak train or two crammed into a recalibrated current schedule, and is an ironclad requirement for future T + Amtrak increases if the Framingham-inbound infrastructure got gradually brought up-to-snuff.

Since the space for the island and stairs/elevator already exist on the footprint of the old pre-1974 center island it's relatively straightforward construction that won't require much trackwork in that very sensitive traffic nerve center to accomplish. It's essentially shovel-ready which none of the non-ADA inner stops lacking design work yet are. Plus station owner Worcester Redev. Authority is kicking in shared costs for all non- track-level construction like the egresses so T has a fairly short list of actual chores to fund.

As bucket list items go, this is a no-brainer. Solves problems both immediate and long-term at cheap state cost share and shovel-ready design.


IIRC, scope of work was also supposed to include extending the current truncated side platform into a full-regulation 800-foot full-high so 6+ car sets no longer require boarding the last couple cars from the old 1974-2001 low platform. They were prepping the derelict "Amshack" station house on that low platform for demolition this winter to clear space for the future reconfig.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
As bucket list items go, this is a no-brainer. Solves problems both immediate and long-term at cheap state cost share and shovel-ready design.
Click to expand...

What I find weird about this is that it's a $4 million design budget for a $7-8 million dollar project. Typically design is 10% of the construction cost. For something that is shovel-ready and cheap to build, why on Earth is it so expensive to design?
 
sm89 said:
What I find weird about this is that it's a $4 million design budget for a $7-8 million dollar project. Typically design is 10% of the construction cost. For something that is shovel-ready and cheap to build, why on Earth is it so expensive to design?
Click to expand...


I know use of the second track is a contentious issue with CSX because that's their track ownership and their dispatcher who controls it. Division post between T/CSX control of the mainline is east of the station across from the freight yard. Beyond there T control only stretches onto the single-track station turnout, while all other tracks are CSX's...same ROW, 2 different side-by-side owners by track.


They have to install new interlocking switches to enable use of the second track, and square dispatch control agreements. Not expensive per se, but it is an extremely sensitive traffic nerve center and CSX will be losing a parking track in the deal. So the grant may be stuffed with extra freight quid pros to give them more crossovers further east or west for their own traffic flex.
 
Hmm, I did notice that they are budgeting 13-14 minutes between Worcester and Grafton for the most part, and thinking that was kind of excessive. If they can save a couple mins, I'm sure that would be appreciated.

I do think what they really want though is a better PM H2H slot, and if you could swing it a better AM slot too. Don't know if that is possible.
 
Is this center platform the one needed for the imaginary train to Providence?
 
jklo said:
Hmm, I did notice that they are budgeting 13-14 minutes between Worcester and Grafton for the most part, and thinking that was kind of excessive. If they can save a couple mins, I'm sure that would be appreciated.

I do think what they really want though is a better PM H2H slot, and if you could swing it a better AM slot too. Don't know if that is possible.
Click to expand...


Yeah...that's the Worcester constriction's signature exerting itself on the schedule padding. It's not necessarily going to close big with the second platform because freight interference is also a major factor, but they'll have the option to run close and cannibalize the padding when they're running late, and can pinpoint a couple overcrowded runs for doubling-up in close succession to ease the crush. So those are significant wins right off the bat.



Those are immediate payoffs. Outright service increases are contingent on improved infrastructure inbound and a bigger Worcester layover yard, but the second platform can absorb all those enhancements when the time comes.
 
Does anyone know why the Rt 99 / Alford St Bridge needs a deck replacement already? The thing is was just completely redone a few years ago and now it is being completely torn up again.
 
Tontine Crescent:

30536870247_0193d04e2f_h.jpg
[/url]
 
This is fine but it still feels like a cut rate version of something NYC did five years ago. Same with the steps to nowhere.

Oh well, an improvement is an improvement even if it isn't the most original idea.
 
Are there plans to make this permanent - and look/feel permanent?

Stat, I don't see this as any less than the NYC interventions. If anything, actually, I think this goes further by truly creating an entirely new pedestrian plaza. Much of what NYC has done in the last few years has been restoring a semblance of balance back to pedestrians, but in ways that still generally feel hemmed-in and unpleasant (IMO - with exceptions).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top