General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

JumboBuc said:
If the two foot retaining wall between the sidewalk and plaza were moved
Click to expand...

Seems like it would make the stairs there more awkward as you would have to fill in part of the plaza. At that point, you might want to fill in the whole plaza, if possible, and just eliminate the retaining wall.
 
DMUs were reportedly still on the table in an article I read recently, I thought I had posted this. I think we need to get out to 95 on every subway/dmu possible. Also having park and rides at the pike, 95, 93, and already having one at alewife and Quincy is a start. If you push out the lines toward the highways and build garages we should be able to take a substantial amount of cars out of the inner city.


The needham becoming green or using DMUs is an example. 95 can have an exit to a parking garage, and people ride the train in. DMU or orange out to Dedham and another garage is another example. A DMU out to Auburndale catches both 93 and 95 and would be another example of a great park and ride. Theres plenty of examples that I think we need to take serious.
 
Porter makes the same mistake that most modern transit stops (inexplicably?) make. They try to BE a place instead of existing WITHIN a space.
 
When you consider the total cost of ownership of the DMUs it is probably way cheaper just to run the CR trainsets we have. Operating costs are higher, but everything else about ownership is lower: acquisition, storage, parts, shops.

Rather than commit to a 20 year procurement-and-operation cycle, how about a 3 year pilot of CR service on 20 or 30 minute clockface midday and 30 to 1hr on weekends.
 
davem said:
Porter makes the same mistake that most modern transit stops (inexplicably?) make. They try to BE a place instead of existing WITHIN a space.
Click to expand...
The plaza also suffers from apparently being designed explicitly so people can't walk through it easily, but also not being nearly anything worth going to on its own. (At least it provides a nice place for a Hubway)

Looks like the sort of thing that was designed so they could say "look at this public space" while not actually creating any space the public would actually use.
 
EricS said:
That DMU article was unfortunately a year old (April 2016).
Click to expand...

Im not talking about any article posted here. Someone was asked at a press conference or something like that about the masterplan and she was asked about DMU's and she said they're not in the official budget but they are still looking at ways to get them into the picture.
 
I can tell you this is widely regarded as a joke here. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE taking the ferries. But they only help the people who have moved to the new residential developments built along the rezoned waterfronts. This doesn't help 99% of the commuting public.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I can tell you this is widely regarded as a joke here. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE taking the ferries. But they only help the people who have moved to the new residential developments built along the rezoned waterfronts. This doesn't help 99% of the commuting public.
Click to expand...

You can say the same about any single bus line.

"The 1 only helps people who live along Mass Ave. This doesn't help 99% of the commuting public."
 
Ferries are:
1) Fuel, labor & capital inefficient (big, nonstandard vehicle usually staffed by two)
2) have too few stops (often just ping-ponging and not creating many O&D pairs)
3) serve half catchments (every stop's neighborhood is literally half flooded)

They rarely make useful transit.
 
Last edited:
definitely. ferries depend on the geography more than anything else. Hingham and Hull are perfect since the ferry saves a bunch of time during rush hour as the water-distance is much shorter (and because I93 is so broken) but in most circumstances... it's a white elephant politicos love but do little to solve transit woes.
 
Arlington said:
Ferries are:
1) Fuel, labor & capital inefficient (big, nonstandard vehicle usually staffed by two)
Click to expand...

Except the cost of the ROW is $0 and the stations are dirt cheap.

3) serve half catchments (every stop's neughborhood is literally half flooded)
Click to expand...

Or, spend money to make a better ROW.
 
According to Uhub, Brighton Landing was designated zone 1 not 1a - which is a huge fare jump. I think that's rather silly. Wherever possible, especially in underserved areas, I believe that subway fare should be used within the core urban area.
 
Last edited:
This is why people hate government

Herp derp $6.25. Happy riding folks!
 
Here's the future schedule which confirms this.

People who will be commuting inbound to work at Boston Landing should be happy.
 
Last edited:
jass said:
Except the cost of the ROW is $0 and the stations are dirt cheap.



Or, spend money to make a better ROW.
Click to expand...

Bus ROW is essentially free, and the Everett bus lane shows that even exclusive ROW can be pretty cheap too.--paint, cones and a 30 minute DPW pass each rush hour. And stops can be dirt cheap too...A small shelter will do (SL & SLG are silly in their "architecturally distinctive" shelters...Two Standard shelters per stop would have done it).

I don't get the second point. Mine was that bus and land transit stops (mostly,) serve dense two-sided streets, and serve demand a full 360 degrees around a stop, while ferry stops are always half empty (no body lives or works in the 180 degree arc on the water side of any ferry dock--only on the land side)
 
I've sure some of you may be familiar with this carved stone, and even recognize its meaning It's on Columbus Avenue next to some of the Back Bay headhouses:

640px-New_Haven_Railroad_stone_carving_at_Back_Bay_station%2C_April_2016.JPG


The stone was part of the second Back Bay station, built in 1929 and demolished in 1979. When constructing the modern station in the 1980s, the decision was made to reuse the stone as a connection with history.

What isn't as well-known is that other pieces of the old station were also reused. I've managed to identity some of them, and I would welcome knowledge of any more.

There's this locomotive carving, which used to be on the west face of the station and is now on the ventilation stack:
640px-Old_ornamental_detail_on_Back_Bay_ventilation_stack%2C_March_2015.JPG


There's this carving on the end of St. Charles Street, and a similar one on Cazenove Street, which can also be seen in the 1979 photo I linked above.
640px-Carving_at_end_of_St._Charles_Street%2C_March_2017.jpg


And there are several reused metal canopies:
640px-Commuter_rail_exit_headhouse_at_Back_Bay_station%2C_April_2016.JPG
 
Arlington said:
Bus ROW is essentially free, and the Everett bus lane shows that even exclusive ROW can be pretty cheap too.--paint, cones and a 30 minute DPW pass each rush hour. And stops can be dirt cheap too...A small shelter will do (SL & SLG are silly in their "architecturally distinctive" shelters...Two Standard shelters per stop would have done it).

I don't get the second point. Mine was that bus and land transit stops (mostly,) serve dense two-sided streets, and serve demand a full 360 degrees around a stop, while ferry stops are always half empty (no body lives or works in the 180 degree arc on the water side of any ferry dock--only on the land side)
Click to expand...

I would argue that bus right-of-way is nowhere close to as "free" as ferry right-of-way. Ferries do not have to displace other vehicles to get clear right-of-way. Buses do (either traffic or parking) or they sit stalled in traffic.

Clearing bus right-of-way may not cost much in terms of money, but it costs a whole lot of political capital. And that matters a lot to get transit implemented (the political default position always seems to side with the cars.) No such issues with ferries.

Agreed though that ferries do tend to be one sided catchment areas, but they can be great at connecting points that are hard to connect on land (like Charlestown Navy Yard to Downtown, or East Boston Waterfront to Seaport). Also, as we build up more along the water, the density there is going to continue to increase. And both of our major train hubs, North and South Station are essentially on the water, so Ferry Accessible.

And as a final point, there is no fundamental reason why ferries cannot look more like trains. Multiple river barges are operated by a single tug for freight transport. A little creative thinking could make a ferry system much more mass-transit oriented (rather than just deploying the same old boat we've used for 100 years).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top