General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

As a relevant point of reference:

By far the best-implemented ferry terminal I've ever seen is downtown Sydney Australia's Circular Quay ferry terminal (see center of image).

It directly connects to the subway system (see overhead tracks right above the ferry docks), and is part of an impressive intermodal network.

This is doable folks (Syndey's comparatively much nicer weather may be key though)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arlington said:
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'm skeptical of ferries too, but I'm play devil's advocate here.

It isn't just area. Ridership potential is density times area times a factor for how many of those people want to go where the boat goes. Density can make up for a small catchment area. I think it's difficult to find places for ferry terminals around Boston that make that equation work, but clearly other cities have situations that work. A commitment to build a high density community around a ferry terminal could be a winning strategy.

Looking at Sydney above, they obviously thought through the commercial terminal. What we can't see in that picture is what the neighborhoods look like where those boats are originating. They probably don't look like Lynn or Hingham.
 
Ferries to South Boston Waterfront would serve more than just the residents in direct area of the terminal.

the ferry that is coming between N Station (Lovejoy) and SBW will help commuter rail and northern orange line more than anybody (and reduce the demand on the current private shuttles that operating).

A ferry (planned but not as imminent) between Maverick and SBW would help the entire population using the blue line (or more likely currently driving between these 2 points).

A Charlestown ferry to SBW is certainly better than bus/orange line to red line to silver line. Even if you have to take the bus to the ferry this is still better. Most of these people are currently driving or uber because 3 different lines for a 2 mile commute is insane.

Ferries would definitely provide better links than any other options from the north to SBW other than a tunnel connecting Courthouse and State Street (and thats never happening).
 
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...

1. Everything JeffDowntown said

2. You COULD create new ROW so you have more than 180 degrees of demand. AKA: A canal. Im not saying you should. Im just saying you could, and its probably cheaper than digging a subway.
 
Ferries look cheap from a political capital standpoint, particularly if mayors are afraid of suburban motorists, I'll grant you that, but that's their flaw: they are a bad engineering solution dangled/touted by venal politicians to make it look like they're doing something useful and innovative.

I note that GE was smart enough to ask for a pedestrian bridge, not a ferry.

In both Wall St and Sydney the supertalls and subway come right to the water's edge.

In Boston we've actually got rules limiting height at the water's edge (eg Seaport), or short stuff that ain't going anywhere (North End)

Aquarium is 200' from the water, but has lousy vertical circulation and too much lowrise and parks
Lovejoy to NS Green/Orange is something like 600' in Boston weather
WTC SL is about 400'

In NYC Whitehall & South Ferry are 350' from the Staten Island Ferry's ramps, is near 100% covered and/or climate controlled and have great vertical circulation. (And a huge multimodal monopoly feeder hub on the Staten Island end)

The pattern I see is that old ferries work but new ferries are just dangling A-to-B shuttles where neither A nor B has the necessary density. And we complain about single-door boarding on buses, but ferries have terrible station dwell characteristics docking & undocking.

jass said:
2. You COULD create new ROW so you have more than 180 degrees of demand. AKA: A canal. Im not saying you should. Im just saying you could, and its probably cheaper than digging a subway.
Click to expand...

The alternative to ferries is not "build a new subway" it is "deliver effective landside surface transit" (aka bus), but I doubt your canal would be cheaper (ROW acquisition costs would be an immediate killer--or else you'd have to 100% take a street (talk about political suicide) --and the problem with any canal is either that it has to be filled with freshwater (which takes a supply works) or seawater (which needs protection from storm surge).

Canals are also rendered impossible by underground utilities along any path. They are nonsense. It's why we stopped building them about 150 years ago.

Dirigibles! ROW is 100% Free! I've solved our mobility problem!
 
Last edited:
Quoting myself from 8 months ago:

The actual practical places for ferries are where they can be fast, and other modes are either slow, roundabout, or require a lot of transfers. Long Wharf-Charlestown works because it's a fast alternative to a poorly served area. The Hingham, Hull, Salem, and Winthrop ferries work because they're fairly direct routes and are well-placed at their outer ends (a parking area reached opposite rush hour traffic at Hull, and decently dense and nice areas for the other three).

Maverick-Charlestown might work because it's currently horribly indirect. Lovejoy-Logan might work because it reduces two transfers to one on a known demand pattern. Almost anywhere else, you're better off spending the money to get superior bus services or other improvements to transit lines that benefit a lot more people.
Click to expand...
 
Arlington said:
MBTA has corrected this error and announced Boston Landing will be 1A
https://twitter.com/gintautasd/status/855067202407608320

http://www.universalhub.com/2017/whoopsie-mbta-says-it-goofed-new-brighton-commuter
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the bigger issue that this might be highlighting is the massive fare difference between zone 1 and 1a. Both for those who are going to or from a station further inbound ($4 difference) and those going to or from a station further outbound ($3.50-5.50 difference).
 
Seats in the terminal zone of a commuter railroad are limited and highly desirable. Not just limited but *the single limiting factor* on overall rush hour capacity.* It is a good thing that interzone fares (not involving Zone 1A) are cheap, and Zone 1 thru N fares contain a terminal-zone premium.

I'd say that the ideal (economically efficient) fare for Boston Landing would be Zone 1a in the non-rush direction (AM outbound, PM inbound) and Zone 1 in the rush direction (AM inbound, PM outbound)

In fact, someplace else I suggested that the zoned fares apply only at rush hour and in the rush direction and that all other Zone 1 thru N trips (non-rush direction, midday, evening, and weekend) be a flat $5 (Zone 1A trips would be always the transit-pegged fare)

* Correction: parking at outlying stations is the other limiter, which is best solved by demand-based pricing designed to be 95% sold out by 10am
 
Arlington said:
The alternative to ferries is not "build a new subway" it is "deliver effective landside surface transit" (aka bus), but I doubt your canal would be cheaper (ROW acquisition costs would be an immediate killer--or else you'd have to 100% take a street (talk about political suicide) --and the problem with any canal is either that it has to be filled with freshwater (which takes a supply works) or seawater (which needs protection from storm surge).
Click to expand...

Venice has a great ferry system
 
jass said:
Venice has a great ferry system
Click to expand...
Venice has no streets.
Venice does not have an office-work economy, either
Ergo, their ferries are not a fact useful to Boston or this discussion.

And those canals? Protected by a $6B surge barrier. Not free ROW.
 
The F3 Lovejoy-Charlestown and F5 Lovejoy-Moakley-WTC routes were added in 1997 during Big Dig construction. After the Silver Line opened, ridership absolutely cratered, and they were discontinued in 2005. The privately funded F5X Lovejoy-WTC route lasted until 2006. The F3 ran every 20 minutes at peak and every hour during the day, but averaged 70 passengers across 25 round trips. The F5 ran every 15 at peak and every hour during the day, with a 20 minute one-way time, but averaged 63 passengers across 28 round trips.

Lovejoy is a quarter mile walk from the North Station door. WTC also requires a walk to most Seaport destinations. Combine those with a not-that-fast running time, frequently nasty weather, and mediocre frequency, and you end up with very low ridership.

The #4 bus runs only in rush hour and takes a bit longer than the ferry (and gets stuck in traffic), but it has convenient stops. 17 daily round trips net 470 daily riders; 14 riders per bus isn't great, but it's an order of magnitude better than the ferry does. (In 2004, the #4 only had 259 daily riders, but it was supplemented by the #3 and #6 which had similar ridership).
 
Lovejoy to WTC is totally dominated by bus in a Congress St HOV lane (it needn't be Silver-line-fancy $20m and 5 years as Go Boston 2030 proposed in its recent visioning plan). Just put all HOV-3s (transit, tour, corp shuttle and HOV3 hired cars) in an exclusive lane each way on Congress.

And that bus will beat a Lovejoy-WTC ferry for all the reasons that buses usually beat ferries:

1) It quickly and easily taps not just endpoint-to-endpoint demand, but also all kinds of intermediate and connecting demand NS-Haymarket-State-POSq-SS-Seaport. (That this could attract transfers from every rail line in the system and a huge share of express buses at Haymarket and POSq illustrates the point about a new bus route can serve "all riders" and "the network" way better than ferry can).

2) It can move pretty fast (12 - 15mph?) and its route can be similar-or-better direct.

3) A standard vehicle using standard stops on ROW whose incremental capital costs could consist of paint and cones*

*The stupid thing is that Boston is waiting 'til 2020 to start designing a system when Everett proved the solution can be as simple as dropping cones.
 
Arlington said:
Lovejoy to WTC is totally dominated by bus in a Congress St HOV lane (it needn't be Silver-line-fancy $20m and 5 years as Go Boston 2030 proposed in its recent visioning plan). Just put all HOV-3s (transit, tour, corp shuttle and HOV3 hired cars) in an exclusive lane each way on Congress.

And that bus will beat a Lovejoy-WTC ferry for all the reasons that buses usually beat ferries:

1) It quickly and easily taps not just endpoint-to-endpoint demand, but also all kinds of intermediate and connecting demand NS-Haymarket-State-POSq-SS-Seaport. (That this could attract transfers from every rail line in the system and a huge share of express buses at Haymarket and POSq illustrates the point about a new bus route can serve "all riders" and "the network" way better than ferry can).

2) It can move pretty fast (12 - 15mph?) and its route can be similar-or-better direct.

3) A standard vehicle using standard stops on ROW whose incremental capital costs could consist of paint and cones*

*The stupid thing is that Boston is waiting 'til 2020 to start designing a system when Everett proved the solution can be as simple as dropping cones.
Click to expand...

From a transit engineering standpoint, the HOV lanes on Congress make perfect sense.

But HOV lanes have POLITICAL consequences as well. The bus riders in the HOV lanes are almost certainly not Boston voters (North Station to Seaport is almost certainly dominated by suburban commuters). But the cars you are displacing might be Boston voters (certainly more likely than the bus riders). So you have to time this away from citywide elections to give the "I lost by car lane; you made my traffic worse" sentiment to die down, otherwise city officials lose their elections.
 
I Doubt any in cars on Congress are Boston voters. More like campaign contributors​.

But as for votes, extending Charlestown 92 &93 (which currently terminate at Haymarket) along Congress to South Station and the Seaport would be a pretty sweet political win for any Mayor.

An HOV lane would also mean that tourist attractions and hotels in the Quincy Market area could be easily connected by courtesy shuttle to the convention center.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top