Transitmass
New member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 1
There have been a lot of good comments here. However, at the end of the day I think I’m still in favor of the Green Line Reconfiguration as discussed here using the Bay Village alignment. Here’s why:
I still think the Boylston Street tunnel is overcapacity now and, despite, organizational improvements it will either still be, or will again be in the near future. Therefore, expanding the capacity is prudent so E to Tremont is necessary.
Alon has made a lot of good points regarding the capacity of the Boylston Street tunnel and how he would address it. The problem is that 1) what the true capacity of the Boylston Street tunnel is, and 2) how much specifically any particular measure would address it is all subject to our opinion in large part. That’s what makes these forums so fun but at the same time it means even the statements we think are unassailable in their truth are often rooted, at the end of the day, in our own opinion.
For example:
Now how exactly do you come to this conclusion because as a rider it doesn’t feel that way?
Now I know “feelings” aren’t worth a damn but here’s what I can say. At peak, journey times are often 2-3x longer than non-peak times. That’s significant. In essence the system becomes half to one third as effective as non-peak. Moreover, when riding during peak one’s ride is often punctuated by frequent lengthy tunnel dwells and regular crush loads that can even prevent one from entering the train. This is a problem that cannot be dismissed out of hand. It’s unacceptable. This isn’t something to be just endured; we need to solve it.
Since something seems to happen between the normal operations and peak when all the trains are running I took it to mean that tunnel was being asked to do more than it could do in that time. In other words, too many trains were crammed down it. However, one could say that the tunnel has the inherent capacity to handle its demand but that the reason it slows to a crawl at peak is because the tunnel requires properly spaced headways that we are just not getting now. To address that signal light prioritization would ensure those properly spaced headways.
So let’s say we do that. I’m sure we would see a drastic improvement. However, I find it hard to believe that one would maintain that the Boylston Street tunnel would then have a lot of spare capacity at that point. If anything it is probably still bumping up against its max capacity if it’s still not clearly over it.
[Before I’m told that the Boylston Street tunnel used to handle more trains per an hour I want to say that I find those comparisons suspect. When the Boylston Street tunnel had a higher tph back in the day that was when the traffic in it was mostly PCC’s; not modern LRV’s which are obviously bigger. I just don’t think it’s a like to like comparison and thus I don’t find it persuasive.]
Ok but we’re not done. So the next move is to set up kickass EMU service on the Worcester line (I say EMU specifically because I just don’t think that the service Alon discusses on the Worcester line with more infills than are currently being considered is possible with DMU’s). This takes some pressure off the B line. The question is how much? While I believe that service would be successful and worthwhile, I believe it won’t pull as many B-line riders off as one imagines. Here’s why:
• The MBTA Blue Book gives great figures for boardings but not for alightings. This is a problem because I can say from experience that many trips on the B-line include trips up and down Comm Ave- not really into the CBD. A Worcester line EMU with infill stops would probably not address this kind of demand as much despite frequent infills.
• Additionally, Boston has a habit of holding onto historic travel patterns. When the orange line was relocated along the southwest corridor many believed a lot of the Washington Street demand was going to be handled by the new alignment because it was relatively close by. This did not happen to the extent expected and therefore the need for Washington street light rail remains. As to the reason for this I think it has to do with how the built environment has developed over the decades/centuries in Boston. As a pedestrian you are funneled to Comm Ave by the way the streets are set up and the way the buildings face. It’s hard to overcome that. Meanwhile the Worcester line is built on the back end of everything. It literally repels pedestrians. Decades of development has made that alignment an area people don’t feel drawn to. This effect may seem trivial but I don’t think it is. I think the line would develop a robust ridership over time and the built environment will come to reflect that. I just don’t think it will be a lot of B-line riders whose built environment will always send them towards that line. So I think a kickass Worcester EMU will mostly serve new development around Allston and it will grab a lot of Newton riders who either drive or take the express bus. Not a massive amount of current B-line rider.
Without a doubt the EMU service on the Worcester will thin out the B a little but I’m not sure it will do it to an extreme extent. Regardless, where does that leave us with the Boylston Street tunnel? Even assuming that after signal light prioritization we were at capacity equaling demand on the Boylston Street tunnel- i.e. we are at 100% capacity- [a big assumption in my opinion], then after the Worcester EMU are we at like 90% capacity? 80%? 95%?
I would lean towards the higher numbers above. So with increased ridership growth projected due to modal shift (and I think this is a serious factor as more people opt to not own cars) then I think we can see that even if we alleviate the Boylston Street tunnel right now with organization fixes; even without other expansions it will be bumping right up against its capacity if not exceeding it the not too distant future.
But it’s a leap to dismiss those expansions. D.5 to Needham and the Arborway restoration with dedicated lanes are critical and have a good chance of being instituted in the relatively near future. Without going on a tangent to talk about those expansions I think that, if they happen, then they definitely put us over capacity. So one way or another we need to up the capacity on the Boylston Street tunnel and the E to Tremont is the way to do it.
Now that’s one out of three parts of the Green Line Reconfiguration proposed here. What about the other two? Well we all seem to agree that bringing light rail to at least Dudley through the Tremont street tunnel is a no brainer. So that’s the second major component of the Green Line Reconfiguration proposed here. Now we are at 2 out of 3.
Finally, we have the connection with the South Boston Transitway. Despite all the well-thought out criticisms of this I am still in favor of it. The reason is because it’s a major employment center and the stub-end of the silver line makes it so it is very inconvenient for commuters to get there prompting many to drive or undertake needlessly long commutes.
Alon has been the most critical of this component. However, I disagree with some of his criticisms. First of all, telling everyone to just walk is not really addressing the issue and betrays a full understanding of the environment there. It really isn’t a viable solution for most people. Second of all, to characterize the area as just a bunch of rich condo buildings misses the point. There are a lot of employment centers in there and there will soon be more. Many people travel there from around Eastern Massachusetts to get to work; it’s not just residents walking to downtown for work. So trips originate at many places.
This is made plain by the fact that demand is so great that the private sector is trying to address it with their own private shuttles. A lot of those shuttles go to North Station to pick up workers who are arriving there and have a painful green-red-silver transfer to get to the Seaport.
Finally, just saying that this area is like West Vancouver and dropping the mic before explaining precisely why doesn’t really make sense to me. As far as I know West Vancouver is mostly residential. I’m arguing to connect the Seaport because it’s a very commercial area; not to serve high end condos. This is an Apples to Oranges comparison to me unless there is something I’m missing.
So that’s it. Three out of three. Despite all I’ve heard hear I’m still not persuaded otherwise. I still see a need for this project and I think the Bay Village alignment makes the most sense from a cost perspective. There are some very well-reasoned arguments against doing this but after hearing a lot of them I’m still in favor of this.
I still think the Boylston Street tunnel is overcapacity now and, despite, organizational improvements it will either still be, or will again be in the near future. Therefore, expanding the capacity is prudent so E to Tremont is necessary.
Alon has made a lot of good points regarding the capacity of the Boylston Street tunnel and how he would address it. The problem is that 1) what the true capacity of the Boylston Street tunnel is, and 2) how much specifically any particular measure would address it is all subject to our opinion in large part. That’s what makes these forums so fun but at the same time it means even the statements we think are unassailable in their truth are often rooted, at the end of the day, in our own opinion.
For example:
Now how exactly do you come to this conclusion because as a rider it doesn’t feel that way?
Now I know “feelings” aren’t worth a damn but here’s what I can say. At peak, journey times are often 2-3x longer than non-peak times. That’s significant. In essence the system becomes half to one third as effective as non-peak. Moreover, when riding during peak one’s ride is often punctuated by frequent lengthy tunnel dwells and regular crush loads that can even prevent one from entering the train. This is a problem that cannot be dismissed out of hand. It’s unacceptable. This isn’t something to be just endured; we need to solve it.
Since something seems to happen between the normal operations and peak when all the trains are running I took it to mean that tunnel was being asked to do more than it could do in that time. In other words, too many trains were crammed down it. However, one could say that the tunnel has the inherent capacity to handle its demand but that the reason it slows to a crawl at peak is because the tunnel requires properly spaced headways that we are just not getting now. To address that signal light prioritization would ensure those properly spaced headways.
So let’s say we do that. I’m sure we would see a drastic improvement. However, I find it hard to believe that one would maintain that the Boylston Street tunnel would then have a lot of spare capacity at that point. If anything it is probably still bumping up against its max capacity if it’s still not clearly over it.
[Before I’m told that the Boylston Street tunnel used to handle more trains per an hour I want to say that I find those comparisons suspect. When the Boylston Street tunnel had a higher tph back in the day that was when the traffic in it was mostly PCC’s; not modern LRV’s which are obviously bigger. I just don’t think it’s a like to like comparison and thus I don’t find it persuasive.]
Ok but we’re not done. So the next move is to set up kickass EMU service on the Worcester line (I say EMU specifically because I just don’t think that the service Alon discusses on the Worcester line with more infills than are currently being considered is possible with DMU’s). This takes some pressure off the B line. The question is how much? While I believe that service would be successful and worthwhile, I believe it won’t pull as many B-line riders off as one imagines. Here’s why:
• The MBTA Blue Book gives great figures for boardings but not for alightings. This is a problem because I can say from experience that many trips on the B-line include trips up and down Comm Ave- not really into the CBD. A Worcester line EMU with infill stops would probably not address this kind of demand as much despite frequent infills.
• Additionally, Boston has a habit of holding onto historic travel patterns. When the orange line was relocated along the southwest corridor many believed a lot of the Washington Street demand was going to be handled by the new alignment because it was relatively close by. This did not happen to the extent expected and therefore the need for Washington street light rail remains. As to the reason for this I think it has to do with how the built environment has developed over the decades/centuries in Boston. As a pedestrian you are funneled to Comm Ave by the way the streets are set up and the way the buildings face. It’s hard to overcome that. Meanwhile the Worcester line is built on the back end of everything. It literally repels pedestrians. Decades of development has made that alignment an area people don’t feel drawn to. This effect may seem trivial but I don’t think it is. I think the line would develop a robust ridership over time and the built environment will come to reflect that. I just don’t think it will be a lot of B-line riders whose built environment will always send them towards that line. So I think a kickass Worcester EMU will mostly serve new development around Allston and it will grab a lot of Newton riders who either drive or take the express bus. Not a massive amount of current B-line rider.
Without a doubt the EMU service on the Worcester will thin out the B a little but I’m not sure it will do it to an extreme extent. Regardless, where does that leave us with the Boylston Street tunnel? Even assuming that after signal light prioritization we were at capacity equaling demand on the Boylston Street tunnel- i.e. we are at 100% capacity- [a big assumption in my opinion], then after the Worcester EMU are we at like 90% capacity? 80%? 95%?
I would lean towards the higher numbers above. So with increased ridership growth projected due to modal shift (and I think this is a serious factor as more people opt to not own cars) then I think we can see that even if we alleviate the Boylston Street tunnel right now with organization fixes; even without other expansions it will be bumping right up against its capacity if not exceeding it the not too distant future.
But it’s a leap to dismiss those expansions. D.5 to Needham and the Arborway restoration with dedicated lanes are critical and have a good chance of being instituted in the relatively near future. Without going on a tangent to talk about those expansions I think that, if they happen, then they definitely put us over capacity. So one way or another we need to up the capacity on the Boylston Street tunnel and the E to Tremont is the way to do it.
Now that’s one out of three parts of the Green Line Reconfiguration proposed here. What about the other two? Well we all seem to agree that bringing light rail to at least Dudley through the Tremont street tunnel is a no brainer. So that’s the second major component of the Green Line Reconfiguration proposed here. Now we are at 2 out of 3.
Finally, we have the connection with the South Boston Transitway. Despite all the well-thought out criticisms of this I am still in favor of it. The reason is because it’s a major employment center and the stub-end of the silver line makes it so it is very inconvenient for commuters to get there prompting many to drive or undertake needlessly long commutes.
Alon has been the most critical of this component. However, I disagree with some of his criticisms. First of all, telling everyone to just walk is not really addressing the issue and betrays a full understanding of the environment there. It really isn’t a viable solution for most people. Second of all, to characterize the area as just a bunch of rich condo buildings misses the point. There are a lot of employment centers in there and there will soon be more. Many people travel there from around Eastern Massachusetts to get to work; it’s not just residents walking to downtown for work. So trips originate at many places.
This is made plain by the fact that demand is so great that the private sector is trying to address it with their own private shuttles. A lot of those shuttles go to North Station to pick up workers who are arriving there and have a painful green-red-silver transfer to get to the Seaport.
Finally, just saying that this area is like West Vancouver and dropping the mic before explaining precisely why doesn’t really make sense to me. As far as I know West Vancouver is mostly residential. I’m arguing to connect the Seaport because it’s a very commercial area; not to serve high end condos. This is an Apples to Oranges comparison to me unless there is something I’m missing.
So that’s it. Three out of three. Despite all I’ve heard hear I’m still not persuaded otherwise. I still see a need for this project and I think the Bay Village alignment makes the most sense from a cost perspective. There are some very well-reasoned arguments against doing this but after hearing a lot of them I’m still in favor of this.
