dshoost88
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,158
- Reaction score
- 2,513
I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston
- Thread starter Matthew
- Start date
I still feel like West Station really needs rapid transit for it to work... IOW Indigo with GJ or NSRL. Most of the land there is close enough to B that they will probably use that instead. It's not like the Seaport or Boston Landing where there is no real transit presently.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
Ramos wildly misses the point here. First off, the delay in West Station isn't about money, it's about space for the layover yard, which is a significant benefit to service levels across the Worcester Line. The delay is projected to BENEFIT transit across the city. Secondly, stations are useless as predictors of transit usage - SERVICE is what matters. Until the MBTA invests in rapid transit-level service to Allston and a bus connection on Malvern, West Station will be a white elephant. That's what the CTPS model is trying to tell them. I'm sure Monica Tibbets-Nutt is a good transportation planner, but I wouldn't be so quick to disbelieve a model that says that ridership from Wellesley to Allston with 1-hour frequencies won't be so great.
Also, the site is transit-accessible by bus and Green Line. This station is not the beginning and end of transit service there.
I don't have any issues with Globe columnists not being fully educated on the technical details of transit planning, but I'd hope that someone writing about "the lessons we never learn" would have done some actual research before declaring what the lessons are.
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,604
- Reaction score
- 3,275
That sequence of stations (Boston Landing, West, Yawkey, Back Bay, South Station) just screams DMU or EMU service.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...est-station/0NRncoCjpepeLbgntcQKqK/story.html
He's right about what to do, though he's still holding onto the BS that:
First, transit in the Seaport was not and never has been "delayed" or "denied". $1.5 billion was spent on it before any development happened. Transit in the Seaport was "planned stupidly" in order to take advantage of Federal incentives to build the newfangled fad BRT as opposed to other modes.
Second, he's using the Seaport as an example, yet claiming that "the highway project may lock in lower-density development." That has... um... not happened in the Seaport.
The Seaport's problem is that they wasted a ton of Federal dollars on an insufficient system, then the high-density pattern developed anyway and has overloaded the Silver Line. Very, very different from what Dante seems to think is happening. This description makes it sound like he's never seen pictures of the Seaport, much less been there or read up on the history.
He's right about what to do, though he's still holding onto the BS that:
First, transit in the Seaport was not and never has been "delayed" or "denied". $1.5 billion was spent on it before any development happened. Transit in the Seaport was "planned stupidly" in order to take advantage of Federal incentives to build the newfangled fad BRT as opposed to other modes.
Second, he's using the Seaport as an example, yet claiming that "the highway project may lock in lower-density development." That has... um... not happened in the Seaport.
The Seaport's problem is that they wasted a ton of Federal dollars on an insufficient system, then the high-density pattern developed anyway and has overloaded the Silver Line. Very, very different from what Dante seems to think is happening. This description makes it sound like he's never seen pictures of the Seaport, much less been there or read up on the history.
He's probably been reading the whiners out here!
People also forget that when it was built the Silver Line was originally laughed off as being a useless project that served nobody. Now most likely the same people who were saying that are complaining its not robust enough. Fact is few people expected the neighborhood to take off to the degree that it has. While not ideal the Silver Line does the basics and I'm not sure what the realistic alternative would have been at the time. The notion of running the green line down there would have been ripped to shreds by the usual naysayers and never would have gotten built.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
He's probably been reading the whiners out here!
People also forget that when it was built the Silver Line was originally laughed off as being a useless project that served nobody. Now most likely the same people who were saying that are complaining its not robust enough. Fact is few people expected the neighborhood to take off to the degree that it has. While not ideal the Silver Line does the basics and I'm not sure what the realistic alternative would have been at the time. The notion of running the green line down there would have been ripped to shreds by the usual naysayers and never would have gotten built.
That's fine, but that raises the question: is it not then better to wait until you know what the demand is before you build the transit? Ramos argues the exact opposite of that.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,197
- Reaction score
- 15,401
^ Wouldnt that make no sense because demand is always changing, usually increasing? The demand for the red line today is different today than when it was built. Yes the seaport was literally starting from scratch but Im sure most of the transit lines have way more build out around them than before. The first subway here was what the late 1800's? There was barely a back bay back then.
Galactic brain: Because you know that the transit will *create* the demand, the entity building the transit should fund the transit by capturing the incremental value that it is creating...
...rather than giving out [thunder] tax breaks [/thunder]
I happen to agree, especially since its one commuter rail stop we're talking about here, not building a new line. If the area does in fact take off, its not going to be that hard to put that station up. I'm also somewhat unsure of how much of an effect its going to have. I'd rather they resurrected the A line and ran it off from Comm Ave over to the Beacon Yards but I'll save that for the Crazy Transit Pitch thread as I have no idea where you'd make the connection.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
Yeah, I wasn't really speaking about transit in general, just this particular project. Also, you can collect the TIF or whatever, put it in a fund, and build the transit project later.
You are also exactly right - Green Line through the brownfield was always the right solution. The connection could be the same as for the buses: bridge/widen Malvern St, put the light rail ROW down the side, and build the wye into the newly redesigned Packard's Corner (which would be necessary anyway).
That bridge doesn't really need to be open to cars, just buses and Green Line.
But of course, MassDOT's designs all preclude doing surface light rail to Harvard Stadium (and thence to Harvard Square). That's a mistake I wish they weren't making.
How much incremental value do you think the Silver Line has created in the Seaport? Like, two bucks?
The 11k trips that the Silver Line was carrying in 2013 (before a lot of what is there now opened) are definitely worth at least $2.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
That's straight-up value, not incremental value. Is the Silver Line in the Seaport (not the Airport service, which could be easily replicated without the tunnel) doing anything at all to encourage development of 200' office/condo towers or to increase their value? I'd say no. The value added there is from South Station, the SL1 Airport service, and most importantly from the Turnpike Exit.
If, as a thought experiment, MA had decided to put a subway tunnel alongside the Ted and extend ~45mph Red Line service from South Station to a terminus under Logan Central Parking (or Blue the other way), that might have done more. On the other hand... maybe not. The Seaport is height limited by flight paths. Once the Big Dig opened it up to the highway, I think it was likely to develop in precisely this way regardless of what transit there was.
Another interesting thought experiment: the highest incremental value in the Seaport for any infrastructure investment would probably be to move Logan. That quadruples the height of those buildings at a stroke.
Planning a new urban neighborhood and pushing off public transit until 2040 or whenever is super dumb. Planning a city around cars is super dumb. The Boston Landing station is getting way more use than predicted.
If they can afford $1 billion to straighten a tiny section of highway they can sure as hell afford a small fraction of that for a station. If they can afford to build parking garages with taxpayer money in the seaport then they can afford West Station. The state continues to give drivers a blank check while screwing over public transit and what has that gotten us? Hundreds of people killed per year in car crashes and gridlocked traffic. Public transit saves lives, money and land.
If they can afford $1 billion to straighten a tiny section of highway they can sure as hell afford a small fraction of that for a station. If they can afford to build parking garages with taxpayer money in the seaport then they can afford West Station. The state continues to give drivers a blank check while screwing over public transit and what has that gotten us? Hundreds of people killed per year in car crashes and gridlocked traffic. Public transit saves lives, money and land.
atlantaden
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,598
- Reaction score
- 2,708