Inside the mind of a NIMBY

Above capacity for NIMBYs="I can't get a seat every time I get on train"

BTW: THIS is what 'above capacity' looks like.
 
All the more reason to develop around Alewife, make it more of a destination.

Not sure why the NIMBYs are against Alewife upzoning.

I realize that the Red Line is highly peaked, but it still only carries 240,000 riders a day (about the same as the Green Line). The best headway is only 4.5 minutes, which leaves plenty of room for expansion. With upgraded signalling and procurement of more vehicles, they could cut that to say, 3 minutes (6 on the branches).

And with development in Davis, Porter and Alewife, there is plenty of room for growth of commutes in the "reverse-peak" direction to take up that excess capacity.
 
The worry of these developments causing increased red line traffic is very real, but it should actually be seen as a positive and incentive for the mbta to improve headways. They should be lobbying to the mbta and not against the developments themselves.
 
Not advocating more housing given higher prices is one thing (unless you have an incredible amount of housing constructed, they're right that specific investments in a certain area can bump up prices in that area). But what really puzzles me about their points:

- They want development away from transit (North Point), yet complain about traffic / parking. True, this goes along with their points about gentrification, since no one is living on the abandoned lots of North Point such that they could be displaced. But they need to recognize the consequences.

- They claim parking lots are needed for displaced residents, but claim to be transit advocates. True, many of these displaced residents aren't going to see the Red Line reach their doorstep tomorrow, but if your other concern is traffic, wouldn't it make sense to encourage these people to take the bus/train and to advocate more and better service to the areas where they've moved in turn?

- They want Paris, but their policies don't functionally alter what's in Cambridge already, which is (with the exception of maybe corners of Harvard Square) not Paris-like at all.
 
They want their cheap parking lots but somehow less traffic too. It's the fundamental paradox at the core of the NIMBY hypocrisy.
 
Matthew said:
They want their cheap parking lots but somehow less traffic too. It's the fundamental paradox at the core of the NIMBY hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, I wonder if they know that it is a paradox but is just using it as an argument to slow development or if they are truly ignorant of what they are saying.
 
Someone showed up at the CDD forum feat. Jarrett Walker with a question related to this recent NIMBY meeting. Basically he said that the 1 bus is overcrowded, and they want to develop more around it, etc, what can we do?

I liked the answer Jarrett gave him, basically: build the development and use the tax revenue to improve the bus. Consider bus lanes (we were just talking about the Parisian bus lanes) and all-door boarding (as in SF).
 
The 1 in general is a disaster. It's a critical, severely over-capacity N-S route and should really be its own subway.
 
I don't see that happening anytime soon. Dedicated bus lanes, signal priority and all-door boarding are more realistic and can get done now, with a little bit of paint, a little bit of electronics, and a little change in policy.

The 66 as well. Plus remove some of the obnoxious route jogs (that's a topic Jarrett has often emphasized).
 
datadyne007 said:
The 1 in general is a disaster. It's a critical, severely over-capacity N-S route and should really be its own subway.
Click to expand...

+1

This so much! I was just talking to my friend how Mass Ave. needs a subway line because of the heavy congestion in the area.
 
Matthew said:
I don't see that happening anytime soon. Dedicated bus lanes, signal priority and all-door boarding are more realistic and can get done now, with a little bit of paint, a little bit of electronics, and a little change in policy.

The 66 as well. Plus remove some of the obnoxious route jogs (that's a topic Jarrett has often emphasized).
Click to expand...

The MBTA's track record on all three of those things is bad, bad, and worse in that order. I'd press for a Mass Ave. Subway precisely because setting an unrealistic goal might cause the MBTA to 'compromise' down to the necessary improvements you've listed.

As for the 66... I don't think its problems are so easily solved without pouring concrete somewhere. Brighton Avenue is a complete disaster and no amount of paint, electronics, or policy change will fix that, especially the stretch between Union Square Allston and Packard's Corner.

The 'easiest' fix for it is likely an exercise in relative speaking - there's no way the 66's problems are addressed without a comprehensive solution.

I maintain that nothing can be done about that road for as long as it's emphasized as a major thoroughfare - the US-20 bannering needs to be moved somewhere else. I've been assured by some smart people that pushing it onto Leo Birmingham/Soliders Field/Storrow is a bad idea, but I'm pretty sure that's the only place it can realistically go unless MassDOT's willing to concurrency it with 95/128 at the current interchange and run it onto the Mass Pike that way, or concurrency it with the Pike from as far back as the Millbury interchange. Why is this important? Because, as long as you've bannered it as a highway, people are going to treat it like a highway, and no amount of traffic calming is going to change that.

So, once that's done, we can talk about the actual transit improvements to be made. Resurrecting the A Branch would probably take several miracles in rapid succession at this point, and I'm guessing that also applies to a phased restoration that starts by restoring Packard's Corner - Union Square and running trains from Allston to Lechmere. With that out, the next best option is reconfiguring the stretch of road between Packard's Corner and Union Square entirely. West of Harvard Ave, we have five - maybe six - lanes worth of space to play with, so it shouldn't be too difficult to turn the rightmost lane on each side into bus lanes, make the center lane the only through lane and leave the center two lanes as either a wide median with cuts for left-turning lanes or (loathe as I am to suggest one) a cycle track. In either case, take Union Square and make it into a bus plaza. Harvard Avenue itself should be made one-way southbound, with Linden Street remaining one-way northbound. (In each case, knock it down to two roads, through traffic on the left, right turns only on the right.) Then, disallow movement between Cambridge Street and Brighton Avenue by any means necessary. Buses and pedestrians can use the new Union Square plaza to move from one to the other, and cars can use the one-way street pair. Nobody in any case should be making that turn at the intersection, and BPD is going to love the increased revenue from parking an officer or two at Union Square and hitting everyone with a violation for Illegal Turn until people get the message.

Of course, that's slightly less relevant to the 66 because the next thing that should be done is to move it off of Cambridge Street and onto Everett Street instead - hitting New Brighton Landing if possible, and following Everett Street up to Western Avenue, over to N Harvard Street, and terminating at Harvard. (Could be worthwhile to through-run these buses as 66 -> 69 to Lechmere.) That's the most important operational change to make.
 
The entirety of Brighton Ave is between Packard's Corner and Union Square.

The labeling of it as US-20 is irrelevant, as that continues onto N. Beacon Street which is smaller.

People's treatment of streets is depend on actual physical cues, not street signs. That's why speed limits are routinely flouted. At Packard's Corner, only a single lane of Comm Ave peels off onto Brighton Ave, but then it expands right away to two lanes, just begging people to push the pedal. In the past, there was a streetcar here, so it may have made more sense, but now it is just a racetrack (say, for Herb Chambers customers to test drive his product, as he was one of the big shots pushing for removal of the tracks).

I am currently thinking about ways to reconfigure Brighton Ave to be more appropriate to its context as a very densely populated residential and commercial district. I don't think making Harvard/Linden Ave into a one-way pair is appropriate for that purpose. Generally, one-way streets are unfriendly to local circulation. And splitting up a bus route onto a one-way pair is bad for ridership. And you would have to rebuild Comm Ave (another necessary project) before even considering that.

As for the 66, I was referring to the little jog it takes over to Union Square, which is entirely unnecessary. I can get off the 66 at Brighton Ave and walk over to Cambridge Street to pick it up again, and still beat the bus with a few minutes to spare.

Rerouting it to Everett Street may be a step too far, there's a good amount of riders at the North Harvard and Empire Streets area. Still, something to think about.
 
Matthew said:
The entirety of Brighton Ave is between Packard's Corner and Union Square.

The labeling of it as US-20 is irrelevant, as that continues onto N. Beacon Street which is smaller.

People's treatment of streets is depend on actual physical cues, not street signs. That's why speed limits are routinely flouted. At Packard's Corner, only a single lane of Comm Ave peels off onto Brighton Ave, but then it expands right away to two lanes, just begging people to push the pedal. In the past, there was a streetcar here, so it may have made more sense, but now it is just a racetrack (say, for Herb Chambers customers to test drive his product, as he was one of the big shots pushing for removal of the tracks).

I am currently thinking about ways to reconfigure Brighton Ave to be more appropriate to its context as a very densely populated residential and commercial district. I don't think making Harvard/Linden Ave into a one-way pair is appropriate for that purpose. Generally, one-way streets are unfriendly to local circulation. And splitting up a bus route onto a one-way pair is bad for ridership. And you would have to rebuild Comm Ave (another necessary project) before even considering that.

As for the 66, I was referring to the little jog it takes over to Union Square, which is entirely unnecessary. I can get off the 66 at Brighton Ave and walk over to Cambridge Street to pick it up again, and still beat the bus with a few minutes to spare.

Rerouting it to Everett Street may be a step too far, there's a good amount of riders at the North Harvard and Empire Streets area. Still, something to think about.
Click to expand...

The 66 already doesn't have any stops on the short jog of Harvard Avenue that would be turned into a one-way street. Nor are there any stops on Linden Street. That's also why I didn't mention bus lanes there - no need for buses running on either of those streets. They'd serve mostly to carry non-bus traffic between Brighton and Cambridge so that we can disallow that turning movement, in conjunction with a Union Square plaza to allow for the buses to turn.

I don't think you can entirely write off the impact of signage on people's behavior. Certainly, some people regularly flout speed limits, but there are others that will never ever go 26 in a 25. At the same time, numbered routes like state roads and the US Highway System have their designations because these are primary routes of travel - and that, I think, at least subtly suggests that 'this is a road for getting somewhere else on.' Certainly, if the signage is not important, then removing the signage (whether that's paring back the road to 128 or rebannering it onto other roads) costs us little to nothing - and if the signage is important, as I believe it is, then removing it should carry some benefit to that street. I think it's worth exploring, at least.

Rerouting the 66 to Everett Street loses us the stops on Cambridge Street up to N Harvard Avenue except for Union Square (stops which are still served by the 64, it looks like), and the stops on N Harvard Avenue between Cambridge Street and Western Avenue, which are only served by the 66. In exchange, you pick up Everett Street up to Western Avenue, including New Brighton Landing, and Everett Street has no service at present. I think it's a fair exchange.
 
Offhand, I think that North Harvard Street is more densely populated than Everett Street, but I could be wrong.

I also want to point out that the Everett Street bridge is tied into the street grid in a completely wacky way. Not sure if you've been there, but it looks like it was grafted on as an afterthought. Don't know if that would affect bus operations, but it might.

I misunderstood your original suggestion, I thought you wanted to turn Harvard into one-way between Comm and Brighton.
 
Deja-vu: http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=4220
We had this exact same conversation in the A line restoration thread a few months ago. I drew up a two lane Brighton Ave with the trolley in the middle to prove it would work.

And the 66 jog through union square is a holdover from the trolley routes when the 66 was two routes that divided in Allston. It should have been eliminated when the routes were combined.

Also, the Everett street bridge was an afterthought, the never used soon to be demolished building where the skating club is going has pictures of its construction. Pesky people kept getting themselves killed crossing 12 something tracks.

As for helping automobile traffic in the area, once New Balance connects Braintree to Guest street in a more cohesive way and they remove the retarded do not enter restriction under the Everett bridge getting people coming off cambridge street to points west to go that route should go a long way to minimizing congestion in the area. Unless they dig a tunnel for cars with a subway underneath it under Harvard Ave North-South traffic is, and always will be fucked. There is really no solution.
 
A retread of a thread? Not surprising. I've always figured there were only three people on this board and they just kept writing the same posts over and over again, just under different handles.

Sort of like Catfish the movie. Sort of.
 
Very good riddance to Walz. NIMBY Central (Neighborhhood Assoc. of Back Bay) has lost it's chief pit bull. Not very good news for the waiting-to-be born though.
 
Oh she's not that bad. She supported Berklee and the church's development plans and the two best proposals for parcels 12-15. She was also instrumental in helping clean up Boylston and a proponent for multi-node transportation to the neighborhood. Her position on shade on the Common was a little out there though. (Did I say shade, I meant shadows.)

I dread Mike Ross moving into the neighborhood and running for her seat. He's a few bagels short of a dozen.
 
NIMBY of the year 2013:

http://www.theprovince.com/business...+dead+against+funeral+home/7968064/story.html

"False Creek residents are upset a funeral home is setting up shop in their neighbourhood with no prior notice...They say it will damage neighbourhood’s morale, lower property values, create parking headaches, and simply does not belong in the burgeoning residential and retail area where condo towers, restaurants, and boutique stores are sprouting at a fast pace."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top