North Shore Improvements

[Kahta]

http://g.co/maps/anqye

All Builds
Extend Blue Line to Lynn (Two possible builds)
Contstruct a collector/distributor for Rt 1N between Rt 60 and Kappy's on Rt 1
Build a new Casino at Wonderland
Downgrade/close Rt 1A along appropriate sector
Downgrade/close Rt 107 along appropriate sector
Downgrade Route 60 where appropriate

Build A
Connect Rt 1 to 1A to allow for congestion relief on 1A and Rt 60, especially at the intersection of 1A, 60, and 16
Construct Lynn Connector on designated ROW.

Build B
Construct Lynn Connector along designated ROW
Use Cut and Cover along the ROW through a settled area to allow for redevelopment along entire corridor between South St and Oakville St.
Build interchange below grade to allow for redevelopment above potential eyesore

Build C
Extend I-90 Northward or use I-790 Extension for Ted Williams Tunnel and Northward
Connect Route 1 along one of two alignments, either Route 16 or through Revere Marsh, to Extended MassPike

Build D (Separate link)
Connect I-95 along alignment.

So controversial, it has it's own link....
http://g.co/maps/kgzze



In case you can't tell, my grandfather is my primary influence on discussing transportation issues.

He was involved in segments of just about every major interstate across MA, CT, and NY, including all of Route 17, the 128 6 to 8 lane upgrade in the 1950s, the big dig, parts of the Inner Belt, etc. He's got an incredible amount of knowledge about highways/transit and is also pretty biased in favor of highways.

Minor rant: I'm from the suburbs and I live in Boston now and I remain dedicated to my car unless parking is an issue at my destination. I reverse commute to the suburbs to a town that has a commuter rail stop, but the reality is that it would take me 2 hours to get to work if I took public transit, versus 35-40 minutes otherwise. I'm also against public transit unless it is fully self funded (IE Fares cover 100%, not 25% of operating cost). I don't ask other people to pay for 75% of the operating cost of my drive to work. that being said, I do support non-car oriented development and I support measures to reduce congestion at peak time. For example, mass transit along corridors where there is enough ridership to justify the construction, such as along highway corridors with congestion tolls to finance transit alternatives, meaning that the cost of freeing the congestion is being paid for by drivers and riders alike.

 

[whighlander]

http://g.co/maps/anqye

In case you can't tell, my grandfather is my primary influence on discussing transportation issues.

He was involved in segments of just about every major interstate across MA, CT, and NY, including all of Route 17, the 128 6 to 8 lane upgrade in the 1950s, the big dig, parts of the Inner Belt, etc. He's got an incredible amount of knowledge about highways/transit and is also pretty biased in favor of highways.

Minor rant: I'm from the suburbs and I live in Boston now and I remain dedicated to my car unless parking is an issue at my destination. I reverse commute to the suburbs to a town that has a commuter rail stop, but the reality is that it would take me 2 hours to get to work if I took public transit, versus 35-40 minutes otherwise. I'm also against public transit unless it is fully self funded (IE Fares cover 100%, not 25% of operating cost). I don't ask other people to pay for 75% of the operating cost of my drive to work. that being said, I do support non-car oriented development and I support measures to reduce congestion at peak time. For example, mass transit along corridors where there is enough ridership to justify the construction, such as along highway corridors with congestion tolls to finance transit alternatives, meaning that the cost of freeing the congestion is being paid for by drivers and riders alike.

Who knew -- as you've perhaps already ascertained -- we have a lot of opinion to offer on nearly every imaginable topic under the most open-possible definition of "arch and Boston."

However, we are often woefully short of practical knowledge on most topics with which we offer our ideas and opinions, and usually totally lacking in first-person experience with the key relevant developments

So welcome to our cornucopia of fruits, nuts and vegetables -- you'll have to draw your own distinctions! -- But please continue to let us have access to your and your grandfather's knowledge base and concepts

 

[JohnAKeith]

I don't ask other people to pay for 75% of the operating cost of my drive to work. that being said, I do support non-car oriented development and I support measures to reduce congestion at peak time.

A cynic would say that your mode of transportation has been made affordable at the cost of the lives of thousands of soldiers in the US Armed Forces who died to keep oil flowing.

I can't put a dollar value on that, however.

 

[whighlander]

A cynic would say that your mode of transportation has been made affordable at the cost of the lives of thousands of soldiers in the US Armed Forces who died to keep oil flowing.

I can't put a dollar value on that, however.

That is much worse than mere cynicism -- the freely flowing global market for oil is to a large extent the difference between modern society and subsistence-based agriculture practiced by the rest.

I for one --- while I do my best to grow my own tomatoes, lettuce, herbs, beans and berries during New Englands brief growig season -- would just as soon have ready access to others' production of raw agricultural and manufactured products derrived from agricultureal feedstocks.

Without affordable oil -- I might just have to convert my diet to a more bean-centric basis, raise some rabbits for clothing, build a chicken coop for eggs, maneur for the plants and an occasional bit of meat.

None of the discussion of food even mentioned our vital need for oil to produce fertilizers, many lifeaving and preserving pharmaceuticals, plastics, most incecticides, clothing, bedding, santation products -- and oh yes arround these parts provide a little heat on those cold nights in February.

On top of all the above there is the entire process of distributing all of these products globally -- virtually impossible wihout affordable oil.

 

[Kahta]

Who knew -- as you've perhaps already ascertained -- we have a lot of opinion to offer on nearly every imaginable topic under the most open-possible definition of "arch and Boston."

However, we are often woefully short of practical knowledge on most topics with which we offer our ideas and opinions, and usually totally lacking in first-person experience with the key relevant developments

So welcome to our cornucopia of fruits, nuts and vegetables -- you'll have to draw your own distinctions! -- But please continue to let us have access to your and your grandfather's knowledge base and concepts

His first project as a civil engineer was the add-a-lane project on 128 to bring it up to 8 lanes in the wakefield area... almost 50 years ago.... In talking about 128, I learned that there is enough land in the right-of-way for most of the road to bring it up to 6 lanes if fully built over, and that no one ever expected it to remain 8 lanes for as long as it has. He also pointed out the stretch beyond I-93 where the bridges are designed for 8 lanes, but the road only uses six of the lanes. He told me that basically once Gov Sargent decided he cared more about his career than doing the right thing, it was pretty obvious the proposed transit system to replace the highways could never handle the amount of volume from population growth. Additionally, many of the transit lines that were proposed and eventually built, were in areas that a transit line had previously operated in but couldn't stand on it's own because of low population density. He saw the cancellation of the highways inside 128 for what it was-- a shortsighted political move that damaged the long-term competitiveness of neighborhoods and the region by reducing economic mobility. He said the statements about the impacts on neighborhoods was largely hype and exaggeration because in the urban core, the roads were pretty much all supposed to be cut and cover with the two decks partially or fully stacked on eachother.

Another key point he made was that many construction projects in his experience have been handouts for unions with the jobs being purposefully inefficient, for example, steel rebar was cut on-site on a lot of projects in NY because the union that cut the steel at the construction site was paid more than the union that could have cut it at the factory. As a result, the rebar was sent to the worksite on a tractor trailer instead of a smaller truck, which then required more men to load and unload, instead of just taking it off the truck and putting it into position. He also has a pretty negative opinion of state troopers in MA because of their entitlement attitude about detail pay and the number of times they would sign up for a construction detail, sleep overnight with the light bar on, and then just shower in the station to get ready for work without ever going home.

A cynic would say that your mode of transportation has been made affordable at the cost of the lives of thousands of soldiers in the US Armed Forces who died to keep oil flowing.

I can't put a dollar value on that, however.

My break-even is about $11/gallon when the subsidy to mass transit operating costs is removed, but factoring in the time difference (40 vs 120 minutes), I'd still drive when I had to... but at that point I would work from home as much as possible.

Whighlander pretty much states my other argument for oil, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Nice transportation development ideas Kahta. I'm a civil engineer in the road development field, and followed closely as a teenager the grand highway schemes of the 1950's and 60's. I'm 61 now.

This link is to a Google map I put together of all the expressways proposed in the Boston area several decades ago.

In some ways I wish some of them had been built. I've always been a freeway junkie; it's a hard habit to break.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204339377609299454038.0004a1b44dcc6962be28c&msa=0

 

[cden4]

I don't ask other people to pay for 75% of the operating cost of my drive to work.

That's fine but your drive to work is already heavily subsidized. The gas tax only goes to state roads and doesn't even cover the full cost of maintaining them. Local roads are maintained through general taxes which are paid for by everyone. (Automobile excise taxes contribute to this a little bit, but nowhere near what the actual costs are.) On-street parking (much of which is free) is paid for by general local taxes as well. Parking spaces at shopping centers and offices are paid for by the landlord or business owner, and are mandated by zoning. The cost of providing this free off-street parking is additional overhead to the landlord or business owner. This means that everyone who shops at a store ends up paying for a piece of the parking, even if that customer did not drive a car to the store. The same thing with offices. Wages and bonuses for everyone are affected by the overhead cost of providing free parking. Even employees who don't drive to work end up paying part of the cost to maintain the spaces for those who do. (Some businesses have begun giving employees a rebate for not using a parking space, which at least makes this situation a bit more equitable.)

It would certainly be an interesting experiment to have the users of each mode of transportation pay for the full cost of that mode. What we have now is a lot of subsidization for everyone...

 

[Kahta]

That's fine but your drive to work is already heavily subsidized. The gas tax only goes to state roads and doesn't even cover the full cost of maintaining them. Local roads are maintained through general taxes which are paid for by everyone. (Automobile excise taxes contribute to this a little bit, but nowhere near what the actual costs are.) On-street parking (much of which is free) is paid for by general local taxes as well. Parking spaces at shopping centers and offices are paid for by the landlord or business owner, and are mandated by zoning. The cost of providing this free off-street parking is additional overhead to the landlord or business owner. This means that everyone who shops at a store ends up paying for a piece of the parking, even if that customer did not drive a car to the store. The same thing with offices. Wages and bonuses for everyone are affected by the overhead cost of providing free parking. Even employees who don't drive to work end up paying part of the cost to maintain the spaces for those who do. (Some businesses have begun giving employees a rebate for not using a parking space, which at least makes this situation a bit more equitable.)

It would certainly be an interesting experiment to have the users of each mode of transportation pay for the full cost of that mode. What we have now is a lot of subsidization for everyone...

Seeing as >90% of workers commute by car across the country, it is largely user paid for. Boston and New York (cities proper) are some of the few exceptions to where most workers commute by public transit.

Nice transportation development ideas Kahta. I'm a civil engineer in the road development field, and followed closely as a teenager the grand highway schemes of the 1950's and 60's. I'm 61 now.

This link is to a Google map I put together of all the expressways proposed in the Boston area several decades ago.

In some ways I wish some of them had been built. I've always been a freeway junkie; it's a hard habit to break.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204339377609299454038.0004a1b44dcc6962be28c&msa=0

Very neat, thanks for sharing that.

 

[whighlander]

Seeing as >90% of workers commute by car across the country, it is largely user paid for. Boston and New York (cities proper) are some of the few exceptions to where most workers commute by public transit.




Very neat, thanks for sharing that.

Kahta ... Not sure of the %'s in detail -- But I think that about 1/3 of the people employed in Boston proper use the T to get to work, about 10% walk (possibly the highest % in the US), some use bikes -- but the majority are drivers.

II suspect that only in Manhattan is the majority of commuting done by bus and subway


After writing the above -- Found the following (2009 infor based on 2008 data)
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/does-your-city-rank-among-greenest-commuting-habits


Here are the ten cities that in 2008 had the smallest portions of commuters driving alone to work, and the percentage of workers in each who did so. The national median for this statistic, sadly, is 74.2 percent, and the national average is 70.1 percent:

1-New York, NY 23.3
2-Washington, D.C. 37.2
3-San Francisco, CA 38.4
4-Boston, MA 41.1
5-Chicago, IL 50.5
6-Philadelphia, PA 50.7
7-Pittsburgh, PA 52.8
8-Seattle, WA 52.9
9-Baltimore, MD 57.9
10-Oakland, CA 58.1


Here are the top ten performers displayed by the percentage of commuters who took public transit to work. The national median in the Census's American Community Survey is a sorry 4.5 percent; the average is higher at 9.0 percent (probably because the large, transit-rich population of New York City is included as a raw number). The rankings are almost identical to those for driving alone:

1-New York, NY 54.8
2-Washington, D.C. 35.7
3-San Francisco, CA 31.9
4-Boston, MA 31.2
5-Philadelphia, PA 26.8
6-Chicago, IL 26.7
7-Pittsburgh, PA 20.9
8-Baltimore, MD 19.5
9-Seattle, WA 17.7
10-Oakland, CA 17.1


My favorite of the tables, though, is the one for the percentage of commuters walking to work. Here the national median is 2.5 percent (I'm actually surprised that it's that high) and the average is 3.8 percent. The city rankings this time are a little different:

1-Boston, MA 14.3
2-Washington, D.C. 12.1
3-Pittsburgh, PA 11.1
4-New York, NY 10.3
5-San Francisco, CA 9.4
6-Seattl,e WA 9.3
7-Philadelphia, PA 8.6
8-Honolulu, HI 7.9
9-Minneapolis, MN 6.1
10-Baltimore, MD 6.0

 

[Kahta]

Kahta ... Not sure of the %'s in detail -- But I think that about 1/3 of the people employed in Boston proper use the T to get to work, about 10% walk (possibly the highest % in the US), some use bikes -- but the majority are drivers.

II suspect that only in Manhattan is the majority of commuting done by bus and subway

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/nhts-more-people-walk-work-use-public-transit

From your source, look at the cities where the % not driving to work is high. It's basically all old cities with high population densities. If I had the time/data readily available, I'm guessing that the r-squared value between population density and transit usage would be pretty high.

I know that this conversation is going entirely outside of the scope of my original post, but my major issue with people talking about more transit options in Boston. It doesn't make any sense to expand public transit to the outlying areas (Medford, Somerville, Lynn, Arlington) where everyone lives in triple deckers or even worse--single family homes, the population density is too low. It wasn't cars that put streetcars out of business, the population density was never high enough to support the transit lines to begin with. That's why we had streetcar era amusement parks across the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_park

Now whenever there is an attempt to increase population density in the urban core it gets slammed with 10,000 regulations and NIMBYism. Look what happened in MA after the anti-sprawl regulations in the 1970s, towns like the one that I grew up in made 1 acre minimum lot sizes to fight sprawl. What happened? Prices went way up and the population density was even lower. And what kind of cars do people buy out there? I went to my eye doctor and of the 5 cars in the parking lot mine was the only non-SUV.

I'm not opposed to mass transit in the slightest, I just think it should be done in an intelligent manner. Hiring workers by lottery into a job with basically no accountability standards isn't intelligent. The best way, and the way that the T should be funded, is by an additional property tax on the increased property values that are a result of the mass-transit options available. (Brookline, but especially Allston and Brighton come to mind here)

 

[whighlander]

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/nhts-more-people-walk-work-use-public-transit

From your source, look at the cities where the % not driving to work is high. It's basically all old cities with high population densities. If I had the time/data readily available, I'm guessing that the r-squared value between population density and transit usage would be pretty high.

I know that this conversation is going entirely outside of the scope of my original post, but my major issue with people talking about more transit options in Boston. It doesn't make any sense to expand public transit to the outlying areas (Medford, Somerville, Lynn, Arlington) where everyone lives in triple deckers or even worse--single family homes, the population density is too low. It wasn't cars that put streetcars out of business, the population density was never high enough to support the transit lines to begin with. That's why we had streetcar era amusement parks across the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_park


....I'm not opposed to mass transit in the slightest, I just think it should be done in an intelligent manner. Hiring workers by lottery into a job with basically no accountability standards isn't intelligent. The best way, and the way that the T should be funded, is by an additional property tax on the increased property values that are a result of the mass-transit options available. (Brookline, but especially Allston and Brighton come to mind here)

I won't argue with your basic premise about density and transit

However -- I disagree about your specifics at least in the case of Arlington. There are plenty of places in Arlington along Mass Ave. where the density of housing is not much different than Cambridge north of Harvard Square. That is why the 77 Bus from Harvard Sq. station to Arlington Heights -- which runs with transit frequency -- is usually full!

It is also why the Minuteman Bike Trail (before the NIMBY assault) was going to be the Red Line out to Rt-128 near the Lexington / Bedford Line -- supported by an Alewife-scale parking garage. Ironically that proposed station would have been sited near to an old streetcar era amusement parks

 

[Equilibria]

The best way, and the way that the ...ust another football for corrupt politicians.

 

[Kahta]

This has worked a couple of times in other places - the Portland Streetcar comes to mind - but at least in that case the taxes in question were commercial, and it seems that you are suggesting residential tax increases, and in the form of increased percentages of property value (if property values go up, those people will automatically pay more, at least in theory).

The issue with that logic is: who benefits from transit? If the Green Line runs down Beacon in Brookline, how many blocks to each side do the taxes get raised? Is it a radius around the station? Do people who can prove they own cars and therefore benefit little from the line get exemptions?

You could easily extend that line of logic until neighbors can agree to pay extra to have their roads fixed sooner (this actually happened near my house in the 1960s, it's why 1 particular street hasn't been resurfaced in 40 years), their garbage picked up more frequently, their streets plowed first. Particularly in the first and last cases it could be argued that those improve access (albeit temporarily with plowing) as much as the train does.

That strategy also gives residents, particularly those who don't use transit, a whole new reason to fight extensions and service improvements. I don't mean to completely bash the idea - it did work in Portland very well - but it isn't really applicable everywhere. One of the rare places it might work in Boston would be in the Seaport to fund a HarborTram.

The issue of T funding is both highly frustrating and fairly intractable. The fact that the Turnpike's financial woes were dumped on the T, and that the State would have trouble in any case convincing local municipalities to raise property taxes and simply ship them the money, is an unfortunate consequence of the lack of Boston-Area regional infrastructure management. Elsewhere, the T would be funded by the people it serves and governed by a committee of their representatives. In Massachusetts, it's just another football for corrupt politicians.

I know, it raises a ton of issues, Hong Kong funds it's transit system this way. It would never get implemented in the Boston area because of the arguments that would emerge, but there's clearly a value benefit for the entire neighborhoods of carless residents/students that goes beyond their cost of $2 for a fare.