Reasonable Transit Pitches

[F-Line to Dudley]

U.S. routes have never had to be four lanes. Interstate highways are the only route designations with very rigid guidelines for lane widths, shoulder widths, etc.

Eliminating a lane each way along Brighton Ave for a light rail right-of-way would certainly be doable if the political will and community support were there. It would do wonders for the Brighton Ave corridor -- perhaps even spurring apartments/condos built atop current shops?

A lot of Allston and Brighton has the ability to increase density very easily through infill. Make the B (and future A) run reliably and you'd instantly increase desirability here.

You wouldn't have to eliminate the full 2 lanes. I don't see why a wide travel lane, a narrower bus/bike lane, and parking taken at intersections for a full complement of turn lanes wouldn't have worked with tracks staying on the left side of the yellow stripe. The flow would actually work better that way as parallel parkers would turn in/out on the narrower diamond-stiped lane without fucking up thru traffic, and double-parked delivery trucks wouldn't block a thru lane either like they do CONSTANTLY now. Nothing whatsoever would screw with the trolleys because you can't block the yellow paint for any reason.

There's no written rule that a thoroughfare has to have 4 travel lanes. That doesn't work in the middle of the city anyway with the number of intersections, curb cuts, parallel parkers, double-parkers, pedestrians, and transit vehicles zipping in and out. Outside of parkways and streets where parking is banned I'd argue it frequently does more harm than good because 4 lanes encourages excessive speed on an opening then sudden braking...sometimes every several dozen feet. How does totally hosed flow = road capacity? It doesn't. Concentrate on the flow and traffic-calming it into the natural flow fitting its layout, and honestly it'll work better.

Brighton Ave. is a prime offender here. Everything flowing into it flows better than Brighton Ave. itself. Ironically, it's the Union Sq.-Oak Sq. part that does have 2 lanes--2 single over-wide lanes with turning radii--that flows better than Brighton Ave. And volumes are plenty high from Union to St. Elizabeth's. Nothing encourages choppy flow like cramming 2 travel lanes, a "high-speed" median, and zero shoulder space before parallel parking and curb cuts on a city street with 8 bazillion parking spaces, curb cuts, and intersections. See Mass. Ave. from Cambridge Common to Alewife Brook Pkwy. How come the 2-lane + bike lane from Central to Mt. Auburn outperforms the shit over the 4-lane + median in North Cambridge? Or how shrinking the road from 4 to 3 lanes and adding beefy bike/bus diamond stripes from Central to the Charles made that formerly hellish segment not so hellish? Or Comm. Ave...better to BU Bridge since it shrunk from 6 to 4 lanes with the diamond stripe, no? Still horrific from BU Bridge to Packards as a six-pack unseparated from parking and loading zones, yes?


This is very much a "but this is how we've always done it" security blanket not grounded half the time in reality. There's countless examples of this of varying severity in town, but Spite Median'ed Brighton Ave. is a pretty bad one.

 

[Matthew]

I'm not saying it wasn't a huge mistake to run US 20 through there, but it happened. And while rerouting and rebannering US 20 onto Storrow Drive via the Mass Pike is appealing, I don't see it going anywhere.

As it stands, I'd argue that grade-separated pedestrian crossings no more "ghettoize" pedestrians than bike lanes do 'cyclists,' and carry a hell of a lot more benefit than bike lanes for a lot less to do. I'm talking about a bridge over an intersection, not creating a pedestrian el.

Honestly, so what if it's "US 20"? It's just a numbering scheme which doesn't make sense. The faraway bureaucrats who draw lines on the map probably never walked along Brighton Avenue to realize that it shouldn't be a highway of any sort. Talk about nonsensical central planning... The "US 20" designation is not a law of nature, and can be undone with the stroke of a pen.

Bike lanes don't ghettoize cyclists. You are missing the key point here: "grade-separated." It's long been realized that separating pedestrians from the street is a mistake in a city. Without people walking, you've got nothing but a highway strip. Without places to walk, you've got no reason to even build transit here. Mixing at the street level actually helps to slow traffic down to the point where it is not a highway anymore, which is bad for high speed races, but good for businesses and economic life in the neighborhood.

 

[omaja]

You wouldn't have to eliminate the full 2 lanes. I don't see why a wide travel lane, a narrower bus/bike lane, and parking taken at intersections for a full complement of turn lanes wouldn't have worked with tracks staying on the left side of the yellow stripe.

I was thinking outright eliminating a lane each direction would give ample room for actual stations and a physical barrier between the street and trolley a la along Comm Ave. This would hopefully be enough room for them to not repeat the same mistakes they did on the B with the stations at BU East/Central, Harvard Ave and Washington St being far too narrow for the traffic they handle. I don't think 24 feet for travel lanes, 10 feet for bike lanes, 18 feet for parking lanes/buffers would leave enough room for a sufficient rail reservation -- the corridor is only ~78 feet wide. I suppose you could have the trolley use island platforms along the route and reduce the width there to give a bike lane?

Otherwise, I completely agree that the four lanes on Brighton Ave do more harm than good as no one in this state knows how to drive properly.

EDIT: Just read that apparently it is possible to reduce travel lanes to 10 feet wide, parking lanes to 7 feet and keep bike lanes at 5 feet. That would leave ~34 feet of right-of-way for rail. Let's say the trains/track need 20 feet total, giving an island platform of 14 feet wide to serve both directions. I think that'd be pretty doable?

 

[Shepard]

With proper planning, couldn't a trolley still run in the street even in a two-lane road?

For example (my illustration):

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

It's not a matter of planning, it's a matter of politics. You want street running trolleys? Get a new mayor.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

With proper planning, couldn't a trolley still run in the street even in a two-lane road?

For example (my illustration):

Strictly left-entry doors on the surface would be difficult because of no fare collection. Yes, the Green Line should have proof-of-payment by now, but there can't be stops where there's no access to the operator for making change. That's just a tad too cumbersome.

What you can do that's similar is to have one of those narrow strips running to allow ADA entrance at the middle door, provided you've got a low-floor trolley as the leading car always and don't have any trolley poles sticking out of the ground on that median. A wheelchair could cross the crosswalk, pass in front of the trolley, then ramp onto the median to the center door safely with the operator watching out the window. That would work on something like the Brighton Ave. median. Otherwise, if the streets aren't wide enough to have narrow side platforms like SF MUNI has for its streetcars and TT's the streetcar has to be a normal streetcar.

But that's OK...because cities are building streetcars all over the damn place, 20 years into the ADA era, so there's nothing to fear.

The other alternative, and what was proposed for Arborway restoration, was side-running with curb juts. That also is not the apocalypse if the BTD simply enforced its own rules on double-parkers. But it doesn't, so our streets are all "uniquely special and narrow."

There's several places where full-on, off-road turnouts can go: Riverway at the corner gas station, Heath (obviously), the VA Hospital front parking lot, Bynner or Perkins St. in front of MSPCA Angell, S. Huntington & Centre in the 7-Eleven wedge parking lot, Monument. On the A, Union Sq. (where there used to be a loop), Mt. St. Joseph Academy (there you would have room for center-running with side platforms), Warren St./St. Elizabeth's (reconfigure intersection), Oak Sq. (former loop).

Some better than others, but you get the point. Our "narrow" streets are not so narrow with all these superfluous medians, small sidewalk greenspace strips of no public merit, and sidewalk-facing parking rows at convenience stores and whatnot where some wheeling-and-dealing is fully possible with private owners who'd do better business with the streetcar than with every square inch of the property paved with half-full asphalt. It's will, not way. We don't exactly have well-functioning bus stops either from lack of turnouts and too many curb blockers, so this also is a general, not streetcar-specific, complaint around here. I for one can't figure for the life of me why that awkwardly-laid plaza in front of Porter station doesn't have an outbound turnout for the 77 to comfortably load/unload in front of the station...so it's not like unwillingness to do this is limited by private entities. The T isn't interested on a lot of its own property.

 

[Matthew]

I don't think turnouts are a good idea for buses or streetcars. It often takes longer for the bus to merge back into traffic than to make the stop, thanks to Masshole drivers. I'd rather have curb extensions so the bus can stop and go without turning out.

And good luck convincing the average convenience store owner that a parking space is less valuable than a streetcar stop.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I don't think turnouts are a good idea for buses or streetcars. It often takes longer for the bus to merge back into traffic than to make the stop, thanks to Masshole drivers. I'd rather have curb extensions so the bus can stop and go without turning out.

And good luck convincing the average convenience store owner that a parking space is less valuable than a streetcar stop.

No application is 100% across the board. Both Arborway and the 39 improvements plan called for curb juts. Turnouts would've worked and been an ideal solution, though, for the VA Hospital's ADA needs and the longer dwell times for the increased number of disabled passengers getting off there. Choose what's appropriate for the individual site. There's no cure-all. Same goes for the "Bah! All our streets are too narrow!" meme that is just a blanket statement and excuse for not thinking (and also not borne out by reality or some of the shitty road layouts force-fit for high-speed cars).


Yeah, convincing a private business is hard. But the city doesn't make it easy on itself coddling them with garbage like the double-parking "tradition", so the sense of entitlement is just a little bit...elevated. Also hard to tell what deals you can make when they refuse to brainstorm any ideas. Their picture of community outreach is more along the lines of the 28X..."Oh hai guyz wer doin this k thx bye!", followed by predictable factionalization. And then making it worse when the suburbs get coddled to absurdity by the very same transit agency.

Other cities and transit agencies do this all the time while keeping people happy. Other cities and transit agencies also behave a little more consistently and don't try to hide so much behind brainrot institutional culture. So there's that...

 

[Charlie_mta]

I don't think turnouts are a good idea for buses or streetcars. It often takes longer for the bus to merge back into traffic than to make the stop, thanks to Masshole drivers. I'd rather have curb extensions so the bus can stop and go without turning out.

And good luck convincing the average convenience store owner that a parking space is less valuable than a streetcar stop.

"Masshole" drivers. LOL!

 

[George_Apley]

Here's one that would be reasonable if we had a sane political system: replace tolls on the Pike and Tobin with high-speed pass readers like they have in NH. Either sequester a lane for those without EZ-Pass or use cameras to bill those without.

Hell, go ahead and slash toll costs and install high speed tolls on every major route to the city. There's absolutely no reason someone commuting from Marlborough or Saugus should have to pay to get in, but someone from Arlington or Stoughton, for instance, doesn't. At least do it at the entrances to the CA/T.

Is there any reason other than the political culture of patronage that this hasn't been done already?

 

[omaja]

With proper planning, couldn't a trolley still run in the street even in a two-lane road?

For example (my illustration):

I don't think that would work well for the reasons F-Line mentioned and the MBTA's reluctance to reinstate street-running rail.

But I do think after reviewing the Brighton Ave corridor that you could probably fit two travel lanes, two bike lanes and parking lanes and still have enough space for a dedicated trolley reservation. May need to stagger the station platforms a bit in order to optimize space, but certainly doable.

Is there any reason other than the political culture of patronage that this hasn't been done already?

In a nutshell, that's the reason. I-93 is prohibited from being tolled as long as the federal law mandating that any Interstate Highways which were built with federal funds cannot be tolled (obviously with a few notable grandfathered exceptions--the Pike among them). I supposed they could toll Routes 1, 1A, 2 and 9 easily enough.

 

[George_Apley]

^ Do the feds have that rule because they built it with their money, or because they don't want state tolls slowing down Interstate travel? High speed tolls would make the second point obsolete, although they'd still have to rollback the national law...

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

In a nutshell, that's the reason. I-93 is prohibited from being tolled as long as the federal law mandating that any Interstate Highways which were built with federal funds cannot be tolled (obviously with a few notable grandfathered exceptions--the Pike among them). I supposed they could toll Routes 1, 1A, 2 and 9 easily enough.

Worth noting is that the restrictions on tolling Interstates are being relaxed somewhat with the Interstate System Construction Tolling Pilot Program, although all current slots for that program have been filled. The Big Dig would have been the ideal candidate for this program, as part of the anti-tolling legalese says toll money MUST be used in construction and maintenance of the tolled road before it is used for anything else. There's also some jargon in there IIRC to the effect of preventing the use of federal highway funding towards any tolled roads.

That having been said, while I support fully the tolling of the Big Dig tunnels and believe that the Big Dig debt should be shifted back onto 93 commuters where it belongs via toll, I also think that tolling every major freeway is an aggressively stupid idea and a complete non-starter, both because of the unintended potential ramifications re: cutting off some or all federal funding to those roads and also because if you want to get every single person in the state to lock step against you/us, there's no better way to do it than to roll out 'toll equity,' or worse, 'we have chosen to finance [T Project] in part through the addition of tolls on [Freeway].' Look at the public reaction to tax money that's already been taken and thus would have no effect on how much is being paid in taxes possibly going towards the MBTA and imagine how much worse it's going to be when you're directly attacking that segment of the population.

 

[whighlander]

I don't think that would work well for the reasons F-Line mentioned and the MBTA's reluctance to reinstate street-running rail.

But I do think after reviewing the Brighton Ave corridor that you could probably fit two travel lanes, two bike lanes and parking lanes and still have enough space for a dedicated trolley reservation. May need to stagger the station platforms a bit in order to optimize space, but certainly doable.



In a nutshell, that's the reason. I-93 is prohibited from being tolled as long as the federal law mandating that any Interstate Highways which were built with federal funds cannot be tolled (obviously with a few notable grandfathered exceptions--the Pike among them). I supposed they could toll Routes 1, 1A, 2 and 9 easily enough.

Obviously, if you've had tolls on an interstate you can continue and even enhance them as the new Open High Speed toling in NH on I-95

I'm sure that there are exemption clauses enabling new toll roads

 

[George_Apley]

Worth noting is that the restrictions on tolling Interstates are being relaxed somewhat with the Interstate System Construction Tolling Pilot Program, although all current slots for that program have been filled. The Big Dig would have been the ideal candidate for this program, as part of the anti-tolling legalese says toll money MUST be used in construction and maintenance of the tolled road before it is used for anything else. There's also some jargon in there IIRC to the effect of preventing the use of federal highway funding towards any tolled roads.

That having been said, while I support fully the tolling of the Big Dig tunnels and believe that the Big Dig debt should be shifted back onto 93 commuters where it belongs via toll, I also think that tolling every major freeway is an aggressively stupid idea and a complete non-starter, both because of the unintended potential ramifications re: cutting off some or all federal funding to those roads and also because if you want to get every single person in the state to lock step against you/us, there's no better way to do it than to roll out 'toll equity,' or worse, 'we have chosen to finance [T Project] in part through the addition of tolls on [Freeway].' Look at the public reaction to tax money that's already been taken and thus would have no effect on how much is being paid in taxes possibly going towards the MBTA and imagine how much worse it's going to be when you're directly attacking that segment of the population.

New revenue from infrastructure (of all kinds) has to come from somewhere. And part of it's either going to from gas tax or higher tolls. If they're going to raise tolls, they should make it fair to everyone, use Open High Speed tolls. If they do that, the amount of new revenue you'll take in will actually allow them to lower the price of an individual trip, since the burden is spread onto thousands more vehicles. People will be mad no matter how taxes are raised. At least open tolling can be cast as increasing fairness on the roadways as opposed to arbitrarily having the folks on the I-90 corridor and the North Shore carrying all the burden.

 

[whighlander]

New revenue from infrastructure (of all kinds) has to come from somewhere. And part of it's either going to from gas tax or higher tolls. If they're going to raise tolls, they should make it fair to everyone, use Open High Speed tolls. If they do that, the amount of new revenue you'll take in will actually allow them to lower the price of an individual trip, since the burden is spread onto thousands more vehicles. People will be mad no matter how taxes are raised. At least open tolling can be cast as increasing fairness on the roadways as opposed to arbitrarily having the folks on the I-90 corridor and the North Shore carrying all the burden.

Busses -- Opem Road Tolling should be installed on all Interstate-class highways carrying people across the I-495 boundary with a 2nd level of tolls setup on highways carrying people inside Rt-128 boundary

The existing toll booths should be dismantled with a location for "foreign" vehicles to stop and pick-up a temporary transponder

The revenues from the tolls as well as all state gas tax revenues collected within I-495 should go into a master account to fund all Greater Boston region transportantion projects -- become independent of the Federal Highway Trust Fund

 

[George_Apley]

^ I totally agree. It will spread the cost across the driving population, and more accurately price the cost of driving. If they really wanted to be ambitious, they could use the system to implement congestion pricing, but as it stands now that isn't "reasonable" The trick will be not disrupting intra and interstate travel before everyone has a transponder. We don't want from cars from outside the EZ-Pass states to have what amounts to a customs stop on the way into the state. The feds wouldn't put up with that I don't think ~ and that's assuming they ever put up with this scheme to begin with.

 

[whighlander]

^ I totally agree. It will spread the cost across the driving population, and more accurately price the cost of driving. If they really wanted to be ambitious, they could use the system to implement congestion pricing, but as it stands now that isn't "reasonable" The trick will be not disrupting intra and interstate travel before everyone has a transponder. We don't want from cars from outside the EZ-Pass states to have what amounts to a customs stop on the way into the state. The feds wouldn't put up with that I don't think ~ and that's assuming they ever put up with this scheme to begin with.

Busses -- as they enter the zone they see a sign:

"Entering Ez-Pass Open Road tolling zone -- free transponder required to use designated roads (then a list of the roads and their exits)

Transponders available at Service Stop"

If they don't wish to use the roads they can enter the zone on streets or state highways not on the list

 

[Equilibria]

The existing toll booths should be dismantled with a location for "foreign" vehicles to stop and pick-up a temporary transponder

Actually, this isn't necessary. Newer ORT systems have license plate cameras that can read your registration and send you a bill (or you can pay online). This either only applies to those without transponders - they pay a higher toll since the processing costs are higher than the transponder - or the toll authority simply does it for everyone.

The other major advantage of open road tolling is that it allows those sprawling Turnpike interchanges to be reduced in footprint dramatically. I think we've had a conversation on here about the way that could impact Allston-Brighton, for instance.

The real-world issues that come up around this conversation: Tolls are prohibited on existing interstate highways with some rare exceptions - the Turnpike was grandfathered in back in the '50s. While the Feds are now starting to encourage new Interstates to be built as toll roads, it remains illegal for a state to place tolls on an existing road, and an exception certainly wouldn't be made for something as blatantly selfish as tolling state borders, which has come up on here before. Non-interstates (Route 2, Route 24, US-3) are fair game, though.

The other issue, of course, is the immense power that the toll-takers' union seems to hold on Beacon Hill. This is the reason we don't have the open road system already in MA, and won't have it anytime soon.

In a related non-sequitur, while I love efficiency, EZPass is an awful brand. The signs are ugly, the logo looks like it was designed on someone's PowerMac in 1993, and the name is as cheesy as it gets. I like that some guy actually founded this thing in a garage and made it big, but Fast Lane was better in every way. They should have just called it that everywhere.

 

[whighlander]

Actually, this isn't necessary. Newer ORT systems have license plate cameras that can read your registration and send you a bill (or you can pay online). This either only applies to those without transponders - they pay a higher toll since the processing costs are higher than the transponder - or the toll authority simply does it for everyone.

The other major advantage of open road tolling is that it allows those sprawling Turnpike interchanges to be reduced in footprint dramatically. I think we've had a conversation on here about the way that could impact Allston-Brighton, for instance.

The real-world issues that come up around this conversation: Tolls are prohibited on existing interstate highways with some rare exceptions - the Turnpike was grandfathered in back in the '50s. While the Feds are now starting to encourage new Interstates to be built as toll roads, it remains illegal for a state to place tolls on an existing road, and an exception certainly wouldn't be made for something as blatantly selfish as tolling state borders, which has come up on here before. Non-interstates (Route 2, Route 24, US-3) are fair game, though.

The other issue, of course, is the immense power that the toll-takers' union seems to hold on Beacon Hill. This is the reason we don't have the open road system already in MA, and won't have it anytime soon.

In a related non-sequitur, while I love efficiency, EZPass is an awful brand. The signs are ugly, the logo looks like it was designed on someone's PowerMac in 1993, and the name is as cheesy as it gets. I like that some guy actually founded this thing in a garage and made it big, but Fast Lane was better in every way. They should have just called it that everywhere.

Equi -- there was actually a far superior locally developed technology than Fast Lane / EZpass that could work with credit cards in the vehicle -- but it lost out to a "deal" cut on "Bacon Hill" home of the pork on pork sandwitch where everything is a deal and no deal is too small

The reason the toll takers have power on Bacon Hill -- they are nearly all relatives or in-laws of the State Reps and Senators -- nothing to see here folks move along!