F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,281
Only feeds President's Landing and offers a no-street-crossing walk from Assembly. Everyone on the west side of 28, north side of 16, and especially NW side of the Circle have to cross 8 lanes of traffic at the Circle and then walk single-file on the sidewalk of terror. The station's a de facto car/bus island despite houses on the numbered streets off Middlesex being able to see it out their 2nd floor windows. You'd be hard-pressed to find a rapid-transit station on the entire system with poorer ped access than Wellington. Even the Assembly walk up 28 to President's Landing, where there's a jersey barrier between sidewalk and speeding traffic is...unpleasant.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
Couldn't this whole thing be solved then by building some actual sidewalks?
I agree, though, completely - Wellington H8 peds
The route can also be helped with some stairs down to the sidewalk below to Wellington Station rather than having to circle around to the ramp. This would also really help connect River Drive developments with Station Landing. At the moment, one have to go up a huge set of ramps or a set of stairs way up the street... and still have to cross Route 16.
A more expensive step is also adding another pedestrian bridge over the tracks of Station Landing but on the other side.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
F-Line when Wellington was built there was no need for pedestrian access -- no one lived anywhere near to the station -- it was strictly a Park&Ride, Bus hub and Kiss&Ride Station much like Alewife and Riverside.
I think that when Wellington Station opened (1975) the Meadow Glen was still a drive-in Movie Theatre not the Meadow Glen Shopping Mall (1979). As an aside, the last time I was at Meadow Glen, I saw the Godfather there with my Aunt one humid and breezeless August evening in the early 1970's
Of course -- that is no reason that the pedestrian and bike access can not be improved. What is needed is a means of insuring that people from Assembly Sq. to Rivers Edge can all have access to the T by foot and by bike - as for generic walking along Revere Beach Parkway -- Fagitaboudit!
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,281
Uhh...was there not a neighborhood on Middlesex and Fellsway in 1975?
There is heavy residential in literal eyesight of the station. Always has been. They can't access it without..."fagitaboutdit". That is a problem. This has nothing to do with new development. It's about the 10,000+ people a couple blocks away who can't access their own local transit stop.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
F-Line -- for decades their local T stop was Sulivan Square -- accessed by street running trolley or by bus
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,281
Trolleys stopped running out of Sullivan in 1955. Sullivan is 1-1/4 miles further and a crossing of 16 away. That's as much non-sequitur as citing the Mall or yet-to-be-realized new development.
Where has their tolerable pedestrian access been for the last 37 years to the station that's 1000 ft. away from the first of the numbered streets off Middlesex, visible from the 2nd floor windows of those houses? It's not like a reasonable and cheap solution to the Sidewalk of Terror is hard to pull off.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
F-Line -- Yes and No
Most people on the Forum do not have the perspective of having seen the T as it transitioned from the El and added its extensions -- just 30 to 40 years ago. The point about mentioning Meadow Glen is that today it would be unimaginable for that amount of land that close to the urban core in Medford to be used for a drive-in movie theatre. Yet just 30 years ago, when the Wellington vintage stations were being built that whole area was oriented toward spawiing old and some cases new industry (Avco Everett Lab), warehouse-type commerce -- the mode of transport was cars, trucks -- people walking and riding bikes -- not so much.
The point about Sullivan Sq. was that it was more the rule than the exception -- The only Heavy Rail Stations where pedestrians really were significant were the downtown destinations of the commute.
The system was devised so that Street-running Trolly cars later replaced by Buses collected the people in the neighborhoods and delivered you to the Subway where you then decended into the subway for the ride to downtown Boston.That's why all the people who filled-up Cambridge, Somerville, Medford and even the neigborhoods of Boston such as Mattapan lived in what were called "Street Car Suburbs."
Harvard's iconic sign "Rapid Transit 8 minutes to Park Street" was unusual in that a lot of people poured in on foot (as well as by bus). Sullivan was built as the quintessential connection station with a great European-stye hall where people could connect between a Trolley Platform and the Orange Line out of the elements.
By the time that Sullivan was being converted to buses all Commuter Rail Stations where designed based on the model that most people arrived by car (Parking or Kiss&Ride) with few walk-ups.
Wellington, Alewife and the other Red / Orange extension Stations were then modeled after suburban Commuter Rail Stations with the further modification that there were a lot of people arriving by bus as well as by car.
The new Assembly Sq. will provide the T with a new model -- an origin Heavy Rail station designed to be in the midst of a high pedestrian density development. If it is successful - I'm sure that more accomodations for pedestrians will be redesigned and retrofitted into the Alewife vintage stations where because of TOD -- a lot of people are now living within a short stroll of the platform. I'm guessing that in 30 years people will marvel at the process of originally building a station like Wellington with an open parking lot that later was built-upon as TOD.
All of this is assuming:
1) that TOD by design in a place such as Assembly Sq. is successful
2) People really do want to continue to densify their housing
Time will tell
New reasonable transportation pitch inspired by 24 hour gym thread.
There are numerous discussions bemoaning the lack of later transit service. How 'bout this:
Form a new BID with members paying in to secure later transit services. Those who opt-in would be able to get licenses to stay open later. Primarily pitched to bars and nightclubs. Let those who kick in stay open an extra hour. Yes, I know that in Boston they would rather roll back than expand hours. But imagine: for a BID fee/tax you stay open one extra hour which would likely cover the cost and add profit.
Forget the Boston puritanism/provincialism/no-fun-ness for a moment and think if the concept flies
There are numerous discussions bemoaning the lack of later transit service. How 'bout this:
Form a new BID with members paying in to secure later transit services. Those who opt-in would be able to get licenses to stay open later. Primarily pitched to bars and nightclubs. Let those who kick in stay open an extra hour. Yes, I know that in Boston they would rather roll back than expand hours. But imagine: for a BID fee/tax you stay open one extra hour which would likely cover the cost and add profit.
Forget the Boston puritanism/provincialism/no-fun-ness for a moment and think if the concept flies
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Seamass -- I think the idea has merit -- I had the same idea trying to do some business late in San Francisco -- plenty of nightlife but no late night business services
So I thought -- people arrive in global cities with their internal clocks set to all hours -- either at the Airport or at major downtown hotels with a global presensence (e.g. Intercontinental) there could be a "small mall" catering to 24 hour business with some refreshments on the side. Since people would either already be there by plane or cab -- there wouldn't be any reason for the surrounding neighbors to complain about parking, etc.
The other possible location would be a major Interstate Highway Interchange such as I-90/I-95 (Rt-128) in Weston/Newton or I-93/I-95 in Woburn -- people pass through these interchanges at all hours of the night -- so why not have what it takes to do productive things combined with some recreations and perhaps a crash pad -- some of my most productive work on the road was in Stamford CT where there was a Sheraton across the drive (connected underground to a common garage) from my customer's business -- so after a long day and evening (3 AM) I could crash in relative comfort -- but even that hotel had no really accessible services outside of room service food.
I am thinking of more of a "virtual" B.I.D., potentially spread out. Bars and other time-limited businesses would pay extra for extended hours and that money would go to extending transit at night. Even if just Friday and Saturday as I know that maintenance is done at night.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Semass -- I don't think you would get much support for distributed late night -- it has to be a central cluster so the effects on surrounding neighborhoods can be limited -- it also has to include some global entity --that's why I suggested the Intercontinental Hotel
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,281
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
I wonder if a private late-night service - possibly even just using vans on quieter weeknights - would be profitable. Two routes - Harvard Ave to Haymarket via B line, and Broadway to Harvard via red line, with coordinated changes a Park Street. Half hour headways. I'm not sure about a virtual BID to fund these, but I bet some late night businesses would happily advertise on them to help subsidize the cost (?)
There's nothing new about that idea. That's how all stations were developed a century ago. The radical notion of building giant parking lots around stations was developed later in mid-century. It has proven to be a terrible failure because it assumes uni-directional travel (away from parking lots in the morning, towards them in the evening), which is an inefficient usage of expensive infrastructure.
Personally, I have reservations about Assembly Square, after looking at the design extensively. There's an enormous amount of parking supplied through surface lots and garages. On the order of 10,000 spaces, and it sacrifices a great deal of potential density to achieve this.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,888
I had a similar idea once, for a night time van pool funded by participating bars that would provide very cheap or perhaps free rides to patrons wanting to avoid driving drunk. It didn't have the additional hook of added operating hours, though, which I think is what really puts your idea into the realm of feasibility so far as attracting an adequate member base. The hard part of course would be getting the city to go along with it (which means fighting the taxi lobby).
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Mathew -- the reality of the automobile (losely any motorized personal transportation) seems to have failed to sink into your psyche -- unfortunately -- the majority of the 3 or so Billion adults on the earth have a different perspective
Go anywhere on the planet outside of the places still practicing subsistence agriculture and living in the pre-industrial era -- what do you find -- the first thing that someone moving into the modern era purchases - an old broken down motor (bike, scooter, car, 3 wheeler, etc.) -- this is true even for burbs whose density and total population are hard to conceive of in the US
If the vehicles are not dragged into the housing where and when the residents are sleeping -- you need some sort of parking
The really radical idea is that you can personally overturn this almost natural evolution without some sort of draconian control over peoples lives
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Henry -- I think that a bar and restaurant funded (voluntarily) reduced price vans (Charlie Card price) circulating around on 4 inter-locking routes -- similar to Lexpress and other suburban van services:
1) the Fenway,
2) Newbuey Street,
3) area around FH/QM
4) Theatre District
Operating from 1 hour before the T shuts (11:00 PM) to an hour after the existing closing hour (3:00 AM) might find popular acceptance - the police would favor it -- fewer drunks on the road
Implement it in phases:
1) Set it up and run it without incident for a couple of years
2) go for an extension of routes to more districts
3) after a few years go for participating places getting extended opeations for another hour (3:00 AM) -- with the vans running to an hour after late closing (4:00 AM)
4) In lesss than 10 years you can have a service bridging the hours of non-T operations
a) covering all of the non-strictly residential parts of the city
b) funded by the users and the beneficiaries -- no tax payers funds
c) let the taxi owning companies provide the vehicles and the drivers
I think we might have a winner for everyone