Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,380
- Reaction score
- 327
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
If you extend the Blue Line to Lynn or Salem, I think the Charles connector rises from "good idea" to "essential".
I doubt if there is enough demand. It would be nice to have a connection between Copley and the Back Bay station too. I wonder if a short line under Mass Ave. would get enough use? Andrew to Central supplementing the route 1 bus. That would also allow a station to connect the green line and the orange line instead of a passageway
I feel that the circle line or what ever it is called would be great but should be low on the priority list. If it's to 'connect the spokes' I'd rather see more spokes first.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
But this forum is all about improving the city, not the sprawl.
Ron I have the feeling we'll never see eye to eye on this. I think this does improve life in greater Boston and makes life safer. The days of highway building in greater Boston are over. What is left is to improve what is already there. The future is all about public transportation. Of course then it's commuter rail vs non commuter rail.
Anyway I'm off to my neighborhood meeting(Worcester sq), maybe I'll have Mass Ave news latter, we're the heart of the reconstruction project and our group includes task force members and the lawyer for the law suit
Anyway I'm off to my neighborhood meeting(Worcester sq), maybe I'll have Mass Ave news latter, we're the heart of the reconstruction project and our group includes task force members and the lawyer for the law suit
So there's no reason to improve service for the thousands who are inconvenienced by the half-baked current system because the net gain is anticipated to be ~12 riders?
Leaving aside the insanity of removing the breakdown lane (isn't this essentially a Sand & Gravel repaving project?) in order to "add" a lane that's already acting as a thru lane ...
Didn't we just spend like eleventy-gajillion dollars on some project? Can't remember the name though ... The Huge Dig? The Big Excavation? Something like that ...
Aside from the "gleaming" station at Charles/MGH, I've yet to see any of the legally-mandated public transit expansions carried in the permitting for the Big Dig.
Silver Lie? Wow! A bus line, with silver paint and non-operational status boards.
The Arborway? Deader than my poor Irish relatives.
The Green Line extension? Dying a death slower and more painful than the Arborway restoration.
I guess I should be happy that they're fulfilling their promise to evaluate a Red/Blue connection. (Of course, they're only required to evaluate, not build, but that's a fist-fuck for a different day.)
If you're still with me, this is my point: we've overbuilt for vehicles for over 40 years. When will we learn?
Paul, please don't take any of this as an attack, but in a later post you said, "The future is all about public transportation." If you think that's true, why are you more enthused for the 128 lane swap?
A true urban ring (light rail; heavy rail; appropriate parking garages at urban/suburban edges; no friggin "bus rapid transit" lines through the Boston proper) will improve the quality of life and ability for Massachusetts residents a hundred-fold over the 128 plan--and in a more timely fashion.
Will it cost billions?
Of course. But 3 billion now is better than 2 trillion in 8 years when there's literally no more lanes to swap.
I think there is benefit to connecting the red and blue line I just feel that for the short term riders have the ability to get where they are going they just have to use more than one line. I would much rather see areas that have poor or no rapid transit connects to Boston get improvements first. I have zero faith in any T consultant and little faith in consultants in general. The phase I like is 'consultants paint circles around bull eyes'. I'm sure the study left out the fact that for every rider that no longer has to hop on the orange or green line you are freeing up space for additional riders on those lines.
They are not removing a breakdown lane. After this project is done there will still be a breakdown lane and an additional lane. All the bridges have to be rebuilt, on and off ramps reconfigures and probably utility changes.
What are you basing this on?
I'm not more enthused about the 128 lane addtition. This fixes an existing problem. If not just too make commuters life a little saffer and easier, it will reduce polution and gas use. These lane drops still cause a bottleneck. I'm sure you are wondering, I don't own a car.
A quick search I found $200 million, I don't know if this figure is still current. I'm sure the figure can be found somewhere on the web.
http://www.nvcc.com/128abc/lane.html
http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/128_95_addLane&sid=about
Boston Region MPO use to do a great break down of all transportation projects ad thier benifits, I don't know if they still do, here is thier site
http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/
The original design was to have a train run in the median strip and therefore the original median was very wide.
Actually the widening project is going to be adding a 4th lane and a breakdown lane between rt 9 and 24 which will keep it in line with the current 4 travel lane plus breakdown lane setups after 24 and before rt 9. The project is needed. The interchanges that are going to be fixed are also needed too.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
But with the breakdown lane used for travel, it's already got four lanes during rush hour. That's why I don't see this project as especially productive. The marginal benefits of having a full-time breakdown lane don't seem to be worth the cost.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 496
Because Ron, when that fourth lane starts to get backed up (and it will), then they will have a fifth lane for overflow traffic!
Of course that will necessitate building yet another lane (for safety reasons, of course) etc..etc..
Of course that will necessitate building yet another lane (for safety reasons, of course) etc..etc..
Because Ron having a breakdown lane dedicated to its purpose, where disabled vehicle can go, or be moved to by the state police is needed and will benefit the flow of traffic. What happens if a car were to breakdown just after 128 goes from 4 to 3 lanes by rt. 9 and the car cannot be moved over because the breakdown lane has cars driving in it? Seeing as how the state probably will not be able to fix the disaster that is the southeast expressway and its lack of a breakdown lane for very long stretches, 128 is a highway that can be fixed.
Yes and eventually Boston will have 12 and 14 lane highways to fill all of the traffic that is sure to drive now that the highway is expanded.
Plen-T-Pak
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 349
Very well put Statler.
Back to the Blue/Red line connection, here's a hack: build a pedestrian tunnel connecting Park Street and Government Center. Install some of those nifty people mover thingys they have at the airport and now you have essentially connected all of the lines in a mini-network made up of Park St, Downtown Crossing, and Government Center.
I'm convinced that's what will happen (if anything happens at all). Remember, the T is only obligated to provide a plan, not build it.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
A pedestrian tunnel with a moving sidewalk would be a fine solution, but is probably almost as hard as widening the Green Line tunnel to four tracks, given what you'd have to dig under and around. A moving sidewalk tunnel under Cambridge Street, from a Russell Street Blue Line terminus to Charles station, might be easier.
It had one, it was removed.