Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

[jass]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I guess this is what you get when bicycles totally outnumber cars. Is that a Critical Mass event?

Those arent bikes ron, theyre motorycycles. And thats an average day in many asian cities where theres close to zero regulation on cars and buildings.

 

[davem]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Thank you Shepard, I lost more than a few hours of sleep writing all that, it's great to hear it is appreciated.

I do not agree with the on "brilliance of davem" sentiment. And I see the equivalent mentality of the people who want cars for everything and want to bulldoze everything to fit a car lifestyle.

Frankly, if MassMortorist have a different handle, I'm very willing to bet the sentiment would a bit less hostile. Because the tone and arguments to him seem to be along the lines he is advocating that cars are superior and mass transit should go die in a corner. If you read his past posts, you know he does not push for that and he is not saying that now.

In short, making points such as transit is underinvested and thus people are forced to use cars rathers because it is the best option is a moot point. Because both sides agree on that point.

The point of contention is the tone towards cars and MassMortorist is trying to remind that cars have a place. And not saying European/Asian-style mass transit does not belong here. Yet everyone seems to be counter-arguing that is the point being said. Making points how parking will destroy Boston, massive pollution, and people drive cars because transit is are not given the equal investment. Yet, I think everyone here would agree our public transit system needs a real investment and no one here is arguing for more highways or parking lots.

I also have one other point I need to make. I agree with DaveM (as would everyone else here I presume) that transit is under-invested. That many people take cars not for one of the intrinsic qualities of cars, but only how the system is setup. But I cannot agree with the encapsulation of the point by the commute of the Seaport as a product of pure underinvestment towards transit versus over-investment towards cars as long the measuring stick is travel time. If the Seaport (with the rest of Boston) gets a real investment (so lets say actually heavy rail stops and everything), travel time will still hold to a disadvantage unless we re-centralize the system to the Seaport. Of course, if transit time weren't so bad, then other qualities intrinsic to transit can begin make up for the dent in commute time. But the discussion seem to be focused on travel time, so it still needs to be said.

I made a really_big_point somewhere else that I disassemble massmotorist's posts in such a way specifically because they are such well assembled, cohesive, thoughtful arguments. They provoke me to think, really formulate an opinion, do research, and then develop a reply. I opened a text editor to assemble that post, never done that on a forum before. If my tone came off as hostile it was unintended, passionate however, absolutely.

As for your point on the Seaport: did we not build a brand new and redundant four lane bridge and boulevard, an interstate highway extension with a full interchange, a state police barrack and a road for trucks in the seaport? And was that not complimented with no more than a value engineered specifically built (read: maintenance boondoggle) partially underground bus that has no practical continuing path at either end? And before anyone says it, if the pike extension was JUST for the airport it would make a hard left and go under the fort point to the airport.

That is why transit is not equal. You do not have to re-centralize to the seaport to make transit an effective and timely option. You just have to build transit for the expected potential. Queens, the Bronx, Forest Hills, and who knows where else were FARMLAND when they had the el extended into them. The seaport was a partially built out incubator literally a stones throw from the core of our city and this is what we get? Why were commute times not considered? If we truly were building for people and not cars there would be one line running from Malden down through the airport, seaport and southie, and another one running the current path of the silver line. At the very least. But instead we built roads and a sad little bus in a cave.

The difference here is the admission by government and society at large that mobility - of any form - does not come for free and that investments can coexist to find an optimal balance.

This is an excellent point. Americans somehow forget we used to sustain ourselves within a few miles of where we were born; and more importantly, that to travel beyond that consumes a massive amount resources.


As an aside, don't think for one second I don't like cars. I love cars. I'm a massive auto fan, far more then I care about or like trains. That doesn't change the fact they are the worst option for transit in an urban environment. Saying that I hate cars is ridiculous: I hate wasteful, expensive, inefficient, selfish, demoralizing, hulking infrastructure. Especially when said infrastructure is taking away funds from a system that is vastly superior in almost every way. And for the places that it is not superior in: THAT'S WHY THERE ARE CARS. Please note I have not argued for rebuilding redundant rail lines in the country, tearing up interstates that exist within citys, banning cars from anywhere, or installing subway infrastructure where it is not warranted. The only highway I want to see torn out is Storrow, but that is for a return to parkland (as Storrow and his widow both wanted), and I do not support the riverbank subway in any of the iterations that have been discussed here.

 

[davem]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Here is a shorter, summary response specifically regarding travel time and cars vs transit in the city.

Except for the most irregular and highly improbable of travel patterns, if mass transit is ever slower than driving a car in the city it is broken and needs to be fixed. City's are congested, slow places on the surface. So except for 4am with all green lights, the subway should always be faster, always. We have a lot of building to do.

 

[JonFrum]

Re: North-South Rail Link

If we truly were building for people and not cars [/SIZE]

Another one of those.... thinks cars drive themselves.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Here is a shorter, summary response specifically regarding travel time and cars vs transit in the city.

Except for the most irregular and highly improbable of travel patterns, if mass transit is ever slower than driving a car in the city it is broken and needs to be fixed. City's are congested, slow places on the surface. So except for 4am with all green lights, the subway should always be faster, always. We have a lot of building to do.

But that's just the problem right there. Most transit advocates don't just want to make transit faster, they also want to actively make driving slower, and since the money never exists for the former it suffices for them to the latter. How many people on this board have advocated for removing Storrow Drive even without a Blue Line extension (it's a bad idea even with one, but that's neither here nor there)? Transit needs to be faster, sure, and if that means that it becomes a better way to go than a healthy street and highway system, great. If that means slowing cars down until the transit becomes faster by default, for the purposes of manipulating people and modifying behavior, you can count me out.

 

[jass]

Re: North-South Rail Link

But that's just the problem right there. Most transit advocates don't just want to make transit faster, they also want to actively make driving slower, and since the money never exists for the former it suffices for them to the latter. How many people on this board have advocated for removing Storrow Drive even without a Blue Line extension (it's a bad idea even with one, but that's neither here nor there)? Transit needs to be faster, sure, and if that means that it becomes a better way to go than a healthy street and highway system, great. If that means slowing cars down until the transit becomes faster by default, for the purposes of manipulating people and modifying behavior, you can count me out.

No, they want to make driving slower because in a city, fast driving endangers and kills pedestrians and cyclists.

If you want speed, the subway should do 60mph, while the cars should move at a safe speed for mingling.

Storrow drive should be changed not to fuck over drivers, but because the current configuration fucks over pedestrians and cyclists.

Youre confusing slowing down vehicles to improve safety and comfort for all and slowing down vehicles just for spite.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Re: North-South Rail Link

But that's just the problem right there. Most transit advocates don't just want to make transit faster, they also want to actively make driving slower,

But DaveM 100% addressed this in "As an aside..." I actually think the "As an aside..." post reflected the opinions of the majority of transit advocates.

 

[bbfen]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Most transit advocates don't just want to make transit faster, they also want to actively make driving slower

Well, no. While I do want transit improvements I realize it will never happen.

In the meantime is it too much for drivers to follow the law? Things like red lights. Things like not driving 40 down Boylston Street at rush hour. Things like "no turn on red." Things like don't block the box.

Oh, sorry. Does that "actively make driving slower?" Well, sorry I'm not sorry.

 

[massmotorist]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Ok, but we'd also have to visit pricing the street itself and the use of streets for parking. Your free-market options are either demand-based curbside pricing, or keep the same (too-low) curbside parking prices but implement a congestion price to charge for all the street real estate that a car uses.

I agree. The simplest, most cost-effective way to do it is market pricing of on-street parking (and, indeed, all parking - sell municipal lots) a la SFPark. You achieve the benefits of congestion pricing without the overhead and government intrusion of congestion pricing.

No, they want to make driving slower because in a city, fast driving endangers and kills pedestrians and cyclists.

The problem is that belief is wrong. The reasons and explanations for why it's wrong are complicated and not so easy to explain. I'm still researching it to make sure I get everything right, and ultimately I'll post separately to explain the relationship between safety and speed. But regardless, where people want to slow down or remove roadways that are grade-separated from bikes and pedestrians (Storrow), the pedestrian safety argument doesn't hold water.

Many here (with good reason) rail against restrictions on density and development. Among density's many benefits, you get a lot more bang for the buck for things like utilities and roads. But what's often-missed by these same density advocates is, maximum roadway throughput occurs in the realm of 45 mph.* So generally, slowing or "calming" traffic is essentially a decrease in roadway capacity. You still have to spend the same money for the road, but you get a lot less out of it (or need more lanes, which means less density and higher roadway spending).

*Note that I'm not advocating 45 mph streets in the financial district, or that 45 mph should always be a goal... Just wanted to cut that straw man off at the pass.

In the meantime is it too much for drivers to follow the law? Things like red lights. Things like not driving 40 down Boylston Street at rush hour. Things like "no turn on red." Things like don't block the box.

Oh, sorry. Does that "actively make driving slower?" Well, sorry I'm not sorry.

When there is widespread noncompliance with a red light or other traffic control device, it usually means there's been a violation of proper engineering standards (sometimes sanctioned by law). Fix the violation, fix most of the problem.

 

[Matthew]

Re: North-South Rail Link

The reason people want to see Storrow gone or changed is because it cuts us off from the river (and it was built against the express wishes of the Storrow family, but anyway).

The reason people would prefer slower moving vehicles on mixed traffic city streets is safety. The "40-45 mph equilibrium" applies to grade-separated, dedicated highways, not streets.

And the reason why massive amounts of grade-separation or other traffic segregation on ordinary city streets does not work is that it destroys city life. Just look at Newark and its infamous pedestrian bridges. The street is vital and keeping people away from it -- whether through grade separation or fear of dangerous vehicles -- is deadly.

Moses and his ilk were big proponents of using massive amounts of concrete to ease congestion through the city. That didn't turn out too well. He was also, curiously enough, very opposed to speeding and demanded strict enforcement of low limits on his highways. He even demanded that companies stop advertising big engines. He built parkways with the expectation that people would drive slowly on the wide thoroughfares and spend time appreciating the scenery. The parkways in Boston were conceived similarly. Olmsted designed them as pleasure rides/walks, so that city residents could access their city parks (which he designed) via a safe, uncluttered, park-like road, away from the dangers of commercial vehicle traffic.

It seems like a total joke nowadays that anyone would ever think that way, when you look at the state of the "parkways" today. If you want to talk about "engineering failure" I'd like to talk about how parkways have completely failed in their original purpose.

 

[cden4]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I agree with Matthew 100%. It's not about making it more difficult to drive, it's about reclaiming our urban neighborhoods for people. In an environment with traffic signals, there is no need for anyone to drive more than 20 mph or so. If the signals are timed well, slow and steady can actually process more traffic than 40 mph between signals and 0 mph at signals. And it's much much safer for pedestrians. 90% of pedestrians hit by cars die when struck at 40 mph, only 5% at 20 mph.

 

[bbfen]

Re: North-South Rail Link

When there is widespread noncompliance with a red light or other traffic control device, it usually means there's been a violation of proper engineering standards (sometimes sanctioned by law). Fix the violation, fix most of the problem.

<<<<<PRIMAL SCREAM>>>>>

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Well if we keep saying it'll never happen, then yes, it'll never happen.

Koreans didn't say that, so they did this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/world/asia/17daylight.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&

more details:
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysCheonggye.html

The will power has to exist for day-lighting springs and rivers covered. When asked about "daylighting" some of the burried small streams somewhere around Fresh Pond (between there and towards Alewife Brook below the Fitchburg Line) the city of Cambridge said that would be a no go.

 

[jass]

Re: North-South Rail Link

<<<<<PRIMAL SCREAM>>>>>

Its completely true. Look at roads in China, everybody runs the red lights, so clearly the proper solution is not enforcement, but simply their removal. 80% rule and all that.

By removing the traffic light, everyone follows the law, and does so in a prudent and safe manner.

Humans are extremely rational, which is why they never behave in a manner that could endanger themselves or others.

 

[ant8904]

Re: North-South Rail Link

@Jass and Bfen - Snark, sarcasm, and making primal screams does not refute the claim or the supporting arguments. The yellow light example by the study cited and should be debated as a fair proxy point of Design Engineering versus Traffic Laws. Sometimes it is problem with the law, sometimes it is a problem with the design. It's a fair debate if something like red light running a problem of people ignoring lights at the cost of safety or a problem of traffic light design where a longer yellow light would alleviate light running while making so cost to safety (and to my mind, a longer yellow light shouldn't decrease safety).

@Matthew and cden4

You are aware, like davem about cars, did add a clause to explain he is not advocating 45 mph roads.

Traffic segregation would maximize safety as no interaction between any mode means no way it can happen. However, the cost is that in the wrong area, it kills street life. Or in the case of Storrow, cuts off Back Bay and BU from seamless connection. But I don't think anyone is trying to debate on that.

Storrow and grade seperated roads is I think a bad proxy example. Because I think everyone here would agree Storrow Drive in the current incarnation is not desirable to anyone here. So using it as an proxy point to the place of cars in a city, speed of cars and speed of transit is a not a good proxy point.

I think the better proxy example is traffic light timing. It is an example where it is not done well for cars or pedestrians for Boston. It is also an example Equilibra holds truth to his claim that some transit advocate want to slow traffic down by desire of spite and artificial improvement (artificial as in making transit desirable by making driving suck rather than transit awesome) hold truth. Some advocates do exist and motivated by that and is best examplified with traffic light timing. To be exact, I can recall some in comments against the idea of "green wave lighting" and prefer keeping lights timed where one have to stop at every red light. Now, one can argue that it increases safety as cars cannot speed up much having to stop every 250-350 feet. However, seeing that plenty of other cities doing it just fine and (to my knowledge) no one dies more in NYC, I see it only as a way to spite drivers and artificially make transit look better. That said, I think most here can assume good faith rather than ball spiking.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: North-South Rail Link

The reason people want to see Storrow gone or changed is because it cuts us off from the river (and it was built against the express wishes of the Storrow family, but anyway).

The reason people would prefer slower moving vehicles on mixed traffic city streets is safety. The "40-45 mph equilibrium" applies to grade-separated, dedicated highways, not streets.

And the reason why massive amounts of grade-separation or other traffic segregation on ordinary city streets does not work is that it destroys city life. Just look at Newark and its infamous pedestrian bridges. The street is vital and keeping people away from it -- whether through grade separation or fear of dangerous vehicles -- is deadly.

The purpose of a city is not to provide the most ideal and pleasant environment for the maximum number of residents. It is to function as both a population center and a hub of commerce, industry, and logistics. The function of the neighborhood is to provide for the needs of the residents, and I personally am not advocating high-speed thoroughfares on every street and alley in the city. The industry and commerce that any modern city requires to function cannot exist without efficient automotive transportation. Does that mean that every major road needs to be a six-lane wasteland lined with strip malls? Of course not. Does that mean that as a community there have to be trade-offs made, and that every square can't be a pedestrianized utopia banned to cars? I think so.

The Jane Jacobs ideal of a warren of pretty little streets simply is not tenable everywhere in cities as big and widespread as we have today. If it is to be achieved in some neighborhoods, others have to be sacrificed so that higher-level productivity is possible. Boston survived the industrial decline in part due to timely decisions to build highways in logical places, and while my own hometown suffered the region is most definitely better for it.

If you told average people that the only way to move about in the city was going to be on public transit such as is typical in this country, with all the safety, privacy, reliability, and cleanliness issues inherent to it, cities would get a whole lot smaller and suburbs would boom. You know how I know that? It already happened.

EDIT: Ant, I wouldn't be so sure that Storrow isn't "desirable" in its current form, but that's for another thread.

 

[Matthew]

Re: North-South Rail Link

If you told average people that the only way to move about in the city was going to be on public transit such as is typical in this country, with all the safety, privacy, reliability, and cleanliness issues inherent to it, cities would get a whole lot smaller and suburbs would boom. You know how I know that? It already happened.

This doesn't make any sense at all.

Nobody ever told anyone that the only way to move about the city would be through the crappy public transit that is typically available in this country nowadays.

If you are referring to the 50s-60s, then what happened is that the government subsidized a massive amount of free highways, while disassembling public transit networks all over the country, and then American cities got a whole lot smaller and suburbs boomed. Then the economy fell in the shitter and we ended up with the miserable 70s. Maybe the highways caused that, maybe they didn't. But it doesn't look good.

And now we have transit systems that are stuck 50 years in the past, but despite the willful neglect, they keep growing in ridership and importance.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: North-South Rail Link

This doesn't make any sense at all.

Nobody ever told anyone that the only way to move about the city would be through the crappy public transit that is typically available in this country nowadays.

If you are referring to the 50s-60s, then what happened is that the government subsidized a massive amount of free highways, while disassembling public transit networks all over the country, and then American cities got a whole lot smaller and suburbs boomed. Then the economy fell in the shitter and we ended up with the miserable 70s. Maybe the highways caused that, maybe they didn't. But it doesn't look good.

And now we have transit systems that are stuck 50 years in the past, but despite the willful neglect, they keep growing in ridership and importance.

That's a chicken-and-egg question, isn't it? The reason the Federal Housing Administration (and others) created policies to encourage suburban development was the longtime "American Dream" for the clean air, open spaces, and privacy of the suburbs. If you can blame the highways for urban malaise in the 1970s, I could say that it sucked to live in industrial cities in the 19th Century because people walked.

It's inaccurate to say that the "Government" disassembled public transit systematically. Municipalities, spurred by the automobile industry, replaced streetcars with buses, which seemed to be the shiny new transit toy at the time much as streetcars are today. Then, when people decided they didn't like to ride the bus (they haven't changed their minds), a lot of the former streetcar lines lost ridership and were suspended. Thus, transit declined, but only from a certain point of view. Even minor cities in the US have had fairly dense bus networks straight along, it's just that buses aren't really considered a "transit network" today.

I'm in no way advocating not investing in transit. I think it's a vital part of urban transportation and basically no American cities have enough of it. That said, the reason the 70s sucked in your history was that the US went for a one-note transportation strategy. We can't afford to do that again, and frankly we won't have the chance. Most people just prefer driving too much, however much the shiny new LRT lines are meeting ridership projections. Making cars pollution-free (or as close as we can physically get) will make far more of a difference for the investment than building a thousand miles of new light rail.

 

[Matthew]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I definitely appreciate the advances made in fuel economy and emissions over the past 40 years, especially the de-leading of gasoline. We still don't understand a lot about ill effects of fine particulates, though. Speaking of this, and the Big Dig, I received a link to an ongoing research effort today called CAFEH.

Anyway, all the advances in pollution control, safety, or even automated driving don't change one key fact: geometry. There simply isn't enough room for all the cars that you might want to cram into a city. The FHA/municipal "solution" to this was to force everybody to spread out by imposing design guidelines, zoning restrictions and minimum parking requirements. Turns out that people naturally tend to focus on certain areas, which means an intense amount of pressure on certain roadways. You can widen the roads to a point, but that just shifts the bottlenecks around. So, the common "solution" is to block development and to make attempts to keep additional people away.

So it's one thing to support a mix of transportation modes (and I do too), but when urban highway widening is proposed what I generally see is a firehose of cars pointed at a place which cannot handle that kind of influx. And that will only help build up a political constituency demanding more parking, more sparsity, and less development. And I personally feel that is a bad outcome, and I think others agree.

Anyway, on a lighter note, here's a fun video I found today of a bicyclist touring some back streets of Tokyo, with those really cool narrow streets, some busy, some quiet, a few wide boulevards, and a grade crossing of the Ikegami line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E3KjoEduHsI

 

[massmotorist]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Anyway, all the advances in pollution control, safety, or even automated driving don't change one key fact: geometry. There simply isn't enough room for all the cars that you might want to cram into a city. The FHA/municipal "solution" to this was to force everybody to spread out by imposing design guidelines, zoning restrictions and minimum parking requirements. Turns out that people naturally tend to focus on certain areas, which means an intense amount of pressure on certain roadways. You can widen the roads to a point, but that just shifts the bottlenecks around. So, the common "solution" is to block development and to make attempts to keep additional people away.

I don't think this is true. The almost century-old technology of the parking garage solves much of the geometry problem. And I would bet that with no direct (municipally-owned) or regulatory (parking minimums), subsidies, you'd still get sufficient parking, albeit at a price. And a lot of the traffic in urban areas would decrease with market-rate street parking alone. IIRC something like 30+% of traffic is just from people searching for below-market on-street spaces.

The anti-development stuff mostly comes from NIMBYs that would look for any excuse under the sun to oppose or reduce development. Because that's the only power they have. I don't think you can blame that on cars. I'll quote a passage from a blog that I think explains the problem and advocates a pretty good solution:

The current practice in urban real estate is that when you own a patch of land you have extremely weak rights to dispose of your property as you see fit. In exchange you get an ill-defined veto power over all your neighbors' property. If we made this more explicit and better defined—exactly who gets to veto what and how many nays does it take to veto something—then we'd be on the road to the kind of side-payments and Coasian bargaining that Drum is talking about. In a payoffs system, we'd have more property development with all the broad metro-wide benefits that brings plus people would reap the benefits of payoffs. There's probably no unambiguously correct answer as to how the conditional veto rights should be defined, but it's okay to be a little bit arbitrary. The difficulty with the present system is that the question "who would I have to pay off to do this" simply lacks an answer in many cases.