You are still throwing elbow after elbow with zero...none...nada attempt at explaining which purchase that would fit Silver Line clearance specs. It is completely irrelevant if you think those clearance specs are stupid. If stupid is what we physically have to work with, it's what we physically have to work with and no amount of bitching about it is going to get the solution on the property faster. It cuts down the purchase options to where some "40,000 unit"-sold gem isn't an option. Fact of life; we deal and move on in spite of the inconvenience. So filter accordingly, and suggest a solution from what will fit. The 200 pages of specs are PDF'd on the T design standards website, under project-specific documents. Have at it if you don't believe the FCMB on what they claim the Procurement Dept.'s dimensional max is.F-line, it's hard to take you seriously when you call a bus that has sold 40,000 units manufactured by one of the biggest vehicle companies in the world "the one exception"
And the mindset that a physical limitation spec is "stupid" instead of a limitation you must real-world accommodate to get anything whatsoever bought that can run on the Silver Line ensures that finding an actual solution isn't the actual endgame...freely being able to call anything and anyone "stupid" is. Oh-fucking-well...the discussion marches on in spite of the content-free jabs.Once again, it shows that in your mind, anything outside the northeast US doesn't exist. That's the mindset that gets us stuck with an outdated vehicle design developed in 1998 for suburban markets.
Nothing's stopping you from lobbying the T to change its statistical formula for bus overcrowding as a private citizen if that troubles you so. Go for it. It's more productive than venting your spleen at the Internet. The fact is the whole bus mode would be unmanageable if they DIDN'T have any metric that sounded the alarm on when a route is overcrowded, because overcrowding DOES kill dwell times. The formula they came up with is the across-board threshold where standee load starts dragging dwells.You also talk extensively about the "overcrowding threshold." Huh? You mean an internal policy metric that could easily be modified? You want to handicap vehicle procurement because somebody at one point came up with that number?
Removing seats means more people fit. That doesn't mean the bus is "overcrowded" it means you increased capacity by 15% at a cost of zero. Adding more doors means theres no time penalty in loading and unloading those extra bodies.
What matters is dwell time. Thats why dictates headways and overall capacity. Not some bullshit "overcrowding threshold".
This is where "Should the Silver Line have a tweaked metric?" becomes a breakaway discussion. Don't shoot the messenger on the fact that such a metric does exist and is actionably used across the agency for all manner of planning; I didn't come up with 140%, they did. And they decided that was the best figure to run with for making big-picture decisions like mass procurements. If there's a problem it's that such formula isn't situationally specific enough, and we need to ID what exactly needs to be changed or added to it to make it better reflect pan-Transitway reality. Where the crowding problem rears itself is not the SL1/2/3 endpoints, but how the headway pie ends up being divided on the mainline amidst extremely limited ability to juggle headways. There's a conflict where the fastest-growing intra-Seaport riders are having their flow cramped by the airport riders, but reapportionment options are limited for segregating the audiences. What then?This is the one I don't get. Removing seats lowers capacity? Why does an arbitrary metric that applies to normal buses need to apply to the Silver Line? I mean, I get why (the Silver Line is a bus), but why does it need to? Just because that's how things are now doesn't mean they can't change, but this is a problem I have with a lot of F-Line's comments. I get how riders on the longer routes to Chelsea and the Airport might want to sit for the whole length, but surely we can modify some of the buses in the short term to increase standing capacity. SL2 riders would surely be okay with some standing required if it meant they can actually get on a bus rather than needing to wait for the next one. Of course it's not going to solve literally every problem the Silver Line has. I'm not on the "just buy better buses" boat because of the procurement process taking a long time, but that's a separate issue.
It could, but that part of the neighborhood is a lot sparser so the ridership would get dodgier the more blocks off-center it got. The original Silver Line CP route was a clunker on ridership because it chose E. 1st as its exclusive corridor for both inbound and outbound directions instead of doing the Broadway/E 1st. superloop that the 7 & 9 do to sweep the neighborhood. And that was at a time 15 years ago before E. 1st's very recent burst of redev when it was a considerably more decaying stretch of neighborhood thoroughfare than it is now. They didn't know it at the time, but in Southie psychology a sweep of Broadway ended up being a non-optional feature for transit demand.Would it be possible for the CP branch to use that new bridge from Summer street behind the power plant, or is that reserved for trucks using the Conley terminal? I'm imagining this route getting stuck in traffic anywhere south of E. First st.
Well...yeah. Unfortunately that takes bigger institutional fish to fry than just the Seaport neighborhood because the Downtown-end linkup is the be-all/end-all. That would slot as a primary MassDOT/MBTA state mothership effort that doesn't engage the hornet's nest of infighting local institutions warring over Seaport transit. Mostly because construction-wise the dual-mode'ing of the Transitway will be totally invisible to the Seaport and probably not ops-disrupting to SL1/3 except for short-duration construction windows in the tunnel. The most visible surface signs would be burial of the D St. grade crossing (if it hasn't already been done prior) and transformation of various Silver Line Way slack like the turnout + parking lot into an LRV yardlet. The only other prereqs are terraforming SL2 into around-the-block side trolley reservation. And that may only be a functional streetscaping, since the service would still act as a unidirectional superloop only needing 1 curbside track on Black Falcon, 1 curbside track on Drydock, and possibly 1 "crossover" track on the Design Ctr. Pl. midblock for emergencies. Anything else like a branch to City Point over the Summer St. bridge I would fully expect to be a detached (if easy) separate effort from the main build.The fact that there is no solid plan to add rail/trolley/street car service to Dudley or Seaport or Southie is crazy.
]The fact that there is no solid plan to add rail/trolley/street car service to Dudley or Seaport or Southie is crazy.