Silver Line - Phase III / BRT in Boston

Re: Silver Line Phase III

Arborway said:
Have you traveled in the Silver Line tunnel...ever? It feels like you're traveling on a dirt road. It's embarrassing that a brand-new tunnel feels as though it hasn't been paved in 40 years. Great first impression for tourists. It's also incredibly slow-going.

Actually it's not the bulk of the project.
Click to expand...

I have been in the Sl tunnel, many times. It's bumpy, but not terrible. Hopefully they use a different type of floor for the new tunnel. It isnt the fault of the bus. It's slow, but that can be fixed.

How is it the bulk of the project? The PDF shows the bulk being the new tunnel from South to Boylston. New stations arent cheap.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

jass said:
How is it the bulk of the project? The PDF shows the bulk being the new tunnel from South to Boylston. New stations arent cheap.
Click to expand...

The new tunnel on Boylston west of Tremont, down to Charles, then down Charles seems to be rather sizable to me.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

If it ain't rail...don't build it.....even when I lived in the Leather District I'd take Red Line to Park, Green to GC, then Blue to the airport to avoid the Silver Line.....bumpy, slowly, and constantly have to answer the question of why the power all of a sudden died at Silver Line Way.....plus, collecting fares at the airport is SOOO tedious...at least with the free MassPort buses you can avoid that and feel like you are making progress circulating the terminals.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

Jimbo, the latest scheme won't touch any parks. The portal will be on a stretch of Tremont Street near the Pike. And it still seems a horrible waste of money. It's elitist to deride folks from Dudley who want to go to the Loews cinema - the fact is that quite a few people along the route were irritated that the $1 Billion tunnel route would actually take longer to reach downtown - which is why the T "reinserted" plans to continue the surface route alongside the tunnel route. And the reality is, if you have a T pass you would also likely be able to make Red and Green Line connections as fast or faster from the surface. This is going to be a deep tunnel and the bus is going to be slow. You can walk from Temple Place to Park faster than you'd get to a train via South Station.

Let's remember the math that results from the T's plan: at peak hours, the portal segment of the tunnel is projected to see one (1) bus in each direction every 5 minutes - during non-peak hours it will be even less frequent. Can we honestly say that spending hundreds of millions to create a half-mile tunnel for this sort of volume makes any sense? The $ per rider are astronomical.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

InTheHood said:
Jimbo, the latest scheme won't touch any parks.
Click to expand...

Except the Common. Well, the Central Burying Ground, to be precise.

InTheHood said:
The portal will be on a stretch of Tremont Street near the Pike.
Click to expand...

Charles St. actually, just past Tremont. Though they've thrown around so many possible alignments it's hard to keep them all straight.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

InTheHood said:
Let's remember the math that results from the T's plan: at peak hours, the portal segment of the tunnel is projected to see one (1) bus in each direction every 5 minutes - during non-peak hours it will be even less frequent. Can we honestly say that spending hundreds of millions to create a half-mile tunnel for this sort of volume makes any sense? The $ per rider are astronomical.
Click to expand...

Luckily for us, buses can legally run bumper to bumper, so a hypothetical 4 second headway.

The green line can run at 90 seconds max. Heavy rail? Its something like 2 minutes, depending on the section.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

The handout from the meeting I attended shows the tunnel from South Station to the Charles St/ Boylston St turn around being called the 'Core Tunnel Segment'. The section from the turn around to the the portal is labeled 'Modified Charles St Alignment'. This runs under Charles St South the whole way, exiting at the Tremont St intersection.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

Three quick clarifications:

- The portal is in fact in Tremont Street, not Charles Street South as indicated by Arborway above. The tunnel will be underground when it reaches the Charles/Tremont intersection near the Church of All Nations. Arborway is correct that there may be some "touching" of the Common but the T claims this will be temporary and downplays its significance.

- Of course it would be possible to run buses with much less headway, but the T's numbers suggest that the demand just isn't there ... particularly if half or more of the Washington Street volume is siphoned off on the surface / Temple Place route. They have mumbled about the possibility of creating another bus line to run to Dalton Street/Hynes which might improve the utilization of the portal segment, but it's doubtful that this even more circuitous route will be nearly as quick as the existing Green Line, especially as that bus will be 100% in mixed traffic once it surfaces.

- In the scheme proposed by the T, approximately 2 of every 3 buses originating from the East will loop back to South Station at the end of the core segment; that is, only about 1 in 3 will go through the portal segment to Washington Street. So the headways in the core segment will be much less than 5 minutes at peak times.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

To address Vanshnoookenragen's point:

- The T has been adamant that they won't use the existing streetcar tunnels under Tremont. They give 2 reasons for this: 1. The existing tunnels aren't wide enough for buses (buses require more width than trains and re-boring is not a trivial task) and more importantly 2. They are too shallow, since they meet up with the Green Line near the surface at Boylston. You can't utilize these tunnels and then make the turn at Boylston to get UNDER the Orange Line at Chinatown Station to connect with the existing Silver Line tunnel at South Station ... the gradient would be impossibly steep. Recall that Boylston and Chinatown Stations are only a matter of a couple of hundred feet apart. Of course this also begs the question of why those stations aren't combined with a concourse, as suggested by someone above, but this is the T.

- The unspoken reason that the T insists on tunneling via Charles Street rather than the more direct route on Tremont is also related to those tunnels. Because they are so close to the surface, reconstruction of deeper tunnels would entail a bunch of open work and potentially a bunch of disruption on Tremont Street near the Wang/Shubert/Wilbur etcetera. Essentially the theaters and NEMC, via the Mayor, vetoed the more direct route.

- The chances of the T ever using the existing tunnels is zero, and if the construction of this new tunnel precludes this possibility, they will be thrilled not to have to answer further questions about it. The T has no interest in expanding any light rail in mixed traffic. Residents along the former "A" line to Watertown and "E" to Arborway will understand.

- Instead of thinking in terms of light rail replacing bus, think the other way around. There is speculation that once the new tunnel is built they may again terminate the light rail "E" at Brigham Circle and use another Silver Line bus to address the Heath Street loop. And the "core segment" gives the T more long-term options to take volume out of the central subway by putting more on buses ... this would entail extending the bus tunnel and building another portal.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

InTheHood what's your opinion of Phase III as a whole? The possibility of an Emerson's lawsuit? And will this really remain a bus after the build out of the seaport?
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

Paul C, for what it's worth, my take:

- This will be forever be a bus. You can't run streetcars through the TWT to the airport, so buses are unavoidable. As noted by posters above, it's certainly POSSIBLE to put bus and light rail in the same right of way ... but the T doesn't like the existing task it faces maintaining streetcar lines on Huntington (or at crossings on Comm and Beacon, for that matter) so the chances they willingly sign up for more maintenance and fixed cost challenges on Washington/Marginal/Herald in the South End and on the other end in Southie are zero. Grabauskas has admitted as much ... doubt his successors will feel differently unless forced by the politicians. Maintenance is not the T's strong suit. They'd dump the whole Green Line in a heartbeat if they could.

- Emerson certainly has been irritated by the process - a funny moment a few years ago came when their rep learned for the first time in a public meeting that that the T intended to use the lobby of one of Emerson's buildings as an entrance to Boylston Station in it's then-favored proposal! But if Emerson were serious about fighting, they would have joined forces with the neighborhood opponents. They haven't even made token gestures in this regard. Their kvetching seems more intended to place a "you owe us one" marker that will be redeemed later - probably by the BRA helping to underwrite or hammer through their next expansion plan. (Let's all cross our fingers that it happens to be architecturally sensible.)

- As for SL3 as a whole, I view the portal segment is a total waste, and the "core segment" of marginal utility to help airport and seaport access. Why this should be prioritized above the Green Line to Medford or the Blue Line to Lynn (or even to Charles Street) or subway-ization of the Fairmount line is baffling. Much of the cheerleading is being done by the ABC - formerly the Artery Business Committee, now renamed - essentially the "front" for the Convention Center and well-connected Seaport developers. Sad fact is that they have more $$ and therefore much more clout than do residents - and the unions would like a tunnel to dig. I'd much rather see a true subway line to Dudley, but that's a pipe dream. It's amazing that in a pro-public transit city like Boston, the #1 priority has essentially zero public support or much interest. Go to a meeting on the Green Line extension and it's packed to the rafters with Somerville residents asking "when?" Go to a Silver Line 3 meeting, and you'll see some neighborhood cranks who oppose, some jockeying by institutions like NEMC and Emerson positioning for other favors, and perhaps an ABC or union suit who lives in Beverly or Weston to say a few polite words, if they deign to show (usually they can't be bothered - they get their meetings in private and know everything before Grabauskas makes any announcements). Why should Roxbury or the South End get excited about a slower bus?
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

I thought the South Boston tunnels were designed for easy conversion to light rail?
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

PaulC said:
I thought the South Boston tunnels were designed for easy conversion to light rail?
Click to expand...

I believe the tunnel designers were given a mandate to provide a space suitable for LRT or BRT as there were no firm plans in place at the time as to what the South Boston Piers Transitway would eventually be used for.

Just because the tunnels could be used for light rail doesn't mean the MBTA has any inclination to use them for light rail.

On another note, I think the little things really contribute to the apathy on the part of the public for SL3. The countdown timers on Washington St. still are perpetually "a few tweaks away" from functioning as they were intended to years ago. The SL tunnel has the worst paving job of any roadway I've been on in my life. I simply don't understand why it has to be so crap. If you can't even pave a road properly, why would you expect people to give you over a billion dollars to disrupt their lives to do it again?

If Dan Grabauskas had come out and said "This tunnel doesn't meet the high standards we have for new construction and we're going to have the contractor come in and fix it." I think public perceptions of the whole Silver Line project would much better.

When buses travel more slowly in a dedicated tunnel than they do on Tremont St. in the middle of the day, it's a problem. When the T sees nothing wrong with this, it's a bigger problem.

Silver Line buses are routinely overwhelmed by small groups of waiting passengers. This is especially bad on Phase I where you routinely have buses leaving the second outbound stop with people standing from the very back all the way to the front door.

The T sends out 40' buses when it feels like it, which makes the cramped conditions even more clostrophobic. On the Green, Red, Blue or Orange line you always know there is a basic level of service that will never change. There will be a six car train on the Orange, and at least a full-size train on the Green. The T has recently apologized for sending out too many single car trains on the GL, but will happily throw 40' buses at Silver Line riders.

Phase I is above-ground, it travels through extremely busy parts of downtown and is consequently the most visible face of the Silver Line. When you've got sardine conditions at the beginning of the line, or sardine conditions and a tiny bus to boot, you send a very negative message to potential riders of any BRT route in Boston.

The attitude of transit planners needs to be "If I walk up from Boylston, Chinatown or Downtown Crossing stations and see a Silver Line bus, will I want to trade the ride I just had for the ride those people are taking?"

Successful BRT is comfortable, reliable service that avoids the "second class passenger" stigma of regular bus operations. The Silver Line has yet to achieve that after years of operation.

The T has yet to prove it can make this thing they are selling as a simpler, cheaper alternative to light rail actually work. They need to nail down the basics before they can come to us and say this is new order of transit in Boston and we just have to fall in line and support it.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

Update on MBTA Silver Line Phase III, from today's South End News:

silver_line_III.jpg


Link: Silver Line Phase III moving forward - By Scott Kearnan, South End News
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

Arborway is correct. Tunnels designed for "easy conversion" to rail means nothing. As noted above, bus tunnels already have to be wider than rail tunnels (give margin for operator error if not on a track). Curve radii need to be a bit larger to accommodate rail, and notionally light rail gradients can't be as steep as for a bus, but in practice heavy dual-mode buses are poor hillclimbers too, and the wider tunnels and margin for operator error mean that tight tunnel radii are never desirable. A BRT tunnel is thus more expensive than LRT tunnel, and saying that these are designed for "easy conversion" is equivalent to saying that a suit can easily be converted to a blazer.

Anyhow, the T doesn't mind rail in tunnels. The problems are on the surface, pardon the pun, and if you've been on the spaghetti loop on the Southie end of the SL2 tunnel, or walked the route of the proposed route from the SL3 portal on Tremont back to Washington, and try to picture embedding rails on those streets ... well, you really can't.

The attraction of BRT is that it notionally can provide equivalent service to light rail at less cost, especially where densities are modest - assuming the ability to free up "dedicated lanes" on surface routes. BRT in tunnels makes much less sense, since capital costs are even higher than for rail and buses are slower than trains in tunnels. And BRT in mixed traffic is an oxymoron. The T's implementation involves both incompatible elements, which is why SL3 is such poor value.

We can also blame the Feds. The DoT has been pushing and favoring BRT as part of a national mass transit solution - and BRT indeed makes a ton of sense in most American cities, where densities are much lower, space for surface lanes is easier to acquire/separate, and where virtually any BRT would be 100% surface routes. Think Phoenix or Denver or Charlotte. The T is trying to force fit its plans into a suit tailored for the sunbelt. We won't see a BRT tunnel on the East Side of Manhattan, because it would cost more than a new heavy rail line and would accommodate far fewer people.

One could walk the entire length of SL3 from the Herald Street "station" on Washington Street to South Station in a leisurely fifteen minutes. But that same $1 billion used to put the bus underground could otherwise pay for several miles of (surface) extension of the Green Line to Medford, bringing entire communities of new riders into the system.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

What I wonder is why they don't make the tunnels a "guided busway", so that there is no margin of error for the drivers. They just control the speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus

My guess is that MBTA has never heard of such as thing.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

^^ Likely a union issue.
 
Re: Silver Line Phase III

Very good question. A "guided busway" would seem to make sense, even in the existing frustratingly pokey and bumpy SL2 tunnel.

Of course the equipment would need to be dual-mode, since there could be no guides in mixed traffic on Washington Street or the TWT.

A "guided busway" calls into question the T's insistence that the old tunnels under Tremont could not be used because they are too narrow for buses. Certainly both the existing SL2 and planned SL3 tunnels are much wider.

If we're determined to blow $1Bn on this, a better solution might be to put the Washington Street segment into the old tunnels down Tremont to meet the Green Line at Boylston, while extending the SL2 tunnels deeper below Boylston as planned. These two segments wouldn't meet (you'd need to change down an escalator if you were going from Dudley to the Seaport) but the route would be shorter, less new tunneling would be required, and access to the Green Line or street level would be much faster and easier. Eventual light rail conversion would also be more plausible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top