Silver Line - Phase III / BRT in Boston

[Arborway]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

I mean a $600 million discount

Digging a brand-new tunnel is expensive. Using the one you have... not so much.

 

[mass88]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

I mean a $600 million discount

Digging a brand-new tunnel is expensive. Using the one you have... not so much.

That's a great PDF. Does anyone have maps of the old unused tunnels in Boston?

My question is this, not being well versed in regards to the Silver Line, why was bus chosen instead of either light or heavy rail? I never quite understood why they went with rapid bus transit. I have ridden it a few time and was not impressed at all.

It appears that every state will get some of the $100 plus billion Obama wants to pump into capital infrastructure projects. What projects could people see the money being used for in Mass?

 

[jass]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

I mean a $600 million discount

Digging a brand-new tunnel is expensive. Using the one you have... not so much.

So youre fine with updated the cost of the Sl every month, but content with using a report from 2005 for your rail numbers? An unofficial report that doesnt even take into account the fact that the tunnel would be only a tiny portion of the cost?

Rail =
Rip up the entire stretch of washington street, disrupting traffic and residents for month to lay track.
Purchase brand new vehicles.
Rip up entire Sl tunnel pavement to lay tracks.
Rip up south boston to lay tracks.
Require buses anyway to get to the airport.


And the problems the SL has posted in the report, like cars in the bus lanes?
It will be worse with rail, because a trolley cant swerve around obstacles. If a car breaks down on the tracks....in come the buses to substitute service.

 

[jass]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

That's a great PDF. Does anyone have maps of the old unused tunnels in Boston?

My question is this, not being well versed in regards to the Silver Line, why was bus chosen instead of either light or heavy rail? I never quite understood why they went with rapid bus transit. I have ridden it a few time and was not impressed at all.

1) Its cheaper. This is a fact which Arborway closes his eyes to.
2) Its backed by the feds = free money
3) Buses can get to logan, trains cant.
4) Less community opposition. Boston residents do not want trains in the street. See A line and E line.

 

[mass88]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

1) Its cheaper. This is a fact which Arborway closes his eyes to.
2) Its backed by the feds = free money
3) Buses can get to logan, trains cant.
4) Less community opposition. Boston residents do not want trains in the street. See A line and E line.

So am I to believe that you are in favor of the current silver line bus and not in favor of rail?

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

Rip up the entire stretch of washington street, disrupting traffic and residents for month to lay track.

That sounds fine to me. Washington Street should be a transit-priority or transit-only street. Car traffic can divert to a number of parallel streets (Harrison, Albany, Shawmut).

 

[jass]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

So am I to believe that you are in favor of the current silver line bus and not in favor of rail?

No. I think theres a lot wrong with the current SL, which is even more disturbing when there are so many ways to fix it.

Key example: The traffic light between courthouse and SLW.


However, just because the SL isnt great doesnt mean rail would be better. In an ideal world, I would prefer rail, but with the constraints given, its simply not possible.

Conclusion: I support the SL phase 3 project because theres no better alternative. And that includes no build. SL phase 3 is the best option.

 

[InTheHood]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

You could re-use the existing tunnel and implement light rail, probably for less than the cost of SL3, but only for Washington Street, so we are talking apples and oranges. Light rail in the existing tunnel could go only as far as Boylston station. You couldn't extend the tunnel to connect under the Orange Line at Chinatown over to South Station, never mind the obvious impossibility of light rail in the TWT. The existing tunnel is very close to the surface. To get under the Orange Line at Chinatown you have to go very deep. The proposed new tunnel is very deep, much deeper than the existing tunnel.

One of the adverse consequences of this is that it will take a loooong time for passengers to make their way up from the platform to the surface - in T terms, it will be more like Porter Square than Copley. Given that fact and the more circuitous route taken by the tunnel, and the net transit time from Dudley to Boylston won't be any shorter than it is now, and may in fact be longer, even though the new tunnel avoids a couple of blocks of congestion.

I disagree with Jass that this is a better idea than a "no build." They are now talking about $1.2 to $1.5 BILLION. That's real money. It won't buy a new heavy rail line, but it would go a long way toward funding more significant projects - the Green Line extension to Medford, for one. Or an upgrade of the Fairmount Line. Or an extension of the Blue Line. Those projects all have much lower costs/mile than this two-bit, half-mile long bus tunnel.

 

[kennedy]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

So, I'm really unfamiliar with the technical side of the SL (which I've never really liked, yet I realize the hurdles of creating new LR would be very difficult)-what makes it different from a bus? When does it run on the wires? Does it have set "stations" like rail?

 

[jass]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

So, I'm really unfamiliar with the technical side of the SL (which I've never really liked, yet I realize the hurdles of creating new LR would be very difficult)-what makes it different from a bus? When does it run on the wires? Does it have set "stations" like rail?

The buses are essentially the same as the articulated buses that run on the 39. The only difference is that some have luggage racks.

This is one downside of the line - other BRT systems offer specialized buses that include up to 5 doors.

The buses are diesel/electric. Currently they run on wires from south station to silver line way. Phase 3 would mean theyd run electric from the washington street portal, through boylston onto SLW.

The entire line COULD be electric, but there are two reasons its not: 1, NIMBYs, 2, cost. The fact that people object to trackless trolley makes rail an even more laughable idea.

There are three stations that are identical to rail stations, south station, courthouse and world trade center. The 4th station, Silver line way is above ground and resembles heath street. After that, SL1 runs in traffic to the airport, and SL2 comes a bus in the waterfront.

Phase 3 would offer 2 new underground stations, one linked to Boylston.

Ill post a recent picture in a few minutes

 

[jass]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

World trade center

The good: Its clean, spacious, pretty, the platform is long enough for 2 buses.
The bad: The screens dont display estimated time before next bus (like SL washington does), the traffic light between WTC and SLW, the directional divider. If the driving area were open, it would allow Airprot buses to go directly to south station bu passing a stopped bus.

 

[kennedy]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

So it runs on electric power when under the cables, and then other times, runs on its own power?

 

[jenkins]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

The entire line COULD be electric, but there are two reasons its not: 1, NIMBYs, 2, cost. The fact that people object to trackless trolley makes rail an even more laughable idea.

This is a pretty valid point; it seems like people are eager to do the sensible, reasonable thing (electrification, in this case) until it affects them directly. But I'm not sure your logic works here--people probably object to trackless trolleys because they aren't rail, not because they protest anything bigger than a bus (haven't they been complaining about buses this whole time anyway, and requesting light or heavy rail?).

 

[jass]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

This is a pretty valid point; it seems like people are eager to do the sensible, reasonable thing (electrification, in this case) until it affects them directly. But I'm not sure your logic works here--people probably object to trackless trolleys because they aren't rail, not because they protest anything bigger than a bus (haven't they been complaining about buses this whole time anyway, and requesting light or heavy rail?).

People object to trackless trolleys because they think the wires are unsightly. Its stupid, its shallow, but its true. The state wont push for it because they always think in short term....installation costs on day 1 vs fuel costs over 30 years.

Whats worse, these same neighbors complain about the bus because of diesel smoke. They dont want electric, they dont want buses, they dont want rail. They just want to park their own cars.

 

[czsz]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

I live near two streets covered with trackless trolley wires...I hardly even notice them anymore.

That is, except when the pantographs get unstuck from the catenary and the T has to send guys with poles to fix it...which happens about once every other day, sometimes leaving buses disabled in the middle of busy intersections. I've been woken up by the flashing sparks.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

If the driving area were open, it would allow Airprot buses to go directly to south station by passing a stopped bus.

That doesn't work with trolleybuses on wires. Also, some people want to go between the airport and the WTC and Convention Center.

 

[kennedy]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

Did they install wires in the Ted Williams? I know they had/have a designated Silver Line lane or something of the sort in it...

 

[Arborway]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

So youre fine with updated the cost of the Sl every month, but content with using a report from 2005 for your rail numbers? An unofficial report that doesnt even take into account the fact that the tunnel would be only a tiny portion of the cost?

The tunnel would not be a tiny portion of the cost, as a deep-bore tunnel through the middle of Boston is the factor driving up costs for the Barely Rapid Transit plan currently being forced on the community.

Rail =
Rip up the entire stretch of washington street, disrupting traffic and residents for month to lay track.

A few months of inconvenience is a small price to pay to avoid decades of diesel fumes.

Purchase brand new vehicles.

Trains last longer than buses. It would be an investment that would pay off in the long-term. Your average MBTA bus is kept in service for about 12 years. The Type 7s on the Green Line haven't even had their first overhaul 22 years into their operational life.

LRT vehicles also hold more people which requires fewer vehicles to be purchased.

Rip up entire Sl tunnel pavement to lay tracks.

The SL tunnel pavement is already failing. It's deeply-rutted and gives the Silver Line a dirt-road ride quality.

Rip up south boston to lay tracks.

Rip up all of South Boston or a few lanes on a couple of streets?

Require buses anyway to get to the airport.

Seattle has figured out how to run a mixed train-bus tunnel. I'm sure Boston can make that work too.

And the problems the SL has posted in the report, like cars in the bus lanes?
It will be worse with rail, because a trolley cant swerve around obstacles. If a car breaks down on the tracks....in come the buses to substitute service.

The E line manages to function in the street without any major crises. Actual law enforcement is the key to keeping the lanes free. And if ANY train line breaks down they send out the buses. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

1) Its cheaper. This is a fact which Arborway closes his eyes to.

It's not cheaper. The numbers for digging a deep-bore tunnel through Boston keep growing by the hundreds of millions.

2) Its backed by the feds = free money

For the time being, due to the BRT-bias of the Bush administration. The state is still expected to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars that is only growing as the costs rise. If the costs were lower due to a more sensible plan, then the state's share would be smaller.

3) Buses can get to logan, trains cant.

See above.

4) Less community opposition. Boston residents do not want trains in the street. See A line and E line.

The Silver Line BRT plan has virtually ZERO community support. People have been clamoring for rail since 1987. The A and E lines are terrible comparisons as they both had and in the case of the E, continues to have a great deal of community support.

Hell, E line restoration was actually funded. The T just refused to do anything with the money it was given.

Did they install wires in the Ted Williams? I know they had/have a designated Silver Line lane or something of the sort in it...

Nope. It's interesting to note the SL manages to travel faster on surface streets and the Ted Williams than it does in its own reserved transit way.

 

[jass]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

I live near two streets covered with trackless trolley wires...I hardly even notice them anymore.

That is, except when the pantographs get unstuck from the catenary and the T has to send guys with poles to fix it...which happens about once every other day, sometimes leaving buses disabled in the middle of busy intersections. I've been woken up by the flashing sparks.

San Francisco has an extensive trolley network. Their newer buses have batteries so they can run for a bit if they get unconnected.

That doesn't work with trolleybuses on wires. Also, some people want to go between the airport and the WTC and Convention Center.

The pantographs are long enough to allow passing.

 

[jass]

Re: Silver Line Phase III

A few months of inconvenience is a small price to pay to avoid decades of diesel fumes.

Your user name is Arborway. You of all people should know how much backlash would happen if the MBTA tried to put rail down the street.

Trains last longer than buses. It would be an investment that would pay off in the long-term. Your average MBTA bus is kept in service for about 12 years. The Type 7s on the Green Line haven't even had their first overhaul 22 years into their operational life.

Trains do last longer, but they also cost much more. The reason MBTA buses are kept for 12 years is due to FEDERAL law. Id be open to changing it.

LRT vehicles also hold more people which requires fewer vehicles to be purchased.

False. A bus of the same length holds the same as a trolley. LA has gotten a waiver to allow buses longer than 60 feet, the MBTA should seek a similar waiver.

The SL tunnel pavement is already failing. It's deeply-rutted and gives the Silver Line a dirt-road ride quality.

No argument here. Any new construction the MBTA gives will have this problem.

Seattle has figured out how to run a mixed train-bus tunnel. I'm sure Boston can make that work too.

Then where are the cost savings you claim?

The E line manages to function in the street without any major crises. Actual law enforcement is the key to keeping the lanes free. And if ANY train line breaks down they send out the buses. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

The e line is shut down past brigham every time theres snow. Trackless trolley is a more efficient solution to rail when running with traffic.

Nope. It's interesting to note the SL manages to travel faster on surface streets and the Ted Williams than it does in its own reserved transit way.

An automated guide (painted white line instead of rail) would solve this issue.