Silver Line to Chelsea

[cybah]

I'm really losing track of how this would be different from any old bus. I'm not a huge fan of the SL in general because I think it represents abdication of responsibility on behalf of leaders who didn't have what it takes to build at least light rail. But with something like this, the line becomes totally blurred. Should we change all the Inner Express buses to Silver Lines?

I agree. The lines have become blurred. It's this whole mode change along a line. It needs to be consistent or near 90 % of the entire line. Taking a bus that ran in its own lane for over a mile, then switch to mixed traffic is just.. dumb.

This is why I only support a ROW solution for extending the SL3 beyond Market Basket. It needs to be in its own ROW. Its the only way to really make BRT effective. The minute you switch to non-segregated bus lanes and into mixed traffic, forget it. It becomes a bus.

As far as your light rail comment, I agree to a point. That applies to the SL5 Washington Street. I'm a fan of BRT, but SL5 is just a joke and really is a branded bus and nothing more. And yeah, Light Rail *should* have been used way back when, but you know the T has such a issue with building rail anything.

But as far as the South Boston Transitway, as it has been heavily discussed on here, Light Rail would be nearly impossible without a third harbor tunnel for the tracks. You'd be hard pressed for the FTA to allow light rail in the Ted Williams Tunnel.

I understand how powerful BRT is; but weirdly branding some routes as a "line" and including them deceptively on our rapid-transit map isn't getting serious. We need dedicated rights of way or at least bus lanes, signal priority, the works. I don't care if they're all yellow or all silver or whatever. The whole enterprise is a half-ass job.

BRT actually meets several levels of standards to differentiate it from a bus. Mainly its how the stops & intersections are, and the level of frequency, but if you need a refresher, you can click here.

And yes parts of the Silver Line meet these standards. Mostly SL1,SL2,SL3 as they meet "Gold" Standard. If the SL3 had off fare boarding on the new busway, it would be almost "Silver" standard. (Silver is as high as you can go).

 

[tysmith95]

].
And yes parts of the Silver Line meet these standards. Mostly SL1,SL2,SL3 as they meet "Gold" Standard. If the SL3 had off fare boarding on the new busway, it would be almost "Silver" standard. (Silver is as high as you can go).

Ehh I don't think they do. The institute that defined those standards defined the Silver Line as Not BRT. Look at the SL1 route from the portal to the Ted Willams. It is the most convoluted route and the bus gets stuck in traffic. SL3 will also share the routing.

It would have been a good bit faster if they just made the bus routes go on summer street or other surface streets. Taking a left from 93 S or the surface road to the Seaport gets clogged up, but the actual roads in the seaport (Seaport Blvd or Summer Street) do not get clogged up nearly to the extent that other parts of Boston do. Frankly in it's current state the tunnel is useless for every reason other then the fare gates. It was a waste of money as currently constructed imho.

Also to be true BRT it would need dedicated lanes all the way through the Ted Williams.

 

[cybah]

Ehh I don't think they do. The institute that defined those standards defined the Silver Line as Not BRT. Look at the SL1 route from the portal to the Ted Willams. It is the most convoluted route and the bus gets stuck in traffic. SL3 will also share the routing.

It would have been a good bit faster if they just made the bus routes go on summer street or other surface streets. Taking a left from 93 S or the surface road to the Seaport gets clogged up, but the actual roads in the seaport (Seaport Blvd or Summer Street) do not get clogged up nearly to the extent that other parts of Boston do. Frankly in it's current state the tunnel is useless for every reason other then the fare gates. It was a waste of money as currently constructed imho.

Also to be true BRT it would need dedicated lanes all the way through the Ted Williams.

No, not always. Please read what each standard is from the link above. The SL3 meets Gold Standard BRT. And it is being built this way.

I wont comment much further on this, except please read and compare and remove your personal opinions from it.

 

[tysmith95]

No, not always. Please read what each standard is from the link above. The SL3 meets Gold Standard BRT. And it is being built this way.

I wont comment much further on this, except please read and compare and remove your personal opinions from it.

It only has its own right of way for parts of the route. There are many heavily congested areas that it interacts with. I don't believe that it has intersection priority.

I mean you could point to sections of it and say that's BRT. But the whole line has multiple issues and is not true BRT in any sense.

 

[jass]

E-line goes tunnel-median-street and I've never heard calls that it shouldnt be branded in the same way as the other green lines.

 

[Schorschico]

E-line goes tunnel-median-street and I've never heard calls that it shouldnt be branded in the same way as the other green lines.

I don't use it enough to suggest how it should be branded, but since one time I was dropped in the middle of car traffic in Huntington avenue, you can be sure I don't consider it an equal, not just to the Orange, Blue or Red, but to the other green branches.

 

[datadyne007]

I don't use it enough to suggest how it should be branded, but since one time I was dropped in the middle of car traffic in Huntington avenue, you can be sure I don't consider it an equal, not just to the Orange, Blue or Red, but to the other green branches.

Old GL maps used to differentiate:

 

[jass]

^id have no problem with SL using different line widths, but all stops should be labeled when possible

 

[datadyne007]

^id have no problem with SL using different line widths, but all stops should be labeled when possible

Yeah same. I'd prefer using a thinner line for the non-ROW SL routes. It would help better establish the hierarchy of lines too.

 

[cadetcarl]

Cybah, thanks for the link. I see what the difference is now.

 

[stick n move]

So this basically has a dedicated Row for most of the project right? Would that mean it would be actually pretty easy to convert this to rail in the future when capacity increases much easier than most other places that don't have all this infrastructure in place? Are there any major hurdles that would make this hard to convert to rail one day?

 

[tysmith95]

So this basically has a dedicated Row for most of the project right? Would that mean it would be actually pretty easy to convert this to rail in the future when capacity increases much easier than most other places that don't have all this infrastructure in place? Are there any major hurdles that would make this hard to convert to rail one day?

Not through the Ted Williams tunnel or the airport.

And someone correct me if i'm wrong but i'm not sure that it includes bus lanes through all of eastie.

 

[datadyne007]

Not through the Ted Williams tunnel or the airport.

And someone correct me if i'm wrong but i'm not sure that it includes bus lanes through all of eastie.

It uses the Martin A Coughlin Bypass (which is open to all traffic) to get from Airport to the Chelsea Street Bridge (again mixed traffic) in Eastie.

 

[cybah]

Hi Folks,

So I went to a Silver Line Gateway informational meeting about service last night.

Nothing too surprising but a few tidbits for this crowd.

1. I asked about re-directing buses to bypass Airport. I was told firmly "No" and the T has no plans on doing so. The buses will be re-routed up 1A into Revere and back down the other side of the creek.

2. MassDOT, The T, and the City of Chelsea, are trying to persuade the coast guard to give the transit line priority over the bridge. This is a big deal, and they seemed to be committed to trying to get this exemption.

3. Commuter Rail Station - Someone asked about this. It will be put out to bid this summer, and construction should start the fall and be open sometime in 2020. This is good news as I feared they had not received funding for this project yet.

4. Signals & Crossings - This is a big one. Since there are no signals at any of the crossings yet, I asked what will happen. The first few weeks, T Police will be at Everett Ave, Spruce St, and Arlington/Sixth Crossings directing traffic for the busway. Then for 3 months, they will be there during rush hours only. After that, the T will re-assess the need for police details.

Of course what about the signals themselves? It's complicated. The signals cannot be installed until the rail road crossing gates and signals are done. And this can't happen until Phase II, which is the CR station portion of this project. And would not even happen until a year into construction.

So what does this mean? After July, we may not have any police detail or signals for at least a year. How is this rapid transit? When I was told that, I replied to GM Ramirez and was like "It's those traffic signals that make this project pop and be special. With them, it's a very fast ride from Eastern Ave to Market Basket without stopping (except at stations). It's just vital to what makes this project special". I think they understood. I hope this changes.

On a related note, there is an ribbon cutting. It is April 24th @ 10:30am at the Chelsea Station (at Market Basket). I was invited after the meeting by Ramirez and MassDOT. I just got my invitation. But this is a public event so anyone can go.

I think that's it.

Kris

PS - I've been working on some Before and After shots and those wil be presented at a MBTA ROC meeting on the 24th (evening). Once I do that, i will post them here, along with everything else.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

2. MassDOT, The T, and the City of Chelsea, are trying to persuade the coast guard to give the transit line priority over the bridge. This is a big deal, and they seemed to be committed to trying to get this exemption.

I'd certainly like SL3 to be able to consistently go over the bridge without delay, but is it at all realistic to insist that fuel deliveries only happen between midnight and 6AM, or even to avoid fuel deliveries during rush hour? I was under the impression that fuel deliveries often are done by boats that need the full channel depth at high tide to get in; just waiting a few hours may not be an option for the boats because of the tides.

I suspect rather than focusing on the rules for raising the bridge, it might be more productive to understand what fuel gets delivered where and try to figure out how the fuel logistics can be rearranged for deliveries to happen somewhere that doesn't require passing under the bridge.

 

[cden4]

When the signals go in, are they going to be set up so that they turn green as a bus is approaching, or will they be in typical Boston fashion where the bus has to pull up the intersection and wait? (This is often why buses get screwed compared to heavy rail. A train can't easily stop so we give it priority at crossings. Buses can, so we typically don't.)

 

[cybah]

I'd certainly like SL3 to be able to consistently go over the bridge without delay, but is it at all realistic to insist that fuel deliveries only happen between midnight and 6AM, or even to avoid fuel deliveries during rush hour? I was under the impression that fuel deliveries often are done by boats that need the full channel depth at high tide to get in; just waiting a few hours may not be an option for the boats because of the tides.

Yes they do for the most part. There is some small crafts that do use the bridge, but generally its the huge tankers and they need high tide and the full depth of the creek to get to the facility. This is why I tell everyone, watch the tides. If it's low tide or near low tide in the creek, its very rare the bridge will go up.

I suspect rather than focusing on the rules for raising the bridge, it might be more productive to understand what fuel gets delivered where and try to figure out how the fuel logistics can be rearranged for deliveries to happen somewhere that doesn't require passing under the bridge.

I agree. This is a good idea. I may suggest this.

Which brings me to another point... Wednesday night I was at a Re-Imagining Broadway meeting. This is a project to re-do broadway, and yes it does include bus and a cycle track. But I was talking to the City's Transportation people, and I mentioned how I am involved in 2 transit groups and he perked up.

Much like the T last night, the city is also trying to team up to try to get some sort of restriction on the bridge. And Alex (Train.. yes his last name is Train), said that he'd love to hook up with my groups in hope to get some locals to nudge the Coast Guard some to see if we can try to get this changed.

But your suggestion about deliveries is a very good idea, I will mention this to him as a suggestion, because that is viable. They may be willing to work with the city and state to make this work, or at a minimum reduce the amount if possible.

 

[cybah]

When the signals go in, are they going to be set up so that they turn green as a bus is approaching, or will they be in typical Boston fashion where the bus has to pull up the intersection and wait? (This is often why buses get screwed compared to heavy rail. A train can't easily stop so we give it priority at crossings. Buses can, so we typically don't.)

I hope that it's as they approach the intersection. The state seems to be wising up to signal prioritization and making sure it is done properly.

Of course you do realize two of the stops (Chelsea and Bellingham) are at one of the intersection so they will be in a stopped position already)

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: Chelsea Creek Fuel Deliveries

The satellite images on Google Maps suggest that there are two locations where fuel deliveries happen upstream of the bridge:

One tank farm is in Chelsea, on the east side of Eastern Ave just north of Griffin Way. Might a developer of luxury waterfront housing be interested in buying that property from whomever owns it now? One might want to make sure that there are no hazardous materials that have leaked into the ground at that site, and it's desirable to get any developer to make sure whatever they build will survive sea level rise. And it would probably be worthwhile to understand where the fuel goes when it gets transferred to trucks and make sure those folks are comfortable that they have good alternatives if that facility is dismantled.

There's also the tank farm adjacent to 1A / Tomesello Way. If that tank farm needs to stay in operation, I'm wondering if a dock just west of the bridge (where there's another tank farm) along with a pipeline could be used to transfer fuel.

There are also long term questions about how much liquid fuel we will still need in 10-20 years. Companies like Tesla and Proterra are working on eliminating the need for liquid fuel for [edit: land] transportation. We'll probably see many buildings convert from heating oil to electric heat pumps. However, it's not clear whether we're going to figure out how to build batteries that can store enough energy per unit of mass to make long range airplanes practical, so Logan Airport fuel deliveries might need to continue forever.

If the folks making the fuel deliveries wanted to go out of their way to be nice to the SL3, waiting one entire tide cycle (12 hours and 25 minutes) to avoid rush hour could work, as could making deliveries with less full ships, but I think the folks making the deliveries tend to have zero enthusiasm for the concept of absorbing those costs themselves. On the other hand, there's probably some dollar amount that they would find motivating, and perhaps it would be possible to find out what that is to compare it to the cost of building a pipeline or switching to other fuel delivery facilities.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: Chelsea Creek Pleasure Boats

There is some small crafts that do use the bridge, but generally its the huge tankers and they need high tide and the full depth of the creek to get to the facility.

Much like the T last night, the city is also trying to team up to try to get some sort of restriction on the bridge. And Alex (Train.. yes his last name is Train), said that he'd love to hook up with my groups in hope to get some locals to nudge the Coast Guard some to see if we can try to get this changed.

Can we get an explicit ban on raising the bridge for pleasure boats during rush hour (maybe weekdays 5:30 AM to 9:30 AM and 2:30 PM to 6:30 PM)? It probably doesn't matter much now since there don't seem to be any dock facilities for such boats upstream of the bridge, but if anyone ever decides they want to develop such facilities in the future, having a suitable bridge restriction in place in advance will help to limit the impact such dock facilities have on SL3.