Traffic Disaster Looming in BOSTON

tangent said:
Move them where? The road network is far more efficient from a geometry standpoint.
Click to expand...
People will need to defined "efficient" and "geometry" for this to be a useful line of reasoning (I don't think it is worth it, frankly)

A universal measure of transport capacity is usually expressed in something like GDP (people or goods) per mile (of ROW) per width (of ROW) per time (hours or minutes)

People
-----------
ROWWidth x ROWmile x hour

lane-miles can be translated into acres of land or square feet of city space.

To turn this into efficiency, factor in cost

People per lane-mile-hour-dollar

(where dollar is a mix of capital costs and operating costs)

And basically assuming that crush-hour urban traffic all moves at about an average of 10mph regardless of mode, this picture does the math (note that walking, if pictured, woul
2nd-Ave-Gif-2.gif


Cars are a self-congesting system: people keep driving until it is too slow/crowded to drive. Transit suffers from induced demand too (build anything and "they will come"), but slower and with better coping mechanisms.
 
Ha! I wanted to post that gif but was too lazy to look it up.
 
statler said:
Ha! I wanted to post that gif but was too lazy to look it up.
Click to expand...
It Googles as "seattle car bus bike gif" (Seattle bikers revised an earlier one and made it clear, via captions, that they'd also captured the idea that for car commutes it takes 177 cars to move 200 people, based on carpooling stats).
 
Obligatory follow up to the gif: that street has had a protected bike lane for years now, and the city is currently upgrading it from using flexible posts to planters as a barrier. The parallel street one block away becomes bus-only during rush hour, including some BRT-lite routes. Seattle's DOT is blowing BTD out of the water on creating capacity by offering alternatives.

Also don't forget the light rail tunnel one block away and 50 feet down!
 
...exactly.

All that's missing in that gif is the final frame that would say "here are those same 200 people sitting in cubes on two floors of the new giant-floorplate office buildings in the seaport."

To my mind that's the final link of the geometry argument - if people are going to be densely packed at their destination, they also need to be densely packed in the mode of transport that gets them to and from that destination.
 
Jouhou said:
But what do expect THERIFLEMAN to do when some ASSHOLE is driving in the spot where he wants to put his CAR?!! Just be POLITE and SHARE the road?!!

Edit: needed to add in a list of major developments because it's the in thing to do:

111 federal
1 bromfield
GE HQ
South Station tower
Millennium Tower
The Petronas Towers
that place being built next to that house I used to party at in Allston
The Empire state building
Etc

They are ALL going to cause more TRAFFIC!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

=) This.
 
While the destination may be densely packed, the origin and/or time of transport may not be dense. So folks who commute off peak, from locations not well served by transit, etc. need alternative modes of transport. I do drive into the city daily usually a little later than am rush and leave well after evening rush. Transit isn't convenient so I don't use it.
 
TallIsGood said:
Transit isn't convenient so I don't use it.
Click to expand...

Right, and the point is not an individual one. It is not to criticize you for choosing a less geometrically efficient mode of transportation and contributing to traffic.

The point is to acknowledge that you have a system that incentivizes you to choose an inferior (systemically) mode of transportation due to time/cost/convenience. Then, to build a system in which you are incentivized (through time/cost/convenience) to choose a more geometrically efficient mode of transportation. Once people are choosing more geometrically efficient modes (switching from driving alone to carpool/bike/walk/mass transit), we can move far more people in a far denser area, more smoothly and quickly, due to the geometric efficiency.

If we keep catering to geometrically inefficient modes (driving alone), we are left with geometric inefficiency (traffic). If we want more geometric efficiency (smooth, fast movement through a densely populated area), we need to build infrastructure for geometrically efficient modes of transportation (HOV, biking, walking, mass transit, etc), such that they have an advantage on cost/time/convenience.
 
I understand. Design for the most efficient use and dense transportation. Developing more housing downtown will help since more alternative modes are available and efficient.
 
Per the globe in 2015, (https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/2015/09/17/zocommute/6oAfphVXJRcUJYM4RAFTWK/story.html) 787,000 people were commuting into Boston and immediately surrounding areas each day. We just have too many people living and working in places where it just makes no sense to take public transit to their destination each day. So while telling folks to "just take a bus" sounds like an elegant and logical solution for some, it's just unrealistic for the majority. Again, from the article "Most of those commuters, 71 percent, drive into the area."

The original article in this thread referenced potential growth in transit, and had autos making up ~3x that of all other modes combined for locals.

- 80,000 more cars on the road every work day by 2030
- 14,000 more commuters on the T each day
- 11,000 more bus and trolley commuters
- 1,000 more Commuter Rail riders

The problem with telling many folks to take a bus instead of driving, is that as bad as driving is (now as bad as pre-Big Dig) it's still far better than taking public transit for most folks outside of Boston (and let's face it, much of Boston itself south of the core is pretty suburban as well). And for some of the same reasons that car pooling doesn't work for most people - you need to live and work at the same place for it to make sense.

I don't have a feasible/ realistic solution, but I certainly think we need to think way outside the bounds of Boston.

Currently:
~1.3m living outside of Boston, but inside the circumferential highway
~646K living in Boston

Much of our daily traffic comes from well beyond 128/95 - a good % from out of state.
 
Back in the 70's thru late 90's
Buses and Transit were running very efficient.
I would take the Buses and Trains in STORMS and on a daily basis to the city.
Boston is still running off the same structure since the 80's.
Besides some upgrades to Buses and Greenline cars.

Then look at how much has been built in Boston and the surrounding areas near Boston without focusing on upgrading the TRANSIT SYSTEM.

Please enlighten:
 
We haven't been investing appropriately (whether that be by amount or by allocation) in non-automobile transportation. We need to be investing appropriately in infrastructure that is more geometrically efficient. That means achieving SGR. That means building the "Emerald Network." That means smart expansions done efficiently with proper oversight: North-South Rail Link, Red-Blue Connector, GLX, OLX to Roslindale, rebuilding of Worcester Line through Newton. That means cycle-tracks and true bus rapid-transit bus lanes on highly traveled, wide, urban streets. That means congestion charging and HOV lanes. It means Hubway expansion and increased density. That means striping, plowing, and lighting major bike/pedestrian routes. It means expanding vehicle fleets and decreasing headways on trunk routes at peak times. It means re-examining fare structures. It means regional transportation planning and funding rather than state or national. Charging market-rate for parking and/or removing parking in favor of cyclists having safe paths/lanes. Removing barriers to development in dense, transit-oriented locations. Eliminating parking minimums with developments.

These things are known.
 
Sadly, just because they are known does not mean they are implemented. Politics, budgets, and special interests often prevent good planning, such as in the "Innovation District."

Example: If planners understand the need for geometrically efficient transportation, but the average voting citizen just wants more lanes for cars without understanding the ramifications, the politician that gets elected is the one that provides more lanes for the average voting citizen's car, even if that flies in the face of decades/centuries of accumulated industry knowledge.
 
TheRifleman said:
REALLY? Sounds good. What happened to the build out of the innovation district? Are they going to add these Infrastructure changes now after the entire area was built out?
Click to expand...
Ah, the "Innovation District." An amalgamation of NIMBYism, corporate welfare, and myopic thinking. The Menino Legacy in a nutshell. Not that Walsh is any less ostentatious, but this really is the lasting result of the "people's mayor."

On a side note, can you imagine the traffic nightmare when the Lomansey Way (Basketball City) is redeveloped? All those befuddled C's/B's fans who normally drive down from New Hampshire to park there for games? Oy vey.
 
kingofsheeba said:
Ah, the "Innovation District." An amalgamation of NIMBYism, corporate welfare, and myopic thinking. The Menino Legacy in a nutshell. Not that Walsh is any less ostentatious, but this really is the lasting result of the "people's mayor."

.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.
 
Arlington said:
People will need to defined "efficient" and "geometry" for this to be a useful line of reasoning (I don't think it is worth it, frankly)

A universal measure of transport capacity is usually expressed in something like GDP (people or goods) per mile (of ROW) per width (of ROW) per time (hours or minutes)

People
-----------
ROWWidth x ROWmile x hour

lane-miles can be translated into acres of land or square feet of city space.

To turn this into efficiency, factor in cost

People per lane-mile-hour-dollar

(where dollar is a mix of capital costs and operating costs)

And basically assuming that crush-hour urban traffic all moves at about an average of 10mph regardless of mode, this picture does the math (note that walking, if pictured, woul
2nd-Ave-Gif-2.gif


Cars are a self-congesting system: people keep driving until it is too slow/crowded to drive. Transit suffers from induced demand too (build anything and "they will come"), but slower and with better coping mechanisms.
Click to expand...

Time is an important metric not just capacity.

Yes, if a sufficient number of commuters are going to and from the same place then trains enable greater density. No argument. It is just not time efficient over a wider geographic area once you add in all the transfer times and time between trains. Which is why you get the obsession with knocking off a few minutes here and there on the transfer times in mass transit.
 
bigeman312 said:
Sadly, just because they are known does not mean they are implemented. Politics, budgets, and special interests often prevent good planning, such as in the "Innovation District."

Example: If planners understand the need for geometrically efficient transportation, but the average voting citizen just wants more lanes for cars without understanding the ramifications, the politician that gets elected is the one that provides more lanes for the average voting citizen's car, even if that flies in the face of decades/centuries of accumulated industry knowledge.
Click to expand...

Massachusetts hasn't added many lanes for cars in the past 40 years. Just the Big Dig added a lane or two in a few places and there have been a few lanes here and there outside of Boston where it made sense to do so. And we have also seen some reductions in the road network, since major expansion was halted in the 1960s and 1970s.

The highway system and road network is pretty much as stagnated as the transit network. There is also a very long backlog of maintenance on roads and bridges.

Expansions of either the road or rail networks are going to need a clear 20 to 30 year ROI at this point. We can't afford to take on more debt to finance expansion that doesn't lead to at least close to breakeven economic growth. People are already taxed too much.
 
TheRifleman said:
Whats the most important factor in life? TIME.

I sure don't want to spend my TIME sitting in traffic.
Click to expand...

Fix that to say "I sure don't want to spend my TIME being traffic," then plan your life accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top