I finally got around to replying (at some length, because of course) to @TheRatmeister's awesome map, in the Better MBTA Station Names thread.
Transit Planning $h!tposting (Ideas so bad, they're good)
- Thread starter Riverside
- Start date
So I recently had a thought thats probably totally insane. We're developing an increasingly contiguous system of railtrails and other separated bike infrastructure, so in those scenarios where we have a separated bike/ped railtrail running on independent RoW, what's the theoretical feasibility of running a relatively low capacity golf cart shuttle along that route? basically... whats the mode compatibility of mixing in 15mph golf carts with ebikes, scooters and pedestrians? Most shared use paths are built to 10-14ft widths, and golf carts are typically 4ft wide and can seat up to 12, would be ZEVs, and probably no more expensive to operate than a van with similar capacity, and if ops costs are a concern, there are a series of autonomous golf carts under development for resort microtransit that could serve this function.
I realise that I'm pushing shared use to its very limits, but if it can work inside an airport or a theme park? and here I'm going to preface that they'd be far better used for active transportation, and where a parallel road corridor is available a full bus service would be preferable. But sometimes there isn't a good parallel road, and the path is just the best option. In the urban case, I'm thinking of a use case where it's a flag & ride model for folks who aren't going to be able to practically use a bike or walk the distance - the mobility impaired, kids, folks with luggage or shopping, along corridors like the Watertown Greenway to Alewife, Upper Falls from Needham to Newton, the Saugus-Lynn segment of the Northern Strand, the future Grand Junction path etc, etc. Those all have notable gaps in their contiguousness, but if solved?
Further out rail trails like Weston to Waltham, the Bruce Freeman are probably better served by parallel roads even if no bus service exists today, as even a van would likely be better than a golf cart, but ymmv on whether a golf cart on the shared use path as a "recreational and transit asset available to the aging local population" would be a more palatable form of transit to NIMBYs in those towns.
I realise that I'm pushing shared use to its very limits, but if it can work inside an airport or a theme park? and here I'm going to preface that they'd be far better used for active transportation, and where a parallel road corridor is available a full bus service would be preferable. But sometimes there isn't a good parallel road, and the path is just the best option. In the urban case, I'm thinking of a use case where it's a flag & ride model for folks who aren't going to be able to practically use a bike or walk the distance - the mobility impaired, kids, folks with luggage or shopping, along corridors like the Watertown Greenway to Alewife, Upper Falls from Needham to Newton, the Saugus-Lynn segment of the Northern Strand, the future Grand Junction path etc, etc. Those all have notable gaps in their contiguousness, but if solved?
Further out rail trails like Weston to Waltham, the Bruce Freeman are probably better served by parallel roads even if no bus service exists today, as even a van would likely be better than a golf cart, but ymmv on whether a golf cart on the shared use path as a "recreational and transit asset available to the aging local population" would be a more palatable form of transit to NIMBYs in those towns.
Last edited:
TheRatmeister
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2023
- Messages
- 1,539
- Reaction score
- 3,093
I think the better solution is to allow private 'vehicles' to use the paths. Of course, "vehicle" in this context means one of these:
Or maybe (NL is still trying to figure out what to do with these) one of these:
These let you do point-to-point travel and can make better used of sidewalks and bike lanes rather than only full trails, which are and will likely continue to be too limiting for enough journeys to warrant higher capacity microtransit.
Or maybe (NL is still trying to figure out what to do with these) one of these:
These let you do point-to-point travel and can make better used of sidewalks and bike lanes rather than only full trails, which are and will likely continue to be too limiting for enough journeys to warrant higher capacity microtransit.
God--my wife and I have always talked about how Boston would be very cool if golf-cart-like transport was enabled/preferred.
Most of our urban,non-walking, trips are no more than 1-2 miles (just past a comfortable/not too time-inefficient walk) that might be easily transit oriented for some trips, but for others, we'd take a 2+ person rideshare to get around.
We haven't had a car and have lived in the Boston area for 15+ years. If we had little 4-6 person electric golf carts with little heaters/zippered side "curtains" or whatever, it would be perfect. The roads in Boston are small and have a maximum speed of 25mph (for most). Also, parking and space is always at a premium, so these would take up less real estate for both active transport as well as storage.
One can dream.
Most of our urban,non-walking, trips are no more than 1-2 miles (just past a comfortable/not too time-inefficient walk) that might be easily transit oriented for some trips, but for others, we'd take a 2+ person rideshare to get around.
We haven't had a car and have lived in the Boston area for 15+ years. If we had little 4-6 person electric golf carts with little heaters/zippered side "curtains" or whatever, it would be perfect. The roads in Boston are small and have a maximum speed of 25mph (for most). Also, parking and space is always at a premium, so these would take up less real estate for both active transport as well as storage.
One can dream.