Urban Ring

jass said:
A large portion of the project is street running. You will not get a street running train in this state. As such, making it light rail would increase the cost exponentially do to ROW or tunnels.
Click to expand...

True, street running is unpopular--but if it were rail being built, maybe it could be done in segments. The first segment could be, say, Airport (Blue Line) to Kendall, since that uses an existing ROW. With that first step done, work could begin on tunnels into Boston and a tunnel to Logan Airport. From there, more tunnels could be built, one at a time, to gradually bring the Urban Ring to completion.

Also, how much more expensive is a rail tunnel than a bus tunnel, if they're essentially of the same dimensions? Not only that, but rails carry far more people--it would be a better cost per rider, if not necessarily a better cost overall.
 
jenkins said:
True, street running is unpopular--but if it were rail being built, maybe it could be done in segments. The first segment could be, say, Airport (Blue Line) to Kendall, since that uses an existing ROW. With that first step done, work could begin on tunnels into Boston and a tunnel to Logan Airport. From there, more tunnels could be built, one at a time, to gradually bring the Urban Ring to completion.

Also, how much more expensive is a rail tunnel than a bus tunnel, if they're essentially of the same dimensions? Not only that, but rails carry far more people--it would be a better cost per rider, if not necessarily a better cost overall.
Click to expand...

That IS what theyre doing. You cant build a 1 mile tunnel and run a train back and forth on it. Theyre building portions of tunnels. And then in 50 years, theyll build more tunnels. Eventually, there will be a full ROW and you can simply lay track.
 
Currently this thing completly sucks. It goes on way too many roads and highways that are already clogged up. During rush hour going from Everett to Cambridge will take way too long.
 
jass said:
That IS what theyre doing. You cant build a 1 mile tunnel and run a train back and forth on it. Theyre building portions of tunnels. And then in 50 years, theyll build more tunnels. Eventually, there will be a full ROW and you can simply lay track.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned laying a "1 mile tunnel," I'm talking about building on an existing ROW--one which, I might add, already has track down (although it would need a bit of upgrading). Something like this:

UpgradedUrbanRing.jpg


The yellow follows a ROW with track down, and the light green follows a ROW with no track but no other development either.

This could be built fairly quickly and cheaply, and would serve more people more efficiently than BRT. With such a large chunk out of the way, work could begin on a tunnel under the Charles, and then on cut-and-cover tunnels running across Boston to JFK.
 
It is critically important that we have dedicated bus lanes ESPECIALLY where there is congestion now. This is where it is most important. To cave in and say "oh there's too much traffic to do a bus lane" defeats the whole point of BRT in the first place. Of course some people won't be happy, but it's ultimately for the benefit of everyone to have a faster more efficient option for traveling these routes.
 
cden4 said:
It is critically important that we have dedicated bus lanes ESPECIALLY where there is congestion now. This is where it is most important. To cave in and say "oh there's too much traffic to do a bus lane" defeats the whole point of BRT in the first place. Of course some people won't be happy, but it's ultimately for the benefit of everyone to have a faster more efficient option for traveling these routes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you're going to go with BRT at least make it real BRT, not some half-assed version that isn't really different than a regular bus line.

If you read the government and industry planning documents for BRT systems you will see the problem is BRT is very vaguely-defined, and planners are encouraged that it can be implemented with a mix-and-match approach. There is no minimum standard for what constitutes BRT. It's very much "You could build an electric line running 60' articulated vehicles in a dedicated busway operating at 50 MPH, or run a 40' diesel bus in mixed traffic with a few less stops than a normal bus line."

While there are very good reasons for this, it ultimately cheapens the concept and leaves you with the same kind of transit line you're trying to replace. The much-touted "flexibility" of BRT lets you save money, but also do some crazy things that ultimately negatively impacts service.

The connected Silver Line for example will start at either Logan Airport or the Seaport and travel block after block in mixed traffic under diesel power as a normal bus line, travel to Silver Line Way where the buses will shut down completely, start up again under electric power, then run at 12 MPH through a dedicated tunnel until Charles St. where they will stop, shut down again, restart the diesel engines, travel in a dedicated lane that disappears after a few hundred feet and becomes a normal bus line again.

The Urban Ring will be another amalgamation of half-baked ideas that won't get remedied for decades to come, if ever. Look at how design decisions made in the 1900s are still haunting the Central Subway.
 
One thing I do not understand is how BRT, like the future Urban Ring and current Washington street Silverline, are on all of the MBTA maps and counted as main transportation routes, while none of the trackless trolley routes are. Both of these forms or transport are very simmilar. Infact isnt trackless trolley alot more perminant in the way it is built than BRT is?
 
Sssh, the Feds might catch on and stop the gravy train for SL3.
 
Well, we can keep talking about looping 'round the city and such forever and ever just to bypass some god forsaken tunnels and crap... or we can talk about the joke that was 695.
 
jenkins said:
I never mentioned laying a "1 mile tunnel," I'm talking about building on an existing ROW--one which, I might add, already has track down (although it would need a bit of upgrading). Something like this:

UpgradedUrbanRing.jpg
Click to expand...

I like it! The surface LRV line could be continued down Mass. Ave to connect with the Green Line at Huntington Ave. This part could be on a separate reservation down the middle of Mass Ave, as it currently has two lanes of traffic in each direction. No "street running" issue that way.
 
^ There'd be all kinds of angst over screwing up traffic, though. I know cars = bad, but we do need SOME arterial streets...

As to the map: why not a station at Main St. that's connected via tunnel to Kendall? Two MIT area stops without transfer points to the Red Line doesn't make as much sense...
 
As an alternative to running the west leg of a light rail vehicle (LRV) urban ring down Mass Ave, the line could instead continue down the Grand Junction railroad to the BU Bridge. As this bridge is old and structurally deficient, replace it with a wider bridge having a light rail reservation down its center, to continue the Urban Ring across the Charles River. A new BU bridge that carries traffic as well as the Urban Ring would cost less than a tunnel under the Charles serving the Urban Ring only.

Then the urban ring could merge with the Green line, where the BU Bridge intersects Comm Ave.
 
Wasn't this one of the original proposed alignments?
 
Isn't that the track to be used for the proposed Framingham/Worcester trains to North Station?
 
So apparently the Urban Ring isn't as dead as we though.... brand new website http://theurbanring.eot.state.ma.us/index.html and new, albeit smaller, ideas. There was apparently a meeting on November 22 where alot of stuff was talked about. all the documents can be found at http://theurbanring.eot.state.ma.us/documents.html under meeting 31.

The big ideas/ projects i see are the following:

Massport?s East Boston ? Chelsea Bypass Road project http://theurbanring.eot.state.ma.us/downloads/CAC_East_Boston_Chelsea_Bypass_Presentation.pdf

Silver Line extension to to Chelsea http://theurbanring.eot.state.ma.us/downloads/CAC_SilverLineExtensionOptions.pdf

Upgrading Yawkey Station and Ruggles Station

Other uses for the Grand Junction - "Wig Zamore suggested that deisel locomotive commuter rail service stopping in a dense urban environment like Cambridge was not a very sustainable proposal. He also proposed that any ridership analysis look at the potential for light rail service running between Sullivan Station and Allston. He explained that this would effectively create an ?urban ring? of Green Line/light rail service around the city. Mr. Ciborowski agreed that the Grand Junction is a vital corridor with a great deal of potential for use. He reiterated that MassDOT must maintain rail service along the corridor under an agreement with CSX to serve customers in Chelsea." http://theurbanring.eot.state.ma.us/downloads/CAC_31_Notes.pdf


there is more stuff, but you can just look yourself.
 
This BRT bullshit is really pissing me off. First off, most of it isn't even real BRT, and second, there's nothing "rapid" about any part of the entire thing.
 
Chelsea needs and orange line branch, not BRT.

However, the proposed bus route isn't terrible, Im sure the area is full of airport employees. But there is NO need to brand it as the silver line.
 
My problem with the urban ring is that they should build all the spokes before they build the ring.
 
I personally thing expanding the silverline to the airport T-stop makes alot of sense. The T can retire it's fleet of shuttle busses with out any change in service.

The downside is they will have to make new maos, again, and take another 2 years to put them all up.
 
found5dollar said:
I personally thing expanding the silverline to the airport T-stop makes alot of sense. The T can retire it's fleet of shuttle busses with out any change in service.

The downside is they will have to make new maos, again, and take another 2 years to put them all up.
Click to expand...

There's no need to update maps for every little thing. There's tons of reallyyyyy old maps around, and there's also still maps showing SL to Andrew Square within the SL system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top