Urban Ring

[underground]

It's best as a series of particle transport stations that conveniently shoot people anywhere they want in seconds flat.

 

[JohnAKeith]

I'd say BRT since it's easier. Guy online wants it to be a monorail, so there's that.

 

[Alon]

Sorry to ask a question that could be researched online, but.... Is the Urban Ring better as a rapid bus transit or a subway/ground rail subway?

It depends on the construction costs . At $250 million/km, a subway from JFK-UMass to Harvard, hitting Dudley and Ruggles and going under Harvard Avenue, would be precious. Could maybe extend to Sullivan, but there's no equivalent of the 1 and 66 buses there.

Boston can't currently build subways for $250 million/km. So best it can do is No Build.

(Note: with about three exceptions, developed countries do not have such a concept as bus rapid transit. They have what's called "the bus," with operational improvements that American cities think are super-special, like off-board fare collection and signal priority.)

 

[MBTAddict]

It's best as hyperloop.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

The Urban Ring, in its most recent form, was another BRT clusterfuck dreamed up by the same people who brought us Silver Line Phase 3. Basically they wanted to build a ring of BRT lines around the city which isn't so bad except the roads on which they wanted to run them aren't really wide enough for dedicated bus lanes and would have also involved stupidly expensive bus tunnels. Furthermore the headways proposed would have meant a river of buses circling the city which would have ADDED to the traffic problems rather than improved them. There is a reason no one at the MBTA has mentioned the Urban Ring in a decade.

The Urban Ring needs to be totally rethought for a growing Boston. BRT should rightfully be a part of the plan but not the majority. I wrote about reworking the Green Line into Urban Ring loops a while ago as a way to also create more capacity in the central subway. Looking back I see some issues with the plan but I still think it's a much better alternative than the proposed Urban Ring.

 

[whighlander]

The Urban Ring, in its most recent form, was another BRT clusterfuck dreamed up by the same people who brought us Silver Line Phase 3. Basically they wanted to build a ring of BRT lines around the city which isn't so bad except the roads on which they wanted to run them aren't really wide enough for dedicated bus lanes and would have also involved stupidly expensive bus tunnels. Furthermore the headways proposed would have meant a river of buses circling the city which would have ADDED to the traffic problems rather than improved them. There is a reason no one at the MBTA has mentioned the Urban Ring in a decade.

The Urban Ring needs to be totally rethought for a growing Boston. BRT should rightfully be a part of the plan but not the majority. I wrote about reworking the Green Line into Urban Ring loops a while ago as a way to also create more capacity in the central subway. Looking back I see some issues with the plan but I still think it's a much better alternative than the proposed Urban Ring.

Van --way to tell it like it is -- However, you didn't quite get to the crux -- the motivation for both the Urban Ring and the Silver Line Phases 1,3 [i.e. except for the Seaport] had nothing to do with the real or even projected needs of transit

Rather -- It was all about Political Correctness or its disciple -- Economic Justice -- offering a mythical one seat ride from Roxbury / Dorchester to what were then considered the prime employment clusters

However, with all the dramatic changes in development and employment in the past decade the concept was obsolete when it finally left the draft stage.

This is typical of Big Government's penchant to produce Plans to guide the future rather than to design to accommodate an evolving situation and evolving requirements

 

[George_Apley]

^ I'd love to see you post something that doesn't consist of either copy-paste articles/images or the phrase "big government"

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Also, whighlander, at the time the Feds were gung-ho about dolling out BRT money and with the Big Dig fresh in the minds of politicians that was seen as the only source of construction money.

 

[whighlander]

^ I'd love to see you post something that doesn't consist of either copy-paste articles/images or the phrase "big government"

Busses -- A bit off topic -- but I refer you to my post today on the visibility of the Millenium Tower from Mem Dr. -- nothing copied and pasted and narry the mention of the BG

 

[Alon]

Rather -- It was all about Political Correctness or its disciple -- Economic Justice -- offering a mythical one seat ride from Roxbury / Dorchester to what were then considered the prime employment clusters

Lol at political correctness. The MBTA decided that replacing SL4/5 with a light rail extension of the Green Line would only lead to 130 new daily transit riders, and as a result such extension would be cost-ineffective. That's how interested the local power brokers are in adding transit service to Roxbury.

 

[whighlander]

Lol at political correctness. The MBTA decided that replacing SL4/5 with a light rail extension of the Green Line would only lead to 130 new daily transit riders, and as a result such extension would be cost-ineffective. That's how interested the local power brokers are in adding transit service to Roxbury.

Alon -- the fact that T planners considered digging a 1B$ tunnel between SL on Washington St. to the Silver Line @ South Station -- aka SL-3 -- was all about political correctness / economic justice, At the time no one disembarking from a Commuter Rail at South Station or the Red Line @ South Station was going the other way to a job in Roxbury

One could just as easily argue about the stupidity of restoration of the Greenbush Line while there was already a T-sponsored ferry from Hingham

 

[JeffDowntown]

Alon -- the fact that T planners considered digging a 1B$ tunnel between SL on Washington St. to the Silver Line @ South Station -- aka SL-3 -- was all about political correctness / economic justice, At the time no one disembarking from a Commuter Rail at South Station or the Red Line @ South Station was going the other way to a job in Roxbury

One could just as easily argue about the stupidity of restoration of the Greenbush Line while there was already a T-sponsored ferry from Hingham

whighlander, there is a lot of South End on the SL4/5 before you get to Roxbury, and people do come from Downtown (South Station area) to get to that corridor because they live out there.

 

[Alon]

Alon -- the fact that T planners considered digging a 1B$ tunnel between SL on Washington St. to the Silver Line @ South Station -- aka SL-3 -- was all about political correctness / economic justice, At the time no one disembarking from a Commuter Rail at South Station or the Red Line @ South Station was going the other way to a job in Roxbury

One could just as easily argue about the stupidity of restoration of the Greenbush Line while there was already a T-sponsored ferry from Hingham

Funny, I would have pegged it as a stupid airport line more than anything. No other reason to connect the two Silver Lies; if the point is just to give Roxbury better access to Downtown Boston, then a Green Line extension is both much cheaper and much more useful.

Although, coming to think of it, the idea that what Roxbury really needs is an airport connection is basically how I'd define political correctness, which is the veneer of anti-racism (or feminism, etc.) without any of the substance.

That said, to the MBTA's credit, it pulled the plug after costs ran up to $2 billion, i.e. what a normal city would spend on the NSRL.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Lol at political correctness. The MBTA decided that replacing SL4/5 with a light rail extension of the Green Line would only lead to 130 new daily transit riders, and as a result such extension would be cost-ineffective. That's how interested the local power brokers are in adding transit service to Roxbury.

I think it has more to do with assumptions made in regional demand models.

The proposed Green Line, based on the higher-capacity of light rail vehicles, would operate on a 12-minute peak headway while the SL4/SL5 runs about every 4/5 minutes for both routes combined. The model would assign an advantage to the bus which might mitigate a travel time advantage to light rail.

The catchment area for Washington St. service already has a very high transit mode share. It is only two miles from Dudley to Downtown on Washington St. and a half-mile walk in sections to the Orange Line at Ruggles or Mass Ave stations. Given that, the more a service is intensified beyond what is already there, the more likely that the mode share transit would gain from would be non-motorized (bike/ped) vs. diversions from auto.

Both the existing Silver Line and a theoretical Green Line branch would still require transfers to reach points on the Red or Orange line, the model would not assign any advantage for light rail to Park St. for those transfers. The SL4 branch to South Station probably has a time advantage for connections from the Red Line south or to the South Boston Transitway Silver Line's. The model should assign an advantage to light rail for through trips from Washington St. locations to Government Center and point north on the Green Line as well as transfers to the Blue Line, but that might still not be enough to mitigate the service frequency advantage assigned to the bus or the transfer advantage to trips from Red-South or South Boston Waterfront.

Any commuter traveling from points in Dorchester/Roxbury served by bus routes 15/23/28/44/45 etc traveling to Back Bay would probably still be assumed to transfer to the Orange Line at Ruggles to make that journey. A Green Line branch on Washington St. would still require a transfer to westbound B/C/D/E service at Boylston for a Back Bay journey, and thus a demand model would probably still give the travel time advantage to local bus/Orange Line at Ruggles transfer.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Funny, I would have pegged it as a stupid airport line more than anything. No other reason to connect the two Silver Lies; if the point is just to give Roxbury better access to Downtown Boston, then a Green Line extension is both much cheaper and much more useful.

Although, coming to think of it, the idea that what Roxbury really needs is an airport connection is basically how I'd define political correctness, which is the veneer of anti-racism (or feminism, etc.) without any of the substance.

That said, to the MBTA's credit, it pulled the plug after costs ran up to $2 billion, i.e. what a normal city would spend on the NSRL.

The primary purpose of Silver Line phase-III was to provide improved connections from locations on the Green Line and Orange Line to the South Boston waterfront by providing a two transfer rider (Green/Silver or Orange /Silver) vs. the present three-transfer ride (Green/Red/Silver or Orange/Red/Silver). The connection to Washington St. service was to appease advocates for an undergound one-seat ride. Building a tunnel under Essex St. to extend the Silver Line to meet the Orange and Green lines for transfers was going to destroy the abandoned Green Line tunnel south of Boylston, as it dips down under the existing active Green Line tunnel in the very same space that would be required to be used by a Green/Silver transfer facility.

 

[Alon]

I think it has more to do with assumptions made in regional demand models.

The proposed Green Line, based on the higher-capacity of light rail vehicles, would operate on a 12-minute peak headway while the SL4/SL5 runs about every 4/5 minutes for both routes combined. The model would assign an advantage to the bus which might mitigate a travel time advantage to light rail.

Eh.

First, SL4/SL5 is a reverse branch; each destination - South Station and Downtown Crossing - only has half the frequency. The Green Line would not have this split.

Second, the report does give the Green Line 34,000 weekday riders, twice the ridership of SL4/SL5, and more than each of the existing branches; it just thinks all but 130 of those would move from other transit modes, which is insane. So even though the likely frequency actually higher than that of SL4 or SL5, the report still sandbags light rail.

And third, don't sell the speed issue short. The mixed traffic in downtown is pretty slow.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Eh.

First, SL4/SL5 is a reverse branch; each destination - South Station and Downtown Crossing - only has half the frequency. The Green Line would not have this split.

Second, the report does give the Green Line 34,000 weekday riders, twice the ridership of SL4/SL5, and more than each of the existing branches; it just thinks all but 130 of those would move from other transit modes, which is insane. So even though the likely frequency actually higher than that of SL4 or SL5, the report still sandbags light rail.

And third, don't sell the speed issue short. The mixed traffic in downtown is pretty slow.

If the auto share for the corridor is already low, where are the diversions to the light rail line coming from?

 

[Alon]

The primary purpose of Silver Line phase-III was to provide improved connections from locations on the Green Line and Orange Line to the South Boston waterfront by providing a two transfer rider (Green/Silver or Orange /Silver) vs. the present three-transfer ride (Green/Red/Silver or Orange/Red/Silver).

That's really not much better. SL2 has shit ridership too, and American cities overinvest in transit to waterfront condos as much as in transit to airports. You should see the sort of stuff that New York politicians come up with - ferries with double-digit per-rider subsidies are in vogue right now. In the name of avoiding expensive subway and light rail extensions, American cities will light large quantities of money on fire on so-called low-cost BRT and ferries. The Silver Lie's part of that tradition. It has nothing to do with social justice concerns, which, if Boston had even an ounce of, it would railstitute SL4 and then push branches to Forest Hills and along Blue Hill Avenue (the 28 is in a near-tie with the 39 for the busiest single bus route in Boston as per the 2014 Blue Book).

 

[winstonoboogie]

That's really not much better. SL2 has shit ridership too, and American cities overinvest in transit to waterfront condos as much as in transit to airports. You should see the sort of stuff that New York politicians come up with - ferries with double-digit per-rider subsidies are in vogue right now. In the name of avoiding expensive subway and light rail extensions, American cities will light large quantities of money on fire on so-called low-cost BRT and ferries. The Silver Lie's part of that tradition. It has nothing to do with social justice concerns, which, if Boston had even an ounce of, it would railstitute SL4 and then push branches to Forest Hills and along Blue Hill Avenue (the 28 is in a near-tie with the 39 for the busiest single bus route in Boston as per the 2014 Blue Book).

What would be the point of an extension to Forest Hills? The Orange Line already provides service to Forest Hills and Green St., the old pre-1987 Orange Line never had that many local riders traveling just between Forest Hills and Dudley, the old Egleston Sq. station catchment area is still close to the relocated Jackson Sq. and has three bus routes to connect it for those that don't want to walk, and the present bus route from Forest Hills to Dudley has a 25-minute headway in the p.m. peak. Doesn't sound like good territory to justify light rail construction.

 

[Alon]

What would be the point of an extension to Forest Hills? The Orange Line already provides service to Forest Hills and Green St., the old pre-1987 Orange Line never had that many local riders traveling just between Forest Hills and Dudley, the old Egleston Sq. station catchment area is still close to the relocated Jackson Sq. and has three bus routes to connect it for those that don't want to walk, and the present bus route from Forest Hills to Dudley has a 25-minute headway in the p.m. peak. Doesn't sound like good territory to justify light rail construction.

There's a lot of general demand to Forest Hills. I don't know if it's from Dudley specifically, but it's one of the busiest subway stations, so that Coney Island-like convergence of multiple rail branches is acceptable.

That said, the Blue Hill Avenue corridor is better, although I still think both should be pursued, interlining to provide higher frequency north of Dudley. (The Tremont Street Subway feeds into a separate Green Line track pair from all the current services, so there's capacity.)

If the auto share for the corridor is already low, where are the diversions to the light rail line coming from?

This is what Boston gets so wrong, as do most other American cities. People in Roxbury who ride slow buses today will buy a car tomorrow and move to the suburbs. Already, car ownership in Roxbury, about 50% of households (more as you move east, away from the Orange Line), is higher than in most of Back Bay, where people can afford cars but ride the subway because it doesn't get stuck in downtown traffic, and about comparable to the level of Allston, where people have light rail. See topic 10.4.1 here. Car ownership and usage are not static numbers that move only in response to transit or road construction; they go up over time with economic growth as long as there's no good transit alternative.