Which atrocious highway-on-the-Charles would you remove first?

[underground]

7 minute headways beats 15 minutes...every...single...time.

It's not going to be less than 45 minutes per rush hour trip under Indigo.

Even if it is 45 minutes, and even if you have to wait all of the 15 minutes for a DMU, 60 minutes is still faster than 90. At worst, saving 30 minutes isn't going to put D riders on a Riverside DMU? Plus, only subway connection you miss is Blue, which is only an issue if you're going somewhere in East Boston that's not the Airport, which in terms of commuting patterns, is unlikely.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Unless you think the traffic is coming from Weston, Wayland and Marlborough on 20 or entirely from the North on 128, the question should be whether you can take more traffic off of the Pike by providing DMU service to Porter and North or Yawkey, Back Bay, and South. They're entirely different commuting markets.

You want to talk about a trace effect on Pike traffic, let's look at the number of commuters willing to transfer from a train to a bus after driving to a park-and-ride.

I don't follow what you're saying at all. The D is already taking park-and-ride traffic off at the interchange itself. Commuter rail does nothing additional at the interchange that hasn't already been done. To get more diversions you have to 1) increase conventional Worcester Line service a LOT to offer more relief in MetroWest, and 2) fan out on 128 to trap more drivers before they reach the interchange.

The easiest place to do #2 is the Fitchburg Line. And the primary attraction there is that you get direct transfers to 3 out of 4 subway lines and 2 of 4 (to be 3 of 4 in about 5 years) Green Line branches...which no other conceivable Indigo route--including Riverside--can offer. How many people have a commute that is really and truly one-seat and doesn't involve a single subway transfer from the terminal? So, no...it's not a substantially different commuter market. Incrementally different...yes. If you're going to Kenmore Riverside and the traffic may be the faster bet. If you're going to Harvard, Waltham is probably the better bet. If you're going to the Financial district...it doesn't make a difference and you probably end up getting off in Waltham instead of dealing with the 128 traffic between 20 and the Pike or the Alewife clusterfuck.

But those are splitting-hairs differences. It accomplishes a tangible load-diversion function. Not ALL of the load-diversion, but a load diversion that's reflected in the traffic counts through Weston. And that's what you're aiming for with a load-spreading option.

 

[cozzyd]

I think the commuter rail might be better than the D for a good number of people that

1) are going to the financial district or seaport
2) don't want to deal with the crush loads on the green line

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Even if it is 45 minutes, and even if you have to wait all of the 15 minutes for a DMU, 60 minutes is still faster than 90.

That's not the psychology of the typical transit rider, though. Frequency always > than speed. The people who are going to game it out on travel time alone are a decided minority. Habits rule. And subconscious habits rule commuters' habits when they're bleary-eyed and distracted in the A.M.

If there's 2+ D departures for every Indigo and usually something pulling out of the yard to lay over doors-open on the platform waiting for the next starting slot...the majority of riders are going to autopilot themselves D-first. If they just have to go downstairs at Park, GC, or Haymarket to catch their transfer...that's easier than walking longer-distance through a terminal and they will autopilot themselves D-first.

Commuter rail isn't useless here; some people will ride it for the somewhat faster trip, some people will gamble on whatever is the first thing sitting on the platform when they walk from their cars...which on roll-dice odds will sometimes be an Indigo. And some people actually have last-stop destinations that are closer walking distance to an Indigo stop than a D stop. But it's not huge numbers. People won't be flocking to the Indigo platform to get off at Back Bay instead of Copley, or Yawkey instead of Kenmore. They won't be flocking to it for a Red at South Station instead of Park. Frequency and ease/proximity of transfers grab the lion's share. And that's pre-existing at that park-and-ride.

Spread of options is good, don't get me wrong. But it's not a game-changer at Riverside that's going to put noticeably more cars in the lot or show up in traffic count numbers. Very few people taking the D today are going to change their commute patterns when the Indigo platform goes live. You'd be overestimating by a lot the autopilot factor in commutes that puts so much emphasis on frequency and shortest walk to the next transfer. Riverside on Indigo may end up having more upside and more all-day ridership for the Riverside TOD and reverse-commutes from Newton to bus shuttles for the 128 office parks. Don't forget...this very route was proposed as a co-build rapid transit line with the D 70 years ago, way before the Pike existed and way before anyone was commuting from 128 in large numbers. It's all about the Newton and Allston intermediates.

 

[Equilibria]

I don't follow what you're saying at all. The D is already taking park-and-ride traffic off at the interchange itself. Commuter rail does nothing additional at the interchange that hasn't already been done. To get more diversions you have to 1) increase conventional Worcester Line service a LOT to offer more relief in MetroWest, and 2) fan out on 128 to trap more drivers before they reach the interchange.

The easiest place to do #2 is the Fitchburg Line. And the primary attraction there is that you get direct transfers to 3 out of 4 subway lines and 2 of 4 (to be 3 of 4 in about 5 years) Green Line branches...which no other conceivable Indigo route--including Riverside--can offer. How many people have a commute that is really and truly one-seat and doesn't involve a single subway transfer from the terminal? So, no...it's not a substantially different commuter market. Incrementally different...yes. If you're going to Kenmore Riverside and the traffic may be the faster bet. If you're going to Harvard, Waltham is probably the better bet. If you're going to the Financial district...it doesn't make a difference and you probably end up getting off in Waltham instead of dealing with the 128 traffic between 20 and the Pike or the Alewife clusterfuck.

But those are splitting-hairs differences. It accomplishes a tangible load-diversion function. Not ALL of the load-diversion, but a load diversion that's reflected in the traffic counts through Weston. And that's what you're aiming for with a load-spreading option.

Who are you diverting, exactly, on the Fitchburg Line? Your goal is to remove people from the MassPike, a road that provides access to: The Back Bay, the Financial District, and the Seaport. The Worcester Line parallels it perfectly, serving all of those destinations without the need for a transfer.

What employment centers does Fitchburg hit? North Station is surrounded by Federal buildings, which do contain a lot of workers, but other than that, it's Cambridge, and that's only via transfer, which Park-and-Riders likely won't do, particularly between modes. By sheer demand, it's just not even close.

That's not the biggest problem, though. 128-to-Cambridge isn't a Turnpike market, it's a Route 2 market. Either you drive the whole way using Fresh Pond and Mem Drive, or you use the existing Park-and-Ride at Alewife. This is really true over the whole length of 128, and it's definitely true from Waltham up, and that's all the people you're claiming to divert here.

I'll give you the D Line argument, because I never argued with it. It's a valid point. A DMU park-and-ride at 20/117 is a fine idea. As a diversion for the Turnpike, though, it's not a good strategy.

 

[JeffDowntown]

That's not the biggest problem, though. 128-to-Cambridge isn't a Turnpike market, it's a Route 2 market. Either you drive the whole way using Fresh Pond and Mem Drive, or you use the existing Park-and-Ride at Alewife. This is really true over the whole length of 128, and it's definitely true from Waltham up, and that's all the people you're claiming to divert here.

Sorry, but this is not correct about driving patterns.

The people I know who are dedicated to driving from the West headed to the massively growing employment centers of East Cambridge/Kendall Square use the Pike to the Allston Exit, not Route 2. Lots of people try to avoid Fresh Pond.

 

[George_Apley]

Sorry, but this is not correct about driving patterns.

The people I know who are dedicated to driving from the West headed to the massively growing employment centers of East Cambridge/Kendall Square use the Pike to the Allston Exit, not Route 2. Lots of people try to avoid Fresh Pond.

Yeah. People in Sparse North Waltham might take Rte 2, since it's right there, but those in the denser parts of Waltham in the Center, or the South Side probably take the Pike in to Cambridge, or back roads through Belmont/Watertown. A park and ride at 20/117/128 would pull a lot of riders from within Waltham off the Pike at the very least.

I also dispute that Park&Ride commuter rail riders won't switch modes. Porter is a HUGE disembark station on Fitchburg, and it sure ain't because all those commuters work at the shopping plaza. They get off Fitchburg and hop on the Red Line to Kendall, or DTX, or wherever their final destination is.

 

[Equilibria]

Sorry, but this is not correct about driving patterns.

The people I know who are dedicated to driving from the West headed to the massively growing employment centers of East Cambridge/Kendall Square use the Pike to the Allston Exit, not Route 2. Lots of people try to avoid Fresh Pond.

It's not people traveling from the west that are the issue. Those people wouldn't see a park-and-ride in Waltham miles up 128 from the Turnpike, and as F-Line noted are probably best served by improved service on the Worcester Line beyond Wellesley. The trips that Fitchburg can divert are those originating along the 128 belt from Waltham north, and that's the catchment area of Route 2.

Yeah. People in Sparse North Waltham might take Rte 2, since it's right there, but those in the denser parts of Waltham in the Center, or the South Side probably take the Pike in to Cambridge, or back roads through Belmont/Watertown. A park and ride at 20/117/128 would pull a lot of riders from within Waltham off the Pike at the very least.

Could not disagree more, but it's all personal experiences. For those commuting daily, the mentality where I grew up in Newton was that you take Route 2 to get to Cambridge, so I'm standing by my observations. To prove it one way or the other, you need a travel demand study and model, and MassDOT is developing one of those. F-Line's traffic counts don't tell you anything about route or specific origin/destination, only the volume at one point in space.

I also dispute that Park&Ride commuter rail riders won't switch modes. Porter is a HUGE disembark station on Fitchburg, and it sure ain't because all those commuters work at the shopping plaza. They get off Fitchburg and hop on the Red Line to Kendall, or DTX, or wherever their final destination is.

I suspect this becomes more likely the farther out that they originate. If the alternatives are a drive in heavy traffic from Acton or Concord vs. a transfer to Red, sure. If the alternatives are an hour in a car on the Turnpike or an hour split between your car and two different trains, the car wins.

 

[JeffDowntown]

It's not people traveling from the west that are the issue. Those people wouldn't see a park-and-ride in Waltham miles up 128 from the Turnpike, and as F-Line noted are probably best served by improved service on the Worcester Line beyond Wellesley. The trips that Fitchburg can divert are those originating along the 128 belt from Waltham north, and that's the catchment area of Route 2.

For those commuting daily, the mentality where I grew up in Newton was that you take Route 2 to get to Cambridge, so I'm standing by my observations. To prove it one way or the other, you need a travel demand study and model, and MassDOT is developing one of those. F-Line's traffic counts don't tell you anything about route or specific origin/destination, only the volume at one point in space.



I suspect this becomes more likely the farther out that they originate. If the alternatives are a drive in heavy traffic from Acton or Concord vs. a transfer to Red, sure. If the alternatives are an hour in a car on the Turnpike or an hour split between your car and two different trains, the car wins.

I will agree that you need a real traffic study, and not anecdotal information.

I will say that Cambridge is a big place. I do think there is a difference in whether your destination is Alewife, or Harvard Square, versus Kendall Square and East Cambridge.

 

[matredsoxfan]

speaking of traffic studies noticed a camera on Soldiers Field Road near the Eliot Bridge and traffic counting wires across the road also.

 

[kevtron2000]

We could just move the entire Storrow Drive underground and use the above-ground for park space or development.

 

[rinserepeat]

We could just move the entire Storrow Drive underground and use the above-ground for park space or development.

storrow should just be reconverted back to a lower speed surface street. tunnel is too expensive.

 

[FenwayResident]

We could just move the entire Storrow Drive underground and use the above-ground for park space or development.

I've often wondered how much this would cost, and if it's even possible to construct (within reason). A wider, quieter and safer esplanade that is accessible from every Back Bay street would be such a huge asset to the city. It would be a truly recreational park, something that the Boston Common could never be.

Surely it couldn't cost that much to bury ~2 miles of road?

 

[bigeman312]

We could just move the entire Storrow Drive underground and use the above-ground for park space or development.

Welcome to aB. I know you are excited and want to revive old threads to talk about some of the things you are excited about, and that's great! Unfortunately, with no news to report and questions/suggestions that have already been answered, it is frustrating to see a bunch of these revived for no reason. Anywho, welcome aboard.

As to your suggestion, we could do a lot of things, technically. Unfortunately, underground super-highways only make any sense on a cost-benefit basis when there is a LOT of benefit. Here, there is little benefit to expensively burying an overbuilt urban feeder route. On top of that, Back Bay is completely fill, so the engineering difficulty/cost would be through the roof, and potentially unfeasible. So maybe we couldn't do this and maybe we could, but either way, we probably wouldn't to.

 

[kevtron2000]

Welcome to aB. I know you are excited and want to revive old threads to talk about some of the things you are excited about, and that's great! Unfortunately, with no news to report and questions/suggestions that have already been answered, it is frustrating to see a bunch of these revived for no reason. Anywho, welcome aboard.

As to your suggestion, we could do a lot of things, technically. Unfortunately, underground super-highways only make any sense on a cost-benefit basis when there is a LOT of benefit. Here, there is little benefit to expensively burying an overbuilt urban feeder route. On top of that, Back Bay is completely fill, so the engineering difficulty/cost would be through the roof, and potentially unfeasible. So maybe we couldn't do this and maybe we could, but either way, we probably wouldn't to.

Thanks! This idea would increase park area and might ease some traffic because you could add more lines underneath the ground. It is possible, but not feasible. I agree. The Cost-Benefit Analysis is best suited for people with experience on this topic. I just find these ideas quite interesting via wikipedia, mbta extensions, and my imagination. haha. But who knows...

 

[rinserepeat]

I've often wondered how much this would cost, and if it's even possible to construct (within reason). A wider, quieter and safer esplanade that is accessible from every Back Bay street would be such a huge asset to the city. It would be a truly recreational park, something that the Boston Common could never be.

Surely it couldn't cost that much to bury ~2 miles of road?

repairing just the existing tunnel at Clarendon Street was estimated at $200 million - burying the entire thing would be comparable to the big dig.

 

[George_Apley]

Boulevard it. West Side Hwy style. Hell, mitigate the capacity losses by doing the Riverbank Subway (this is all many decades down the road anyway, may as well include the Crazy Transit Pitch...)

 

[stefal]

It's nearly impossible to eliminate one of these roads without it having a serious effect on the others.

I don't completely know everything about the where the traffic on Storrow Drive is going, but I know its a nightmare. After talking with friends about how to fix it, a majority said "widen it," but we can't widen it because it's surrounded by parks and the Charles River on one side, and buildings on the other, not to mention that we'd be taking away pedestrian traffic space.

My only solution to this would to be constructing a tunnel for thru traffic underneath Storrow Drive. (I know a lot of you are going to say "Dont you remember the big dig?" Yes, I do, but I dont think adding more exits to the pike would be sufficient.) Above, a more narrow Storrow Drive could be constructed, along with bike paths and parks.

If this were to ever happen, it'd probably be a mess and a nightmare for everyone, but its just an idea that creates a long term solution to a current and major traffic issue.

 

[Charlie_mta]

There are two problems with widening Storrow:

1. The capacity on each end would be remain small, so widening Storrow alone wouldn't help; and
2. Widening it would just attract more vehicles, resulting in the same congestion.

I'd rather see the investment go towards a transit line from Bowdoin to Kenmore (to augment the existing Green Line Central Subway), plus some additional ramps for the Mass Pike.

 

[EricS]

I haven't commented much, but I felt the need to jump in here. Adding highway/roadway capacity is likely to encourage additional traffic/driving, over and above what already exists (induced demand). I don't think that making driving into the congested core of the region easier and encouraging more of it is good policy, whether looking at it in terms of development, or environment, or otherwise.