OK, I’m taking my life into my own hands by trusting BostonNOW … which is reporting that Gov. Patrick wants to build the billion-dollar Silver Line tunnel before getting to the Green Line extension to Medford, which has been pushed back — again. BostonNow also reports some Roxbury/Dorchester folks seem not to really want the tunnel.
I don’t know, that may be representative of the general sentiment and it may not be. But goodness, the Silver Line is just a bad, bad joke. Here’s what the Sierra Club wrote in Spring of 2005:
Why Pay More for Less?
As a rule we all want more for less. The MBTA has turned that theory on its head with the Silver bus
Line ? they want less for more. According to MBTA studies the price will be approximately $1 billion to build a bus tunnel. But those same MBTA studies say that to use the existing light rail tunnels for Green Line type trains would only cost $373 million.
This project would convert the 2.4-mile long Dudley-Boylston section of the Silver Line bus rapid transit service to light rail. Service would be operated as a branch of the Green Line, making use of an abandoned Green Line tunnel segment located under Tremont Street, to access Boylston station. Stops on Washington Street between Herald St. and Dudley would remain the same as the present Silver Line. The projected capital costs would be $373.6 million.
That is a savings of more than $600 million for initial construction alone. If the MBTA moves ahead according to plans (first building as a bus project and then converting to light rail) the cost would total at least $1.3 billion.
Look, I think infrastructure investment is critical, but can we be smart about it?
From Universal Hub.
Update: In case you missed it last week: The Conservation Law Foundation slammed the Patrick administration for backing off the 2014 completion date. (The CLF originally negotiated the Big Dig pollution-offset settlement which called for the Green Line extension.)
State officials recently told a group of Somerville and Medford legislators that they will push back the project?s completion date to 2016 because they plan to seek federal New Starts funding. CLF maintains the state must fulfill its legal promise to complete the expansion by 2014.
“Not only does the Commonwealth have a legal obligation to stop its backpedaling on the Green Line Extension, it has a moral duty to reduce air pollution, spur economic development and expand transit equity for these long under-served communities,” said CLF president Phil Warburg.
Meanwhile, one of the community groups advocating for the project, Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership, said they were angry at further delay and plan a campaign to “let the Governor know that the delays are completely unacceptable.”
..to see that the silver line gets replaced with light rail?
There are several different variations of the plan to extend the Silver Line and I’m fairly certain that none involve converting the line to light rail.
<
p>
I would imagine that the cost would be highly, highly prohibitive. Just completing the Silver as a bus line is super expensive. And the Silver Line light rail option would require years of construction in dense urban areas which adds a whole other level of headaches for residents, businesses and govt/city planners.
<
p>
If the Silver Line was going to be light rail- like it probably should be- the time to do so was years ago. It’s too late now.
If the Silver Line were light rail like the Green E Line is light rail, it wouldn’t help one bit. Both are above ground, both have fairly short cabins, and both have to fight with automobiles for right of way. Both get stuck at green lights.
<
p>
The issue isn’t rail vs. bus. The issue is mixed traffic vs. protected right of way and priority greens. The Silver Line bus is quite effective, elegant, and efficient when under ground in it’s dedicated tunnels. It’s a real joy. The problem is that it’s above ground roads suck. It needs dedicated right of way, complete with a median on both sides. “Diamond lanes” that allow people to double park or use to sneak around other traffic don’t work. Expecting 50+ people to wait at a traffic light so 7 people in 7 cars can make left turns doesn’t work either: the Silver Line bus needs to be using GPS so that the light cycle is altered when the bus is approaching, ensuring that the bus has little or no wait at the light.
<
p>
These two items — which can be implemented systemically or piecemeal — are what is needed to get the Silver Line the quality of service [speed and reliability] that it needs, and that it’s served regions deserve. The kinds of wheels aren’t important; what’s important is the speed, reliability, and comfort of the ride, and the current half-assed solution for above ground Silver Line routes is not effective.
… but perhaps it’s just an easier sell? The Green Line is an institution, but the slightest change to it is pretty disruptive. Witness the work on the D Line, for example.
correct me if I’m wrong, but if the silver line would have been built as an addition to the green line light rail, there would have been no disruption of existing service, just the added service. I don’t see why anyone (except those with property in the right of way) would complain about that.
Any change made to the Green Line is disruptive. I was not talking about the Silver Line. And extending the Green Line would surely affect service at Lechmere, and probably by extension (no pun intended) the entire line.
From the sound of it, that thing has been on the books for a long time, and the Silver Line, while a nice idea (especially if reconfigured for light rail) is a more recent development. Perhaps they should go ahead and start the Green Line extension first.
<
p>
Of course, I’m from Western Massachusetts, so apparently I believe we should completely defund mass transit in Boston to buy every dairy cow in Berkshire County a laptop. Or something like that.
<
p>
WF
when Orange Line tracks were pulled down 15 years ago.
<
p>
The only reason why both projects can’t be done at the same time is funding… and the MBTA can’t afford it because they’re saddled with debt from the backward funding days — debt they probably wouldn’t have taken on had they known that their funding would be switched to forward funding, effectually crippling their operations budget.
<
p>
How many people will benefit [and by how much] for each project? How long will each project take? Which project will result in more environmental justice, pollution reduction, congestion reduction, etc? All of these things matter. Personally, I prefer the Silver Line work — the Green Line is my line of choice, and it already has the lowest service level of the four light rail lines; extending it northward will only make the crowding worse. The Green Line needs to be made 4 lanes from Kenmore to Park, allowing some trains to express from Kenmore to Park, alleviating much of the backup that happens underground and dramatically shortening the commute for those who live on the Green Line above ground in the western parts. Once that happens, then the Green Line quality will be improved, and expanding northward won’t have that negative impact on congestion. In the mean time, connecting the Silver Line to the Silver Line will allow it to operate more effectively, and make the entire network more functional. But, I haven’t seen the numbers either, so all of this is hypothesis without data.
Extending the green line northward is not likely to affect the congestion significantly. Only a small number of people would actually ride from Medford past Kenmore. Most of those people already ride the Park Street to Kenmore portion after taking the busses to either Lechmere or the red line. This would be similar to the red line, where very few people ride past both Kendall and Andrew (there is more than a 50% turnover on most trains between Park Street and Downtown Crossing). The T is primarily used for local trips (<5 stops), going to/from the downtown area, and going to the airport.
The congestion above ground is caused by there being insufficient space between Kenmore and Park/Gov’t Center. By extending northward, there will be more demand to be in cars underground… thereby increasing the congestion underground… thereby adding delays on the alphabet extensions.
<
p>
Additionally, longer lines [more total stops, more miles] results in increased variance, making the schedule more likely to get out of whack and negatively impact the current riders.
<
p>
That’s not to say I’m against the extension. I just wonder if the MBTA couldn’t do more infrastructure improvements between Kenmore and Park so that the QoS improves for all Green Line [and hence, many T] riders.
I just read the Sierra Club pdf. Not a single map in the entire publication.
<
p>
Not one.
<
p>
Where is this tunnel exactly? Don’t tell me where it begins and ends with street names: show me a picture! Where would the proposed $1b tunnel begin and end? Show me a picture! Methinks that they’re pulling a fast one by comparing apples and oranges. The two tunnel proposals are mutually exclusive, but I suspect that they don’t connect the same A to the same B. If so, the argument isn’t over just price, it’s over price and route, which means that ridership, congestion alleviation, network effects, and other considerations for route are also in play.
<
p>
Without maps, how can we even begin to have this discussion?
A thousand passenger rides?
<
p>
StomV – any simple google search, this one took me about 6 seconds, brings you to a map. You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia….
<
p>
Clearly the line that went out of Boylston Station but closed down goes in the correct direction. A lack of a picture does not make an argument invalid.
That’s a map of the old subway line, but (a) it’s not particularly detailed, and (b) it doesn’t include current or proposed Silver Line routes.
<
p>
So, thanks for giving me the part of the equation I’ve seen. This is not a particularly useful map w.r.t. the Sierra Club pdf.
I don’t know about opposition to the Silver Line tunnel, but in general a close city neighborhood like Roxbury has a better claim to transit than a suburb like Medford does. Medford can handle cars and buses better than Roxbury can. Buses clogging city streets cause more congestion and health problems where density is greater. It’s also probably the case that more people in Roxbury rely on public transport than in Medford.
<
p>
At some point, the cost difference matters, but issues of need, equity, and historical neglect should count for a lot.
the green line extension would pass through Somerville to get to Medford. Somerville has the densest population of any city in the Northeast and it’s much more under-served by public transit than Roxbury. Don’t believe me? Compare Roxbury and Somerville on this map.
<
p>
I’d also encourage everyone to imagine the green line extension next time they visit Union Square. If Union Square had a T stop, I’m convinced it would be the next Davis Square. This brings up the mixed cost-benefit that comes with all gentrification, but it would be a net gain in my mind.
Also, characterizing the Green Line extension as “suburban” strikes me as disingenuous. It’s an arbitrary historical quirk that some places in proximity to Boston were annexed and others weren’t. Somerville could just as easily be an official part of Boston as Allston is. Saugus, Wellesley, even Arlington qualify as suburbs, but a person can walk from the middle of Boston to Somerville in about half an hour.
You’re right, I was thinking only about the destination, not the journey (my new age guru would not approve). That T map makes a compelling case for Somerville, though it makes a similar one for the area between the orange and red lines in Dorchester and Roxbury. I also still think the above-ground Silver Line, even though it produces for T-stops for Roxbury on the map, shouldn’t count as providing useful service until it actually does that.
and has been for over a century. In fact, Somerville was originally part of Charlestown before it was annexed by Boston. When it developed rapidly after the mid-19th century, Somerville’s growth depended on excellent streetcar and heavy rail service. Union Square was the first and is still the largest commercial district in Somerville, and at the turn of the century had a streetcar every two minutes on average.
<
p>
The “Beyond Lechmere: the Northwest Corridor” MIS study completed a couple of years back envisioned extending the Medford branch of the Green Line across the Mystic River into West Medford Square. That proved controversial, and one of the main issues often raised was that area’s identity as suburban, in contrast to the urban self-image of Somerville. As it stands now, the Medford branch would be shorter, probably stopping just short of the Mystic and Route 16.
(Another accronym to add to your pot, means “Big Fu_king Deal)
<
p>
…about digging another tunnel underneath Boston? There are plans in the works to build yet another S-Bahn tunnel under downtown Munich, and you can be sure that it isn’t going to cost nearly what a Silverline tunnel under Boston will cost. AND, as I have mentioned here elsewhere, there are plans to build a mag-lev train between the Munich airport and the central train station.
<
p>
There is something seriously wrong with construction and maintenance of infrastructure in the USofA.
Part of the problem is that a lot of Boston is built on landfill. Munich is a fairly old city, so the ground beneath it has been there for a long time. If you look at historic maps of Boston, large segments of the current city were underwater 200 years ago. The ground is not very stable, so it takes a lot more work to keep the tunnels from collapsing. When you are digging through weak soil underneath buildings, it takes a lot of effort to make sure you don’t cause those buildings to collapse. It is actually easier to build tunnels through solid rock, because you know it won’t collapse or leak.
Part of the problem is that a lot of Boston is built on landfill
<
p>
Munich is built on the landfill left by the terminal moraine left by the last ice age.
<
p>
Your explanation is no excuse.
<
p>
BTW, what do the Dutch do? If you look at historic maps of Boston, large segments of the current city were underwater 200 years ago. One third of the Niederlander (strict translation: the low lands) are below mean sea level.
The federal funding. If one project can collect a good federal reinbursement, even at the cost of a 2 year wait, then don’t we have a duty to go and get that reinbursement? We have a lot of infrustructural needs in Massachusetts, but not a lot of money. There’s a divide there and we’re going to have to rely somewhat on the federal government to bail us out – especially when we relied on them to build all of this stuff in the first place.
Information about the Federal New Starts program for funding transit projects:
<
p>
http://www.fta.dot.g…
<
p>
I wouldn’t call it a two-year wait, it’s an additional two-year delay. After all, the the Green Line Extension thru Somerville was originally supposed to be finished in 2011 (part of Big Dig commitment of the ’90s). The Romney administration then delayed it to 2014 but did not exactly light a fire to get the project started.
high-speed buses, done right, are superior to rail.
<
p>
Also called “bus rapid transit,” these are buses with dedicated rights of way that are operated like trains.
<
p>
Compared to rail dedicated busways are cheaper per mile and the buses that use them have the advantage of being able to use local streets at the end of “rapid transit” part. So your Green Line extension, if done as a busway, could carry passengers on surface roads to the West Medford Commuter Rail station and beyond without them having to disembark.
<
p>
Of course we tend not to do things right around here, alas. In particular the T and transit officials like to use “Bus Rapid Transit” as a marketing slogan for the Silver Line’s Washington street corridor, which is not a BRT, just another bus in traffic. They did the same thing when they introduced the Circle Line bus routes.
<
p>
(Similarly the pathetic Acela was variously introduced as European-style next-generation rail. I hate it when the marketing zombies do this, because it muddies any chance of public debate and undermines anyone who advocates for true BRT or true fast rail.)
<
p>
That said there is no denying that people generally prefer rail to buses. I don’t blame them for feeling that way, but think that, in principle at least, they are wrong to do so.
The reality is that buses require a much wider right-of-way than any kind of rail, so when land costs are high, as in dense urban areas, those costs are higher. This is especially true for tunnels. Trains can and do pass each other with just 4 inches of clearance; imagine trying to do this with buses.
<
p>
BRT environmental impacts are greater as well, since their roadways are impervious and require the application of salt in winter. Although the MBTA still operates a few “trackless trolleys”, or electric buses, these are limited to elite high-income areas such as West Cambridge and Milton. All the other buses burn fossil fuels and generate a lot of noise.
<
p>
Although the purchase price of rail vehicles is higher, less personnel are required to operate them. A state-of-the-art articulated bus carries far fewer passengers than an ordinary light rail trolley.
<
p>
The real problem is that most comparisons between BRT and rail really aren’t honest. For the same quality of service, you need not only a dedicated right-of-way — so the buses don’t get stuck in traffic — but also prepaid boarding areas (known as “stations” in the world of rail) — without changes in level or large gaps between the platform and the bus. Curitiba has this, but the surface Silver Line does not. No wonder Americans invariably prefer rail to BRT when given the choice.
<
p>
One of the main reasons to make large public investments in transit is to spur economic development, and here the difference between buses and rail is most dramatic. Without the permanent capital improvements of a rail system, private investors are naturally reluctant to gamble on the continued availability of bus services. It’s the difference between a trailer park and a housing development: which would you want to live next to?
the green line above ground doesn’t have many pre-paid stations. They’re all pay-as-you-get-on, just like buses are. Of course, it also makes the QoS in those sections much lower, because people have to wait in line to get on, both because of the time to pay and because only the front door can be opened, so entering and exiting the subway get slower. The MBTA is “teaching” it’s riders not to get on above ground in a back door, that those are reserved only for exits [like a bus], but it’s tougher because the “rules” for boarding a Green Line vary by station, making things complex and confusing for the occasional rider.
but calling surface buses like the Silver Line BRT proves nothing. I hope the Somerville Green Line Extension has stations, it would speed things along, but much of the Green Line does not.
<
p>
We already know that rail is popular versus bus services, and given what bus service means around here no wonder. But there are places that actually do it right, as you seem to know. “Trailer park” is just a cheap shot.
Cheaper per mile? Probably, but that depends on the particulars. The problem is: where will it go? Where are you going to find a continuous surface artery that will block off all other traffic straight through Somerville to Medford? It’s tough to find, and tough to “defend” against auto encroachment.
<
p>
Additionally, the advantage of BRT’s flexibility is also it’s downfall. When track is laid, there’s a permanency there. Businesses will cluster around the station, and housing near the station is more attractive. With a bus line, there’s a much higher risk that 3, 5, or 10 years out the bus will be rerouted, leaving the personal investment in business or home with far less value. The permanency of track has tremendous value to the neighborhood.
<
p>
Finally, buses just aren’t as comfortable.
<
p>
Finally, by using a BRT extension for the green line, you’re adding yet another place where people have to get off the vehicle they’re riding, wait, and board another. Sure, it’s just a few minutes, every day, sometimes more due to delays, quite possibly with some weather element due to an outdoor station, etc.
<
p>
It seems to me that BRT is a great system when built early, built with 100% support from the region in bus v. car turf wars, and built in a climate where waiting outside isn’t so terrible.
“Finally, by using a BRT extension for the green line”
<
p>
We don’t want BRT in Somerville – and we let the MBTA know that when they came out to Somerville to try and work that hype a few years ago. Hundreds of us told them we want Rapid as in Rail.
I assume you mean, where could a dedicated bus right of way go through Somerville.
<
p>
The answer is, along the same right of way that might someday, if it ever happens, lie under light rail. The one that already exists.
<
p>
Whether rail or bus, I hope such an extension has stations and platforms, to make boarding faster and to provide shelter from the weather.
<
p>
Whether rail or bus, I hope that the right of way is physically separate from roads so that cars can’t use it.
<
p>
Whether rail or bus, I hope the line keeps to a regular schedule of frequent service.
<
p>
Seems to me that whether these things come to pass or not has zero to do with rail versus bus. They are all hallmarks of BRT, MBTA blather to the contrary.
<
p>
Rail is sexy, romantic, and popular. Buses are, well, buses. I know that. But the perfect is the enemy of the good, and how long are we gong to have to wait for the Green Line rail extension this time?
<
p>
Waiting for the Feds to pick up the tab is going to be like waiting for Godot. I have no illusions but meanwhile, BRT would be cheaper and in many ways better.
As noted previously, buses need a wider right of way than light rail, and this extra width is not available at several places where bridges cross over the current rail. Much more clearance is needed between buses and the active commuter and freight rail. More width is needed to plow snow, and to allow for passing a disabled bus. At the terminus, buses require a loop to turn around, while in trolleys the driver can simply go to the other end.
<
p>
The Beyond Lechmere study looked at BRT alternatives in some detail, and they were not chosen as the preferred alternative for either branch of the extension. I recommend that anyone interested in understanding the proposed project take a look at the report at the EOT website. There’s no need to speculate about a lot of this: it’s been studied and the results documented:
<
p>
http://www.eot.state…
<
p>
I’m puzzled by the statement that BRT is “better” than light rail, excluding it lower initial costs.
<
p>
How exactly is BRT better for the transit user, or the community it passes through? Is having to change rides at Lechmere better than a one seat (or at least one less seat) ride? How is a diesel bus, even a clean diesel bus, better for those living along the ROW than an electric train? Are there buses that are quieter, have better egress, better rides, more interior room, etc., than light rail?
It’s not at all clear how or why light rail was chosen over BRT based on the links you provide. I’m guessing the decision reflects an aesthetic preference that is not captured by the various rating and ranking criteria used.
<
p>
As we both know, people like rail much more than they like buses. I am just suggesting that is an expensive preference, both in terms of dollars but also other benefits.
<
p>
Thanks for posting those links.
“It’s not at all clear how or why light rail was chosen over BRT…”
<
p>
Did you actually read the Beyond Lechmere Northwest Corridor Study? Its decision process was formal and as quantitative as I suppose it can be for any realistic project. And you can be sure the MBTA and EOT strongly favored BRT throughout the study, but in the end agreed that BRT was not right for this corridor.
<
p>
The top-level service alternatives considered are in Chapter 4, “Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives ? Tier 1”. The next stage is in Chapter 5, “Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives ? Tier 2”. The detailed evaluations of each tier 1 and tier 2 alternatives are in Appendix 1, “Tier 1 Detailed Evaluation Tables” (it actually has both tier 1 and tier 2 evaluations.
<
p>
The 8 criteria used to evaluate alternatives were:
Environmental
Regional Transit System Capacity
Access to Opportunity
Mobility/Connectivity
Compatibility with Land Use
Environmental Justice
Cost
Constructability
<
p>
In tier 2 several alternatives included BRT in place of light rail. The alternative chosen, 1C, with light rail to West Medford and Union Square scored 10. None of the BRT alternatives scored higher than 6.