Updated with information discovered on 25-Feb-2015
I want to ask an amateur and thoroughly half-baked question: Has anybody in Massachusetts government explored the feasibility of leasing temporary subway cars to bridge the gap between now and the scheduled 2018-2021 delivery of new Red and Orange line equipment?
The Red Line and Orange Line track is US standard gauge (4′ 8 1/2″). The minimum radius, platform clearances, and such are presumably standard or at least known. The on-board signalling and control equipment would require customization or replacement.
When we replace failing highway bridges, we often erect temporary structures to carry traffic during construction of the permanent span.
Has anybody investigated the feasibility of doing the same for our failing subway systems?
UPDATE
It seems this has happened before. From a historical site (emphasis mine):
By the mid-1950s, the MTA was once again in need of new streetcars with the remaining Type Fives reaching the end of their usable lives. Looking to save money, the MTA turned to the used streetcar market and gained word that Dallas, Texas was ending streetcar service. Accordingly, in 1958, the MTA purchased 25 retired PCCs, numbered 3322-3346, from Dallas, resulting in the complete end of Type Five service in 1959.
With our legislature, they’d end up going WOW! THIS TEMP STUFF IS SO GOOD, IT’S THE NEW PERMANENT! And find some way to cancel the order on the replacement equipment.
That the essential problem for the T is its organizational structure.
the MBTA “temporarily” substituted buses for the trolley through Jamaica Plain. I’m still waiting for the trolley.
The A line was a vital and heavily-used line that was shut down using the same deception.
The elimination of the A line is an enormous factor in the overcrowding and snail-like pace of today’s B line.
While you have a point about the T being deceptive about that, I am not sure that bringing the trolley back would be so great at this point.
The area has been built up quite a bit since 85, and traffic on Centre St is much worse than it was back then, so the trolley would be just as stuck as the 39 bus currently is. It would be worse, in fact, because it would not have the option of driving around obstructions. Most people will get to their destination faster by walking over to the orange line.
I know I don’t miss how bad the roads were when the tracks were still there.
The MBTA, at the time, simply lied — as they did when they killed the A Line.
We’ll never know what the development patterns might have been had the 1985 change to the E line not happened. As you observe, thirty years is a long time. Perhaps the road and right-of-way configuration might have been changed. Perhaps the zoning might have been different. Perhaps JP itself would have developed differently. Perhaps the changeover to buses would have happened anyway, but without the still-echoing reverberations that the dishonest and unilateral process caused.
One of the complaints about JP has been the gentrification that has happened since 1985. This deceptive and unilateral change was chiefly and immediately felt by working-class families along the route, and played an important role in shaping what JP is today — for better or worse.
We will just never know what might have happened had the MBTA been more transparent and honest at that time.
Yes, JP has experienced quite a bit of gentrification, but not so much along Centre St itself. I really don’t think the trolley would have changed the fact that JP had a lot of undervalued housing stock relatively close to downtown.
I lived in JP for about 14 years and did not especially wish for the trolley to come back, even when I lived directly off of Centre. There was a vocal minority trying to bring it back, but it was a minority nevertheless.
Any traffic woes in JP due to the tram (trolley) making stops are to be blamed on the execution/implementation of that transit mode, not the mode itself.
Proper use of a tram (light rail) is curb side with a dedicated lane. Americans are very slow to recognize that the public right-of-way’s PURPOSE is to allow the movement of the public, not as a parking lot. Contiguous property that permits access across the city is highly expensive, not the price you want to be paying simply for providing a parking lot. Public parking lots can be created almost anywhere at less expense.
Nevertheless, to allow for some temporary parking for business deliveries, etc. and to provide more equitable access to public transit an efficient routing method is to have an outbound tram on one street and the inbound line on a nearby street roughly parallel (as much as can be).
This is efficient when the tram (as it should be) is part of a tiered system of urban transit The tram’s great accessibility to business, retail and residential comes with speed limitations and more frequent stops (than heavy rail); it is intended for short distances and to link riders to other tiers of the the transit system for traveling longer distances.
Thus a one-way Centre Street Tram from Jackson Station (OL) to Forest Hills Station serves the community quite well, with a return trip either east or west depending on the best integration with other tram routes.
As to the subject which started this thread . . . the MBTA and DOT are lacking in the ability or incentive to seek cost effective solutions. I can provide many examples of such.
I don’t know that there is any concern about the trolley *causing* bad traffic, except perhaps at some choke point, it is more that that it will inevitably get stuck in it.
Trolleys are great when there is a dedicated right of way. However, there simply isn’t one on Centre St nor is there really room to make one, even in one direction. Nor is there a parallel st you could run the trolley in the other direction. Your suggestion just doesn’t make much sense for that neighborhood.
It is also not really clear that the trolley would be that big an improvement over the existing bus and orange line service.
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_27577482/if-olympics-come-lowells-rourke-bridge-would-go
…which was according to plan. No way should that bridge disappear.
Pointing out I was wrong. I will make certain to correct all the Lowell residents I work with and have the Sun issue a correction.
…among people who like to find instances of government being inefficient, breaking its promises, or something else negative. I hear people around here gripe all the time about it, but it is also contrary to my pretty strong and confident recollection. It was first built in 1983 and refurbished in 1993. I’m aware of plans and ideas to further strengthen it or possibly replace it with a slightly rerouted bridge, but I’m not aware of any plans to get rid of it or know of anyone who really wants to.
…the Lowell Sun is often first in line to manifest the attitude I described above.
Intended to be temporary. But I get it, you’re smarter than the newspaper ( wish I had confident recollections- does that mean they are more believable, especially online?) and you couldn’t resist the urge to contradict me.
Next you will post again because you are afflicted with a common BMG problem ” have to get the last word in” itis. Or is it osis? Either way post away. Make sure you use fancy words.
…at which point its continued need would be re-evaluated and it would be made more permanent if deemed appropriate, which it was. Being smarter than the Lowell Sun isn’t that high a bar:)
My cats are “smarter” than the Lowell Sun.
The Rourke bridge was DESIGNED and BUILT to be temporary, because of a myriad of design, siting, budgetary, and other planning challenges:
The bridge did NOT replace an earlier failing structure. Christopher is citing information that has been published for years and is widely known by anybody who has even the slightest interest in the facts (apparently not including the Lowell Sun).
If you want to be treated with respect and courtesy here, you might consider doing the same.
So is it temporary or not? If it’s not it’s the most poorly designed and ugly bridge in the whole MV. They had to add turn lanes separated by median strips on the south side because backed up bridge traffic was gridlocking the whole area.
and on this topic
It’s common practice around her to put words in my mouth, like christopher here
I never said anything like that.
Also I never said the bridge replaced anything as you seem to indicate here
Maybe you want to tie the whole post together. I made a minor comment nothing more. It’s only the insatiable quest of commentators to demonstrate how smart they are/have the last word that keeps this post alive. I could start commenting on any post and the number of comments would explode.
Why debate me? 90% of the people here think I’m wrong all the time (I should do a test, copy and paste other people’s comments from early posts as mine and see if the response varies- I bet it does). Doesn’t matter if I have sources.
Another popular activity is to call me names- “right winger” or to generally question virtually everything I say, no matter how innocuous (like the bridge comment).
You insult me here:
Funny because if I went to these three sites:
http://www.rourkebridgestudy.com/
http://www.pawtucketvillecitizenscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/FactSheetSpring2013-1.pdf
http://www.nmcog.org/Wood%20St%20Rourke%20Bridge%20Study/WoodStTransStudy.htm
They all say the bridge is temporary. Maybe they are all wrong too, they are after all government sites, and we all know government doesn’t work (that’s a joke for the thick among you). So don’t give me the respect line.
It’s a good thing I don’t use my real name as ethnic slurs would be next.
I used temporary bridges as a metaphor in my thread starter:
“When we replace failing highway bridges, we often erect temporary structures to carry traffic during construction of the permanent span.”
You responded with a quote from Lowell Sun and the obvious implication that “temporary” replacement equipment would be anything but.
THAT is the context of this exchange. In that context several things are relevant:
– The Roarke bridge was intended to be temporary, nobody has disputed that.
– The Roarke bridge was NOT replacing a failed predecessor, and is irrelevant (except for snark value) to this discussion
– The only person stuffing words is YOU. Contrary to your assertions here, nobody has disputed that the bridge is temporary. Christopher observed that it is (a) ugly and (b) scheduled for repair.
– Your comment “But I get it, you’re smarter than the newspaper” is offensive and insulting.
Your mention of the Rourke bridge and subsequent rudeness, snark, and hostility is irrelevant to the merits of the MBTA somehow acquiring used equipment from elsewhere.
Is that what you’re saying, that my original comment is correct?
I believe christopher thinks it’s permanent.
It WAS temporary; it IS NOW permanent, though for Olympics or other reasons, maybe it WILL still be redone anyway. Sorry if I’m starting to sound impatient, but this is a basic matter of English verb tense!
And adding nothing to this. Tom says it’s temporary so it’s temporary. I provided supporting governmental documentation.
“Prevaricate” Really?
If I have not explained it before the Walsh point was about blame (I read your earlier comments on it, but I might have also skipped answering). If the MBTA snow issues are Baker’s fault then Walsh is to blame to Boston streets. Everyone loves Walsh so he’s blameless. They hate Baker so he gets blamed. Can you just leave it now? No one wants to talk about posts from a month ago. I realize you haven’t been posting here that long but I have a five year trail I think. When people think I’m wrong they contradict me, when I’m right they ignore me. This whole exchange is about response. If “the guy who’s not on my side is always wrong” then I guess I have learned something about your side.
Oh and I like this insult
y
Possible answer: “Because you have no life?”
Love the credentials throwdown by the way.
And a cultured blue collar intellectual. Not sure I’ve seen one of those yet.
And again with the insults
How do you possibly know where I’ve traveled, what I eat, or what I know.? Are you real bowling or using one of those little balls? (sorry joke alert, just a little humor from a non-native) You’d think someone like you would not be stooping to broad generalizations about people they know little about. Are you sure you’re not a Republican? (joke alert again).
telling the truth about your fabrications when you stop making them.
Credential throwdown? You asserted I don’t have a life. I would not take yours over mine even if it guaranteed me immortality and I only had one year left.
everyone who doesn’t think like you is right wing? I could be a progressive and just wrong, isn’t that correct?
either mac & cheese or beans & franks tonight. Good working class food.
Can you give me a wine recommendation for those?
.
…and my apologies for not being clear:
“It’s a common meme around here…(0+ / 0-) View voters
…among people who like to find instances of government being inefficient, breaking its promises, or something else negative”
Around here does not refer to BMG generally or you in particular so I was not trying to put words in your mouth. Rather I meant “here” as Lowell and immediate suburbs, which is where I live.
It’s a common technique. Journalists use it all the time.
As I mentioned, the comment I responded to was making a little humor. I was responding to that humor. The Rourke bridge’s status is a bit of a joke with the people that I know (I work in N Chelmsford less than a mile from the bridge). I was making no judgement on anything.
a different thread, the B2024 folks have indicated that the Rourke Bridge will have to be removed if the Olympic rowing events come to the Merrimack River. The IOC does not allow rowing events under bridges supported mid-river to be part of the games.
the claim is that it has to be custom designed to fit the system. There isn’t anything out there to borrow, except for old stock the “T” has removed from service. Given how old and decrepit the trains they are using, imagine how old and rundown stock they have replaced is.
s’villetom claims that it’s not likely so for red or orange. What say ye, af? Are you ignoring his post, or responding to it with everything but evidence?
And then there’s bus service. We could always supplement overfull trains with additional buses, if we had the buses and drivers. For example, the Green D Line gets full from Reservoir to Kenmore. A direct bus down Beacon Street, with no stops, going from Cleveland Circle to Kenmore Square, could get those folks to Kenmore Square faster than riding the Green Line, and in more comfort. It would also “free up capacity” on the Green Line so folks would be able to board the trolley when it shows up, rather than wait for the next one.
More buses could be a stopgap in some situations, and it couldn’t possibly take long to get new buses, especially to be used for 1-3 years under a lease until whatever upgrades (vehicles, signals, track, etc) are procured and installed.
Unless you can obtain flying buses, there is no way a bus is going to beat the trolley from Cleveland Circle to Kenmore. There are too many lights and too much traffic. It would only be a win at off-peak hours when you would not really need them.
Buses might help if the trains are totally full, but I don’t think they are going to be fast on that route.
Just sayin’.
That might work. Of course, they probably would not be as efficient as trolleys and it would slow things down a lot as all the riders switch between the bus and the trolley as it goes underground.
I suppose you could take away parking on Beacon to make way for bus lanes, but that would eliminate the bulk of non-resident parking in the area.
in select locations, as appropriate, to create a bus lane in the parking lane.
Most retail businesses do not open until after rush hour anyway.
Some sections of Beacon would require significant
plus “peak hours” would be something like 7-10am and 4-7 pm. That is a lot of time you would be taking away from Brookline businesses. There are a large number of doctor’s offices situated on Beacon St that depend on those peak hours for as many of their clients prefer appointments before/after work. That is also when a lot of area businesses get deliveries. What if someone needs a plumber? You tell them, sorry we can’t fix your broken pipes until peak hours are over?
And what would be in it for Brookline? They would be giving up huge amounts of parking revenue and pissing off their residents just so that people living near Cleveland Circle (which is not in Brookline) can get to Kenmore slightly faster? Do you really think that Brookline would be willing to do that for express buses that would not even stop in Brookline?
…but rush hour parking bans are something I’m familiar with from my time in DC, where it is very common.
of rush hour parking bans in downtown Boston along the major surface roads.
Can you give me a comparable example?
And like I said, there are a large number of existing business in Brookline on that street who would put up a storm of protest if you were to attempt this.
There is also the problem that in some places along Beacon St (e.g. westbound between Coolidge Corner and Washington Square) where the width of the parking spots really isn’t sufficient to make up a driving lane. And once again, you would have to reconfigure curbs at many intersections to make this work.
itself has a rush hour parking limitation, as do most of the thoroughfares of Back Bay. I cannot speak to other neighborhoods in Boston.
I did not intend any criticism of your comments, and was just adding a fact to the discussion.
There aren’t that many businesses on that stretch of Beacon St in Boston nor are those spots especially close to shopping. Note that the Beacon St rush hour ban does NOT extend into Kendall Square itself. There aren’t the collection of doctor’s offices in that neighborhood that you find in the Brookline section. Most important, Boston has a lot of street and public garage parking downtown. Brookline only has a few small municipal lots and those are mostly in the Coolidge Corner area.
Not saying it would be impossible, but it is not anything close to the cheap fix some are trying to make it out to be.
I probably should have chosen Boylston but my Boston apartment is on Beacon so I grabbed that one. In the past I had a regular 8AM on Beacon in Brookline near Coolidge Corner and it was not hard to find parking but that would change if a dedicated bus lane were introduced.
I didn’t say we would do this, I said that we could.
It’s a question of priorities. Of course cars trump actual transport, this is America.
The fact that some people would inevitably be against this were it tried might doom it politically, but does not mean that bus lanes would not be feasible or beneficial.
Transportation design is always context sensitive, so no way would this work everyplace. In the real world, that is how improvements happen, incrementally.
For one thing, over the past 20 years many curbs have been reconfigured with bump-outs that project into the parking lane.
Plenty of streets could accommodate a rush-hour bus lane, though–it’s a question of priorities.
Answer the question. Why would Brookline do this? What is in it for them? Why would it ever be anywhere on their priority list? This would screw over their own residents and businesses to make it slightly easier for people to get from Cleveland Circle to Kenmore. Why would they do that? You cannot simply blithely ignore existing use of the roads when making plans like this.
Yes, you could reconfigure the lanes, but that no longer becomes a simple fix. It may be worth doing if you can figure out a way that benefits Brookline as well as Brighton commuters, but it might not be a better option than getting more and/or better trolleys.
Of course, if we really want to do this right we should extend the subway underground along both Beacon and Comm Ave and reclaim the space taken by the tracks for an extra lane or two for traffic, and perhaps some more parking. Dream on…
dream on; it’s a useful exercise.
As I recall you started this little tangent by breezily dismissing stomv’s note that “We could always supplement overfull trains with additional buses.” Flying buses har har.
Well, we could, though we probably won’t; that’s a different thing.
I do think you have it exactly backwards about Brookline however. The T is a network, and Brookline gets all sorts of networking externalities from it. So as a whole a better T is hardly a sacrifice, even though there may be sacrifices involved.
I did not dispute the idea that buses could help alleviate overflow. I merely disputed the idea that it would be a cheap easy fix and that such buses would be likely to be faster than the trains.
We should absolutely explore any options, including buses. I am all for that. But we also have to be both realistic and fair. Yes, the T does benefit from the T, but the asked for sacrifice doesn’t buy them much in that regard just to get people faster from Coolidge Corner to Kenmore. Perhaps it may make sense to create rush hour lanes, but as with such lanes in most other parts of Boston, I would it expect it to be for all vehicles not just express buses. Perhaps that would allow traffic to flow fast enough to make a bus a faster alternative.
Another thought would be to add a regular non-express bus along Beacon St and remove many of the green line stops. If you want to make an express, the trolley makes more sense, since it already enjoys a dedicated right of way.
BTW, my “Dream on” comment was not meant to be sarcastic. I would love to see us spend the money to put in subways on those routes, I just don’t think it is likely to happen in my lifetime. 🙁
You downrated three consecutive comments from TBD, two of which were simply adding information and one musing about his own experience. There is no reason for that that I can come up with other than lashing out over the pushback you got on the Rourke Bridge subthread above.
i don’t know what to say. I didn’t think the additional information was useful and I’m tired of musings.
I really can’t win with you, can I?
This exchange is filling the diary with exchanges that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the diary. Whether intentional or not, this is the most common result of trolling.
Please … if it isn’t about “Bridging the transit gap”, write another diary or drop it altogether.
as an overload relief valve because, unlike the trolleys, they wouldn’t be stopping at each stop to discharge and take on riders.
The 57 bus runs parallel to the B Line. I know lots of folks who prefer to ride the 57 to the B. I can’t tell you what combination of frequency of service, time in transit, comfort, or other issue gives them that opinion, but it’s real.
Remember that the C Line has to wait at all the lights that the cars have to wait at, plus when cars can go straight or left. If the bus boarded at Cleveland Circle and didn’t stop until Kenmore, it would absolutely beat the C Line, perhaps by 5 or more minutes. Plus, you wouldn’t have to stand with one foot on a step and the other on the main floor, twisting your legs around and leaning backwards because it’s that crowded.
It does run on Comm Ave but only from Packards Corner down through Kenmore. It does not go especially close to Boston College. It is only a reasonable alternative if you are near BU, and I have myself taken it when the trolley looked overfull.
The traffic on Comm Ave is not great at rush hour either, but is much more manageable than that on Beacon St for whatever reason. Having driving on Beacon St many times during peak hours, I am highly skeptical of your claim that a bus would be faster than the C line. I have frequently been stuck in traffic and watched multiple trolleys pass me by. I don’t think it would work.
A comfortable express bus might be a nice alternative, but I don’t see it being faster than the C line. Furthermore, if you want to get to Kenmore fast from Cleveland Circle, you should be taking the D line from Reservoir because it only has a handful of stops and doesn’t have to stop for traffic lights.
Part A
The C Line runs through Olmsted’s median on Beacon Street. Because there are cross streets (between Cleveland Circle and Washington Square, and then again from just-before-Coolidge Corner to Carlton St), the traffic lights that govern streets crossing Beacon also govern the trolley. That is, when traffic on St. Paul Street is permitted to cross across Beacon or to make left turns onto Beacon, Beacon Street autos and the C Line must have red lights. Whenever an MBTA trolley has a green, so too does an auto, except on the area between Wash Sq and CCorner, where every once in a while an auto has to stop for a crossing ped but the trolley does not. It’s extremely rare, but not never.
Part B
There are times, however, when Beacon Street autos in one direction have green lights to go straight but the trolley must stop anyway. These are cases where there’s a left turn from Beacon to a side street. During those sections of the traffic light cycle, cars can drive inbound on Beacon and left from Beacon to Saint Paul, but the MBTA trolleys must be at red, as must outbound on Beacon (for example). That is, there are times when autos (and buses) can go straight on Beacon but the trolley, driving alongside in the same direction, has to stop.
Part C
There are 13 stops between Cleveland Circle and Kenmore Square. 13. Let’s say that the trolley has to stop at each of them for 30 seconds of boarding and alighting. During rush hour, that’s insanely fast. That’s still 6.5 minutes, just for that portion that an express bus wouldn’t have to deal with.
Part D
An express bus has to get from St Marys to Kenmore, and there are traffic lights. There is the pedestrian actuated light at St Marys, which is almost always green for autos because there isn’t that much ped traffic there (half of it is only when a trolley arrives at the station every 7 minutes, for example). Then, there’s Audobon Circle, which is never going to be a knife through butter. The final light is at Comm Ave which, again, will require a red light delay.
I put the four parts out to allow you to state which one you think I’ve mischaracterized. An express bus does exactly as well as the trolley on A, does better than the trolley on B, does much better than the trolley on C, and likely loses a bit of time on D, perhaps 2-3 minutes. I believe that, in total, the express bus would be both faster and more comfortable than the C — well worth it.
As to “you should be taking the D line from Reservoir because it only has a handful of stops and doesn’t have to stop for traffic lights” — you obviously haven’t riden a rush hour D Line trolley lately. It is, far and away, the most packed rail in the state, in part because folks board at Reservoir. It’s operating at far more than capacity during rush hour. Could a bus “racing” down Beacon Street beat the D Line? Perhaps not, but it might be closer than you give it credit. If the bus took 3 minutes longer on average but you got to sit instead of contort, would it be used? If the departure was every 2-3 minutes instead of every 6-10, meaning that you never had to wait outside for more than a minute or two, would it be used?
I’m not arguing that it’s ideal, or that it should be the new normal. What I am arguing is that, to the extent that there is insufficient rolling stock and the lead time for more vehicles is measured in years rather than months, using buses to address some of the inadequacy for the period of a few years is a way to help mitigate the inadequate capacity in the short run.
I think I made it pretty clear that my personal experience was that driving was slower, especially in the evening outbound commute. Theoretical arguments aren’t going to beat out personal experience.
I am totally open to the idea of buses to help relieve overflow, but I don’t think it is going to be as easy as you make it out to be. That’s all.
You don’t even have a complete anecdote. You’ve not stated that you’ve “raced” a trolley in an auto all the way from Cleveland Circle to Kenmore Square. Instead, you have vignettes of part of one anecdote.
Your “my experience” doesn’t trump logical arguments. But, if you want to generate an anecdote, name the date and time. You start your car at Cleveland Circle and depart inbound at the same time I’m on the C Line and it leaves the CCircle station. You drive straight in the right lane all the way to Kenmore Square, pulling up to the Hotel Commonwealth. I’ll get out at Kenmore Square station underground. We’ll see who gets there first.
I don’t think it matters what day of week or time of day you choose — the auto will still beat the trolley. And yes, this is symmetric to the evening commute outbound, although to time the departure we’d have to use a cell phone instead of visual confirmation of departure, but we have the technology.
Buses outbound have another speed advantage that inbound buses don’t. Let’s say you’re going to Cleveland Circle (or to Coolidge Corner). When going outbound and boarding the T at Park or somesuch, you currently have to wait for a C train. If you knew you were going to board a bus at Kenmore to go to CCir or CCor, you could get on a B or D train at Park, saving the few minute wait for the C train. Going outbound you get an extra speed boost!
tl; dr anecdotes don’t trump analysis, stomv is ready to work with hrs-kevin to accumulate actual data, and the benefit of an outbound bus at Kenmore is even greater than that of an inbound bus at CCircle.
Logic is only as good as the accuracy of you model of the world and the accuracy of your assumptions.
Sure, you are right that I cannot say that I drive that route every day at every possible peak time. So now I cannot absolutely swear that it would always be impossible for a bus to beat the trolley. However, the multiple observations I have made — not one single anecdote — are not consistent with your theory. For many months last year I had a regular afternoon PT appointment in Kendall Square and experimented with various routes home from there including down Beacon. I also frequently had to visit my Orthopedist, who is on Beacon St, on the inbound route in the mornings. I generally found that it was best to minimize the amount of time actually travelling on Beacon.
In any case, you stubbornly ignore the traffic problem. There is frequently a lot of traffic on Beacon St. Enough that at peak times you may have to sit at a light for multiple cycles. This is particularly so during the evening rush hour. The trolleys generally do not have that problem.
You also seem to be assuming that transferring between the underground trolley at Kenmore to a bus would not take any time, and also that it would not take a significant amount of time to get through the bad intersections at Kenmore and Park Dr, which the trolleys don’t have to deal with.
And once again, I should point out again that if you are going to Cleveland Circle, that the D line will take you directly there, so there would be no reason to switch to a bus at Kenmore. I also find that the B line trains tend to be a lot more crowded than the C, probably because it is a longer line.
As long as we’re discussing anecdotes, please allow me to chime in.
For years (between 1998 and 2010), I walked pretty much daily from Washington Square to Coolidge Corner (or vice-versa). Sometimes at drive time, sometimes later in the evening. I enjoyed playing a game — could I make the trip without being passed by a Green Line train in my direction. I “won” the game (no train) at least half the time.
I played a similar game walking daily, at drive time, from St. Mary’s (on Beacon) to Coolidge Corner. Again, I got there before the first train (outbound) well over half the time.
I know it’s a radical idea, but sometimes walking is the best option. 🙂
I’ve often suggested, to myself, that a reasonable standard of performance for the MBTA is that a train should get me between two arbitrary stops faster than I can walk the same distance. The MBTA often fails that minimal standard.
There is no question that any alternate mode of transportation is going to beat a non-existent train!
I also have the light timing interval schematics for every single light on Beacon Street, in pdf, on my hard drive. I’ve spent many, many hours looking at engineering studies about Beacon — parking, light timing, lane marking, and MBTA signaling.
There’s no doubt that driving down Beacon Street is slow. And, in fact, you haven’t in all of your words asserted that when you drive down Beacon you keep track of the trolley and carefully make sure that it passes you and you never catch up to it because, well, it would be a heck of a claim. Beacon Street is slow, but riding on the T down Beacon Street is slower, because it has all the same red lights that motorists face, red lights that motorists don’t face, and it has to devote time to boarding and alighting. Hell, on off-peak times (mid day, weekends), the Beacon Street lights will hold the green for autos using induction loops in the roads — but they won’t hold the green for the trolley.
Don’t confuse you driving down Beacon Street with “scientific observation” — because they aren’t the same thing. But as I said, you let me know when, and we’ll schedule a scientific observation. You drive, I’ll ride the trolley (or vice-versa), from Kenmore Sq to Cleveland Cir (or vice versa).
P.S. It’s true that if you’re in Cleveland Circle, you might as well take the D. Except during rush hour, in the cold, or if you’d rather sit in comfort than contort yourself. And, given that the D Line is stuck for minutes at every stop between Reservoir and Kenmore because it’s so full that boarding and alighting takes an awfully long time, the time differential might not be not much more than a few minutes. If you’re going outbound to Coolidge Corner or Cleveland Circle and were getting on before Kenmore, you could take any line instead of waiting for the C (or C or D), then go upstairs and take the bus directly.
But, we’re writing past each other, so this has gotten silly. Like I’ve offered twice now, let’s do a test and report the results to BMG rather than waste time with your anecdotes and my reasoning.
I am so rooting for this to happen.
Any single observation is no more meaningful than any other. Like I said, I drove this route on Friday and there was not much traffic. There have been other times when there has been a lot of traffic. Either time is just another “anecdote”. As I have said, you would want to do a more disciplined traffic study involving many observations at different times., which may very well prove your assertions.
I think you are mistaking my skepticism with actual opposition to the plan. I have no problem with express buses on Beacon St. And as long as it doesn’t require significant changes to the road, I see no reason why the T couldn’t just try it out with or without traffic studies.
I took Beacon on my way home tonight around 5:40, starting from Park Dr. and found that the traffic was not bad at all and did in fact catch up to the only outbound trolley that I encountered. So unless there was a big jam in Kendall, an express bus would have been a win for someone trying to get from Kendall to Cleveland Circle.
Of course, if you want to do this for real, presumably you would want to do a full traffic study and rider surveys to find out how much demand is there.
I’m responding with my recollections of what they have said when issues of equipment and technology arise for their system which is that it is an old system and not very adaptable to what others might be doing.
If the MBTA had the needed equipment, Green Line trains could run from their western terminus to Kenmore, turn on the existing loop at Kenmore, and run back out. This would ease crowding on the above-ground trains and would have the same effect as the express buses we contemplate here.
The task of getting those riders from Kenmore to their destination is still choked by the capacity of the underground portion of the Green Line, but there’s little to be done about that in the short-term.
I’m not even sure the Green line requires custom-built new equipment.
For example, the “heritage” cars running on the Mattapan extension on weekends are antique PCC cars that are virtually identical to equipment that ran in cities across the US.
It’s true that the PCC cars are slower than the newer Green Line equipment. They also don’t offer “kneel-down” access for people with physical access disabilities. Still, they are surely better than no service at all.
I’d like to see the actual engineering data that supports the claim that the Red and Orange Line cars need to be “custom designed”. I can’t help but notice that this constraint reinforces the “jobs” argument that led to the proud announcement that an entirely new manufacturing facility is planned for Springfield in order to build the new Red and Orange Line cars. I love the concept of creating Massachusetts jobs, and at the same time I wonder if the tail is perhaps wagging the dog a bit.
I’m not saying that I flatly reject the assertion that custom-designed cars are required. I am saying that I’d like to see an enumeration of the specific factors that support that claim.
My recollection is that the really sharp turn near Boylston requires stronger chassis, and has for 100ish years. That meant that the older Green Line cars were (and are) heavier than “traditional” trolleys. That means that new ones have to be heavier/stronger in case an old vehicle and a new vehicle collide.
And, “better than no service at all” isn’t legal. You can’t add equipment that isn’t ADA, at least not without a whole lot of specific circumstances and paperwork. And that’s good, because otherwise expediency would always trump ADA, and we’d have no progress on ADA in 40 years, instead of the real progress we’ve made.
P.S. Today I learned that the plural of “chassis” is “chassis.”
I don’t mean to be argumentative, and at the same time have first-hand experience riding PCC cars on the B, C, D, and E lines when I arrived in Boston in 1974. Whatever issues there may be with the Boylston curve, the PCC cars somehow managed to overcome them.
From one fascinating historical source, here are some PCC cars on the Greenline:
“Picture-Window” PCC pulling a “Post-War” PCC through Cleveland Circle in Brookline along the present-day C Branch of the Green Line.
PCC #3314, a “Picture-Window” PCC delivered in 1951, pulling another “Picture-Window” in the 1980s along the E-Arborway Line
Green Line PCCs on the A/Watertown Line in 1972
Arborway Carhouse in the Early 1980s was tightly packed with PCCs, particularly “Post-War” “Air-Electric” models.
Perhaps a special one-time exemption to the ADA could be negotiated, given the signed order for ADA-compliant equipment to be delivered as soon as possible, the ADA compliance of the rest of the fleet, and the catastrophic impact on all riders (including those with disabilities) of not having equipment at all.
I enthusiastically agree with you about the need for and success of the ADA. It seems to me that this may one of those specific circumstances that merit the extra paperwork.
Yeah, I don’t know the details of the PCCs and the curve and modern vehicle constraints that didn’t exist then (because safety standards were lower, etc). I don’t have a good source for any of this in-the-weeds stuff.
As for ADA, I have a hard time imagining the MBTA pulling it off. For better or worse, a remarkable amount of recent-era MBTA effort has been focused on ADA, a result (in part at least) of well organized activism on the part of the disability community.
My hunch is that it’s not ADA that’s the barrier. It’s the cost and time required to retrofit PCCs (or others) to meet MBTA standards, train operators, train mechanics, acquire the adequate tools and spare parts for the PCCs, etc. That’s why I was looking at buses — to the extent that buses can alleviate some of the short term resource inadequacy, buses are far easier to procure (own or lease or whatevs), fix, and operate than rail cars.
I didn’t mean to advocate buying more PCC cars today, I should have been more clear about that. To the extent that equipment shortage is a problem for the Green Line (I think it is not, the Green Line has the newest equipment in the system I think), I just wonder if nearly-compatible equipment is available from other sources.
I meant only that “not invented here” is a syndrome that can infect every technical organization. I agree that all those things you mention — standards, operators, training, tools, etc. — are expenses that would be incurred.
I’d like to see an analysis that compares them to:
a) The cost of waiting until the new equipment is available on the Red and Orange line
b) The cost of shutting down the city for each snowstorm that brings more than a foot of snow.
I agree that buses should be part of the mix. I wonder about trackless trolleys for the above-ground portions of the E line. Probably not worth it, though.
The Green Line used to run 3 car trains. It’s only running 2 car train kits now. Not enough trolleys go go around.
Fair point on the syndrome though, so long as there’s also care to do a lifecycle analysis of the nearly-compatible equipment — training, maintenance, etc.
I’m not sure about trackless trolleys on the E above ground. Why not just stick with the parallel bus service that’s there now? What do trackless trolleys have that (traditional) buses don’t?
I’m thinking of two aspects of trolley buses versus conventional buses:
1. Emissions and fuel use (electricity versus fossil-fuels)
2. Operating costs
I’ve been trying to dig through the MBTA financials to get a comparison — I think we’re looking for cost per vehicle-mile for trolley buses versus conventional buses.
The claim, by some, is that trackless trolleys have lower maintenance costs (as well as lower fuel costs and emissions) because their electric traction motors are less expensive to maintain than their fossil-fueled counterparts.
The two have similar performance in traffic such as seen on the above-ground E Line.
I think Boston and San Francisco jointly ordered trolleys back in the 1970’s and ’80’s.