Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree. You solve the housing problem by making it possible to get from 50 miles outside the city to North Station, South Station, and Back Bay Station in 30 minutes.
To do that, you need to eliminate the grade crossings and electrify everything. That’s how Europe and Asia do it. You then focus on improving the subway connectivity from the train stations to where people work.
When I lived in Lowell, I could drive to the Boston city limits within 30 minutes outside of rush hour. In my opinion public transportation needs to match that. Instead the train commute to north station took almost an hour and that was when there were no delays.
In western mass I've seen an obsession of free on street parking. Yeah that's not happening in most cities. The sad thing is the price of a parking ticket in springfield is the same as actual parking in Boston.
I can agree with linking populated areas. Eventually the east west rail will be made. To deny it at this point makes little sense. Plans are there, funds are sitting and people are in office that represent it. I'm not saying it will be high speed but even if it's as fast as a car it should reduce the cost of going to boston.
If you ask me I would argue a 3% one time endowment fee from the top 25 largest academic institutions would pay for at least half of the debt of the mbta. I would argue that these institutions have the most use and the most to gain of all organizations.
In western mass I've seen an obsession of free on street parking. Yeah that's not happening in most cities. The sad thing is the price of a parking ticket in springfield is the same as actual parking in Boston.
I can agree with linking populated areas. Eventually the east west rail will be made. To deny it at this point makes little sense. Plans are there, funds are sitting and people are in office that represent it. I'm not saying it will be high speed but even if it's as fast as a car it should reduce the cost of going to boston.
If you ask me I would argue a 3% one time endowment fee from the top 25 largest academic institutions would pay for at least half of the debt of the mbta. I would argue that these institutions have the most use and the most to gain of all organizations.
The sad 'secret' is a lot of non-residents park in Boston resident street parking areas anyway and figure if they get ticketed every other trip, they're still coming out ahead over parking in a garage. I feel like there's a big opportunity here for the city to make more with increased fines for subsequent offenses while also deterring a few to leave more spots open for residents.
It may well be then that the price of a parking ticket in Springfield and Boston is about the same, and that's a problem when the price to park in each city is so different.
Electrifying the commuter rail would be a cheaper way (both in capital expenditure and operational cost) to service both the exurbs and the inner suburbs than extending each proprietary rapid transit infrastructure. I mean, look at the Green Line Extension. 3 billion to extend.. in an existing right of way! They had to build out a separate set of tracks with overhead catenary and buy GL-exclusive train sets, plus separate platforms for the GLX vs the commuter rail. Just supposing we had an electrified commuter rail, that cost would have been reduced to the buildout of platforms basically. Adding trainsets becomes a lot easier as it is more or less off-the-shelf tech. As engineers we are always trying to "simplicate and add lightness."
You could run "local" trains within the 128 belt or therabouts to service the denser suburbs, the Lynns, Walthams, West Rox, Hyde Parks of the area more frequently.
You can look at how this has worked out in places like Paris and Munich where their regiional rail lines provide service on par with our rapid transit lines.
Electrified commuter rail would certainly be cheaper than extending rapid transit lines, but it wouldn't be nearly as effective as the cities you cite as examples. In practice, commuter rail is intended to serve entirely different functions. An electrified commuter rail (and even some express trains) is a must, but it doesn't replace the connectivity and frequency of the rapid transit network. In order to get service on regional lines like you have in Paris or Tokyo, you'd need similar or greater investment into the network than you would for rapid transit.
For starters Paris, Tokyo and other cities with excellent regional rail networks are much, much more cohesive and connected. Boston would need to invest tens of billions to connect (and reconnect) gaps in the network in order to allow the frequencies and headways that would put it in the realm of rapid transit. The idea is a nonstarter without the North-South Rail Link and the South Station expansion - MassDOT put the estimated cost of the NSRL between $12 and 21 billion depending on the options and the South Station expansion at about $5 billion. Without both of those things, the network doesn't have the capacity or the connectivity to run trains more than in more than 15-20 minute intervals on each line during peak hours. That's not going to cut it as a substitute for rapid transit. What's more is that doesn't include the cost (est. $40 billion) to electrify the entire existing commuter rail network, nor does it include the cost to double track and eliminate the grade crossings (billions more) along the existing network. All of that is needed to get a semblance of what Paris, Munch, Tokyo, etc. have in regional rail networks. I'd argue that Boston would also need to build a regional rail urban ring (similar to a smaller version of Tokyo's Yamanote Line) in order to have a regional rail network that's truly world class. We'd need to replace the entire fleet with trains and coaches more suited to that type of service as well (EMUs).
Electrified commuter rail would certainly be cheaper than extending rapid transit lines, but it wouldn't be nearly as effective as the cities you cite as examples. In practice, commuter rail is intended to serve entirely different functions. An electrified commuter rail (and even some express trains) is a must, but it doesn't replace the connectivity and frequency of the rapid transit network. In order to get service on regional lines like you have in Paris or Tokyo, you'd need similar or greater investment into the network than you would for rapid transit.
For starters Paris, Tokyo and other cities with excellent regional rail networks are much, much more cohesive and connected. Boston would need to invest tens of billions to connect (and reconnect) gaps in the network in order to allow the frequencies and headways that would put it in the realm of rapid transit. The idea is a nonstarter without the North-South Rail Link and the South Station expansion - MassDOT put the estimated cost of the NSRL between $12 and 21 billion depending on the options and the South Station expansion at about $5 billion. Without both of those things, the network doesn't have the capacity or the connectivity to run trains more than in more than 15-20 minute intervals on each line during peak hours. That's not going to cut it as a substitute for rapid transit. What's more is that doesn't include the cost (est. $40 billion) to electrify the entire existing commuter rail network, nor does it include the cost to double track and eliminate the grade crossings (billions more) along the existing network. All of that is needed to get a semblance of what Paris, Munch, Tokyo, etc. have in regional rail networks. I'd argue that Boston would also need to build a regional rail urban ring (similar to a smaller version of Tokyo's Yamanote Line) in order to have a regional rail network that's truly world class. We'd need to replace the entire fleet with trains and coaches more suited to that type of service as well (EMUs).
Tokyo has more population than Texas in an area half the size of MA, Paris is much smaller than Tokyo but it's still much larger than Boston.
I don't think is very useful to look at those places simply because the mobility demand is very different.
Same reason why we don't copy NYC, what works there wouldn't work here.
I don't mean the price of parking tickets is the same. The price of a parking ticket violation in springfield is about what actual parking is in boston ($35). Parking isn't really that much of a thing in western new england. It's just people don't want to walk a few blocks.
the other issue I see with boston is pretty much the rings around it is the letter C shaped. Boston was pretty much put along the water and there's not much east to it. Imagine if you went from Hull to Long Island and just drained it off. Technically if you wanted more land that's one way to do it albeit expensive.
Last edited by mdovell; 05-12-2021 at 12:07 PM..
Reason: adding more
Tokyo has more population than Texas in an area half the size of MA, Paris is much smaller than Tokyo but it's still much larger than Boston.
I don't think is very useful to look at those places simply because the mobility demand is very different.
Same reason why we don't copy NYC, what works there wouldn't work here.
Right, but I don't think we're even talking about mobility demand here vs. there. Regardless of mobility demand in Boston vs. any other, Boston cannot have a regional rail network that comes even close to approaching a functional substitute for rapid urban transit until somewhere in the ballpark of $50+ billion is spent on several major infrastructure projects (NSRL, South Station Expansion, electrification of the network, entirely new rolling stock, double tracking and grade separation). Electrified commuter rail inside of 128 cannot meet the mobility demand of this city because it is physically not capable of running at the frequencies and at headways that come even close to what our current rapid transit lines are doing. So the point is moot.
I don't mean the price of parking tickets is the same. The price of a parking ticket violation in springfield is about what actual parking is in boston ($35). Parking isn't really that much of a thing in western new england. It's just people don't want to walk a few blocks.
the other issue I see with boston is pretty much the rings around it is the letter C shaped. Boston was pretty much put along the water and there's not much east to it. Imagine if you went from Hull to Long Island and just drained it off. Technically if you wanted more land that's one way to do it albeit expensive.
The price of a parking ticket for non-resident in resident spot in Boston is currently $60, versus $35-40 to park in a garage for several hours. If someone figures out a particular side street near their destination that tickets infrequently enough that they can get in and out without a ticket sometimes, the math quickly works out in their favor so they start playing the street parking game. Residents can't find a spot during the day and even if the non-resident gets 2 tickets a week, they're still coming out ahead financially over the garages.
That's the lost opportunity there for Boston. They could be charging $100 for those parking tickets and generating more revenue while also discouraging a few more from playing the illegal parking game.
Right, but I don't think we're even talking about mobility demand here vs. there. Regardless of mobility demand in Boston vs. any other, Boston cannot have a regional rail network that comes even close to approaching a functional substitute for rapid urban transit until somewhere in the ballpark of $50+ billion is spent on several major infrastructure projects (NSRL, South Station Expansion, electrification of the network, entirely new rolling stock, double tracking and grade separation). Electrified commuter rail inside of 128 cannot meet the mobility demand of this city because it is physically not capable of running at the frequencies and at headways that come even close to what our current rapid transit lines are doing. So the point is moot.
Then factor in nimby groups that might delay the process. Of course the other factor is turnout at meetings that can have a significant impact. Years ago I used to attend a bit of some of the MassDOT meetings in western mass. There *was* a plan to reroute RT 91 across to RT 5. Of the biggest issues that's argued all thetime is that rt 91 cut off a neighborhood from springfield and it prevented much of the development of the waterfront. Well people from west springfield showed up but hardly anyone from springfield. yes the traffic would have significantly increased on rt 5 but that's not really the point. Being able to develop waterfront property adds quite a bit to taxable revenue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
