archBOSTON ARCHIVE

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

New Silver Line plan offered, stirring critics
Tunnel cut may save time, $700m

By Mac Daniel, Globe Staff | February 10, 2006

State Transportation Secretary John Cogliano proposed a new plan yesterday for the final, critical phase of the MBTA's Silver Line bus service that he said could save $700 million, cut construction time by several years, and avoid community opposition.

But the proposal immediately drew criticism from state, environmental, and business leaders, some saying that Cogliano did not consult with them about it until this week; they fear the proposal could scuttle or delay separate plans the MBTA and city officials had been hashing out.

The original plan for the final phase of the project had been tabled in August because of community opposition. Putting forward another proposal now could further complicate an already controversial plan, which must be approved by federal transportation officials to get financing from Washington.

Cogliano's proposal, which he said was drawn up by state planners with the hope of breaking an impasse, would connect the two existing Silver Line routes: one that runs from Dudley Square to Downtown Crossing and the newer route from South Station to Logan Airport, which opened last June. It would also keep the buses on surface streets through most of downtown and connect to the South Station tunnel through a new portal on Essex Street, near Atlantic Avenue.

The previous proposal called for a milelong tunnel under Chinatown that was intended to speed the buses through the congested downtown. But Cogliano said that travel times, as well as transfers to subway lines, under the new proposed route are comparable to those of the longer tunnel, at one-eighth the cost, or $94 million instead of $800 million.

A new station on Winter Street near Downtown Crossing would allow Silver Line bus passengers to enter a glassed-in enclosure where they would transfer to subway service on the Orange, Red, and Green lines free of charge. Buses from Dudley headed to South Station, South Boston, and Logan would take a right from Washington Street onto Kneeland Street and a left on Surface Road to reach the shortened tunnel, with a portal built at Essex Street.

Cogliano's plan would also extend Silver Line service south along Warren Street from Dudley station into Grove Hall, Mattapan, and Ashmont, with connections to the new Fairmount commuter rail line, which runs through Mattapan and Dorchester. This extension of the Silver Line, which could replace the Route 23 and 28 bus routes, goes through neighborhoods where many residents depend on buses. The old plan did not extend the Silver Line south.

In addition, the proposal calls for a new Silver Line spur from Copley Square to the proposed Essex Street portal, offering what could be a transfer-free, one-seat ride from the Back Bay to South Boston and Logan.

''This new option presents an opportunity to improve service and meet our transit commitments in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible," Cogliano wrote this week to MBTA General Manager Daniel A. Grabauskas.

''It's just a proposal," he said in an interview yesterday. ''I want it to be reviewed, and I want public input."

Under the previous plan, Silver Line buses would go below ground at New England Medical Center and use a dedicated tunnel that would pass under Bay Village, Downtown Crossing, and Chinatown, with connections to the Orange and Green lines. The plan met with significant community opposition because of impact on residents and ambulance service.

The T was seeking federal funds for 60 percent of the project, which received a ''not recommended" rating from the Federal Transit Administration several years ago. Grabauskas pulled the project from federal consideration in August, saying that if it received a similar rating a second time, especially given the lack of community support, it might not receive federal approval and leave the two existing stretches of Silver Line unconnected.

Contacted about Cogliano's proposal, Grabauskas said yesterday, ''The MBTA is reviewing this and all other alternatives, working with all parties in order to complete this important project." He said Cogliano informed him of the new plan two days ago.

Cogliano's proposal, however, raises questions about the nature of the Silver Line, which was first touted as ''bus rapid transit," using dedicated lanes on surface streets and tunnels to decrease trip times at half the cost of building a trolley system like the Green Line, which operates underground and on above-ground tracks. Over time, however, the Washington Street branch of the Silver Line has come under harsh criticism from riders who say it has become just another plodding bus route, because the dedicated bus lanes have not been kept free of traffic.

''This may meet transit commitments, but it does not meet the commitment that the T made to provide 'equal or better' service when the Orange Line was torn down," said Sierra Club spokesman Jeremy Marin. ''According to T studies, it took eight minutes from Dudley to downtown, but the bus currently takes 20 minutes."

Richard A. Dimino, president of the Artery Business Committee, said he was ''surprised and disappointed that Secretary Cogliano would submit an alternative idea regarding the Silver Line at such a late hour.

''I'm disappointed that this plan is coming to the forefront when the MBTA and the city have been working hard to come to some resolution," he said, adding that the latest proposal from the T would use a portal near Marginal Street and keep the buses underground without disturbing Boston Common or New England Medical Center. He said he was told of the project this week.

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, a Democrat from the North End, whose district is in the bus route and who opposed previous plans, said yesterday he is in ''full agreement" with the Cogliano plan.

But Secretary of Commonwealth Development Douglas I. Foy said the final phase of the Silver Line must be a tunnel. ''A lot of work has gone into finding an acceptable portal for getting the Silver Line underground," he said. ''I think that process will yield results soon and we can fulfill our promise for world-class service from Washington Street to the waterfront."

Cogliano said he would welcome review of the proposal.

Mark Slater, president of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association, said the new plan appears to meet the transit needs of the city while protecting the fragile homes in Bay Village, which were built on poor soil and sit on pilings whose stability needs ground water levels to remain unchanged. The proposed tunnel, he said, could have played havoc with those levels.

Roxxma · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 170

Ron Newman · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1007

I was wondering about that too ... bringing huge buses onto Winter Street would pretty much destroy it as a pedestrian street.

chumbolly · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 120

The route shown in the graphic in the Globe doesn't go anywhere near Winter Street. Somebody is confused about something.

That aside, I say it's time stick a fork in the Silverline, call a bus a bus, and move on. $700 million for a bus route under Chinatown is twice as insane as that loony $200 million bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska that people were complaining about in the news a few months ago. I am completely biased in favor of public transit, but really, $700 million (on top of the $800 million already spent) for a bus? Spend the money on something more useful, like the Urban Ring, or a trolley service on Atlantic Avenue, or just give every man, woman and child in the state $100 and tell them to take a cab.

Ron Newman · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1007

It does make sense to give the existing Silver Line tunnel a western portal somewhere, to increase its flexibility.

Vanshnookenraggen · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 364

It makes even more sense for it to be light rail.

Charliemta · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 81

Running surface buses along Kneeland Street would be very slow, as Kneeland Street is usually congested. I say forget spending any scarce transit funding on a Silver Line tunnel or portal.

The various Silver Line Phase III alternatives, including the latest shortened version, deliver very little bang for the buck. Tunneling downtown is very expensive, and should be done only when the benefits would be great. The money should instead be spent for the proposed Red/Blue line connector project, would would at least provide some relief to the overcrowded Green Line downtown.

bosma · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 148

Add an on-ramp eastbound to the pike and send the buses down the Pike, that tunnel would be a waste of money. Especially considering once the project is done the tunnel will cost double the amount (ie: Big Dig).

quadratdackel · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 144

Cogliano did get two things right:

Matt · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 840

Officials announce deal on Silver Line route
By Mac Daniel, Globe Staff

State and city transportation officials, MBTA, and business leaders announced today that they have reached agreement on the final key phase of Silver Line bus service, a plan that would keep the buses in a tunnel so they avoid surface traffic.

The plan, which still needs federal approval, calls for the tunnel to start at a portal at Tremont and Charles streets to connect the two existing Silver Line routes: one that goes from Dudley Square to Downtown Crossing and a newer one that goes from South Station to Logan International Airport.

The proposed route would also avoid disrupting New England Medical Center.

State Transportation Secretary John Cogliano last month proposed to keep the buses on surface streets through most of downtown, and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi said he supported the proposal. But environmental and business leaders and others immediately criticized the plan, saying they hadn't been consulted.

Vanshnookenraggen · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 364

Charles and Tremont....right where the original portal was.

Man, F that S. I still don't think this will happen. A guy I talked to who was a planner for the Silver Line told me that the reason the Feds cut the cash in the first place was because they didn't think the T could get this crazy idea to work. Even with a new GM I doubt they can pull it off.

Look at how slow the busses are in the South Boston tunnel. If we had a longer tunnel with more turns, Im sure the headways would get fucked almost immediatly.

PaulC · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 172

This plan wont fly either.

This plan requires a massive 360 turn-around under the Boston Common at the Boylston station. The historic burial grounds on the Common would have to be dug up and relocated temporally. I think this is too expensive and too disruptive to ever happen. It seems to me that the T has been proposing options that are unacceptable and therefore they will never have to be built.

It's time to realize the fact that most people using this line from Roxbury are not headed to the airport but downtown or Back Bay.

The existing portal tunnel connects to the Boylston Station so terminate it there or if the tunnel goes on to Park Street terminate it there. Think how easy this could then be converted to a trolley line.

I do think that this is the best location for the portal and besides it adds nothing that wasn't there historically.

I would also like to see the Silver line connect to Boylston station as planned and slowly be extend into Back Bay. I think there is already room to get to Arlington Street. The customers of the Back Bay hotels would be the big users of an airport connection.

justin · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 418

As proposed in the latest incarnation, the turnaround loop would be right under the Tremont/Charles intersection.

justin

chumbolly · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 120

I'm with Vanshnookenraggen--F that S! BRT is BS.

TC · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 62

Is the intersection of Charles/Tremont where the Church of All Nations (and that beloved Bay Village park) are located?

The more I think about this proposed tunnel the less sense it makes. Just think about the disruption in this area. They are going to tunnel under Charles, Boylston, Essex, and then the new Surface Artery.

Seems like way to much of a headache to deal with for years for so little benefit.

Vanshnookenraggen · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 364

Out of any areas for the portal that park is number one. I mean, the park is already covering a portal!!!! If it was done correctly it could be a very nice station and park.

I only hope that NIMBY opposition slows this down even further.

Dan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 44

justin · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 418

Vanshnookenraggen · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 364

Well, they did it so they could get money for one project instead of 2. That isnt such a bad idea, too bad BRT is.

TC · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 62

I've heard of the old tremont portal (and I think you can see it from Boylston Station).

Isn't one of the problems that the existing tunnels are too small for the buses? Which is probably the biggest reason why the whole thing should be light rail with a direct connection to the existing green line.

Vanshnookenraggen · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 364

Vanshnookenraggen · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 364

quadratdackel · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 144

BRT is not necessarily bad. See for example Pittsburgh or Curitiba. I've taken Pgh's BRT to the airport and the east end busway; both work pretty darn well. And Curitiba's brt setup looks simply awesome. (I think it handles about 75% of Curitiba's commuters.)

But for brt to work well, my impression is that it needs wider space because busses are not on rails and must be steered by humans. Pgh & Curitiba both have this: the busses have ordinary-sized lanes (on their own dedicated roads). But I suspect the Boston Seaport tunnel is not so wide, and hence the busses can't travel very quickly, which really sucks. Can anyone who knows more about this confirm these thoughts?

Another question: How hard would it be to convert the brt tunnels to light rail (lrt), if we decided to sometime in the future? If it would just require laying some tracks down, then we might be digging lrt tunnels right now and just not realize it yet. The momentum for the change would come from riders complaining about how slow the busses move and wanting to shoot straight to Back Bay/west and downtown/north.

Another question: Is a 4-way lrt intersection possible? It would presumably be at/around Boylston Station, where the Green Line already has a sharp turn. This would allow the desired new routes (Back Bay-Waterfront & Dudley-downtown) in addition to the current routes. Could the tunnel proposed here be used for this, assuming it could be converted to lrt?

One last question: Would a Washington Street brt function better if it ran down the middle of the street like the B,C, & E instead of along the sides like the current Silver Line? This would solve the parked car problem and the "where am I supposed to ride my bicycle in this situation?" problem. And would it be expensive to execute?

dudeursistershot · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 715

quadratdackel · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 144

dudeursistershot · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 715

justin · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 418

Here's Grabauskas with the map of the four tunnel options

You see the turnaround loop at Boylston and Charles in green, and the currently prefered option as the pinkish tail veering off to the left from the blue line.

justin

InTheHood · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 8

Whether you like the alignment or not, the T's inability to manage community relations is truly stunning. In this case, when Dan G met with the neighborhood and engineers on Wednesday to review groundwater concerns associated with different alignments, he somehow neglected to mention that he was holding a press conference less than 24 hours later to announce the preferred alignment. Of course the unaffected / appeased parties, such as NEMC, knew the announcement was coming. Gratuitous nutshots like this breed entire generations of rabid NIMBYs and help make the environment more difficult for responsible developers.

The big question is, $750 million for this?? Sure, the Big Dig was twenty times more expensive, but it was more than a hundred times more significant. Think of the transportation flow per hour. Here, the Little Dig is contemplated to facilitate moving a handful of buses a distance of a few blocks underground. As noted above, the T's own projections expect only a minority of the buses on the Silver Line will actually go through the stunningly expensive portal. Most will U-turn at Boylston.

chumbolly · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 120

Lurker · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 112

For 700 mil, the Boylston to Dudley section of the silver line could be converted to Light rail or the beyond Lechmere extensions could be paid for if this state wasn't so inefficient and filled to the brim with nepotism.

ablarc · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 825

What a tortured tunnel! Its access actually goes the exact opposite direction from where its destination lies.

The expensive mistake everyone?s making here is that the Silver Line needs to connect with the Green.

In this age of encoded tickets, an alternative might find some Silver Line riders from Roxbury and the South End connecting to the Orange Line via the Washington Street sidewalk to NE Med Ctr station. The bus itself could turn right on [aptly-named] Marginal Street, now wholly transit-dedicated. After the curve that initiates Hudson Street, the Silver Line could plunge underground and proceed beneath this equally peripheral street. Cut-and-cover would give way to a proper deep-bore tunnel at Kneeland station, convenient to both Chinatown and Leather District. Next stop: South Station and the remainder of the line.

What modest demand exists for a Silver-to-Green-Line westbound transfer can be accommodated at the concourse that links Washington (ugh, I mean ?Downtown Crossing?) to Park St., while Green Line to Lechmere is accomplished as now at Haymarket.

* * *

And the whole shebang should be converted to light rail.

justin · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 418

The Silver-Green connection is essential to link Back Bay and the Seaport. Roxbury really shouldn't be in that equation at all.

justin

ablarc · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 825

^ Silver Line sure is ill-conceived from the get-go, isn't it? But then, so is most of Boston's subway "system." It's a tradition that goes way back. The Orange Line, which could be the backbone, is in the wrong place over 100.0% of its length.

ablarc · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 825

quadratdackel · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 144

ablarc · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 825

Thanks for the graphics; there's a lot to contemplate here, now the pros and cons have been aired.

justin · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 418

Here are links to pdf's of the latest proposed alignment and the details of the portal:
[url]http://www.allaboutsilverline.com/pdf/Alignment Graphic.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.allaboutsilverline.com/pdf/CSM portal graphic.pdf[/url]
At least no more 180 degree turns.

justin

quadratdackel · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 144

From the South End News March 16, 2006, via http://www.allaboutsilverline.com/pdf/SEN_3_16_06.pdf

ckb · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 126

ablarc · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 825

chumbolly · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 120

I recently rode the Silverline from South Station to the Airport for the first time. I was thinking it would take 5-10 minutes to get to my gate once the bus got on its way. It took 30 minutes. Five minutes of that was changing buses because one broke down. Then there's the stop when the bus switches over from electric to gas. And that crazy route all of South Boston that the bus has to drive to get from the silverline tunnel to the Ted Williams. Traffic was bad in the Ted Williams, but at least the roadway was smooth, unlike in the silverline tunnel. Of course, there wasn't any traffic in the silverline tunnel, but the bus went slow for that stretch as well, I guess so we wouldn't bounce into a wall. The whole experience made me feel sorry for whoever had the idea to create the silverline. It was a really bad idea, and poorly executed to boot. After that experience, I don't care one whit what they do with the tunnel to connect the South Boston line with the Washington Street line. Really, it's just a big piece of crap bus with a fancy paint job.

dudeursistershot · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 715

TheBostonian · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 617

quadratdackel · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 144

^ When I took that route recently, the bus zig-zagged through the Waterfront so much, I thought the driver made a wrong turn somewhere. Aparently she hadn't. That sucks. Hopefully that can get fixed somehow, sometime???

chumbolly · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 120

Ron Newman · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1007

that sounds like something that could easily be solved by a little bit of lobbying.

chumbolly · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 120

TheBostonian · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 617

That's terrible! The infrastructure is there and they can't use it!

quadratdackel · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 144

justin · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 418

Chicago has in-terminal subway station at both its airports. SF got one just recently, and in NY you have to change from the airport train to the subway. So I'd say Logan is kinda middling at best.

justin