Elevated Rail: Boston and Beyond

[HenryAlan]

If Boston and the MBTA wanted to be really bold, we'd see some viaducts like they have in Berlin, completely incorporated into the built environment. Imagine a train running along roof tops of a neighborhood business district. Using the B-line example, imagine it running above all those converted car show rooms for a stretch. And after Packard's corner, it could run on a structure that could have infill structures built underneath it. Comm. Ave is wide enough that it could handle a narrow strip of buildings between the out and inbound sides.

[whighlander]

If Boston and the MBTA wanted to be really bold, we'd see some viaducts like they have in Berlin, completely incorporated into the built environment. Imagine a train running along roof tops of a neighborhood business district. Using the B-line example, imagine it running above all those converted car show rooms for a stretch. And after Packard's corner, it could run on a structure that could have infill structures built underneath it. Comm. Ave is wide enough that it could handle a narrow strip of buildings between the out and inbound sides.

Henry -- my thoughts entirely -- the recent rehabs of stations on the S-Bahn and indeed some of the use of the viaducts for the mail line rail

A couple of years ago when I was on a consulting project in Berlin my host arranged a dinner in a fine Italian restaurant near the Kurfürstendamm under not the Linden but the railroad tracks (very near to the location used for the famous kissing scene in Cabaret)

There were a few disruptive intervals when the noise inhibited conversation and a couple of times you could feel the vibration - but otherwise it was a fine late June evening in Berlin eating al fresco -- such a use of the Leachmere Viaduct would work

[datadyne007]

If Boston and the MBTA wanted to be really bold, we'd see some viaducts like they have in Berlin, completely incorporated into the built environment. Imagine a train running along roof tops of a neighborhood business district. Using the B-line example, imagine it running above all those converted car show rooms for a stretch. And after Packard's corner, it could run on a structure that could have infill structures built underneath it. Comm. Ave is wide enough that it could handle a narrow strip of buildings between the out and inbound sides.

Now I'm excited to see this in Berlin. If you could shoot me a message (you too Whigh) with certain places of interest, I'd really appreciate it.

[whighlander]

Data -- try Alexanderplatz as an example --although not one of the most recent as it was originally built in the 1800's and rebuilt by the communists after the wall was turned into a concrete monstrosity in the 1960's

from the wiki
"Four Regional-Express and Regionalbahn lines as well as the S-Bahn rapid transit lines S3, S5, S7 and S75 call at the overground station. The adjacent underground station is one of the largest on the Berlin U-Bahn network, with the lines U2, U5 and U8 calling. The station is also served by four tram lines, two of which run continuously, as well as five bus lines during the day, one of which runs continuously and three night bus lines."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Berlin%2C_Mitte%2C_Alexanderplatz%2C_S-_und_Fernbahnhof_Alexanderplatz_02.jpg/800px-Berlin%2C_Mitte%2C_Alexanderplatz%2C_S-_und_Fernbahnhof_Alexanderplatz_02.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Flexitityberlin.jpg/799px-Flexitityberlin.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexanderplatz

[itchy]

If Boston and the MBTA wanted to be really bold, we'd see some viaducts like they have in Berlin, completely incorporated into the built environment.

Could that be done so as not to restrict owners' ability to build their property higher or otherwise modify their buildings? If not, it would seem to be a thorny legal issue...

The best way to do this -- especially looking at the Berlin photos -- would seem to be to incorporate it into a large, de novo "mega" project being orchestrated with a heavy government hand (as anything in Alexanderplatz, which was in East Berlin, would by definition have had!). Perhaps Assembly Square, Northpoint, the Greenway, anything done at the "Southbay Gateway" or any MA Pike air rights development would lend themselves to such a project...

However, since we've suddenly gotten very excited about elevated rail, is there any particular reason why there should be elevated (as opposed to ground-level) light rail in Boston? Unless the argument is that we don't have wide-enough streets to accommodate ground-level light rail (which doesn't seem to be the case), it seems like a lot of additional infrastructure for relatively unclear benefit to build an el versus ground-level light rail, no?

[whighlander]

Could that be done so as not to restrict owners' ability to build their property higher or otherwise modify their buildings? If not, it would seem to be a thorny legal issue...

The best way to do this -- especially looking at the Berlin photos -- would seem to be to incorporate it into a large, de novo "mega" project being orchestrated with a heavy government hand (as anything in Alexanderplatz, which was in East Berlin, would by definition have had!). Perhaps Assembly Square, Northpoint, the Greenway, anything done at the "Southbay Gateway" or any MA Pike air rights development would lend themselves to such a project...

However, since we've suddenly gotten very excited about elevated rail, is there any particular reason why there should be elevated (as opposed to ground-level) light rail in Boston? Unless the argument is that we don't have wide-enough streets to accommodate ground-level light rail (which doesn't seem to be the case), it seems like a lot of additional infrastructure for relatively unclear benefit to build an el versus ground-level light rail, no?

Itch -- I think the answer is the statement (I believe by F-Line) that the DOT doesn't want anymore grade-level crossing of tracks

If that is ironclad policy ==> it would seem to preclude building any rail extensions which were not either elevated or underground, or at least separated in a limited access median (Green Line E from the tunnel portal until the North Eastern Station

It would also imply that since every station had to have an elevator and stars and / or escalator you might as well build up or down

[HenryAlan]

However, since we've suddenly gotten very excited about elevated rail, is there any particular reason why there should be elevated (as opposed to ground-level) light rail in Boston? Unless the argument is that we don't have wide-enough streets to accommodate ground-level light rail (which doesn't seem to be the case), it seems like a lot of additional infrastructure for relatively unclear benefit to build an el versus ground-level light rail, no?

I asked myself the same question, and decided that the advantage lies in an uninterrupted ROW.

Here's an article with some good eye candy regarding Berlin:

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/09/viaduct-love-in-berlin.html

I've always fantasized about this kind of thing, but Berlin is the only place I've come across it. Paris also has some beautiful viaducts, but they don't also have the Berliner utility. The Green Line viaduct, for that matter, is also quite attractive.

[datadyne007]

^ I'm definitely buying that guy's book and the blog is in my favorites now.

[Charlie_mta]

I see no rational reason why the Green Line couldn't be elevated from the Kenmore portal to just beyond Packard's Corner.

[vanshnookenraggen]

T threads and the Rose Kennedy Greenway thread all seem to go off on an elevated rail tangent so let's have one place to get it all out. Anything elevated trains, in Boston's past or future, or in other cities.

To get things started here is a great archive of pictures of the old Washington St El.

Link (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=pphhphoto&fileName=ma/ma1200/ma1288/photos/browse.db&action=browse&recNum=0&title2=Boston%20Elevated%20Railway,%20Elevated%20M ainline,%20Washington%20Street,%20Boston,%20Suffol k%20County,%20MA&displayType=1&itemLink=r?pp/hh:@field)

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ma/ma1200/ma1288/photos/075959pr.jpg

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ma/ma1200/ma1288/photos/075964pr.jpg

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ma/ma1200/ma1288/photos/075972pr.jpg

[whighlander]

T threads and the Rose Kennedy Greenway thread all seem to go off on an elevated rail tangent so let's have one place to get it all out. Anything elevated trains, in Boston's past or future, or in other cities.

To get things started here is a great archive of pictures of the old Washington St El.



Van -- let's not forget the old Atlantic Ave El from South Station along the waterfront and of course the "Great Molasses Flood" of 1919


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMmRlZsNdj84QLSYzkdb5BPRnHrcg5F AZ8mWhSLgbObxj_Y1gqYQ&t=1


http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4120/4945271280_de68138c47_z.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vrfJv2vY7Gk/Ts25WmRWw3I/AAAAAAAAB8U/rzVu8jA5HIw/s1600/aerial2.jpg

and of course the late and not so lamented screech corner North of Haymarket where the Orange and Green Lines came out of the ground together and both went up the incline and then headed north and then each track sharply bent in opposite directions: the Green Line headed to North Station / Boston Garden and eventually Lechmere; the Orange Line went to City Square in Charlestown

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'll never forget the first time I walked under the El on Causeway St when I moved to the area when I was a kid. I remember it like this noir-ish thrill to finally be living in a "real" city (I was moving from the Albany NY area so Boston was a real city to me).

A couple years ago I took this Belgian urban explorer to check out this abandoned subway station way out in Brooklyn. It was at this major crossroads with an elevated train rising 4 stories in the air and walking him around under the EL he was elated because, like me when a kid, his image of a real city was criss-crossed with elevated tracks.

[whighlander]

I'll never forget the first time I walked under the El on Causeway St when I moved to the area when I was a kid. I remember it like this noir-ish thrill to finally be living in a "real" city (I was moving from the Albany NY area so Boston was a real city to me).

A couple years ago I took this Belgian urban explorer to check out this abandoned subway station way out in Brooklyn. It was at this major crossroads with an elevated train rising 4 stories in the air and walking him around under the EL he was elated because, like me when a kid, his image of a real city was criss-crossed with elevated tracks.

Van -- there was a sort of gritty romanticism associated with El's even in the 1950/60s

I grew up in the Hartford CT area (suburbs) and I'm sure that there might have been old streetcar tracks around somewhere but I never saw them. The first time I visited my father's sister in East Cambridge we walked down to Lechemere and took the Green Line to downtown Boston getting off at Park Street. After getting my first PCC car ride under my belt on the way back I saw an actual 3rd rail Orange Line train climbing out of Haymarket. I suddenly felt very envious of my aunt who worked near the old Northampton El station sewing shoes. I dedicated my young life to completing the ultimate urban adventure of sneaking a ride on the Orange Line EL -- I finally accomplished this mission when a year or so later I was allowed to attend a game at Fenway with my slightly younger but much more urban savvy cousin -- pm the way home I convinced him to accompany me on my adventure and we took the Orange Line from Haymarket all the way to Sullivan Square --the closest I would get to a Euro-type station such as London's Paddington until I finally got to London.

Years later I finally got up the courage to ride the other way on the old Orange Line (aka the 'Main Line") all the way to Forest Hills and then took the Arborway Green Line back to what I considered relatively safe and known East Cambridge -- I felt completed and just in time as all of the exotic elevated stuff was gone in a couple of more years except for the venerable Lechemere Viaduct and the small bit of the Red Line from the Longfellow Bridge

I guess when the Green Line to Sommerville and Medford is done there wont even be much of the original and quite venerable Lechemere Viaduct left (i.e. everything between Science Park and North Station is new as will apparently all of the track from the Bridge to the new Lechemere Station)

[HenryAlan]

One of my early Boston adventures also involved the Causeway St. El. We were going to the laser Floyd show at MOS, but being unfamiliar with non B aspects of the Green Line, we ended up at the North Station surface terminus. Confused, we exited the fare restricted zone, too late realizing that we were supposed to go upstairs, and that if we paid to go back in, we wouldn't have enough money for the show and the return trip. So we set off under the El. Tracks. Not knowing how close Science Park would be, we decided to run. I completely felt like Gene Hackman in the French Connection.

[BostonUrbEx]

I think the best candidate for an elevated line int he area is Broadway in Everett. I can easily see eliminating parking on one side (just stagger it from one side to the other every so often), putting in a decent but slim median, and using modern concrete pillars down the median. I think it could be attractive and a HUGE success.

[Shepard]

Even if elevated tracks may fit nicely in a narrow median, would a station? Keeping in mind it would need elevators etc?

[omaja]

Broadway doesn't seem like it would work out that well... much too narrow with only two lanes of traffic and two parking lanes. You'd cast an uninviting shadow on most of the properties directly adjacent to the road. And we know how NIMBY the whole metro area is anyway.

Comm Ave between Kenmore and at least Harvard Ave or even Warren St would easily be able to handle elevated rail with stations. Talk about a ridiculously wide corridor with an excessive number of little-utilized lanes.

The part between Packard's Corner and Warren would be extremely easy to build, too; just close the center lanes and force traffic to the carriageways during construction. Service on the B line could be maintained during construction as well if the elevated structure is shifted to the center of the right-of-way.

[BostonUrbEx]

Even if elevated tracks may fit nicely in a narrow median, would a station? Keeping in mind it would need elevators etc?

Not quite, the only flaw IMO... I think it would have to be a bit more like the old elevateds, with beams sweeping across overhead with supports on the sides of the road.

[Lurker]

At stations the tracks could elevate to stack on top one another similarly to what the Orange Line tunnels do at Chinatown. Another possibility is staggering the inbound and outbound platforms, against similarly to what is done by the Orange Line downtown.

[Shepard]

Alternating inbound and outbound stations (what I presume you mean by the second option you mentioned) is inefficient - really, there should be a center platform able to access both in and out, so that fewer elevators are needed.

[Lurker]

Well ideally for space the tracks would stack vertically with inbound and outbound on the same side but with an offset in section. Though this would require significant inclines approaching and departing stations. This configuration would share the same number of elevators and stairs as a central platform, but with station footprint width exchanged for height.

[MBTAddict]

For Comm Ave, I don't see why station width would be an issue. If you shifted the track so it has between the travel lanes (like it is up until Packard's Corner and then is again after Warren Street) there would be plenty of width for a center platform. Just take the width of the current median, plus the width of the 2 platforms each stop has now. Wouldn't the resulting platform be plenty wide enough?

[Shepard]

If we're talking about Green Line light rail, on certain corridors such as Blue Hill Ave the alignment can also probably curve off the street into an otherwise empty parcel for an El station.

If we're talking about heavy rail, El stations become more obtrusive if only because they are so much longer. For example, the idea of a Mass Ave Red Line El has been proposed from Central down to Fairmount Line, or JFK/Umass, etc. But, consider that an El station by Hynes would likely stretch all the way from Comm Ave to Boylston - a rather hefty intrusion. LR, by contrast, can have El stations which are much less weighty affairs.

[HenryAlan]

Speaking of an El. and the Fairmont line, what would people think of an elevated HRRT above the FRA compliant tracks? Everyone agrees that the Indigo line would be better as rapid transit, but the option isn't available due to the corridor needing to serve occasional freight and Amtrak trains. So why not build right above it? Does such an arrangement exist anywhere?

[whighlander]

Speaking of an El. and the Fairmont line, what would people think of an elevated HRRT above the FRA compliant tracks? Everyone agrees that the Indigo line would be better as rapid transit, but the option isn't available due to the corridor needing to serve occasional freight and Amtrak trains. So why not build right above it? Does such an arrangement exist anywhere?

Henry -- it used to -- the old Atlantic Ave. El ran above a regular freight rail line that serviced piers and industry in the North End --such as the infamous Molasses Tank which exploded in the Great Molasses Flood of 1919

[F-Line to Dudley]

Speaking of an El. and the Fairmont line, what would people think of an elevated HRRT above the FRA compliant tracks? Everyone agrees that the Indigo line would be better as rapid transit, but the option isn't available due to the corridor needing to serve occasional freight and Amtrak trains. So why not build right above it? Does such an arrangement exist anywhere?

I don't know if there's a good way to do that on most of the line. However, south of Blue Hill Ave. it used to be almost entirely 4-track because of tons of ex-freight sidings and much longer lead tracks into Readville Yard. It would be possible someday in the distant future to bring the Red Line down there from Ashmont along the Mattapan Line, then plow the 1000 ft. between the Square and the Fairmount Line to continue on to Fairmount, Readville, Westwood/128, or fork at Readville to Dedham Ctr. along the well-preserved abandoned ROW. We'll be on CBTC signal system by then with those 2-3 minute downtown headways that'll easily swallow all the extra branch traffic.

It's not likely the Mattapan Line can stay a tiny remote trolley outpost forever. At some point once you start exiling Bredas there the maintenance needs for modern low-floor cars get to be a real bother for that tiny open-air yard shed and it gets to be too much a P.I.T.A. to constantly truck cars back to Riverside for repair. So figure it's got at most 3decades and an intermediate upgrade to pantographs (cheap at this point because all the prelim weight and power draw upgrade work is either done or scheduled by FY16) to run out the lifespans of a few members of the current Green Line LRV fleet. Then they'll have to make the inevitable call on whether to go for it on heavy rail with just the high-ridership Central Ave. and Mattapan stops or build a full-service trolley carhouse to keep the current setup. The latter's not going to be too good a value for a fleet that'll never exceed 10-12 cars, so 40 years of punting that dilemma has to end eventually.

Get to Mattapan on a Red Line trainset and then it becomes worth studying whether drilling a scant 3 blocks of cut-and-cover tunnel under 4-lanes-wide Cummins Hwy. is worth doing in the future. Or if snaking on the surface on the Neponset reservation next to Truman Pkwy. is a decent prospect. You'd be talking many years after getting to Mattapan, but the short gap and the available expansion space on the Fairmount starts to beckon it. I think that's a lot easier and higher ROI than doing some graft-on to the narrower Fairmount ROW north of Mattapan where the RR is multipurpose enough to have to stay. That area would be closely served by the 28X proposal out to the general Columbia Rd. area and the Urban Ring around Uphams Corner, so why not cut out the BRT middleman and stick a trolley out of Dudley on a B-line type reservation down Blue Hill Ave. RL via Mattapan's the only way Westwood Station's got a shot at any true rapid transit link beyond high-frequency commuter rail, and a full-headway Fairmount station would allow them to close Hyde Park commuter rail station 3 blocks away when the NEC's too congested to use that as a regular stop.


Decades upon decades out of predictable schedule range but Mattapan/RL and Dudley/GL are two pretty straightforward jumping-off points with quite reasonable engineering pain threshold for getting there.

[whighlander]

F-Line if you're going to the above decades and decades out -- then why not develop a light / heavy / CR rail connection to the Blue Hills Reservation.

Given how much went into the development and preservation of the Reservation -- I always wondered why it was so underutilized -- I've been hiking on nice summer or early autumn weekends and seen only a handful of hikers along the ridge-line

The Blue Hills Reservation is impressively large ( the largest conservation land within a major metropolitan area ) and pleasant area with varied terrain: some parts are secluded and near wilderness, some points of view are spectacular -- but the whole is difficult to access from downtown -- with better connectivity it could be the Boston version of the Bois Bologne in Paris

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line if you're going to the above decades and decades out -- then why not develop a light / heavy / CR rail connection to the Blue Hills Reservation.

Yah...very doable. The Cummins Hwy. tunnel option sets up a convergence at Blue Hill station for the heavy rail, the 28X trolley, and the CR at one superstation. Blue Hill CR is supposed to be offset a little on the block between Cummins and BH Ave. So say you kind of had the CR station and the RL station offset from each other stretching that block and the trolley terminal upstairs sort of spanning the middle. Another reason it's not totally necessary to make the entire Fairmount line rapid transit, because in addition to flanking it with more feasible Red and trolley that superstation convergence invites a whole lot more bus coverage on that whole swath of the district. Especially the empty quarter in Milton that's precisely the gap you want to see filled.

The 240 out of Central Ave. and 245 out of Mattapan are the only ones that go the Reservation's way now, and both would be a ton more accessible if those stations became became real Red Line stops.

[Shepard]

Here are my designs for a Packard's Corner - Kenmore Green Line El, with a multi-use path underneath. I haven't figured out how to design the stations yet without disrupting the path.

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7299/commaveel1.jpg

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6409/commaveel2.jpg

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/1368/commaveel3.jpg

Somewhat counter-intuitively I think this kind of El would open up Comm Ave better than the current streetcar which has a pedestrian-blocking fence through most of its center.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Reminds me of the Queens Blvd Viaduct.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Qns_blvd_39st_jeh.JPG/800px-Qns_blvd_39st_jeh.JPG

Although when this was built Queens looked like this:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4082/4920659604_e7d7cea824_z.jpg

[whighlander]

Here are my designs for a Packard's Corner - Kenmore Green Line El, with a multi-use path underneath. I haven't figured out how to design the stations yet without disrupting the path.


http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6409/commaveel2.jpg

Somewhat counter-intuitively I think this kind of El would open up Comm Ave better than the current streetcar which has a pedestrian-blocking fence through most of its center.

If I didn't know better -- I'd interpret that image as depicting a Monorail on Comm Ave.

[omaja]

Seems a bit bulky maybe?

I'd love to see something like the elevated Metro lines in Paris:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Ligne-2-Barbes-Rochechouart.jpg/800px-Ligne-2-Barbes-Rochechouart.jpg (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=14547005&postcount=6)
(Click for more)

[Kahta]

Somewhat counter-intuitively I think this kind of El would open up Comm Ave better than the current streetcar which has a pedestrian-blocking fence through most of its center.

I think that fence is necessary to prevent pedestrians from crossing 6 lanes of comm ave traffic.

[F-Line to Dudley]

They make nice single-pier structures that visually look a lot narrower than that and block out less sun. You can do some really unobtrusive, less El-looking things with that type of construction.

Seattle:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3570728577_f55b3ed138.jpg

[found5dollar]

if boston ever builds new elevated railways they will have to be single pier. The memory of the wasteland under the central artery will not be going away anytime soon.

[Charlie_mta]

Seattle has created some very light and graceful elevated structures for their light rail line. This one has two tracks on it. I could see this for Comm Ave:

http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr354/Charliemta/seattlelightrail.jpg

[F-Line to Dudley]

Seattle has created some very light and graceful elevated structures for their light rail line. This one has two tracks on it. I could see this for Comm Ave:

http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr354/Charliemta/seattlelightrail.jpg

That's the same prefab concrete section construction that's all the rage on highway ramps these days. Like snapping together Lego blocks. Attractive and easier to maintain than steelwork, and costs scale well when you have to do a lot of it. China just built an HSR line though impossible mountain terrain using that construction for the umpteen viaducts it had to build over gorges. It was almost done on a dare to the rest of the world to see how fast they could construct a line from scratch through the most inhospitable geography.

It's too bad elevated highways have poisoned the well for new above-street structures for generations in this country. You can build an awful lot of route miles of really fast total grade separation for a whole lot less money than tunneling and a whole lot less compromises than grade crossings or mixed traffic. Using design that casts an ultra-slim sun shadow like that Seattle pic.

[MBTAddict]

OK. So we know it's possible to build elevated that looks good. What would it take (dollar wise) to do Comm. Ave. from from Kenmore to at least Harvard if not all the way to BC as an elevated track? By what factor is it less expensive than tunneling?

[F-Line to Dudley]

OK. So we know it's possible to build elevated that looks good. What would it take (dollar wise) to do Comm. Ave. from from Kenmore to at least Harvard if not all the way to BC as an elevated track? By what factor is it less expensive than tunneling?

BC may not be a good comparison because the reservation has been an uninterrupted trolley line for 120 years and doesn't have a whole lot in the way of buried utilities. It's also very far away from any building abutments, and is on easier-to-manage soil than bedrock or landfill found elsewhere. It's definitely not cheaper, but it's probably more practical to cut-and-cover tunnel on that particular route out to Packard's Corner. Up the hill...that is probably not conducive to digging because of the grades and bedrock. BERy long ago planned to take the subway beyond Kenmore as it saw rapid transit conversion in the subway's future. But it wanted to take the subway straight up Brighton Ave. on the A-line route.


It's the utilities and building mitigation that add sticker shock to urban tunneling. That's what totally undid Silver Line Phase III. Not only were they tunneling under narrow Chinatown streets under the densest web of utility spaghetti in the city, but they were trying to do it with a bus tunnel on wider footprint than rail. Utilities, building mitigation, historical mitigation to the burial ground on the Common...that was extra billions right there. They learned the hard way those streets can't support a dig. Whereas they'd have better luck re-mounting SLIII using the existing abandoned trolley tunnel, then crossing under the Pike land cleared of utilities within the last 50 years and hanging a left under the always-uninterrupted NEC to get to South Station in a clean dig.


Prefab El would work nice on the Washington St. median to undo the mistake of blowing up the old El. No way the utility relocation would ever allow a subway dig under there. It would work decent on routes that have partial reservation space and partially no, like the southern half of the Urban Ring which has nice and wide Melnea Cass but some tough squeezes elsewhere and utterly unbuildable tunneling in the T's own insane Phase III plan. Maximize the options. Tunnels are great for pre-cleared space or "decking" under an existing rail ROW, modern Els are great when open heart street surgery in urban density is too tough. Both have their applications, and both could be used to good effect in Boston on real projects like the UR where Green-under-Comm can feed the two halves of it, and that southern UR that doesn't follow any RR ROW's can be pieced together with enough El and reservation-running to make a contiguous Phase III circuit. Seattle has less of a choice on what it can feasibly do because Cascades bedrock is not real cut-and-cover tunnel friendly like scoopable river silt or glacial debris.


Still think we got many decades to get over our aesthetic allergy to overhead structures before the latter's a serious option for the public. Old Central Artery traumas die hard. I almost wonder if everyone with memories of that hulking eyesore has to be dead or too elderly to remember before it's safe to say the "E" word in Boston again.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Keep in mind the reason we have a subway at all is because people flipped out over elevated tracks on Tremont St and in Cambridge back in the 1890s. The other elevated lines only got built because they went through less desnly populated/less politically connected areas.

[Shepard]

if boston ever builds new elevated railways they will have to be single pier. The memory of the wasteland under the central artery will not be going away anytime soon.

I've been thinking about this. In my rough skecth for Comm Ave a multiuse path fits under the el with a two pier configuation. A single pier would just create dead space. See charlieMTA's picture of the Seattle el - the space underneath the single pier structure is virtually unusable and barren.

[jass]

I've been thinking about this. In my rough skecth for Comm Ave a multiuse path fits under the el with a two pier configuation. A single pier would just create dead space. See charlieMTA's picture of the Seattle el - the space underneath the single pier structure is virtually unusable and barren.

Note that Boston already has a multi-use path under the green line, by lechmere.

Ive never heard anyone say they think the elevated section of the green line is ugly or obtrusive. It actually highlights the water.

[itchy]

I've been thinking about this. In my rough skecth for Comm Ave a multiuse path fits under the el with a two pier configuation. A single pier would just create dead space. See charlieMTA's picture of the Seattle el - the space underneath the single pier structure is virtually unusable and barren.

Amen. An el line "elevates" (pun intended) the surrounding environment only when the space underneath is used. It's not an accident that the areas around the single-pier el in Seattle depicted above look dead (and when you see the elevated lines leading out to SEA-TAC airport, it's certainly a stretch to say that they are objectively nice-looking or improve / "urbanify" the environment). Similarly, look at the photo from Queens above. The surrounding area is dead.

It's not an accident that the areas immediately surrounding many elevated rail lines in New York -- the 7 line in Queens, the D/N/F/B/Q (can't remember if all of them are elevated) in Brooklyn, the 4 and Metro-North in Harlem -- and even the El in Chicago's Loop deaden streetlife around them or, if they're on a busy corridor (as in Chicago and parts of Brooklyn), depress the surrounding real estate while not deadening it (in layman's speech, the streets tend to be skeezy).

In a word, I get (and recall) the noir-ish glamour of elevated subways. However, as was the case with the Central Artery, under an elevated highway or subway, you most often have a perpetually dark, trash-strewn deadzone that's either covered in crabgrass or paved. These areas -- in part because the infrastructure overhead is not always impeccably maintained, tends to drip, etc. -- don't work out very well -- they divide one side of the street from the other visually and in terms of pedestrian movement, and people aren't inclined to spend much time underneath them. This is especially true if the el is dull concrete rather than stone/steel, which at least tends to have more aesthetic appeal.

The most successful integrations of elevated rail (or road) and surrounding city that I've seen all have built out the area under the rail (road). Without turning the areas under the elevated transit into stores, cafes, bars, offices or whatever else, elevated rail leaves a black mark on a street, in my experience.

A few examples of success:

Vienna:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/1710687591_910859b728.jpg

Paris:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2395/2160258055_808b38097f.jpg

Zurich:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4521453768_56f6523bc1.jpg

New York (Queensboro Bridge):

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/81/218805814_4b1c97d0e6.jpg


One thing these all have in common is that they are all in pre-war structures that therefore were built according to classical methods featuring graceful arches, stone, iron/steel, etc. I don't know if building infrastructure this successful, or at least this aesthetically appealing, would even be possible in today's world of value engineering; cheap, pre-fab materials; and pared-down (and ugly) Modernism. My guess is not.

[Shepard]

Great analysis, Itchy. I agree that building out retail under the trusses of these structures can really add to the built environment. This is especially true, of course, when the structure is situated alongside a road, or in the median of a very wide street such as Queens Blvd. However, when running down the median of a relatively "normal" avenue - I'm thinking Comm or Blue Hill Aves for example - I would think the structure should be as open and airy as possible. I can be convinced otherwise, but I haven't actually seen a median-running El with built-out retail before.

[found5dollar]

if the prefab concrete section construction is relatively easy to maintain and can be affordable, and is used on highway construction, would it be conceivable to use it for BRT? For instance would installing an elevated busway above Washington street solve alot of our issues with the Silverline there?

[statler]

In a word, I get (and recall) the noir-ish glamour of elevated subways. However, as was the case with the Central Artery, under an elevated highway or subway, you most often have a perpetually dark, trash-strewn deadzone that's either covered in crabgrass or paved.

This plays into the ever present "good grit/bad grit" discussion. I think for the most part the Central Artery fell under the category of bad grit if only due to it shear size and location, but it had its moments when it just felt like a truly urban space (much more than the current Greenway). Whereas the el by the Garden was just the opposite. It almost always felt like a cool urban space (good grit) while only occasionally seeming truly dangerous or scary.

[BostonUrbEx]

if the prefab concrete section construction is relatively easy to maintain and can be affordable, and is used on highway construction, would it be conceivable to use it for BRT? For instance would installing an elevated busway above Washington street solve alot of our issues with the Silverline there?

It would require to be wider than a light rail elevated, and the Washington St people would never, never go for it. They wanted rail replacement, not a bus, and putting a bus up on an elevated, no matter how aesthetically tolerable, just wouldn't fly, IMO.

[F-Line to Dudley]

It would require to be wider than a light rail elevated, and the Washington St people would never, never go for it. They wanted rail replacement, not a bus, and putting a bus up on an elevated, no matter how aesthetically tolerable, just wouldn't fly, IMO.

Not only does it have to be wider, but it's slower not having a fixed guideway.

BRT's best applications tend to be of the Comm. Ave. reservation variety: road separations w/grade crossings and traffic lights, with maybe a Packard's Corner like split or two where a regular bus route forks off. Or...works best on grade separations at a super-center node like Ottawa's Transitway where the buses loop then fan out in all directions. But once you get into total linear grade separation territory, it gets diminishing results vs. cost of rail designed for more or less same purpose. An end-to-end BRT El may even cost more because of the extra width and speed compromises.

[cozzyd]

I guess when the Green Line to Sommerville and Medford is done there wont even be much of the original and quite venerable Lechemere Viaduct left (i.e. everything between Science Park and North Station is new as will apparently all of the track from the Bridge to the new Lechemere Station)

I wonder if the existing bridge could be converted into a pedestrian bridge of some sort. That would help with the pedestrian crossing issue.

[bbfen]

I agree with F-L, and just want to add that despite how elegant the examples are (and I love their classic beauty) people just don't spend the money to build like that anymore. It's all precast or poured Commie blocks. This gets me into a granola-bar green peace hippie tanget about building ugly shit that's torn down in 40 years versus good looking stuff that lasts for 120 years but whatever.

[Charlie_mta]

There are at least 15 miles of routes I've identified where elevated rail could be constructed on wide streets or railroad right-of-ways, providing needed rapid transit service to under-served areas:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204339377609299454038.0004b639cebbdf2ae296 9&msa=0&ll=42.339514,-71.100769&spn=0.134753,0.3368

[F-Line to Dudley]

There are at least 15 miles of routes I've identified where elevated rail could be constructed on wide streets or railroad right-of-ways, providing needed rapid transit service to under-served areas:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204339377609299454038.0004b639cebbdf2ae296 9&msa=0&ll=42.339514,-71.100769&spn=0.134753,0.3368

That A-line route you sketch out is exactly what BERy was going for with their plans to extend out the subway from Kenmore. They saw it going up North Beacon, then joining the Worcester Line (back when it was 4-track) and branching one to Riverside and one (with a little more subwaying down Galen) to the Watertown Branch and Waltham/Arlington Heights.

I wouldn't el it, though. Comm Ave. is one of the few places in town where a subway is doable without torture because it's simply cutting-and-covering an existing ROW that does not have a maze of utility lines underneath it. Fork underground at a flying junction underneath BU Academy for one line onto the Grand Junction for Urban Ring LRT service + Harvard Branch, then send the B back up to the surface at Pleasant St. I think that is the literal only way they can do UR Phase III--loopback thru Kenmore onto the D/Brookline Village to catch the Longwood area--because the billion-dollar tunnel through Brookline is such a fantastical nonstarter it never should've made it to napkin sketch stage on the original design.

From there you could do other service patterns like Watertown by prying some space next to the Pike or Worcester Line. It's not impossible or terribly expensive with a few feet of shifting and taking of grassy embankments. Watertown Branch from the Malls east to the Fitchburg Line is (and pending to be) landbanked to the Fitchburg Line and Porter. The Square has some encroachment that'll take redeveloping the crud industrial lots to pry open some new space.

I would NOT hold my breath on any of those ROW's because of the trail, but the rest of what you sketch pretty much is the only logical option for a modified UR Phase III. But as a subway, not El.


Washington St...definitely that's the prime route fit for a narrow-profile El. Dudley's too critical a route to work on 50-year levels with an at-grade solution--BRT or street-running LRT--and the underground utilities are a nonstarter for a subway. They should've repurposed the old El as a Green Line branch off the Boylston tunnel for exactly this same purpose and simply demolished it past Dudley. Then over span of many years, jack up the structure on trucks underneath while service is running and replace every steel bent--bent-by-bent--with single concrete columns to remake the structure on a lower profile and open up the street underneath. They could've done it bit by bit, stop-and-go, for however many decades and as low a pain threshold as they wanted. Then you could've had the fast grade-separated route to the transfer node and very easy jump-off point for doing a reservation-running B-line like trolley down Blue Hill Ave. to Mattapan. As is, the 28X would've required a bus-to-bus transfer at Dudley because it's simply too much street-running to get there all the way from downtown.

Can't have that bad decision back, but this is the one route for beyond-2030 where it does make sense to at minimum sniff around the idea. The UR is going to throw so much extra connecting traffic through Dudley that the lack of grade separation to/from downtown on the Silver Line is going to become a really vexing, intractable long-term problem. Still think there's gonna have to be no one alive who remembers the Central Artery, but there will be a need on this corridor by mid-century to put every build solution on the study table. We certainly know Washington can handle an El.

[cozzyd]

There are at least 15 miles of routes I've identified where elevated rail could be constructed on wide streets or railroad right-of-ways, providing needed rapid transit service to under-served areas:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204339377609299454038.0004b639cebbdf2ae296 9&msa=0&ll=42.339514,-71.100769&spn=0.134753,0.3368

For the Waltham line, to avoid the central subway, it could take the Grand Junction right-of-way from the BU area and end up at Kendall. Then it could join the Red Line and go to South Station or it could become elevated over quickly developing 3rd St and go to Lechmere/Community College and then over orange line tracks to North Station.

[HenryAlan]

Another route that makes sense is Columbia Road. You could branch off the Red Line, and run it all the way to Blue Hill Ave, then up to Mattapan. Alternatively, it appears that the Fairmont Row might be wide enough from Columbia Road outward to accommodate quad tracking, so the El. could switch to that route as an option.. The density for that corridor is very high, far higher than appropriate for the current bus only option, and the street is plenty wide.

[Shepard]

There are at least 15 miles of routes I've identified where elevated rail could be constructed on wide streets or railroad right-of-ways, providing needed rapid transit service to under-served areas:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204339377609299454038.0004b639cebbdf2ae296 9&msa=0&ll=42.339514,-71.100769&spn=0.134753,0.3368

You show an elevated OL branch running down Route 16 and onto the GC alignment to Chelsea center. Wouldn't Chelsea be better served by a BL branch on the grade-separated ROW that takes it over the Chelsea Street bridge, abandoned ROW with room for an EL for the short distance over Eastern Ave and Cottage St, Bellingham St is grade separated on top of the ROW (stop hereabouts in the residential neighborhood) and then already grade separated the rest of the short distance into Chelsea Station?

Somehow I have a feeling that a BL extension to Chelsea along these lines would be cheaper than a Lynn expansion, generate similar if not greater new ridership, and has equal value in terms of social justice... and yet it doesn't seem like anyone is advocating for it?

[F-Line to Dudley]

You show an elevated OL branch running down Route 16 and onto the GC alignment to Chelsea center. Wouldn't Chelsea be better served by a BL branch on the grade-separated ROW that takes it over the Chelsea Street bridge, abandoned ROW with room for an EL for the short distance over Eastern Ave and Cottage St, Bellingham St is grade separated on top of the ROW (stop hereabouts in the residential neighborhood) and then already grade separated the rest of the short distance into Chelsea Station?

Somehow I have a feeling that a BL extension to Chelsea along these lines would be cheaper than a Lynn expansion, generate similar if not greater new ridership, and has equal value in terms of social justice... and yet it doesn't seem like anyone is advocating for it?

That's Urban Ring, which ought to be a Green Line branch. The new maintenance yard has lead tracks that shoot it right on a trajectory to Sullivan and branching off onto the Eastern Route. Intentional setup with their choice of yard sites. So that's going to be far and away the easier line to take out to Chelsea.

Blue ultimately needs to be saved for Salem once it gets to Lynn. That's where the crush-load North Shore ridership truly is. Can't be underestimated how important getting to the Lynn bus terminal is for setting the North Shore transit table. Almost nothing else matters--any extension, anywhere--if they don't do this one.

[Arborway]

Blue ultimately needs to be saved for Salem once it gets to Lynn. That's where the crush-load North Shore ridership truly is. Can't be underestimated how important getting to the Lynn bus terminal is for setting the North Shore transit table. Almost nothing else matters--any extension, anywhere--if they don't do this one.

But realistically, we're only going to get $2 billion commuter rail extensions that will collect an average of 1,000 daily riders from random, far-flung suburbs.

[Shepard]

That's Urban Ring, which ought to be a Green Line branch. The new maintenance yard has lead tracks that shoot it right on a trajectory to Sullivan and branching off onto the Eastern Route.

I don't understand that, though - the line between Sullivan and Chelsea station doesn't serve or pass through populated areas of Everett or Chelsea, except for the wrong side of the Broadway/Rt 16 rotary.

[shockingboston]

There are at least 15 miles of routes I've identified where elevated rail could be constructed on wide streets or railroad right-of-ways, providing needed rapid transit service to under-served areas:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204339377609299454038.0004b639cebbdf2ae296 9&msa=0&ll=42.339514,-71.100769&spn=0.134753,0.3368

IMO the best area for elevated railway is Mattapan Station to Dudley Station connection via Blue Hill Ave, Seaver St, Washington St. (Maybe the turn is too sharp for the Seaver St to Washington St. connection). This line would pass through heavily used or frequented areas (i.e. Grove Hall, Franklin Park Zoo, a couple of YMCAs and Boys Clubs, High Schools, Night Clubs, etc.)

I proposed this to the MBTA a few years ago and I received a response, like, they are looking into all ways to improve transportation along Blue Hill Ave.

[Digital_Islandboy]

T threads and the Rose Kennedy Greenway thread all seem to go off on an elevated rail tangent so let's have one place to get it all out. Anything elevated trains, in Boston's past or future, or in other cities.

To get things started here is a great archive of pictures of the old Washington St El.

Link (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=pphhphoto&fileName=ma/ma1200/ma1288/photos/browse.db&action=browse&recNum=0&title2=Boston%20Elevated%20Railway,%20Elevated%20M ainline,%20Washington%20Street,%20Boston,%20Suffol k%20County,%20MA&displayType=1&itemLink=r?pp/hh:@field)

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ma/ma1200/ma1288/photos/075959pr.jpg

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ma/ma1200/ma1288/photos/075964pr.jpg

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ma/ma1200/ma1288/photos/075972pr.jpg

I just found this colorized video-stills of the old Orange Line elevated. I appologize for their annoying loud intro. If you have speakers turn them down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9CboN_aZ_Q

[tocoto]

I like the idea of trains using the ROW of existing highways...seems like an idea Boston should copy from Chicago,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/The_Dan_Ryan_Expressway_Westbound_near_the_I-55_exit.jpg

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKwM5mOa7d7kaNWlkEIPVU4lI50unli n2-3UuTO9EQeJ2bbi-Kxg

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4012/4625338085_69554145bd_o.jpg

[Matthew]

Or BART. Or even Paris. The main problem with doing this is that it hurts pedestrian accessibility. Who wants to cross a highway? Also, a lot of times it is used to justify highway expansion. "Sure we'll add rapid transit. But we're gonna need another lane."

[Shepard]

Not sure how useful this is in Boston. 93 North has the Orange Line, South has the Red Line, Mass Pike has the Worcester Line and and relatively aligned Riverside Line. A Red Line extension up Route 2 to Lexington would be better off cut-and-covering the Minuteman Trail. The only place where I really see this working would be using the Northeast Expressway ROW in Chelsea - but running as light rail under the expressway, not on it (not sure if there have ever been proposals like that).

[Ron Newman]

Suggestions that the Red Line be extended west along Route 2 have never made much sense to me, as this is a very low-density residential area. Not to mention the long steep hill climb.

[HenryAlan]

Not sure how useful this is in Boston. 93 North has the Orange Line, South has the Red Line, Mass Pike has the Worcester Line and and relatively aligned Riverside Line. A Red Line extension up Route 2 to Lexington would be better off cut-and-covering the Minuteman Trail. The only place where I really see this working would be using the Northeast Expressway ROW in Chelsea - but running as light rail under the expressway, not on it (not sure if there have ever been proposals like that).

No, we don't have too many applications for the idea, but there are some short stretches where it could be useful. Where the Orange Line descends underground just after Back Bay, you could have a second branch rise up above the Pike, then follow it as far as Fort Point, then snake it's way into the Seaport. Longer term, such an extension could find it's way to the airport if there were ever money for another tunnel.

[whighlander]

Suggestions that the Red Line be extended west along Route 2 have never made much sense to me, as this is a very low-density residential area. Not to mention the long steep hill climb.

Ron -- not for a place to which people take the bus from their houses -- such as the Lexpress and whatever the Arlington and Waltham equivalents are called
There is more than enough density for 3 stops up Rt-2 that are residential and then 2 stops from Walham Street that are business

Hayden Avenue has several million sq ft of development along it one block from the Rt-2 ROW including the Shire Campus at the corner with Rt-128

But the key to any Red Line extension to the NW has to be an Uber-Alewife on Rt-128 with about 3,000 parking spaces for cars and a few hundred for bikes

[CSTH]

But the key to any Red Line extension to the NW has to be an Uber-Alewife on Rt-128 with about 3,000 parking spaces for cars and a few hundred for bikes

I've always thought the same. Would be particularly strong at the end of Rt-3, combined with gradually creating a walkable urban node out of the Middlesex Turnpike area, with a reinvented Burlington Mall at its nucleus

[F-Line to Dudley]

Not sure how useful this is in Boston. 93 North has the Orange Line, South has the Red Line, Mass Pike has the Worcester Line and and relatively aligned Riverside Line. A Red Line extension up Route 2 to Lexington would be better off cut-and-covering the Minuteman Trail. The only place where I really see this working would be using the Northeast Expressway ROW in Chelsea - but running as light rail under the expressway, not on it (not sure if there have ever been proposals like that).

The Worcester Line sort of does this. Unfortunately there isn't quite enough space to return it to its pre-1965 4-track layout and bring back the old MTA proposal for a rapid transit line to Riverside on half of it. It would take some retooling to even get 3-track passing sidings west of Everett St. Too bad, because that alignment would've screamed for a "relocated A-line" branching to H2O Square from Newton Corner where the street-running would be a Heath St.-like half-mile. As is, though, "Indigo Line'ing" it with dense headways and infill stops makes a lot of sense.


Only other place I can think of is a new North-South connection--commuter rail, single-track--shoehorned next to 128 from Riverside to Route 20 where "Indigo'ed" Worcester and Fitchburg Lines can pingback each other through the inner 'burbs and serve the 128 redevelopment there with an intermediate stop at the redeveloped Polaroid facility. Plus a less-congested, higher-capacity Worcester-North Station turnout than going through Cambridge. An option if the N-S Link never gets built but they need to cannibalize the Grand Junction for the Urban Ring. It's like 1.5 miles, grade separated, there's only 3 or 4 houses abutting the whole northbound side of the highway for your easy-to-defeat NIMBY resistance, and plowing above/below the maze of Pike ramps is negotiable if combined with a much-needed reconfiguration of that interchange for high-speed tolling (current configuration is extreme overkill ramp space if there are no longer any tollbooth queues to buffer around).

But I think EIS'ing next to Stony Brook Reservoir is going to be a real bitch, so no way this goes on the table unless N-S is a definite no-go and GJ-to-UR is a definite go-go.

[cozzyd]

I think HSR alignments inside highways might work in some places. And also effective advertising (having a 150mph train go past you on the freeway would certainly make you wanna take it).

[whighlander]

I think HSR alignments inside highways might work in some places. And also effective advertising (having a 150mph train go past you on the freeway would certainly make you wanna take it).

Cozz -- the Red Line from Quincy runs alongside the I-93 SE Expressway. During the typical morning rush hour the train is much faster than the traffic -- yet there are lots of people still driving

Highspeed Rail between cities doesn't directly compete with people driving it competes with people flying

The people who are driving do so because:
1) they need the car after they get to the other city,
2) they are not going to the center of the other city
3) or they are making intermediate stops, etc.

[Shepard]

I think HSR alignments inside highways might work in some places. And also effective advertising (having a 150mph train go past you on the freeway would certainly make you wanna take it).

For example, a possible I91-I84 alignment for a new inland HSR between NYC and Bos. That's a possibility on the table, as far as I know (?)

[Matthew]

More feasible is the possibility of using the median of I-95 to straighten out portions of the Shore Line road, particularly around New London. Alon wrote a nice article (http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/high-speed-rail-should-serve-providence/) about this proposal.

[BostonUrbEx]

The people who are driving do so because:
1) they need the car after they get to the other city,
2) they are not going to the center of the other city
3) or they are making intermediate stops, etc.

4) there's a lack of dense development centered on transit options due to crappy regulations and the state's ineffectiveness at allowing/pushing TOD.

[whighlander]

4) there's a lack of dense development centered on transit options due to crappy regulations and the state's ineffectiveness at allowing/pushing TOD.

Urb -- not to belabor the point -- BUT -- People like driving -- as it offers a freedom of action not possible with rails and schedules

That's why as soon as they could drive with a reasonable prospect of arriving hale and hearty -- train travel started to decline {e.g. South Station 38 million served back in 1913 } -- far fewer today

Note that this was far before there were:
1) loose, low density suburbs
2) air transit as an option
3) any really well designed highways

No amount of wishful thinking or fancy clusters of words (e.g. Transit Oriented Development) and even more obscure acronyms is going to change that fact of human behavior

[Matthew]

Public transit started to fall off sharply in the 1950s, right around the time that massive government subsidized highways started appearing, and also around the time that Federally guaranteed, subsidized mortgages were popularized.

After 50 years of the automobile experiment, I think people are pretty tired of it. In an ideal world, a car is freedom. In the real world, a car means sitting in traffic congestion and hunting for parking spots. There are some trips for which a car is the best vehicle, and the world is much better off with the internal combustion engine than without. But within cities, personal cars are almost always more trouble than they're worth, especially when compared with frequent (under 10 min headway) rapid transit.

[Kahta]

After 50 years of the automobile experiment, I think people are pretty tired of it. In an ideal world, a car is freedom. In the real world, a car means sitting in traffic congestion and hunting for parking spots. There are some trips for which a car is the best vehicle, and the world is much better off with the internal combustion engine than without. But within cities, personal cars are almost always more trouble than they're worth, especially when compared with frequent (under 10 min headway) rapid transit.

So apart from Boston and NY (the places you described), would you agree that cars are still a viable option?

[whighlander]

Public transit started to fall off sharply in the 1950s, right around the time that massive government subsidized highways started appearing, and also around the time that Federally guaranteed, subsidized mortgages were popularized.

After 50 years of the automobile experiment, I think people are pretty tired of it. In an ideal world, a car is freedom. In the real world, a car means sitting in traffic congestion and hunting for parking spots. There are some trips for which a car is the best vehicle, and the world is much better off with the internal combustion engine than without. But within cities, personal cars are almost always more trouble than they're worth, especially when compared with frequent (under 10 min headway) rapid transit.

Mathew -- even in Metropolitan London more people drive than take the Underground -- you are living in some-sort of Utopian or Distopian fantasy land

Take the crowed subway platforms, crowded commuter rail trains - that's pretty much a wash with the traffic on the highways

On the commuter rail you can work on some project if there is room to spread-out or you've got a first class ticket -- in your car stuck in traffic -- ? Getting to the commuter rail or subway station may require driving on the outer-lower density end as well as looking for parking -- and walking some distance on the inner-higher density end -- I call that a toss-up with parking in-town and walking to the office

The primary reasons that people prefer driving
1) you are not tied to the schedule and the inevitable delays
2) if you are going to be stuck waiting -- its better to do it in your own warm or cool car than some remote CR station platform or even a typically short-headway urban subway platform
3) you can easily stop for something along the way -- not always on the main line or whatever line

[Matthew]

Hmm? What are you talking about, whighlander? According to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/travel-in-london-report-3.pdf

2009: 41% transit, 21% walk, 2% cycle vs 37% private transport.

Non-car commuting = 64% vs private transport = 37%, in London.

Parking in town is not an option for many people. There simply isn't enough space to store that many cars. This is one of the lessons we've supposedly learned over the past fifty years -- it's impossible to build enough city parking lots to meet all the demand, without destroying the city. Parking lots, even garages, just take up too much room.

Non-car mode shares from ACS 2009:

NYC: 65.8% (Manhattan itself is much higher, I remember)
Boston: 50.8% (Notably, we have the most walking%)
DC: 50.4%
SF: 45.1%

After that it drops off. Although, public transit is still a very good option for Philly, Chicago and Seattle.

So, Kahta, it really depends where you're commuting. I don't have the statistics with me, but I bet that the "L" and Metra have a really high share of commuters going to the Loop, even if that's countered by many crosstown drivers.

Update:

"Driving alone" shares from ACS 2009:
NYC: 23.5%
Boston: 37%
DC: 36.5%
SF: 38.9%

What really strikes me about Boston is that despite the horribleness of the MBTA, people continue to use it in large and growing numbers.

[whighlander]

Hmm? What are you talking about, whighlander? According to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/travel-in-london-report-3.pdf

2009: 41% transit, 21% walk, 2% cycle vs 37% private transport.

Non-car commuting = 64% vs private transport = 37%, in London.

Parking in town is not an option for many people. There simply isn't enough space to store that many cars. This is one of the lessons we've supposedly learned over the past fifty years -- it's impossible to build enough city parking lots to meet all the demand, without destroying the city. Parking lots, even garages, just take up too much room.

Non-car mode shares from ACS 2009:

NYC: 65.8% (Manhattan itself is much higher, I remember)
Boston: 50.8% (Notably, we have the most walking%)
DC: 50.4%
SF: 45.1%

After that it drops off. Although, public transit is still a very good option for Philly, Chicago and Seattle.

So, Kahta, it really depends where you're commuting. I don't have the statistics with me, but I bet that the "L" and Metra have a really high share of commuters going to the Loop, even if that's countered by many crosstown drivers.

Update:

"Driving alone" shares from ACS 2009:
NYC: 23.5%
Boston: 37%
DC: 36.5%
SF: 38.9%

What really strikes me about Boston is that despite the horribleness of the MBTA, people continue to use it in large and growing numbers.

Mathew -- non-car versus car is not the comparison of interest

We want to compare those who drive versus those taking the T or equivalent - -walking, biking, being carried in a sedan chair or peddled in a rickshaw don't count

Nor does taking the bus running on the public roads exclusively -- as what we are ultimately looking at are roads versus tunnels, protected ROWs at grade or elevated structures -- places where cars can't go

My argument is not that there are not people taking the T, MTA, Underground, U-Bahn, etc -- but that in a modern major metropolitan area (I'll hazard the statement "any metropolitan area") more people arrive at work driving than taking the rail-based transit

So you need to rework the statistics cutting out the walkers, bikers and others in the "non-car" category who are not taking rail-based transit -- and you need to include the places of business outside the CBD such as Shire Pharmaceutical on Hayden Avenue in Lexington just off Rt-128

[Matthew]

I argue that it is the comparison of interest, because public transit and walking are complementary modes. On the other hand, automobile infrastructure is almost invariably detrimental to walking and certain types of transit (mixed ROWs). Remember, we just spent $22 billion because people hated walking under the "Green Monster" (and also it was falling apart).

It is irrelevant to me if the transit is provided by steel wheels or rubber tires.

I also don't care -- for this purpose of discussion -- about places out on Rt 128. I said "within cities" and Rt 128 is clearly not inside a city. Cars will always be best for sprawl-to-sprawl transportation.

[whighlander]

I argue that it is the comparison of interest, because public transit and walking are complementary modes. On the other hand, automobile infrastructure is almost invariably detrimental to walking and certain types of transit (mixed ROWs). Remember, we just spent $22 billion because people hated walking under the "Green Monster" (and also it was falling apart).

It is irrelevant to me if the transit is provided by steel wheels or rubber tires.

I also don't care -- for this purpose of discussion -- about places out on Rt 128. I said "within cities" and Rt 128 is clearly not inside a city. Cars will always be best for sprawl-to-sprawl transportation.

Mathew -- you need to read some history

What you call sprawl and associate with things such as the GI Bill after WWII and other "meddling" has its roots in the very beginning of settlement in Massachusetts

Boston was settled (officially) in 1630 as the port for the Massachusetts Bay Colony -- a theocratic colony founded by what today would be called the educated elite
As soon as the seaport settlement was anchored and functioning efficiently -- people started moving out -- here's a sample heading NW from the Boston Stone in the Blackstone Block -- basically following Mass Ave.

1) Cambridge (near Harvard Sq.) -- (3 mi line of sight or 8 miles due to roads to the Boston neck) was settled in 1630-1631 as Newtowne the capital of the colony
a) the first college in North America (Harvard) was instituted in 1636 to train ministers for the colony
b) all the rest of Cambridge is mostly 19th Century
2) Arlington (6 miles from Boston) was originally settled in 1635 as a farming village within the Cambridge land grant under the name Menotomy
a) major advantage was water power available along Mill Brook
b) In 1637 Captain George Cooke built the first of seven mills were built along the stream, including the Old Schwamb Mill, (1650) which survives to this day -- the longest working mill in the country.
c) incorporated on February 27, 1807 as West Cambridge
d) In 1867 renamed -- Arlington to honor of those Civil War dead buried in Arlington National Cemetery
e) Classic streetcar suburb and somewhat summer resort at Park Circle where the Watertower off Rt-2 is located
1870 3,261 —
1880 4,100 +25.7%
1890 5,029 +22.7%
1900 8,603 +71.1%
1910 11,187 +30.0%
1920 18,665 +66.8%
1930 36,094 +93.4%
1940 40,013 +10.9%
1950 44,353 +10.8%
1960 49,953 +12.6%
1970 53,524 +7.1%
1980 48,219 −9.9%
1990 44,630 −7.4%
2000 42,389 −5.0%
2010 42,844 +1.1
3) Lexington (10 to 12 miles line of sight) was first settled in 1642 as an agricultural extension of Cambridge, Massachusetts
a) In 1691 incorporated as Cambridge Farms -- a parish with a separate church and minister, but still under jurisdiction of the Town of Cambridge
b) in 1713 incorporated as Lexington -- a separate town
c) provided Boston with much of its produce for many years
d) population grew very slowly for many decades
e) in 1846 of the Lexington and West Cambridge Railroad, later the Boston and Maine Railroad open -- Lexington became a bedroom community and a summer resort (1850 census 1,893 residents)
f) East Lexington was settled later as a manufacturing center and functioned quasi-independently until the late 19th Century
g) Lexington's conversion to bedroom community accelerated when streetcars made it to Arlington Heights and eventually in the early 20th C the Middlesex & Boston Street Railway line made commuting from as far as the Bedford border possible-- later cars started to be available though roads were still primitive
1880 2,460 +8.0%
1890 3,197 +30.0%
1900 3,831 +19.8%
1910 4,918 +28.4%
1920 6,350 +29.1%
1930 9,467 +49.1%
1940 13,187 +39.3%
h) after WWII high tech boomed along Rt-128 and population surged
1950 17,335 +31.5%
1960 27,691 +59.7%
1970 31,886 +15.1%
2010 31,394
4) Bedford -- 15 miles from Boston was first settled around 1640
a) the town proper was incorporated in 1729 with land from Concord (about 3/5) and from Billerica (about 2/5)
b) a purely agricultural community for many decades: 1850 975 residents -- 1920 1,362 residents
c) Street railway and later automobiles and superhighways transformed it first into a bedroom community and then high tech industry center
1920 1,362 +10.6%
1930 2,603 +91.1%
1940 3,807 +46.3%
1950 5,234 +37.5%
1960 10,969 +109.6%
1970 13,513 +23.2%
2010 13,320
5) Carlisle -- 19 miles from Boston -- first settled in 1651 on parcels of land of the neighboring towns of Acton, Billerica, Chelmsford and Concord.
a) became a district of Concord in 1780 and was officially incorporated as a town in 1805.
b) still mostly agricultural though becoming a bedroom community for Rt-128
c) very slow growth until very recently -- mostly due to 2 acre zoning
1850 632
1920 463
1930 560 +21.0%
1940 747 +33.4%
1950 876 +17.3%
1960 1,488 +69.9%
1970 2,871 +92.9%
1980 3,306 +15.2%
1990 4,333 +31.1%
2000 4,717 +8.9%
2010 4,852
6) Lincoln -- 15 miles from Boston -- settled in 1654 -- considered a part of Concord
a) in 1754 incorporated as a separate town due to the distance to an established parish
b) agricultural community even after the arrival of the railroad
1850 719 —
1860 718 −0.1%
1870 791 +10.2%
1880 907 +14.7%
1890 987 +8.8%
1900 1,127 +14.2%
1910 1,175 +4.3%
1920 1,042 −11.3%
c) population began to increase with opening of Rt-2 -- now Rt-2A -- never developed any industry except for the part of Hanscom inside the town
1930 1,493 +43.3%
1940 1,783 +19.4%
1950 2,427 +36.1%
1960 5,613 +131.3%
1970 7,567 +34.8%
d) as is true for most of these communities population peaked in the late 1960's and early 1970's with the Baby Boomers having kids
1980 7,098 −6.2%
1990 7,666 +8.0%
2000 8,056 +5.1%
2010 6,362
7) Concord -- 19 miles from Boston -- settled in 1635 when British settlers led by Rev. Peter Bulkley and Simon Willard negotiated a land purchase from a local tribe
a) in 1635 incorporated as Concord in appreciation of the peaceful acquisition
b) situated at the confluence of the Sudbury and Assabet rivers -- the rivers were rich with fish and the land was lush and arable -- slow grow agricultural community
c) in 1845 the Fitchburg Railroad opened from Boston to Fitchburg -- later sold to the Boston and Maine Railroad in 1919 and then the MBTA in 1976 -- today's Fitchburg CR Line -- 2 stops in Concord -- slow growth as agricultural and bedroom community
1850 2,249 —
1860 2,246 −0.1%
1870 2,412 +7.4%
1880 3,922 +62.6%
1890 4,427 +12.9%
1900 5,652 +27.7%
1910 6,421 +13.6%
1920 6,461 +0.6%
d) old Rt-2 and growing number of automobiles
1930 7,477 +15.7%
1940 7,972 +6.6%
1950 8,623 +8.2%
e) new Rt-2 and Rt-128 -- birth of Concord as high tech center
1960 12,517 +45.2%
1970 16,148 +29.0%
1980 16,293 +0.9%
1990 17,076 +4.8%
2000 16,993 −0.5%
2010 17,668 +0.5%

[Matthew]

I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the point. Transportation and land use are inextricably intertwined, certainly. None of those outer communities can exist without Boston being a vital, import-replacing city. Prior to the Revolutionary War, Boston was the top trading city in the New World, so it's not surprising that many of these suburbs got an early start.

Are you trying to imply that highways are what leads to economic prosperity? Because there's no shortage of highways in the Rust Belt...

[BostonUrbEx]

Urb -- not to belabor the point -- BUT -- People like driving -- as it offers a freedom of action not possible with rails and schedules

That's why as soon as they could drive with a reasonable prospect of arriving hale and hearty -- train travel started to decline {e.g. South Station 38 million served back in 1913 } -- far fewer today

Note that this was far before there were:
1) loose, low density suburbs
2) air transit as an option
3) any really well designed highways

No amount of wishful thinking or fancy clusters of words (e.g. Transit Oriented Development) and even more obscure acronyms is going to change that fact of human behavior

So every single person who IS driving WANTS to drive? As ironic as it sounds, that's simply not always the case.

[whighlander]

I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the point. Transportation and land use are inextricably intertwined, certainly. None of those outer communities can exist without Boston being a vital, import-replacing city. Prior to the Revolutionary War, Boston was the top trading city in the New World, so it's not surprising that many of these suburbs got an early start.

Are you trying to imply that highways are what leads to economic prosperity? Because there's no shortage of highways in the Rust Belt...

Mathew - -the points were these:
1) the history and land use in New England is different from much of the rest of the US because of the nature of the founding people and the government they put in place
a) correlary is that what in most places would have been a physically larger city turned very quickly into Boston and surrounding independent cities
2) because for the most part New England's principle resource has been the innovation of its people -- innovation is and must be a way of life
3) Greater Boston and New England has been a key Innovator in transportation on-going since the 1600's

4) Each successive innovation has had some impact on the settlement and growth of the communities in the Greater Boston Area -- note some overlapped so the chronological order is only approximate
a) sailing ships
b) canals and canal boats
b) steam ships and steam railroads
e) horse car lines
f) electric traction -- street running
g) electric traction subway, trolley protected ROW
h) diesel-electric traction long-haul & Internal combustion powered ships
i) automobile and underwater tunnels
j) airplane
k) Interstate highway & Big Dig
l) Terrafugia (airplane that is street legal)

5) a similar chronological list can be developed of the motive power for the industry in the region
a) wind for ships
b) water for mills
c) coal for mills and transportation and electricity
d) hydro and coal for electricity for mills and some transportation
e) oil / gas for transportation and electricity for industry
f) nuclear for electricity
g) electricity for computation & communications

6) The growth and redistribution of the population and infrastructure in New England has been driven by the growth or lack-there-of of the regional economy (gross and in detail) -- which in turn has depended on the innovation process creating new industries to replace old ones that move away or disappear due to the natural economic minuses of the region

7) The best way to compensate for a lack of natural resources is to have good transportation of goods and people and now increasingly communications of information with as wide a reach as possible at as low a cost as possible

[Matthew]

Sounds good. But I don't follow you when you say highways are a replacement for railways. We've tried to use them as such, but it's an experiment which is failing. The virtue of automobile travel is that its fairly independent, at least, until congestion inevitably strikes. On the other hand, it's also highly inefficient from a throughput point-of-view. And finding space to store hundreds of thousands of vehicles downtown during working hours? Ridiculous. There's a trade-off to be had here. Transit (even buses) is much more space efficient, and space matters in cities. Wherever land is cheap, the automobile will rule.

The rising price of gas is starting to overwhelm the hidden subsidies we here in America give to highways and car travel. By international standards, we still have it good, at $4/gallon. Despite that, people are still fleeing to transit. Can you imagine when it gets to $5+? Or if the users of gasoline were ever forced to directly shoulder more of the maintenance burden for the roads? Have you noticed that freight railroads are booming again? Trucking companies receive a humongous implicit subsidy, not coming close to paying the cost of their damage to the roads. Yet, multi-modal long-distance container transport is more popular than ever.

[HenryAlan]

The whole point of cities is that they cluster lots of people close to lots of amenities. People desire this. But when you have a high density, land use efficiency becomes extremely important. Cars waste thousands of acres that could be put to better use. As a person who prefers urban living, meaning that I am geographically close to places of work, shop, and play, I have no desire to waste space on cars that belong to people who prefer living greater distances from everything.

[Justin7]

Hmm? What are you talking about, whighlander?

If this forum ever needed a meme...

[whighlander]

Sounds good. But I don't follow you when you say highways are a replacement for railways. We've tried to use them as such, but it's an experiment which is failing. The virtue of automobile travel is that its fairly independent, at least, until congestion inevitably strikes. On the other hand, it's also highly inefficient from a throughput point-of-view. And finding space to store hundreds of thousands of vehicles downtown during working hours? Ridiculous. There's a trade-off to be had here. Transit (even buses) is much more space efficient, and space matters in cities. Wherever land is cheap, the automobile will rule.

The rising price of gas is starting to overwhelm the hidden subsidies we here in America give to highways and car travel. By international standards, we still have it good, at $4/gallon. Despite that, people are still fleeing to transit. Can you imagine when it gets to $5+? Or if the users of gasoline were ever forced to directly shoulder more of the maintenance burden for the roads? Have you noticed that freight railroads are booming again? Trucking companies receive a humongous implicit subsidy, not coming close to paying the cost of their damage to the roads. Yet, multi-modal long-distance container transport is more popular than ever.

Mathew, Henry -- the Megapower US which we have grown accustomed to since WWII is made possible by President Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System

Yes we have the most economically important freight railways in the world -- and freight hauled by railroads is vital to our economic well being -- BUR its the IH's that have made the US through the flexibility of travel options that they enable

When it comes to passenger rail in the US there are only a handful of realistic corridors outside to Bos-Wash -- the rest of the distances between city-pairs are too large for even high speed rail to make a dent -- without some officious and draconian bureaucratic mandates

[whighlander]

The whole point of cities is that they cluster lots of people close to lots of amenities. People desire this. But when you have a high density, land use efficiency becomes extremely important. Cars waste thousands of acres that could be put to better use. As a person who prefers urban living, meaning that I am geographically close to places of work, shop, and play, I have no desire to waste space on cars that belong to people who prefer living greater distances from everything.

Henry -- I would agree with your contention as to why cities have existed historically -- However, a lot of the reason is not much there anymore, i.e. the need for large relatively unskilled labor pools

In the Information Era dominated by high speed communications -- aka the Knowledge Economy - you need to find a reason why the highly skilled workers -- who can often work literally anywhere on the planet -- want and need to cluster in the cities. Nonetheless, at least so-far an increasing fraction of the earth's population is being located in major metro areas (developed world) or mega-cities (developing world)

But the argument about wasted space for cars in a city is very thin -- outside of surface parking lots which often server as placeholders for development -- most of the land devoted to cars in cities -- would be there in the absence of passenger cars:
you need roads for the delivery of goods -- trucks are not going away
you need roads for the transit of people in limos and cabs
you need roads for bicycles and skateboarders, etc.
you also need roads for buses and street-running rail vehicles

[Matthew]

I'm working from the presumption that cities are and will continue to be the economic engines of society. I think it's fundamental to human nature, and no amount of communications is going to change that. If anything, we've seen more people move back into the city as the Internet age progresses. I think the prediction is 70% of the world's population will be living in a city by 2050.

As for wasted space, I think you are underestimating it. You are right that of course we need streets for delivery, some private vehicles, public transit, bicycles, walking, etc. But I want to make a fine distinction between street and road, as Charles Marohn (http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/11/21/a-45-mph-world.html) does,
Roads move people between places while streets provide a framework for capturing value within a place.
By this distinction, cities should be filled with streets, which support a mixture of pedestrians and vehicles, and places for businesses to take root. Roads in cities are just vehicle infrastructure, but don't have other redeeming qualities. Unfortunately, a lot of the 20th century has been spent turning streets into roads.

You'll notice that in older cities, either here or overseas, many of the streets are still friendly to pedestrians, even where they've been adapted somewhat to cars. The typical characteristics are (relatively) narrow width, short blocks, and lots of variety in terms of usage, style, and age. Exceptions abound, but that's the general trend of streets that were built before cars.

On the other hand, for efficient automobile travel, you want to make the road wide, with fewer intersections, and less distraction. In other words, good roads are almost exactly the opposite of a good street!

So there's a tension. Speeding up car travel can only be done at the expense of pedestrians on the same route. One possibility is grade separation. We know how that worked out. Oddly, in other countries, they have less hang-ups about building underneath highways, whereas here it is invariably an empty space. Not sure why. In addition, all those ramps needed to get cars down from the elevated road waste a lot of space. And if you don't use surface parking lots, then you need to devote half your street width to parking, and build a lot of garages too. Garages are expensive and their main redeeming character to the street is that they are slightly less obtrusive than surface lots.

So, in summary, roads which are good for cars make for poor streets, and grade separation just makes tons of dead space. Really, I don't see any way around this, other than to accept that car travel inside cities is going to be slow, and to have patience. The flip side is that cities take up a relatively small portion of land, so building nice highways between cities means most of the journey can be fast. But the idea of building those highways into the hearts of cities has done unaccountable damage, and wasn't even the original intent of the interstate highway system.

[HenryAlan]

Henry -- I would agree with your contention as to why cities have existed historically -- However, a lot of the reason is not much there anymore, i.e. the need for large relatively unskilled labor pools

In the Information Era dominated by high speed communications -- aka the Knowledge Economy - you need to find a reason why the highly skilled workers -- who can often work literally anywhere on the planet -- want and need to cluster in the cities. Nonetheless, at least so-far an increasing fraction of the earth's population is being located in major metro areas (developed world) or mega-cities (developing world)

But the argument about wasted space for cars in a city is very thin -- outside of surface parking lots which often server as placeholders for development -- most of the land devoted to cars in cities -- would be there in the absence of passenger cars:
you need roads for the delivery of goods -- trucks are not going away
you need roads for the transit of people in limos and cabs
you need roads for bicycles and skateboarders, etc.
you also need roads for buses and street-running rail vehicles

I just want to start by saying that you need to remain focused. Your earlier essay on the virtues of the interstate system and our national freight rail network is interesting, but completely irrelevant to this discussion, which regards transporting people in dense urban areas.

Anyway, regarding your contention that people no longer need to cluster together, there is a preponderance of evidence that we nevertheless choose to do so. Given that choice, why does our transportation policy work against this ideal? Please note, I'm not talking about rural and suburban highways, but only urban areas. Too much land is used by cars for parking, for resting (ie sitting in traffic), and moving people who have no choice because the better land use rail line doesn't exist (or has been so underfunded in favor of roads that it fails on service quality).

If you doubt that roads can be smaller, I'd point out the different sizes between roads in Boston and roads in New York. There are sections of Boston with population densities that aren't far from New York's density. And yet we have very little in the way of high rise, or even mid rise housing. The secret? Narrow streets. We use less of our land for cars, so we can achieve density without building as high.

Of course we need roads. Delivery vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and yes, private cars. But we don't need as many. Imagine if every Blvd. width road in Boston had a reservation with light rail. Many more people could quickly travel through that corridor than can currently do so. That's an improvement. It increases freedom to quickly and easily transit that section of the city. There is a need for cars, no question, even in cities. But they shouldn't receive the highest priority over other needs.

[Ron Newman]

Fifth Avenue and Broadway in NYC are quite wide, and also teeming with pedestrians. So I don't quite buy the "road vs street" distinction you are making.

Mass. Ave. from Harvard to Porter Square is another wide street or road that is quite pleasant for pedestrians to stroll.

[HenryAlan]

It's a matter of utilization, Ron. Wide streets used predominately for cars are wasting space. Wide streets used for pedestrians, cyclists, light rail, street vendors, etc., are efficient uses of space.

[Matthew]

The "road vs street" distinction has nothing to do with width. I've just observed that narrow streets tend to be more pedestrian friendly, but there are exceptions. NYC has managed to get by even though every street north of the Village is wide. Some of the blocks are too long too. It's a handicap, but it's not unconquerable. Generally speaking, the interesting spots have lots of distractions and cross streets to mix things up. Also, pedestrians in NYC are fearless, which helps. Here too.

Mass Ave is fairly wide but Cambridge does take steps to ensure pedestrians can cross. That's really the issue at hand. If you see something interesting on the other side of the street, how much work does it take to get to it?

Marohn's definition of a "road" is one where such possibilities are minimized, in order to increase vehicular flow. His definition of a "street" is one where such possibilities are maximized, in order to increase land value.

[Lurker]

Mathew, Henry -- the Megapower US which we have grown accustomed to since WWII is made possible by President Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System

Two World Wars gutting the other world powers' international systems of trade and decimating their industrial bases, followed by a postwar shift (both world wars) to fairly uncompetitative protectionism and exponential welfare statism, launched the US into an economic superpower. There was simply no one left to compete with or buy goods from on a scale that the US could. As the rest of the world has rebuilt their industrial base, reestablished international trade, opened markets, and became competitive geopoliticaly, the US is slowly shifting back to a realistic sphere of influence similar to what existed prior to the first World War. Albeit with different competiting powers dominating the globe than the previous century.

Highways have done economically for the US other than decentralization of housing and industry in addition to heavily burdening the government with the costs of maintaining transportation infrastructure, which previously was handled by private enterprise (turnpikes & railroads).

[whighlander]

The "road vs street" distinction has nothing to do with width. I've just observed that narrow streets tend to be more pedestrian friendly, but there are exceptions. NYC has managed to get by even though every street north of the Village is wide. Some of the blocks are too long too. It's a handicap, but it's not unconquerable. Generally speaking, the interesting spots have lots of distractions and cross streets to mix things up. Also, pedestrians in NYC are fearless, which helps. Here too.

Mass Ave is fairly wide but Cambridge does take steps to ensure pedestrians can cross. That's really the issue at hand. If you see something interesting on the other side of the street, how much work does it take to get to it?

Marohn's definition of a "road" is one where such possibilities are minimized, in order to increase vehicular flow. His definition of a "street" is one where such possibilities are maximized, in order to increase land value.

Henry wrote
I just want to start by saying that you need to remain focused. Your earlier essay on the virtues of the interstate system and our national freight rail network is interesting, but completely irrelevant to this discussion, which regards transporting people in dense urban areas.

Anyway, regarding your contention that people no longer need to cluster together, there is a preponderance of evidence that we nevertheless choose to do so. Given that choice, why does our transportation policy work against this ideal? Please note, I'm not talking about rural and suburban highways, but only urban areas. Too much land is used by cars for parking, for resting (ie sitting in traffic), and moving people who have no choice because the better land use rail line doesn't exist (or has been so underfunded in favor of roads that it fails on service quality).

If you doubt that roads can be smaller, I'd point out the different sizes between roads in Boston and roads in New York. There are sections of Boston with population densities that aren't far from New York's density. And yet we have very little in the way of high rise, or even mid rise housing. The secret? Narrow streets. We use less of our land for cars, so we can achieve density without building as high.

Of course we need roads. Delivery vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and yes, private cars. But we don't need as many. Imagine if every Blvd. width road in Boston had a reservation with light rail. Many more people could quickly travel through that corridor than can currently do so. That's an improvement. It increases freedom to quickly and easily transit that section of the city. There is a need for cars, no question, even in cities. But they shouldn't receive the highest priority over other needs.

Mathew, Henry -- you both sound like you are writing a dissertation or at least a scholarly review paper (without the plethora of references)

These kind of generalities are best described by my middle-brother's favorite expression:
"All Generalities are False"

You have the Parisian Blvds -- wide with lots of cars -- yet the "Champs" is one of the most urban - pedestrian friendly streets in the known world (at least by my personal experience)

Paris also has one of the least pedestrian friendly intersections is the world at the Arc De Triomphe, -- at least at the surface
Charles de Gaulle - Étoile et le Place Charles de Gaulle

and also several points where peripheral highways dump cars into the city's streets

http://www.connexionfrance.com/Paris-traffic-jams-worst-Europe-London-Lyon-Peripherique-bouchons-Sytadin-12233-view-article.html
http://www.connexionfrance.com/images/nav09/title.jpg

Paris has Europe's worst traffic jams
November 05, 2010
PARIS has the worst traffic jams in Europe and drivers can lose up to 70 hours a year if they are on the road on Tuesdays between 8.00 and 9.00. ...Jams can add 10 minutes to a simple 30-minute journey to work and back.

A study showed that London is next worst, then the heavily urbanised Ruhr basin in Germany, although the UK as a whole suffered the heaviest country-wide delays, with major blackspots in Manchester on Fridays between 17.00 and 18.00 and the Blackwall Tunnel in London....

Paris has major embouteillages every day at the Périphérique entry points of Porte d'Ivry, Porte d'Italie, Porte de Sèvres, Porte de Bercy and Porte de Saint-Mandé, where the average traffic speed is just 23kph.


London has narrow streets, some wide streets and several great intersections such as Piccadilly Circus and Trafalgar Sq. -- often complete with giant traffic jams

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=piccadilly+circus+london&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1680&bih=916&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

In general despite having the worlds most complete public transit system and a lot of people who walk -- London also has horrible traffic jams

Sorry -- But you propose too simplistic solutions to exceedingly complex system problems.

if people are to like to live in cities -- which seems to be the case -- we need design the cities infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the walkers, the riders, the transit riders, and yes the automobile drivers

In different cities in different climates or even certain districts of a city such as Boston -- that goal may be best met with narrow streets and pedestrian malls -- e.g. the area are FH/QM or perhaps DTX

In other places such as the Pru it might mean Gerbil Tubes, Pedestrian Bridges and Pedestrian "Subways" under major intersections

There just is no one-size fits all solution

[whighlander]

Two World Wars gutting the other world powers' international systems of trade and decimating their industrial bases, followed by a postwar shift (both world wars) to fairly uncompetitative protectionism and exponential welfare statism, launched the US into an economic superpower. There was simply no one left to compete with or buy goods from on a scale that the US could. As the rest of the world has rebuilt their industrial base, reestablished international trade, opened markets, and became competitive geopoliticaly, the US is slowly shifting back to a realistic sphere of influence similar to what existed prior to the first World War. Albeit with different competiting powers dominating the globe than the previous century.

Highways have done economically for the US other than decentralization of housing and industry in addition to heavily burdening the government with the costs of maintaining transportation infrastructure, which previously was handled by private enterprise (turnpikes & railroads).

Lurk -- that is so far from reality -- I'm not sure I know where to start the rebuttal

Interstate highways created the ideal nest to nurture the technology culture which literally has re-made the world in one human lifetime

two phrases Rt-128 and Silicon Valley are the Lexington and Concord of the Technological Revolution which shows no sign of slowing let-alone stopping

Note neither of those phrases has the name of a city -- both speak of regions -- and both created the new world in what was essentially virgin agricultural territory -- I doubt if we were cooped-up in cities with all their regulatin and permittin -- that the transistor and the Integrated Circuit would have gotten very far

its not an accident that the traditional industrial culture, tied to cities and unions -- was lost in the dust of the new gazelles building, growing and building again new companies, new plants, new centers all in the suburbs of the Big Cities and in the shadow of the great research universities. The Big City downtowns provided services needed by the new companies such a law, finance and accounting -- but the entrepreneurs lived in the suburbs with their companies.

Now we've spread the virus of our successful model to several receptive places in the world and the revolution continues. The most recent development for the more developed economies is that as much of technology has transitioned from a hardware orientation to softer, webbier stuff focus -- cities with the right stuff are re-becoming attractive as places of employment and consequently as places of habitation for some of the employees. In fact -- quite a few of the next gen companies are rethinking the need to be in the suburbs and they are even dragging their money folks along with them.

A slightly different trajectory has been followed by the Bio-Pharmas who came along much later in the 60 year tech rev -- and who benefited more from the urban infrastructure for university hospitals and such and mostly just had some flirtations with the suburbs (with a few exceptions such as AZ and Shire who've rooted themselves on Rt-128).

[Matthew]

Ugh, you've missed my point almost entirely.

Seeing congestion in London and Paris doesn't mean something is wrong. It means something is right! Something is making people really want to drive there, even though traffic sucks. It is not possible to accommodate both walkers and drivers perfectly. One or the other has to give. The good public transit in those cities means that auto congestion does not limit their economies, because lots of people can still travel despite the traffic.

The observed "fundamental law of highway congestion" is that you cannot build your way out of congestion problems. In econ-speak: "The elasticity of vehicle miles traveled to highway miles available is close to 1."

[Kahta]

I'd just like to point out that Kraft Foods was considering a downtown Chicago location as part of the company split. They settled on keeping the Grocery and Snack company headquarters in the suburbs. These problems are not unique to Chicago.

Why might that be?

Pro for being in city:
Nice view from the office
Younger workers without family prefer city life
Prestigious address

Cons for being in city:
Terrible public schools
terrible commute from places with yards, decent schools, and the amenities of the suburbs
Extremely high cost of office space relative to suburbs
Lack of ability to expand office space
all the CPG competition is in the suburbs
High cost of travel expenses for anyone going to headquarters on business

[Matthew]

That list is farcical. The advantage of being in the city is proximity to people and other businesses/commercial activity. For businesses that need it, there's nowhere else to go. Some types of work don't benefit from proximity. Those companies that don't need the city, either because they're self-sufficient, or due to something idiosyncratic, tend to move out to cheaper land.

Nothing new about that. It's been happening ever since there were cities.

If you are having trouble believing me, ask yourself this question: "Why is the cost of downtown office real estate so extremely high?"

[HenryAlan]

If you are having trouble believing me, ask yourself this question: "Why is the cost of downtown office real estate so extremely high?"

You are using market behavior as evidence in an argument with people who favor government subsidized solutions. Of course, they erroneousy believe it's the opposite, facts be damned.

[whighlander]

That list is farcical. The advantage of being in the city is proximity to people and other businesses/commercial activity. For businesses that need it, there's nowhere else to go. Some types of work don't benefit from proximity. Those companies that don't need the city, either because they're self-sufficient, or due to something idiosyncratic, tend to move out to cheaper land.

Nothing new about that. It's been happening ever since there were cities.

If you are having trouble believing me, ask yourself this question: "Why is the cost of downtown office real estate so extremely high?"


Mathew -- you can keep trying to pound every peg to fit into the utopia of "new Urbanism" -- as usual the reality is more complicated -- here's a direct quote from someone who pondered the choice of suburb versus urban and found a compromise at Alewife

the following was originally posted under Cambridge Development in January
And another one leaps in -- though to Alewife not Kendall

from the X-Economoy website

http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2012/0...ngle_page=true

"Hewlett-Packard Expands to Cambridge via Vertica’s “Big Data” Center

Gregory T. Huang
1/23/12

There’s a new big tech company in town. In fact, it’s arguably the world’s biggest technology company (by revenue), and it’s joining the ranks of IBM, EMC, Microsoft, Google, and, most recently, Amazon, in expanding to the Boston-Cambridge area.....Palo Alto, CA-based Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) has set up a new office in Cambridge, MA. The operation will serve as a center for technology development, licensing, and outreach to local startups, investors, and researchers. The 37,000-square-foot facility at 150 CambridgePark Drive, near the Alewife subway station, is spread over two floors. The building serves as the new headquarters for Vertica, the Boston-area big-data analytics firm that HP bought last winter. Vertica is in the process of moving its 150 employees from its offices in Billerica to the Cambridge facility this month, and it is currently hiring.....Lynch, who is leading the new facility, calls it a “big-data center of excellence” for HP. The idea is it will be a technology hub for the firm, a bit like HP Labs in Palo Alto—but different. (Lynch wouldn’t go so far as to call it “HP Labs East.”) The center will be a base from which HP could make deals to license its technology or invest in early-stage startups alongside venture firms, he says. The center also plans to bring in students and early-stage entrepreneurs for hackathons and other tech-themed events. And it will serve as a base for other types of outreach, such as to local K-12 schools, Lynch says.

So why Alewife instead of, say, Kendall Square? “We wanted to bridge the gap between getting access to the younger people living in Cambridge and Somerville, who want to take the T or bike to work, and the older constituencies, like me, who want to drive and park,” Lynch says. “It’s a compromise for sure.”

But the location should help Vertica and HP better collaborate with (and recruit) students and professors from nearby schools with lots of technical talent in software and databases, like MIT, Harvard, and Brandeis."


Interesting .. including the comments on the location!

Here are the highlights of the decision to build the HP “big-data center of excellence” at Alewife:

1) Hq for Vertica -- just bought by HP -- and destined to be the core of HP's Big Data efforts
2) Vertica was based in Billerica and is moving lock, stock, and barrel to Alewife
3) Could also serve as center to make deals to license technology, or invest in early-stage startups alongside venture firms
4) base for outreach to students and early-stage entrepreneurs for hackathons and other tech-themed events and also local K-12 schools
5) So why Alewife instead of, say, Kendall Square?
--- “We wanted to bridge the gap between getting access to the younger people living in Cambridge and Somerville, who want to take the T or bike to work, and the older constituencies, like me, who want to drive and park,” Lynch, who is leading the new facility says. “It’s a compromise for sure.”

But the location should help Vertica and HP better collaborate with (and recruit) students and professors from nearby schools with lots of technical talent in software and databases, like MIT, Harvard, and Brandeis."

Note that Mr Lynch had millions of $ riding on his decision -- so I'm sure he thought of the various options for location very carefully

[Matthew]

You keep trying to attach labels. I'm not a "new urbanist" either. There's nothing new about urbanism.

How exactly does this counter my argument? If anything, it strengthens it. I said that businesses move to places where they can be near people. HP is a relatively self-sufficient corporation choosing a location near transit because of the people they want to attract!

[BostonUrbEx]

Just want to say Matthew is one of my favorite new members (or one of my favorites overall, new and old alike). Gets to the point clearly and without being wordy. I wish we could +1 posts or give forum rep points.

[whighlander]

You keep trying to attach labels. I'm not a "new urbanist" either. There's nothing new about urbanism.

How exactly does this counter my argument? If anything, it strengthens it. I said that businesses move to places where they can be near people. HP is a relatively self-sufficient corporation choosing a location near transit because of the people they want to attract!

Mat --OK -- not New Urbanist -- well then Old Urbanist -- in any case apparently you have an intentional short term attention span

" So why Alewife instead of, say, Kendall Square?
--- “We wanted to bridge the gap between getting access to the younger people living in Cambridge and Somerville, who want to take the T or bike to work, and the older constituencies, like me, who want to drive and park,” Lynch, who is leading the new facility says. “It’s a compromise for sure.”
"

HP -- chooses to locate at Alewife to accommodate:
1) the urbs who can take the T to Alewife, walk from some of the nearby housing, or bike out from Cambridge, Sommerville
2) the sub-urbs who can take the Bus from Arligton or Lexington or bike in on the Minuteman Bikeway
3) the non-urbs who chose to drive down Rt-2

Time will tell if that is the right decision -- the other advantage of Alewife is that there is less competition for the space than in Kendall and so I'm sure they got a good deal on the space

Note that Pfizer is planning to put its Alewife facility that it acquired when they bought Wyeth on the market after it moves to 610 Mass Ave. in a year or so.
From Mass High Tech:
http://ht.ly/9R46a
Pfizer Inc. plans to put its location at 200 Cambridgepark Dr., in the Alewife section of Cambridge, on the market next week with hopes of eventually relocating everyone who works there to the Kendall Square area, according to a spokesperson....The five-story, 218,000 square-foot Alewife building is assessed at $73 million and includes a 34,000-square-foot garage. It has been used by Pfizer for research and development....Last September, Pfizer signed a 10-year lease agreement with MIT for more than 180,000 square feet in a new building under development at 610 Main St. South in Kendall Square. The site, which is still under construction, is intended to be the future location of Pfizer’s Cardiovascular, Metabolic and Endocrine Disease and Neuroscience Research Units.

So there is one company Pfizer choosing to go in to Kendall for leased space owned by MIT while dumping buildings they own at Alewife. An equally large and rich company, HP is choosing to move into a location at the fringe of urbanity (if measured by the presence of a transit line). Still other large companies have recently (last few years) chosen to build very large complexes on Rt-128 (Oracle), or further out Cisco, IBM near I-495

As is usual -- there is no simple answer to the question of why build or lease in one place versus another location

[Matthew]

Thanks BostonUrbEx :) Now I feel a little self-conscious. I'm just enjoying these discussions.

whighlander, if your argument is that different companies have different needs, I think we're in complete agreement.

So far, the only constant is that we haven't found a way to run companies without people. Some can draw people to them, others have to be conveniently located. Some can run self-sufficiently, others depend on a whole set of cultivated business relationships. There is lots of variety, and compromises to be made. Over many thousands of years, humans have gathered in or near cities to engage in commercial activity. This trend stubbornly persists despite the massive subsidies of "Utopian" social engineering visions by suburban-minded folks. Good infrastructure, such as highways and railways, can help trade, but it means nothing without people, and cities are where you find people.

[whighlander]

Thanks BostonUrbEx :) Now I feel a little self-conscious. I'm just enjoying these discussions.

whighlander, if your argument is that different companies have different needs, I think we're in complete agreement.

So far, the only constant is that we haven't found a way to run companies without people. Some can draw people to them, others have to be conveniently located. Some can run self-sufficiently, others depend on a whole set of cultivated business relationships. There is lots of variety, and compromises to be made. Over many thousands of years, humans have gathered in or near cities to engage in commercial activity. This trend stubbornly persists despite the massive subsidies of "Utopian" social engineering visions by suburban-minded folks. Good infrastructure, such as highways and railways, can help trade, but it means nothing without people, and cities are where you find people.

Mathew I think we are fairly well in agreement about the "old history" -- people clustered in cities for different reasons over time:
1) first for protection from bandits and marauding armies,
2 ) later in medieval times for access to: the crown; the bishop; the professor; or the markets and fairs -- primarily agricultural and home manufactured goods
3) in the early industrial period for manufacturing jobs and later culture and transportation
4) in the white collar commercial era for business jobs; financial power and long-haul transportation

Interestingly enough -- Boston while its beginnings are only 400 years ago -- went through all 4 phases

The question is now that we are moving rapidly into the Knowledge Economy -- Phase 5 -- -- what will the successful cities of the future (next couple of decades) be founded upon?

The KE doesn't have the demand for large numbers of low to medium skilled employees that have traditionally made-up the cities from phase 3 and 4

KE companies depends on a small group of very highly skilled and very well paid leaders and a larger but not massive number of younger, less skilled and less well paid implementers. Of course the KE companies need support products and services many of which made-up a key part of the #4 stge of cities -- its not clear however if the numbers and distributions of work and workers is similar. Most cities are still dominated by the ideal population and workforce for #4 and in some more pathetic cases still stuck between #3 and #4.

In the past few years companies at the cutting edge have been experimenting alternatively clustering everyone and distributing everyone with high speed communications and good transportation making-up for lack of day-to-day direct physical contact

I think that the jury on out-sourcing (over long distances) is still out. The jury however seems in on the benefits of distributed enterprises particularly locating some of the implementation remotely for redundancy

As examples you can look at:
1) Microsoft which used to suck everyone of its acquisitions into Redmond -- but now not only leaves their acquisitions near to where they found them -- but builds genuine satellite facilities such as the NERD
2) Google -- which expanded into Cambridge for access to the talent poo; then bought-up some local start-ups and now is absorbing the ITA folks into a centralized Googleplex in Kendall
3) IBM and Cisco who bought there way into the Greater Boston area -- and now have concentrated most of their acquisitions and native growth into centralized suburban campuses
4) Novartis -- jumped into the area for the talent, decided to HQ their global corporate central R&D in Cambridge and have since imported some of their specific division R&D as well
5) Pfizer developed a small presence, vastly expanded it through the purchase of Wyeth; moving other R&D from their former R&D center in CT and now is consolidating everything in Kendall
6) HP which had a presence in Kendall; restructured and closed it; acquired its way back into the region through the purchase of Compaq; now through the purchase of a local company is moving back into Cambridge (Alewife)
7) EMC and Staples -- began as local companies; now moving in a significant R&D presence into the Kendall area
8) Biogen -- began as a local company; moved HQ out to the suburbs and now is moving back to Kendall
9) Vertex Pharma -- began as Kendall based company -- now moving lock stock and barrel to the SPID
10) Amazon -- has announced both a plug-into Kendall and the acquisition of a locally HQ's in the suburbs company

There are more examples of ways in which companies both local and "foreign" to the region are now participating in the KE

I think the definitive model for the KE has yet to be created and proven through experience

[HenryAlan]

In the past few years companies at the cutting edge have been experimenting alternatively clustering everyone and distributing everyone with high speed communications and good transportation making-up for lack of day-to-day direct physical contact

I think that the jury on out-sourcing (over long distances) is still out. The jury however seems in on the benefits of distributed enterprises particularly locating some of the implementation remotely for redundancy


Yes, the jury is still out, but a lot of companies do seem to think there is value in proximity. This is how we explain the success of Kendal Square, the growth you've discussed around Alewife, and even the fact that suburban companies like to consolidate most of their staff on one campus.

So, regarding your comments about Alewife (quoted bellow), the big question that jumps to the front, is what happens once it begins to resemble Kendal? HP appears to be following a sound strategy, and I'm sure some other companies will make the same choice. What happens when Alewife is built out, and the number of workers in the district is 10 times greater than it is now? The subway and bike routes will be able to accommodate the increase. Route 2 won't. This means at some future point, we will spend massive amounts of money to widen Route 2, in order to satisfy the needs of exurban commuters.

Investment in highways is a commitment to continued investment and expansion. Investment in urban transit is a commitment to a single project, only requiring maintenance afterward.

HP -- chooses to locate at Alewife to accommodate:
1) the urbs who can take the T to Alewife, walk from some of the nearby housing, or bike out from Cambridge, Sommerville
2) the sub-urbs who can take the Bus from Arligton or Lexington or bike in on the Minuteman Bikeway
3) the non-urbs who chose to drive down Rt-2

[whighlander]

Yes, the jury is still out, but a lot of companies do seem to think there is value in proximity. This is how we explain the success of Kendal Square, the growth you've discussed around Alewife, and even the fact that suburban companies like to consolidate most of their staff on one campus.

So, regarding your comments about Alewife (quoted bellow), the big question that jumps to the front, is what happens once it begins to resemble Kendal? HP appears to be following a sound strategy, and I'm sure some other companies will make the same choice. What happens when Alewife is built out, and the number of workers in the district is 10 times greater than it is now? The subway and bike routes will be able to accommodate the increase. Route 2 won't. This means at some future point, we will spend massive amounts of money to widen Route 2, in order to satisfy the needs of exurban commuters.

Investment in highways is a commitment to continued investment and expansion. Investment in urban transit is a commitment to a single project, only requiring maintenance afterward.

Henry -- we will see how it develops down around Alewife - there is plenty of land within a walking radius of 0.5 miles of Alewife for intensive development including: housing, shopping, Hotels and R&D

Rt-2 itself has adequate capacity for the people who want to commute by car from the NW to Alewife -- what it bumps into is the ability to distribute the traffic at and near its end into Alewife Brook Parkway. However, that can be fixed a cost far less (except for neighborhood opposition) than the cost of extending the Red Line.

Note extending the Red Line to Rt-128 is very important for the ultimate redevelopment of Hanscom AFB after it is closed by the next BRAC

[gyro]

The location of some of these businesses is driven by the commuting preferences of their executives. Biogen moved to Weston as it was closer to the home of James Mullen.

When Scagnos replaced him, he made the logical decision to move their offices back to Kendall where their R&D and talent were.

Forrester moved to Alewife for the convenience of executives according to a friend of mine that works there.

These are just two examples of case that I have heard from people close to the companies. I am sure it comes into play more often.

[JohnAKeith]

Then there's the guy who runs a bank on the South Shore who wanted to live in the South End (because he's a closet-case?) so he had them open branches into the city ... for no apparent reason?

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Then there's the guy who runs a bank on the South Shore who wanted to live in the South End (because he's a closet-case?) so he had them open branches into the city ... for no apparent reason?

Maybe he just likes the restaurants in the South End. Great food at Club Cafe and Fritz Lounge...

[HenryAlan]

Maybe he just likes the restaurants in the South End. Great food at Club Cafe and Fritz Lounge...

I see what you did there.

[datadyne007]

So after clubbing all night long at various places under the U and S Bahn for the past 3 months, I've concluded two things:

1. Boston needs some elevated rail
2. Clubs open till 7AM (weekend) should be underneath said elevated rail. Restaurants, shops, etc too of course for the day time.

Not quite sure where the best place to put the venue would be though. I'd just love to see a young, active area, with a great nightlife. It doesn't have to be in the downtown core.

[Matthew]

It would be nice. But can you imagine the screaming of the NIMBYs here? Yow.

[datadyne007]

The city is really bursting with young people (+200,000 students) with no place to go but house parties in Allston/Brighton, Roxbury/Mission Hill, and Dorchester.

[Matthew]

Oh, I know. And that's what I mean. If you suggest that bars/restaurants should be allowed to open in more locations, and for more hours, you get shouted down by howling hordes of NIMBYs crying about the possibility of drunken students and noise.

[JohnAKeith]

I've never heard of this documentary.

"Conservation of Matter: The Fall and Rise of Boston's Elevated Subway"

http://vimeo.com/14479121

[Proposition Joe]

I've never heard of this documentary.

"Conservation of Matter: The Fall and Rise of Boston's Elevated Subway"

http://vimeo.com/14479121

Thats a really sad documentary. Poor old Orange Line elevated got torn down, had its corpse sold for scrap, and it was used to build a bridge for cars in the middle of nowhere near Phoenix.

Also it is very unlikely that Boston is ever going to get anything looking like those Orange Line stations ever again. It would be nice if they made a replica of one of those stations and put it over one of the highway on/off-ramp parcels on the Greenway to house a restaurant or something.

[BostonObserver]

Two still exist, Dudley Sq and the Northampton St station is at the Seashore Trolley Museum in Kennebunkport Maine:

http://www.trolleymuseum.org/collection/browse.php?id=TOWERXMA

http://www.trolleymuseum.org/collection/browse.php?id=NORTHXMA

[Nexis4jersey]

Philly recently rebuilt there El...and others...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7131/7561411634_384dcd2448_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7561411634/)
Market - Frankford EL Eastbound towards Center City (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7561411634/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ViWkNPYS8

[Ron Newman]

Also it is very unlikely that Boston is ever going to get anything looking like those Orange Line stations ever again. It would be nice if they made a replica of one of those stations and put it over one of the highway on/off-ramp parcels on the Greenway to house a restaurant or something.

Thompson Square station was supposed to be saved (perhaps as a restaurant), but unfortunately burned soon after the rest of the El was removed in Charlestown.