archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Boston's Built Environment > Design a Better Boston

Design a Better Boston Are you disappointed with the state of Boston's current architecture/development? Think you have a better idea? Post it here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-19-2013, 02:29 PM   #1361
Nexis4jersey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 715
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

I used a URL , not KML...
Nexis4jersey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 02:35 PM   #1362
BussesAin'tTrains
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Union Sq, Somerville
Posts: 3,415
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4jersey View Post
I used a URL , not KML...
The URL of the KML source is the one that I use.
BussesAin'tTrains is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 11:51 AM   #1363
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
 
BostonUrbEx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Shore
Posts: 4,265
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by BussesAin'tTrains View Post
The URL of the KML source is the one that I use.
I copying the KML link, and when I enter it in a browser, the URL will direct you to a download for viewing in GoogleEarth, rather than GoogleMaps. Is this correct? I was hoping to get it all on one page but still on GoogleMaps.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by choo View Post
forget it ever happening, its too great an idea.
BostonUrbEx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 01:34 PM   #1364
BussesAin'tTrains
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Union Sq, Somerville
Posts: 3,415
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

I paste the KML URL in the Google Maps search bar, not the search engine bar. That's always worked for me.
BussesAin'tTrains is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 11:19 AM   #1365
cbrett
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

How about running CR over Wakefield branch to Danvers and the Malls/Peabody? Hits 128 twice, 1-95, 114, and tons and tons of wetland without having to worry about making a second Salem tunnel. Plus the additional traffic could mean more rapid transit like headways on the Reading Line. Plus it crosses right by cemeteries, because screw the Mattapan "High-Speed" Line and it's dumb claim to fame for doing that.

To be fair this seemed like a much less crazy pitch when I started. Also, this is my first map so please be gentle, but any comments/criticisms are greatly appreciated.

https://maps.google.com/maps/myplace...10&safe=strict
cbrett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 11:20 AM   #1366
cbrett
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Oh, and I am well aware of the Rail Trail it would destroy, but let's just pretend money, NIMBYs, and all the haters don't exist.
cbrett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 11:36 AM   #1367
Scalziand
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 452
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Yeah, the map link doesn't work.

Judging by your description though, it seems like that route would work as a circumferential link.
__________________
Shadows no longer exist. They will henceforth be known as shade.
Scalziand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 10:52 AM   #1368
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
 
BostonUrbEx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Shore
Posts: 4,265
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

To be honest, I think you'd be better off utilizing the former South Reading Branch railroad. It was primarily consumer by 128, but if you stuck it in the median or on the side, it would probably still be competitive in cost with your idea, and provide a more ideal routing, as well as not tearing up any bike paths.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by choo View Post
forget it ever happening, its too great an idea.
BostonUrbEx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 01:36 PM   #1369
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,517
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbrett View Post
How about running CR over Wakefield branch to Danvers and the Malls/Peabody? Hits 128 twice, 1-95, 114, and tons and tons of wetland without having to worry about making a second Salem tunnel. Plus the additional traffic could mean more rapid transit like headways on the Reading Line. Plus it crosses right by cemeteries, because screw the Mattapan "High-Speed" Line and it's dumb claim to fame for doing that.

To be fair this seemed like a much less crazy pitch when I started. Also, this is my first map so please be gentle, but any comments/criticisms are greatly appreciated.

https://maps.google.com/maps/myplace...10&safe=strict
Few problems:

1) Western Route can't handle a second branch there because of the single track in Somerville and Medford. Not if you envision Reading-proper getting Fairmount-level headways.

2) Lake Quannapowitt on the Western Route is a better place to put a 128 station in Wakefield becaise of the pre-existing access road at Exit 39 and 2 pre-existing local bus routes that converge there from either side of the lake. There's nothing but residential cul de sacs and a cemetery where the Danvers Branch crosses 128. To get there they'd have to extend Audubon Rd. an extra 1/3 mile into the swamp with traffic getting off at Exit 42, and miss all the residential density in this area. Or put it on Lowell St. where there's little room to plunk parking. Both scenarios have their flaws, and the local buses are still going to funnel more riders to the existing Wakefield station than this one.

3) Wakefield Jct. only points south, so the only type of service you could run on this is a pingback. It can't, for example, be used to thru-route people from the North Shore to Lowell like would be possible if there was a northbound wye at that junction (Salem-->Wakefield-->Reading-->Lowell Jct.-->Lowell). Which also means there is nothing more you can do here to get away from the Western Route's single-track capacity cap in Orange Line territory. Given that the Lynnfield swamp is a density cavity and the 128 park-and-ride options in Wakefield on this branch are all flawed, that puts a damper in the potential ridership.



A Peabody/128 branch + Quannapowitt/128 infill on the Western Route + true DMU-level headways on the Western Route with thru Haverhill trains relocated to the Lowell Line probably outslugs the total ridership of a pingback branch and local stops on that pingback branch. Just look at the bus map in that region and it's easy to see why. Peabody Sq., Wakefield CR, and Reading CR are the major gravity wells that capture all the local residential ridership.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 01:52 PM   #1370
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,517
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonUrbEx View Post
To be honest, I think you'd be better off utilizing the former South Reading Branch railroad. It was primarily consumer by 128, but if you stuck it in the median or on the side, it would probably still be competitive in cost with your idea, and provide a more ideal routing, as well as not tearing up any bike paths.
That ROW is long gone. It was abandoned in the late-1920's so the state could construct the 128 roadbed on top of it. There's almost no room to the side of 128 between Exits 42-44 to add anything, and the ROW is almost untraceable on a map west of Salem St. Wakefield because of all the houses built on it. The active line in Peabody ends at 1st St. with a semi-preserved power line ROW to the 128/1 interchange that ends in a condo complex. There is no side street access to the highways to build any park-and-ride except for Lynnfield St. from the 129 rotary, so the ridership would be much poorer and have no outer anchor like the North Shore/Lahey Clinic park-and-ride.

Nobody's seriously considering that route because the cost of rebuilding only 1 mile of un-trailed ROW from Peabody Sq. to North Shore/Lahey with 1 highway overpass isn't much more than rehabbing 2.5 miles of mostly out-of-service track when the differential in farebox recovery is factored in. These are distances almost too small for the normal rules about de-abandonment vs. existing track to apply.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 10:46 PM   #1371
bigeman312
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Jamaica Plain
Posts: 1,431
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

bigeman312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:53 AM   #1372
cozzyd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Loop, Chicago, IL (formerly Cambridge)
Posts: 534
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

No stop at Waverley?
cozzyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 01:44 AM   #1373
bigeman312
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Jamaica Plain
Posts: 1,431
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by cozzyd View Post
No stop at Waverley?
I decided that it would be much easier to construct an accessible station (with room for the Commuter Rail tracks to bypass) at Warrendale (i.e. Beaver Street).

Also, better access to the Waverley Oaks Road companies and better station spacing. This setup gives pretty even station spacing between Alewife -> Belmont -> Warrendale -> Downtown Waltham -> Waltham/128, with everyone along the corridor within a mile of a station.

I figure Brandeis and/or Waverley can be future infill stations as demand/density dictates.
bigeman312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:34 PM   #1374
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,517
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigeman312 View Post
Get rid of Cedar Grove and Butler. Ashmont-CG and Butler-Milton are closer stop spacing than any other RL stations except SS-DTX and DTX-Park. There are no bus connections at any of the ex-M intermediate stops except Milton/Central Ave. And--if you assume that Milton + Central Ave. ridership will combine--the ridership on those tiny stops is < 1/5 that of Milton and Mattapan. Milton and Mattapan will reliably scale up to the boardings on the other Ashmont branch stations with the beefed-up service, but if the relative boardings on the extension stay proportional CG and Butler become the two extreme low outliers on the entire RL (and probably all 3 HRT lines). No Mattapan extension proposal has ever included any of the intermediates except for the combined Milton stop. Stop distance is not that long when you consider that the cemetery and Dorchester Park are a big central buffer that keep all residences on either side within half-mile walking distance of Ashmont or Milton. Nobody's inconvenienced by that relative to avg. stop spacing on the rest of the HRT system.


Get rid of Popes Hill. Fields Corner, Shawmut, and Ashmont cover all the area west of Adams St. at < half-mile. Port Norfolk (the ex-Old Colony station there was called "Neponset") covers all the rest not within half-mile of the Ashmont Branch. That infill station is really badly needed today. If we had...you know...a City Hall that actually gave a shit, that could've happened years ago. If they don't go overboard on the glass palaces that may be the lowest-hanging fruit in the city for a new rapid transit constituency.


Randolph is a no-go. Look at the Old Colony boardings at Randolph/Holbrook...they're the lowest on the Middleboro Line for any non-RL overlap station. The area's got not-bad bus coverage for how far-flung and lowish-density it is. They're well-served by increasing frequencies on the 230 into Braintree.


The Lexington extension has too odd a stop spacing. East Arlington/Lake St. is too close to Alewife and Arl. Ctr. with zero buses. Since that segment of the extension would be a subway burrowed under the Minuteman, the Minuteman would stay on top of it and give Lake St. a 1/2 mile arrow-straight walk to the Alewife entrance. Not needed. Brattle's a little too close to Heights and has only 2 buses--both near their termini--vs. 7 buses for Ctr. and 5 for Heights. Connections matter this far out or else there's going to be a ridership crater at the intermediates. East Lexington @ 2A was on every RL extension plan from the 70's. 4 T buses + 2 local Lexington buses and a third that could loop there, plus equidistant spacing between Lex. Ctr. and Arl. Heights. Minuteman to Hanscom is the only way you're getting further. There is no available path to divert straight to Burlington, so you must plunk a Hanscom stop. That's going to have huge park-and-ride ridership anyway. And then there's a free and clear power line ROW to get to Burlington from there.

In short:

Burlington/Route 3
Hanscom/128
Lexington Center
Arlington Heights
Arlington Center
Alewife
. . .

That's more or less what the 1970's extension plan was shooting for.


Brandeis is a must-have for a Waltham branch. It has second-highest boardings on the entire Fitchburg Line after South Acton. Considerably higher than Waltham Ctr. Students use the crap out of that stop.

I'm assuming that this build diverts the Fitchburg Line over the abandoned Central Mass ROW from Beaver Brook, since Alewife-Beaver Brook is the only place it used to have 3-4 tracks. Beaver Brook-128 was always a 2-tracker and constrained from expansion by surrounding density and the river.

Last edited by F-Line to Dudley; 06-26-2013 at 01:05 PM.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:50 PM   #1375
Matthew
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 3,585
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Not sure I understand the proposed service patterns. Are you proposing to four-track the Dorchester extension + part of Braintree?
Matthew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 02:09 PM   #1376
novitiate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Fenway
Posts: 190
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

It seems to me that if you're going to extend the South Shore extension onto any Red Line branch the best route would be to Weymouth Landing (on Route 53, bus connections, established commercial area, would receive a big boost) and East Weymouth (bus connections, neighborhood has potential, could build a garage where the large surface lot is now)... A shame that Braintree station being where it is, and the need for continued freight service to the Fore River Shipyard (could be negated by a tunnel) make that pretty hard even for the Crazy Pitches thread. (Highway access to the two stops wouldn't be that great, but Quincy Adams plays that role pretty well as-is)
novitiate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 02:29 PM   #1377
bigeman312
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Jamaica Plain
Posts: 1,431
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew View Post
Not sure I understand the proposed service patterns. Are you proposing to four-track the Dorchester extension + part of Braintree?
No, I am only proposing some passing sidings where possible, which does included some segments of 4-tracking. There is room for this along much of the ROW without land takings or digging, especially if you combine the Ashmont and Braintree branch ROWs between Dorchester Ave and the split.

Also F-Line: I like the suggestions. Some responses:

Quote:
Get rid of Cedar Grove and Butler. Ashmont-CG and Butler-Milton are closer stop spacing than any other RL stations except SS-DTX and DTX-Park. There are no bus connections at any of the ex-M intermediate stops except Milton/Central Ave. And--if you assume that Milton + Central Ave. ridership will combine--the ridership on those tiny stops is < 1/5 that of Milton and Mattapan. Milton and Mattapan will reliably scale up to the boardings on the other Ashmont branch stations with the beefed-up service, but if the relative boardings on the extension stay proportional CG and Butler become the two extreme low outliers on the entire RL (and probably all 3 HRT lines). No Mattapan extension proposal has ever included any of the intermediates except for the combined Milton stop. Stop distance is not that long when you consider that the cemetery and Dorchester Park are a big central buffer that keep all residences on either side within half-mile walking distance of Ashmont or Milton. Nobody's inconvenienced by that relative to avg. stop spacing on the rest of the HRT system.
You're probably right, but I also think that the ridership is artificially depressed due to having to transfer at Ashmont, causing people to walk or bus to Ashmont instead. Also, I was putting the Milton stop at Central Ave, which is 1.56 track miles from Ashmont, and 1.13 miles as the crow flies. I believe an infill station would be necessary (agreed that two may be excessive). Let's say keep Butler and get rid of CG. The distance between Central Ave (Milton) and Butler is .6 track miles, the same as Shawmut to Fields Corner. The distance between Butler and Ashmont is .96 track miles, one of the longer station spacing on the red line. I see your argument for removal of one of the infills, but disagree with the removal of both.

Quote:
Get rid of Popes Hill. Fields Corner, Shawmut, and Ashmont cover all the area west of Adams St. at < half-mile. Port Norfolk (the ex-Old Colony station there was called "Neponset") covers all the rest not within half-mile of the Ashmont Branch. That infill station is really badly needed today. If we had...you know...a City Hall that actually gave a shit, that could've happened years ago. If they don't go overboard on the glass palaces that may be the lowest-hanging fruit in the city for a new rapid transit constituency.


Here are half miles radii around "Port Norfolk," "Popes Hill," Ashmont, Shawmut and Fields Corner. As you can see, "Popes Hill" covers an area that "Port Norfolk" does not. The old Neponset station was a bit south of my proposed "Port Norfolk" station, and would be inadequate by itself, as shown. A better solution would be to consolidate and have a station farther north, by Norwood Street. I agree, a really badly needed infill station. I disagree with placing it as far south as Neponset Station was, though.

Quote:
Randolph is a no-go. Look at the Old Colony boardings at Randolph/Holbrook...they're the lowest on the Middleboro Line for any non-RL overlap station. The area's got not-bad bus coverage for how far-flung and lowish-density it is. They're well-served by increasing frequencies on the 230 into Braintree.
I was proposing for it to travel along the unused ROW to North Main Street, serving the center of Randolph. With some improvements, this could be a 30 minute ride to Downtown Crossing. I would be interested in seeing what the BAT bus ridership is before conceding this one. Randolph has both more people and a higher population density than Needham, Reading, Lexington, Burlington and Milton which are all considered worthy of rapid transit. Randolph is actually denser than Braintree, and would have a quicker ride downtown than Riverside does. Not as far flung or low density as perceived, especially when you show that you are on board with Lexington and Milton having rapid transit connection (Burlington has the advantage with park-and-ride ridership).

Northern expansion:
I like your suggestions, and yes I was having the Red Line follow the Minuteman and then 128 to a "Burlington" stop at the Route 3/128 interchange.

The one thing is I would argue against is needing a Brandeis stop. The "Waltham/128" stop is 1000 feet from the edge campus. Add a path to get to the station and boom! No need to add extra infill stops until demand deems it necessary. The Brandeis stop seems like much more overkill than the East Arlington and Brattle Street stops.
bigeman312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 03:27 PM   #1378
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,517
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigeman312 View Post
You're probably right, but I also think that the ridership is artificially depressed due to having to transfer at Ashmont, causing people to walk or bus to Ashmont instead. Also, I was putting the Milton stop at Central Ave, which is 1.56 track miles from Ashmont, and 1.13 miles as the crow flies. I believe an infill station would be necessary (agreed that two may be excessive). Let's say keep Butler and get rid of CG. The distance between Central Ave (Milton) and Butler is .6 track miles, the same as Shawmut to Fields Corner. The distance between Butler and Ashmont is .96 track miles, one of the longer station spacing on the red line. I see your argument for removal of one of the infills, but disagree with the removal of both.
The lack of bus connections really hurts the infills between Ashmont and Milton. I think the ridership crater there is going to look unacceptable compared to all other HRT stops. For the Milton stop, I think a station spanning the block between the two existing stops works best for tying in the bus transfers. Stick bus turning loops off Central Ave. and Adams St. to capture the transfers, probably on air rights overhanging the tracks. Platform in the middle of the block. Egresses on both sides of the block + one direct to the Riverwalk and the old freight bridge spanning the river. It'll be a stretched station, but stretched is about the only way they can build it given the lack of lateral space between Eliot St. and the river. In that sense the street-level access points to the combo station are no different than present-day access points to Milton and Central Ave. and Butler can safely be nixed with only +1500 ft. down the Riverwalk for that little neighborhood to get to the stop.


Quote:
Here are half miles radii around "Port Norfolk," "Popes Hill," Ashmont, Shawmut and Fields Corner. As you can see, "Popes Hill" covers an area that "Port Norfolk" does not. The old Neponset station was a bit south of my proposed "Port Norfolk" station, and would be inadequate by itself, as shown. A better solution would be to consolidate and have a station farther north, by Norwood Street. I agree, a really badly needed infill station. I disagree with placing it as far south as Neponset Station was, though.
I have to disagree. The Old Colony had tighter stop spacing than the RL did when these lines were all steam RR's, and its station spacing went Neponet to a stop called Harrison Sq. in the middle of the wye where the branches split (transfer stop primarily...was way too close to Fields Corner to be a neighborhood stop). So Popes Hill was not a priority back then in the days of ultra-dense spacing. Pretty much the whole area east of the tracks and south of Victory Rd. is all Morrissey Blvd. scuzzy car-oriented commercial/industrial. That's a transit dead zone. There aren't any buses there, and all the ones that do go down Neponset Ave. feed right into Fields Corner and your probable Neponset station, chopping the catchment area for Popes Hill into a very small less-than half circle. At best. Maybe a little less. Grafting a walking path along the Ashmont tracks to Fields Corner and a footbridge or more spacious Park St. underpass for direct access to FC serves the northern part of the catchment area pretty well for increased ped access. That doesn't leave very much left in the middle. I think this one's another sub-HRT caliber crater on the projected boardings because of the lack of connections and skewed catchment area.


Quote:
I was proposing for it to travel along the unused ROW to North Main Street, serving the center of Randolph. With some improvements, this could be a 30 minute ride to Downtown Crossing. I would be interested in seeing what the BAT bus ridership is before conceding this one. Randolph has both more people and a higher population density than Needham, Reading, Lexington, Burlington and Milton which are all considered worthy of rapid transit. Randolph is actually denser than Braintree, and would have a quicker ride downtown than Riverside does. Not as far flung or low density as perceived, especially when you show that you are on board with Lexington and Milton having rapid transit connection (Burlington has the advantage with park-and-ride ridership).
Problem with that is it's just not that bad a bus ride. Many people opt to go to Braintree or take BAT because it's easy. It's not a very transit-underserved area. And the MPO did do a *very* cursory study of a Randolph Branch DMU shuttle. There was so little interest or evidence of ridership that it didn't even advance to formal study.

Quote:
The one thing is I would argue against is needing a Brandeis stop. The "Waltham/128" stop is 1000 feet from the edge campus. Add a path to get to the station and boom! No need to add extra infill stops until demand deems it necessary. The Brandeis stop seems like much more overkill than the East Arlington and Brattle Street stops.
Where exactly are you plunking that 128 stop? If the Fitchburg Line is being punted to the Central Mass to allow the Red Line through, then a direct CR-RL transfer at the park-and-ride has to be sited close to where the Central Mass meets back with the Fitchburg. That's going to mean it has to be on the Weston side of 128 by the pond. Probably with the existing driveway to the Microsoft campus reaching from 117 and the Biogen driveway feeding it from the 20 side, connected by a bridge over the tracks. Assume the CR and RL platforms are offset by a couple hundred feet on opposite sides of the Microsoft building and connected by a footbridge. That is probably the only way you can unite the two ROW's into a superstation.

You're now 1.2 miles from the current Brandeis stop and 2.7 from Waltham Ctr. Kendal Green gets knocked out on CR by the proximity, but there is no way to do a CR-RL transfer with a different siting. CR park-and-rides are going to be important with Fitchburg being a reverse-commute growth destination, and a superstation for both modes is going to be important for shuttle buses to the 128 office parks on this quadrant and redevelopment areas like the ex-Polaroid complex. So Brandeis has gotta stay if you're pinned to the constraints of 1) CR must get swapped to the Central Mass for lack of 4-tracking room, 2) need for a two-mode superstation, and 3) stop spacing not too out-of-line with the rest of the Red Line.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 10:50 AM   #1379
davem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Assembly Square
Posts: 2,262
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

I'm going to disagree with f-line on Randolph, I think a downtown station would be an ideal terminus, along with a south braintree infill at the wye. The station site in randolph has loads of TOD potential, especialy if quincy becomes a destination of sorts in its own right. You could also build a park and ride for route 24, the only hurdle being finding a way to shoehorn in an access road from where 139 drops down to two lanes, since I doubt the houses along warren st would put up with additional traffic.

I do agree a brandis stop is mandatory. Its just too far from the other two station locations, and with waltham being a city in its own right, I could see people going one stop to get downtown.

The only other change I would make is to have the randolph/mattapan trains express through andrew and broadway instead of the quincy trains. Speeds up trip time to the core stations, and quincy trains already make up the time by expressing stations further down. There's also not much there that anyone coming from further out would get off for, and if there is they can transfer to a local at JFK/umass.
__________________
FP10 on railroad.net
Flickr Photostream
Designs
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 11:04 AM   #1380
MBTAddict
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 473
Re: Crazy Transit Pitches

Crazy idea: If Wynn Everett ends up being the casino for the eastern region, I think we should push for serious water taxi service. not just too and from the casino, abut along all of the water ways.
MBTAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Limeys Going Paranoid Like Crazy! TikiNYC General 18 06-17-2010 06:50 PM
2009 Remembered as The Christmas of Crazy Snowball Fights TikiNYC General 0 12-24-2009 06:24 PM
In Transit current issue Patrick General Architecture & Urban Planning 3 12-12-2009 12:59 AM
We don't need Mass Transit!!! JohnAKeith Transit and Infrastructure 1 06-22-2009 04:14 PM
Transit Use in San Francisco and Elsewhere ablarc Transit and Infrastructure 2 06-17-2007 10:04 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.