Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Kno wrote:Boston public transportation is such a mess.
You can get from point A to B almost anywhere in this city in 10-20mins. Hop on the train and that short drive becomes 30min-2 hours.
Airstud wrote:According to Google Maps, near the Wellington Orange Line station is a place called "Crumbl Cookies."
(Are those good cookies?)
Newark727 wrote:Airstud wrote:According to Google Maps, near the Wellington Orange Line station is a place called "Crumbl Cookies."
(Are those good cookies?)
I've seen that name before - I think they're a chain? Never tried, though.
johns624 wrote:Does anyone else see the irony of a subway train on a bridge?
Airstud wrote:I know they go above ground quite often but think of the actual definition of "subway".johns624 wrote:Does anyone else see the irony of a subway train on a bridge?
What irony? Subway trains go over bridges all the time, the Red Line in Boston goes over the Longfellow Bridge - in fact that's the whole reason the Longfellow Bridge was built; it was in the 1894 charter of the Boston Transit Commission.
You heard me.
johns624 wrote:Airstud wrote:I know they go above ground quite often but think of the actual definition of "subway".johns624 wrote:Does anyone else see the irony of a subway train on a bridge?
What irony? Subway trains go over bridges all the time, the Red Line in Boston goes over the Longfellow Bridge - in fact that's the whole reason the Longfellow Bridge was built; it was in the 1894 charter of the Boston Transit Commission.
You heard me.
Airstud wrote:Don't you have a post office that you need to mail something at?johns624 wrote:Airstud wrote:I know they go above ground quite often but think of the actual definition of "subway".
What irony? Subway trains go over bridges all the time, the Red Line in Boston goes over the Longfellow Bridge - in fact that's the whole reason the Longfellow Bridge was built; it was in the 1894 charter of the Boston Transit Commission.
You heard me.
And Chicago's entire system is called "the el" even though parts of it go underground.
Can you name a subway system that's entirely 100% underground; with nothing even in open air, let alone over bridges?
johns624 wrote:Airstud wrote:Don't you have a post office that you need to mail something at?johns624 wrote:I know they go above ground quite often but think of the actual definition of "subway".
And Chicago's entire system is called "the el" even though parts of it go underground.
Can you name a subway system that's entirely 100% underground; with nothing even in open air, let alone over bridges?
Airstud wrote:Can you name a subway system that's entirely 100% underground; with nothing even in open air, let alone over bridges?
BlueberryWheats wrote:Airstud wrote:Can you name a subway system that's entirely 100% underground; with nothing even in open air, let alone over bridges?
The Glasgow Subway running lines are completely underground.
Airstud wrote:johns624 wrote:Airstud wrote:Don't you have a post office that you need to mail something at?
And Chicago's entire system is called "the el" even though parts of it go underground.
Can you name a subway system that's entirely 100% underground; with nothing even in open air, let alone over bridges?
Well I already mailed my CenterPoint payment from the Elmwood Branch in St. Louis Park this morning, so no. (My Bank of the West mastercard payment goes out on Monday.)
But it's a real question anyway. Are there any systems that are completely underground? Boston's goes over the Longfellow Bridge, down Commonwealth Ave & Beacon Streets (and whatever the B Green Line goes along); NYC's goes over the Manhattan & Williamsburg bridges and is above ground out at Rockaway, the J/Z and M lines are above ground for most of their trip through Queens...
BART is above ground everywhere outside of San Francisco and Berkeley...
I don't really know other systems as well as I know those.
Airstud wrote:johns624 wrote:Airstud wrote:I know they go above ground quite often but think of the actual definition of "subway".
What irony? Subway trains go over bridges all the time, the Red Line in Boston goes over the Longfellow Bridge - in fact that's the whole reason the Longfellow Bridge was built; it was in the 1894 charter of the Boston Transit Commission.
You heard me.
And Chicago's entire system is called "the el" even though parts of it go underground.
Can you name a subway system that's entirely 100% underground; with nothing even in open air, let alone over bridges?
lxman1 wrote:We were underground when riding the subway in DC,when vacationing there several years ago, but there may have been sections above ground that we didn't travel, so not sure about that one.
bpatus297 wrote:lxman1 wrote:We were underground when riding the subway in DC,when vacationing there several years ago, but there may have been sections above ground that we didn't travel, so not sure about that one.
A lot of the DC Metro is above ground.
lxman1 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:lxman1 wrote:We were underground when riding the subway in DC,when vacationing there several years ago, but there may have been sections above ground that we didn't travel, so not sure about that one.
A lot of the DC Metro is above ground.
OK, thanks. I wasn't sure, we only rode on the underground sections, I guess.
leader1 wrote:Airstud wrote:johns624 wrote:I know they go above ground quite often but think of the actual definition of "subway".
And Chicago's entire system is called "the el" even though parts of it go underground.
Can you name a subway system that's entirely 100% underground; with nothing even in open air, let alone over bridges?
Montreal’s subway system is completely underground. There is no station above ground and I don’t think it goes over a bridge across the river.
bluecrew wrote:leader1 wrote:Airstud wrote:
And Chicago's entire system is called "the el" even though parts of it go underground.
Can you name a subway system that's entirely 100% underground; with nothing even in open air, let alone over bridges?
Montreal’s subway system is completely underground. There is no station above ground and I don’t think it goes over a bridge across the river.
They use rubber tires. It makes the trains relatively more quiet, I imagine there are some maintenance implications too. Wouldn't work so well with Montreal's predominant winter climate of snow snow snow and more snow.
One of the things that made Boston so intolerable in the winter was the tracks that were above ground. Constant issues and logjam on the green line, the red line always had issues, I imagine the orange was the same too. Montreal has it right.
leader1 wrote:bluecrew wrote:leader1 wrote:
Montreal’s subway system is completely underground. There is no station above ground and I don’t think it goes over a bridge across the river.
They use rubber tires. It makes the trains relatively more quiet, I imagine there are some maintenance implications too. Wouldn't work so well with Montreal's predominant winter climate of snow snow snow and more snow.
One of the things that made Boston so intolerable in the winter was the tracks that were above ground. Constant issues and logjam on the green line, the red line always had issues, I imagine the orange was the same too. Montreal has it right.
Yup. I remember seeing those when I rode the system. Trains in Paris, Miami and Sapporo also use rubber tires and I think Turin's, too, if I recall. There is also a line in Shanghai's system that uses rubber tires. And many, many airport trains use rubber tires for their trains. It's probably a lot more common than we think.
And Montreal chose rubber tires for several reasons - performance and political. Engineers planning the system thought that rubber tire performance was better during acceleration and stopping compared to steel wheels. Also, during the planning in the early 1960s, Quebec was going through an independence phase and political leadership wanted closer ties to France rather than the rest of Canada. So, they decided to copy aspects of Paris' metro, since it also used rubber tires.
Isn't Boston's train system the oldest in the US? I don't think rubber tires were even conceptually an option when they were doing the planning.
bluecrew wrote:leader1 wrote:bluecrew wrote:They use rubber tires. It makes the trains relatively more quiet, I imagine there are some maintenance implications too. Wouldn't work so well with Montreal's predominant winter climate of snow snow snow and more snow.
One of the things that made Boston so intolerable in the winter was the tracks that were above ground. Constant issues and logjam on the green line, the red line always had issues, I imagine the orange was the same too. Montreal has it right.
Yup. I remember seeing those when I rode the system. Trains in Paris, Miami and Sapporo also use rubber tires and I think Turin's, too, if I recall. There is also a line in Shanghai's system that uses rubber tires. And many, many airport trains use rubber tires for their trains. It's probably a lot more common than we think.
And Montreal chose rubber tires for several reasons - performance and political. Engineers planning the system thought that rubber tire performance was better during acceleration and stopping compared to steel wheels. Also, during the planning in the early 1960s, Quebec was going through an independence phase and political leadership wanted closer ties to France rather than the rest of Canada. So, they decided to copy aspects of Paris' metro, since it also used rubber tires.
Isn't Boston's train system the oldest in the US? I don't think rubber tires were even conceptually an option when they were doing the planning.
It might have been an option during the Red Line extensions of the 1960s, but so much of it is above ground (except for the downtown core and Cambridge) that burying it would probably have been prohibitive.
Boston's subway is old, but the biggest issue is the mismanagement. For decades there have been plans to extend the Green Line into Somerville and Medford, and finish the Blue Line plan to get to downtown Lynn. It finally looks like the Green Line extension is done, Blue Line extension nowhere in sight. Electrical issues on the Red Line that would cause trains to get stuck on bridges and in stations for hours, same issues on the Orange Line, Green Line derailments due to snow, massive Red Line derailment a few years ago where they couldn't even move the derailed train for weeks. The uniquely unfit for purpose Silver Line, which is a bus, and was supposed to offer connectivity to the redeveloped Seaport - well, it's faster to get off at South Station and walk across the Fort Point Channel. Ah, and you can't forget the nearly weekly occurrence of someone cutting off the Green Line with their car on Comm Ave and getting smashed by a train.
Boston transit is a mess. I'm from there, love the city, think it's one of the best in America, but getting around there sucks. Part of a larger theme of infrastructure having systemic issues in the US. It is definitely not the Barcelona light rail.
apodino wrote:bluecrew wrote:leader1 wrote:
Yup. I remember seeing those when I rode the system. Trains in Paris, Miami and Sapporo also use rubber tires and I think Turin's, too, if I recall. There is also a line in Shanghai's system that uses rubber tires. And many, many airport trains use rubber tires for their trains. It's probably a lot more common than we think.
And Montreal chose rubber tires for several reasons - performance and political. Engineers planning the system thought that rubber tire performance was better during acceleration and stopping compared to steel wheels. Also, during the planning in the early 1960s, Quebec was going through an independence phase and political leadership wanted closer ties to France rather than the rest of Canada. So, they decided to copy aspects of Paris' metro, since it also used rubber tires.
Isn't Boston's train system the oldest in the US? I don't think rubber tires were even conceptually an option when they were doing the planning.
It might have been an option during the Red Line extensions of the 1960s, but so much of it is above ground (except for the downtown core and Cambridge) that burying it would probably have been prohibitive.
Boston's subway is old, but the biggest issue is the mismanagement. For decades there have been plans to extend the Green Line into Somerville and Medford, and finish the Blue Line plan to get to downtown Lynn. It finally looks like the Green Line extension is done, Blue Line extension nowhere in sight. Electrical issues on the Red Line that would cause trains to get stuck on bridges and in stations for hours, same issues on the Orange Line, Green Line derailments due to snow, massive Red Line derailment a few years ago where they couldn't even move the derailed train for weeks. The uniquely unfit for purpose Silver Line, which is a bus, and was supposed to offer connectivity to the redeveloped Seaport - well, it's faster to get off at South Station and walk across the Fort Point Channel. Ah, and you can't forget the nearly weekly occurrence of someone cutting off the Green Line with their car on Comm Ave and getting smashed by a train.
Boston transit is a mess. I'm from there, love the city, think it's one of the best in America, but getting around there sucks. Part of a larger theme of infrastructure having systemic issues in the US. It is definitely not the Barcelona light rail.
The problem with the MBTA management is two fold. One is it serves as both a commuter railroad linking most of the suburbs to Boston, and also as a subway system closer to Boston, meaning there is a difference in constituencies. Which brings me to the second problem is that it's a political agency run at the State level. The inner cities have been overlooked for too many years because the agency is a state agency and the Mayor of Boston really doesn't have a lot of input on the system, though Michelle Wu has tried to change that. The agency would need to be run by someone competent, but usually to hire someone competent you have to go outside of the political system, but you can't do that either because that would lead to privatization, which is wrong for so many reasons.
Other things that should be done that you didnt mention would be to create an F branch of the green line that uses the old pleasant street portal after branching off at Boylston and then running it to Nubian Square down Washington St. This neighborhood never got equal or better service like they were promised after the Washingotn Street EL was torn down and the Orange Line relocated to the Southwest corridor. And Nubian square is the heart of the Black community in Boston as well. Another thing, which I think they are finally considering, is the Blue Line Extension to Charles/MGH to meet the red line. No reason not to do this.
The north-south rail link is another one, but Boston blew a golden chance at this because it would have made perfect sense to build this with the big dig. Also electrifying more of the commuter rail and switching to electric trans is needed as well. Back Bay Station suffers from the worst air pollution you will see outside of Beijing.
But the issue is the T is so financially strapped, and all these issues aren't going to help.
bluecrew wrote:apodino wrote:bluecrew wrote:It might have been an option during the Red Line extensions of the 1960s, but so much of it is above ground (except for the downtown core and Cambridge) that burying it would probably have been prohibitive.
Boston's subway is old, but the biggest issue is the mismanagement. For decades there have been plans to extend the Green Line into Somerville and Medford, and finish the Blue Line plan to get to downtown Lynn. It finally looks like the Green Line extension is done, Blue Line extension nowhere in sight. Electrical issues on the Red Line that would cause trains to get stuck on bridges and in stations for hours, same issues on the Orange Line, Green Line derailments due to snow, massive Red Line derailment a few years ago where they couldn't even move the derailed train for weeks. The uniquely unfit for purpose Silver Line, which is a bus, and was supposed to offer connectivity to the redeveloped Seaport - well, it's faster to get off at South Station and walk across the Fort Point Channel. Ah, and you can't forget the nearly weekly occurrence of someone cutting off the Green Line with their car on Comm Ave and getting smashed by a train.
Boston transit is a mess. I'm from there, love the city, think it's one of the best in America, but getting around there sucks. Part of a larger theme of infrastructure having systemic issues in the US. It is definitely not the Barcelona light rail.
The problem with the MBTA management is two fold. One is it serves as both a commuter railroad linking most of the suburbs to Boston, and also as a subway system closer to Boston, meaning there is a difference in constituencies. Which brings me to the second problem is that it's a political agency run at the State level. The inner cities have been overlooked for too many years because the agency is a state agency and the Mayor of Boston really doesn't have a lot of input on the system, though Michelle Wu has tried to change that. The agency would need to be run by someone competent, but usually to hire someone competent you have to go outside of the political system, but you can't do that either because that would lead to privatization, which is wrong for so many reasons.
Other things that should be done that you didnt mention would be to create an F branch of the green line that uses the old pleasant street portal after branching off at Boylston and then running it to Nubian Square down Washington St. This neighborhood never got equal or better service like they were promised after the Washingotn Street EL was torn down and the Orange Line relocated to the Southwest corridor. And Nubian square is the heart of the Black community in Boston as well. Another thing, which I think they are finally considering, is the Blue Line Extension to Charles/MGH to meet the red line. No reason not to do this.
The north-south rail link is another one, but Boston blew a golden chance at this because it would have made perfect sense to build this with the big dig. Also electrifying more of the commuter rail and switching to electric trans is needed as well. Back Bay Station suffers from the worst air pollution you will see outside of Beijing.
But the issue is the T is so financially strapped, and all these issues aren't going to help.
All good points - it's a mess.
Transit fencing in Boston is as bad as it was in the 1970s - Roxbury, inner Dorchester, Chelsea, parts of Somerville... geography is destiny, and it's no surprise that the underserved transit areas also tend to be the only places where the median 1 bedroom apartment price is well under $3000. Want to be able to get to your job without a bus then a train? Well, you're going to have to pay out the nose.
The only answer can't just be forever extending the Green Line - it's arguably the worst, least reliable and on-time option in mass rail transit in the US. "Meet you at 7 PM... oh wait that place is down the B Line? Yeah any time between 6:45 and 7:45, I'll text you." In this case using the Silver Line instead of a Green Line extension to replace the Washington St El was probably a blessing in disguise... would you rather sit for 45 minutes in Park St or take a bus?
There's not only the political problems but a distinct lack of a plan on modernization or expanding on the ability of the current system. Makes it a pretty tough city to live in when the traffic sucks on top of the transit issues. Granted - I haven't lived there since before COVID, just commuted in and out and rarely went into the city, so I can't comment on the current traffic.
Kno wrote:bluecrew wrote:apodino wrote:
The problem with the MBTA management is two fold. One is it serves as both a commuter railroad linking most of the suburbs to Boston, and also as a subway system closer to Boston, meaning there is a difference in constituencies. Which brings me to the second problem is that it's a political agency run at the State level. The inner cities have been overlooked for too many years because the agency is a state agency and the Mayor of Boston really doesn't have a lot of input on the system, though Michelle Wu has tried to change that. The agency would need to be run by someone competent, but usually to hire someone competent you have to go outside of the political system, but you can't do that either because that would lead to privatization, which is wrong for so many reasons.
Other things that should be done that you didnt mention would be to create an F branch of the green line that uses the old pleasant street portal after branching off at Boylston and then running it to Nubian Square down Washington St. This neighborhood never got equal or better service like they were promised after the Washingotn Street EL was torn down and the Orange Line relocated to the Southwest corridor. And Nubian square is the heart of the Black community in Boston as well. Another thing, which I think they are finally considering, is the Blue Line Extension to Charles/MGH to meet the red line. No reason not to do this.
The north-south rail link is another one, but Boston blew a golden chance at this because it would have made perfect sense to build this with the big dig. Also electrifying more of the commuter rail and switching to electric trans is needed as well. Back Bay Station suffers from the worst air pollution you will see outside of Beijing.
But the issue is the T is so financially strapped, and all these issues aren't going to help.
All good points - it's a mess.
Transit fencing in Boston is as bad as it was in the 1970s - Roxbury, inner Dorchester, Chelsea, parts of Somerville... geography is destiny, and it's no surprise that the underserved transit areas also tend to be the only places where the median 1 bedroom apartment price is well under $3000. Want to be able to get to your job without a bus then a train? Well, you're going to have to pay out the nose.
The only answer can't just be forever extending the Green Line - it's arguably the worst, least reliable and on-time option in mass rail transit in the US. "Meet you at 7 PM... oh wait that place is down the B Line? Yeah any time between 6:45 and 7:45, I'll text you." In this case using the Silver Line instead of a Green Line extension to replace the Washington St El was probably a blessing in disguise... would you rather sit for 45 minutes in Park St or take a bus?
There's not only the political problems but a distinct lack of a plan on modernization or expanding on the ability of the current system. Makes it a pretty tough city to live in when the traffic sucks on top of the transit issues. Granted - I haven't lived there since before COVID, just commuted in and out and rarely went into the city, so I can't comment on the current traffic.
Frankly I’m glad all the other renters in Boston have such bizarre and nonsensical ideas about where they want to live and what they want to pay for it.
I’m not far from Newton corner on a tree lined hill top street with a big yard, a driveway, and about 1600 square feet paying less than college kids who live in shoe boxes with views of nothing but a brick wall.
People are always shocked I live so “far away” - it takes me 10-15mins to get anywhere in downtown or Cambridge, sometimes 20 if the traffic is bad. We have nonstop bus shuttles, the commuter rail, and a beautiful bike trail that goes all the way to the museum of science along the Charles river…. I’m glad the secrets not out. This isn’t a big enough city for people to pay the premiums they do to live near the action.
bluecrew wrote:leader1 wrote:Airstud wrote:
And Chicago's entire system is called "the el" even though parts of it go underground.
Can you name a subway system that's entirely 100% underground; with nothing even in open air, let alone over bridges?
Montreal’s subway system is completely underground. There is no station above ground and I don’t think it goes over a bridge across the river.
They use rubber tires.