Sure - it got rid of that gawd-afuwl central artery double-decker separating east and south Boston from downtown and added green space - but being over budget and apparantly run with corruption that remade Massachusetts Transportation. Traffic doesn't get stuck above ground anymore, it gets stuck underground. Now that I have sat in the Central Artery Expressway's tunnel in my personal car, I have a few words about it.
I'm amazed at how many people sit in the tunnels with windows open on their cars and suck in that awful exhaust.
It has many benefits (better access to Logan Airport, lose the unsightly freeway, capacity expansion), but many drawbacks - flawed ventilation can be deadly - and a fire can cause many problems under the ground - plus the answer to expansion was more cars on the road :pan:
I'm sure other cities have the same problem (NYC, Hampton Roads for example)
Thoughts?
how many lanes were before the Big-Dig and how many are there now?
Quote from: doofy103 on August 06, 2010, 09:12:30 PM
how many lanes were before the Big-Dig and how many are there now?
Looking at a comparison of photos on Flickr, the tunnels are 8-laned:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rene-germany/15571970/
The old Central Artery was only 6 lanes:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28175182@N07/3550274150/
I've spent significant time in Boston (including spending most of a day driving every single free ramp associated with the Big Dig, as well as the Tobin Bridge, etc.) and have never once been stuck in traffic on I-93. On I-95 on the other hand... lets not even go there.
Despite the budget overruns and political ramifications, I say the project was well worth it, and hope other cities will look at it as a potential alternative to their current unsightly elevated freeways. I am extremely pro-tunnel.
As for exhaust, I don't know about the Big Dig tunnels, as I had my windows up (hey, I was there in November! It was cold!), but the Hampton Roads tunnels are very well-ventilated, and I usually go through the HRBT with my windows down. Can't smell the exhaust as bad in the tunnel as you can out in the air sitting in traffic.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 06, 2010, 11:54:15 PM
I am extremely pro-tunnel.
As am I, which is why I wish - maybe 100 years from now? 200? - that 101 will get a tunnel in SF. But by then, we'll all be in flying cars, right? :p
My only ever trip to Boston was in '98 when the Big Dig was under construction so much of the elevated Central Artery still existed - I never forgot how atrocious traffic was on the six-lane skyway, clearly not built with modern traffic levels in mind. (Now, would those traffic levels have been bad if I-695 had been constructed? We'll never know.)
Well I could smell (and feel) the exhaust [feel as in getting nausiated] in the Big Dig tunnel. I closed the windows and turned on recirculating AC for the duration then reopened them when I got out of the tunnel to blow the air out - One can get killed by Carbon monoxide in that tunnel IMO.
By the way, the Southbound big dig tunnel has three lanes at one point (between off- and on-ramp)
Quote from: TheStranger on August 07, 2010, 12:19:14 AM
As am I, which is why I wish - maybe 100 years from now? 200? - that 101 will get a tunnel in SF. But by then, we'll all be in flying cars, right? :p
The Simpsons episode "Lisa's wedding" done in 1995 mentionned the "hoover cars" for 2010, we still waiting for them ;)
Another place where I could imagine a "Big Dig" is a revival of the LOMEX (Lower-Manhattan expwy) as the "LOMDIG" or the "MIDMANDIG"/"MIDDIG" (Mid-Manhattan Dig) linking NJ to Queens without a traffic light.
Btw, a part of the BQE (Brooklyn-Queens expwy) aged and need to be rebuilt and some suggested a tunnel.... http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/browse_thread/thread/91e082d2e4c6c81a/f7e47f48c38c480b?lnk=gst&q=brooklyn#f7e47f48c38c480b
http://www.roadsbridges.com/Jump-start-in-Brooklyn-article11974
If MassDOT, or whatever we're calling it this week, can get over its obsession with highway design methods straight out of the 1930s (and tell each and every politician to keep their grubby little paws out of the till), we might have had something to be proud of in the Big Dig. Instead, we see the same old crap time and time again...mostly, lane drops on short notice which could have been avoided but which only now serve to back up traffic during rush hour, inadequate signage and a total failure to understand traffic patterns and plan for the future. I realize they were working in cramped spaces with very little breathing room, but the amount of land that was taken by eminent domain for this project should have left them some extra room to actually design this turkey correctly. I'm surprised there were no rotaries in it. Bay State politicians love their rotaries, especially in places where they don't belong.
One little piece of the pie that provides an insight as to how this thing was so badly screwed up: Due to the length of the tunnels, cell-phone service had to be provided for. So, the project provided for several underground vaults where the cell companies could place their equipment. Think the Big Dig's engineers actually talked to the cell companies to see how much room they'd need in those vaults? BZZZZZZTT! Wrong! We got cell service in the tunnels, only three years after it was promised, and after MassDOT had to enlarge each equipment vault by at least 50%...and guess whose dime paid for that.
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 17, 2010, 05:00:12 PM
If MassDOT, or whatever we're calling it this week, can get over its obsession with highway design methods straight out of the 1930s (and tell each and every politician to keep their grubby little paws out of the till), we might have had something to be proud of in the Big Dig. Instead, we see the same old crap time and time again...mostly, lane drops on short notice which could have been avoided but which only now serve to back up traffic during rush hour, inadequate signage and a total failure to understand traffic patterns and plan for the future. I realize they were working in cramped spaces with very little breathing room, but the amount of land that was taken by eminent domain for this project should have left them some extra room to actually design this turkey correctly. I'm surprised there were no rotaries in it. Bay State politicians love their rotaries, especially in places where they don't belong.
Gotta agree with your second sentence - while I know where all the lane adds and drops are now from experience, I can see how dangerous they are to new drivers. The 45 mph speed limit attempts to compensate for that (or is it 35-40?), but everyone drives at freeway speeds through the tunnels during non-congested times, so that makes it a lot harder to make your way through it all. I think the tunnels should have been made 2' taller just so that signs could be made more visible - either with an extra line of text or just some more reflective space.
Usually in a large project like that, the signs are more-or-less an afterthought, which is really a shame.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 06, 2010, 11:54:15 PM
I am extremely pro-tunnel.
And anti-pumpkin.
I'd love to see a 3-mile tunnel under Hartford for I-84, leading from about exit 47 through exit 57. I'm not sure how to tie it in to the existing freeway network on the east side yet.
Then you could tear down the Aetna Viaduct (it's named after an HMO, that's how bad it is :-/) and replace with a boulevard / upgraded streets / another way to downtown.
Quote from: mapman on August 18, 2010, 12:53:22 AM
Usually in a large project like that, the signs are more-or-less an afterthought, which is really a shame.
for it being an afterthought, it sure claimed a lot of surviving state-named interstate shields in the area.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 18, 2010, 10:26:20 AM
Quote from: mapman on August 18, 2010, 12:53:22 AM
Usually in a large project like that, the signs are more-or-less an afterthought, which is really a shame.
for it being an afterthought, it sure claimed a lot of surviving state-named interstate shields in the area.
I think that was the least of their issues ;)
I seem to be alone on this, but the couple times I've driven the big dig I found it perfectly easy to navigate, and entirely congestion-free every time. Admittedly the signs could have been more informative, but, IIRC they contained enough information to easily navigate the tunnels.
ALPS, are you saying the lane-drops are not adequately signed in accordance with MUTCD requirements? I drove thru it a couple of years ago, and I don't remember that being a problem. Only that the signs are hard to see, 'cause of it being in a tunnel.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2010, 08:37:57 PM
ALPS, are you saying the lane-drops are not adequately signed in accordance with MUTCD requirements? I drove thru it a couple of years ago, and I don't remember that being a problem. Only that the signs are hard to see, 'cause of it being in a tunnel.
Well, the MUTCD requires certain advance distances, but when you have so many ramps from both sides of the roadway, it's nigh impossible to sign things properly. And since all you get are one-liners at the top of the tunnel, with dense traffic swirling around you and 3 to 5 lanes at any given moment, even if the signs DO show everything they need to, good luck seeing and reading them.
any maps of the new I-93 after the big dig showing the lane drops and the mainline? This thread talks about the random lane drops and additions...I would like to see it detailed. Ubnfortunately Bing Maps doesn't have bird's eye view underground.
Quote from: doofy103 on August 23, 2010, 11:28:44 PM
Unfortunately Bing Maps doesn't have bird's eye view underground.
But Google Streetview has underground views:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Boston,+MA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.543597,51.855469&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Boston,+Suffolk,+Massachusetts&ll=42.364759,-71.030989&spn=0.044963,0.111494&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=42.365087,-71.059512&panoid=ePaT6UKu-tdAamGUg7BQ7Q&cbp=12,144.87,,0,16.57
Quote from: kurumi on August 18, 2010, 01:39:33 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 06, 2010, 11:54:15 PM
I am extremely pro-tunnel.
And anti-pumpkin.
I'd love to see a 3-mile tunnel under Hartford for I-84, leading from about exit 47 through exit 57. I'm not sure how to tie it in to the existing freeway network on the east side yet.
Then you could tear down the Aetna Viaduct (it's named after an HMO, that's how bad it is :-/) and replace with a boulevard / upgraded streets / another way to downtown.
There's a proposal to bury I-5 under the Willamette and through East Portland. It'd require the sinking of the southern 3/4 miles of I-405 as well.
Quote from: doofy103 on August 23, 2010, 11:28:44 PM
any maps of the new I-93 after the big dig showing the lane drops and the mainline? This thread talks about the random lane drops and additions...I would like to see it detailed. Ubnfortunately Bing Maps doesn't have bird's eye view underground.
I have some old plans showing the proposed lane confgurations - I will have to find them and scan them so you can see them.
From what I remember, some of the lane drops and additions were constrained by having to use some of the previously existing on & off ramps and tunnel sections to tie into the new ones. So they aren't just a product of negligent design.
Boston.com: 10 years later, did the Big Dig deliver? -
The $15 billion project is a road paved with failures, successes, and what-ifs. (http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/12/29/years-later-did-big-dig-deliver/tSb8PIMS4QJUETsMpA7SpI/story.html?)
QuoteIt was our obsession spanning three decades, the kitchen renovation that would never end, fodder for late-night television jokes. The Big Dig was no mere act of public works, never talked about in the way New Yorkers refer to the Lincoln Tunnel or the George Washington Bridge – infrastructure that cleanly does its job. Ours was the mega project of faulty epoxy, light fixtures dropping like pine needles, Ginsu guardrails, and sea water leaks. The boondoggle, good money after bad, the white elephant.
QuoteAs the most expensive highway in US history, the Central Artery and Tunnel project had a special, contradictory destiny: an engineering marvel deemed to be ill-conceived from the start. We stood on the sidelines darkly, shaking our heads, exercising Yankee pessimism honed by generations of not winning a World Series. This thing would never work out. There was too much opportunity for incompetence and corruption. They'd blow the save in the ninth inning and we'd all go home unhappy.
Does anyone even want to imagine what turning I-93 into a surface boulevard would look like?
And five years later, in 2015, we all learned that the Big Dig was a large disaster!
To be honest, they should have accounted for future traffic and built more lanes, or at least had room for future widening.
Quote from: vdeane on December 29, 2015, 03:01:15 PM
Does anyone even want to imagine what turning I-93 into a surface boulevard would look like?
Actually, a portion of the old Artery (from just north of High St. to just south of the Callahan Tunnel) had a surface road running directly underneath it. IIRC, such was appropriately named either
Surface Road or
Surface Artery.
More to the point, as intrusive as the old elevated Central Artery was; if it wasn't built, many of the businesses located along that corridor probably would've located
away from the downtown area or even outside of the city. The Financial District wouldn't have even existed; at least not at its present location.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 29, 2015, 03:59:35 PMTo be honest, they should have accounted for future traffic and built more lanes, or at least had room for future widening.
It's worth noting that much of the design dates back to the mid-1980s with an originally anticipated completion about a decade later. Plus, and CP's web-linked article gives hint of such, the buried/tunneled highways themselves weren't supposed to be the end-all (even then-MA Transporation Secretary Fred Salvucci admited such in an old
Boston Herald article circa 1988). Transit expansions and improvements
were planned to come after the Big Dig work was done.
As far as provisions for a future widening is concerned; given the overall cost, how long and how much BS (I'm calling it for what it is here) the current Big Dig project went through; providing provisions for a future widening would've been too much to stomach.
My main gripe is with the current design is that the I-93/O'Neill Tunnel interchanges with the Sumner/Callahan (MA 1A) and the Ted Williams (I-90) Tunnels are not full/complete movement interchanges. That defect has come back and bitten the Commonwealth on the butt several times. The current interchange ramps (access to/from the older 2 tunnels from only points north and access to the Ted Williams Tunnel only from points south and west (through-I-90 movements)) works great under normal conditions; but if there's an issue with one of the tunnels (be it an accident or construction), one can find themselves driving on local/surface roads (something that locals certainly don't want) in order to access the alternate tunnel.
Another issue with the tunneling of I-93 in the city meant that vehicles carrying hazardous materials (aka HAZMATs) are not allowed to use the underground highway (they were allowed on the old elevated Artery). As a result, such vehicles have to use local/surface roads to get around (depending on the client & business, their O&D can also be in the City of Boston).
The biggest plus of the Big Dig, IMHO is a component that actually predated such and originally rejected by Dukakis/Salvucci during the mid-70s; the Ted Williams (aka the Third-Harbor) Tunnel. That component, along with its smaller Liberty Tunnel that extended I-90 to Logan removed a major bottleneck and improved access to the airport from points west and south.
The 3rd tunnel was originally conceived in the late 60s as a plan for a relocated I-95 east of the Central Artery and was planned to run in a more northerly direction through the Fort Point Channel. During the King Administration (1979-1983), there were plans in the works to just build the 3rd tunnel and connect it to the existing Artery & Pike; but when Dukakis returned to the Governor's seat in 1983, that plan was scrapped in favor of an Artery-only Big Dig. A realignment of the 3rd tunnel to its current location (away from the Channel) convinced Dukakis & Salvucci to do both. Needless to say, plans to build a highway from the Ted Williams Tunnel northward towards Revere & Saugus went nowhere.
Quote from: vdeane on December 29, 2015, 03:01:15 PM
Does anyone even want to imagine what turning I-93 into a surface boulevard would look like?
No, but I am sure there are folks from the usual-suspect groups that would assert that this would be a great idea!
IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.
I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2015, 06:55:17 PM
IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.
I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.
Another thing to keep in mind that since the I-93 portion was replacing an existing Interstate (though grandfathered) corridor; federal regulations that existed at the time prevented that stretch from being tolled despite the improvements/upgrades. The Ted Williams Tunnel received a toll because it was a brand new facility that previously did not exist.
That said, I would personally recommend placing a toll gantry at I-93 southbound prior to the Leverett Circle Connector (MA 3 North & MA 28) interchange, a toll gantry at I-93 northbound prior to the I-90 interchange and convert the existing Allston/Brighton/Cambridge toll plaza along I-90 to a one-way eastbound toll. Charge a base toll rate of $2.50 for those plazas/gantries as well as the existing harbor crossing plazas/gantries (the latter would be a cheaper toll than the current rate) and be done with it.
If you were suggesting congestion-pricing in your quote; such wouldn't work in Boston because all the I-93 interchanges with the harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge (US 1), Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) and Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90)) are
not full/complete movement interchanges. As mentioned earlier, one has to exit off I-93 and navigate through local streets in order to reach an alternate crossing in most instances.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2015, 09:10:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2015, 06:55:17 PM
IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.
I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.
Another thing to keep in mind that since the I-93 portion was replacing an existing Interstate (though grandfathered) corridor; federal regulations that existed at the time prevented that stretch from being tolled despite the improvements/upgrades. The Ted Williams Tunnel received a toll because it was a brand new facility that previously did not exist.
That said, I would personally recommend placing a toll gantry at I-93 southbound prior to the Leverett Circle Connector (MA 3 North & MA 28) interchange, a toll gantry at I-93 northbound prior to the I-90 interchange and convert the existing Allston/Brighton/Cambridge toll plaza along I-90 to a one-way eastbound toll. Charge a base toll rate of $2.50 for those plazas/gantries as well as the existing harbor crossing plazas/gantries (the latter would be a cheaper toll than the current rate) and be done with it.
If you were suggesting congestion-pricing in your quote; such wouldn't work in Boston because all the I-93 interchanges with the harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge (US 1), Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) and Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90)) are not full/complete movement interchanges. As mentioned earlier, one has to exit off I-93 and navigate through local streets in order to reach an alternate crossing in most instances.
The Big Dig was built a few years too soon to capitalize on modern tolling technology. To me, it remains the project's most glaring failure that folks on the Mass Pike pay for it, but not those on 93. This prompted boneheaded decisions like selling the land under the Beacon Park interchange and rail yard to Harvard to cover short-term debt.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2015, 06:55:17 PM
IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.
I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.
Doing so would probably create gridlocked conditions on the surface streets, to the point where the average drive would take longer overall just trying to reach the tunnels.
Free-flow pricing is fine when there's a reasonable alternative nearby, or even a set variable pricing to try to encourage traffic to use the highway during off-peak hours. Some traffic will already avoid a toll road. But variable pricing that just forces congestion on those just trying to drive a short distance and who would have no use for the toll road anyway may be pushing it a little too far.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2015, 12:03:08 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2015, 06:55:17 PM
IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.
I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.
Doing so would probably create gridlocked conditions on the surface streets, to the point where the average drive would take longer overall just trying to reach the tunnels.
Free-flow pricing is fine when there's a reasonable alternative nearby, or even a set variable pricing to try to encourage traffic to use the highway during off-peak hours. Some traffic will already avoid a toll road. But variable pricing that just forces congestion on those just trying to drive a short distance and who would have no use for the toll road anyway may be pushing it a little too far.
It would help shunt through traffic onto 128.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 31, 2015, 08:50:05 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2015, 12:03:08 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2015, 06:55:17 PM
IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.
I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.
Doing so would probably create gridlocked conditions on the surface streets, to the point where the average drive would take longer overall just trying to reach the tunnels.
Free-flow pricing is fine when there's a reasonable alternative nearby, or even a set variable pricing to try to encourage traffic to use the highway during off-peak hours. Some traffic will already avoid a toll road. But variable pricing that just forces congestion on those just trying to drive a short distance and who would have no use for the toll road anyway may be pushing it a little too far.
It would help shunt through traffic onto 128.
Such only/already happens for traffic outside that beltway. Not so much nor practical for traffic O&D-ing closer to Boston/well inside 128 and/or trying to get to/from Logan. The cancelled I-695/Inner Belt would've accomplished such.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 31, 2015, 08:56:24 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 31, 2015, 08:50:05 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2015, 12:03:08 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2015, 06:55:17 PM
IMO, the biggest Big Dig mistake was not pricing the tunnels to reasonably assure free-flow conditions at all times.
I realize that such technology was not really considered feasible in the 1980's, but did become possible in the 1990's.
Doing so would probably create gridlocked conditions on the surface streets, to the point where the average drive would take longer overall just trying to reach the tunnels.
Free-flow pricing is fine when there's a reasonable alternative nearby, or even a set variable pricing to try to encourage traffic to use the highway during off-peak hours. Some traffic will already avoid a toll road. But variable pricing that just forces congestion on those just trying to drive a short distance and who would have no use for the toll road anyway may be pushing it a little too far.
It would help shunt through traffic onto 128.
Such only/already happens for traffic outside that beltway. Not so much nor practical for traffic O&D-ing closer to Boston/well inside 128 and/or trying to get to/from Logan. The cancelled I-695/Inner Belt would've accomplished such.
Correct. I have no idea what percentage of users have origins and destinations outside 128, nor how many would be dissuaded by a nominal fee.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 06, 2010, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 06, 2010, 09:12:30 PM
how many lanes were before the Big-Dig and how many are there now?
Looking at a comparison of photos on Flickr, the tunnels are 8-laned:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rene-germany/15571970/
The old Central Artery was only 6 lanes:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28175182@N07/3550274150/
Old elevated highway - 3 through lanes northbound - 3 through lanes southbound
New underground highway - 3 through lanes northbound - 3 through lanes southbound
New underground highway has more lanes at certain portions, but these serve as glorified C/D roadways without physical separation.
Quote from: roadman on December 31, 2015, 10:57:20 AMOld elevated highway - 3 through lanes northbound - 3 through lanes southbound
New underground highway - 3 through lanes northbound - 3 through lanes southbound
New underground highway has more lanes at certain portions, but these serve as glorified C/D roadways without physical separation.
When this project was marketed (mid 70s through the 80s); it mentioned several times that it was going to be wider/8 (4 each way) lanes wide (one report even mentioned 10, at least for a portion) all the way through. I guess there should have been an asterisk next to the
8 in those reports/articles.
Talk about deception.
In fairness, it's wider, the entrances and exits are much more graceful, and it's overall less harrowing even in heavy traffic. I do think there should be more emphasis on telling through traffic to stay left, but really, the flow is markedly better.
The NMA isn't too impressed. Not surprisingly, they weren't happy with the mitigation projects.
https://www.motorists.org/blog/ten-years-later-did-the-big-dig-deliver/
I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 01, 2016, 12:24:25 AM
I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.
"We can all" judge for ourselves, particularly those of us familiar with the before snd the after.
Traffic flow is much better thanks to smarter road geometry and consolidated exits.
The Mass Pike and 93 will always have traffic jams until it is decided that in the name of not having traffic jams we are going to level as much of Boston as is necessary to keep traffic moving at full speed. And drive less. Compare the numbers sometime on cars on the road before and after the Big Dig and let me know what a viable (in political, economic, and engineering terms) "successful" way to keep up with that demand is.
As you mentioned, there is a third harbor tunnel now, a direct Interstate connection to Logan. This has been a tremendous improvement to many, many people.
And though it is not the focus of assessment of "success" here, Boston has an enormous amount of fertile public space it didn't used to have, one of the primary goals of the project. Slowly but surely, this is growing into a very important part of the city.
I'm not familiar with the before but from what I've read about the Central Artery, it seems like an incredible success. I wish that more cities were able to bury their interstate highways actually. The current arrangement in most cities not only breaks up neighborhoods but is terribly unsightly.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 01, 2016, 10:57:45 AM
The current arrangement in most cities not only breaks up neighborhoods but is terribly unsightly.
I only feel like elevated highways are unsightly if anything. Sunken freeways aren't an eyesore, but I can see how some people view elevated viaducts (like I-84 in Hartford) as ugly.
I know that in some cities, the freeway did cause neighborhoods to be wiped out and changed the fabric of a lot of neighborhoods. If you bury the interstate then you might be able to build on top of that, which might do a lot for neighborhood unity (or the recreation of neighborhoods altogether. There's also the possibility of lakefront parks in areas like Cleveland where the interstate takes up a significant portion of lake front real estate.
This is all but a pipe dream sadly because of the expense involved.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 01, 2016, 12:24:25 AM
I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.
Highways within cities will never be congestion-free. You can reduce the amount, the length, and the timing of the congestion, but no real agency out there will say "OK, in 25 years, we expect this highway in the downtown part of the city will still be congestion free.
If it is, then you have a Detroit-like situation.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 01, 2016, 12:24:25 AM
I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.
As someone who doesn't get to Boston that often, but has been there before, during, and after the Big Dig, I would have a hard time calling it a failure. At least in my experience, it is a significant improvement both in traffic flow and the fact that the ugly elevated highway is gone. Worth the price tag? I don't know. But a failure? Not to me.
Quote from: Jim on January 01, 2016, 01:15:07 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 01, 2016, 12:24:25 AM
I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.
As someone who doesn't get to Boston that often, but has been there before, during, and after the Big Dig, I would have a hard time calling it a failure. At least in my experience, it is a significant improvement both in traffic flow and the fact that the ugly elevated highway is gone. Worth the price tag? I don't know. But a failure? Not to me.
Have to agree with most of the follow-up comments. A complete failure, no. Cost too much, yes. Did some of the mitigation agreements have a role in this increased cost, yes. As someone living on the South Shore though the Ted Williams Tunnel makes it much easier to reach Logan. I'd much rather have the open space downtown than an interstate.
Traffic jams along I-93 now are caused more by the number of lanes available north and south of the city. Are there solutions to that? Fewer cars obviously, but how to do this. The city tried freezing the amount of public parking spaces in the 1970s, but the cap didn't apply to private owners who built new structures with underground garages, so the traffic increased. Tolling in theory might work, but it would make sense to put them up in the suburbs outside Boston to discourage driving before reaching the city. But how many suburbs would want the increased traffic from those travelling through their towns to avoid the tolls?
Quote from: bob7374 on January 01, 2016, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: Jim on January 01, 2016, 01:15:07 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 01, 2016, 12:24:25 AM
I think at this point we can all accept the Big Dig was a failure. It failed to improve traffic flow on I-93, I-90 still has traffic jams (thanks to the Logan Airport extension, at least I made a concession to common sense), and the Zakim feels like a waste of money.
As someone who doesn't get to Boston that often, but has been there before, during, and after the Big Dig, I would have a hard time calling it a failure. At least in my experience, it is a significant improvement both in traffic flow and the fact that the ugly elevated highway is gone. Worth the price tag? I don't know. But a failure? Not to me.
Have to agree with most of the follow-up comments. A complete failure, no. Cost too much, yes. Did some of the mitigation agreements have a role in this increased cost, yes. As someone living on the South Shore though the Ted Williams Tunnel makes it much easier to reach Logan. I'd much rather have the open space downtown than an interstate.
Traffic jams along I-93 now are caused more by the number of lanes available north and south of the city. Are there solutions to that? Fewer cars obviously, but how to do this. The city tried freezing the amount of public parking spaces in the 1970s, but the cap didn't apply to private owners who built new structures with underground garages, so the traffic increased. Tolling in theory might work, but it would make sense to put them up in the suburbs outside Boston to discourage driving before reaching the city. But how many suburbs would want the increased traffic from those travelling through their towns to avoid the tolls?
The tolls would have to be tweaked to get it right. As anyone who has tried circumventing 93 traffic in the morning rush knows, the payoff is very limited. If you play your cards right, develop a knowledge of which lanes move where, and put a lot of effort in to a lot of turns... sometimes you come out ahead.
In other words, a lightly-tolled 93 will still win out over the various shunpikes. People are not abandoning the Mass Pike in the morning (it's heavy inbound anytime after 6-6:30am), and it has several parallel, lousy alternatives.
I think the most shortsighted mitigation left off the table was completing the mass transit routes out to 128. This was a key component of 1970-ish regional planning, resulting only in adding the Red Line capture point at Braintree to the existing Riverside park-and-ride (and arguably a functional capture point at Alewife, though not at 128).
Plans for a Red Line to Lexington were allegedly scrapped amid "Those people will ride out here and steal our TVs" hysteria, and logical Orange Line runs to Needham and Reading similarly never happened. These are where meaningful benefits against highway overcrowding in the core might have been realized.
Quote from: bob7374 on January 01, 2016, 04:53:10 PM
Traffic jams along I-93 now are caused more by the number of lanes available north and south of the city. Are there solutions to that? Fewer cars obviously, but how to do this. The city tried freezing the amount of public parking spaces in the 1970s, but the cap didn't apply to private owners who built new structures with underground garages, so the traffic increased. Tolling in theory might work, but it would make sense to put them up in the suburbs outside Boston to discourage driving before reaching the city. But how many suburbs would want the increased traffic from those travelling through their towns to avoid the tolls?
I respectfully disagree.
Tolls at the entrances to the Big Dig tunnels could be implemented rather easily, and set high enough to assure free-flow conditions, and maximize traffic though the entire project.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 30, 2015, 09:57:17 AM
The Big Dig was built a few years too soon to capitalize on modern tolling technology. To me, it remains the project's most glaring failure that folks on the Mass Pike pay for it, but not those on 93.
I agree. Forgot to mention the equity issue, but I am glad you did.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 30, 2015, 09:57:17 AM
This prompted boneheaded decisions like selling the land under the Beacon Park interchange and rail yard to Harvard to cover short-term debt.
Not being from Massachusetts, I am not familiar with that boneheaded decision.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2015, 09:10:27 AM
If you were suggesting congestion-pricing in your quote; such wouldn't work in Boston because all the I-93 interchanges with the harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge (US 1), Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) and Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90)) are not full/complete movement interchanges. As mentioned earlier, one has to exit off I-93 and navigate through local streets in order to reach an alternate crossing in most instances.
The idea with congestion pricing is not necessarily to divert traffic to other routes. I believe the idea is to get people out of their cars altogether (thus providing alternate routes isn't really a big deal). People going from the south of Boston to the north of Boston would not use the main artery through Boston, but rather a bypass road such as the 95.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2015, 09:10:27 AM
If you were suggesting congestion-pricing in your quote; such wouldn't work in Boston because all the I-93 interchanges with the harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge (US 1), Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) and Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90)) are not full/complete movement interchanges. As mentioned earlier, one has to exit off I-93 and navigate through local streets in order to reach an alternate crossing in most instances.
The idea with congestion pricing is not necessarily to divert traffic to other routes. I believe the idea is to get people out of their cars altogether (thus providing alternate routes isn't really a big deal). People going from the south of Boston to the north of Boston would not use the main artery through Boston, but rather a bypass road such as the 95.
No, the idea is to manage traffic so that it does not reach the point at which flow breaks-down (level-of--service "E" and definitely level-of-service "F"). In other words to maximize use of what is already there.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 07:48:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2015, 09:10:27 AM
If you were suggesting congestion-pricing in your quote; such wouldn't work in Boston because all the I-93 interchanges with the harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge (US 1), Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) and Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90)) are not full/complete movement interchanges. As mentioned earlier, one has to exit off I-93 and navigate through local streets in order to reach an alternate crossing in most instances.
The idea with congestion pricing is not necessarily to divert traffic to other routes. I believe the idea is to get people out of their cars altogether (thus providing alternate routes isn't really a big deal). People going from the south of Boston to the north of Boston would not use the main artery through Boston, but rather a bypass road such as the 95.
No, the idea is to manage traffic so that it does not reach the point at which flow breaks-down (level-of--service "E" and definitely level-of-service "F"). In other words to maximize use of what is already there.
Very good point. I was thinking of "congestion pricing" in another context, in that a toll road might persuade people into using a vehicle that is exempt from a toll, such as a bus. In this part of the country, congestion pricing would be used on express lanes that can filter traffic in and out, depending on the amount of cars (hence congestion).
There is a bridge near me (the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, famous for collapsing in the 40s) that has tolls going westbound. Where I work, I have coworkers who commute from the other side of the bridge. There are some that drive, but quite a few take the bus to avoid the toll (<< this is the context that I was thinking of when I mean "congestion pricing", in that the price is set to collect money for the bonds, but also, as a side-job, keep BS traffic to a minimum (BS traffic meaning drivers who use their cars to get to work when they could, very easily, take a bus)(also, please don't think too hard about the term "BS". I mean it only in that it's expendable traffic -- cars that don't need to be there).
Quote from: Duke87 on January 04, 2016, 12:10:31 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 07:25:42 PM
the 95.
/me slooowly backs away from the ticking bomb
I say "the" specifically to piss people off. I think it's funny.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 01:14:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 07:48:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2015, 09:10:27 AM
If you were suggesting congestion-pricing in your quote; such wouldn't work in Boston because all the I-93 interchanges with the harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge (US 1), Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) and Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90)) are not full/complete movement interchanges. As mentioned earlier, one has to exit off I-93 and navigate through local streets in order to reach an alternate crossing in most instances.
The idea with congestion pricing is not necessarily to divert traffic to other routes. I believe the idea is to get people out of their cars altogether (thus providing alternate routes isn't really a big deal). People going from the south of Boston to the north of Boston would not use the main artery through Boston, but rather a bypass road such as the 95.
No, the idea is to manage traffic so that it does not reach the point at which flow breaks-down (level-of--service "E" and definitely level-of-service "F"). In other words to maximize use of what is already there.
Very good point. I was thinking of "congestion pricing" in another context, in that a toll road might persuade people into using a vehicle that is exempt from a toll, such as a bus. In this part of the country, congestion pricing would be used on express lanes that can filter traffic in and out, depending on the amount of cars (hence congestion).
There is a bridge near me (the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, famous for collapsing in the 40s) that has tolls going westbound. Where I work, I have coworkers who commute from the other side of the bridge. There are some that drive, but quite a few take the bus to avoid the toll (<< this is the context that I was thinking of when I mean "congestion pricing", in that the price is set to collect money for the bonds, but also, as a side-job, keep BS traffic to a minimum (BS traffic meaning drivers who use their cars to get to work when they could, very easily, take a bus)(also, please don't think too hard about the term "BS". I mean it only in that it's expendable traffic -- cars that don't need to be there).
Quote from: Duke87 on January 04, 2016, 12:10:31 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 07:25:42 PM
the 95.
/me slooowly backs away from the ticking bomb
I say "the" specifically to piss people off. I think it's funny.
It's a Los Angeles thing, Duke.
ixnay
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 07:25:42 PMThe idea with congestion pricing is not necessarily to divert traffic to other routes. I believe the idea is to get people out of their cars altogether (thus providing alternate routes isn't really a big deal). People going from the south of Boston to the north of Boston would not use the main artery through Boston, but rather a bypass road such as the 95.
Since CP already rebuked/corrected you regarding what the actual defintion of congestion pricing is, I won't labor that point any further. Instead, I'm going to zero in on another oversight in your post (let me remind you that I grew up in the NorthShore/Greater Boston area so I am very familiar with the area).
The posted assumption is that highways only exist for commuter traffic to/from the city. That's not the complete story/picture. Highways also serve as conduits of commerce as well (i.e. businesses/delivery vehicles transporting goods & services).
Additonally, many trips along I-93 (both pre- & post-Big Dig) are
through-trips; i.e. not everybody is O&Ding in downtown Boston. While I-95 (MA 128) helps in diverting the
more-distant through-traffic away from downtown; such is not a practical option for communities located closer to the city (as an example, one traveling from Lynn to Quincy is
not going to use I-95). While the MBTA network exists for those cases in mind; such only works if one's origin/destination is located within reasonable proximity of a stop or network
and provided that the transfer/connection times aren't too long. If the connection wait times are too long or if the service is too infrequent (this mostly applies towards bus routes); one's actually better off driving traffic and all.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 04, 2016, 09:49:05 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 07:25:42 PMThe idea with congestion pricing is not necessarily to divert traffic to other routes. I believe the idea is to get people out of their cars altogether (thus providing alternate routes isn't really a big deal). People going from the south of Boston to the north of Boston would not use the main artery through Boston, but rather a bypass road such as the 95.
Since CP already rebuked/corrected you regarding what the actual defintion of congestion pricing is, I won't labor that point any further. Instead, I'm going to zero in on another oversight in your post (let me remind you that I grew up in the NorthShore/Greater Boston area so I am very familiar with the area).
The posted assumption is that highways only exist for commuter traffic to/from the city. That's not the complete story/picture. Highways also serve as conduits of commerce as well (i.e. businesses/delivery vehicles transporting goods & services).
Additonally, many trips along I-93 (both pre- & post-Big Dig) are through-trips; i.e. not everybody is O&Ding in downtown Boston. While I-95 (MA 128) helps in diverting the more-distant through-traffic away from downtown; such is not a practical option for communities located closer to the city (as an example, one traveling from Lynn to Quincy is not going to use I-95). While the MBTA network exists for those cases in mind; such only works if one's origin/destination is located within reasonable proximity of a stop or network and provided that the transfer/connection times aren't too long. If the connection wait times are too long or if the service is too infrequent (this mostly applies towards bus routes); one's actually better off driving traffic and all.
Thank you for the kind comment.
If pricing of a highway causes some trips to divert to transit (because that is convenient for the users of the network), that's fine by me, especially if transit (buses) can take advantage of reasonably free-flowing traffic to provide reliable and fast service. Buses on highways that are correctly priced are a great way to provide a guideway for buses to use, and the cost is properly borne by all traffic on the road (I have no problem with buses being allowed to use a managed/priced highway at no charge, since in most cases there are not that many of them).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 04, 2016, 12:16:07 PMIf pricing of a highway causes some trips to divert to transit (because that is convenient for the users of the network), that's fine by me, especially if transit (buses) can take advantage of reasonably free-flowing traffic to provide reliable and fast service. Buses on highways that are correctly priced are a great way to provide a guideway for buses to use, and the cost is properly borne by all traffic on the road (I have no problem with buses being allowed to use a managed/priced highway at no charge, since in most cases there are not that many of them).
Most if not all commuters make their decision whether to drive or to take transit to their place of work
the moment they leave home. Once on their chosen mode; those that drive aren't going to switch to transit routes (especially on routes that they may not be familiar with) in mid-stream of their commute due to their regular route being jammed or closed.
Busses that use highways are typically on
Express mode and only stop at key interchanges; unless one was a regular transit user, they may be not familiar with where exactly those highway busses make stops.
Conversely, one using transit that encounters a severe delay and/or transit route closure at their transfer point doesn't have the option of switching back to their personal vehicle at that point (unless they backtrack home).
As far as specialized HOV (busses, carpools, etc.) lanes are concerned; since I-93 wasn't really widened
in terms of through-lanes in the Big Dig area (see Roadman's earlier post) such would not work due to it taking out an existing
active lane. Those that were old enough and lived in the Greater Bsoton area remember the infamous
Diamond Car Pool Lane along the Southeast Expressway during the early-to-mid 70s; know that such an experiment was an absolute disaster traffic-wise.
South of the I-90 interchange, I do believe that there is an HOV lane along I-93 but such is only a short segment.
On the I-90 part of the Big Dig, there
was supposed to be a separate bus tunnel that paralleled the Ted Williams Tunnel but I don't believe that such ever came to fruition. Roadman (not Roadman65) can confirm/clarify.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 04, 2016, 04:13:18 PMMost if not all commuters make their decision whether to drive or to take transit to their place of work the moment they leave home. Once on their chosen mode; those that drive aren't going to switch to transit routes (especially on routes that they may not be familiar with) in mid-stream of their commute due to their regular route being jammed or closed.
I would bet that most of them decide it a week into their job, when they have an understanding of the trip, then never question that decision again.
QuoteSouth of the I-90 interchange, I do believe that there is an HOV lane along I-93 but such is only a short segment.
It runs from the Braintree Split to Savin Hill in Dorchester, about five and a half miles (most of the Southeast Expressway, in other words).
QuoteOn the I-90 part of the Big Dig, there was supposed to be a separate bus tunnel that paralleled the Ted Williams Tunnel but I don't believe that such ever came to fruition. Roadman (not Roadman65) can confirm/clarify.
A parallel transit bus tunnel was built from South Station to the vicinity of the World Trade Center, the so-called "Piers Transitway" segment of the Silver Line.
There is also a bus/HOV lane heading from the Expressway northbound at South Bay going to the Mass Pike eastbound and South Station.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2016, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 04, 2016, 04:13:18 PMMost if not all commuters make their decision whether to drive or to take transit to their place of work the moment they leave home. Once on their chosen mode; those that drive aren't going to switch to transit routes (especially on routes that they may not be familiar with) in mid-stream of their commute due to their regular route being jammed or closed.
I would bet that most of them decide it a week into their job, when they have an understanding of the trip, then never question that decision again.
QuoteSouth of the I-90 interchange, I do believe that there is an HOV lane along I-93 but such is only a short segment.
It runs from the Braintree Split to Savin Hill in Dorchester, about five and a half miles (most of the Southeast Expressway, in other words).
QuoteOn the I-90 part of the Big Dig, there was supposed to be a separate bus tunnel that paralleled the Ted Williams Tunnel but I don't believe that such ever came to fruition. Roadman (not Roadman65) can confirm/clarify.
A parallel transit bus tunnel was built from South Station to the vicinity of the World Trade Center, the so-called "Piers Transitway" segment of the Silver Line.
There is also a bus/HOV lane heading from the Expressway northbound at South Bay going to the Mass Pike eastbound and South Station.
I'd say they decide before starting. In fact, probably before deciding whether to take the job, or even go to an interview. I certainly did
Quote from: bzakharin on January 04, 2016, 04:56:01 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2016, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 04, 2016, 04:13:18 PMMost if not all commuters make their decision whether to drive or to take transit to their place of work the moment they leave home. Once on their chosen mode; those that drive aren't going to switch to transit routes (especially on routes that they may not be familiar with) in mid-stream of their commute due to their regular route being jammed or closed.
I would bet that most of them decide it a week into their job, when they have an understanding of the trip, then never question that decision again.
QuoteSouth of the I-90 interchange, I do believe that there is an HOV lane along I-93 but such is only a short segment.
It runs from the Braintree Split to Savin Hill in Dorchester, about five and a half miles (most of the Southeast Expressway, in other words).
QuoteOn the I-90 part of the Big Dig, there was supposed to be a separate bus tunnel that paralleled the Ted Williams Tunnel but I don't believe that such ever came to fruition. Roadman (not Roadman65) can confirm/clarify.
A parallel transit bus tunnel was built from South Station to the vicinity of the World Trade Center, the so-called "Piers Transitway" segment of the Silver Line.
There is also a bus/HOV lane heading from the Expressway northbound at South Bay going to the Mass Pike eastbound and South Station.
I'd say they decide before starting. In fact, probably before deciding whether to take the job, or even go to an interview. I certainly did
If you have multiple viable options, you'd try them all out before settling. When i started my new job, I walked the first day and later figured out whether I liked biking and driving (driving is my least favorite). So I'd tend to believe that people who MIGHT use transit will first try that and driving before settling (or maybe choosing each day based on conditions).
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2016, 08:02:52 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 04, 2016, 04:56:01 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2016, 04:44:45 PM
I would bet that most of them decide it a week into their job, when they have an understanding of the trip, then never question that decision again.
I'd say they decide before starting. In fact, probably before deciding whether to take the job, or even go to an interview. I certainly did
If you have multiple viable options, you'd try them all out before settling. When i started my new job, I walked the first day and later figured out whether I liked biking and driving (driving is my least favorite). So I'd tend to believe that people who MIGHT use transit will first try that and driving before settling (or maybe choosing each day based on conditions).
Not everybody does all the above
before starting their new job as this old thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10514.msg249059#msg249059) can attest.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 05, 2016, 09:13:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2016, 08:02:52 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 04, 2016, 04:56:01 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2016, 04:44:45 PM
I would bet that most of them decide it a week into their job, when they have an understanding of the trip, then never question that decision again.
I'd say they decide before starting. In fact, probably before deciding whether to take the job, or even go to an interview. I certainly did
If you have multiple viable options, you'd try them all out before settling. When i started my new job, I walked the first day and later figured out whether I liked biking and driving (driving is my least favorite). So I'd tend to believe that people who MIGHT use transit will first try that and driving before settling (or maybe choosing each day based on conditions).
Not everybody does all the above before starting their new job as this old thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10514.msg249059#msg249059) can attest.
Exactly.
Let's not forget that people change jobs without changing where they live.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 06, 2016, 12:22:04 AM
Let's not forget that people change jobs without changing where they live.
Yep. And some people may have originally moved with taking a certain route or bus or train in mind. When they switch jobs, they may be stuck with commuting option(s) that don't necessarily appeal to them.
To those who suggested the Big Dig should have been congestion priced, I wholeheartedly agree. Otherwise, it would eventually be just as congested as the old central artery was. After all, the cause of traffic congestion is the use and mispricing of roads.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 06, 2016, 02:24:32 PM
To those who suggested the Big Dig should have been congestion priced, I wholeheartedly agree. Otherwise, it would eventually be just as congested as the old central artery was. After all, the cause of traffic congestion is the use and mispricing of roads.
As stated earlier, congestion pricing only works when there's
full-access to the various alternate routes.
Unfortunately, such does not exist along the I-93/O'Neill Tunnel. All its interchanges with the three harbor crossings (Tobin Bridge, Sumner/Callahan Tunnels & Ted Williams Tunnel) are
not full-access (complete) interchanges.
There's no direct ramps linking I-93 South to US 1 North nor US 1 South to I-93 North (Tobin Bridge).
There's no direct ramps linking I-93 North to MA 1A North nor MA 1A South to I-93 South (Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels). Such makes one following
Secret MA 1A to/from US 1 (which piggybacks along I-93) a bit of a challenge.
There's no direct ramps linking I-93 South to I-90 East (Liberty & Ted Williams Tunnel).
Here's an idea: Toll the tunnel, but permit free usage for carpools and electric vehicles. Could that work? Does the EZ-pass have an HOV mode?
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:18:22 PM
Here's an idea: Toll the tunnel, but permit free usage for carpools and electric vehicles. Could that work?
Short answer,
No. The tunnels only have 2-lanes per direction and the Tobin Bridge only has 3-lanes per direction.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:18:22 PMDoes the EZ-pass have an HOV mode?
I do not believe so.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 06, 2016, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:18:22 PM
Here's an idea: Toll the tunnel, but permit free usage for carpools and electric vehicles. Could that work?
Short answer, No. The tunnels only have 2-lanes per direction and the Tobin Bridge only has 3-lanes per direction.
I don't live in Boston (and I've only been there once), but it sounds like the 93 is pretty busy through central Boston. Is that true? Is it congested for much of the day? I'm going somewhere with this, but I need more information.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 06, 2016, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:18:22 PMDoes the EZ-pass have an HOV mode?
I do not believe so.
That seems like a strange omission. They ought to consider creating a new pass for that.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:57:41 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 06, 2016, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:18:22 PM
Here's an idea: Toll the tunnel, but permit free usage for carpools and electric vehicles. Could that work?
Short answer, No. The tunnels only have 2-lanes per direction and the Tobin Bridge only has 3-lanes per direction.
I don't live in Boston (and I've only been there once), but it sounds like the 93 is pretty busy through central Boston. Is that true? Is it congested for much of the day? I'm going somewhere with this, but I need more information.
I moved out of the Boston area 25 years ago shortly before the Big Dig project started so I can't answer for the current conditions; but pre-Big Dig, I-93 along the Central Artery was jammed in both directions for
at least 6 hours per day (rush-hour periods were really 3-hour periods) and even longer. Someone else on here can answer for the current conditions.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:57:41 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 06, 2016, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:18:22 PMDoes the EZ-pass have an HOV mode?
I do not believe so.
That seems like a strange omission. They ought to consider creating a new pass for that.
What's strange about it? To the best of my knowledge, no electronic transponder (E-Z Pass or other) in the U.S. functions based on the number of vehicle occupants. E-Z Pass lanes/ops does not equal HOV and never has.
Virginia and Maryland both issue E-ZPass transponders that can switch between HOV and toll mode. It's how the I-495 and I-95 HOT lanes work.
The purpose of congestion pricing is not to get people to switch to another roadway - it's to get people out of their cars altogether. Plus you could do like NYC wants to do and block off a whole area that you have to pay the congestion charge to enter (I believe London does this too) rather than doing it for specific routes.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 06, 2016, 05:25:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:57:41 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 06, 2016, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:18:22 PM
Does the EZ-pass have an HOV mode?
I do not believe so.
That seems like a strange omission. They ought to consider creating a new pass for that.
What's strange about it? To the best of my knowledge, no electronic transponder (E-Z Pass or other) in the U.S. functions based on the number of vehicle occupants. E-Z Pass lanes/ops does not equal HOV and never has.
Here are the new FlexPass' the WSDOT introduced last year for the 405 express lanes (see below). You get to ride free if you have the required number of occupants at the current time (rush hour: 3 people, all other times: 2). The idea is that you can avoid the toll by carpooling. The 405 used to be HOV 2+, but the HOV was so over-utilized they converted the lane into an express lane, which can be used by anyone (free of charge if you have the right amount).
My idea with the 93 through central Boston is not to toll the tunnel itself, but the exits which occur within it (and near it). If you plan to drive straight through Boston: no charge. But, if you plan to exit at one of the main junctions near Downtown, you get charged X-amount (which may or may not vary depending on the time of day). I'm not 100% sure which exits would be the start/end of the tolls, but certainly the most central junctions would have tolls. IF you are high-occupancy, you flip the pass over to HOV mode, and there's no charge. A little light overhead would flash if the pass is set to HOV mode, so police could monitor for cheaters (this is how it's done in Seattle).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsdot.wa.gov%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2FCDFA1DBF-C25A-49D8-AAE8-8C104C5A6CC8%2F104586%2FFlexPassmockup510.jpg&hash=a89bd77be60f7df1734e05210aebf10666765c61)
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2016, 05:52:00 PM
The purpose of congestion pricing is not to get people to switch to another roadway - it's to get people out of their cars altogether. Plus you could do like NYC wants to do and block off a whole area that you have to pay the congestion charge to enter (I believe London does this too) rather than doing it for specific routes.
I think that's what I just proposed here. Seattle proposed a congestion charge, but the lack of a bypass route around the metro area killed the idea (this idea does not exist in Boston...the 95 works as a bypass).
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2016, 05:52:00 PM
Virginia and Maryland both issue E-ZPass transponders that can switch between HOV and toll mode. It's how the I-495 and I-95 HOT lanes work.
AFAIK, VA only; 495 Hot Lanes stop several miles short of the MD state line. Out-of-staters can get them, and are advised to shield any regular EZ Passes to keep them from being accidentally read.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 06:00:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2016, 05:52:00 PM
The purpose of congestion pricing is not to get people to switch to another roadway - it's to get people out of their cars altogether. Plus you could do like NYC wants to do and block off a whole area that you have to pay the congestion charge to enter (I believe London does this too) rather than doing it for specific routes.
I think that's what I just proposed here. Seattle proposed a congestion charge, but the lack of a bypass route around the metro area killed the idea (this idea does not exist in Boston...the 95 works as a bypass).
I-95/MA 128 is no better or worse of a bypass of Boston than I-405 is of Seattle.
Quote from: Alps on January 06, 2016, 07:16:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 06:00:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2016, 05:52:00 PM
The purpose of congestion pricing is not to get people to switch to another roadway - it's to get people out of their cars altogether. Plus you could do like NYC wants to do and block off a whole area that you have to pay the congestion charge to enter (I believe London does this too) rather than doing it for specific routes.
I think that's what I just proposed here. Seattle proposed a congestion charge, but the lack of a bypass route around the metro area killed the idea (this idea does not exist in Boston...the 95 works as a bypass).
I-95/MA 128 is no better or worse of a bypass of Boston than I-405 is of Seattle.
Even so, as long as you don't exit within central Boston, you don't need to pay the toll (this is where my idea is slightly different than a traditional congestion charge).
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 04:57:41 PM
I don't live in Boston (and I've only been there once), but it sounds like the 93 is pretty busy through central Boston. Is that true? Is it congested for much of the day? I'm going somewhere with this, but I need more information.
For most of the day traffic flows at or above the speed limit through the O'Neill Tunnel (the official name of the I-93 portion of the Big Dig). But during rush hours, it usually slows to a crawl. Any traffic problem on its connecting roads at either end (I-93 both north and south of downtown) at any time of day will also usually clog the tunnel.
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2016, 05:52:00 PM
The purpose of congestion pricing is not to get people to switch to another roadway - it's to get people out of their cars altogether.
In the Boston area this is, plain and simple, a non-starter. Combine the dearth of rapid transit and commuter rail lines in places where people actually live with their notorious unreliability and under-funding, and you will not get the area's population to abandon their cars in any significant numbers. (The state legislature seems to think they can go on deferring maintenance and capital improvements on the MBTA indefinitely, especially on the 119-year-old Green Line whose extension into Boston's northern suburbs is now in jeopardy because the morons in state government learned not one thing from the Big Dig's funding disaster. Last figures I saw, the MBTA is looking at an expenditure of approximately $4 billion just to catch up on deferred maintenance, and there is exactly zero political will to get that funding problem solved.)
Yesterday the MBTA proposed repeated fare hikes over the next few years alongside service cuts, with nothing but verbal promises (so far) that last winter's repeated train cancellations due to weather won't happen again. This is not the message to be sending when you're trying to get people out of their cars.
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 06, 2016, 10:59:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2016, 05:52:00 PM
The purpose of congestion pricing is not to get people to switch to another roadway - it's to get people out of their cars altogether.
In the Boston area this is, plain and simple, a non-starter. Combine the dearth of rapid transit and commuter rail lines in places where people actually live with their notorious unreliability and under-funding, and you will not get the area's population to abandon their cars in any significant numbers.
There are many people who will always drive, because the inconvenience of locating public transit outweighs the inconvenience of sitting in traffic. However, there are a substantial amount of people who could very easily switch to another mode of transport (within Boston), and only drive because they just feel like it. If you start to propose tolls along their route, they may reconsider their choice to drive. They may also reconsider how many people they have in their car (if HOV was no-charge).
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2016, 01:33:09 AMThere are many people who will always drive, because the inconvenience of locating public transit outweighs the inconvenience of sitting in traffic. However, there are a substantial amount of people who could very easily switch to another mode of transport (within Boston), and only drive because they just feel like it.
Again and as stated earlier, not all of the commuting traffic is O&Ding in downtown Boston. Much of it is nearby suburb-to-nearby suburb; something that most mass transit systems aren't very efficient at (by design, they're hub-and-spoke operations). If one's origin/destination is within close proximity to a T line or bus route; great, then such a mode works. Otherwise, driving may very well be the only viable/practical option for many people.
Do keep in mind that many Greater Boston highway proposals, some originally planned as far back as 1948; never got built. One of them being the Inner Belt/I-695. That highway would've diverted much of the through-traffic away from downtown Boston.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2016, 01:33:09 AMThey may also reconsider how many people they have in their car (if HOV was no-charge).
HOV or carpools only work when all parties involved have a similar commute and have the same arrival/departure times at their respective jobs. During the late 70s/early 80s, especially when gas prices were high & lines at the pumps existed; many companies started establishing either flex or shifted hours as a means of reducing rush-hour congestion (& fuel consumption). That maneuver, en masse, threw a serious monkey-wrench into HOV/car/van-pools plans/initiatives because more and more people started having different work hours.
Even within the same company, employees can have different work shifts. During the 90s, when I was working in NJ; a co-worker of mine who lived a few miles form me asked me if I wanted to car-pool/ride-share with him. We did such for a few months but then had to abandon it because, depending in the project and its deadlines; we were leaving the office at different times too often.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2016, 08:53:09 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2016, 01:33:09 AMThere are many people who will always drive, because the inconvenience of locating public transit outweighs the inconvenience of sitting in traffic. However, there are a substantial amount of people who could very easily switch to another mode of transport (within Boston), and only drive because they just feel like it.
Again and as stated earlier, not all of the commuting traffic is O&Ding in downtown Boston. Much of it is nearby suburb-to-nearby suburb; something that most mass transit systems aren't very efficient at (by design, they're hub-and-spoke operations). If one's origin/destination is within close proximity to a T line or bus route; great, then such a mode works. Otherwise, driving may very well be the only viable/practical option for many people.
Do keep in mind that many Greater Boston highway proposals, some originally planned as far back as 1948; never got built. One of them being the Inner Belt/I-695. That highway would've diverted much of the through-traffic away from downtown Boston.
In theory.
There's a 695 around Baltimore. There's a 285 around Atlanta. And we see how jammed the main 2di's are still thru the city. It's tough to do absolute comparisons because as things were built (and not built), it changed how the areas built up thru the years.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2016, 09:01:09 AMThere's a 695 around Baltimore. There's a 285 around Atlanta. And we see how jammed the main 2di's are still thru the city. It's tough to do absolute comparisons because as things were built (and not built), it changed how the areas built up thru the years.
The proposed I-695 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_695_(Massachusetts)) for the Greater Boston area would've been less than 8 miles in overall length. Baltimore's I-695 and Atlanta's I-285 are both much longer (& have a larger radius with respect to the downtown core) and function more like Greater Boston's I-95/MA 128.
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 06, 2016, 10:59:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2016, 05:52:00 PM
The purpose of congestion pricing is not to get people to switch to another roadway - it's to get people out of their cars altogether.
In the Boston area this is, plain and simple, a non-starter. Combine the dearth of rapid transit and commuter rail lines in places where people actually live with their notorious unreliability and under-funding, and you will not get the area's population to abandon their cars in any significant numbers. (The state legislature seems to think they can go on deferring maintenance and capital improvements on the MBTA indefinitely, especially on the 119-year-old Green Line whose extension into Boston's northern suburbs is now in jeopardy because the morons in state government learned not one thing from the Big Dig's funding disaster. Last figures I saw, the MBTA is looking at an expenditure of approximately $4 billion just to catch up on deferred maintenance, and there is exactly zero political will to get that funding problem solved.)
Yesterday the MBTA proposed repeated fare hikes over the next few years alongside service cuts, with nothing but verbal promises (so far) that last winter's repeated train cancellations due to weather won't happen again. This is not the message to be sending when you're trying to get people out of their cars.
Why is no one listening? The fare hikes are necessary. The legislature is full of professional self-promoters who don't want to stick their necks out and tell voters the answers are all painful, so the T raises money itself.
Easter Massachusetts has exactly the transit system it demands, no more and no less. If people demanded better any time other than at crisis points, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I see a verbally-promised fleet of brand-new snow-clearing vehicles under Alewife Brook Parkway every other day. I saw the shuttle buses as the MBTA did its verbally-promised replacement of the entire southern Red and Orange Line's third rail heating system this fall. These are steps toward being ready for another nine feet of snow, not actually being ready for it, which is a monumental undertaking.
I just no longer know what people expect when they aren't breaking down legislators' doors saying "I'm ready to start paying to fix this." The public reaction implies that the T belongs to some other responsible party, not the voters doing the self-important complaining–"Someone else give me what I need!"
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2016, 08:53:09 AMDo keep in mind that many Greater Boston highway proposals, some originally planned as far back as 1948; never got built. One of them being the Inner Belt/I-695. That highway would've diverted much of the through-traffic away from downtown Boston.
But not to less congested areas. As it is, Melnea Cass Blvd., the BU Bridge, and the Inman-Union area are at a standstill at rush hour. The main way 695 might have lessened congestion is by blighting more neighborhoods that are now lively and thus have traffic.
Quote from: davewiecking on January 06, 2016, 06:11:19 PM
AFAIK, VA only; 495 Hot Lanes stop several miles short of the MD state line. Out-of-staters can get them, and are advised to shield any regular EZ Passes to keep them from being accidentally read.
Doesn't Maryland issue Flex transponders even though the HOT lanes don't enter their state?
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 06:00:43 PM
I think that's what I just proposed here. Seattle proposed a congestion charge, but the lack of a bypass route around the metro area killed the idea (this idea does not exist in Boston...the 95 works as a bypass).
NYC's plan also includes setting up a gantry to toll
every single north-south street in Manhattan between 59th and 60th streets.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 07, 2016, 12:58:13 PM
Why is no one listening? The fare hikes are necessary. The legislature is full of professional self-promoters who don't want to stick their necks out and tell voters the answers are all painful, so the T raises money itself.
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, but this goes back to a chronic complaint of mine: The inability of governors, presidents and legislators to have adult conversations with taxpayers without the inevitable gut reaction "our taxes are too high!" None of them have the stones to tell people "if you want it, *truly* want it, it costs money." Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker spoke to the press after a report came out detailing the ongoing costs of deferred maintenance on the MBTA, gave it its moment in the sun, and then proposed an annual MBTA budget of less than a tenth of what the report said was needed *just* for maintenance. The message just doesn't sink in, and yes, in part it's because the people aren't demanding it.
But, back on topic: Yes, the fare hikes are necessary, but if faced with both tolls on previously free roads and fare hikes on the rails, how many will opt for the rails?
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 07, 2016, 02:06:54 PM
But, back on topic: Yes, the fare hikes are necessary, but if faced with both tolls on previously free roads and fare hikes on the rails, how many will opt for the rails?
To me, it's a no-brainer: why sit in traffic for an hour, when you can ride a train for thirty minutes, and get some shit done in that time? Even if the cost is slightly more, some people will prefer the cost of the T to the cost of a toll.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 07, 2016, 12:58:13 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2016, 08:53:09 AMDo keep in mind that many Greater Boston highway proposals, some originally planned as far back as 1948; never got built. One of them being the Inner Belt/I-695. That highway would've diverted much of the through-traffic away from downtown Boston.
But not to less congested areas. As it is, Melnea Cass Blvd., the BU Bridge, and the Inman-Union area are at a standstill at rush hour. The main way 695 might have lessened congestion is by blighting more neighborhoods that are now lively and thus have traffic.
IIRC, Melnea Cass Blvd. was built on what would've been the lower part of the Inner Belt (I-695 plus the upper part of I-95's southwest branch-off the Expressway at Mass Ave.) had it been built. I-695's Charles River crossing would've either replaced or been built near the B.U. Bridge.
The Inner Belt was to have been an 8-lane expressway (4 lanes wach-way). Yes, there would've been land/home takings in order to build such but over time (it's been 45 years since Gov. Sargent cancelled it) the area would've recuperated. Closer to the corridor, there probably would've been more business and/or commercial development than residential development; that former prefers to be closer to a highway corridor than the latter.
In 1970 dollars, it would've costed about $600 million to build the I-695/Inner Belt.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2016, 02:12:36 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 07, 2016, 02:06:54 PM
But, back on topic: Yes, the fare hikes are necessary, but if faced with both tolls on previously free roads and fare hikes on the rails, how many will opt for the rails?
To me, it's a no-brainer: why sit in traffic for an hour, when you can ride a train for thirty minutes, and get some shit done in that time? Even if the cost is slightly more, some people will prefer the cost of the T to the cost of a toll.
Because you have to include the time it takes to get to the train station, plus waiting for the train, plus departure point, plus walking to place of employment. Plus transfer if necessary,
Depending on the distance involved, monthly passes can cost upwards of a monthly car payment. That may be fine for someone that doesn't have a car, but if you already do, that's a nasty extra expense for some people.
Plus, usually one isn't sitting in traffic for an hour. They're driving and doing normal commuting things. Traffic delays for most people are probably not much more than 15 or 20 minutes compared to free-flow conditions, even though it seems like it takes much longer.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2016, 05:23:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2016, 02:12:36 PM
To me, it's a no-brainer: why sit in traffic for an hour, when you can ride a train for thirty minutes, and get some shit done in that time? Even if the cost is slightly more, some people will prefer the cost of the T to the cost of a toll.
Because you have to include the time it takes to get to the train station, plus waiting for the train, plus departure point, plus walking to place of employment. Plus transfer if necessary,
For some, it's a painless straight shot, others it's a platform-to-platform switch-job all the way to work. But those factors are all case-by-base, and the difficulty of some shouldn't detract from the gain of the many.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2016, 05:23:24 PM
Depending on the distance involved, monthly passes can cost upwards of a monthly car payment. That may be fine for someone that doesn't have a car, but if you already do, that's a nasty extra expense for some people.
I'm pretty sure it's cheaper to park in the suburbs than it is to park in the city. Downtown parking passes, in any city, can easily top triple digits.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2016, 05:23:24 PM
Plus, usually one isn't sitting in traffic for an hour. They're driving and doing normal commuting things. Traffic delays for most people are probably not much more than 15 or 20 minutes compared to free-flow conditions, even though it seems like it takes much longer.
That's a good point. I'm from a city where a typical commute can take 90 to 100 minutes, so my view is slightly skewed towards favoring public transit if available (though I don't have to worry, because I live and work in the suburbs). FWIW, my nearly-retired mother takes the train to work. The parking at the train station is free, the cost of the ticket is $3.75, and it's a straight shot all the way to work (minus a short walk from the train station in Tukwila).
For her, it's a no-brainer.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2016, 04:51:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 07, 2016, 12:58:13 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2016, 08:53:09 AMDo keep in mind that many Greater Boston highway proposals, some originally planned as far back as 1948; never got built. One of them being the Inner Belt/I-695. That highway would've diverted much of the through-traffic away from downtown Boston.
But not to less congested areas. As it is, Melnea Cass Blvd., the BU Bridge, and the Inman-Union area are at a standstill at rush hour. The main way 695 might have lessened congestion is by blighting more neighborhoods that are now lively and thus have traffic.
IIRC, Melnea Cass Blvd. was built on what would've been the lower part of the Inner Belt (I-695 plus the upper part of I-95's southwest branch-off the Expressway at Mass Ave.) had it been built. I-695's Charles River crossing would've either replaced or been built near the B.U. Bridge.
The Inner Belt was to have been an 8-lane expressway (4 lanes wach-way). Yes, there would've been land/home takings in order to build such but over time (it's been 45 years since Gov. Sargent cancelled it) the area would've recuperated. Closer to the corridor, there probably would've been more business and/or commercial development than residential development; that former prefers to be closer to a highway corridor than the latter.
In 1970 dollars, it would've costed about $600 million to build the I-695/Inner Belt.
Something I learned by being "on the inside" - Harvard and MIT were ardent supporters of the Inner Belt because after cleaving Central Square, it would have destroyed the lifeblood of Cambridge, making it much easier to expand on either side of the freeway. Honestly, it needed to be rerouted through Cambridge to have any chance, and pass by the lightly-used rail tracks near MIT's campus (Albany and Portland Streets) instead of along Western Ave.
Quote from: vdeane on January 07, 2016, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on January 06, 2016, 06:11:19 PM
AFAIK, VA only; 495 Hot Lanes stop several miles short of the MD state line. Out-of-staters can get them, and are advised to shield any regular EZ Passes to keep them from being accidentally read.
Doesn't Maryland issue Flex transponders even though the HOT lanes don't enter their state?
Yes they do. I have one.
Quote from: vdeane on January 07, 2016, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 06:00:43 PM
I think that's what I just proposed here. Seattle proposed a congestion charge, but the lack of a bypass route around the metro area killed the idea (this idea does not exist in Boston...the 95 works as a bypass).
NYC's plan also includes setting up a gantry to toll every single north-south street in Manhattan between 59th and 60th streets.
Better to just do a congestion toll cordon
around all of Manhattan south of 59th Street in that case.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 11, 2016, 10:25:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 07, 2016, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on January 06, 2016, 06:11:19 PM
AFAIK, VA only; 495 Hot Lanes stop several miles short of the MD state line. Out-of-staters can get them, and are advised to shield any regular EZ Passes to keep them from being accidentally read.
Doesn't Maryland issue Flex transponders even though the HOT lanes don't enter their state?
Yes they do. I have one.
Awesome. I obviously wasn't aware they existed, but I'm not their target audience. Several minutes pouring over ezpassmd.com revealed not a freaking thing about it. Typing "e-zpass hov" or "e-zpass flex" into the website's search engine produces a list of the occurrences of the word "search" on Maryland.gov. :banghead: Apparently you have to know the passes exist, and have to know to call and specifically ask for one. Chalk up one for aaroads in general, and cpz and vdeane in particular.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 11, 2016, 10:25:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 07, 2016, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2016, 06:00:43 PM
I think that's what I just proposed here. Seattle proposed a congestion charge, but the lack of a bypass route around the metro area killed the idea (this idea does not exist in Boston...the 95 works as a bypass).
NYC's plan also includes setting up a gantry to toll every single north-south street in Manhattan between 59th and 60th streets.
Better to just do a congestion toll cordon around all of Manhattan south of 59th Street in that case.
The congestion pricing plans for NYC also include tolling the bridges that lead into Midtown and Lower Manhattan. The tunnels are already tolled.
For those traveling from NJ, you pay the existing toll by cash or by EZ-Pass.
For those traveling from Brooklyn and Queens, the bridges are proposed to be EZ-Pass only. Those who want to pay cash can take the Queens-Midtown Tunnel or the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel instead.
Tolling the avenues at 59th Street must be cash free, as there is no room for a toll booth. Those coming from the north must have an EZ-Pass.
Quote from: davewiecking on January 12, 2016, 12:34:47 AM
Apparently you have to know the passes exist, and have to know to call and specifically ask for one. Chalk up one for aaroads in general, and cpz and vdeane in particular.
I never called them. I just went to a place that has E-ZPass (the Motor Vehicle Administration's office in Gaithersburg) and asked for one, which they had in stock and sold to me.
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 07, 2016, 02:06:54 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 07, 2016, 12:58:13 PM
Why is no one listening? The fare hikes are necessary. The legislature is full of professional self-promoters who don't want to stick their necks out and tell voters the answers are all painful, so the T raises money itself.
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, but this goes back to a chronic complaint of mine: The inability of governors, presidents and legislators to have adult conversations with taxpayers without the inevitable gut reaction "our taxes are too high!" None of them have the stones to tell people "if you want it, *truly* want it, it costs money."
. . . .
But, back on topic: Yes, the fare hikes are necessary, but if faced with both tolls on previously free roads and fare hikes on the rails, how many will opt for the rails?
You can say the same thing here in Rhode Island vis-Ã -vis RIPTA. Starting in March, RIPTA is implementing yet another fare increase; this after a huge outcry over charging disabled and senior people for their bus passes (they're currently free). For the most part, RIPTA is funded through the gas tax (as are a bunch of other things in RI, such as our shitty roads and bridges). The same problems which afflict the T also afflict RIPTA, except that for the most part nobody wants to touch it because it is seen as what (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modacity.net%2Fforums%2Fstyles%2Fsmilies%2Femot-airquote.gif&hash=104db26c2fca3f24d192717f59cad49fc5f43305)"those people"(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modacity.net%2Fforums%2Fstyles%2Fsmilies%2Femot-airquote.gif&hash=104db26c2fca3f24d192717f59cad49fc5f43305) use. If a better long-term funding formula can be found, then it will be used - unfortunately, no one has come up with it yet, leading to the whole "raise fares/cut service" mantra that has been the backbone of RIPTA for a while and which inhibits a lot of people from using it.
Does it have to do with funding from the state as well? In comparison, CT Transit has a base fare of $1.50, a day pass is $3 and transfers are free. METRO day passes in Portland, ME are $5. I think their base fare is higher than ours (I last rode a METRO bus in September).
Getting this back to the Big Dig and Boston...I'm almost certain that a small above-ground piece of a green steel beam is in place somewhere along Atlantic Avenue, within a couple blocks of the New England Aquarium. :hmmm:
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 04, 2016, 10:21:04 PMGetting this back to the Big Dig and Boston...I'm almost certain that a small above-ground piece of a green steel beam is in place somewhere along Atlantic Avenue, within a couple blocks of the New England Aquarium. :hmmm:
Do you know whereabouts or how big the beam is? I checked Google Earth & GSV but couldn't find anything that looked like such.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2016, 08:52:38 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 04, 2016, 10:21:04 PMGetting this back to the Big Dig and Boston...I'm almost certain that a small above-ground piece of a green steel beam is in place somewhere along Atlantic Avenue, within a couple blocks of the New England Aquarium. :hmmm:
Do you know whereabouts or how big the beam is? I checked Google Earth & GSV but couldn't find anything that looked like such.
The girder is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Clinton Street and the Surface Artery. It's from one of the support columns for the old elevated highway, but has been relocated and cut off to about one story high.
There is also a piece in front of the iron workers' union building:
https://goo.gl/maps/g47f8svRUes
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 05, 2016, 09:53:42 AM
There is also a piece in front of the iron workers' union building:
https://goo.gl/maps/g47f8svRUes
Was unaware of that - thanks for sharing. However, I believe that member, which appears to have come from the old Charles River Crossing truss bridge, was independently preserved by the iron workers union. The girder on Clinton Street was preserved under the historical/archelogical program mandated as part of the Big Dig construction.
Quote from: kurumi on August 18, 2010, 01:39:33 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 06, 2010, 11:54:15 PM
I am extremely pro-tunnel.
And anti-pumpkin.
I'd love to see a 3-mile tunnel under Hartford for I-84, leading from about exit 47 through exit 57. I'm not sure how to tie it in to the existing freeway network on the east side yet.
Then you could tear down the Aetna Viaduct (it's named after an HMO, that's how bad it is :-/) and replace with a boulevard / upgraded streets / another way to downtown.
As a truck driver in the northeast, I have quite a few words about I84 in Hartford, and none of them are nice. I agree with a tunnel, or maybe a real bypass of the city.
Quote from: roadman on February 05, 2016, 09:33:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2016, 08:52:38 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 04, 2016, 10:21:04 PMGetting this back to the Big Dig and Boston...I'm almost certain that a small above-ground piece of a green steel beam is in place somewhere along Atlantic Avenue, within a couple blocks of the New England Aquarium. :hmmm:
Do you know whereabouts or how big the beam is? I checked Google Earth & GSV but couldn't find anything that looked like such.
The girder is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Clinton Street and the Surface Artery. It's from one of the support columns for the old elevated highway, but has been relocated and cut off to about one story high.
It's right here:
https://goo.gl/maps/R5arQNoWbKu