Hey, there! Log in / Register
Cambridge city councilor thinks big, as in rezoning part of Kendall Square for New England's tallest building
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
T
That's great, because the Red Line has tons of capacity to spare and you never have to let a train pass because it's too full at Kendall.
We need to seriously invest
We need to seriously invest in public transportation now so that down the line we can finally start to make a dent in the demand for residential and office space. Otherwise we will be stuck with crowded trains and crazy expensive property prices forever.
DMUs
An easy solution that could be implemented in the very near future would be to run Commuter Rail (or even those forsaken new DMUs) between Beacon Yard and Twin City Plaza.
I believe there was a proposal a few years back to start running some trains from the Framingham / Worcester Line into North Station via this route. It would definitely alleviate some of the Red Line / Green Line congestion.
In his infinite forethought,
In his infinite forethought, Gov Baker just cut funding for DMUs out of the budget.
Or an RER-esque system
Basically, on the existing commuter rail system (and quite possibly necessitating a trench/subway through Kendall):
Worcester-South Station (express east of 128)
128/Weston-North Station (local east of 128)
Allston-Sullivan-Lynn (change in Allston)
Kendall needs this capacity with Volpe and other projects poised to come online in the next few years, and it would take some pressure off the downtown core subways as well.
Nobody wants to pay for it
Everyone complains about the T service. Yet it is one of the least expensive systems in the developed world. Whenever fare increases are mentioned everyone goes crazy.
We elect government officials that promise to cut spending. We don't like it when they cut visible services. So they cut invisible services like long term maintenance and needed upgrades.
So don't hold your breath for any meaningful upgrades. I'm willing to bet we will have private functioning Hyperloops before we have European style functioning transportation.
The T used to be the cheapest
The T used to be the cheapest subway in the country, back when it was 85 cents.
But today, the T's subway fares are about average for the U.S., and the Commuter Rail fares are the highest in the country.
Price comparisons with Europe and elsewhere
London zone 1 fare £4.80 = $6.76
Paris €1,70 = $1.89
Dublin €3.15 = $3.51
Berlin $2.70 = $3.01
Toronto $3.00CN
These are basic one zone fares similar to most of the MBTA Subway (Excluding Redline Quincy)
The MUNI in San Franciso would be most similar to the Green Line and MBTA bus system. Their fares are $2.25 in 2015 I believe.
European subways typically
European subways typically have high single cash fares, and encourage the use of passes. And London charges £2.30 = $3.62 on an Oyster card. Plus they automatically cap your fare if you spend as much on single fares as a pass costs.
In the U.S., fares are:
NYC: $3 SingleRide, $2.48 with Metrocard bonus if you load at least $5.50 (it's very hard to pay the supposed $2.75 base fare)
Philadelphia: $2.25, or $1.80 if you buy at least 2 tokens
DC minimum zone fare: $2.15 peak, $1.75 off-peak, + $1 paper ticket surcharge
Chicago: $2.25 on Ventra card or contactless credit card, $3 on paper ticket
Baltimore: $1.60
Seattle light rail: $2.25 - $3 zoned
So in short
The T is comparable to other US systems, but is neither the cheapest nor most expensive.
Meanwhile, if pressed, the other anon will point to the likes of Salt Lake City and Orlando for commuter rail fares, conviently leaving out the LIRR, NJT, SEPTA, and Metra in Chicago.
EDIT- I won't change the sentence, but I will call BS on myself. SEPTA and Metra are cheap compared to Boston, but you'll be paying a lot more to get from Penn Station to Queens than you would pay to get to Readville.
South Station to Readville is
South Station to Readville is about 10 miles, and $6.25, with no discounts unless you buy a monthly for $198.
Penn Station to Kew Gardens is $8.25 peak, $6 off-peak, and $4.25 on weekends. You can get a weekly for $59, a monthly for $184, or an off-peak 10-trip for $51 which multiple people can share.
And what do you get for those fares? Service every 30 minutes or less 7 days a week (except a few hourly outbound trips on weekday mornings), including trains that will get you home at 1 am or later. Oh, and the trains break down about every 450,000 miles, compared to every 5,000 on the T.
Penn Station to Newark is $5.
Grand Central to Riverdale is $8.75 peak, $6.50 off-peak, $4.25 on weekends. So Metro North has edged out the T on weekdays, at least for this one example.
Should we be proud that we're (barely) no longer winning this contest since the MTA fare increase last March, at least until the next T fare increase?
Should we be proud that we're (barely) no longer winning...?
Yes.
Should we be wanting to pay more and more so that our aging fleet can be replaced (and I'd love to see a source of your "5,000 miles" stat)?
As for frequency, you do realize the difference in population density between the Boston area and the New York area is, right? Capacity aside, running commuter rail on almost all lines in Boston at 30 minute headways would lead to a lot of trains with only a few passengers on them.
The price of the T has
The price of the T has increased greatly in recent years. Meanwhile the gas tax against inflation goes DOWN, and Boston charges $0 for parking permits. But if the street snow removal budget goes millions over? No big deal. And they somehow find hundreds of thousands for new snow removal vehicles.
So you're proposing that
cities and towns be allowed to say "We have no money left in the snow removal budget, so we aren't going to plow the streets?"
The problem with snow removal budgets is that, because the law allows "emergency" funds to be easily added to the budget during the winter season, they are always delberately underfunded in the first place. I suggest that the way to solve this chronic problem is to establish an initial budget that is based on the average annual snow removal expenses for the previous six years, and to place the remaining money (if any) at the end of the year into an interest bearing account. Only if the remaining amount (plus interest) at the start of the next year is less than the minimum called for under the formula, then you would put additional money into the budget.
The Red Line currently maxes
The Red Line currently maxes out at 13 trains per hour (one every 4.5 minutes). The NYC Subway hits somewhere in the vicinity of 24-30 trains per hour, and that with antiquated mechanical trip-arm based signalling. The Moscow Metro, which uses a very similar signal system to that on the Red and Orange lines runs 39 trains per hour (one train every 92 seconds). Fortunately, the T actually has money to buy more trains, and their latest capital plan included an item for a block spacing study on the Red and Orange Lines which will allow their capacity to be increased back up to 1920s levels.
How did we end up cutting capacity so drastically in the first place? My guess is that back in the 70s, they expected urban population to keep dropping, suburbs to keep growing, and the subway system to evolve into something more like BART, basically an electric commuter rail that runs in tunnels downtown, with corresponding frequencies (a train every 10 minutes during rush hour! And only a 20 minute wait on weekends!) which makes sense for suburban commuter rail but not an intensely-used urban subway.
How Often Does The Red Line Actually Run At Full Capacity?
The problem is not
The problem is not necessarily one of headways: it's as much of an issue with spacing of the trains. Very often you will have trains, say, 2, 4, 7, 14 minutes away. It's these irregular gaps that cause excessive crowding, and which only further slow down service as passengers try to squeeze on.
I doubt anyone wanted to
I doubt anyone wanted to reduce the Red Line's capacity. The "improved" signal system went in around the same time they spent a whole lot of money to expand platforms to 6 cars.
More likely they just screwed up the implementation. I'm sure nobody wanted to create the 15-minute train traffic jam getting into Alewife in the PM rush.
I've said it several times
I've said it several times before: we should learn from West Coast cities, and run express buses from suburbs all over the place to major employment centers like Kendall and Longwood.
If you don't live near a Red Line station, it's far easier to drive to Kendall today than taking public transit. That's no way to plan a city. But the T has no process for expanding bus service to areas that didn't have it in 1922.
Thought on my way home today (on the lovely commuter rail)
The three major business districts in Boston (Downtown/Financial District -> South Station, Copley/Back Bay, and Longwood -> Yawkey/Ruggles) all have a commuter rail stop relatively nearby. Across the river, Harvard does not - but it has plenty of buses running out into the suburbs (and I guess is close enough to Porter for commuter rail access).
Kendall? Sure, the 15 minutes to Porter or South Station isn't terrible (until it drags into 25 minutes because it takes forever to get across the Longfellow and down into Park Street) but it's still the most isolated of the major business areas around. Of course there are some buses but not only is it a mess (to be fair, the construction on Main St isn't helping) but few if any of the routes run outside of Boston/Cambridge/Somerville.
Like you said, unless you live on the red line or within walking distance, there is no easy way to get to Kendall. Which is unfortunate considering how quickly it's growing and highly it's being touted.
Then there's the new business districts
A big part of the issue is the shift of jobs (or maybe more the addition of jobs) in three major areas that didn't used to be the "downtown core:" Kendall, Longwood, and the Seaport. All three are at a disadvantage as they have (to varying degrees) poor access to the region-wide network (commuter rail), and also require significant trips back out from the core on subways (I'm charitably including the Silver Line transitway there). And even the commuter rail access on the edges of these districts (like in Longwood) is marginal at best because it only accesses certain lines (and at that might still require some shuttle connection).
I'm most familiar with Kendall - it's in the middle of everything, but not close enough to walk (for most people - I often walk to North Station, it's about a half hour if the weather cooperates). Adding more buses (whether intra-city connections, or long-haul from the suburbs) only does so much because right now there's just too much traffic for them to be consistently reliable.
The fixes for this will be big dollars. Re-signalling the Red (and possibly Orange) lines. Possible light rail on the Grand Junction corridor (might be a better fit than commuter rail/DMU). Realignment of the bus network (perhaps with more direct to Kendall routes versus Lechmere) when the GLX opens. Distributor shuttles with terminal areas at North Station/South Station/Back Bay, as well as "BRT-style" enhancements in places to allow them to avoid the worst traffic problems. But no one wants to pay for this.
Finding a way to tap some of the massive wealth generated by all of the urban core development to pay for mass transit is going to be essential or we'll literally be strangling growth. Only when developers and employers realize that can the transit funding discussion move beyond where we're at now, which is basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
/rant. Thanks for listening.
Instead of making a big deal
Instead of making a big deal about the only bus lane in the city on a quiet stretch of Washington that doesn't need it, we should be adding bus lanes and signal priority all over the place. And running buses frequently enough to make them worthwhile.
Transit should be the primary way of commuting to the urban core.
If only
If only there was some building in the Kendall area that could house people who could study this transportation issue and potentially address it.
Nope...
Deleted comment, forgot which article I was commenting on...
And maybe also a world-class
And maybe also a world-class engineering university...
This all part of Big Shadow's
This all part of Big Shadow's plan to Hep Big Pharma make tons of money selling Rickets treatments and Vitamin D supplements! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
Funny
Anyone else find humor in a town that fought tooth and nail to prevent commercial building owners from putting tenant signs on the outside allowing what would be the largest office building?
If the building gets built will Leland get to sit on the board of directors for whoever moves in?
Kendall Square is like Boston
Cambridge had its own variation on the BRA backroom deals setup, which let, for example, Google take over the beloved public rooftop garden. That was a pretty symbolic marker of Kendall Square being over for anything but big business.
You're upset over loss of
You're upset over loss of landscaping on the roof of a giant parking garage, in the middle of a sea of office buildings? It's not like it was the Public Garden or something.
It was better than the public garden
The rooftop garden was a 'secret getaway' from the ugliness of Kendall, for people who work in Kendall.
And it was swindled away, with backroom deals, a conveniently nonexistent board, and lies from Google about how the space was to be used.
The Cambridge Redevelopment
The Cambridge Redevelopment Authority exists. At least their leftover snacks do, since I ate them.
If we're going to do this, let's do it right:
* 75 new parking spaces on a 1000 sq. foot lot, one entrance, one exit. Just like Porter Square and the Trader Joe's at Alewife.
* Chicanes and speed tables for a square mile surrounding it. In fact, let's just close Broadway and make it a pedestrian zone.
* Metered parking: $10 per hour. 15 min. maximum. Two dozen spaces ought to do it.
* Loading dock: two bays, only one of which has lift ramp. Accessible by ferry only.
* Front entrance down side street, facing gravel "courtyard".
* Retail on the ground floor: floor to ceiling windows with industrial aluminum frames, so that we can maximize the "display space". Make sure the windows themselves are devoid of any character whatsoever. "Industrial" floors of unfinished concrete. Gotta make this thing fit in with the other 82 buildings they've put up in the area in the last 16 minutes.
* For the exterior, no window shall align with any other window. Symmetry is so antiquated.
* Biotech tenants only, natch.
* Maybe a tree.
That ought to just put the capstone on the "new" Kendall Square.
Not restrictive enough parking
Of those 75 parking spaces, 5 are handicapped, 5, for only for EV vehicles, 5 for Zip Cars, 10 for hybrids only, 10 only for compact car size.
I believe the shadow cast by a 1,000 foot building
causes a hazard for bikers wishing to harass Troopers on the Longfellow Bridge.
Worst location possible.
The Volpe is a pretty useful building already; rent it out and pack it in! Can we get someone to put something huge to clean up all the dilapidated junk by Lechemere? maybe get them to spring for a foot bridge across the O'Brien?
When the Green Line eventually gets extended...
the tracks will remain north and east of the O'Brien, so existing trolley bridge to the current Lechemere yard will no longer be necessary. Perhaps that could be re-purposed into a pedestrian bridge.
That Old Viaduct Really Messes Up A Complicated Intersection ...
... it will be good to get rid of it.
Google Maps Street View
However, a new pedestrian bridge spanning both McG/O'B and Cambridge Street ought to be an integral feature of the new Lechemere Ⓣ Station.
The Volpe is useful??
The Volpe is useful??
So useful that the current tenants want a new building, which is partially leading to this whole discussion
FAA?
Would the FAA be ok with this? Not sure where the Volpe Building falls in their guidelines.
Twice as far from the airport
Downtown is about 1.5 miles from the ends of runway 33L and 27. And while 27 aims right across at the financial district, Cambridge is in between the vectors of 33 and 27. So it might not fall in to the FAA's jurisdiction, and if it does, the height limits may be a lot higher.
If I'm interpreting things
If I'm interpreting things right, https://www.massport.com/media/11778/BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_dec201_small.pdf is the map of maximum allowed building heights.
I forget where the Volpe building is exactly, but about half of Kendall falls in the 1000-ft area.
Doesn't the FAA pretend that
Doesn't the FAA pretend that they don't regulate building heights?