Arborway Question

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Postby MBTAFan » Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:20 pm

See, I don't even understand the arguement about the double parked cars. I mean, if you know the T tracks are active, you don't try to park on them. Give me a break. Most cars tend to be careful around grade crossings on the other braches of the green line - I know I am, I don't want my car to get hit by a train.

Hypothetically, even if you did double park over the tracks in the Arborway Corridor, all the T driver has to do is WAIL on the horn. That's like a really really loud annoying car alarm. If that doesn't get the person to move their car, it will certainly get the residents and business owners to take things into their own hands.
MBTAFan
 

Double Parked Trucks, Not Cars

Postby jiffydos » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:08 am

The problems that the merchants really fear is that their delivery trucks will no longer be able to illegally double park to drop off merchandise. If I were a resident, I would see this and think the trolleys are a great way finally stop that problem. I can't stand trying to get around double parked delivery trucks on centre street in mid afternoon. You're lible to get one of your side view mirrors ripped off trying to squeeze by.

With the trolleys in service, trucks would be forced to park on side streets and dolley their products into the stores.... keeping them off the main road.
jiffydos
 

Postby RailBus63 » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:20 am

Regarding the LRV fantrips to Arborway - 3400 and 3402 were the trolley pole-equipped cars, and there was at least one trip made all the way to Arborway that I remember - it was in 1981 after the line had reopened to Brigham Circle but before the streetcars to Arborway resumed.

JD
User avatar
RailBus63
 
Posts: 1871
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 1:48 pm

Postby Cotuit » Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:08 pm

In Providence, on Federal Hill we have beat cops that do a very good job of moving along double parked cars and trucks. Trolleys or no, double parking should not be tolerated in a busy commercial area like JP.
Cotuit
 

Postby Pete » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:13 am

1. LRVs never ran in regular revenue service on the corridor. Yeah, it's possible, I guess, but to rig the poles you'd make those cars incompatible with the rest of the system. Not an option.

2. The 8-inch-high curbside platforms will only extend as far out as the parking lane, much like the sidewalks in many neighborhoods where parking spaces are "indented" and the curb "bulbs out" at corners, between spaces, at crosswalks an ramps, etc. No significant reduction in the current navigable right-of-way would take place. No, cars will not be able to pass an LRV stopped in traffic without going into the oncoming lane, much as cars cannot pass a bus stopped in traffic without going into the oncoming lane.

3. The hysteria surrounding the traffic and parking situation seems to focus, as mentioned, on the inability of merchants to double-park loading vehicles. There's not going to be any significant loss of legal parking with restoration. Now, with the number of people employed in the various city and regional traffic and transportation planning agencies, a comprehensive and visionary master plan for loading and parking areas, timing schemes, and mitigation measures -- designed to work with the LRV service -- should be a no-brainer. The only explanation for a lack thereof at this point is the ever-popular "veto by administrative delay." Live in Boston? You should be calling City Hall and telling them this is inexcusable.
Pete
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Boston, USA

Postby BC Eagle » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:25 pm

Pete wrote:1. LRVs never ran in regular revenue service on the corridor. Yeah, it's possible, I guess, but to rig the poles you'd make those cars incompatible with the rest of the system. Not an option.


I thought the pole-equipped LRVs were capable of running on the entire system? I.E. all the way to Arborway and the old A-Line route to the Watertown carhouse. If they weren't, did they have to be towed to where the overhead wire changes?
BC Eagle
 

Postby Pete » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:17 pm

BC Eagle wrote:
Pete wrote:1. LRVs never ran in regular revenue service on the corridor. Yeah, it's possible, I guess, but to rig the poles you'd make those cars incompatible with the rest of the system. Not an option.


I thought the pole-equipped LRVs were capable of running on the entire system? I.E. all the way to Arborway and the old A-Line route to the Watertown carhouse. If they weren't, did they have to be towed to where the overhead wire changes?


It was my understanding they weren't. I could be wrong. In any case, it's a non-issue now.
Last edited by Pete on Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pete
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Boston, USA

Postby RailBus63 » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:26 pm

BC Eagle wrote:
Pete wrote:1. LRVs never ran in regular revenue service on the corridor. Yeah, it's possible, I guess, but to rig the poles you'd make those cars incompatible with the rest of the system. Not an option.


I thought the pole-equipped LRVs were capable of running on the entire system? I.E. all the way to Arborway and the old A-Line route to the Watertown carhouse. If they weren't, did they have to be towed to where the overhead wire changes?


The pole-equipped LRV's were indeed capable of running on all Green Line routes, and as noted did so during fantrips. It was the regular pantograph-equipped LRV's and Type 7's that could not venture beyond Packard's Corner on the Watertown Line and Heath Street on the Arborway Line. Packard's Corner even had a sign reading 'NO LRV'S BEYOND THIS POINT'.

JD
User avatar
RailBus63
 
Posts: 1871
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 1:48 pm

Postby octr202 » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:30 pm

The pole-equipped LRV's just had a trolley pole added on either end -- they still had their pantograph for use on the rest of the system.
Wondering if I'll see the Haverhill double-tracking finished before I retire...
Photo: Melbourne W7 No. 1019 on Route 78, Bridge & Church Streets, Richmond, Victoria. 10/21/2010
User avatar
octr202
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:13 am
Location: In the land of the once and future 73 trackless trolley.

Postby jwhite07 » Fri Dec 03, 2004 7:00 am

Here are a couple of (small) pictures of Boeing LRVs equipped with trolley poles, from Scott Moore's website:

http://members.aol.com/netransit/private/3400.jpg
http://members.aol.com/netransit/private/firstlrv.jpg
User avatar
jwhite07
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:39 pm

I am getting SOOO ripped.....

Postby juni0r75 » Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:16 pm

I cannot believe that the EOTC cabal is about to start the SAME "infeasibility study" again after it was ruled only 3 years ago that the Arborway service IS FEASABLE and MUST be restored. Not only is this illogical, but it is downright illegal! How can these people, whom WE pay for in state taxes (I work in MA so I pay some of it) keep wracking up legal bills to stop a public project from going forward?

What also makes no sense to me is that there is no outcry in the papers about the money being spent redundantly to try to get this project terminated yet again. Do people in MA pay that little attention to what their gov't does to not see this kind of waste?

What is the current status of the EOTC's moves towards killing the Arborway project?

-A :(
User avatar
juni0r75
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:02 pm
Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK and East Providence, RI

Postby RailBus63 » Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:58 am

The bottom line remains - unless and until the mayor of Boston and his administration make Arborway restoration a priority, it is not going to happen. That is where advocates for light rail should be focusing their time and effort. As of now, I get the impression that Mennino doesn't want this and will not care if it goes away.

JD
User avatar
RailBus63
 
Posts: 1871
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 1:48 pm

Previous

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests