^ I came here looking for this.

Giving drivers free transit passes can convince them to ditch their cars

https://www.fastcompany.com/90415911...tch-their-cars



https://images.fastcompany.net/image...30000-cars.jpg

Seeing this article...
https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/10/1...ayor-lightfoot

... I had one thought.

It is absolutely the wrong approach for any city to use added fees for taxi services (in whatever form) to reduce congestion if they do not have a congestion charge for private vehicles.

Taxis and yes, Ubers/Lyfts are an absolutely essential mode of transportation for city residents, especially those without their own cars. It’s almost absurd that you impose fees on these people before you impose them on suburbanites stupid enough to drive downtown.

Every dense city with decent public transportation should have a central congestion charge. There is an alternative and people need a nudge to use it. But there are lots of reasons why quick trips in the city can and should be done by Uber (especially in Chicago where all of the heavy rail lines are hub and spoke with basically one hub).

Delete.

BART may offer TSA priority line access to boost SFO ridership

https://abc7news.com/traffic/bart-ma...rship/5621299/

^ This idea seems kind of arbitrary. But I guess it could work.

They should do it for all local agencies, so that anyone who takes transit benefits.

MBTA Commuter Rail in Boston has estimated the cost of electrifying its commuter system at 29 billion USD.

https://mass.streetsblog.org/2019/10...es-into-focus/

I know that this sounds expensive, but I am all for it. This would be a region-defining project for Boston.

^^^ looks like that includes the north/south rail link tunnel and running trains every 15 minutes.

Well I should certainly hope so. $29bn would otherwise be obscene.

I think you're right. I think that this might be a little excessive, but I don't live in Boston so I don't know.

I think that electrifying (and administering related upgrades to) the commuter rail system in Boston would make sense IF it would allow 1 - 1.5 million more people to settle in the general region, either in the suburbs or in the central city.

To me, that is the bar for spending $29 billion.

Of course it does. Now if the projected cost of $29 billion includes a 100% cost overruns it will certainly have - oops - it does not. Why am I not optimistic about the projected costs? Look at the history of the Big Dig costs.
Per wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
"The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006). However, the project was completed in December 2007 at a cost of over $8.08 billion (in 1982 dollars, $14.6 billion adjusted for inflation, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%) as of 2006. The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it would not be paid off until 2038."

wasn't the rail link supposed to be done as part of the big dig but got axed because they wanted more lanes of traffic running through the tunnel?

That amount is obscene. How does it cost US$29 billion to electrify the system when Toronto is {potentially} electrifying it's 200km RER system for CDN$2 billion?

I say "potential" as Toronto is thinking {like many European cities are now doing} of scarpping the entire catenary plans all together and running the new battery trains saving huge sums and endless construction and the disruption and delays that come with it. Toronto {like Boston} can also get major snow/ice storms and the battery trains are immune from the damage and hence service disruptions caused by them due to catenary wire breakdowns.

Boston's commuter trains run on a rail network built to serve the Industrial Revolution, so trains often pull right into the centers of old New England towns and cities which can, with better transit, handle redevelopment and new construction. Trains also run through underutilized areas that can be redeveloped and upzoned. This isn't generally the freeway median-running shit you see in many younger regions.

The potential is tremendous--with frequent all-day trains to all stations, people might just take an apartment or buy a house farther out into the suburbs than they would now. The cost is also tremendous, but how else can greater Boston continue to grow?

If you look closely, there are two big branches of commuter rail in the Boston region--north and south--and they do not connect at any station. If you want to travel from one branch to the other, you have to get off commuter rail and onto a metro train, then get off the metro train and board a different commuter train in order to continue your journey. And the three-seat journey includes dumping you out into the busiest metro stations, the literal hub of the entire regional transport system, so it's a pain in the ass. Most people don't bother, and for good reason.

The two branches should clearly be connected to maximize the network, at least via a tunnel between North and South stations, and perhaps out between Brandeis and Auburndale stations as well (if that's possible).

http://cache.boston.com/stuff/2015/0...uter-curve.png
source

I am clearly outnumbered on this forum.

I have vehemently argued against the North-South Rail Link in Boston.

I do think that there are infrastructure and demand challenges with running reverse commute trips (how many destinations are there in the suburbs outside of downtown?), but if the mob has spoken, the mob has spoken. :shrug:

A loathsome mode of behavior that needs to be beaten down brutally and cruelly
 

All that might have happened is that several people have held opinions that are contrary to yours while you have failed in improving your arguments to the end of persuading them to agree.

I cannot imagine a good, dignified or useful purpose for such a disingenuous statement.