tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post1460593304631694743..comments2024-03-27T09:13:58.922-07:00Comments on The Amateur Planner: Boston will not have "Gold Level" BRT: the streets are way too narrowArihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06058285362842737187noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-30510618309686246032024-01-11T07:37:56.652-08:002024-01-11T07:37:56.652-08:00Hello mate great blog posstHello mate great blog posstLucas Lindseyhttps://lucaslindseys.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-87397262960699457682015-06-22T13:39:31.955-07:002015-06-22T13:39:31.955-07:00The thing is, we've already built the most imp...The thing is, we've already built the most important, tricky, and expensive parts, on the narrowest and most congested streets. In fact, Boston has the foresight to do that almost 120 years ago with the Tremont St Subway, which still has spare capacity for services coming from the direction of the old Pleasant St. Portal. <br /><br />Also, light rail has some hard geometric advantages on narrow streets, even disregarding the issue of capacity: the trains don't need to steer, so tracks can be spaces somewhat closer than lanes. And since trains are on rails, the back of the train follows the same curve radius as the front, unlike buses where the rear wheels follow a smaller turn than the front, and so require big sweeping spaces to make sharp turns, which results in 20 foot wide slip ramps that are annoying and dangerous for pedestrians (just look at the geometry around Silver Line Way).crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-205524575451221942015-06-21T19:40:39.022-07:002015-06-21T19:40:39.022-07:00Very good point. A 110 foot wide street takes more...Very good point. A 110 foot wide street takes more than 30 seconds to cross for an average walker, to say nothing of an elderly or mobility-impared person. A 150 foot wide street takes nearly a minute. This sort of BRT only works when you have barriers in the middle of wide streets, making pedestrian travel much harder. Light rail can attain the same capacity with a much narrower, more walkable street (see my <a href="http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-is-actual-capacity-of-brt.html" rel="nofollow">next post</a>, or Calgary: 20,000 passengers per hour in a <40-foot-wide street). Bogota's BRT line is basically in a freeway. Light rail can interact with the urban environment while still having high throughput, as can anything underground (and at some point, it makes sense to bite the bullet and put transit underground). Bogotá happened to have a bunch of very, very wide roads for their transit system. Without those, you never get the capacity. But with them, you have a fragmented urban fabric.Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058285362842737187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-64643689176042700052015-06-21T17:06:02.313-07:002015-06-21T17:06:02.313-07:00I don't like the ITDP standards sometimes beca...I don't like the ITDP standards sometimes because a lot of what they think is "Gold Standard" is also anti-urban. Bogota's BRT line might as well be a freeway in some parts with how it integrates into the urban environment. Pantograph Trolleypolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17833159138533550544noreply@blogger.com