Green Line Extension Lechmere to Medford

Beyond the commuting public, to and fro employment , there is a niche of people that come from afar to go to the Garden for the Celtics and /or the Bruins. These people drive close to the connecting lines and take them the final leg to the Garden. I myself have parked near Lechmere and taken the trolley , to avoid the gouging parking rates and the clusterflux traffic.

Teamdriver wrote:Beyond the commuting public, to and fro employment , there is a niche of people that come from afar to go to the Garden for the Celtics and /or the Bruins. These people drive close to the connecting lines and take them the final leg to the Garden. I myself have parked near Lechmere and taken the trolley , to avoid the gouging parking rates and the clusterflux traffic.

I applaud such uses and they're obviously a valuable part of the transportation system. But not quite so valuable that they need the T to maintain garages on lines in anticipation of such uses. Better that private garages sell their evening/weekend event capacity for what the market will bear than that some of the T's borrowing capacity get tied up in owning parking parcels at the "office" end of people's trips.

It sounds like some people are looking at it from what makes the most financial sense for the state, versus what makes the most financial sense for individual riders.

But, isn't the whole point of the T to ASSIST the residents of eastern Mass (the individual riders) with their transportation needs? If so, why SHOULDN'T they charge less for parking than other garages? Think of it this way: if the T did away with private parking garages and let the market dictate the pricing at garages close by, commuters would pay more, AND people going to sporting events, or any other event, may actually pay close to what it would cost to DRIVE to the event and PAY those outrageous fees. The T's parking prices are static regardless of what day of the week it is, or whatever sports game is going on downtown. Prices at private parking garages in town are NOT.

I think that, like almost any other component of public transportation, fees should be reasonable and encourage usage--so what if they are subsidized by taxpayers. Most public transportation these days doesn't generate revenue, but it does drive economic growth, assist the poor and take cars off the streets, reducing greenhouse gases, saving fuel and reducing congestion.

Just my two cents

CircusFreakGRITZ wrote: Most public transportation these days doesn't generate revenue, but it does drive economic growth, assist the poor and take cars off the streets, reducing greenhouse gases, saving fuel and reducing congestion.

So far the Lechmere use scenarios have centered on people saving $3 on parking to get to game they paid tens (or hundreds) of dollars to attend. We have commuter rail right to North Station. Now *that* reduces CO2. I'm for intercepting these suburban trips farther out, not closer to "office" but closer to "home" Wellington, Alewife, Riverside, Wonderland or out Quincy-way. Encouraging driving to Lechmere doesn't net-reduce driving. It probably puts more car-miles onto streets (zooming in I-93 or 28) than it takes off (what, Causeway and Storrow?).

And the poor don't need assistance with their parking costs because they don't have a car. They need bus/rail and will be happy / well-served by a nice bus terminus at Lechmere.

Okay , lose the sports events, what about people going to the doctors or some sort of government ( jury duty, ect. )? Maybe it is time sensitive, and they have more control going the short distance by public trans , and the long distance on their own. They arent the enemy of the poor huddling masses seeking a warm exotic bus shelter, they just want to utilize the best resources that are available. Raise the rate if you have to, but people have to go where they have to go. It's not reduced to the haves , going to the Garden to pay inflated prices for tickets , hot dogs, and beer, vs. the just barely getting by, seeking public transportation to the Market Basket because they cant afford Stop and Shop. Cant we all just ride along, and if you want to talk about fiscal responsibility and public transportation, dont even lighten the old 5 watt brain light bulb with the nonsense of Southcoast rail. If you think there is a viable need for that, parking lots for everybody, with valet parking too, ( at market rate of course). Happy blizzarding , you all. ( in 78 , most people didnt even have atm cards, think how paralyzing that would be today, no $$$$ )

Teamdriver wrote:Okay , lose the sports events, what about people going to the doctors or some sort of government ( jury duty, ect. )? Maybe it is time sensitive, and they have more control going the short distance by public trans , and the long distance on their own.

It seems the deal is already done: North Point will (eventually) build buildings on top and offer market-rate parking underneath. That's going to be best. Let the market offer parking at a market price and then everyone is free to deal with their own time-sensitive issues and to decide if the value of their time is worth paying market-rate for parking.

If particular "high social value" uses--like courts and doctors offices--want to promote easy driving, let's find a way to subsidize those directly as with validated parking or a hike in juror pay. For the most part, let's let the market function. Cheap T parking on the fringes promotes a short "station" trip and a long T ride. Cheap T parking (or the silly Big Dig Parcel 7 Garage) at the core, just skews the market in favor of driving to the core.

Two things:

1.) The MBTA is a PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION provider. This is why I say it does not have customers, because it doesn't exist so that Granny can get her eggs when she needs to any more than it does to bring Uncle Brian and little squirt to the Celtics game, nor to bring people to work, home, on dates, etc. It exists to serve the ENTIRE public (as in, all of those things at once) as best as possible. It can't nor should it try to please everyone, because doing so ends up pleasing nobody. It should do what it can to best serve its ridership as a whole. If so and so likes to park somewhere to go to a Bruins game and the ability to do so offsets an abundance of other ridership opportunities than tough rocks. Majority rules my friend.

2.) Are we forgetting that this is an expansion beyond Lechmere? Lechmere won't be the terminus anymore so you won't NEED to park there. You'll be able to park at the end of the line near Tufts if you want to go to the Garden (or Oak Grove, Wellington, Sullivan, Haymarket, etc). Lechmere will become no different than anything from Davis in on the red, or Science Park on the green. It certainly makes sense to put the land to better use, especially since the area is being completely done over with transit oriented development projects.

Getting back to the Green Line Extension, there was an email sitting in my inbox this morning informing me that Phase 1 Notice To Proceed has been given. While work won't start until after the storm, the GLX is officially go.

The EGE wrote:Getting back to the Green Line Extension, there was an email sitting in my inbox this morning informing me that Phase 1 Notice To Proceed has been given. While work won't start until after the storm, the GLX is officially go.

Is that on all 3 bits? Harvard St Bridge, Medford St Bridge and knocking down the Lechmere building?

Apparently so. Looks like surveying starts soon, with actual construction on the bridges starting in the spring.

There is no valid reason for the T to *reduce* parking, unless. it is needed station expansion, etc. All this "transit oriented development" is code for inside deals for connected developers, and bypasses local zoning authori-tay.

BandA wrote:There is no valid reason for the T to *reduce* parking, unless. it is needed station expansion, etc. All this "transit oriented development" is code for inside deals for connected developers, and bypasses local zoning authori-tay.

Selling the lots for development means Increased ridership at lower costs. Those are valid reasons rarely seen together. For what valid reasons is parking better?

There's demand for development over parking. So develop it. It's simple. Not sure why anyone thinks they have the right to dictate what goes next to a station.

MGNA has a good summary on the current status of the project. http://www.medfordgreenline.org/?p=521

Teamdriver wrote:Beyond the commuting public, to and fro employment , there is a niche of people that come from afar to go to the Garden for the Celtics and /or the Bruins. These people drive close to the connecting lines and take them the final leg to the Garden. I myself have parked near Lechmere and taken the trolley , to avoid the gouging parking rates and the clusterflux traffic.

There are park and ride facilities on the Orange and Purple lines North of the city. People don't need to use the Green Line for an event at the Garden.