Railroad Forums
When does optimism become psychosis?Probably not as often as legal commitments are reneged upon as a matter of convenience to the Commonwealth. ;-D
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the decision, but when you want to act as if none of it ever happened, then you're not in touch with reality - and that's the definition of psychosis.I know what happened, and what did not happen. I've watched the process and attended my share of meetings over the twenty-plus year history of this back and forth tennis match (and for a significant portion of that time as a direct stakeholder attending school and then living in the affected corridor). I take extreme offense to your statement, sir. We can disagree; indeed, I encourage respectful discussion as much as anyone. We all learn that way. But when you use words like those I quote directly from you above, then you make it a personal affront against me. Nothing I posted is or can be construed as any personal reflection against you. I am very much in touch with reality and I assure you, sir, far from any kind of psychosis which should concern you. I will thank you, sir, to take very great care in the choice of your words in a public forum such as this in the future. Be respectful if you choose to disagree.
R36 Combine Coach wrote:Since 1985, the key word has been "suspended". I guess it can be dropped and Heath Street made a "permanent" terminal.But they would really like Brigham Circle to be the final destination.
jaymac wrote:The real problem with street-running light rail is maintaining it. When rail needs replacement, that means pavement comes up, and vehicular traffic runs on only one side of the street, and not for just a little while, even for just one rail. That was bad enough more than a semi-century ago when I witnessed new rail going in on Center and South Huntington. Island running like Beacon and Comm. Ave. faces less of that problem, but once the line formerly known as Arborway gets beyond Brigham Circle and the space between the curbs gets less and the cars get more, as on Center and South, trolleys do seem to be even more things of times past than that name would suggest. After the first string of substitutions, next came the Watertown suspension of service and then Arborway. What did they all have in common? Extended street running and its accompanying complications.Jaymac, I totally understand your point, and it does make sense. I have a few follow-up questions regarding this topic:
Like JoeD, I wouldn't be overly surprised if Brigham becomes the de facto E flip point, with Heath St. having a "temporary" suspension suspension of rail service.
Haven't seen a transcript, so I've got no idea if ROW maintenance issues played into the decision.
#5 - Dyre Ave wrote:I'm sorry to read about it. But not surprised. It really seemed like there was this feeling of inevitablity that the E line was going to be cut back to Heath Street Loop. But it made me wonder if Green Line service could have been restored to Arborway on a route other than South Huntington Ave, Centre and South Streets, and why that wasn't considered. Would it be feasible to run Green Line cars on the parallel Riverway, Jamaicaway and then on Arborway itself? It wouldn't be as direct as the S. Huntington/Centre/South route is, but could running on those wider roads at higher speeds and with fewer cross-streets have made up for it?I've always had a pet route to restore light rail service to Arborway/Forest Hills: light rail conversion of the Needham Line as a branch off of the D line. Granted, it wouldn't really restore trolley service to Centre Street, but it would bring them back to Forest Hills
Gerry6309 wrote:(As an aside there was an law requiring privately operated street railways to remove their tracks when lines were abandoned. Since the Elevated came under public control in 1919, it was probably exempt.)Actually, Gerry, that law is still very much in effect and fully in force. It is Massachusetts General Law Chapter 161, Section 86 (C161, S86), and among other things, requires that street railway companies in Massacusetts must remove street tracks on public ways belonging to the state or local municipalities if the tracks have been discontinued for six months and the state or local municipality wishes to resurface the way. We know that it applies to the MBTA as C161, S159 specifically states that Sections 143 through 158 of Chapter 161 inclusively, do not apply to the MBTA, which are obviously outside of Section 86. Could a city and the MBTA work out an agreement not to enforce the law ? Probably, but that doesn't lessen the strength of the law, nonetheless. (I'm curious- Who resurfaced Dot Ave. when they were switch hunting, Gerry ? Was it the City, State, or the T ?)