Why Burying your Highways Underground Doesn't Work
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- Boston's Big Dig has alot to learn from...
The Armchair Urbanist Series:
/ playlistlist=plhyciwho...
My Patreon:
/ alanthefisher
Discord here:
/ discord
My Twitter where I shitpost:
/ alanthefisher
Tiktok:
/ alanthefisher
Merch:
armchair-urbanist-2.creator-s...
Intro was narrated by:
/ 4ft8n1half
Other cool people:
/ segregation_by_design
/ cars.destroyed.our.cities
/ milesintransit
www.omriqui.com or / omriquistransitadventures
Music:
Mechwarrior 4 OST - Push
Vulfpeck - The Cup Stacker
Mechwarrior 4 OST - Core
Vulfpeck - Fugue State
Cory Wong - Starfire
Verdi's Messa Da Requiem - Movement II
Vulfpeck - Newsbeat
Time Stamps:
0:00 Operation Dunkin
1:07 Highway History
2:31 The Big Dig
5:03 The Real Failure
6:41 Why MBTA is Current Bad
8:00 What should we do?
10:03 Outro
People in Boston love to complain about how the Green Line Extension cost a whole $2 billion for new rail, yet are seemingly fine with spending $22 billion on a road that already existed
And they thought "Hey! Let's put ANOTHER road on top of it". Completely negating the point in the first place. It was the perfect path to set up a street car to connect South and North Boston. It really was a disaster, and the region is still paying for today (financially and the lack of properly functioning public transit system)
This. It’s crazy to me how often people get suckered into the “public transit is ExPeNsIvE!!” Argument. Freeways are way more expensive in the long run…
Welcome to the world of NIMBYs
*_Now Arriving At: Boylston_* *SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH*
Speaking of highway construction in Boston, they're rebuilding/realigning another smaller elevated structure to allow Harvard the opportunity to redevelop an old CSX train yard. One of the proposals (the favored proposal) also includes a point where there'll be 12 lanes of grade separated traffic.
The pricetag for the big dig was monster, but living in downtown Boston - I would say it was worth it. The eyesore, the noise for anyone living nearby, the access to the waterfront and the seaport redevelopment... It took Boston from a good to a great city
The price tag was $37000 per capita when corrected for inflation. I'd say monster is an understatement.
@@alex2143 I think that number is a bit inflated and based on a bad assumption. This is the cost across the population of only the city of Boston (about 600k), which is a tiny area of the Boston Metropolitan Area which is 4.5 million. It is a quirk of the fact that these used to be tiny villages that were never incorporated in the city of Boston. Any other city would have all of them incorporated by now. Cambridge, Revere and a number of other 'towns' were directly touched and improved by this project. The cost is likely 5-10k. Not cheap, but this enabled massive growth, including the crazy development of the seaport.
@@vessbakalov8958 if it's 4.5 million, then that means that a family of 4 paid 20k. That's still absurd. Why was there even a highway through downtown to begin with?
@@alex2143It makes terrible urban development slightly less bad. An expensive band-aid. That money could have funded better public transit.
@@alex2143 in think the economic impact to the city was a net positive. Given the size of Boston, if I was a city planner in the 40s or 50s or whenever the highway was conceived, I definitely wouldn't have had it pass through the middle of the damn city. In the 2000s that ship had sailed. What was done (sans the corruption and cost overruns) did make Boston into one of the nicest walkable cities (which still needs more public transit) and opened up a lot of great development in adjacent areas.
The other thing is that while burying I93 was the main focus, there were actually a number of other highways touched by the project.
As a boston native I would argue that while the big dig may not have improved traffic, it certainly allowed to a complete revitalization in the downtown area. The seaport district redevelopment was only possible because of convenient UNDERGROUND highway access. And also the greenway is a very nice park especially in its southern section.
yes, i agree with this. it took the problem and moved it out of sight, so people were just less miserable with open space
@@andykapsar4667 yet no public transit access after 22 billion.
Frankly the whole highway should have been just torn down with nothing to replace it. The reduced capacity and horrible driving experience will discourage car use and do the opposite of induced demand.
Agreed. Also, putting the Central Artery underground reduced air pollution in downtown Boston, and the trees on the Greenway add more oxygen; overall improving the air quality in Boston.
If you compare the big dig to what it replaced, sure. But if you examine the alternative: getting rid of the highway and replacing it with a boulevard. And spending 22 billion on rail lines... At 2 billion dollars a rail line that is 11 rail lines. Imagine the impact that 11 new rail lines would have had on Boston!
Seattle guy here. We buried WA 99 under our city. It cost a lotta money and the tunnel was outrageously tricky to complete but in the end, it worked pretty well: There is no highway blasting through the downtown waterfront anymore, leaving tons of space for bike lanes and numerous crosswalks for the substantial volume of ferry and transit passengers (but mostly tourists) who walk around that area. The project is almost complete and already has made a huge positive impact
It's made the waterfront nicer but has it done anything for traffic?
@@ISpitHotFiyaa yeah definitely. It's removed a huge amount of car traffic from the downtown waterfront area, and improved traffic on the surface streets that used to feed the hwy. and by removing a bunch of onramps and off ramps traffic moves much more quickly through the tunnel than it did through the old viaduct. However, there are other factors reducing car traffic downtown, it's not just the tunnel
@@ISpitHotFiyaa Not every single fucking thing needs to be about reducing traffic.
Loved using the Link Light Rail before it was overrun with homeless people...
@@michaelrooney3133 If homeless people stop you from using the train, that sucks. I've been assaulted on the train as well a few times, though 2/3 of the times it was by drunk sports fans who were definitely not homeless. Honestly, I would not say the system is "overrun by homeless people." I use the system daily, it's "overrun" by commuters, with a few creepy and unsightly people around, and occasionally someone who has pissed and shit themselves and is yelling insults. I've never had any other experience of public transit in my short 26 years of life; the link is pretty standard
This definitely didn’t fix traffic but I’d say it was still a big improvement to the city because a massive ugly city-dividing highway is now underground and the city can be improved as a result. In my town, we have a motorway that goes around the lower end of the town and effectively traps us, if you expand north you become part of London but if build south it’s splitting the town in two with a huge motorway in the middle. At the moment it’s not too bad since there’s no expansion south of us, and you wouldn’t really know the motorway is there because it’s surrounded by so much green wild space and trees, with a massive park between the green boundary and the rest of town, but if it could all be put underground then my town could expand a whole lot more towards the sea, the park could expand to cover the now buried area and we could expand existing housing estates without a big ugly motorway splitting us…
Also Jesus Christ, battery electric locomotives are such a stupid idea, railways are the perfect pace for wired electric vehicles since it’s a fixed route, you can just link everything up with catenary wires, using either a backup Diesel engine or small batteries for shunting and moving around in sidings.
London... I'm not aware of such a motorway in London, UK... So where are you talking about?
@@mastertrams it’s not actually London, my town is a smaller town south of London, however if we kept expanding north we’d just end merged into it if the M25 and the green belt weren’t there to split us apart. I don’t want to name where I live exactly how if you look at Hayward’s Heath for example in a map they have a similar situation with a big motorway right under the town.
@@justanotheryoutubechannel Haywards Heath, now you mention it, drives me crazy. Why on Earth are they building so many more homes without building trams or other public transit to get people from these new suburbs to the railway lines or the town centre?
@@gavinathling Oh, because our government has decided to follow the America model and build car centric infrastructure without footpaths or public transit since those services were never useful according to them. Even in my town which is a prime example of transit oriented suburban development they’re start to build cramped car centric development inches from the main roads.
Here in Spain Madrid's M30 (which surrounds the entire capital and previously cut off its periphery) is slowly but surely being turned into tunnels, and while people LOVE to complain about not liking driving undergrownd, the development of the regions seems to prove it was worth it.
Only major area currently cut off by a highway in madrid by this point is Vallecas, which was always already its poorest region, and even they are trying to bury that massive bridge however they can because it is a pretty big issue. So I'd say buried highways can work.
Of course it won't always work, and trains are a better solution. But it can work for preexisting lines, and road connection is still needed anyway it's not like we can completely do away without highways, so at least they're better than having the highways up top like they were before.
As a lifelong resident of Boston of over 30 years, I have some disagreements with this video. Prior to the Big Dig, downtown Boston was dingy, disgusting hellhole. Many waterfront neighborhoods, especially the North End, were nearly instantly revitalized because of the Big Dig. In fact, despite the ungodly massive boulevard that took the Central Artery's place, downtown, the Waterfront, and the North End became so much more lively and walkable. The Central Artery essentially blocked pedestrian access to these neighborhoods. The North End and Waterfront of today are a far cry from the inaccessible pits they were because of the Big Dig.
As a transit and transportation project, yes, the Big Dig failed. As an urban revitalization project, it was a massive success. The Big Dig was a complicated project with complicated results that cannot be adequately distilled in a 10 minute video.
I hope someone makes a video also going over the positive outcomes as a result of the big dig
I wholly agree! I'm kind of tired of the negativity about the Big Dig. It was mostly a win in the long-run, which is what matters in the end.
I feel like today the city would have just pushed for the complete elimination of 93, Problem is of course you need to maintain a freeway link to Logan. Similar issue faces NYC airports, Urban freeways are a blight that should be exterminated but sometimes you are stuck with em because they connect to regional assets like airports.
Good News does not attract clicks, unfortunately, and most providers are in it for the clicks. 😕
Who would have thought fewer highways make a city look better
Growing up here, never heard the central artery referred to as the Green Monster before. The big dig did help traffic some, but what it did to the MBTA was a crime, perhaps literally. I'd love to see more street level trains. Also, reform transit ticketing.
Yes it was
@@ajaqua3757 I’ve literally only ever heard the green monster in Fenway called that. But I was also young when they started the big dig
@@the2theonly672 I’m 64 born raised in Boston
I grew up in the North End. Yes it was known also as the Green Monster. The MBTA and its management was the crime. Took the funding to increase Pension Payouts instead of infrastructure. Thats why funds in MASS are earmarked. that mean you do whatever you like.
I thought the Green Monster was the big wall at Fenway Park? (note that I'm not *from* Boston, though I've visited many times, and lived there for a short bit)
As someone who used it frequently in the past, I can tell you the Big Dig may have had multiple issues but overall, its been an overwhelming success. true marvel of urban planning/engineering.
Biggus Diggus
22 billion on a single road is a sucess? probably only for the private corps that did the constriction.
Has anyone ever done the math to figure out how comically overbuilt a highway system going through a midsized to large American city would have to be to overcome induced demand? If you built a 40 lane behemoth could you end traffic? Obviously you'd have to be a lunatic with no regard to the massive construction costs and upkeep, not to mention waste of valuable urban land to even try, but could it work? Or would it still not work because all the on-ramps and off-ramps would clog up and back everything up? Could so many lanes even physically fit, or would the whole city just end up being a highway?
Kansas city is often cited as a city that achieved this, but i suspect it won't be long until they too are clogged.
I also want to do a thorough analysis of this. I suspect it's impossible because it's not just about a 40 lane highway, you also need 20 lane off ramps and surface roads to connect it to homes and businesses.
@@WolfSeril107 yea that's half the problem. You *can* do left-lane exits like NJ does some places, but they're inherently flawed and tangle up congestion, and eventually they'd get crowded too. What do you do then, central lane exits?
this is the most American thing I've read here
@@jsrodman Made me check it out- Jesus they practically built a moat round the town center! It's somehow worse than Wolverhampton!
I lived in Boston from 1992-2006. The Big Dig wasn’t that bad to live through (any construction sucks) and the results for the residence and tourist of Boston are many. The city got its waterfront back. Totally worth it.
How's the transit system in Boston? he didn't touch on it much except for the rail line. according to metromile, boston is ranked 3rd in the US.
@@takumi2023 Normally it's pretty good! Right now it's a mess because we have a line+a chunk of another line closed down for safety/repair reasons. I'll admit it's definitely not the cleanest or most reliable transit system I've been on, but it's better than no transit and definitely cuts down on commuter traffic! Boston is also just a shit city to drive in, because even with no traffic, it's a maze of of one ways and weird roads and messed up intersections, since most of it was built before cars. So it's often easier to take the subway if you need to get around, because it gets to bypass the stupid road design. Also the airport shuttle is free!
Not to the rest of the State, it wasn't. The turds in boston reinstated the tolls on the Pike, West of the CT River even though the Pike was PAID FOR. 24 Billion+ for 1.6 Miles, pure theft
@@KiannarratheDemon666 I used the Green and Red lines primarily when I visited there a decade ago, it was a positive experience!
@@takumi2023 I worked for the T for a while, if it was repaired it would be great but all of the track is old and decaying.
They just closed the Orange line for a month, and according to my friends that still work there, the work they did is causing more problems than the old rail.
In all the system is pretty good it just needs some work to modernize it.
The “Fix Traffic” part of the Big Dig was fixing the pre-Interstate-Highway-System-standards on and off ramps of the Central Artery. The old highway had short off-ramps that ended on side streets. And the old on-ramps had no merge lanes for cars coming on to the highway. Look at the entrance to the Callahan tunnel and that’s what the old highway was like as far as connecting to the surface streets.
Many of the CBAs on the Big Dig were deliberately inflated to get Federal Highway money.
Because the Reaganites said it wasn’t needed. They had no vision for the city.
It’s a good thing that the “traffic” benefits were inflated.
Boston is a much nicer city to live in and visit because of Big Dig. It revitalized many city neighborhoods. Yes, traffic hasn't improved, but downtown, North End, Seaport, etc. are such nice walkable areas that make Boston beautiful today.
If only there was a way to remove highway without putting it underground.
@@21nickik People didn't want that inferior option. So the highway was built underground.
@@Xenomorph-hb4zf Ah yes, the inferior option, spending tens of billions on a highway instead of transit. When we're in the middle of a climate crisis and need to encourage people not to drive.
The Dutch buried the A2 Motorway under the city of Maastricht (after decades of running right through it). It was under budget, it made driving much more enjoyable, and above ground the entire length has and is being redeveloped with a lot of greenery and new housing. The city has also been investing a lot of money in new cycle highways to neighboring towns and villages. Getting to and from Maastricht these days has become a real treat. (in any form of transportation).
It is indeed great. The key difference is that it bypasses the city, so it isn't used by people going into the city
@@computerfan1079 The lower tunnel does not, but the higher tunnel delivers you halfway into the city. A lot better than the old motorway. But yeah, I do also realise Boston is about 20 times the size of Maastricht, so it’s a completely different beast.
@@rolfdavis4433 plus Maastricht has good cycling infrastructure
Love to know where the money came from.
@@4149stonepony We pay high taxes - car taxes, fuel taxes, and income taxes. One result is that NL has some of the best road infrastructure ... anywhere? We also just buried 3km of the A9, a 6-lane freeway that cut through the Bijlmer neighborhood south of Amsterdam, and I believe they're starting to bury a few km of the A9 through Amstelveen on the way to Schiphol airport. They are putting parks on top.
Yes traffic on 93 is still bad after the big dig. Whatever the politicians said, that wasn’t the point of eliminating the obstructive eyesore that was the central artery viaduct. The greenway hate is not justified. It’s a nice green and sunny place to take a walk. Cars on the surface roads definitely don’t travel at highway speeds. Maybe show some clips of the north end swings, beer gardens, splash pads or food truck areas instead of a slideshow of the on/off ramps.
Well said. This Alan Fisher guy has an opinion - that's about it. Otherwise, I really don't think he knows what he is talking about. He clearly wants more public transit, bike lanes and walk-ability - so do I - so does basically everyone - and Boston already has a lot of that. But more is welcome. Nevertheless that doesn't mean the Big Dig failed or was waste.
I know what the traffic was like before the Big Dig and what the city was like. The Big Dig made a huge positive impact on both. Traffic might be heavy at rush hour in the O'Neil Tunnel, but it moves. On the old artery the traffic could back up and simply stop and crawl for hours. The time it takes to get to and from the airport has easily been cut in half and when its not rush hour - it is a breeze in and out. Removing toll booths from I-90 and replacing them with an electronic overhead systems made a huge difference with traffic flow. So yes - contrary to what Alan proclaims - there are thing that can be done to improve traffic FLOW.
@@kenb3552
The problem is that cities arent self sufficient materially. You could force all the inhabitants to walk everywhere but you still need roads to bring things in from outside no matter what.
@@user-xg8yy7yl1d Yes - that was my point.
I liked the greenway. It took several years to get the development going so it wasn't pretty for a while.
Honestly, this video just screams, "I've never actually been to Boston." The I-90 extension under the harbor was hugely beneficial with getting to the airport for anyone living West/Southwest of downtown. I-93 was better for a while, but the number of cars on the road has exploded since, and it's back to being gridlocked. There is also no chance that I-81 in upstate NY sees nearly the same traffic volume as I-93. Simply replacing it with a boulevard would be an absolute disaster, regardless of the fact that they did put a boulevard in place of the central artery, on top of the tunnel. The 695 ghost ramp is also still there, as that part of I-93, North of the Zakim bridge, was not a part of the project
For real. I’ve driven to the airport. I’ve spent days out in the city. I’ve driven there. I’ve driven through. Boston is honestly a really good city for walking, transit, and before the orange line fiasco, it was very easy to get around the city quickly with an all day pass (very cheap btw)
The argument isn't that the Big Dig wasn't helpful. The argument is that the Big Dig was substantially less beneficial than pumping that money into the MBTA would have been.
Yes and no. The tunnel under the harbor is a plus, though putting a subway line there would have been nice. All we got for mass transit over there is the silver line 1 (a fancy bus, for those that don’t know) that gets stuck in the same traffic in that section. While the big dig is cool to drive through, it just isn’t worth the money it cost. Admittedly it would be quite a leap of faith to remove that stretch of 93 altogether, but the idea is that without that highway existing, the demand from traffic will drop tremendously.
To me, the video is screaming "Walkable and easy for bicycles" AKA, India and Bangladesh. His conclusion will make it more dangerous lol
Japan do this without any problems. For example, in a little quaint village called Tokyo (pop only 14mil). The motorways fly over with periodic drop down ramps. Traffic on the ground is surprisingly non-existent and the motorways are not clogged up. And only have 2 lanes either side.
Wow...as a person who lived in Boston from the 80's to the early 2000's, I find your take on The Big Dig stunning. Did you ever try to drive to Logan airport from from Cambridge ever back then? It was a total and utter nightmare! My son is currently in college in Boston and each time I fly up there to visit him, I celebrate The Big Dig.
I’m an urbanist but this video is an odd one I have to say.
Yeah could not imagine with the Big Dig funds the T could have done the Red-Blue Connector and you could take the train from Cambridge to Logan. Wait................
@@TheManiple But I did take the T to Logan from Cambridge all the time back in the 80’s and 90’s. As inconvenient as it was, it was nowhere near the heinousness of trying to drive to Logan.
@@pangloss9 Ok. It probably would have been more convenient if the big dig funds were used instead to connect the blue and red lines.
@@TheManiple For people in Cambridge to go to Logan or Wonderland?...sure.
Boston Native here. The big dig was never meant to make traffic disappear, just bring it underground and improve the city. It was a massive success. The underfunding of public transport is very serious , and a separate issue
Sounds like it's not a "separate issue" because they saddling the MTA with their debt. I always wondered why maintenance wasn't a priority, limping along old rolling stock and doing small patches as needed on the infrastructure.
@@rpraetor they have been playing debt games long before the big dig. It comes down to just underfunding
Absolutely a huge success.
its not a success if you couldve achieved the same for way way cheaper, also you cant redirect traffic underground, you still have to drive to the tunnel, so that results in more traffic on the streets
They should have put a subway underground instead. With excellent public transport, people will not use cars and eventually the highway above could just be torn down.
I never saw Boston before the Big Dig, but it looks to me like it worked as well as could be hoped. No-one with a grasp of roads would think it would reduce traffic, but getting rid of the elevated roadway has made the above-ground area much more pleasant than it must have been. In my opinion, they should close all the down-town off-ramps in the tunnel - make the I93 a north-south bypass, not an in-city way to get around.
The idea of diesel trains is, to me - a European - bizarre in 2022. Boston is perfectly suited to being a transit city (although it needs more links to New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut by train (and to Cape Code while we're at it). Everyone's first thought when going to a >1m population metro should be public transit, not the car.
The reason why there are diesel suburban trains in the US is because it's the largest oil producing country in the world. And that's also why the country is so much addicted to cars and planes.
EDIT: post edited as it was badly worded and lead to a misunderstanding.
@@Clery75019 seriously with calling us the largest oil producing country in the world? …that is just misleading as all get out because the fact is we’re going with diesel because we love to burn oil we don’t really care where it comes from, just like we didn’t before fracking. America likes to burn oil it’s that simple. “Electric is for wusses” is our motto.
The "Big Dig", also called " Biggus Diggus " 🤣🤣
@@JoeOvercoat I've called the US the largest oil producing country because that's what Google told me when I looked for it. Now we can also put it the other way and say that as Europe has no oil, then it was more pressing over there to electrify rail.
@@chargehanger I see that you are a man of Python culture, well played sir 😂☠️😂
Shanghai has about 80 km of road tunnels. Most go under the river but a lot don’t. I regularly drive one stretch of inner-city highway which goes through about 6-7 short tunnels in succession. There’s also a huge route of about 19 km which cross from the southwest to northeast. It includes two tunnels of around 8 each connected by an elevated section in the middle. They work. They keep traffic hidden out of the way which reduces air pollution and congestion at street level.
How do tunneps reduce air pollution? There are still just as many cars burning just as much gas right?
Okay, I’ll rephrase for you: It reduces pollution at street level where the city’s residents are breathing.
@@8964TS The air inside the tunnel can go out through the tunnel entrances, mainteannce ducts, etc. and be breathed in by city residents.
That's not really how it work, mate. For one, the entrances aren't usually near anywhere that pedestrians can walk.@@TheManiple
@@8964TS And aersolized pollutants can't travel further away from tunnels?
I'm old enough to remember driving before the Interstate Highway system was built and these days we forget the dilemma that most towns faced with the coming of these roadways. Let it come thru your town and enjoy the growth it stimulates at first but try not to think about the traffic congestion which will follow for decades. Or make it bypass your town and watch your town slowly whither away as all business & industry (and eventually the residents) move out to where the highway is. The answer to traffic problems for me has always been, try to live within a few miles of where you work. Its where you spend 5 days a week. Then you only have to travel on weekends, if you choose to.
Rule one in infrastructure: It's going to be a lot more expensive.
That's true in large project, that's true in medium sized project, that's true in small sized project.
Project developers always underestimate costs. Saying "this particular project is a disaster because it's 10 or more times more expensive than planned" is not an argument, it's distraction. Of course it is, every project is masively more expensive than planned. That's the rule.
Agreed, studying aerospace engineering at uni, and one of the first things they taught us is that 99% of engineering projects go beyond their original delivery date and budget in some way. It's just a reality of life, nothing goes smoothly. How that reality is dealt with is the real issue.
That is a good rebuttal for arguments against California high speed rail
Tell me then, why is it plenty of other countries can accomplish incredible feats of engineering and yet come in under cost and on time? Perhaps we should be looking at the bigger picture of why the US (and to some extent the English speaking world’s) work attitude is this way, as opposed to waving it off as “rule one.”
@@spartan117zm Because those countries typically do everything through the government and not through subsidized private corporations. and when it comes to those projects the government is extremely efficient. In the US infrastructure projects are typically outsourced to 20 different companies and when one thing goes wrong in one of those companies the entire thing has to stop.
@@spartan117zm you’d have to fundamentally change the structure of our government. Like, expanding the powers of eminent domain perhaps.
I worked for the BRA (Boston Redevelopment Authority) as a writer in '89-'90. It was during the final planning stages where the team was mapping out the different neighborhoods impacted by the Big Dig to ensure that new zoning would be in line with existing historic infrastructure. I was writing the zoning plans distilled from the notes of a team of architects/urban planners to be presented to the City Council for approval. Most of the team were Harvard and MIT people - all very smart. We all collectively agreed that the project would go to absolute shit as soon as actual construction started. The corruption and nepotism of Boston at that time guaranteed that result.
So it's your fault things are this bad. You should've done a better job.
@@sparklesparklesparkle6318 There's no point in blaming someone who couldn't control the problem. Contractors work with idiotic commissions all the time; all they can do is try to make the best of a bad assignment.
@@sparklesparklesparkle6318 No, he and his MIT and Harvard colleagues correctly predicted that the project was a dumb idea.
Through all that, it seemed that their top priority was not to disrupt (in a big way) existing traffic, which itself skyrocketed costs. They would have saved a lot of money had they offered free ride service to everyone who needed to commute through the area.
Is this a common occurrence between engineers like yourself and heads of state/businesses?
I think this video fails to mention how Boston IS a very walkable, pleasant city with plenty of boulevards and main streets that serve as major arteries for transportation without cutting the city up. Commonwealth Avenue in Back Bay is a perfect example of Boston doing something right that is both heavily trafficked by walking pedestrians and cars alike, while remaining safe and visually appealing. Regarding the Big Dig, certain areas above ground are very awkward and need a redesign as you’ve pointed out, but downtown and North End are muuuuch better off how they are today. The above ground boulevard serves as a path for local trips, whereas the tunnel serves as a path for express and distance trips. Separating these was a good idea, and while there is still traffic, it would have been much worse without the tunnel. I agree that investing that money in transit would have been a better idea, but the end result is still a major net positive for people who actually live there.
And it fails to mention that the billions that paid for the Big Dig couldn’t be put in place for the North-South rail link.
The question is not whether moving a highway underground helps to "fix traffic". It's whether it has other benefits. I would imagine it can help reconnect parts of the city and improve the street network.
Cutting maintenance to save monopoly money is the cruelest thing anyone can do. I hope they have a nice time and are down there when some poor sob's engine goes from internal to external combustion.
Capitalism is so dope. :')
@@caramelldansen2204 You forgot the y
@@caramelldansen2204 Do you realize it was public agencies and local government entities that made these decisions, not just some corporations cost cutting. But yeah boo capitalism hiss, it's the cool thing to rip on
@@thetayz72 The government is effectively controlled by companies you fool.
@@thetayz72 I think the more accurate version of their meme is: "Stupidity us so dope :')"
The lakeside promenade of Jÿväskylä, Finland, which has seen a lot of nice development recently, is cut off from the city centre by the railway and a major highway that connects the south of Finland to the north of Finland. I have many times been quite annoyed by the noise of the highway and the inconvenience of having to use a pedestrian bridge to cross to the other side.
I have often dreamed of covering it up with a concrete structure or replacing it with a tunnel, which would open up huge opportunities for walkable and bikeable urban development. I think this is a different situation than what they did in Boston, since the problem as I see it isn't traffic congestion, it's noise and very poor use of an area with a lot of potential for human focused developments. But the costs are real, so maybe a lower speed boulevard combined with a redirected highway route would be the real solutions.
There's a similar problem with the interstate highways that were routed through downtown Portland Oregon during the postwar freeway building boom: the main highway takes up the entire east riverbank, wasting valuable real estate, while on the west side there is a bypass around downtown which cuts through extremely valuable close-in neighborhoods.
The worst part is that they bulldozed many blocks of prime real estate for this. But at least it's largely below-grade and thus a prime candidate for being covered over again. And there are many crossings so it doesn't really isolate the two sides.
I would prefer this highway bypass be eliminated completely and the land reclaimed, but that wouldn't make much sense without eliminating other urban core highways simultaneously. So I will settle for covering it over and reclaiming the surface level.
The shoreline interstate on the other side of the river, however, just needs to be demolished. Recover that land. Recover the wasteful connecting freeway (I-84) that runs east to the interstate bypass that goes around the whole urban core, and recover the I-5 trench through North Portland. It would make a great park with cafes along the side.
I've driven on that road a few time and found it stupid that the university is an urban island between transit and lake. But I'm lucky as I live in a cycling city, as Not Just Bikes discussed in this video czcams.com/video/Uhx-26GfCBU/video.html
i've driven on that road in Dirt Rally 2.0
To be fair, when the Rantaväylä highway was built in 80's, the lakeside had been lumber industry area for almost a century so the noise pollution wasn't really considered to be a issue back then, getting the highway traffic away from Vapaudenkatu and Kauppakatu(now a pedestrian only street) at the city center was. My guess is that the Tikanväylä on the other side of the lake eventually will be widened and extended to Vaajakoski highway to reroute the passing traffic away from Rantaväylä.
@@mikkojk83 I've heard there were some who had the foresight to oppose this route even back then, but I definitely understand the logic of putting the highway there since Lutakko had not yet become a nice place.
As someone who’s lived in Boston and Syracuse, that’s an apples to oranges comparison. Boston had a much larger population with highways that are basically the same size.
You've always made informative content, but the Mechwarrior 3 briefing is what pushed me to subscribe.
Oh I was thinking RA95, but you're spot on
I lived in Boston for 6 years including the last 3 years of the Big Dig construction. While I don't disagree with your traffic assertions, I do think it improved the city quite a bit. The I-90 tunnel to BOS was also a great addition travelling to the airport from the south. I also found it to be the most walkable city I've lived in particularly after the Central Artery was demolished. The MBTA is a toilet I have to agree.
Why not do that and connect the Red and Blue lines? That would've enabled through running and eliminated the need to transfer to the Green line and vice versa just to get to the airport and elsewhere.
Yeah, while I agree with pretty much everything else in this video, I also think the Greenway hate is a little harsh. I walk from South Station to the North End very often, simply because it's an enjoyable route. Of course I wish the roads around the Greenway were less beefy, but that seems like a relatively easy fix -- we should be pushing for better bike lanes (which, by the way, could link the Seaport and Southie to the great bike infrastructure around the North End) and a general road diet in that area. But usually it's not like those cars are zooming along at highway speeds.
Between having it open vs having it under construction, sure having it open is better. But is it better than a comparable non-car-oriented solution would have been?
@@River-zo6ve I guess my point is that it is better than before. Maybe your solution would have been even better. Not sure of many instances where taking cars away from Americans has worked so good. I don't think a lot of that traffic is through traffic. People live on he north shore or the south shore. I lived on the south shore and worked in southie, I didn't touch the artery. A train through town? I don't know. My sense is most of the congestion isn't day to day commutes through the city but rather through traffic and commerce none of which would have been helped by the transit solution. If the MBTA was better even as it exists now there would be improvement but this is nothing new to Boston. DC had a marvel of a subway system that is in pretty much the same toilet currently. You build roads and growth will overtake the new capacity until we are willing to get out of our cars. Boston has the extra curse of being so old with road planning that often happened before there were cars If you drove through boston in 1980 or today, you'd think it was better today than then. Certainly not perfect.
@@boatlover1875 the thing about that is that you’re not taking away cars from anybody, just one specific section of road.
Big dig was not a failure. Period. Its largest appeal was rejoining the city sections, and that totally happened. Prior to the big dig, the west side of the highway was prime real estate crammed with vibrant walkable areas. The east side was crappy rundown buildings, and a great place to get a car stolen. Now that entire corridor is awesome- but yes to your point, some areas are still a little less pedestrian friendly than they could or should have been. And some parts of the park are pointless. On the traffic issue, I was originally worried about how narrow it was, but that really isn't much of a point. Coming from the north, prior to the big dig the ridiculous Storrow ramp area and loss of lane was the major choke point. Now the major choke point is sullivan square, not the tunnel itself.
However, I do not disagree that adding more lanes is pointless due to induced demand, or that public transportation must be a major part of solution. When I was living near Lowell and commuting to Boston by commuter rail, it was around a 1.5 hour commute with almost an hour of that on the train. Having more express trains plus faster and more frequent trains would induce demand on the system. If the train could go from Lowell to Boston in 20 minutes, then even with driving on the Lowell end, and walking or making connections on Boston end, commuting by train would be far faster than by car. And yes, it ticked me off when the north/south connection part was cancelled. It would be sweet if northern trains routes started at south station and vice versa.
Yeah for 25 billion for how many miles of underground highway? I bet if they made this project a toll road it would have stalled and city residents would be happy to have their urban freeway back, not some anticar urbanists wet dream.
@@4149stonepony You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Anyone who loves the Big Dig and its benefits like I do is not anti-car. Anyone from Boston who can't afford a private chopper is also very much pro-public transit- though we might argue about the specifics on what that means. And most Bostonians love that Boston for all its population, is historic, very tiny, a bit quaint, and is very walkable. And this not to knock more spread out more car-friendly cities built later that had a luxury of building wider streets in a simple grid pattern (instead of Boston's maze of one-ways that always seem to lead away from your destination.) Also, the harbor tunnel portion is a toll road, and if memory serves, they did tie part of the funding for the project to the Mass Pike -and had to remove the western tolls because people out there objected to paying for improvements to Boston. Maybe your state just doesn't know how to run a toll road?
@@dividebyzero1000 You right all for 25 some odd billion. Great...you reconnected a walkable section of town with a grimy working class one so it could gentrify. Wonderful urban planning. They could have rebuilt the highway for far less and kept the rest of that area from becoming gentrified disneyland but if people are dumb enough to buy it, I guess. Yes in my state we have tons of toll roads and we even pay higher tolls so that they were all widened, rebuilt and some new extensions were also built 280 miles of highway for 25 billion over 15 years. Not in Boston though, but it was not done with the urbanist gentrifier in mind who want to tax drivers so he does not have to pay a higher fare on the train. They did spend billions on construction but not to beautify and gentrify sections of the city.
@@4149stonepony You are still falling into the trap of comparing extremely dense old cities limited to road systems that are repaved cow paths and having serious geographic constraints, like the Atlantic ocean, with newer planned cities built on open plains. Cities like Houston can always push further out and keep adding lanes. Cities like Boston have to mostly figure out how to use their space very efficiently, and that costs money. And trust me, if you lived in Boston and had to choose between 1.5 hours in traffic plus $50 in parking, squishing onto a crowded subway with 1000 of your closest friends, or a 15 minute walk through Boston Common and the public garden, you would also appreciate its walkable nature.
@@dividebyzero1000 The trap of what? I live in an older denser city with plenty of old indian plank road paths as original roads. Land is flat as hell but with crooked streets on a grid built during industrialization and has roads a majority of which are two lane streets with a few four lane streets. It is not Omaha or Phoenix but I'm in the midwest. The excuse that Boston has to use its space efficiently is just BS. They built interstates from the early forties and mostly in the late 1950's. They could put a highway anywhere its just a matter of politics and cost somewhat. the anti car crowd hates cars, highways and the working and middle class so that is why we are all stuck taking transit or paying 50 dollars to park. It's those anti car fuckers (neoliberals) that ruin cities.
The orange line fiasco is probably one of the more hilarious yet infuriating situations that mass commuters have dealt with in some time. Their marketing department is also clueless which adds to the lunacy (and great memes). The I93 corridor going south into Boston took years off my life. Finally in West Roxbury and take a quick commuter rail ride into work. Having a connected north south commuter rail would be awesome though.
You’re the best armchair … especially because most of your video lengths are perfect ! No fluff and uncut !
I challenge the idea that you t "fix traffic* by adding more lanes.
If you add enough lanes, the road will be so wide there is no longer any space for buildings.
No buildings = no people = no traffic
Solved!
I beg to differ: no buildings = everyone has a motorhome, therefore everyone is on the road constantly, and if that isn’t bad traffic then idk what is.
It depends how many youre starting with. adding 2 more lanes to a 2 lane highway helps for sure as well as adding a 3rd lane in sections for exit and entering. Anything beyond 4 lane (only necessary for limitless) is just compensation for poor driving/overpopulation.
@@user-xg8yy7yl1d Its more than that, part of the issue is that when you add more lanes people use the road more, so adding 2 more lanes to a busy road just makes room for more cars for the extra traffic it attracts.
@@agafaba
For long distance main highways 2 lanes in each direction allows lighter vehicles to overtake heavier vehicles and trailers safely without going into oncoming traffic. The bottlenecks on 2 lane highways aren't even increased traffic but below limit traffic that takes a long time to safely pass.
Main long distance highways will have lots of traffic but unlike cities not usually all trying to get to the same places at once. All you need is a strict enforcement of using the passing lane for passing and keeping right then the addition of that second lane becomes all about safe and efficient travel for all types of cross country going vehicles.
@@user-xg8yy7yl1d there are a lot of driving tricks that would help a lot, like letting vehicles zipper merge in at the end of a lane ending instead of people getting upset by it. While perfect driving would help traffic a lot, its also true that its usually found that busy roads get busier when more lanes are added.
While I think the North-South is an important thing to do it doesn't fix one of the bigger problems with the T, it runs 3 and coming soon 4 Commuter Rail Lines through one track. I think Boston should try to take more control of the T and fire those 150 cops that make more than the mayor for some reason
I moved from Boston (1955 to 1980) to Tokyo (1986 to present), and people in Boston don't get how bad the T is. I'm at a local train station. It's trains are 10 cars long, run every 3 minutes, and are _fast_. The adjacent express line is even faster. The last time I was in Boston, I stayed in the Back Bay, and it was faster to walk to the North End than take the green line. Sure, Boston's not Tokyo, you're thinking, and that's true. But it could be way nicer (than it is, and nicer than Tokyo even (Tokyo's pretty intense)) with a tiny subset of Tokyo's commuter trains. Sigh. But that would cost real money; probably more than Big Dig class money, and decades of construction pain. Sigh, again.
@@davidintokyo the biggest issue with bostons subway and what basically every other subway in America outside of New York does is over cetralizing their subway. Boston has 3-4 subway lines depending on how you classify the green line and they all act as independent lines that only really connect at 4 stations that are all right next to each other which just defeats the point of what a subway is supposed to do, subway lines are not meant to just bring people in and out of the city, they’re meant to make traversing the city itself as easy as possible, look at Berlin, they literally have a line called the ring bahn whose purpose is to solely go around the city, stopping above stations for other lines, this means congestion is distributed among many stations through the city, where as with Boston it’s distributed among 4 meaning there will be large crowds at those 4 stations when people try to transfer lines, literally the best solution would be to create a line that just goes around the city stopping at each of the lines, making getting around the city way easier.
@@davidintokyo We need to ban cars and force the rurals into the cities. Their petty bourgeoise existence is in the way of our communist revolution!
@@8-bitoddish890 The biggest problem with Boston is there is no incentive to live there. It is one of the worst cities in the world. All cities are bad. Move the country. touch grass.
@@davidintokyo The solution is to import a bunch of those attendants who crush people into cars. Bostonians get how bad the T is...but there are no dollars to fix it. It reminds me more of a carnival ride squeaking through fun house tunnels running at near right angles.
If I remember correctly, lowering the speed limit during rush hour is a way to get more people through in a shorter amount of time
While I-81 is being replaced with a boulavard, I-481, a interstate on the outskirts of the city will be re-designated at I-81
1:26 IT'S GONNA FIX TRAFFIC
JUST LET ME BUILD ONE MORE LANE BRO
The Big Dig was never intended to be a solution to the gridlock that plagues the highways around Boston. The central artery took up valuable real estate in downtown so freeing it up has been beneficial, plus the connection to Logan and route 1 was a badly needed upgrade.
Yes, it's still a mess, but the project was not a failure.
As a lifelong resident of Boston, I completely agree with you. The Big Dig was the primary factor in revitalizating Downtown, the Waterfront, and the North End. I feel that Alan tried too hard to simplify the results of the Big Dig and focused too much on just the traffic aspect of the project.
Around Boston, no, but it diverted a lot of traffic away from Callahan and Sumner, which connect to the center of the city.
So. Correct solution, but for a different issue?
@@wormwoodbecomedelphinus4131 I think the video over simplifies the problems that the big dig was actually looking to address. They weren't trying to fix traffic by ending congestion, they hoped to fix traffic by improving traffic flow. Originally all cars heading into, out of, and through the city in all directions would be funnelled onto the same 3 lane stretch of expressway that would gridlock endlessly. The project successfully untangled several bad junctions and directly connected I-90 to Logan and East Boston. It didn't end traffic, but it did vastly improve overall flow of traffic. The goal of the project went well beyond that, though. The elevated expressway was structurally deficient, an eyesore that divided the city, the highway design was very unsafe, and its replacement fostered a huge boom in development in many neighborhoods of the city. The goals that were not fully met were the improvements to transit which the federal government did not want to fund and removed from the scope of the project: namely the north-south rail link that Dukakis is still lobbying for to this day.
Alan also makes a point that it was clearly not worth the cost, so it is a failure given what you can achieve with that amount of money
Thank you for your observations on the current state of the T. I've been riding it as a kid, as a student, and as a commuter. It really is going to pieces fast. There is little incentive for the Commonwealth to actually do anything because their suburban and western constituents receive little or no benefit from spending money to fix the T. It's a Boston problem, not theirs.
The Big Dig was a project that happened when all the stars lined up. We had strong leadership in Washington, two pro-transit governors, and a list of transit improvements as a result of a lawsuit from the environmentalists. As costs soared, criminal activities among the contractors ..... The transit improvements went off the list one by one. What remained was lengthening the platforms for 6 car trains and the Green Line Extension to Tufts (which has been delayed for about 20 years, more politics). Everything else was scaled back of put off for future study. They were generous enough, however, to saddle the T with a huge debt from the project. So instead of preventative maintenance, the T has been forces to funnel as much as they can back into the state coffers.
One thing they did was to put the footings of the Central Artery Tunnel low enough to possibly do the North South train tunnel. One amazing fact no one bothered to mention was the gradient needed to send trains that deep would require building portals quite a distance from either North or South stations, and would need electrification.
One thing I disagree with you about is the Rose Kennedy Greenway. It really is a wonderful, relaxing outdoor space. In 20 years, everyone will have forgotten about the Big Dig debacle and will be enjoying the park (even though my great grandchildren will still be paying for it ). I really enjoy your videos and your insight.
The MBTA is a bad example to use for mass transit. Badly managed, poorly maintained, unsafe and very expensive. It’s also inconvenient and takes too long for the distances traveled. For example it takes almost 2 hours for me to travel from house to my place of work 8 miles away using public transportation. This commute takes 15 minutes by car during rush hour.
I've lived in Massachusetts my entire life, and I've come to the conclusion that I-93 should not exist; We already have the Yankee Division Highway (I-95) which is a ringroad that surrounds the city, as opposed to I-93 which diverts all of the state's traffic downtown.
Also watching the systemic disinvestment of the MBTA (and knowing the vast potential of our commuter rail network specifically) makes me want to SCREAM
Its a complete shame just how much the MBTA also refuses to listen to the public. I myself, and so many friends, who work in architecture + construction have worked on project for the MBTA and you can see just how blatant the corruption and disregard for concerns are. I hope that they dissolve their entire management and rebuild the MBTA from scratch because at this point there's no saving them.
fr they should remove I-93 through downtown
I think Logan’s awful location has something to do with it. As a Woo rat, my only way to reach our region’s only true major airport is to contend with all of downtown Boston’s traffic. Worcester is New England’s second largest city and we can’t even get commuter rail into Boston more than about once ever 2 hours, and that doesn’t even directly connect to the airport. Not fully sure what point I’m making other than that New England’s transit and planning are convoluted lol. That and I need the highway to run thru downtown boston bc sadly it’s the only way for me to get to the airport 🤷♂️ The whole city needs a complete transit/planning overhaul
@@pjkerrigan20 than they should build some sort of transportation connection to the airport
@@summer_bummers7252 honestly what they should do is knock the whole airport down (it also has terrible ecological and health impacts on Boston and it’s northeast suburbs) and build the new regional hub somewhere in the middle of the Boston-Providence-Worcester triangle. Airports really shouldn’t be immediately adjacent to urban areas like that, it’s bad for everybody
As a Bostonian, I’d argue that the big dig was somewhat worth it in the end. No bostonian ever says it was better before. However it’s obvious that it didn’t accomplish much besides changing the aesthetic downtown. I wish you talked more about the fumbled transit compromises made for the T.
1. The silver line. Instead of making a proper railway connecting the airport to the T and to downtown, the city made a barely functioning BRT and is using that as the backbone for a future “urban ring” project. A small tunnel was made connecting the south station to the new seaport district but money ran out and now the bus has to run through the highway tunnel to get to the airport.
There was supposed to be a tunnel between south station and boylston station that would’ve used old tunnels already in place but that got shut down and now we have large buses running through the narrow streets getting stuck in traffic because people frequently park in the “bus only” painted lane as if paint is enough. These lanes run through the part of town that has a bunch of hotels and restaurants so the painted lanes are begging for people to park for pickups and drop offs
2. The expansion to the green line cost so much and all it did was create an expansion through the right of way that already existed. It’s not good and the land that used to be underserved and poor has been gentrified beyond belief so the people that would’ve benefited the most from it have been kicked out. (Edit: I don’t have an issue with GLX btw, I just think that for 2 billion we should’ve gotten something more substantive and the way the project has rolled out meant that the people benefiting from this aren’t the people that need it the most)
3. Any time the T discussed expansions, the green line north was not the one most brought up, not the cheapest one and not the one that would benefit the most people. The conversion of the Fairmount line, blue line extension to Lynn, red-blue connector. Any of these would arguably been cheaper and more beneficial so there’s reason to believe the green line extension was chosen to benefit someone other than the residents of the Boston area.
4. Electrifying has to come before the north-south rail link because the tunnel would be too long for Diesel engines to run through without causing some severe fire risks & air pollution problems.
5. Baker is a dipshit and surprisingly the most popular governor in the states somehow. Even his replacements seem to be wishy washy on the T (he’s not running for re-election)
It better be, thank Ted Kennedy cuz this shit does not get done without him. 25 million federal dollars. Only in Massachusetts.
Thank you. It seems the actual Bostonians are unanimous about this
4: not true! They could just use hybrid trains until All lines are electrified
Building the north south rail link would make electrifications much more likely, because the demand for rail would rise because of the much shorter travel times.
But, now none of those things are happening.
It's not too late, I mean the gateway project also gets funding...
I'm not sure I understand number 2. Why does it matter that the right of way already existed? There wasn't any rapid transit in Somerville and now there is, I don't see how that's a bad thing
I am so thankful to you for the opening parodying the Mechwarrior 3 mission briefs, I loved the game as a kid and it's rare to see anyone mention it, but you were spot on with your take on it.
Still one of my favorite games ever.
Speaking of failures, we replaced a 3-4 lane viaduct with a 2 lane tunnel in Seattle.
I remember the rat infestation this project caused in Boston.
Ah yes, the Mechwarrior 3 approach to urban planning.
Nav point baker.. and the music. I'll be listening to the MW2 soundtrack after this
Glad I wasn't the only one who saw that!
The perfect blend of information and sarcastic vulgarity is why I'm subscribed. Keep it up!
Is the opening similarity to MechWarrior 3's mission briefings intentional? Because it seems REALLY intentional to me... I mean, it's basically a spot-on recreation of the entire look, feel, and sound of those mission briefings, and I'm pretty impressed. Not just by the quality, but by the reference in the first place. :) EDIT: Yeah, the use of MechWarrior 4 music clinches it. Not accidental. :) EDIT2: Wait, Syracuse, NY is making a portion of INTERSTATE 81 a Boulevard?! At regular street level? With traffic lights? And cross-streets? Oh that sounds SO much worse than the Big Dig. Interstates are "limited access" for a reason, and undoing that sounds like a recipe for a traffic disaster orders of magnitude worse than dealing with ongoing Big Dig construction.
downtown is much nicer now. whatever else might be a problem, it's absurd to pretend this is only a little better than that obnoxious old interstate.
Okay, has any of the comments noticed the opening stinger is a massive Mechwarrior 3 reference?
Funny enough, i'm currently talking with a girl in boston who's been telling me about the back-to-back problems the rail line has had. You're probably gonna have to get way more organized and public to fight for it.
I’ve known some people that drove over the old elevated roadway, and towards the end, you could see through the road deck into the ground.
Also, impressive tunnel digging is impressive.
Also also, Boston needs the I-95 ring road to deflect weather, but that’s a separate thing.
But yeah, there were totally better options available than the central artery.
In Düsseldorf, Germany, they moved some big roads into tunnel near the Rhine, allowing for extensive pedestrian areas and low capacity roads for the people who happen to live there. Yes, the tunnel is almost always backed up in rush hours, but so was the road above before it. So, I personally think that moving roads underground is a great way to give cities their walkability back.
OH MY GOD. I immediately recognized that static and grid overlay. Fuck. Time to play MechWarrior 3 again, I guess. Still one of my all time favourite games. In fact, it was my very first video game at age 5. :)
Cudos for that great intro!
edit: rewatched it, even the map flicker lines up perfectly. I'm grinning so much!
edit edit: okay, deducting quite a few points for using MW4 Vengeance music. it's a good track, but wrong game!
Lol it got me too!
If you want to know how bad MBTA lines are one station: Boylston Station.
if you know, you know
Yeah
Is it basically the equivalent of Chambers St or Bowery in NYC?
The sound of history!
The great SCREECH from the past.
My last trip to Boston I had to go to the last exit where the big dig was closed for the ceiling falling down.
It was scary not sitting in traffic
My man!! As a commuter rail conductor, you bringing up the North-South rail link is music to my ears
Anyone saying that the Big Dig didn't improve traffic didn't drive in Boston before the project was completed. Traffic on the artery is MUCH better than it used to be. Moreover, you have to account for growth. The old artery was falling apart and needed to be replaced. It could barely handle the volume of the 1970's let alone the 80's and 90's and forget about it being able to handle today's volume. The project also added the new Ted Williams tunnel relieving pressure on the much smaller Callahan and Sumner tunnels. The project also greatly improved the Charles River crossing
And aesthetically - not only did it remove an eyesore that split the city in two, it removed all that standing exhaust from pedestrian level and put all the traffic noise below ground.
The BIG DIG was a colossal SUCCESS.
It was a partial success because the opening of the Ted Williams Tunnel to all vehicles allowed for the Sumner and Callahan tunnels to be rehabilitated. What made the project only a partial success was that its ability to reduce congestion on interstate 93 was only limited.
This guys a super bias idiot. He literally works it to trains at night.
It was a failure due to the resources spent both in money and time.
Specially when a real fix could've been built, with mass transit.
@@celdur4635 most people don't want to take a train.
@@penskepc2374 Most people want to use whatever infrastructure works best.
If going by train saves you time, then you will use it.
What most people don't want to do, is to drive. In the US you are just used to your ball and chain.
Clan Smoke Jaguar is notorious for their poor urban planning! Loved the homage to Mechwarrior 3; well done!
I watched the intro and immediately wondered how many people would get the reference. Glad to see there's at least one other lance leader in the comments section!
Trueborns will never take the train with freebirths and will only commute in their technologically advanced battle cars.
Aff!
I love the Payday briefing 😂
We're about to do this to I670 here in Kansas City, but the park they're putting aboveground is meant to connect 2 disparate parts of downtown to foot traffic & light rail. Hopefully it goes better
It will be great for the urban environment which is what the Big Dig was a huge success for.
you left out the part where the head of the MBTA quit in the 2010s because everyone was blaming her for the problems the T was having and she literally said “we have no budget to fix the problems, I quit” 😭
And was especially singled out because, in typical Boston fashion, can't have a women of color be in charge. Years later, pasty boy Steve Poftak still has his job while being single-handedly responsible for the worst years in MBTA history.
Where does all the money we pay for the MBTA go to? All the ridiculous taxes?
@@davecrupel2817 I actually can't speak for Boston but if it's anything like NYC, the city re-allocates the money *meant* for the trains and spends it on other things, and then lets the problems with the trains get so bad that it costs more to fix them. This is what has finally stopped happening in NYC the last few years where the city is now re-investing in system upgrades and expansion after a pretty long period of corruption
MBTA general managers can collect a full pension after 3 years. That is why there is constant turnover, No one stays there long enough to care 15-20 years down the road,
You can't "fix" heavy traffic, because heavy traffic is the solution. "Traffic", by imposing time costs on potential drivers, reduces demand.
More like give people other options like mass transit. Traffic is the product of excess demand.
I agree completely.
Heavy traffic means a road is being used which is a good thing. Nothing is worse than spending 20 billion on something that goes unused.
The reason that it sucks to drive in traffic, or find parking, is because automobiles are not a good solution for moving large amounts of goods and people.
@@Barnabas64 And logistics experts for industry know this. There is a reason shipping companies don't put a single order for a single customer out in a vehicle and then come back to do it again and again.
No. They wait until they have large enough orders to send by full shipping containers across oceans, full train car across country, full truck trailers across states, or full box trucks and vans across cities. Otherwise, it just isn't efficient or economical.
Economies of scale don't change just because people don't want to be inconvenienced.
I would say you can "fix" heavy traffic.
Freeway demolitions!
@@Barnabas64 Cars are bad they are in direct opposition to the socialist revolution.
I look at Boston on a map and can clearly still see the scars of this. So instead or rebuilding the lost streets and buildings you get a rubbish park and still have a mess of tunnel ramps when you could have thousands of new homes and two areas that people could walk between. We’ve had similar in UK albeit on a smaller scale but clearly new ‘public space’ ticks a box somewhere.
It’s definitely a mess, but “rubbish” it is not. I walk around the greenway all the time, and while it’s definitely a deep gash in the city layout (and candidate for worst managed municipal project in the world) the park is great and a nice buffer in the middle of downtown. I’m sure someone else from around here would disagree but I genuinely find it to be a great spot to walk; especially because it snakes around some of the most touristy/walkable spots in the city. There’s also a bunch of open space with swinging benches where you can get a really nice view of the skyline.
This was very upfront and well worth the time to watch.
I was telling people a while back that the most important project is a major rail line between the major rail station which would allow citizens to access the other half of town. What kind of city has a rail network that only allows you to access half a city??? That is ridiculous and should have been built a century ago. That is why so many people driving; they can take their vehicles "on both halves of the city" and if you could do the same with the train mahy more citizens would be taking the metro than are now !!!
Basically, what Boston needs is it's own equivalent of Thameslink in London, or Thameslink 2 in London (which will be known to many as the Elizabeth Line...)!
They were two separate railroad companies 100 years ago. But yes, NSRL should have been done decades ago, as well as electrification.
@@woodalexander Same problem in Paris: 5 or 6 different, rival train companies that all built their own terminus. They're now linked by the métro and buses, tho' not all directly. But it's not optimum, especially with baggage and small children in tow.
@@cathjj840 Many cities have/had similar problems. It's fine in NYC, Philly did a tunnel to link their two systems.
The Subway already gives you access to the rest of the city, the Commuter Rail isn’t designed for going around Boston, it is to bring you in and out of Boston.
yeah but you gotta admit the tunnel is very fun to drive through when there's low traffic and you can go fast
The old viaduct and tunnel were too 'cause they felt slightly dangerous
"makes your downtown look a TINY bit better" he says...lol...Your a funny guy!! Looks sh*t tons better. Otherwise this was a good video! As an Angeleno/Bostonian I feel naturally compelled to talk about traffic. A major problem nobody ever talks about is while there ARE commuter lines and some busses in the suburbs, Greater Boston overall has terrible downtown access. Towns just 15 miles from downtown have no Boston bound busses or train stations nearby, forcing people to drive. The MBTA needs expansion, and better financial management.
Accidentally clicked on your video about the 4 major rail road companies in America & I loved it , just like this one 👌. You have a new sub in me
Burying highways does work if your transit system isn't shit, as multiple european cities have shown. The question is just how much money it's worth to you to hide some cars
I suggest another city that's having problems like this, just on the edge of the Rust Belt. Albany New York, a city plagued by the interstate system, which admittedly they already fixed alot by getting rid of tolls so traffic doesn't stop.
Tolls were always so dumb to me. Surely when economists talk about opportunity costs, time costs, etc. tolls are the best way to sabotage the infrastructure you're trying to receive funds for? In Illinois and surrounding states we figured out we could just make a system of automated toll charging, the modern version of which doesn't even require you to slow down, which will be awesome if congestion pricing is ever implemented. Literally just take that system and put a big flashing sign that says pay "Current price: $___ ...Exit before ______ to avoid charge"
@@TheSpecialJ11 yeah In Texas you just keep going the same speed and the electronic thing reads your tag. In jersey when I lived there you’d have to still slow down to 20 for the EZ Pass
In jersey now (South Jersey anyway) you have to slow for tolls before the ben Franklin bridge, but not on the ac expressway. Not sure about other toll roads
They could have removed the tolls on the whole NYS Thruway with just a 1-2 cent increase in the state gas tax back in 1994. Instead, they have a corporate welfare gift to the people at E-ZPass. Follow the money folks.
@@TheSpecialJ11 heh I never pay those tolls I just cover my plates when I park anywhere in Illinois I probably owe them over 2,000 dollars at this point.
Being from Buffalo I frequent Syracuse often for work, I’ll actually be there tomorrow. A boulevard like the one going in Syracuse would not be efficient for Boston. There is a fraction of the population in Syracuse, it’s a city with less than 250k people. It’s a solution that works well for small and less populated cities. It’s not a solution for moving mass numbers of vehicles quickly. The stop and go in a large city would cause enormous backups, waste an incredible amount of fuel, and likely be more frustrating and less walkable in the end; it’ll be coke a giant smelly parking lot
The Bjorvika Tunnel was a similar controversial project in Norway. It extended the already underground expressway tunnel under downtown Oslo under its harbor to the east. This relieved traffic congestion initially, but now congestion is partly back to where it was before the tunnel was built. This was the only major urban road project in Norway that did not involve freeway removal.
Singapore meanwhile replaced the western end of its at-grade E Coast Parkway with the mostly underground Marina Coastal E'way that runs further out & closer to the coastline, to give our downtown more room to expand out & closer to our coastline without a limited-access expressway getting in the way. Costing S$4.3b, there was also some debate over whether the money could've been better spent on public transport instead (but cars are already heavily taxed in the country anyway)
As a New Yorker, upstate New York has massive potential for revitalization, for cities like Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, etc. We don’t talk about Albany though
Also I’m dumb what’s happening with battery-powered trains?
Good old Albany, mm mm mmm.
battery trains suck and RRs should put on their big boy pants and put up catenaries. Maaayyyybe there's a niche for battery switchers for branch lines or yards that would be too annoying to fully electrify. but that's it [caveat I didn't watch the vid yet so I don't know there the question comes from]
the best way to fix albany is to level the plaza and 787 and rebuild the waterfront and downtown rail station but most of that will never happen
Battery power over short range good but still needs to be supported by something else to go distances, like a catenary or 3rd rail. We are starting to introduce them in the UK but they basically only get used on line extensions so that un-electrified lines can be used a couple stations/suburbs further along without needing a charging point while waiting at a platform.
god please help us in albany
This was overly negative for no reason. Big dig was 100% worth it.
My buddy works construction in the Boston area and a few years ago he was driving into a job downtown and a concrete roof slab came down in front of his car on I-93SB. Thankfully he didn't crash and wasn't hurt (or hit), but he doesn't much like to drive in the tunnels if he can avoid it.
I love Big Dig lore as a Boston suburbanite. I also love how uncomfortable it makes me to drive through the tunnel, whether it's the light intensity or lack thereof, or the constant lane changing going on in dense traffic.
I don't think Boston and Syracuse are fair comparisons because Syracuse has a declining population so they can just get rid of highways and replace it with arterials without traffic problems.
I live in Boston and I think this caught a lot of us by surprise. I thought we had a pretty good transit system and never felt the need to own a car here. But it turns out the MBTA was basically held together with metaphorical duct tape and twine. You may need a Part 2 soon. They're talking about big shut downs on the Red Line next.
If this was a surprise, you haven’t been paying attention. Alarms have been going for ages.
I lived in Cambridge when the Red Line was extended to Alewife, and ended there because the “progressive” folks of Arlington didn't want Boston riffraff to come to their town. I thought that was huge, and then the depression of the Central Artery really got underway.
It looks like there was a pretty big Red Line repair project (and derailment) in 2019.
This is why people own cars in the city.^^^^ regular transit users know that transit sucks and they would rather drive but they can't afford too. Enter the elitist crowd and trains are magic and they are godlike, WRONG!
@@4149stonepony, I lived in downtown Boston. I had a car, which I didn't know what to do with. I found a guy who rented out car storage in his back yard, which I could reach on the Green Line. Over the course of a year, I used the car maybe 4 times. The cost of a ride service would have been way, way less than insurance.
Had I worked out in the suburbs (some of which were/are easily reachable by commuter rail), that wouldn't have been practical. But that's not the city's or transit system's fault.
8:21 “...but yeah, if you're going to do electrification, do not do the stupid thing and do battery locomotives. They don't work. MBTA, don't do that, it's stupid. I know, mainly it's because your governor is an idiot, but don't do that.”
Yes indeed, Charlie Baker (R) is an idiot.
Alan, I’d like to hear your opinions of DART, the light rail network here in Dallas. Great video as always, looking forward to more.
That Full Spectrum Warrior into was unexpected for me but appreciated
Maybe they need an Urban Mech for urban infrastructure.
Boston IMO is in the perfect position for the good old land value tax / rapid transit one two punch. Nothing raises land values quite like public spending on highly efficient infrastructure, and nothing makes that infrastructure more useful than high land values causing dense, walkable nodes at its stations. It's like a TIF but you're not borrowing against yourself in a way that screws over your future funds.
I feel like we are also a perfect candidate for the reintroduction of tram-lines. The city is dense enough that trams would make sense and frankly they would be a lot cheaper than projects like the green line extension (not that the extension is in any way a bad thing). Plus, for a city that loves to embrace the historical vibe, I feel like trams would be huge with the tourists
@@pjkerrigan20 The MBTA doesn't want to add any more streetcar type lines because the ones they currently have mess up headways in the tunnel when they bunch in traffic and three come along at once.
@@pjkerrigan20 Personally I feel they should disconnect the streetcar sections but connect them to each other or run them as "premetro" trams, and run the tunnel, Riverside Branch, and GLX as a light metro similar to Vancouver's Skytrain.
You could do it the way San Francisco did with the Embaracado, rip out the superhighway and put in a street and trolleys.
I grew up in and outside of Boston. This video is so F*in spot on!
I'm in awe at the high effort MechWarrior 3 homage. This channel is a beautiful cross section of my interests.
Once he said "op point Able", I knew what he was getting at, and now my morning is 100x better.
The viaduct in Seattle is a perfect example. When they closed it, traffic was worse for abut two weeks before people adjusted (back to exactly as terrible as before). Then years and billions of dollars later, they opened the tunnel. Traffic improved for about two weeks, before rebounding back to where it was. All that money and stress, for zero net gain or loss. There was a net gain for the public on the foreshore which is now a beautiful boulevard. But that already succeeded before the tunnel was finished so they could have just knocked down the viaduct and left it at that. That was the original suggestion cause traffic engineers knew a new duct would suck as much as the old one but a botched democratic process about meant they were obligated to do both.
The main problem with Seattle is it continues to exist. Someone needs to fix that.
The problem is trucks. You don't want a bunch of trucks on your city streets and that section has alot of truck traffic due to the ports
What do you mean when you say that traffic became worse again in Seatle? You mean on I 5 ? Because i don't recall seeing the tunnel jammed, nor the boulevard for that matter
@@Spido68_the_spectator That's what the traffic engineers who assessed it said. I don't live there so I couldn't tell you personally. I have driven through the tunnel once though and the traffic was hell there and everywhere the freeway touched. By what I understood it was average journey times that rebounded. If the roads are already reaching saturation (like in every major American city) then if you add capacity, you don't decrease peak journey times, you prolong the peak period so for everyone it's either exactly the same as before or a lot worse.
@@Freshbott2 ah. People doing rides in the tunnel did on purpose choose a sunday morning then.
North Amercian cities are plagued by car dependancy. It's by design they have bad traffic. The lack of public transport only makes it worse
5:35 "the traffic enginerds" LOL!
Lived in Boston for 30 years, No tunnel goes under a river in Boston. It's Boston Harbor. I now live Syracuse. Constant law suits from Surbanites trying to stop the shifting of I-81 to I-481 keeps halting the project.
This dude is crazy. Any long-time Boston resident knows the big dig was a huge plus for Boston. The old highway was a horrible rusting eyesore. No, it didn't fix traffic, but everyone knew that was impossible. It just simply hid it undergorund.
As a former Northshore resident I agree coming to downtown from Lynn it was a nightmare, now is better but traffic is going to be worse if we keep underfunding our public transportation . Look at NYC now they are going to add congestion pricing like London thanks to the gridlock that occurs when ever you have to drive to Manhattan.
Lived in Boston all my life, could not disagree more. It was a total boondoggle waste of money.
This dude hates cares. He wants electric trains. So any improvement for cars with tunnels undermine in his anti-car campaign. This si the only reason he hates Big Dig.
Seems like one of those bike riders. He's a Pete Buttigieg fan, so he likes big things broke!
@@fhowland what would have done instead. The tunnel system is actually amazing especially if you need to go to the airport or through the city.
The thing that annoys me is that there’s been a ton of great mass transit projects in Boston that get canned here for “cost” but we had no problem spending billions on a highway. The urban ring project would have been a MASSIVE project to add 31 new stations, a new heavy rail line, and 17 new bus lines (6 of which would be BRT) that would alleviate overcrowding on the major circular and crosstown lines (the green lines, and #66 and #1 bus lines being the major ones). It would have carried almost 300,000 people PER DAY, 47,000 of which would be converted from car trips. It would have been revolutionary. Total cost? $2bn. But it got almost completely canned because of cost, even though this was a mere 1 year after the $24bn highway had opened, and the only thing we got was SL3 aka silver line gateway, a single pretty short BRT line on a busway.
If nothing else we seem to kind of be heading towards good things, the bus network redesign is a pretty major overhaul to the bus network that’ll increase frequencies on a bunch of bus lines and create some extensions that’ll add more bus lines for a ton of residents. And there’s now 3 bus lines that have free service for a few years.
That project is probably the last one Boston will ever build. It was so eye-wateringly expensive that nobody wanted to repeat it.
@@unconventionalideas5683 Once we ban cars and raise gas prices to a cost that reflects the cost petrol has on our enviroment people will have no choice but to move into the pods and eat the bugs. This is a good idea I dunno why people have a problem with it.
I always wondered what those unused ramps were intended for.
The only way I go into Boston now is the MBTA Commuter Rail. You can get a weekend pass for $10.00 good for both days unlimited and now on Holidays.
Honestly, if instead of the Big Dig they constructed a comprehensive rail system instead, I think Boston would've been a much better place to be in.
Same goes for Seattle. The Alaskan Way Tunnel is also a boondoggle and the same funds could've been spent on doubling the amount of track length of the existing light rail.
Yeaaaah. 99 even IS surface streets through much of that area.. just make it a surface street all the way through. It does suck for drivers who need to cross the city but maps always routes me over to 5 anyway sooo..
If they expanded transit with the money from the big dig, there would be less traffic on 93 and then they could do something more like what we have now, with a park (hopefully a better one than we got) and a much smaller road.
Boston already has a comprehensive light rail, subway and commuter rail system. Boston could go for some expansions like connecting the North and South Stations, replacing the Silver Line down Washington St with heavy rail, etc.
worst part is they proposed one quite literally 1 year after the highway opened :/ the urban ring project was a $2bn project to add a heavy rail line, and 17 new bus lines, around half of which would run in dedicated busways, and 31 new stations for use by the buses and heavy rail line. It would have carried 300,000 people PER DAY and converted 47,000 car trips each day. But it got almost completely cancelled for cost, despite costing 1/12th the cost of the highway that had opened 1 year prior.
@@Bobspineable This is something I just cannot comprehend. Why does Japan need so much highways and cars when the country already has the best rail transit system in the world? Maybe because of American influence that led to the thinking that cars are somehow good? I mean don't get me wrong, Japan is home to many different car companies that do various kinds of lobbying, but I definitely think that Japan would still have a way forward even if it dismantles most of its freeways in favor of even more rail transit.
The 695 ghost ramp is still there. They didn't remove the elevated lanes for the Big Dig. The project essentially ended at the end of the Zakim Bridge and the existing elevated lanes were tied into it.
Traffic was much worse before the Big Dig and it also allowed the Seaport to flourish.
That "ghost ramp" is still there haha, I always wondered about that thanks!
Comparing Boston metro to Syracuse completely invalidated dude's argument. Apples and oranges.
I was almost on the train that caught on fire. I like the T, but it's disappointing how badly Boston handled it's problems.
Baker has lost all credit on his "Fix the T's core services" bit. It's worse than ever.
8:40 - One of the things the big Dig allowed was making the city more walkable and cleaner. I left Mass in the late 80s and visited Boston for the first time in 2016, almost 30 years later. What a difference in terms of walkability and cleanliness and reduced noise. I took the "Dread-Line" in from Quincy Adams Station and walked the day. I remember doing that in the late 80s, and the city was discusting, hard to get to the waterfront, busy surface roads, etc...
Your grammar is what’s “discusting.”
but it doesn't fix the issue that this highway still attracts lots and losts of traffic. that's why the highways should never, ever go through a city but AROUND them with limited entrances to the city (and parking at the edge of the city with a tramline or subway connected)
Best public works project in recent history.