It's time to admit, it's buses or nothing for the silver line. It's impossible to lay rail to Logan. It will be almost impossible to lay rail down the washington branch. JP said no to rail, even though it was already in the street, do you really think the resident of washington street will accept rail? Especially rail sharing the ROW with cars, as washington street isnt wide enough for a grade separated line.

Fact: Buses are more efficient at street running than rail is. They can swerve, go on detours and move around disabled vehicles. Why do you think buses substitute for trains so often? Why is it that the e line is terminated at brigham circle so often, and yet the 39 continued to run?

As for capacity:

A bus carries 100, ok. A SINGLE green line train (because we are comparing similar options) carries only a few more. Lets go with 150. But heres the thing, your two car green line train uses two operators. There's no financial benefit in Boston over running two buses a minute apart, as either way, you need two drivers. The best part is, a bus is cheaper than a train, so we can have three buses to match the capacity of a green line train (300 vs 300)and improve the travelers experience because headways are shorter.

With further improvements (Los Angeles just introduced 65 foot which fit an extra 16 people) capacity can continue to increase. I mention LA because a common argument against longer buses is citing laws which limit them to 60. Lawmakers exist to change laws, and thats exactly what LA did. 80 foot buses, with higher capacity than a green line train, are employed abroad with excellent safety records.

Dont forget the best part: Buses do not have to follow the super-strict railway laws. Remember the green line crash recently where people complained there wasnt enough safety? Nobody complains when buses run 15 seconds apart and use standard traffic signals. That means headways the green line could only dream of. Compare the kenmore busway with the kenmore green line tunnel. The busway fits 5 or 6 buses lined up bumper to bumper. Underground, one train has to wait for the other one to leave the station due to "safety" issues (and im not talking about platforms shortened for construction)

I have ridden the silver line through the tunnels, frequently. The bounce doesnt bother me, but I admit the speed does. I could just as easily complain about the violent swaying on the d line, or the bumps every time a train goes over a switch.

What gives rail a faster speed than a bus in a tunnel? The fact that it's guided. Lucky for us, technology exists to guide buses so that the driver only has to deal with speed, just like the green line. And it's cheap to, cheaper than laying rail, as you only need a painted line.

I have no information on how often buses need to be replaced versus trains, so I wont touch that point. You may be right, you may be talking out of your ass, I dont know.

This is why very few outside blinded railfans (i.e: people who refuse to look at viable alternatives) oppose this thing from happening.

The green line extension should be rail, the new bedford line should be rail, but the silver line is an obvious case where buses are better than trains, and I'm disappointed that some people are so blinded by there personal preference that they are willing to sabotage a mass transit expansion because if they can't have what they want, than nobody should have anything at all.

How would just reopening the old Green Line tunnel from Eliot Norton Park do anything to improve access from the Green Line and the Orange line to the South Boston waterfront?

That $1.2 billion costs doen't just include a tunnel under Charles St., it includes a tunnel from Boylston to South Station and transfer stations from the Silver Line to the Green Line at Boylston and a transfer station from the Silver Line to the Orange Line at Chinatown.

It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison to say you could just reopen the old Green Line tunnel for Green Line trains from Dudley to Park St. instead of spending the $1.2 billion for the Silver Line, when the Green Line option does nothing to improve access to the waterfront and Logan. If you then say "well you could still build a new tunnel from South Station to Boylston and reopen the Green Line" well would that be cheaper than $1.2 billion or would that cost even more?

I've seen Arborway make essentially this post many times now, and I'm wondering to what extent he can back up claims such as Menino and the MBTA are anti-rail. I get that they are anti-Arborway restoration, but my impression from reading so many of these posts, is that Arborway rail service is the single qualifying issue to determine somebody's stance -- favor E line to Forest Hills, and you are pro-rail. Oppose it, and you are anti-rail. Is that the premise?

I can't speak for Menino, but without any citation whatsoever from Arborway, I'll assume his honor is neutral. I've seen no evidence that he is pro or con. As for the MBTA, there is clear evidence that the agency is indeed pro-rail. How else can we explain the major expansion of the commuter rail system, the extension of the Green Line, and the inclusion in the Urban Ring proposal of some rail alignments?

My sense is that rail for Silver Line phases 1 and 3 might be preferable, but I don't think it can work for phase 2. So that means that either the MBTA builds two systems or build a unified bus system. If they can get BRT to work, it is probably preferable to have a single seat line rather than one that requires a transfer at either Boylston or South Station.

Of course all of this ignores the practical reason to build a BRT tunnel rather than an LRT tunnel. The federal government will pay most of the cost for a BRT system, but won't pay for LRT. Even if the 'T wants rail, funding constrains it to opt for a bus. But here's the thing. The tunnel they build would work just as well for rail as it would for bus, and though Arborway ignores this, it actually is not a tunnel where one already exists. That's only true for the portal portion, not true for the portion under Boylston/Essex to South Station.

I strongly suspect that this tunnel will someday be rail, but that to obtain funding, the 'T has to claim it is for a bus system for now. I'll put money down right now, though, that within 10 years of the tunnel opening, the 'T will begin the process of rail conversion. I'll also put money down that when it happens, yahoos like Arborway will dance around shouting "I told you so!" when in fact, all along, they never understood what was really happening.