Crazy Transit Pitches

[Charlie_mta]

Cool, yep, that's exactly what I was thinking -- I've been crayoning Greenway streetcars, and of the big question marks was around yard access. The more robust solution would be to hook into whatever portals get built near Pleasant Street, but that introduces a number of dependencies, so Canal Street makes for a useful option to have available "on Day 1".

And yeah: would not use it for revenue service, only for bringing cars in and out of service.

I would have an RKG GL surface route run from Martha Road (where it would tie in directly on both sides of the existing GL at the portal), then go up the overly wide Merrimac St on its own reservation, then by Haymarket Sq down the RKG to South Station, ideally tying in via a new portal to a future GL from the Back Bay to the Seaport District sharing with busses the existing bus tunnel. The RKG GL line would be a full service line using the standard GL cars, not vintage trolleys. It would reduce loading on the DTX stretch of the GL for lines coming from the north.

 

[The EGE]

Here's what I have:

The Green Line tracks at the portal were relocated several times during the Big Dig, so I'm not 100% sure. My best guess is that of the original six-track wide portal, the current GL tracks are below the western two slots, the current OL tracks below the eastern two slots, and some portion of the incline remains in the center two track slots, which were last used to access the Causeway Street Elevated from 1997 to 2004.

 

[Brattle Loop]

The Green Line tracks at the portal were relocated several times during the Big Dig, so I'm not 100% sure. My best guess is that of the original six-track wide portal, the current GL tracks are below the western two slots, the current OL tracks below the eastern two slots, and some portion of the incline remains in the center two track slots, which were last used to access the Causeway Street Elevated from 1997 to 2004.

The Orange Line tunnel is east of the portal (at least at the location of the old portal mouth). Here is a picture from 1986 I found on Flickr showing all six slots of the portal extant (the two easternmost disused) well after the Haymarket-North Extension opened. Historic Aerials' views are annoyingly-poor resolution, but it looks like the 97-04 alignment used the two easternmost slots (formerly Orange Line), though possibly the second-and-third from east, with the Green Line tunnel built to the west. Them using the Orange Line slots would support the existing GL tracks being roughly in their old locations through Old Haymarket, with the tunnel sides corresponding to the westernmost and fourth-from-west slots in the six-track portal.

 

[Riverside]

Alrighty. so here is why I was asking about the Canal Street Incline...

About a year-and-a-half ago, this thread turned its discussion to rail service to the North End. In general, the group sentiment was skeptical, but I was a bit less so. In terms of stop-spacing, a station near Prince & Hanover would not be out of place, though there wasn't an obvious corridor to stitch it into.

Near the end of my post, I noted parenthetically:

(For what it's worth, if you feel that there's a must-have need for rail rather than bus in order to attract riders, one could consider a "heritage trolley" line -- perhaps South Station-Greenway-Aquarium-Commercial Street-Hanover Street-Haymarket. Or even just up and down Hanover Street from Haymarket. You could also consider a westward extension via Cambridge St -- if Blue-Red construction ends up closing Bowdoin, there would be a sizable gap.)

A heritage trolley line along the Greenway is hardly a new idea. It's appealing in its way, but in my opinion has never quite brought enough to the table. The trolleys would be pretty, yes, but would they be useful? Rowes Wharf aside, a Greenway-only routing (paralleling the Central Artery below) wouldn't provide access to any new locations, and in a real sense wouldn't "go" anywhere. (And I'm pessimistic that "heritage trolleys" actually are viable at all... San Francisco's PCCs are cute, but are also inaccessible [literally and figuratively], not air-conditioned, and not particularly comfortable. What's more, what would pass as "heritage trolleys" at this point are probably, like, the Type 7s? Not nearly enough "charm" there, in my opinion.)

And I kept coming back to this:

The prevailing standard for stop-spacing in the core is a 5-7 minute walk between stations, and that drives (and is driven by) a fair number of local behaviors and other factors. One of those is the idea that you only have to walk ~3-4 minutes to reach your destination from the nearest T stop. Next to that, a 10-minute walk one-way is a significant difference. ...A 12-minute walk becomes significantly less hospitable when it's cold, raining, snowy, or if you have some sort of limitation on your mobility -- whether that's groceries, children, or a physical difficulty. Again, not impossible by any means, but discouraging.

Both the North End and the West End (if Bowdoin closes) will sit in these gaps where transit is more distant. It doesn't require true out-and-out rapid transit, but I do think auto usage would decrease if traveling to a fancy Italian restaurant in the North End did not entail a 10 minute walk in bad weather (which we get every three days).

While pondering this, an idea occurred to me: we call it the Greenway, which is poor for line-naming purposes because we already have a Green Line. BUT: the full name of the park is the Rose Kennedy Greenway.

Which I just absolutely could not resist, and thus was born the Rose Line:

Being shown on this map alongside the NSRL and Congress Street BRT is meant to highlight that this is not a North Station-South Station shuttle. Rather, this is meant to provide a one-seat ride from both North Station and South Station (as well as all four subway lines) to:

• the Greenway
• the Aquarium
• Quincy Market
• Boston Public Market
• Hanover Street in the North End
• Copps Hill in the North End

All major tourist/entertainment destinations, and many of interest to families with young children.

And what's more, it's meant to provide a scenic ride through old Boston while you journey. Picture modern low-floor light rail vehicles with large windows. We want to use transit to create moments of beauty.

One oddity of the route is the "divot" meant to serve Haymarket. For a rapid transit route, this would be inefficient, but for a "beauty transit" route, this is reasonable, as Haymarket is a destination unto itself, and passengers coming from the southern and western Orange and Green Lines will want to transfer directly at Haymarket and ride straight up Hanover, rather than going up to North Station and doubling back down.

At street level, serving Haymarket door-to-door will require a small loopback, but nothing extreme. (I'm imagining a surface stop on the eastern side of Boston Public Market.) Something like this (track positions are approximate, not sure whether inner-lane or outer-lane on the Greenway is better):

The Rose Line would connect to the rest of the light rail system via a non-revenue connector track running out of a reopened Canal Street Portal. In earlier iterations of this idea, the Rose Line continued north to Charlestown, but I believe that is better (and sufficiently) served by more typical transit methods.

That is Phase 1. Phase 2 looks to the south. The Mass Turnpike slices the city down the middle, severing Bay Village from the South End. This should be rectified by decking the Pike with a combination of new buildings and new linear park as extension of the Greenway, stitching the city back together. The Rose Line can extend south from South Station (via Chinatown Gate) to this new park and connect to Back Bay.

There are things I like about this extension, but I think it's less necessary, for example, if a Green Line extension to South Station is built. I would note that the objectives are slightly different, however: a Green-to-Seaport extension would use the corridor in question as a way to move passengers through this stretch of Boston, while the Rose Line's purpose would be to placemake this part of Boston. The Rose Line isn't a way to get through the "South Greenway", it's a way to experience the South Greenway.

(A South Greenway extension would also provide opportunity to hook into the southern half of the LRT system, likely via whatever alignment is used to connect the Washington St branch. This would allow for more robust operations than could be accommodated via a single track at Canal St.)

continued below

 

[Riverside]

continued from above

I'd mentioned above that the West End likewise will suffer from a transit gap once Bowdoin closes. This brings us to the last piece of this idea: the Lilac Line.

Truth be told, this could really just be an "extension" of the Rose Line, and in practical terms streetcars would likely through-run from one to the other. But the topology at Back Bay would make for an odd loop-that's-not-a-loop, so it seemed helpful to maintain a separate identity. If the South Greenway extension doesn't happen, then you could probably get away with a single Rose Line running South Station-North Station-Charles-Back Bay. (Also, I'd thought of "Lilac Line" earlier on when I'd been considering a different arrangement of routes where through-running would not be possible. And, as with the Rose Line before, I just couldn't resist the sound of "the Rose and Lilac Lines".)

(I also admit that it was sorely tempting to call this line the "Garden Line" -- because it serves both the Public Garden and the erstwhile Boston Garden. Fortunately, we are spared that, thanks to the Green Line.)

The Lilac Line's route would likely be the most controversial, as it would travel through Beacon Hill and require some rearrangement of Charles St. But it would also be extremely beautiful, passing between Boston Common and the Public Garden, then through one of Boston's oldest neighborhoods (with colonial architecture abounding), before traveling down the wide Cambridge St alongside MGH and through the West End -- oldest Boston and newest Boston just a couple of stops apart.

A through-running Lilac-Rose Line would provide one-seat scenic rides from South Station, North Station, and Back Bay to:

• the Public Garden
• Boston Common
• Beacon Hill
• MGH
• TD Garden
• Copps Hill
• Hanover Street in the North End
• Boston Public Market
• Quincy Market
• the Aquarium
• the Greenway
• Chinatown
• a new South Greenway

~~~~

Do I believe that the Rose (and Lilac) Line is a top priority? No, not in the slightest. Do I believe it has merit? Yes.

The Rose (and Lilac) Line stitches together several roles, each of which on its own doesn't present a strong enough case for rail, but when combined are more compelling:

• Provides more direct transit to neighborhoods that are walkable from existing transit, but which are more marginally so, contributing to reductions in auto use
• Contributes to the creation of "an experience" where the last mile from your subway/railroad station is part of your destination, rather than just one last leg to traverse
• Single-handedly links a dozen of Boston's top attractions
• Provides modest but genuine circumferential service, particularly valuable for riders with slightly reduced mobility (e.g. South Station-Aquarium, Back Bay-Public Garden, North Station-MGH)

And accomplishes all of the above while:

• Hooking into the existing network, allowing the reuse of existing rolling stock and maintenance facilities
• Primarily using streets that are wide enough to accommodate dedicated lanes, or are potentially amenable to conversion to transit malls
• Running a circulator service that nonetheless runs mostly direct from node to node, minimizing the downsides inherant to downtown circulators

What's more, I think the idea of the Rose Line -- including with that unusual, floral name -- is important, now more than ever. Transit isn't just about getting people from A to B. Transit is about quickening the space between A and B into a living, breathing part of the city -- a place worth being in, not just something to endure as we pass through. Just like the rest of the cityscape, transit can -- and dare I say, should -- create beauty.

 

[Brattle Loop]

The Rose (and Lilac) Line stitches together several roles, each of which on its own doesn't present a strong enough case for rail, but when combined are more compelling:

• Provides more direct transit to neighborhoods that are walkable from existing transit, but which are more marginally so, contributing to reductions in auto use
• Contributes to the creation of "an experience" where the last mile from your subway/railroad station is part of your destination, rather than just one last leg to traverse
• Single-handedly links a dozen of Boston's top attractions
• Provides modest but genuine circumferential service, particularly valuable for riders with slightly reduced mobility (e.g. South Station-Aquarium, Back Bay-Public Garden, North Station-MGH)

And accomplishes all of the above while:

• Hooking into the existing network, allowing the reuse of existing rolling stock and maintenance facilities
• Primarily using streets that are wide enough to accommodate dedicated lanes, or are potentially amenable to conversion to transit malls
• Running a circulator service that nonetheless runs mostly direct from node to node, minimizing the downsides inherant to downtown circulators

What's more, I think the idea of the Rose Line -- including with that unusual, floral name -- is important, now more than ever. Transit isn't just about getting people from A to B. Transit is about quickening the space between A and B into a living, breathing part of the city -- a place worth being in, not just something to endure as we pass through. Just like the rest of the cityscape, transit can -- and dare I say, should -- create beauty.

Interesting and well-detailed as usual. I think your point about the neighborhoods that have marginal transit access is spot-on. Parts of the West End and a lot of the North End are annoyingly inconvenient to access via transit (as are parts of the Back Bay nearer the river...what I wouldn't have given for a Riverbank Subway when I was in high school).

I know my traditional role is to respond to these kind of posts with a bucket of cold pessimistic reality (and I'll get to that ) but I really like the first phase of the Rose Line as an idea. It'd absolutely massacre traffic capacity on Hanover (and absolutely require a big parking cull on Hanover and Commercial), which I for one think would be a very good thing (not just because fewer cars is a good thing, but because it'd help un-clog the whole area while significantly improving transportation flow). The Haymarket distended loop is acceptable if sufficient measures are taken to avoid excessive traffic entanglements (i.e. basic streetcar priority of the type that the surface branches should have had fifteen years ago). Phase II as a concept is fine, though the cynic in me wants no one in power to ever hear of it as a suggestion until long after the proper Green Line connections from E-Tremont-South have been done, because as you quite rightly point out, a Rose line along the Pike isn't a distributor like the GL-Tremont extensions would be.

Now, as promised, the cold dose of reality.

The Lilac Line, particularly its Beacon Hill stretch, goes through an area that almost certainly won't have it. They have money, they have influence, they'll raise bloody murder. (I mean, some of them already go crazy if people paint a door the 'wrong' color or if the tactile warning strips on sidewalk ramps are yellow). It'd be a hell of a headache for something that is, even in comparison to the Rose Line, not that useful. That said, I wonder if it might be of some value to try a version where it goes down the river near the Esplanade (perhaps built at the same time as Storrow's cut down for BLX to Kenmore), then maybe up Clarendon to Back Bay and then down Dartmouth back to the Esplanade? (Get some nice Copley Square, BPL sights on that run).

I have significant concerns, both political and practical, with the "reuse of existing rolling stock" element. The Type 7s are inaccessible, the Type 8s are but are notorious lemons (but since they're green, well, teal, shouldn't that be limes?), and there's two dozen Type 9s, a handful of which are already earmarked for Mattapan when the time comes. Maybe the T9s are sufficient (for now), well at least if they have mirrors, but if they're not we'd be running derailment-happy 8s or the Type 10s. I really wonder on some of these routes whether it'd be very feasible with something even as long as a T9, let alone a T10. Less relevant if we're talking (more disruptive) more conversions to transit-only streets, but it's still a lot of street running in some fairly narrow places with pretty big vehicles, which also makes me worry about the headways. I wonder if it might make more sense to (were this proposal to actually move forward real-world) ask CAF to add on some shorter Urbos variants to the Type 10 order. Wouldn't be a completely unified fleet, but if they were just different-length variants of the same basic product you'd get most of the commonality benefits. Might depend on the ridership projections, too, though.

Unfortunately, while the other issues are to some degree addressable, I think the pitch as-proposed has a fatal flaw that doesn't have an immediately-clear solution, and that's vehicle access to the maintenance facilities. The Canal Street Incline is gone, and it has a building on it. A big one. The sealed-but-presumably-intact (unless the garage fell on them) westernmost tracks of the original portal opened about under where the median of New Chardon is now. One Canal, the vent building surrounded by One Canal, and to a lesser extent the T substation eat up a ton of the ground real estate there. Maybe, just maybe, if the low part of the vent building could be demolished as redundant and you could start an incline from just on the northwest edge of One Canal without destabilizing the building, you could maybe incline a track up enough to get out that gate (and that's if the cars will fit, because there's some big cross-braces in there so that entrance can't easily be expanded beyond a certain point. I for one strongly suspect that you'd have to torpedo a giant chunk of One Canal's New Chardon side to blast through its foundations just to get over to its courtyard. It's almost certainly infeasible, it might well be impossible, meaning now the Rose and Lilac lines have no connection to the remainder of the system.

Unsolvable, no, but there's not an obvious solution. It'd be pretty much impractical to try and run up to the Science Park incline or beyond (there's maybe room to shiv a way through, but it'd be an operational nightmare). Best bet would probably be a non-rev spur in the Pike area to the F-branch incline, but that depends on that extension being built and reserving a ROW for the Rose/Lilac (in Crazy Transit Pitches probably an acceptable gloss). If that concern could be addressed, though, I think it's a fascinating idea. Particularly the Rose line, which I think would do well as a tourist attraction. (Much as we typically go for line-color-is-vehicle-color, in my mind I'm envisioning something like a small-version T10 in traction orange and cream, with perhaps a winged rose on the nose instead of a winged headlight, but aesthetics is a second-order concern at most...though I really can kind of picture that looking goooood going along the Greenway.)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The problem with the North End branch is that it trolley-stitutes the 4 bus, which has very low ridership (140th on the system, 470 boardings per day per Blue Book). It's basically the central-most worst-performing bus on the whole system. So the evidence isn't clear at all that there are compromised rapid transit walksheds in the neighborhood. Most of the cross streets are plenty close walk to Haymarket or Aquarium, leaving only the wharves directly on Commercial at any sort of roundabout walk (and even then not that much). If they're barely pumping a trickle onto the 4 at 30 minute headways, I'm really not sure what's the there-there or why we should be complicating traffic patterns in any part of the Central Subway for it.

RE: the West End and Beacon Hill...much the same. The rapid transit walksheds really aren't bad at all. And closure of Bowdoin would not create a gap if the northern Government Center Blue Line headhouse were completed as originally planned. It's only a 1-block/600 ft. difference in walkshed, more than made up by the second line going to Charles MGH and second entrance that Red-Blue would put in there on Cambridge St. If there were demand here for spanning transit, they would've had a bus or trolley at some point in the last 95 years. That wasn't even the case when the original West End and its residential density was still standing.


Absolute feasibility may not be that big a deal with these proposals, but Purpose & Need is left wanting.

 

[Riverside]

Thanks much to both of you, as always. Further comments below:

I know my traditional role is to respond to these kind of posts with a bucket of cold pessimistic reality (and I'll get to that ) but I really like the first phase of the Rose Line as an idea. It'd absolutely massacre traffic capacity on Hanover (and absolutely require a big parking cull on Hanover and Commercial), which I for one think would be a very good thing (not just because fewer cars is a good thing, but because it'd help un-clog the whole area while significantly improving transportation flow).

Yes, implicit in this is also a reimagining of the streets in question to be less auto-centric, taking some cues from small European tram systems.

The Lilac Line, particularly its Beacon Hill stretch, goes through an area that almost certainly won't have it. They have money, they have influence, they'll raise bloody murder. (I mean, some of them already go crazy if people paint a door the 'wrong' color or if the tactile warning strips on sidewalk ramps are yellow). It'd be a hell of a headache for something that is, even in comparison to the Rose Line, not that useful. That said, I wonder if it might be of some value to try a version where it goes down the river near the Esplanade (perhaps built at the same time as Storrow's cut down for BLX to Kenmore), then maybe up Clarendon to Back Bay and then down Dartmouth back to the Esplanade? (Get some nice Copley Square, BPL sights on that run).

Yes, the Lilac Line "swings for the fences", and doesn't quite stitch together as many objectives as the Rose Line. At one point, I routed it down Storrow + Arlington instead of Charles St, which would avoid some of the concerns you raise, while maintaining access to the Public Garden (and better access to the Esplanade, arguably a bigger draw). The jump from Storrow to Arlington is a little hairy, but if Storrow's going on a diet anyway, it may not be difficult to build a fix. Heading down Dartmouth from Back Bay to the Esplanade is an interesting idea, though... the question would be where to send it next, but I suppose you could just continue on to Kenmore a bit like I wrote about earlier this year.

I have significant concerns, both political and practical, with the "reuse of existing rolling stock" element.

Yeah, this is a fair concern. The upside is that a Phase 1 Rose Line wouldn't require too many cars: ~6 if we're aiming for five-minute headways, and 3 or 4 for ten-minute headways. (Personally I think this concept works significantly better at higher headways, but there's room for exploration, and the numbers will shift anyway depending on how much the streets are reimagined to enable speedy travel.) So hopefully T9s (remodeled with mirrors) would be enough there.

Unfortunately, while the other issues are to some degree addressable, I think the pitch as-proposed has a fatal flaw that doesn't have an immediately-clear solution, and that's vehicle access to the maintenance facilities. The Canal Street Incline is gone, and it has a building on it. A big one. The sealed-but-presumably-intact (unless the garage fell on them) westernmost tracks of the original portal opened about under where the median of New Chardon is now. One Canal, the vent building surrounded by One Canal, and to a lesser extent the T substation eat up a ton of the ground real estate there. Maybe, just maybe, if the low part of the vent building could be demolished as redundant and you could start an incline from just on the northwest edge of One Canal without destabilizing the building, you could maybe incline a track up enough to get out that gate (and that's if the cars will fit, because there's some big cross-braces in there so that entrance can't easily be expanded beyond a certain point. I for one strongly suspect that you'd have to torpedo a giant chunk of One Canal's New Chardon side to blast through its foundations just to get over to its courtyard. It's almost certainly infeasible, it might well be impossible, meaning now the Rose and Lilac lines have no connection to the remainder of the system.

I need to look at this more closely. It would be so nice if Canal Street could somehow work, but...

Unsolvable, no, but there's not an obvious solution. It'd be pretty much impractical to try and run up to the Science Park incline or beyond (there's maybe room to shiv a way through, but it'd be an operational nightmare). Best bet would probably be a non-rev spur in the Pike area to the F-branch incline, but that depends on that extension being built and reserving a ROW for the Rose/Lilac (in Crazy Transit Pitches probably an acceptable gloss).

I agree that the strongest alternative is via the Pleasant Street Portal -- there are a number of different possibilities for Pleasant St, but basically all of them involve a surface-level turn "right" on to Washington St, and so a non-rev connector could turn "left" and continue up Marginal and then probably Hudson. Let's assume in this scenario the southern terminus of the Rose Line is at Chinatown Gate (and therefore has dedicated lanes from there to South Station) -- that would mean the non-revenue tracks would only need to be street-running along Marginal and Hudson, which could probably have reasonable traffic maintenance measures implemented to keep the way clear. Yes, that creates a dependency on building the F Portal -- but that needs to get built anyway (and we could argue that this offers additional incentive to get that done!)

I looked at the Science Park incline, and while not the simplest option, I think there's some potential there. One interesting piece is that the Green Line tracks diverge apart as they enter the portal in order to accommodate the start of the North Station yard, just inside the tunnel. If my memory serves, there is some grade-separation between the outer revenue tracks and the inner yard tracks. I wonder if it would be possible to extend the yard leads in a short tunnel to a portal on either Lomasney or Causeway, something like this:

Alternatively, the northern end of the Rose Line could be extended to Science Park via a loop on Nashua and Martha. A third track could be added to the short viaduct between Science Park and ground level, with crossovers to enable access to/from the Green Line Maintenance Facility, and (via a reverse move) the small North Station Yard. (The third track would be long enough to hold at least a couple of single-car Type 9 sets for temporary storage.)

Feeding the Rose Line from the GLMF via Lechmere would have an impact on Green Line ops, as it would require the occasional "slot" to be consumed by a Rose Line set rather than a Green Line set. But, depending on the final rolling stock, these cars could run in revenue service directly between Lechmere (and beyond) and the surface-running segment, partially mitigating their impact.

(To @F-Line to Dudley's point: while I am decidedly not proposing revenue Rose Line service through the Central Subway if Canal Street were used, it is true that Rose Line sets would need to take up "slots" in the Central Subway -- and, to boot, coming from the south, would need to be fed from Reservoir or elsewhere -- quite some distance away. Come to think of it, being able to feed from the north might actually be operationally better.)

If that concern could be addressed, though, I think it's a fascinating idea. Particularly the Rose line, which I think would do well as a tourist attraction. (Much as we typically go for line-color-is-vehicle-color, in my mind I'm envisioning something like a small-version T10 in traction orange and cream, with perhaps a winged rose on the nose instead of a winged headlight, but aesthetics is a second-order concern at most...though I really can kind of picture that looking goooood going along the Greenway.)

I think the aesthetics are a valid part of the conversation! If we're going to make transit part of the destination, it's reasonable to make it look good. (And yes -- I don't think it would be feasible to repaint the cars that would be used on the Rose Line -- too operationally inflexible. But, the half-dozen T9s that are typically assigned to run Rose as single units could be adorned with "flourishes".)

Replying to F-Line below.

 

[Riverside]

The problem with the North End branch is that it trolley-stitutes the 4 bus, which has very low ridership (140th on the system, 470 boardings per day per Blue Book). It's basically the central-most worst-performing bus on the whole system. So the evidence isn't clear at all that there are compromised rapid transit walksheds in the neighborhood. Most of the cross streets are plenty close walk to Haymarket or Aquarium, leaving only the wharves directly on Commercial at any sort of roundabout walk (and even then not that much). If they're barely pumping a trickle onto the 4 at 30 minute headways, I'm really not sure what's the there-there or why we should be complicating traffic patterns in any part of the Central Subway for it.
...
Absolute feasibility may not be that big a deal with these proposals, but Purpose & Need is left wanting.

Gonna remove the West End & Beacon Hill from scope for the moment, since, as discussed above, that half has a number of challenges. But to your points here:

First, I'll re-emphasize that, at most, the disruption to the Central Subway is the occasional non-revenue run -- I don't see much utility in running subway service onto this route. But yes, as mentioned above, those non-rev runs are still a non-zero impact. I need to look more carefully at the Science Park incline idea I sketched up above, but I do think that could be a possible alternative.

I think the 4 is a poor comparison, frankly. As the Better Bus Profile notes, the 4's purpose is to serve as a last mile connection between North Station and the Seaport for peak hour commuters. Its service to the North End is incidental and indirect (Commercial only), its route is confusing and illegible (only serves South Station in one direction, only runs from North Station to North End in the PM but only does the reverse in the AM) and it runs at peak hours only (ending service around 7pm!). So I don't think the 4 is a useful indicator of, well, really anything, but definitely not this.

(I'd also argue that the conversation about walksheds is different when we are talking about irregular journeys to entertainment, vs daily commutes for work or school -- I suspect the tolerance for longer or more unpredictable walks is higher on daily commutes, since the experience is averaged over hundreds of journeys a year, while any one particular "entertainment journey" is likely only going to be made 10-20 times a year, if that. Which also means people will be willing to pay a literal premium for those irregular journeys -- i.e. shell out for a rideshare.)

But like I said before, the walksheds are only part of this. This is also about creating 2-seat journeys to major tourist/entertainment destinations, and is about creating a destination unto itself. It's definitely not a high priority, but I think it can be a way to reimagine downtown into a space that is more beautiful and less auto-centric.

 

[737900er]

Really neat idea!

I know this would never happen (although this is Crazy Pitches), but If the Type 9s make to Mattapan by say 2032, there will be 9 air-conditioned PCCs with a major rebuild 10 years ago and 85 years of history running in Boston looking for homes (although that fleet would probably need to be supplemented with something to get reasonable headways)

 

[Riverside]

Really neat idea!

I know this would never happen (although this is Crazy Pitches), but If the Type 9s make to Mattapan by say 2032, there will be 9 air-conditioned PCCs with a major rebuild 10 years ago and 85 years of history running in Boston looking for homes (although that fleet would probably need to be supplemented with something to get reasonable headways)

Thanks!

Yeah, my thing with the PCCs is that they aren't accessible. The Mattapan Line uses wooden ramps, I believe, but that's barely a solution -- accessibility isn't just about being able to maneuver a wheelchair onboard; accessibility is also about strollers, groceries, and bad knees. The concept of a "heritage trolley" line is nice, but I think it brings too many drawbacks to a proposal that already would be a tough sell.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I agree that the strongest alternative is via the Pleasant Street Portal -- there are a number of different possibilities for Pleasant St, but basically all of them involve a surface-level turn "right" on to Washington St, and so a non-rev connector could turn "left" and continue up Marginal and then probably Hudson. Let's assume in this scenario the southern terminus of the Rose Line is at Chinatown Gate (and therefore has dedicated lanes from there to South Station) -- that would mean the non-revenue tracks would only need to be street-running along Marginal and Hudson, which could probably have reasonable traffic maintenance measures implemented to keep the way clear. Yes, that creates a dependency on building the F Portal -- but that needs to get built anyway (and we could argue that this offers additional incentive to get that done!)

Street-running a non-rev spur would be feasible in a Rose-only scenario, I agree with you on that. Probably not if Lilac's involved and there's any kind of need to get to BBY, at which point some solution in the Pike trench is probably necessary.

I need to look at this more closely. It would be so nice if Canal Street could somehow work, but...

It would be an elegant solution, but the answer's probably buried in One Canal's building plans. If we're very lucky maybe there's not much in the way of what's left of the old portal, but if there's tons of concrete anchoring that end of the building, there's no meaningful prospect of blasting through it.

Alternatively, the northern end of the Rose Line could be extended to Science Park via a loop on Nashua and Martha. A third track could be added to the short viaduct between Science Park and ground level, with crossovers to enable access to/from the Green Line Maintenance Facility, and (via a reverse move) the small North Station Yard. (The third track would be long enough to hold at least a couple of single-car Type 9 sets for temporary storage.)

Miles more feasible than the tunnel proposal if you ask me, though I don't know if the third track would really be necessary. It wouldn't really be a feasible storage facility unless it's flat, and then it'd have to eat the parklet and deck over the highway ramp as far as possible. Branching off the inbound GL track about where the viaduct is at street level, with a crossover just northwest (outbound/railroad east) of there to access the outbound track to the carhouse might be enough. The problem with the tunnel idea is that while there's some grade separation of the NS yard tracks (though for the life of me I can't tell if they're flat or a down-grade), by the end they're nearly aligned with the portal, meaning by the time you got to sufficient grade separation to have a flyover/interchange, I'm not sure that there'd be enough room between the buildings on one side and the highway tunnels to shiv a turn in there, because you'd be talking basically a loop to get on alignment, and depending on exactly where the obstacles are you'd be talking quite possibly something narrower than the old Lechmere loop, with no indication if the vehicles could handle it.

(To @F-Line to Dudley's point: while I am decidedly not proposing revenue Rose Line service through the Central Subway if Canal Street were used, it is true that Rose Line sets would need to take up "slots" in the Central Subway -- and, to boot, coming from the south, would need to be fed from Reservoir or elsewhere -- quite some distance away. Come to think of it, being able to feed from the north might actually be operationally better.)

What, no sending the Rose tourist trolleys through Canal into the Brattle Loop and relegating my namesake back to its historical role as the turnaround for foreign cars outside of fare control

Yeah, my thing with the PCCs is that they aren't accessible. The Mattapan Line uses wooden ramps, I believe, but that's barely a solution -- accessibility isn't just about being able to maneuver a wheelchair onboard; accessibility is also about strollers, groceries, and bad knees. The concept of a "heritage trolley" line is nice, but I think it brings too many drawbacks to a proposal that already would be a tough sell.

Agreed, that's why I distinctly didn't mention the PCCs as a suggestion other than stealing their color scheme. In many ways they'd be ideally suited, being right-sized and having distinctive historical cachet, all of which would be beneficial in a transit option tilted heavier-than-usual in the tourist direction (at least in branding). The accessibility issue is absolutely a killer, though. There's no way to provision anything with a lot of street running with Mattapan-style high-platform stations without severe disruption to the streetscape (whereas a T9 or a T10 or a Traction Orange little Urbos could make do with curb extension platforms), so we'd be stuck with stairs, which are bad for flow and throughput beyond the distinct barrier to useability they impose on anyone with limited mobility (strollers are a nightmare on the Green whenever it's anything but empty, luggage is no picnic either, so you're quite right to point out that accessibility goes far beyond wheelchairs).

 

[luobo]

You want crazy? I got crazy: Green Line to Nubian, but it's a consolidated D/E Branch.

Yes, of course it verges on God Mode, but hear me out. . .

• Do the much-discussed "tunnel under Route 9 and get D under Huntington" trick.
• Build a new LMA station at Huntington @ McGreevey, then dodge east under McGreevey
• Connecting station at the north edge of Roxbury Crossing en route to a narrow, wiggly, but possible route into Nubian
• Nubian to Park St via your method of choice.

So, let's get to the obvious issues:

1. Lots of abandoned stations but it's fine, actually. We lose Longwood (0.25 miles to Hawes St), Fenway (1000 ft. to St. Mary St), Museum of Fine Arts (0.3 miles from Ruggles), Northeastern (same), Symphony (600 ft. from Mass Ave), and Prudential (0.3 miles from Mass Ave, Back Bay, Hynes, or Copley). The only one that really hurts is Heath Street (true of any D-via-Huntington scheme).
2. It's longer, but not as bad as you think. This routing adds about half a mile from LMA to Boylston compared to the current Huntington routing. If we break out the big bucks to tunnel and traffic-separate as much as possible, travel times should be comparable.
3. No more D to Kenmore is an issue of any D-to-Huntington crayon, and not necessarily 100% true. You could still run a few Kenmore trains if you have the slots available after buffing up B/C/(A?) frequencies.

Now for the positive things:

1. Bye-bye Copley Junction, hello much improved B/C/(A?) throughput. This alone might help open up some extra slots for those supplemental D-via-Kenmore trips.
2. Great Nubian frequencies without the extra Central Subway congestion. You can also add a Needham branch without congestion fears since Needham + Riverside demand will easily be handled by Nubian demand (which may need extra short turn trips at Reservoir to supplement the Needham/Riverside trips).
3. System redundancy and flexibility since we keep the Muddy River and Copley Junction tracks around for non-revenue moves or emergency alternative routes. Combined with the B/C connection potential at Reservoir, you end up with lots of possibilities for moving trains between lines as needed.

If nothing else, it's certainly crazy!

 

[TrolleybusFoaming]

It's certainly creative! My mind goes to one thing: rich D branch passengers objecting to being routed through Roxbury Crossing and Nubian...

 

[Brattle Loop]

1. Lots of abandoned stations but it's fine, actually. We lose Longwood (0.25 miles to Hawes St), Fenway (1000 ft. to St. Mary St), Museum of Fine Arts (0.3 miles from Ruggles), Northeastern (same), Symphony (600 ft. from Mass Ave), and Prudential (0.3 miles from Mass Ave, Back Bay, Hynes, or Copley). The only one that really hurts is Heath Street (true of any D-via-Huntington scheme).

Anything D-via-Huntington that kills off Heath Street service entirely is going to run headlong into the disastrous politics of screwing with the VA hospital, which has long kept the T's anti-street-running fetishists from managing to kill off service past Brigham Circle to begin with. Not to mention that most of the D-via-Huntington schemes don't eliminate an entire transit corridor and force redistribution of its entire ridership onto the surrounding services.

1. It's longer, but not as bad as you think. This routing adds about half a mile from LMA to Boylston compared to the current Huntington routing. If we break out the big bucks to tunnel and traffic-separate as much as possible, travel times should be comparable.

Tunneling this thing would be extremely expensive. The route you chose (to the extent that the map is an accurate representation) is particularly odd, given that once the tunnel's across the Southwest Corridor, it's apparently supposed to go under or somehow dodge around multiple large buildings. (It probably be mildly more sensible to angle the NEC crossing to aim down towards Malcolm X, which provides a largely-obstruction-free corridor over to Nubian Station). That's not even getting into the expense of tunneling under Washington all the way to the Tremont Street Subway (even most of the F-Line to Nubian proposals don't tend to have that as a requirement. It's not that the route's infeasible, it's just extremely expensive.)

1. Bye-bye Copley Junction, hello much improved B/C/(A?) throughput. This alone might help open up some extra slots for those supplemental D-via-Kenmore trips.

True, but also a benefit of any change that kicks the E over to the Tremont tunnels.

1. System redundancy and flexibility since we keep the Muddy River and Copley Junction tracks around for non-revenue moves or emergency alternative routes. Combined with the B/C connection potential at Reservoir, you end up with lots of possibilities for moving trains between lines as needed.

See above.

While certainly creative, and definitely crazy, it appears to be a very intricate and expensive solution for a problem that doesn't require such extravagance. I'm unaware of any studies or advocacy groups showing a great need for direct connection between Nubian and the Riverside Line. The additional complexity, length, and expense of a joint service (and the attendant loss of Huntington service) would need to be justified by the benefits of that connection, which aren't immediately apparent. Without them, it would make far more sense to address some of the non-Nubian-specific aspects (such as Copley Junction and service flexibility/redundancy) by means of D-to-E, burying the E under Huntington, and linking the E via tunnel from Back Bay to the disused Tremont portal, and doesn't necessarily force you to steal D frequencies from Kenmore to keep stiff headways at Nubian.

The only part that's immediately attractive is that chaining D/E to Nubian means Nubian doesn't need a whole additional branch's worth of service (though it might still require more trains than at present both because of the added length and the possible need to short-turn to keep frequencies acceptable on the Nubian stretch). That only matters, though, if Nubian (and other potential extensions) can't be adequately served without over-crowding the Central Subway, which hasn't been proven. Nubian-via-Tremont only has to touch the Central Subway only between Boylston and Park Street, where lesser modifications than brand-new tunnels can add to the capacity that's already partially under-used. While I commend the originality, until and unless I see more evidence for the benefits of combining D/E and Nubian versus the drawbacks, I'm going to put this one towards the "crazy" side of crazy transit pitches.

It's certainly creative! My mind goes to one thing: rich D branch passengers objecting to being routed through Roxbury Crossing and Nubian...

We'll witness the birth of a new phenomenon; the NITBY: Not in Their Back Yards (sort of the reverse of Melrose not wanting the Orange Line because it would bring in the "wrong" people; this would be the D-branch people not wanting to go through the "wrong" people's neighborhoods. Sadly I have no difficulty believing that such complaints would absolutely be made.)

Also, speaking of routings, what would happen at Kenmore (and Fenway) after Sox games if only the B and C frequencies were there to take on the crowds?

 

[dhawkins]

Thanks much to both of you, as always. Further comments below:


Yes, implicit in this is also a reimagining of the streets in question to be less auto-centric, taking some cues from small European tram systems.


Yes, the Lilac Line "swings for the fences", and doesn't quite stitch together as many objectives as the Rose Line. At one point, I routed it down Storrow + Arlington instead of Charles St, which would avoid some of the concerns you raise, while maintaining access to the Public Garden (and better access to the Esplanade, arguably a bigger draw). The jump from Storrow to Arlington is a little hairy, but if Storrow's going on a diet anyway, it may not be difficult to build a fix. Heading down Dartmouth from Back Bay to the Esplanade is an interesting idea, though... the question would be where to send it next, but I suppose you could just continue on to Kenmore a bit like I wrote about earlier this year.
Yeah, this is a fair concern. The upside is that a Phase 1 Rose Line wouldn't require too many cars: ~6 if we're aiming for five-minute headways, and 3 or 4 for ten-minute headways. (Personally I think this concept works significantly better at higher headways, but there's room for exploration, and the numbers will shift anyway depending on how much the streets are reimagined to enable speedy travel.) So hopefully T9s (remodeled with mirrors) would be enough there.
I need to look at this more closely. It would be so nice if Canal Street could somehow work, but...

I agree that the strongest alternative is via the Pleasant Street Portal -- there are a number of different possibilities for Pleasant St, but basically all of them involve a surface-level turn "right" on to Washington St, and so a non-rev connector could turn "left" and continue up Marginal and then probably Hudson. Let's assume in this scenario the southern terminus of the Rose Line is at Chinatown Gate (and therefore has dedicated lanes from there to South Station) -- that would mean the non-revenue tracks would only need to be street-running along Marginal and Hudson, which could probably have reasonable traffic maintenance measures implemented to keep the way clear. Yes, that creates a dependency on building the F Portal -- but that needs to get built anyway (and we could argue that this offers additional incentive to get that done!)

I looked at the Science Park incline, and while not the simplest option, I think there's some potential there. One interesting piece is that the Green Line tracks diverge apart as they enter the portal in order to accommodate the start of the North Station yard, just inside the tunnel. If my memory serves, there is some grade-separation between the outer revenue tracks and the inner yard tracks. I wonder if it would be possible to extend the yard leads in a short tunnel to a portal on either Lomasney or Causeway, something like this:

View attachment 28239

Alternatively, the northern end of the Rose Line could be extended to Science Park via a loop on Nashua and Martha. A third track could be added to the short viaduct between Science Park and ground level, with crossovers to enable access to/from the Green Line Maintenance Facility, and (via a reverse move) the small North Station Yard. (The third track would be long enough to hold at least a couple of single-car Type 9 sets for temporary storage.)

View attachment 28266

Feeding the Rose Line from the GLMF via Lechmere would have an impact on Green Line ops, as it would require the occasional "slot" to be consumed by a Rose Line set rather than a Green Line set. But, depending on the final rolling stock, these cars could run in revenue service directly between Lechmere (and beyond) and the surface-running segment, partially mitigating their impact.

(To @F-Line to Dudley's point: while I am decidedly not proposing revenue Rose Line service through the Central Subway if Canal Street were used, it is true that Rose Line sets would need to take up "slots" in the Central Subway -- and, to boot, coming from the south, would need to be fed from Reservoir or elsewhere -- quite some distance away. Come to think of it, being able to feed from the north might actually be operationally better.)
I think the aesthetics are a valid part of the conversation! If we're going to make transit part of the destination, it's reasonable to make it look good. (And yes -- I don't think it would be feasible to repaint the cars that would be used on the Rose Line -- too operationally inflexible. But, the half-dozen T9s that are typically assigned to run Rose as single units could be adorned with "flourishes".)

Replying to F-Line below.

Hope I don't offend you by taking your idea and turning into a car-centric option. Actually something similar to this should be proposed as an on-ramp merge to 93 south entrance! It sucks going from Causeway all the way over to Leverett Circle to grab the expressway.

 

[BosMaineiac]

Hope I don't offend you by taking your idea and turning into a car-centric option. Actually something similar to this should be proposed as an on-ramp merge to 93 south entrance! It sucks going from Causeway all the way over to Leverett Circle to grab the expressway.

View attachment 28509

Are you suggesting tearing down the last tenement for an on-ramp?!

 

[Riverside]

You want crazy? I got crazy: Green Line to Nubian, but it's a consolidated D/E Branch.

I like the creativity! I agree with most of @Brattle Loop's concerns; I think it's particularly painful to lose the direct service to the upper half of Huntington -- the thing to remember there is that those E Line stops along Huntington are already a bit of a walk from some of the destinations they serve, so increasing that all the way to Ruggles hurts more than you'd expect.

One of the things that's so annoying about connecting Longwood and Nubian is that Ruggles really is the stronger intermediary than Roxbury Crossing -- Ruggles' closer proximity to Northeastern is probably always going to give it a slight edge over Roxbury Crossing. So, like, you want to figure out an alignment that goes LMA - Ruggles - Nubian, which is somewhat feasible if you are planning a circumferential service. But if, as you are trying to do here, you want to link them via a radial service, it becomes much harder because you have to double-back to get from Nubian to Ruggles.

I do commend you for trying to link them via a radial service, though -- in some alternate universe, BERy built a subway pretty much exactly the way you describe here, and it's a pretty good idea, if you are starting from a blank slate. I think your proposal is insufficient to replace full service on Huntington, but I think it brings up an interesting idea of extending Nubian service west in addition to Huntington service. I still think there's a stronger argument for circumferential service via Ruggles, but I think a radial extension from Nubian to Roxbury Crossing is an interesting idea that sets up some interesting possibilities.

I will say -- I don't think D-to-E in general needs to preclude service to Heath. If nothing else, pop a portal at Brigham Circle (the street is plenty wide enough) and run a short street-running vestigial service similar to today's. Or a portal on Huntington just east of S Huntington. Or build a short subway between Huntington and Heath. I think a one point F-Line was talking about Heath-Brookline Village-Huntington doubleback service, which I don't love, but Kenmore-Brookline Village-Heath, combined with improved 39 and speedy rapid transit transfer at Brookline Village intrigues me (especially if extended to Jackson Square for Orange Line + Dorchester bus connections).

 

[The EGE]

As has come up in the bus network redesign, one of the biggest failings of the existing subway network is that it doesn't serve the center of the LMA - because the LMA is a relatively recent addition to the city. Two different ways to get a station in the center of the LMA have been rattling around my mind. Both of them attempt to accommodate an E extension to Hyde Square, which often gets ignored in D-E pitches.

Pitch 1: D-E connector via Longwood Avenue

Bury the E from Northeastern to somewhere past Longwood Avenue, with new subway stations at Northeastern and Wentworth/MFA. Built a new tunnel from the D under Longwood Avenue, with new subway stations at Brookline Avenue and Avenue Louis Pasteur. It's a bit longer than other D-E connector designs, but it gets two stations in the heart of the LMA. It also allows for the outer E to come to the surface wherever is convenient.

This also lends itself to adding a wye with the Highland Branch and a short connector up Ruggles Street, getting you a circumferential Kenmore-Ruggles route that improves LMA access from the B, C, and Orange Line.

Pitch 2: Blue Line extension

Extend the Blue Line to Kenmore, then under Brookline Avenue and Longwood Avenue. Briefly follow Huntington Avenue (a second deck under the E tunnel, if that's built), then deep-bore to Ruggles and Nubian. If desired, you can also build the D-E connector, and send a southern branch of that tunnel to surface near Heath Street.

This one would be a LOT of tunneling - about 4.6 miles for the Blue Line alone. But it gets you Red-Blue, a second east-west subway, subway stations for Fenway-Kenmore and LMA, a southwestern circumferential line, and returning Nubian to the rapid transit network. It can also be built in phases - every additional station past Kenmore is an excellent value on its own. For extra points, have the Kenmore BL platforms under Brookline Avenue, with a second entrance at Lansdowne station.

The main downsides are that it likely eliminates extending the Blue Line west towards Allston/Watertown/Waltham, and that it wouldn't actually make for a faster ride Nubian-downtown than a slightly improved Silver Line.

 

[jklo]

Doesn't seem like it's worth it. The LMA area is pretty self contained... it's not even a mile between where D and E is. People from the burbs taking the CR would be helped with better access from Ruggles or Lansdowne but I think most people would just continue to take D or E and just walk.