I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful here. I do want to say, 1) I significantly disagree with your interpretation of the term "rapid transit", and 2) this is just my personal opinion, but I do feel the way you've presented this sounds a bit condescending and dismissive. I am mindful that I myself often "over-explain" and probably sound condescending and dismissive as well, so I don't mean to be harsh.
But I think the term "rapid transit" is
particularly vague and almost always requires additional clarification; you've suggested here that there are hard-and-fast rules about what "counts" as rapid transit, and you've used that claim to dismiss the (actually very different) point that TheRatmeister was making:
To me, this reads as a point about the "placemaking" aspects of the question, "What gets shown on the T map with the same visual language as the Red, Orange, Blue, and Green Lines?" Regardless of any broader definition of "rapid transit", the question at hand here is a very specific one about Boston's context and local ideas about what constitutes a "line". And in that context, the broader definition really doesn't matter (even if it should).
@TheRatmeister, I think this is a very cool map! I've thought about similar things (and in fact have a draft blog post entitled "Light Rail for All"), and I like how you are trying to tease out a niche where LRT rolling stock is used for slightly lower-frequency service that would feel meaningfully different in character from, for example, the Green Line.
Some assorted thoughts:
Aqua Line: what's your thinking on your current Pleasant St alignment vs continuing with median-running on Route 20 all the way to Waltham Central Square?
GL F: I like the thought process you've used on the rest of the map, and along those lines my challenge to you would be to find an interesting way to split this route into two. For example, I've been playing around with a Park St <> MLK Blvd route complemented by a route that runs along Blue Hill Ave + Seaver St. You have some other routes on this map of similar length, like that Medford-Revere route, but I think, for example, the Medford-Revere route works because the Revere Beach Parkway and the rest of Route 16 have already taken care of pruning traffic lights and intersections, which speeds up travel. Blue Hill Ave, by contrast, looks like it has a crosswalk roughly every 1000 feet or less, while Revere Beach Parkway, by comparison, appears to run the entire 1.4 mile stretch between Winthrop Ave and Garfield Ave without a single crosswalk. (What the actual eff, jeez. I mean, it's good for your map, but jeez.)
To be clear, I agree that the entire GL F corridor
merits the kind of service you're describing, I just think it shouldn't be a single service.
2: I like the idea of a branching Mass Ave service! Especially one that still serves Nubian! You could also instead/additionally run a Kendall-Mass Ave-Ruggles-Nubian service along the route you've shown here, which would fill a gap
@Teban54 and I have been chatting about.
16: You might consider rerouting this directly through Franklin Park. Yes, it would have to be in mixed traffic, but it would be much more direct, and it would be an absolutely gorgeous ride. (It could be worth trying to estimate the speeds on Morton + Blue Hill under your current alignment and compare them to possible speeds through the park itself -- my wild guess is that Morton + Blue Hill would not be fast enough to offset the longer distance.)
I'd urge you to reconsider
Hyde Park Ave and the 77's corridor (Mass Ave to Arlington). The 32 along Hyde Park Ave is a
Top 10 ridership route, with ridership figures in the ballpark of the Green Line C Branch, and historically ran at frequencies equal or better than the Braintree Branch every day until 10pm, except Sundays. The Better Bus Profile noted that overcrowding was a significant problem on the route. To me, that points to the rare situation where mixed street-running light rail can still be the right move, since LRT vehicles are always going to beat diesel buses on capacity.
The
77 is not quite the behemoth that the 32 is, but
it still is a high ridership route running along a relatively wide street. I can understand some hesitance about paralleling the Red Line all the way to Harvard (although note that a large fraction of riders still go all the way to Harvard, suggesting that it is their final destination, rather than transferring to the Red at the earlier opportunity at Porter), but in that case why not terminate at Porter, or reclaim part of the bike path to terminate at Davis?
My particular nitpicks notwithstanding, it's a very cool map and a cool concept!