Crazy Transit Pitches

Teban54 said:
So, yes, I do agree with this in principle, and I think it's probably one of the best responses towards answering @kdmc's questions so far.

There are definitely cases where Regional Rail can be a solution to urban transit needs (say within 128), though. Most of these are cases where running frequent mainline rail as a "quasi-rapid transit corridor" (credits to you for the term) almost achieves what proper rapid transit does, but at a fraction of the cost:
  • Fairmount Line, obviously and beaten to death
  • Framingham/Worcester Line: Up to Auburndale/128, with infills at West Station, Newton Corner, and possibly others that people are currently discussing
  • Fitchburg Line: Up to Waltham
    • Waltham itself is already a major node, plus Waverly has good transit share as well
  • Newburyport/Rockport Line: Up to Salem and Beverly
    • I included it here not as a replacement for BLX, but for a few reasons. (1) The Grand Junction part of the route is unique, and even though a parallel rapid transit service can be implemented, they'll likely have different alignments and serve different needs. (2) Rapid transit to Salem is currently far-fetched, and to Beverly is virtually unheard of, yet they have extremely high demand as #2 and #3 highest-ridership commuter rail stations.
The difference between them and Braintree is that for all of them, parallel rapid transit for the same purpose is unlikely to happen anytime soon (though I'd definitely welcome a BLX to Auburndale), but RL Braintree branch already exists today. In some sense, these are best compromises, while Braintree is not. This also extends to GLX, OL, etc.
Click to expand...
I've always found Lynn Central Sq., Waltham Center, and Quincy Center, to each be unique in how each of the three locations have existed outside the original BERy service area, yet are (or were always) strong anchors of demand within the larger/expanded map of the metro. Omissions of the three locations from an (alternate history) "BERy frequent rail service" network would still result in heavy feeding from Quincy, Lynn, and Waltham.

We see this today where the 441/442/455 buses from Lynn all converge on Central Sq. Lynn, and then form a single lengthy trunk of frequent service extending south from Lynn Central Sq. all the way to Wonderland (in the BNRD map).

1713796411589.png

Prior to the Red Line extension to Quincy Center, much of the Quincy Center routes fed into a single corridor merging at Quincy Center, forming a lengthy trunk of service extending from Fields Corner all the way to Quincy Center. I would have to imagine if the Red Line to Braintree didn't exist, that this corridor would show up prominately on the BNRD map.

In Waltham, the axis of demand extends towards Watertown Square, rather than Waverley.

1713796806345.png


Looking at the map of MBTA market analysis gives us this. Quincy Center, Lynn, and Waltham each have large, strong walk up densities that can support 10 minute frequencies for transit service. (This map doesn't extend to Salem/Brockton, but I'd be very interested to see). South of Quincy Center, the urban core drops off significantly, even before Quincy Adams and Braintree, where these 2 stations are located in areas marked as "only supporting hourly service", by the T.

Notably, the D branch west of Reservior and the 3 Newtons each don't perform as well in the T's market analysis. The strongest corridor west of Newton Corner on the B & A, Watertown Square's bus hub, and Reservior on the D branch, is the corridor extending from Watertown Square to Waltham Center.
1713796182331.png

My "rail corridor walksheds" map extended to these 3 terminals :
1713796006662.png
1713800158996.png



TheRatmeister said:
I feel like we're stepping into the alignment too early here. I'm going to basically restart, assuming BL is extended to Kenmore under the Esplanade and go from there. Here's my fairly exhaustive list of possible destinations we'd possibly want to connect that are west(ish) of Kenmore:

So what could be some final routes?
  • The full D: Pretty much just the D Branch replacement, maybe with a couple modifications like a relocated Fenway and BC diversion, ends at Riverside
  • The partial D: West Station-Hester Sq-Brighton Center-BC-D Branch ending at Riverside
  • The Northern Option: West Station-Arsenal-Watertown Sq-Belmont
  • The Hook: Follow the 57 to Watertown Sq then swing north to Belmont
  • The "Blue" in Blue Line: Follow either the 57 or the Northern route to Watertown Sq, then run to Waltham and Brandeis
  • The Newton: Follow either the 57 to Newton Corner or go Boston Landing-Arsenal-Newton Corner, then run in the median and/or elevated along I-90, diverging after Auburndale to end at Riverside.
With potentially the exception of the "Partial D" due to the weird interaction with the D branch I think any of these could be viable in a TBM world and it would really come down to ridership. I'd suspect the "Blue" would come out on top but I'm honestly not sure.
Click to expand...
IMO, any HRT extension that gets to Kenmore or BU West, should aim to reach Waltham Center by way of Newton Corner or Watertown Square. As far as demand for transit shows in the T's market anaysis, Waltham Center dwarfts everything else west of the city by a longshot. I have to imagine the reliability of the 70 would continue to be very poor for as long it remains the size of 2 bus routes, and cycling a full trip on such a route would take foreve, being the only FBR west of the city to extend as far west as it does. The 70 bus route to Waltham seems very akin with the 441/442/455/450 Lynn routes.

----

Now, I have a few questions on my mind, mostly relating with alternate scenarios/history:

1. If the Red Line to Braintree had not been built yet, and a frequent transit corridor was being proposed extending from Dorchester southeast, how far would such corridor extend to?
This could be today's regional rail proposals like that of Lynn/Salem, a dedicated HRT/subway line like BLX, BNRD, etc., etc., but NOT the "commuter rail/S-Bhan style service" that was proposed at the time that gave us the Braintree Branch of today.

While BLX would extend as far as Lynn Central Sq. (as far as I'm aware), today's Braintree Branch runs past further south of Quincy Ctr. for 2 additional stops, mostly in areas that perform poorly in the T's market anaylsis. If the Blue Line mirrored the Braintree Branch, it should extend 1 or 2 more stops to "East Lynn", or "Swampscott". Whereas conversely, if the situation was flipped opposite and RLX was considered, would it only go as far as Quincy Ctr., or would the additional distance to Braintree still be desired, despite the lack of a major bus terminal there? (They were primarily intended as park & rides?) Do common proposals for BLX to Lynn terminate at Central Sq, or continue past to east Lynn? (BNRD forks the FBRs at Central Sq. Lynn and splits freqencies past Central Sq.)

2. If the Highland Branch (Green Line D) was not converted to Light Rail and transit service did not survive on the Highland Branch in the 1950s/60s, how high of a priority would a transit reactivation/extension (past Reservior) be for the Highland Branch?
The Green Line D is quite unusual for how far it extends west past Reservior, with very limited bus connections and passing through mostly areas that perform poorly in the T's market analysis. I can't imagine the corridor west of Reservior being high on the priority list if the transit service was outright completely cut from the Highland Branch in the 1950s/60s. I'd also imagine that the Reservior short turns ended up not being needed since light rail is not as high capacity as proper HRT (if it were converted to HRT, the Reservior short turns may have panned out). If a proposal were to be made today to reactivate the Highland Branch (under a scenario it were abandoned outright), that it would only go as far as Reservior and not Newton Highlands or Riverside.
 
Last edited:
Delvin4519 said:
1. If the Red Line to Braintree had not been built yet, and a frequent transit corridor was being proposed extending from Dorchester southeast, how far would such corridor extend to?
Click to expand...
I think we'd talk about RL to Quincy the same way we do about BL to Lynn. Braintree or Brockton or Weymouth comes later, Quincy first.
Delvin4519 said:
2. If the Highland Branch (Green Line D) was not converted to Light Rail and transit service did not survive on the Highland Branch in the 1950s/60s, how high of a priority would a transit reactivation/extension (past Reservior) be for the Highland Branch?
Click to expand...
Fairly high since the line is fully grade separated and hits the center(s) of Newton. I suspect the line might have gone to Needham rather than Riverside though.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Fairly high since the line is fully grade separated and hits the center(s) of Newton. I suspect the line might have gone to Needham rather than Riverside though.
Click to expand...
I wonder, under such an alternate history timeline where the Highland Branch were to be abandoned for several years (or a decade or so), would a hookup with the Green Line still have happened, or would reproposals decades later to reactivate the Highland Branch have kept it separated from the Green Line?

The Highland Branch reopened in 1959 as the Green Line D branch after just over a year of conversion, and 10 years later a shortage of vehicles caused the closure of the A branch in 1969, which had previously served much more densely populated urban areas unlike the Highland Branch.

I would be curious under an alternate timeline where the Highland Branch had been outright abandoned in 1958, or had lasted an additional 10 years into the 1960s, if there would have been opposition to restoring the Highland Branch as an additional Green Line branch. By the late 1960s, the MBTA did not have enough Green Line cars to add an extra branch to the GL. In such a case, the T would have had needed to decide whether to sacrifice an existing urban Green Line branch for a new branch on previously commuter rail tracks, abandon plans to restore the Highland Branch, or restore the Highland Branch as something else.
 
Last edited:
Delvin4519 said:
I wonder, under such an alternate history timeline where the Highland Branch were to be abandoned for several years (or a decade or so), would a hookup with the Green Line still have happened, or would reproposals decades later to reactivate the Highland Branch have kept it separated from the Green Line?
Click to expand...
I have to imagine that the same incentives that saw it connected with the GL in our world still ultimately prevail, mainly the fact that connecting it to anything else is just so much harder (and more expensive) that it kills the value proposition entirely.
 
Delvin4519 said:
..and 10 years later a shortage of vehicles caused the closure of the A branch in 1969, which had previously served much more densely populated urban areas unlike the Highland Branch.
Click to expand...
I don't buy the story that the A branch closed because of a shortage of cars caused by the Riverside line. I think the closure was due to the MBTA's aversion to street-running, because they could have re-opened the A Branch when new cars were procured, but they didn't. Same with the E Line to Arborway.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I don't buy the story that the A branch closed because of a shortage of cars caused by the Riverside line. I think the closure was due to the MBTA's aversion to street-running, because they could have re-opened the A Branch when new cars were procured, but they didn't. Same with the E Line to Arborway.
Click to expand...
It's probably more that the opening of the branch accelerated the trend of the decline of street running rail services. For the 1959 opening of the Riverside line, the T simply took the streetcars away from Harvard Square lines and reallocatted them to the Riverside line at the time. It seems like they couldn't be bothered to simply add additional cars rather than pulling it from elsewhere at the time.


TheRatmeister said:
I have to imagine that the same incentives that saw it connected with the GL in our world still ultimately prevail, mainly the fact that connecting it to anything else is just so much harder (and more expensive) that it kills the value proposition entirely.
Click to expand...
I would wonder what would the originally intended headways be on the outer portion of the Highland Branch, had every other train short-turned at Reservior.

I'm only seeing the signalling system at the time had 2 minute headways east of Reservior and 4 minutes between Reservior and Riverside (which was later upgraded to 2 minutes after the high demand on the outer portion). The only other source I could find is that the MBTA in 1959 ran 134 daily round trips across the Highland Branch all the way to Riverside. This would mean an average headway of 8.7 minutes across all hours of the day (peak and off peak averaged), which is comfortably SUAG frequencies.

That could mean that either:
1. The T was either going to run to run 180 - 268 trips east of Reservior on the inner portion (which would be 4.3 - 6.5 min headways east of Reservior, closer to the signalling system design capacity).
2. Or the other way around, the T originally intended to only operate 67 - 90 round trips on the outer portion (Riverside to Reservior), which would give an average headway of every 15 - 17.2 minutes for the segment within Newton. That would be more akin to regional rail scheduling, which is "check departure times but journey whenever" (perhaps 12-15 min peak and 20 min off peak?).

I just find the D branch and Braintre branches to be quite unique/peculiar in the system, being the longest branches providing frequent service, extending far past any other frequent services, having gotten "lucky" in a way.
 
Delvin4519 said:
I've always found Lynn Central Sq., Waltham Center, and Quincy Center, to each be unique in how each of the three locations have existed outside the original BERy service area, yet are (or were always) strong anchors of demand within the larger/expanded map of the metro. Omissions of the three locations from an (alternate history) "BERy frequent rail service" network would still result in heavy feeding from Quincy, Lynn, and Waltham.
Click to expand...

Someone might probably find this useful, but I've expanded my "mainline railway ROW walksheds" map all the way to Route 128 in all directions. This means I have a map of all possible walksheds to the Highland Branch (D Branch Newton), Red Line to Braintree, as well as proposals for the Green Line to Needham, Orange Line to Reading, Red Line to Lexington, Blue Line to Salem, etc.

The "10 minute walkshed" to each railway is defined as a 10 minute walk to any abandoned rail trail, active R/R crossing, ROW intersection, etc.,. It is not necessary restricted to historical or present day stations only, but is meant to show what all possible infill stations would cover by showing walksheds to all R/R crossings. This allows one to easily find & see underserved areas of Lynn and Quincy that do not have adequate access to rapid transit, even if all the lines got extended to 128.

It also shows how once one gets out of BERy's streetcar suburbs (or Lynn/Waltham/Quincy), how the street grid quickly becomes hostile to walk up & go service, and the common 1km stop spacing between rapid transit stations no longer becomes suitable past the streetcar suburbs. Notice how despite the railways being continous, that the rail transit walksheds are more broken apart as one gets closer to 128.

Parts of eastern Quincy, northern Weymouth, and northern Lynn, are quite underserved by the railways on this map. It's also worth noting how much of Burlington, which grew long after the decline of the railroads and the rise of the automobile, is essentially all auto-oriented.

1714167689384.png

1714168325413.png
 

Attachments

  • 1714167733861.png
    1714167733861.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 48
Last edited:
Delvin4519 said:
It's also worth noting how much of Burlington, which grew long after the decline of the railroads and the rise of the automobile, is essentially all auto-oriented.
Click to expand...
It's always fascinated me how the railroads completely avoided Burlington. Only a handful of municipalities in eastern MA didn't have any mainline rail at all. By my count, only 11 east of Worcester didn't: West Newbury, Burlington, Dracut, Pembroke, Norwell, Rehoboth, Acushnet, Mashpee, plus three on Martha's Vineyard. Of those only Acushnet and the MV trio never had streetcars either.

Honorable mentions go to Carlisle with about 800 feet of the Framingham and Lowell, and Bolton with 400 feet of the Central Mass (plus the completed but never-opened Lancaster Railroad).

Burlington really did grow later compared to its surroundings. It didn't hit 1000 residents until the 1920s, and it quadrupled in population (3k to 12k) in the 1950s as 128 and 3 were built.
 
There is a recent discussion on Reddit's r/transit sub about why cities stopped building cut-and-cover (C&C) tunnels, motivated by this article. While I haven't read the original article yet, the discussion seems interesting. A lot of common points include C&C's disruption to neighborhoods, with various claims of "city X was gonna C&C corridor Y, glad they didn't" or "it wiped out the local community", etc. Utility relocation was also a frequently mentioned issue.

I know @TheRatmeister (and possibly others) had previously expressed opinions that roads like Everett's Upper Broadway and Revere's Broadway are good candidates for C&C. (By this standard, the 57 corridor would be another candidate?) However, they seem exactly like the type of corridors where these concerns are the most salient.

Somebody also made the following claim, although I haven't found the source and have asked for it:
Long time ago I found a paper about Boston's blue line extension to Charles MGH. It stated that TBM is cheaper if you have to dig more than 3km of tunnels. Under that length mining them mechanically is also interesting iirc.
Click to expand...
 
Teban54 said:
There is a recent discussion on Reddit's r/transit sub about why cities stopped building cut-and-cover (C&C) tunnels, motivated by this article. While I haven't read the original article yet, the discussion seems interesting. A lot of common points include C&C's disruption to neighborhoods, with various claims of "city X was gonna C&C corridor Y, glad they didn't" or "it wiped out the local community", etc. Utility relocation was also a frequently mentioned issue.

I know @TheRatmeister (and possibly others) had previously expressed opinions that roads like Everett's Upper Broadway and Revere's Broadway are good candidates for C&C. (By this standard, the 57 corridor would be another candidate?) However, they seem exactly like the type of corridors where these concerns are the most salient.

Somebody also made the following claim, although I haven't found the source and have asked for it:
Click to expand...
So I take away a lot from the article, but they also embed this article which truly relates to the article in engineering too: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-skyscrapers-are-so-short/.

My main takeaway: we can build cut n cover much more cheaply and we know of economic and legal burdens which inhibit development of new subways (especially C&C) in urban areas. They're disruptive, polluting, and shut down roads. They also can damage and spur lawsuits if building in tight areas. Tunnel boring actually preclude a lot of the problems of C&C. And it's speed isn't so bad anymore. All that said, TB is not economically favorable and cut n cover is a nonstarter with how much it disrupts. So if we want any new subway developed, it would probably be TB, but the sticker shock is where it gets stuck. If we want to build subways, the cost has to be accepted...

Secondly, the embedded article points to the great link between physical limits, economic limits, and legal limits on new engineering. This can be applied to subways IMO. Our physical constraints are far behind what we can do dictated by economic and legal limits. Maybe one day this will improve...
 
I don't recall how recently this has been proposed/crayon-ed, but just based on the high-density sections of South Boston and the South End, there's a crazy corridor for a light rail line along Broadway from City Point/Broadway @ P St, to Back Bay, making stops at L/Broadway, Dorchester St/Broadway, D/Broadway, Broadway Station, Ink Block/ E Berkeley + Washington, and Back Bay.

This is just a fantastic line for a light rail subway but I think the engineering is just so far-fetched it couldn't happen. It would more or less be an urban ring half measure to replace the 9 bus. I'd have to look at what the 9 ridership is, and see if it's even a high demand area for transit, if replaced.
 
AndrewOnTheMBTA said:
I don't recall how recently this has been proposed/crayon-ed, but just based on the high-density sections of South Boston and the South End, there's a crazy corridor for a light rail line along Broadway from City Point/Broadway @ P St, to Back Bay, making stops at L/Broadway, Dorchester St/Broadway, D/Broadway, Broadway Station, Ink Block/ E Berkeley + Washington, and Back Bay.

This is just a fantastic line for a light rail subway but I think the engineering is just so far-fetched it couldn't happen. It would more or less be an urban ring half measure to replace the 9 bus. I'd have to look at what the 9 ridership is, and see if it's even a high demand area for transit, if replaced.
Click to expand...
That is certainly a major historical streetcar corridor, serviced from the Pleasant Street Portal on the pre-Green-Line (back when Broadway connected through to Bay Village).
 
AndrewOnTheMBTA said:
I don't recall how recently this has been proposed/crayon-ed, but just based on the high-density sections of South Boston and the South End, there's a crazy corridor for a light rail line along Broadway from City Point/Broadway @ P St, to Back Bay, making stops at L/Broadway, Dorchester St/Broadway, D/Broadway, Broadway Station, Ink Block/ E Berkeley + Washington, and Back Bay.

This is just a fantastic line for a light rail subway but I think the engineering is just so far-fetched it couldn't happen. It would more or less be an urban ring half measure to replace the 9 bus. I'd have to look at what the 9 ridership is, and see if it's even a high demand area for transit, if replaced.
Click to expand...
You may find this (god-mode-ish) proposal of mine interesting:
1704146053220-png.46315


While I didn't draw it explicitly here, you can easily imagine the line being extended further into South Boston.

More realistically, though, a streetcar through South Boston sounds more realistic. Personally, I have the following axioms regarding such a route:
  1. Broadway is likely a better choice for a Red Line connection than Andrew. Not only is it closer to downtown (and thus other connections), but South Boston's employment profile is extremely heavily skewed towards downtown Boston: it probably has one of the highest concentrations of workers from any neighborhood to any employment center in Boston, if not the single highest. Plus, the 9 bus to Broadway is much more heavily utilized than the 10 bus to Andrew.
  2. Given #1, the best way to meet South Boston's demands is probably a streetcar that feeds into Bay Village and the Tremont St subway (Green Line/GL Reconfiguration). Such a streetcar can continue west from Broadway via the 9 bus's route, using some combination of Herald St, Traveler St and E Berkeley St, until it gets to Bay Village interchange which we've discussed extensively for the GL Reconfiguration concept.
  3. In case #2 has operational challenges due to capacity of the Tremont St tunnel, another interesting alternative is to run the streetcar to Arlington, Copley and Kenmore via the Central Subway. This can be done via a "Charles St connector", which I had previously discussed here (and briefly mentioned here).
  4. South Boston itself probably doesn't warrant a dedicated HRT tunnel. Its population is about 37k, and while that's impressive, most HRT half-lines typically serve 60-80k in their walksheds alone, not to mention numerous bus connections. Plus, given the small size of the neighborhood, fewer stations means longer walks to a station, which may reduce or even eliminate the time savings from grade separation.
  5. #4 might also suggest that an LRT tunnel through South Boston may not be worth the cost either. While the level of service would be more appropriate for the population, I doubt HRT vs. LRT changes the construction costs meaningfully enough. However, this part is more debatable.
 
Last edited:
Teban54 said:
You may find this (god-mode-ish) proposal of mine interesting:
1704146053220-png.46315


While I didn't draw it explicitly here, you can easily imagine the line being extended further into South Boston.

More realistically, though, a streetcar through South Boston sounds more realistic. Personally, I have the following axioms regarding such a route:
  1. Broadway is likely a better choice for a Red Line connection than Andrew. Not only is it closer to downtown (and thus other connections), but South Boston's employment profile is extremely heavily skewed towards downtown Boston: it probably has one of the highest concentrations of workers from any neighborhood to any employment center in Boston, if not the single highest. Plus, the 9 bus to Broadway is much more heavily utilized than the 10 bus to Andrew.
  2. Given #1, the best way to meet South Boston's demands is probably a streetcar that feeds into Bay Village and the Tremont St subway (Green Line/GL Reconfiguration). Such a streetcar can continue west from Broadway via the 9 bus's route, using some combination of Herald St, Traveler St and E Berkeley St, until it gets to Bay Village interchange which we've discussed extensively for the GL Reconfiguration concept.
  3. In case #2 has operational challenges due to capacity of the Tremont St tunnel, another interesting alternative is to run the streetcar to Arlington Copley and Kenmore via the Central Subway. This can be done via a "Charles St connector", which I had previously discussed here (and briefly mentioned here).
  4. South Boston itself probably doesn't warrant a dedicated HRT tunnel. Its population is about 37k, and while that's impressive, most HRT half-lines typically serve 60-80k in their walksheds alone, not to mention numerous bus connections. Plus, given the small size of the neighborhood, fewer stations means longer walks to a station, which may reduce or even eliminate the time savings from grade separation.
  5. #4 might also suggest that an LRT tunnel through South Boston may not be worth the cost either. While the level of service would be more appropriate for the population, I doubt HRT vs. LRT changes the construction costs meaningfully enough. However, this part is more debatable.
Click to expand...
I like it, but would extend the northern end of it to Chelsea via a new transit-friendly Tobin Bridge replacement.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I like it, but would extend the northern end of it to Chelsea via a new transit-friendly Tobin Bridge replacement.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the exact same thing you said last time? :ROFLMAO:

Anyway, in my unlimited-budget (or in other words, purely merit-based) crayon world, I actually prefer sending radial lines to both Everett and Chelsea, and there are two routes downtown that nicely pair with them: one via the Red X (aka the Financial District line) and the other via the route above (aka the Kendall-Copley line, which IMO is a way better alternative than the commonly suggested Mass Ave subway). In such a world, it makes more sense to pair Red X with Chelsea and Kendall-Copley with Everett instead, to reduce the detour from Chelsea to Kendall.

Quick and unpolished drawing of the proposal:

1715725261965.png


Remarks:
  • A lot of decisions can be made about the Chelsea line's routing further north (surprisingly, Route 1 may have slightly higher density than Revere Broadway), which direction it turns to the north (west to Northgate/Linden or east to Wonderland), etc.
  • The Lilac Line's stop spacing may be too close, especially near Albany St. I included that station both to offer a transfer to my "Nubian via I-93" El and to touch the corner of possible future developments to the north of Widett Circle, but I admit it doesn't seem to do the job well given the drawback of stop spacing.
  • The Teal Line can skip Haymarket as both GL and OL stop there (and I'm not sure if the area has enough room for a third pair of platforms).
  • I've also considered the idea of having the Red X (the Teal Line) take a detour to Seaport, but it's not explicitly shown here.
  • I forgot to include Assembly station on the Lilac Line, even though I intended to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top