I thought the current project was to pretty much rebuild the existing mess as is.Except there are plans to rebuild the whole area
Last edited:
I thought the current project was to pretty much rebuild the existing mess as is.Except there are plans to rebuild the whole area
At this point, nothing but vague notions that bridges are nearing the end of life. When Allston first came on the radar screen, there was talk about this intersection being next.
I know nothing about this area, do the plans have provisions to solve the ramp/traffic issues F-Line identified, or is that something that's not in the plans (regardless if we wished it might be)?
In theory, North Station will offer an easier Green-Orange transfer than Tufts/Bay Village, because it's a cross-platform transfer at North Station, vs what'll probably be at least one flight of stairs/escalator and a lengthy corridor at Tufts/Bay Village. But in general I agree with you: frequencies to the Seaport will always be highest at Tufts/Bay Village, so it will naturally form a strong transfer hub.I would point out that your hypothetical Malden commuter would stay on Orange all the way to Tufts, then transfer to any Green Seaport Direction service at the Tufts/Bay Village super station.
So the headway in that case is better. But it also raise the question of why include the Park/Seaport branch (and its schedule challenges in the Central Subway) if a simple transfer to the much higher frequency Orange at Tufts/Bay Village mirrors the service.
Origin | Wraparound | Congress BRT & Back Bay-Seaport LRT | Winner? |
---|---|---|---|
Orange Line north, northside commuter rail, all but one Green Line north branch, Haymarket buses | (Cross-platform) transfer at North Station (or Haymarket), every ~6 min | transfer at street-level, every ~3 min | Congress BRT/BBY-Seaport LRT, though both are viable |
One Green Line north branch | OSR direct | transfer at street-level, or at Bay Village, every ~3 min | wraparound, though both are viable |
Red Line north | transfer at South Station, every ~3 min | same | no difference |
Blue Line west | transfer at Government Center, every ~6 min | transfer at State street-level, every ~3 min | Congress BRT/BBY-Seaport LRT |
Green Line branches from Kenmore | transfer at Park St (or OOS at Boylston), every ~6 min | if turning at North Station, transfer at street-level, every ~3 min; if turning at Park, double transfer via Red | wraparound |
Orange Line south, Green Line branches from Huntington via Back Bay, Green Line from Nubian | OSR direct and/or transfer at Bay Village (or Back Bay), every ~3 min | same | no difference |
Red Line south, Indigo Line, southside commuter rail | transfer at South Station, every ~3 min | same | no difference |
Blue Line north | transfer at Government Center, every ~6 min, OR transfer at Airport to SL3, every ~10 min | transfer at State street-level, every ~3 min, OR transfer at Airport to SL3, every ~10 min | Congress BRT/BBY-Seaport LRT |
northeast quadrant (Chelsea & Everett) | OSR direct via SL3, every ~10 min or (hypothetically) OSR direct via Green Line, ~every 6 min | OSR direct via SL3, every ~10 min or (potentially) OSR via BRT 111, every ~10 min | draw |
The key argument was that a one-seat ride from the Green Line downtown stations would be convenient enough (and speedy enough) to draw riders away from the double-transfer journey required if accessing the Seaport via a Red Line trip to South Station. A Malden commuter, for example, would be able to make a single transfer for the Green Line at North Station, as opposed to transferring at Downtown Crossing and traveling one stop on the Red Line. I’m no longer convinced that the convenience would be high enough to draw riders away from the double-transfer-to-South-Station option.
First, I looked again at the length of the journey: 1.4 miles on Park-Bay Village-South Station. That’s nearly the distance from Park to Hynes, and with three times as many curves (albeit with fewer stations). That’s in contrast to the .5 miles on the Red Line; the Green Line is timetabled at 9 minutes between Park and Hynes today, meaning that it would almost be faster to walk from Park Street to South Station.
But the part that really moved me was considering the frequencies of this wraparound service. I’ve rambled at length about the relative frequencies of LRT services through Park Street, and I don’t intend to rehash that now. Rather, I’ll simply point out that Red Line headways pre-pandemic were 4.5 minutes, and my recollection is that the goal of the Transformation project is to reduce those even lower.
Potentially more to say later, but to be clear, I’m still very much in favor of an LRT subway going Seaport - South Station - Bay Village - Back Bay - Points West. That builds rail rapid transit along a strong straightshot axis that strings together multiple major destinations, and provides good access to the Seaport from the south.I may well be wrong, but my gut instinct is that people are generally lazy and will prefer to minimize transfers (especially longer and/or more crowded transfers) even at the expense of travel time. You're likely right that a double-transfer via a frequencies-enhanced Red might well result in a lower-aggregate-travel time than a GL-Seaport branch. As it stands now, though, an Orange Line rider (from anywhere, if at least one service ran Seaport-North Station) would go from two transfers to one, a north-side Commuter Rail rider on anything but Fitchburg would go from 3 to 1, GL western branch riders would go from 2 to 1 (possibly a bit distended at Park) or 0 (assuming some kind of BBY-Seaport service, not to mention simplifying the transfers from the Blue Line without relying on the SL3. Some of where the passengers go probably comes down to whether they care more about getting their the fastest/most efficient way, or if they care less that lower frequencies takes longer because it means they have to change less often. (Not to mention that some of the changes would be significantly easier than current access to Red.)
Relatedly, and while I think you have (per usual) a good, thorough, and interesting take on service to the Seaport, but the Seaport isn't the only (or necessarily the biggest) thing a GL-Seaport branch gets you; it adds a currently-nonexistent RT link to South Station. Right now the Seaport Silver Line passengers (excepting anyone who takes the counter-intuitive SL3 route to transfer to the BL at Airport) heading anywhere on the rest of the system get dumped in with all the CR passengers and everyone else relying on the Red Line. The forced transfer means extra passengers transferring at and clogging up the stairs and platforms at Park and DTX who don't actually need to transfer at those specific places. The Red Line Transformation project might well aim at improving the track and signal infrastructure to lower headway with the new cars, but that won't mean much in terms of service improvements if the trains are still getting clobbered with nasty dwell time penalties at Park and DTX, and the RLT project didn't include provisions for rebuilding those stations (or for building Red-Blue to pull those pax out to a different transfer). I think that element is at least as significant as the Seaport element, and more in favor of building it than just the Seaport alone.
The problem with BRT in Boston is we all know what happens to a BRT pitch. You get value engineered into a bus stuck in traffic. No elevated boarding, no enforceable bus lanes, just a bus.Potentially more to say later, but to be clear, I’m still very much in favor of an LRT subway going Seaport - South Station - Bay Village - Back Bay - Points West. That builds rail rapid transit along a strong straightshot axis that strings together multiple major destinations, and provides good access to the Seaport from the south.
From the north, full-build BRT (physically separated lanes, prepayment, raised platforms, shelters) along Congress St gets you the same-if-not-better access as the Wraparound does, at higher frequencies and (depending on which routes feed into Congress) OSRs from a larger number of northside corridors than a single northside GL branch. See the chart in my second post: the OSR convenience factor only impacts a fraction of potential riders; everyone else has at least one transfer, and Congress can offer significantly more frequent and probably faster service on that front.
(FWIW… if the concern is BRT vs LRT, it occurs to me that Congress BRT would have several potential connection points where it could connect to the LRT network. I personally think it’s overkill, and that an advantage of Congress BRT is its ability to accept routes from places rail won’t go anytime soon, eg the 111. But, the possibility is there, I suppose!)
I'm not indifferent to this concern, but I like to think that it is solvable. (There's a tragic backwards logic to it: "Let's propose the more expensive solution so that the less expensive solution doesn't get watered down into uselessness!") Like I mentioned above: minimum viable Congress BRT is achievable in a matter of days if they chose to. Start with enforced bus lanes, reroute the 4, and maybe extend the 7 to North Station (both adjustments aiming to be rolling stock neutral), and start advertising. From there, you have an established service that you can continue to enhance step by step.The problem with BRT in Boston is we all know what happens to a BRT pitch. You get value engineered into a bus stuck in traffic. No elevated boarding, no enforceable bus lanes, just a bus.
I'm not indifferent to this concern, but I like to think that it is solvable. (There's a tragic backwards logic to it: "Let's propose the more expensive solution so that the less expensive solution doesn't get watered down into uselessness!") Like I mentioned above: minimum viable Congress BRT is achievable in a matter of days if they chose to. Start with enforced bus lanes, reroute the 4, and maybe extend the 7 to North Station (both adjustments aiming to be rolling stock neutral), and start advertising. From there, you have an established service that you can continue to enhance step by step.
I have grander designs in progress (will share soon enough), but a few points:South Station-Seaport LRT is probably worthy of more than one branch frequency, especially considering it wouldn't share platforms with the BRT. If not from Park, those trains would have to come from somewhere else, which leads to the question of what that would be and if any of them would be better than Park.
Obviously one option would be just South Station-Seaport short turns.
Should half/most Huntington Subway service run to Seaport instead of Park? I don't think so given the historical connections Highland and Huntington have to Park Street
What kind of contortioning would be required for another/enhanced Aldgate to enable Nubian-Seaport. Would two branches to Nubian be overkill? Running Nubian to Park and South Station seems a little more logical to me.
The one thing that's discussed a lot that I didn't include is a branch from Lechmere to Chelsea via Sullivan. There's no good alignment for the inbound track at Red Bridge to run it into the subway, and running it only to the Grand Junction wouldn't have any good transfer to the rest of the line. I think Chelsea would be better served by proper BRT to Sullivan/Kendall/downtown (and eventually true rapid transit), rather than having it awkwardly attached here.