Green Line Reconfiguration

[Riverside]

Re the Fenway-Kenmore connection: a Park Drive alignment would require a rebuild of Fenway station in order to accommodate the grade change up to street level, and I haven't really sketched that out. That said, I would definitely look to maintain the connection to the Portal at least by way of a single track branching off before the main tracks rise up to street level. The ROW widens a bit around there, so I'm hopeful it could all fit.

Re my near-obsessive quest to Connect All The Lines In General, and more specifically Enable 2-Seat A/B/C Branches-to-Seaport Rides: I'm gonna scratch my silly SL5 Boylston St BRT idea. Instead, gonna do two things.

First, I'm gonna add a dashed line extension branching off the Green Line at the Nubian Branch and following the Magenta Line, showing the possibility of future extension along the route without obligating it. Like I laid out in my proposal for Bay Village, it would certainly be possible to provision for a hook-in back into a Marginal/Hudson Subway to enable Park-Seaport service if needed in the future. If A/B/C <> Seaport ridership continues to choke the Red Line between Park and South Station, the option will be there; I don't believe that connection is transformative enough to prioritize over other solutions, but I'm happy for it to be part of the puzzle.

Second, I'd build a free transfer tunnel between Copley and Back Bay. In the past, IIRC, this has been seen as problematic because of the Mass Pike blocking the way to the Orange Line platform. However, a Green/Magenta extension to Back Bay would site its platform on the other side of the Mass Pike anyway (which also means making adjustments to the fare control zone upstairs in the main concourse), so that's less of a barrier here.

At 1,000 feet, it's definitely a long transfer -- a bit longer than the Blue <> Southbound Orange transfer at State (which I think is about 800 feet) -- but still relatively manageable. (Heck, even today, commuter rail conductors announce the transfer available to Green at Copley when pulling into Back Bay.) If built large enough, the T could probably sell some retail square footage, and potentially could provision future underground connections to nearby buildings such as the John Hancock and the Westin. (We could also look at including a couple of moving sidewalks, which don't actually speed up the journey, as I understand it, but do obviously improve comfort and convenience.)

I'm always nervous about proposing tunneling, but this one should be on the easier side. What's more, it would be very easy to gain public support for, since the idea of a Copley-Back Bay walking transfer already exists in the minds of the public, and would significantly increase convenience.

So, A/B/C <> Seaport journeys would go: A/B/C to Copley, tunnel transfer to Back Bay, Magenta to Seaport. That feels sellable to me.

 

[Tallguy]

I still argue that the best ROI is to use a B connection to the outer Kenmore then down to the D-E connection and a branch down to Ruggles. I know it is a bit circuitous and it doesn't go through the middle of LMA, but could be done for less than NSRL.

 

[Riverside]

I still argue that the best ROI is to use a B connection to the outer Kenmore then down to the D-E connection and a branch down to Ruggles. I know it is a bit circuitous and it doesn't go through the middle of LMA, but could be done for less than NSRL.

I should go to bed, so will just toss out a couple of quick thoughts. In general, I don't object to this proposal as a back-up alternative -- I don't believe it should be Plan A, or Plan B, or even Plan C, but if we want to keep it in the mix as a potential Plan D, so be it.

The reality is that, cost-wise, the capital cost unique to this particular proposal is connecting the Commonwealth tracks to the Kenmore Loop; while certainly not at NSRL costs, that still will be pretty non-trivial. Those monies also will take a hit in their efficiency spend: even if you do connect the B to the Loop, you're still creating a de facto unidirectional single track segment that last for ~1,000 feet, and which does a double hit on your overall throughput capacity because you're passing through Kenmore station twice.

And what do you get for your investment? Well, let's look at some back-of-the-napkin math:

• According to Google Maps, today the D takes 5 minutes to travel the 1 mile from Fenway to Brookline Village, for an average speed of 12 mph
• As far as I know, that stretch is relatively pristine and so can give us a rough approximation for what speeds would be like on this "Zig-Zag" -- there will be lots of specific details that impact this, but we're doing back-of-the-napkin for now
• The "Zig-Zag" going BU - Kenmore - Kenmore - Brookline Village - Huntington - Longwood Medical Area is 3.5 miles
• At 12 mph, the Zig-Zag takes 17.5 minutes to traverse
• I won't bore everyone by repeating myself about frequencies, but I would argue that a best guess for headways on the Zig-Zag would be 6 minutes, although I think we'd need to consider the possibility they'd be worse than that
• So call it an average 3-minute wait for a train, plus the 17.5 min of travel time, for 20.5 min for the journey overall
• Google estimates the walk from BU to LMA itself takes 28 minutes
• (And the walk is more like 25 minutes if your ultimate destination is, for example, Boston Children's)

So the Zig-Zag is potentially only 6.5 min better than walking (and that's assuming some pretty favorable conditions, tbh).

And finally, by comparison, right now (at 10:45pm) Google says the 47 bus takes 8 minutes to do a near-equivalent journey. During peak, it claims it takes 12 minutes (which seems optimistic) but the 8 min figure suggests that sub-10 min journeys would be possible if the bus didn't get stuck in traffic (i.e. bus lanes). Those blow the Zig-Zag out of the water.

Obviously, the picture is more complicated than this; for example, arguably we should conduct our analysis on, say, Kendall - LMA journeys instead of the arbitrary BU - LMA journey. But I think this proposal starts out with some significant headwinds to overcome, and I would consider it a last resort, not a leading contender.

 

[HenryAlan]

And finally, by comparison, right now (at 10:45pm) Google says the 47 bus takes 8 minutes to do a near-equivalent journey. During peak, it claims it takes 12 minutes (which seems optimistic) but the 8 min figure suggests that sub-10 min journeys would be possible if the bus didn't get stuck in traffic (i.e. bus lanes). Those blow the Zig-Zag out of the water.

I've always thought that an improved 47 would be the best solution. Right now it suffers from a few really bad congestion spots and low frequency. Fix both of those, so that you can legitimately expect a hassle free transfer at the BU bridge, St Mary's, and Fenway/Park Drive, and you have a great cross town LMA connection.

 

[Riverside]

I've always thought that an improved 47 would be the best solution. Right now it suffers from a few really bad congestion spots and low frequency. Fix both of those, so that you can legitimately expect a hassle free transfer at the BU bridge, St Mary's, and Fenway/Park Drive, and you have a great cross town LMA connection.

Yeah, it's going to be interesting over the next 10 years how the Redesigned routes work in practice:

You'll have (route, journey, peak freq/off-peak freq):

• T47, Fenway - LMA - MFA - Ruggles, 8 min/11min
• T28, Kenmore - LMA - Roxbury Crossing, 8 min/8 min
• T22, LMA - Roxbury Crossing, 8 min/11 min
• T12 + T66, Brookline Village - LMA - Roxbury Crossing, 8 min + 8 min/11min + 8 min

Basically it's a pair of 8-min routes from the north (Fenway + Kenmore) and a pair of 8 min route from the west (Brookline Village), and an 8 min route from Ruggles, and a quartet of 8 min routes from Roxbury Crossing, three of which continue to Nubian.

If they can pull it off with proper reliability (a big "if"), it will be a game changer compared to today, and will be much more informative about what patterns would benefit from enhancement to rail.

~~~

My current thinking about "anchoring" the northside LRT Urban Ring using the Fenway Branch isn't necessarily that it'll provide the absolute best connection to LMA (although tbh the more I look at a station at "Riverway Village", the more I think it's surprisingly worthwhile), but rather that it provides some connection to Longwood, while also providing a strong terminus for northside LRT, with a good connection to a combined D-E Line, a good connection to the B (and A) Lines, and does so without impacting capacity at Kenmore or interfering with any of the Kenmore branches at all. I don't love elevating over the Pike, or repurposing half of Park Drive, but I think doing so leaves us with a reasonably strong system that isn't hobbled with too many built-in shortcomings.

 

[Teban54]

Question: Assuming a world where the Union Square branch has already been extended to Porter, how feasible is each of these two extensions, and how necessary would they be (especially with 15-min Regional Rail)?

• A branch via the Fitchburg Line ROW to Alewife, Belmont and Waltham
• A branch via the Watertown Branch ROW to Alewife and Watertown

The second option in particular seems like a rather roundabout way to get LRT to Watertown.

 

[Riverside]

Question: Assuming a world where the Union Square branch has already been extended to Porter, how feasible is each of these two extensions, and how necessary would they be (especially with 15-min Regional Rail)?

• A branch via the Fitchburg Line ROW to Alewife, Belmont and Waltham
• A branch via the Watertown Branch ROW to Alewife and Watertown

The second option in particular seems like a rather roundabout way to get LRT to Watertown.

@F-Line to Dudley sketched these out a couple of years ago! Two separate posts here: http://archboston.com/community/threads/crazy-transit-pitches.3664/page-211

 

[737900er]

The second option in particular seems like a rather roundabout way to get LRT to Watertown.

I was thinking the same thing when @Riverside mentioned improvements to the 111 being better than a Green Line branch to Chelsea from Government Center. Improvements to the 57, 70, 71/73, and Indigo to Newton Corner would seem better than LRTing the Watertown Branch if you had to pick as they go where the actual development is and serve historical transit corridors with strong ridership.
One advantage though would be very limited grade crossings between School Street and the Fitchburg branch, and it's probably the best way to provide some kind of rail transit to all the Arsenal Street developments, but like Chelsea it's a very roundabout routing. As a "second layer urban ring" maybe it starts to make more sense.

 

[Riverside]

@F-Line to Dudley sketched these out a couple of years ago! Two separate posts here: http://archboston.com/community/threads/crazy-transit-pitches.3664/page-211

I think they’re both viable options worth future-proofing for, but not necessarily priorities. Waltham not only will be transformed with :15 Regional Rail, but in a post-NSRL world will have the most excess capacity to accept through-runs from the Southside. So I think Waltham will be solid for a couple of generations.

Watertown I think would need further study. As a path to downtown, I think it’s circuitous and may not compete well with the two-seat bus+Red journeys via Harvard or Central. That said, I’m intrigued by the idea of a northside service running Chelsea - Sullivan - Union - Porter - Watertown. But like @737900er said, Watertown-Downtown is probably best done in the near-term with a combination of strong bus infrastructure and frequent regional rail to Newton Corner.

 

[Tallguy]

I think they’re both viable options worth future-proofing for, but not necessarily priorities. Waltham not only will be transformed with :15 Regional Rail, but in a post-NSRL world will have the most excess capacity to accept through-runs from the Southside. So I think Waltham will be solid for a couple of generations.

Watertown I think would need further study. As a path to downtown, I think it’s circuitous and may not compete well with the two-seat bus+Red journeys via Harvard or Central. That said, I’m intrigued by the idea of a northside service running Chelsea - Sullivan - Union - Porter - Watertown. But like @737900er said, Watertown-Downtown is probably best done in the near-term with a combination of strong bus infrastructure and frequent regional rail to Newton Corner.

Newton Corner, Faneuil and a Harvard GL spur.

 

[Riverside]

I’ve continued to tweak my map, mostly focusing on the BRT layer. I also went ahead and drew out the rest of the network, to show what this would look like when put all together (it's nearly 60 MB, so the full file is uploaded on my Google Drive here -- if you don't feel wild about Google Drive links, I've included a low-res version below that should still give you the general ideas). A bunch of scattered comments in the following post(s) in spoiler boxes.

 

[Riverside]

Spoiler: The Silver Frequent Fast network

As I’ve sketched out the BRT network further, I’ve shifted back to designating a specific set of routes as a proper rapid transit route for the Urban Ring, but with lots of overlapping additional services. I’ve also drawn a line in the sand regarding the category of “rapid transit”: “rapid transit” should not sit in the lowest tier of stop spacing, and the lowest tier of stop spacing needs frequent and fast service as well.

As such, rather than choosing a handful of BRT corridors to promote to “SL status” (“SL3, SL6,” etc), I’ve instead built out what I propose be called the “Frequent Fast” network, which is essentially the 15-min-network proposed in the Bus Network Redesign. These are visually distinguished on the map by their thinner lines, lack of individual stops, and lack of service names/labels. You could still keep the “Silver” designation if you wanted: “Now arriving at Massachusetts Avenue, change here for Silver Frequent Fast bus services”, something like that.

Though the Frequent Fast network does not run entirely in dedicated lanes (see below), in general my heuristic has been: if a street holds a high-frequency bus route and has four or more travel lanes, it gets dedicated bus lanes. Other streets do too, but those will have to be handled on a case by case basis. (I’ve made a couple of expections in communities that have already shown a willingness to replace on-street parking with bus infrastructure, e.g. Everett.)

Spoiler: Mapping the BRT services

Partly because of a need to make the silver color available for the Frequent Fast network, I’ve rebranded the southern half of the Urban Ring as two additional services on the Gold Line; I’ve used a silver dashing to indicate that those services are using bus lanes that are shared with Silver services, but my “bold” take is that there isn’t really a reason that a “Gold Line” can’t have BRT and LRT under a shared banner (assuming the BRT is high quality enough).

One Gold Line BRT service runs Brookline Village <> World Trade Center, and the other runs Nubian <> Logan Airport; additional bus services beef up frequencies on the non-overlapping segments.

There are three levels to the Frequent Fast bus network:

• Thick silver lines: 10-min-or-better-during-peaks-and-midday in dedicated bus lanes
  • E.g. Blue Hill Ave, Columbus Ave, most of Warren St, etc
  • Note that my “Navy Line” BRT handles T7, T111, and Everett routes
• Medium silver lines: 10-min-or-better-during-peaks-and-midday in mixed traffic
  • E.g. the rest of Warren St, the rest of the T39, the rest of the T16, T22, and T29, the T116
• Thin silver lines: 15-min-or-better services running in bus lanes or mixed traffic
  • The rest of the Frequent Fast network

Having three levels is potentially overkill visually, but it seemed worth distinguishing these tiers. As I mentioned previously, there is a core of 15-min routes that actually are more like 7-min routes, and those seem worth highlighting.

Spoiler: Longwood Medical Area

For my route through LMA, I’ve opted for Brookline Village <> Brookline Ave <> Longwood Ave <> Huntington Ave <> Ruggles St <> Tremont St <> Malcolm X <> Nubian. I don’t think there is going to be a perfectly satisfactory route, but this is my current thinking:

• Anchoring at Brookline Village allows northside Urban Ring LRT to credibly reach Longwood instead of being diverted to Kenmore
• Originating southside Urban Ring BRT at Brookline Village provides transfer between northside and southside Gold Line; the alternative is to originate southside Urban Ring BRT at Kenmore instead. This may be a bit of crayoning perfectionism at play – “the two halves of the Gold Line need to meet up!” – but I think I have a reasonable case (see below)
• In favor of having Gold <> Gold transfers at Brookline Village is that I believe it would offer the fastest Longwood <> Harvard and Nubian <> Harvard journey, which would not be possible at Kenmore
• Traveling across LMA via Longwood Ave rather than Francis St gives you better access to the northern half of LMA
• As discussed upthread, Ruggles St has parcels owned by the T and so could get a dedicated BRT ROW
• Ruggles vs Roxbury Crossing: Ruggles wins out with the promise of a Regional Rail and NSRL future, where electrified mainline trains offer an express alternative to Orange Line trains; plus, for commuters coming from the south, having a rapid transit link from Ruggles will be valuable
• Malcolm X vs Melnea Cass: the inertia seems to be on bus lanes on (and continued bus routes via) Malcolm X, so that’s what we’re going with

One inevitable downside of the LRT/BRT Urban Ring split is that, for example, MIT <> Nubian journeys will require a transfer. That is why I opted to map out the full Frequent Fast network, because the T1 bus will fill that gap directly.

Spoiler: Anchoring Southside Urban Ring BRT at Brookline Village vs Kenmore

• Brookline Village offers a terminus slightly closer to Longwood than Kenmore
• Brookline Village focuses service on the southern half of Longwood, which is somewhat job-heavier than the northern half

• Kenmore maintains links to Longwood, Ruggles, and Nubian via Frequent Fast bus services
• Because the stretch of Brookline Ave between Brookline Village and Longwood Ave is close to the river, there are fewer “local stops” that limited-stop Gold Line buses would need to contend with:
  • Francis St with walking transfer to Riverway Village on the Fenway Branch
  • Maybe Aspinwall Ave
• Compared to the journey to Kenmore, which, while only 1,000 feet longer, would need a denser spread of stops:
  • Simmons College/Emmanuel College
  • Park Dr/Boylston St
  • Fullerton St
  • Something near Fenway Park but also near Lansdowne
• Honestly the zig-zagging to hit core-LMA and Ruggles and Nubian makes this thing roundabout enough that I want to keep it as taut as possible – I don’t want to burden it with Fenway-Kenmore neighborhood service on top of everything else

Spoiler: “Purple Line Regional Rail services”

I’ve also added another non-rapid-transit-but-still-worth-mapping service: “Purple Line Regional Rail services”. These are segments where there will usually be a mainline train every 15 minutes or better (but confirm departure times before travel). “Now arriving at Porter Square. Change here for the Red Line, and Purple Line Regional Rail service.” Again, not rapid transit, but still valuable. The routes feeding in to Purple Line segments (e.g. Riverside + Framingham/Worcester trains) are shown in thin lines.

(Yes: the Riverside spur does not receive the “Purple Line” designation because I’m not convinced it’ll receive 15-min headways; there’s competition on the B&A and I think committing to high frequencies specifically to Riverside creates an unnecessary constraint.

The Indigo Line remains separate because I believe it is both possible and necessary to see regular 10-min headways there – no schedule confirmation required.

Spoiler: A few miscellaneous notes on the meaning of symbols

• Arrows on Purple Line services mostly indicate that trains run non-stop (e.g. between Ruggles and Readville)
• Dashed lines on rail routes indicate provisions for future extension, but which may be dependent on future conditions that are unpredictable
  • For example, I think the ultimate length of the Medford Branch isn’t a question that can be answered today; the possibility for extension is there and will remain, but I don’t think we need to commit to it. (This is also why the Lowell Purple Line has the dashed line + arrow – the extent of the non-stop segment will depend on the length of the Green Line)
• Dashed lines on Silver routes indicate lower-frequency feeder routes
• The dashed line on the Blue Line west of Kenmore means that in general future extensions would point in that direction; I include a further dotted extension to West Station to indicate my preference for that ultimate routing, but I don’t think it’s a must-have
• Stations marked with an open circle are more tentative, depending on feasibility and demand
• Thick black lines connecting stations indicates a within-station transfer; thinner lines indicate advertisable walking connection

 

[Riverside]

Spoiler: Overview of services

​

Service	Line	Route	Mode	Extension provisions
1	Orange	Oak Grove - Roslindale Village	HRT	North toward Reading, south toward W. Roxbury
2	Blue	Kenmore - Lynn	HRT	North toward Salem, west toward Allston
3 and 4	Red	Alewife - Mattapan or Braintree	HRT	North toward Arlington
5	Indigo	South Station - Readville via Fairmount	High-freq mainline	North via NSRL (unmapped)
A, B, C	Green (light green on maps)	Park St - Oak Square, Boston College, or Cleveland Circle	LRT	none
D	Green	Needham Junction - Medford/Tufts via Back Bay	LRT	North toward Woburn
E	Green	Heath - Porter via Back Bay	LRT	West toward Waltham, south toward Hyde Sq
F	Green	Nubian - Government Center	LRT	none
G	Green	Nubian - West Station via Grand Junction	LRT	North toward Harvard, south to Seaport wraparound
H	Gold	Brookline Village - Harvard	LRT	none
J	Gold	Brookline Village - Airport via Grand Junction	LRT	West toward Porter
K	Gold	Brookline Village - Seaport via Nubian	BRT	none
L	Gold	Nubian - Airport via Seaport	BRT	none
R	Magenta	Riverside - Harborview via Back Bay	LRT	none
S	Magenta	Reservoir - Design Center via Back Bay	LRT	none
	Purple	North Station - Weston/128, Woburn/93, or Salem	Cumulative freq mainline	none
	Purple	South Station - Auburndale, or Canton Junction	Cumulative freq mainline	Southwest toward Norwood, south toward Brockton, schedule dependent
	Rose	Science Park - Chinatown Gate	Tourist trolley	none

Spoiler: New LRT infrastructure and new LRT radial extensions

Infrastructure:

• Core
  • Fully reactivated Brattle Loop
  • Rework of Pleasant Street Junction
• Huntington
  • D-E Connector with rework of Brookline Village
  • Extended Huntington Subway
  • Reroute to Back Bay Subway along Mass Pike
  • Pedestrian tunnel connecting Back Bay and Copley
• Seaport
  • Extension of Back Bay Subway to South Station
  • Conversion of Piers Transitway to LRT or mixed LRT/BRT
• Urban Ring - southwest and northwest
  • Connect BU Bridge and Fenway via Park Dr and Mass Pike ROW
  • Convert the Grand Junction to LRT, with Aldgate Junction at BU Bridge
  • Junction at McGrath Highway
• Urban Ring - northeast
  • Extend LRT tracks from GLMF to Sullivan
  • Convert Silver Line Gateway to mixed LRT/BRT and extend to Sullivan

Radial extensions:

• LRT to Nubian
• LRT to Needham
• Extend Union Branch to Porter
• LRT to West Station and beyond to Harvard
• LRT to Design Center

Spoiler: New BRT infrastructure

• Core
  • Center City Connector
  • Summer St in Seaport
  • Ted Williams Tunnel
• Crosstown
  • Mass Ave from Arlington to BUMC
  • Ruggles St - Tremont St - Malcolm X
  • Albany St corridor from Nubian to South Station
• Navy Line
  • Rutherford Ave
  • Tobin Bridge
  • Alford St
  • Broadway in Everett
  • Broadway & Washington Ave to Cary Sq in Chelsea
• Dorchester
  • Blue Hill Ave
  • Columbus Ave
  • Warren St between Nubian and Boston Latin
  • Columbia Rd
  • Morton St
• Longwood
  • Brookline Ave
  • Longwood Ave
• Other radial
  • Huntington Ave
  • South Huntington Ave
  • Broadway in Somerville
  • Hyde Park Ave
  • Mount Auburn St between Harvard Sq and Belmont St
  • Galen St and Centre St from Watertown Sq to transfer station at Newton Corner
  • Other corridors where feasible

 

[Teban54]

I’ve continued to tweak my map, mostly focusing on the BRT layer. I also went ahead and drew out the rest of the network, to show what this would look like when put all together (it's nearly 60 MB, so the full file is uploaded on my Google Drive here -- if you don't feel wild about Google Drive links, I've included a low-res version below that should still give you the general ideas). A bunch of scattered comments in the following post(s) in spoiler boxes.

View attachment 32158

View attachment 32159

How do you feel about Navy to Everett now that residents there seem to have voted for the Kendall alternative?

 

[Riverside]

How do you feel about Navy to Everett now that residents there seem to have voted for the Kendall alternative?

Full disclosure, this map and accompanying notes have sat in a tab, 95% complete, for, like, weeks now, so I opted to roll forward for now

The visual language on the map is meant to be flexible enough to have, for example, one of the Navy Line Everett "feeder branches" peel off and head to Kendall after Sullivan, so it definitely could be incorporated.

The big question mark in my mind is whether an LRT link from Sullivan (to say nothing of Sweetser Circle) to Kendall would address that need instead. Converting the Grand Junction to LRT is, at best, 15 years off, while the Silver Line Extensions seem to be available much sooner, so I could certainly understand the community prioritizing that option.

That said, if the Navy Line ends up just being the T7 + T111 + SL1, I think that's still worthwhile! In that scenario, the Everett Broadway corridor would move into the "Silver Frequent Fast" network.

Also -- it's worth noting that, today, a two-seat Everett <> Kendall journey is possible during weekdays, but requires a transfer to the 20-min-AM-peak/60-min-midday/40-min-PM-peak CT2 (holy hell that's rough). So the current support might not necessarily be a demand for a one-seat Everett <> Kendall ride, but more just for a journey that doesn't rely on a very infrequent service. A two-seat journey of every-8-min-Navy + transfer to every-8-min-Gold could probably be compelling.

But yeah -- if it isn't, then let's get some bus lanes on McGrath, First, and Binney, hell yeah.

 

[Tallguy]

Does anyone know where the "high speed test track" for the Green Line is planned for?

 

[stick n move]

I’ve continued to tweak my map, mostly focusing on the BRT layer. I also went ahead and drew out the rest of the network, to show what this would look like when put all together (it's nearly 60 MB, so the full file is uploaded on my Google Drive here -- if you don't feel wild about Google Drive links, I've included a low-res version below that should still give you the general ideas). A bunch of scattered comments in the following post(s) in spoiler boxes.

View attachment 32158

View attachment 32159

I like that you included my idea for green-west station via the union sq branch through grand junction. I think thats the easiest and cheapest way to utilize grand junction for rapid transit and to give framingham/worcester cr riders a 1 transfer ride to kendall/north station. Theres other ways it can be made better like linking it back into the current b line at bu, but that makes it a lot more complex and expensive. That could be added in later but I think getting the line up and running first as cheaply as possible is a good first step. Then later on as the line becomes more successful and more money opens up it can be improved.

Ideally it would have been best to do it elevated along gj because of red line tunnels and multiple road crossings, but even at this moment yet another building is being built over the ROW, so its out of the question. At this point at grade is the way to go, which is also the cheapest, so thats just what it would have to be. Im sure it would be annoying having trains going through the crossings every couple minutes, but transit should have priority so it would just be what it is.

 

[Riverside]

I like that you included my idea for green-west station via the union sq branch through grand junction. I think thats the easiest and cheapest way to utilize grand junction for rapid transit and to give framingham/worcester cr riders a 1 transfer ride to kendall/north station. Theres other ways it can be made better like linking it back into the current b line at bu, but that makes it a lot more complex and expensive. That could be added in later but I think getting the line up and running first as cheaply as possible is a good first step. Then later on as the line becomes more successful and more money opens up it can be improved.

Ideally it would have been best to do it elevated along gj because of red line tunnels and multiple road crossings, but even at this moment yet another building is being built over the ROW, so its out of the question. At this point at grade is the way to go, which is also the cheapest, so thats just what it would have to be. Im sure it would be annoying having trains going through the crossings every couple minutes, but transit should have priority so it would just be what it is.

Yeah, I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the staging process for LRT service on the Grand Junction, and I do think starting with a Green extension to Cambridgeport and then West Station is a reasonable start.

 

[Teban54]

I like that you included my idea for green-west station via the union sq branch through grand junction. I think thats the easiest and cheapest way to utilize grand junction for rapid transit and to give framingham/worcester cr riders a 1 transfer ride to kendall/north station. Theres other ways it can be made better like linking it back into the current b line at bu, but that makes it a lot more complex and expensive. That could be added in later but I think getting the line up and running first as cheaply as possible is a good first step. Then later on as the line becomes more successful and more money opens up it can be improved.

Ideally, we would hope that a Grand Junction LRT spur to BU would be planned and even constructed together with a B branch subway extension past BU bridge (e.g. to Amory St), perhaps with provision for a future Blue Line subway to West Station beneath that.

But that sounds like 2-3 separate projects on their own... So realistically not gonna happen anytime soon.

Ideally it would have been best to do it elevated along gj because of red line tunnels and multiple road crossings, but even at this moment yet another building is being built over the ROW, so its out of the question. At this point at grade is the way to go, which is also the cheapest, so thats just what it would have to be. Im sure it would be annoying having trains going through the crossings every couple minutes, but transit should have priority so it would just be what it is.

You can still do elevated across Mass Ave (and I think it's necessary), plus north of Main St (less necessary but still really beneficial).

 

[The EGE]

The more I crayon things out, the more convinced I am that GL to Nubian needs to be built as a subway.

My experience as a planner in San Francisco is that busy commercial corridors do not work well for speedy transit, even with dedicated lanes and TSP. Speedy transit is often at cross purposes with other desirable aspects of the corridor, particularly pedestrian activity and safety:

• Closely spaced intersections are great for pedestrian convenience and slowing traffic, but they make effective TSP near-impossible. Herald to Nubian has 15-20 likely crossings, depending on how you do the accounting, in 1.3 miles. Compare that to 17 / 2.3 miles on the C and ~25 / 4 miles on the B, both of which are torturously slow even with a dedicated median.
• Similarly, you want to be slowing vehicle speeds for ped/bike safety and comfort.
• Because of high pedestrian volumes, you want your walk phases to be as long as possible - preferably 3.0 feet per second or even 2.8 fps, rather than the old standard of 3.5 fps. That means longer wait times for transit vehicles.
• Transit takes up space, especially if you're doing center-running with boarding islands. That eats into the space available for protected bike lanes, wider sidewalks, parklets, and necessary commercial loading.
• For transition to/from a subway, a portal takes up a lot of space. It's about 500 feet where nothing can cross the transit ROW, and the walls mean it's somewhat wider than just the tracks.

Realistically, the 23-minute scheduled time between Nubian and Temple Place is not likely to substantially decrease, even with relatively aggressive transit priority measures on the surface. You'll save a little time using the subway north of the Pike, but trains are less nimble than buses and tend to be slower when dealing with intersections. For many of the same reasons, you're limited as to the effective frequency you can run. One branch at 8-minute headways is probably fine; two would probably end up with a lot of bunching.

Thinking about service patterns, it's essentially a balancing game: Huntington + Nubian = Tremont + Seaport. (That's true whether or not you have direct Nubian-Seaport service.) Huntington is going to be full up - you're likely to have services from Hyde Square, Needham, Riverside, and Harvard or West Station. Obviously you need to use every available slot for Tremont as well. So, if you want more than 8-minute headways to the Seaport, you need to have more than one service going to Nubian.

A Nubian subway lets you run a balanced pattern: Huntington trains are evenly split between Tremont and Seaport, and Tremont trains evenly split between Huntington and Nubian. (Assuming you don't run Seaport-Nubian, which isn't a bad idea but would require a flying junction under the Pike.) 4-minute headways in a subway lets Nubian actually be the Roxbury bus hub in the way it was until 1987. Trips to downtown, Kendall, Seaport, etc change at Nubians, rather than every single bus route having to be extended to Ruggles. (Obviously some routes would run to Ruggles/LMA, but some routes could terminate at Nubian while still having a rapid transit connection.

If you do commit to build that subway, it's not that ridiculously difficult. Less than 2 miles of tunneling from the existing subway, and cut-and-cover is probably doable except the brief section under the Pike. You can have anywhere from 2 to 4 intermediate stations between Bay Village and Nubian. If you're wiling to do some more difficult tunneling (perhaps in conjunction with a redevelopment of the Cathedral housing), you can run part of the subway on Harrison to directly serve BMC/BUMC.