"our trip will get slowed down by 2 minutes". Even without being car-centric, I think it's still important in ensuring cars (including those that are not used for commutes) don't need an impractically long detour to get anywhere, and don't become impossible to get out of the alleys altogether.
I haven't found any trips where a one-way Centre/South St would add more than 3-5 minutes of travel time. Centre St alone basically means that anything on South St will never need a crazy detour to be accessible via car. The number of locals driving on the side streets would probably increase compared to now, at least initially, but is that even a significant number of cars? This is an area with significant transit ridership, which a restored E branch would drive up further, and excellent cycling connections to Back Bay and Downtown via the SW Corridor, I'm not particularly concerned, especially in the long term, with the number of private vehicles that would be forced onto side streets. (It should also be said that there are a lot of side streets, so I don't think there's too much cause for concern about one in particular being overwhelmed, the traffic would naturally spread out fairly well.)
I haven't found any trips where a one-way Centre/South St would add more than 3-5 minutes of travel time. Centre St alone basically means that anything on South St will never need a crazy detour to be accessible via car. The number of locals driving on the side streets would probably increase compared to now, at least initially, but is that even a significant number of cars? This is an area with significant transit ridership, which a restored E branch would drive up further, and excellent cycling connections to Back Bay and Downtown via the SW Corridor, I'm not particularly concerned, especially in the long term, with the number of private vehicles that would be forced onto side streets. (It should also be said that there are a lot of side streets, so I don't think there's too much cause for concern about one in particular being overwhelmed, the traffic would naturally spread out fairly well.)
Definitely fair points. To be clear, my concern was entirely with local traffic. I don't see why through-traffic that do not interfere with JP would use this corridor, rather than the parallel Arborway-Pond St-Jamaicaway to the west, which is way more auto-friendly. (Indeed, Google Maps' current directions from Hyde Park to Huntington Ave advised me to use either Jamaicaway or Amory-Columbus, without touching the 39 at all.) Thus, I suspect the majority of traffic on the 39 corridor is from locals.
Nevertheless, we know the corridor experiences significant traffic at many times of the day (see below), so apparently the local auto demand is already enough to overwhelm the streets, despite a below-average share of car commutes.
At 3:13pm today, not even close to rush hours:
A past screenshot I saved, at 4:31pm on December 20, 2023:
Below is the projection for typical traffic at 5:15pm on Wednesdays. I suspect this is an underestimation, as the same tool for 3:15pm doesn't show any reds near the commercial areas of JP.
Originally, I was concerned that without using narrow cross streets that are less than 25' wide, someone heading in the "wrong" direction will have to backtrack all the way to Soldier's Monument and the Arborway rotary. But upon a closer look, even Google Maps seems to recommend cutting to Jamaicaway as soon as possible using a side street, despite its narrowness.
Backtracking to the monument:
Google Maps' recommendations. Obviously, the middle and eastern routes wouldn't be feasible with a south-only Centre St, but the western route is.
This raises another interesting question, though. Google Maps actually rarely recommends going via Centre St from most of the cross streets. Most starting points to the west of 39 get routed through Jamaicaway, while most starting points to the east of 39 get routed through Columbus Ave(and either Lamartine St or Amory St), despite Centre St having similar travel times as the recommendations. So why is there still so much traffic along the 39 to begin with? Is it because drivers often think of it as the most direct route without checking Google Maps, or because they don't want to interfere with other side streets, etc?
Regardless, the point about cross streets cutting through transit lanes still stands, and it arguably worsens with a one-way Centre-South. If your street layout is "| SB cars | SB transit | NB transit |", anyone entering and exiting one of the 15-20 alleys to the east will need to cut through both transit lanes (and vice versa), unlike the ideal of center-running transit lanes. Increased traffic on these side streets due to one-way operation only makes things worse. While this is not remotely close to a death sentence, it not only potentially makes the transit service less reliable, but more importantly, it implies a greater chance that the MBTA's (alleged) 25 mph speed restriction on street-running LRT will be kept in order to avoid collisions. This means there's a legitimate chance an LRT route will be slower than an improved 39 using the same infrastructure, and perhaps much slower than center-running bus-bike lanes hosting the 39.
implies a greater chance that the MBTA's (alleged) 25 mph speed restriction on street-running LRT will be kept in order to avoid collisions. This means there's a legitimate chance an LRT route will be slower than an improved 39 using the same infrastructure.
25 is the City of Boston's universal speed limit. Unless there's an unlikely occurance of the 39 corridor being specifically posted higher than that, no street-level transit in the City (save for on DCR-control roads) is ever going to be higher than that.
Is it racist to call for the restoration of the Arborway Line? No, absolutely not. But what I want to highlight is just how unusual the idea is, and how much it aligns with racial divisions and a probably-but-not-certainly-unintentional pattern of racial disparities in service that goes back decades.
This is an excellent point, and is worth mentioning. I think you can kind of get around it because almost as much of 39 ridership comes from bus transfers at Forest Hills, many of which are from routes serving Dorchester and Mattapan, as comes from JP local riders. It could be argued that for these ~10k weekly riders, improving the 39 does represent a better connection between LMA and Dorchester/Mattapan.
But ultimately there's no getting around it. JP is a rich(er) neighborhood, and restoring Arborway service would make it richer. Perhaps between improving connections at Forest Hills and the expansion of BHA service, this inequality could be somewhat reduced?
(Do we have data on how many bus transfers at Forest Hills are actually coming from Mattapan or Dorchester? Of the 16 routes serving FH, only 4 look to me like they serve Mattapan/Dorchester [16, 21, 30, 31]. And, assuming T28 reliability could be high enough, all four of them would enjoy a 2SR to Longwood via the T28.)
Here is the number of weekday boardings and alightments at Forest Hills by route:
About 1/3 of weekday ridership comes from the Dorchester Routes (16, 21, 30, 31), another 1/3 comes from other routes that mainly serve lower income neighborhoods (32, 40, 42, 50), with the rest coming from routes serving some mix of Roslindale, West Roxbury, and Walpole, which are generally higher income. I would say that especially for LMA commuters that live in Hyde Park or Mattapan, two of the lowest income areas in the city, the 39 and the transfer at Forest Hills is incredibly important. I don't doubt that a restored Arborway service would cater to higher income riders, but it's definitely more nuanced than "This line is only for rich people."
That data is really fascinating. What's your source? (Stray observations: The 31 and 21 have comparable ridership, despite the 31 historically running 2x-3x as often. The 16 does quite well, given that it requires a little bit of a doubleback.)
The "Arborway Transfer" use case is an interesting and compelling one. I do think it's (potentially) distinct from an Arborway Restoration geared at improving the vibrancy of Centre St -- there are definitely some FH riders alighting along Centre St, but almost certainly the majority are going to Huntington. Which is to say, if there were another alignment that could serve the "Arborway Transfer" use case aside from Centre + South Sts., that would be worth considering. (This would be the distinction between "to JP", "within JP", and "through JP" trips, the latter of which could theoretically be accomplished in some other way.)
Insofar as the "Arborway Transfer" use case is really about providing a 2SR to Longwood via a major transfer node, a Restored Arborway Line would actually essentially be an Urban Ring service (similar to, e.g. take a bus to Harvard, hop on the Pink Line, disembark in Longwood).
Layer an Arborway <> LMA Upper surface service on top of a Hyde Square <> Downtown subway (and short surface) service: if LMA or Brigham Circle is going to be turning Urban Ring LRT (as mentioned in my earlier post), there's no reason a JP streetcar couldn't do the same. This service would run at street level before being joined by the E Line emerging from the subway for an extension to Hyde Square, where the E would terminate while the streetcar would trek onward through mixed traffic (diagram in spoiler box)
Like my Pink Line, this service could run without touching the Central Subway at all. It would still be slow and less reliable, but that's less of a problem if it's not touching the subway services. (Rough mock-up sketch below.)
Depending on reliability, this route could through-run north of Longwood, e.g. run as an extension of my H service, Harvard <> LMA <> Forest Hills. I'm skeptical though that the mismatch between dense street-running in JP and (what was intended to be) a short shuttle service pinging back and forth between Harvard and LMA with taut headways would be effective. But...
Someone (I think it was indeed you @TheRatmeister) recently argued that the high ridership on the 32 pointed to an OLX to Hyde Park/Readville. I don't think that will happen, but the argument did convince me of the merit/need for a more integrated transit solution for Hyde Park... and I wonder if this might possibly work.
From LMA to Readville is about 7.3 miles, which is long for a surface route making local stops (just under 2x the length of the B). Toronto seems to have routes of a similar length, though, so there's at least some precedent. And this route would serve a more diverse range of communities, both in terms of ethnicity and income. So... consider me intrigued by the possibility.
Some might find it more useful to go out to go in. An outbound E train to Jackson, followed by an inbound Orange Line train might work well for some, not to mention the option for inbound OL riders switching if their destination is LMA.
Jackson serves several bus routes that might benefit from a GL transfer option
So it's a short extension that accomplishes a lot for enhanced routing options. Further into the future, it might also provide rail service to lower Roxbury, Grove Hall, etc.
Yeah, those are the kinds of things I'd been thinking of too. For (1), I agree about the utility of feeding into the Orange Line, but I'm less convinced about transferring at Jackson for LMA -- won't it always be faster to continue to Ruggles and transfer to something there? Similar concern about (2) -- it seems more effective to extend those bus routes from their termini at Ruggles/Roxbury Crossing to provide a Green Line transfer there (particularly because I wouldn't expect the E to be any faster than those bus routes between Jackson and Ruggles).
That data is really fascinating. What's your source? (Stray observations: The 31 and 21 have comparable ridership, despite the 31 historically running 2x-3x as often. The 16 does quite well, given that it requires a little bit of a doubleback.)
The data comes from the "MBTA Bus Ridership by Time Period, Season, Route/Line, and Stop" spreadsheet on the Blue Book page. All numbers are for 2022 since that's the most recent available data.
I've talked a bit about the 32 before, but mainly in the sense that:
It's absolutely insane that the MBTA even bothers to collect fares on this route. 80% of riders transfer to the subway or another bus at Forest Hills and therefore pay essentially $0 already.
It's insane that this route is as popular as it is. Close to half the line's ridership comes from people boarding at Forest Hills and getting off at stop in close proximity to either Hyde Park or Readville stations. With a Cummins Hwy infill station this increases to 60%.
The CR fares at Hyde Park and Readville are absolutely bananas. A person commuting from their suburban home in Reading to their job in Boston pays the same fare as someone riding from their home in Boston (Readville) to their work... also in Boston. Or if they want to take the CR to their work at Northeastern instead of a bus and the Orange line, that CR train travelling almost exactly parallel to their bus and subway train demands an almost 200% fare premium.
This fare structure essentially forcing a slow, inefficient route means that it takes the same amount of time to travel from Mansfield to Ruggles as it does from Readville to Ruggles.
Anyways, enough about how insane this section of the CR is, I could keep going for far too long. Is OLX to Readville the solution? I don't think it is. With SCR Phase 2, even assuming only hourly service to all destinations except half-hourly to Providence, there would always be at least 6 TPH going Readville-Hyde Park-Forest Hills/Ruggles, plus any improved Fairmount Line service which I think should also be at least 6TPH off-peak. Peak hour service could reach 14TPH on the NEC alone, which even the OL couldn't provide thanks to the branching splitting service between West Roxbury and Readville/128.
I think the bus data shows why this doesn't make sense. Surface light rail works really well when you have a lot of short-medium length trips, but those are noticeably absent on this route. Only about 7,500 trips per week per direction are made that don't go to Forest Hills (And presumably transfer to another bus or the OL). Just for reference, about 19,000 trips per week are made on the 28 that don't either start or end at Ruggles, Roxbury Crossing, Nubian, or Mattapan, and Nubian-Mattapan is about the same distance as Forest Hills-Readville. This is an area with a few highly concentrated points of ridership, ideal for a subway style service. And since we're on the NEC, we don't need a new subway, Readville is a natural convergence point that lends itself well to a high frequently service without a dedicated line.
The data comes from the "MBTA Bus Ridership by Time Period, Season, Route/Line, and Stop" spreadsheet on the Blue Book page. All numbers are for 2022 since that's the most recent available data.
I've talked a bit about the 32 before, but mainly in the sense that:
It's absolutely insane that the MBTA even bothers to collect fares on this route. 80% of riders transfer to the subway or another bus at Forest Hills and therefore pay essentially $0 already.
It's insane that this route is as popular as it is. Close to half the line's ridership comes from people boarding at Forest Hills and getting off at stop in close proximity to either Hyde Park or Readville stations. With a Cummins Hwy infill station this increases to 60%.
The CR fares at Hyde Park and Readville are absolutely bananas. A person commuting from their suburban home in Reading to their job in Boston pays the same fare as someone riding from their home in Boston (Readville) to their work... also in Boston. Or if they want to take the CR to their work at Northeastern instead of a bus and the Orange line, that CR train travelling almost exactly parallel to their bus and subway train demands an almost 200% fare premium.
This fare structure essentially forcing a slow, inefficient route means that it takes the same amount of time to travel from Mansfield to Ruggles as it does from Readville to Ruggles.
Anyways, enough about how insane this section of the CR is, I could keep going for far too long. Is OLX to Readville the solution? I don't think it is. With SCR Phase 2, even assuming only hourly service to all destinations except half-hourly to Providence, there would always be at least 6 TPH going Readville-Hyde Park-Forest Hills/Ruggles, plus any improved Fairmount Line service which I think should also be at least 6TPH off-peak. Peak hour service could reach 14TPH on the NEC alone, which even the OL couldn't provide thanks to the branching splitting service between West Roxbury and Readville/128.
Agree in principle, but IIRC Hyde Park poses challenges for NEC Quad-Tracking (long-term desire for Amtrak) -- @F-Line to Dudley has more background on this. I also don't know that I would expect, for example, SCR trains to make stops at Hyde Park or a Cummins Hwy/Mount Hope infill; if the express tracks are there, probably they'd use them, I would think?
But yes, you've made this argument and presented this data previously, and while I'm not convinced that OLX or cumulative Purple Line frequencies are the solution, you have convinced me that there is a problem to solve.
I think the bus data shows why this doesn't make sense. Surface light rail works really well when you have a lot of short-medium length trips, but those are noticeably absent on this route. Only about 7,500 trips per week per direction are made that don't go to Forest Hills (And presumably transfer to another bus or the OL). Just for reference, about 19,000 trips per week are made on the 28 that don't either start or end at Ruggles, Roxbury Crossing, Nubian, or Mattapan, and Nubian-Mattapan is about the same distance as Forest Hills-Readville. This is an area with a few highly concentrated points of ridership, ideal for a subway style service. And since we're on the NEC, we don't need a new subway, Readville is a natural convergence point that lends itself well to a high frequently service without a dedicated line.
Also agree in principle. Yes, LRT works well with short-medium length trips, but one advantage LRT has over buses is capacity; given the concentrated ridership, that points in favor of the higher capacity vehicles you can get with light rail, to better handle those maximum loads going into Forest Hills.
Given my skepticism about Orange or Purple Line service here, a light rail line becomes more appealing... if it can be integrated into a larger network (i.e. not just doing a 1:1 replacement of the 32). Presumably some (if not many) of those 32 riders are transferring to the 39 to commute to LMA (and probably some are commuting to Back Bay, using the bus's lower fare); through-running an LRT version of the 32 through JP would create an OSR for those riders.
But to be clear, yes, if it can be done effectively with Purple Line frequencies, then the LRT line becomes largely superfluous.
Jumping back here (gosh golly, it's almost like different components of the transit network are interconnected ): Teban54's analysis strongly suggests that there is demand for a Hyde Park <> LMA service:
The elephant in the room: On the surface, Hyde Park station is very close to Fairmount station. In a world where Hyde Park is closed, it can still be claimed that the neighborhood sees high frequency regional rail via Fairmount. This in turns presents an even stronger argument for closing Hyde Park for an uninformed decision maker, precisely due to the additional costs for quad-tracking it.
(Another case in point: Nubian. The MBTA absolutely has precedent in getting rid of a rail service that is more than twice as fast as the competing bus service, during the same era as Heath St. It's worth noting that ~40% of Hyde Park residents are black, which reminds us of Nubian. I think Heath St only illustrates a case where the incumbent (VA Hospital) has strong political power, which does not seem to describe Hyde Park, and it doesn't even describe Jamaica Plain.)
Of course, the big question is: How many people at Hyde Park specifically seek the Orange Line corridor, such as Roslindale, Forest Hills, LMA and Back Bay?
...
The top destinations are:
LMA South (south of Longwood Ave): 342 jobs (4.8%)
Financial District (east of Washington St and south of Milk St, contains South Station): 242 jobs (3.4%)
Haymarket-State (north of Milk St): 138 jobs (1.9%)
LMA North (north of Longwood Ave, contains Beth Israel East but otherwise mostly schools): 134 jobs (1.9%)
BU Medical Campus: 119 jobs (1.7%)
MGH: 116 jobs (1.6%)
Islington to University Park (mostly suburban industrial parks): 94 jobs (1.3%)
Hyde Park West (between SW Corridor and Fairmount ROW): 88 jobs (1.2%)
Back Bay (south of Boylston St) and Prudential: 87 jobs (1.2%)
Kendall: 73 jobs (1.0%)
Harvard: 72 jobs (1.0%)
Grouping them into broader regions, and comparing their accessibility from Orange Line, NEC and Fairmount:
LMA: 476 jobs, OL ≈ NEC >> Fairmount
Downtown (Shawmut Peninsula): 496 jobs, accessibility is a bit fine-grained
358 jobs at FiDi and MGH are similar for all three alignments (MGH via a Red Line transfer), with NEC weakly favored for its speed
138 jobs at Haymarket-State: OL > NEC > Fairmount
Cambridge: 145 jobs, similar for all three alignments (via a Red Line transfer), with NEC weakly favored for its speed
If an Urban Ring connects to Kendall and/or Harvard, OL and NEC gain an advantage due to transferring at Ruggles
BUMC: 119 jobs, Fairmount >= OL >> NEC
Urban Ring can reduce difference between them
Back Bay: 87 jobs, NEC ≈ OL > Fairmount
Overall, 701 jobs have a clear preference either OL or NEC over Fairmount. A majority of them are in LMA, which is almost as popular as the entire downtown combined (a smaller number come from Haymarket and Back Bay). In contrast, only 119 jobs arguably weakly prefer Fairmount over OL/NEC (BUMC), and even that depends heavily on quality of bus transfers.
(Comparing OL and NEC is a much harder question. The 138 jobs at Haymarket-State would obviously prefer OL. Most of the remaining jobs can be reached in slightly shorter time by NEC, but OL may still offer higher confidence in service levels and better fare/infra integration with rapid transit. The Red Line jobs are slightly closer to OL, but NEC's time savings will likely cancel that out.)
BNRD Origin-Destination Dashboard (where residents go for all purposes)
....
Nevertheless, I managed to create a visualization of all its data with origin set as Hyde Park (which includes Readville). You can view the map here: View attachment 49108 Note: The points are centers of regions from the original BNRD dashboard, not the precise locations that people go to. For example, the dot near Nubian, named "Roxbury Lower Roxbury", contains the entire region east of OL Ruggles station. Also, the dots are colored by "Destination Geography", which is loosely based on neighborhoods, not by transit lines.
It appears that travel demand from Hyde Park bifurcates into two corridors -- which are precisely:
The NEC corridor: Roslindale, Forest Hills, LMA, Ruggles-Nubian
The Fairmount Line corridor: Mattapan, Dorchester, Grove Hall
Considering that the job destinations data did not show nearly as much demand in Mattapan and Dorchester, we can assume they're recreational destinations. (Indeed, I was able to verify that 52% of trips to Mattapan and Dorchester are "home-based non-work", whereas that number drops to 35% for Fenway/LMA, 37% for downtown, and 26% for Cambridge.)
I agree with @The Ratmeister that, if possible, the ideal solution here is increased Regional Rail service to Hyde Park with near-SUAG frequencies running to Ruggles, where a short second-seat rider can be completed.
If that's not feasible though, then that points us back to the 39 corridor as an integral part of a Hyde Park <> LMA 2SR commute, which (to me) certainly seems like the most intriguing argument for an Arborway restoration.
That being said, I think this data also suggests that an 1SR between Hyde Park and LMA would be popular as well, which brings me back to my suggestion for an LMA <> Forest Hills <> Hyde Park surface line.
In principle, this could be a through-run 32-39 service, but it seems less clear that there is through-run demand beyond LMA. So, for reliability purposes, I'd terminate this new line either at LMA, or give it a short extension to Ruggles.
The piece that is lost here is the JP <> Back Bay OSR. Yes, the Orange Line is there, but at some distance, and I think the 39 is a reasonable bus service in terms of distance and speed, and I try to avoid proposing out-and-out reductions in service/access. So, probably I would keep the 39... or I guess we could look to create surface lanes on Huntington past Northeastern (should be done anyway) and run a surface light rail line all the way from Hyde Park to Longwood to Back Bay? That would be close to 9 miles, which is very long indeed.
(Another case in point: Nubian. The MBTA absolutely has precedent in getting rid of a rail service that is more than twice as fast as the competing bus service, during the same era as Heath St. It's worth noting that ~40% of Hyde Park residents are black, which reminds us of Nubian. I think Heath St only illustrates a case where the incumbent (VA Hospital) has strong political power, which does not seem to describe Hyde Park, and it doesn't even describe Jamaica Plain.)
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I definitely believe that the VA Hospital is a large, if not primary, reason the E still runs to Heath St, in part due to this conspicuous callout in the 39's Better Bus Profile:
Setting aside the actual question of ridership, the fact that the VA Hospital merited this explicit mention suggests IMO a desire for "ammunition" the next time the T has to argue with the VA about Heath St.
(That being said, from my read of the Green Line ridership data, the Heath St stop sees perfectly healthy ridership, on par with the C's St Paul St or the D's Eliot -- nothing earth-shattering, but not absurdly low like Fenwood Road or South St. But this makes sense in some ways, because the VA Med Ctr serves more than just Jamaica Plain, and the E has much better connectivity to the rest of the network than the 39 does.)
Jumping back here (gosh golly, it's almost like different components of the transit network are interconnected ): Teban54's analysis strongly suggests that there is demand for a Hyde Park <> LMA service:
I agree with @The Ratmeister that, if possible, the ideal solution here is increased Regional Rail service to Hyde Park with near-SUAG frequencies running to Ruggles, where a short second-seat rider can be completed.
If that's not feasible though, then that points us back to the 39 corridor as an integral part of a Hyde Park <> LMA 2SR commute, which (to me) certainly seems like the most intriguing argument for an Arborway restoration.
That being said, I think this data also suggests that an 1SR between Hyde Park and LMA would be popular as well, which brings me back to my suggestion for an LMA <> Forest Hills <> Hyde Park surface line. View attachment 49111
In principle, this could be a through-run 32-39 service, but it seems less clear that there is through-run demand beyond LMA. So, for reliability purposes, I'd terminate this new line either at LMA, or give it a short extension to Ruggles.
The piece that is lost here is the JP <> Back Bay OSR. Yes, the Orange Line is there, but at some distance, and I think the 39 is a reasonable bus service in terms of distance and speed, and I try to avoid proposing out-and-out reductions in service/access. So, probably I would keep the 39... or I guess we could look to create surface lanes on Huntington past Northeastern (should be done anyway) and run a surface light rail line all the way from Hyde Park to Longwood to Back Bay? That would be close to 9 miles, which is very long indeed.
The big question of a Hyde Park Ave LRT is how fare should it go? I think Hyde Park Ave can be split into 3 sections:
Ukraine Way to Metropolitan Ave: This section is wide enough for full median running, no worries here.
Metropolitan Ave to Hyde Park Center: This is where is starts getting a little hairy. We have the same issue with choosing between bike or transit lanes as on Centre/South St, but with no alternate corridor to use as a secondary route or to make a looping service with. Street running might be necessary here.
Hyde Park Center to Readville: This segment is not wide enough for any kind of separated running. Street running would be required here.
Given the reliability concerns from the length of the line, adding a very long street running section doesn't seem like the right call.
I need a little bit of escape from IRL, so how about I completely turn my version of the Green Line Reconfiguration on its ear?
(The map is not perfect, which annoys me, but oh well.)
"Project Criss Cross" routes Kenmore branches to Seaport, and sends all Huntington + Nubian trains into the Tremont Street Subway.
The "Criss Cross" occurs at Copley/Back Bay:
In the diagram above, the new Copley station is located under the square proper between Dartmouth and Boylston, but I think there are several variants imaginable. For example, the station could be centered on Dartmouth, to allow the tunnel to curve to give Trinity Church a wider berth. (It's possible/likely that this would require adjustment/removal of the Mass Pike on-ramp, but I think that may be required in general for the Criss Cross concept.) I've also suggested reusing part of the tunnel under Exeter St to jump from Boylston St to the B&A ROW at Back Bay station, but it may be preferable to use Dartmouth St for this purpose.
Things this design does badly:
Reliability of Seaport service: this has historically been my objection to sending the B & C to the Seaport -- if we're going to create a new subway line, why hobble it from the outset with the legacy subway-streetcar services? I have some thoughts (below) on why this design might be able to compensate for it
Isolation of subway-streetcar services: a similar theme as above, but worth noting that it would (potentially) affect the reliability of other important stretches, including South Station <> Back Bay, and the Harvard Branch.
Green <> Gold transfer at Back Bay/Copley: while relocating "Copley" station closer to Back Bay eases the transfer pain somewhat, we're still talking about a 450'-500' walk, and in this design that transfer becomes significantly more loadbearing since it's the only transfer point between the two LRT networks
This can be addressed in a more intensive fashion while maintaining the overall topology by running Huntington trains into a new subway under Stuart and Columbus (optional infill at Park Plaza), rejoining the Boylston St subway at Charles St. This would allow Huntington's Back Bay platform to be much closer to Kenmore and Orange services
South Station <> Huntington connectivity: connections to LMA itself are meant to be provided by my (D) Seaport <> Brookline Village service, which I think is okay enough, but it leaves eastern Longwood with weaker connectivity
Construction at Copley Square: Electric Sheep requires construction along the northern side of Copley Place, but leaves Copley Square untouched. Criss Cross's new tunnel and station under Copley Square would be much more disruptive
Access to downtown: this one is debatable, and depends on whether you think Park St or South Station provides better access to downtown
Frequencies on the Harvard and Fenway Branches: this one could actually go either way, compared to the Project Electric Sheep design. Assuming 30 tph on the Kenmore <> Seaport trunk, each of those branches would see ~8 min headways; on the Electric Sheep design, the ruling constraint is the Bronze Line's trunk along the Grand Junction, which I have generally assumed to be 15 tph (4 min freq) -- in which case the branch frequencies would be the same between the designs -- but if GJ capacity can be increased, then Electric Sheep would have a higher "ceiling" for the Harvard and Fenway branch frequencies
Things that may compensate for the above:
Offsetting the (B) & (C) with the (new) (A) & (D): the Seaport subway would not be fed exclusively by the subway-streetcar services, but would be supplemented by two more reliable services on the Fenway and Harvard Branches, with (mostly) protected ROWs, fewer stops, and shorter lengths. In theory, these should provide a base frequency of 4 minutes, with (B) and (C) services bumping that higher
More robust short-turns: Criss Cross features short-turn infrastructure in multiple locations:
Inbound Seaport trains can turn at South Station
Pocket tracks at Courthouse can supply RAD services in both directions
Inbound (C) and (D) trains can turn at Kenmore
Inbound (A) and (B) trains can turn at a new subway station at BU
Outbound (A) and (B) trains can also turn at the new BU
This provides options for both higher-reliability overlay services (e.g. BU <> South Station/Courthouse), as well as short-turning (B) and (C) services, either on an as-needed basis, or, in the long-term, on a semi-permanent basis. This also means that short-turning "Urban Ring" services on the (A) and (D) can boost frequencies on those stretches to handle demand
Green <> Gold transfers at Brookline Village and Bay Village/Tufts Medical Center, and BLX to Kenmore: Riverside and Needham commuters can transfer to Gold at Brookline Village, while Nubian commuters can transfer at TMC. A/B/C commuters can transfer to Green at either Back Bay or TMC (admittedly neither a great transfer), but can also transfer nicely at Kenmore to Blue. A/B/C commuters that want to go to Huntington can either transfer to the D at Kenmore and alight at Longwood or Kent Square, or can transfer to the Pink Line at Kenmore and alight at MFA. None of these are perfect, but they do distribute the transfer needs away from Copley/Back Bay
Things that are orthogonal to this particular proposed topology:
Harvard <> Longwood connectivity: in the design above, I've opted for a "Node Kenmore" approach that centralizes transfers between northside and southside Urban Ring services at Kenmore, at the expense of direct service to Longwood from Cambridge and Allston. I think the through-running approach I used in Electric Sheep is still possible in the Criss Cross framework, though it's a little trickier due to the use of the Fenway Branch for radial service... which in turn means that it becomes more important to identify how you will cross "from B to D" (e.g. via Park Drive, or via Kenmore). But it should still be possible with the right planning. Anyway, I decided to use the Node Kenmore approach here, but I don't think it's integral to the Criss Cross concept.
Kenmore expansion: this particular map assumes the construction of a "Kenmore North" or "Kenmore Under", which would handle BLX as well as terminating Comm Ave LRT. A Comm Ave Loop (or tail tracks) helps the Criss Cross concept, but is not vital, given that most needs could also be handled by short-turns at the new BU station
Things this design does well:
Kenmore <> Seaport OSR: regardless of its particular value, this design certainly accomplishes this objective
Simpler topologies, yielding simpler dispatching and service planning, and greater capacity: While I would reject describing Electric Sheep's Gold Line topology as "reverse branching", it does have a more complicated half-Aldgate topology, in which Huntington is a trunk with branches to the Central Subway and Seaport, and the Central Subway is a trunk with branches to Huntington and Nubian (with potentially some interaction from Kenmore services, depending on the turning capacity at Park St).
Criss Cross fully separates these trunks. Among other things, this means that Seaport services and Park St services can be on separate takts with no coordination. It also means that the full capacity of the Central Subway (including the Park St Loop) can be brought to bear on Huntington + Nubian services, enabling 35+ tph to be distributed amongst the Huntington and Nubian branches. Finally, it doubles Kenmore <> downtown frequencies relative to Electric Sheep
Seaport frequencies (and short platforms): While Electric Sheep could, in theory, support maximum frequencies in and to the Seaport (especially if the current South Station loop is used), it would be more challenging than Criss Cross, which basically funnels as many tph into the Seaport as possible. On closer examination, maximum frequencies in the Seaport may be more valuable than I thought, as it looks like the Silver Line platforms are actually pretty short; my best guess for Courthouse (for example) is 200', and the surrounding curves make extension seems unlikely. In that case, shorter trains at higher frequencies may become important, and would align better with the shorter/more constrained environments on the (B) and (C)
Harvard <> Back Bay connectivity: as @Teban54 noted a few months ago, PMT analysis suggested that almost this exact route (Seaport <> Longwood + West Station) would have extremely strong ridership; I suspect that would increase yet further with a OSR between Back Bay and Harvard (potentially even redirecting some riders away from the Red Line, with a 1SR that I'd estimate is probably equally fast as the Orange + Red 2SR)
Full use of the existing Boylston flying junction for Huntington services, with no new Bay Village flying junction needed, and simplified construction at Bay Village: this one cuts both ways: you're basically trading construction at Bay Village for construction at Copley. But, while more disruptive at the surface level, construction at Copley may be simpler, with a shallow Kenmore <> Back Bay subway, and a tangent Huntington <> Arlington subway through an area with fewer buildings, and only requiring underpinning in one location. Bay Village station itself could also be much simpler
~~~
Do I like it? I like some things. It expands the "net" shape of the system, turning the Gold Line into an east-west line parallel to Red and Blue, and unambiguously makes the Green a north-south line parallel to Orange.
On the other hand, while BOS <> BBY <> Harvard or LMA is a pretty strong OSR, it does feel a bit weaker than BOS <> BBY <> Huntington.
25 is the City of Boston's universal speed limit. Unless there's an unlikely occurance of the 39 corridor being specifically posted higher than that, no street-level transit in the City (save for on DCR-control roads) is ever going to be higher than that.
Just a quick update on this: I don't think bus drivers actually abide by this presumed 25 mph speed limit in practice, even if the T does require them to. The 39 bus that I was on today routinely had 30+ mph speeds inbetween stops based on my GPS measurements, and at the Mass Ave underpass, it got to 47 mph.
No wonder why plenty of people were taking the 39 throughout Huntington Ave even when the E was available. (I haven't calculated how much ridership on the 39 was entirely within its overlaps with the E, but someone else feel free to analyze that.)
I have been lurking for along time reading the thread, and granted ive only read up to page 66 but i havent seen any mention of converting the green line trunk into heavy rail?
the only huge obstacle i see is boylston so i was curious why its not been brought up
all the other stuff is awesome i dont think anythings wrong with it it would just be cool to explore solutions involving heavy rail conversion
I have been lurking for along time reading the thread, and granted ive only read up to page 66 but i havent seen any mention of converting the green line trunk into heavy rail?
the only huge obstacle i see is boylston so i was curious why its not been brought up
all the other stuff is awesome i dont think anythings wrong with it it would just be cool to explore solutions involving heavy rail conversion
Well, let me ask you this: what benefits do you see to converting the Green Line to heavy rail? (I of course have my own ideas but would love to talk about your thoughts specifically!)
Well, let me ask you this: what benefits do you see to converting the Green Line to heavy rail? (I of course have my own ideas but would love to talk about your thoughts specifically!)
i think that the capacity limits of light rail really holds back the development potential of the communities it connects. Im not advocating for turning the B branch into manhattan or anything like that but its clear that future urban growth needs to be polycentral to be sustainable. basically i dont think any secondary job/urban centers can develop along the green line like whats happening around kendall and malden center given its capacity
additionally, i dream of a system with a few commuter trunk lines with many light rail/streetcar feeder routes, and the green line is essentially perfectly set up to showcase this for implementation in other communities. i understand that busses also serve as feeders but bigger housing developments dont really appear along bus routes, itonly really gets developed immediately around heavy rail stations
this contradicts my last point i just realized what i mean is that large job centers dont get made around light rail but denser housing does so basically light rail expands the catchment area of heavy rail stations
all the branches going through the same tunnel increases its capicity to almost that of heavy rail so developments like prudential center and that new one by hynes still get built but obviously theres the tunnel problems with sending that many trains through
the green line heavy rail trunk would be a solution for the congestion issue while maintaining the feeder line role of the C and B branches, probably no better then the insane and awesome things everyone here has come up with using light rail, the main reason i see it as more/alternatively effective then a super light rail system is because it could go to chelsea or everett and give them the heavy rail trunk line their populations deserve without needing to branch another line
finally i would like to clarify that my ideas for transit are mostly about making a strong foundation to grow our city on, but i do also understand current travel demands and try to keep in mind solutions that benefit the city right now
im not a great speaker so i hope ive said everything clearly, sorry i was so roundabout in asnwering your question lol
basically i dont think any secondary job/urban centers can develop along the green line like whats happening around kendall and malden center given its capacity
additionally, i dream of a system with a few commuter trunk lines with many light rail/streetcar feeder routes, and the green line is essentially perfectly set up to showcase this for implementation in other communities. i understand that busses also serve as feeders but bigger housing developments dont really appear along bus routes, it only really gets developed immediately around heavy rail stations
Density doesn't just come in the form of tall tower blocks. Quad-plexes, row-houses, and other low-rise multifamily buildings are all a lot more dense than you think, and the city is basically made from these. Nubian and Union Sq (Allston) are additionally both places with tall tower blocks that are (now) mainly served by buses, so again not really a universal truth.
So in terms of should we convert the GL branches to metro/heavy rail?
If we're building a new subway line out in GL territory, sticking to one branch only doesn't really make sense. Weaving between the branches makes new connections and allows you to hit Fenway, Coolidge Corner, Harvard Ave, and Union Sq Allston all at once. These are all very high ridership locations with existing density to build on, ideal for a subway line and future TOD. This arrangement would also allow the existing GL branches to act as feeders for this new line, while also retaining their role as surface light rail that continues into downtown, just as they have for over 100 years now. Once this is done they further capacity increases can be looked into, but ultimately anything drastic like converting the line to use high floor trains is probably not in the cards since so many of the stations, including Park St, are designed around people being able to freely cross the tracks. This basically means you need to build all-new stations, and therefore just building a new line instead that connects new destinations makes more sense rather than trying to keep milking the same cow again and again.
TL;DR: For cost reasons it's probably best to let the B/C branches of the GL keep doing their own thing. There's plenty of room for new capacity elsewhere.
this does disprove my point yes. i have to admit i see light rail as dinky so i dont really treat it fairly compared to heavy rail, ill work on that
Density doesn't just come in the form of tall tower blocks. Quad-plexes, row-houses, and other low-rise multifamily buildings are all a lot more dense than you think, and the city is basically made from these. Nubian and Union Sq (Allston) are additionally both places with tall tower blocks that are (now) mainly served by buses, so again not really a universal truth.
absolutely. Housing density is diverse and widespread, but what we need is new big job centers outside of downtown so we can continue to grow without reaching the inevitable hard cap on capicity like tokyo (i realise we're not getting there for a thousand years but i am using an extreme example) the red line is already absurdly crowded during rush hours and even with better frequency more people working downtown is not a solution. this already exists in the decentralized nature of back bay and the southwestern medical centers but obviously thats confounded by a lack of orbital networks not density.
If we're building a new subway line out in GL territory, sticking to one branch only doesn't really make sense. Weaving between the branches makes new connections and allows you to hit Fenway, Coolidge Corner, Harvard Ave, and Union Sq Allston all at once. These are all very high ridership locations with existing density to build on, ideal for a subway line and future TOD. This arrangement would also allow the existing GL branches to act as feeders for this new line, while also retaining their role as surface light rail that continues into downtown, just as they have for over 100 years now. Once this is done they further capacity increases can be looked into, but ultimately anything drastic like converting the line to use high floor trains is probably not in the cards since so many of the stations, including Park St, are designed around people being able to freely cross the tracks. This basically means you need to build all-new stations, and therefore just building a new line instead that connects new destinations makes more sense rather than trying to keep milking the same cow again and again.
TL;DR: For cost reasons it's probably best to let the B/C branches of the GL keep doing their own thing. There's plenty of room for new capacity elsewhere.
alright thank you for explaining, i didnt really understand that a heavy rail conversion entailed anything more then just lowering the rails by a few feet. i hadnt considered the park street track crossing because i dont use it much thats my bad.
i was attached to the idea of converting a majority of the green line into rolling stock compatible with the blue line and making a future spider-web network that uses this stock for better flexiblity, but again thats my personal bias towards heavy rail rather then actually wanting better flexibility because having a spider web network of light rail also achieves that goal
absolutely. Housing density is diverse and widespread, but what we need is new big job centers outside of downtown so we can continue to grow without reaching the inevitable hard cap on capicity like tokyo (i realise we're not getting there for a thousand years but i am using an extreme example) the red line is already absurdly crowded during rush hours and even with better frequency more people working downtown is not a solution. this already exists in the decentralized nature of back bay and the southwestern medical centers but obviously thats confounded by a lack of orbital networks not density.
The problem here is not a lack of polycentricity. Obviously Boston is no LA, but jobs in Boston are already spread out quite a bit. From healthcare jobs at MGH, BUMC, Tufts, and Longwood, to Universities at BU, BC, UMass, Harvard, MIT, Tufts (Somerville) and Huntington, to office towers in the Financial District, Back Bay, and Seaport, to the clusters of lab spaces at Alewife or Kendall, and to the ~20k jobs at Logan Airport, there is no shortage of employment concentrations in Boston. What's missing is an orbital link between them, which is why everyone keeps talking about the Urban Ring.
I mean, by capacity per train, you aren't wrong to see it as dinky*. I think the way in which light rail really can shine, though, is in flexibility. Heavy rail just doesn't branch as effectively as light rail can, which means a heavy rail system works best if it is exclusively in high density areas. But with LRT's branching abilities, it can work well in both lower density (along the branches) and higher density (along the trunk) scenarios.
* footnote to point out that much of the capacity question hinges on your analytical framework. As I acknowledge above, a single LRT train cannot hold as many people as a single HRT train. But if you look at passenger throughput, the numbers can shift substantially. The Green Line has 3,200 boardings per mile. That is comparable with HRT systems in Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, and Philadelphia. When the Type-10 cars come on line, the Green Line will double its capacity, which would make it feasible to handle as many boardings per mile as the current Red and Orange lines. A system with that kind of capacity in the trunk is not so distinguishable from a heavy rail system. And that brings us back to flexibility. The Green Line can also serve areas where ridership demand is lower. Other than just modernization, I don't see a need for a heavy rail transition.
): Teban54's analysis strongly suggests that there is demand for a Hyde Park <> LMA service:
