Reasonable Transit Pitches

AndrewOnTheMBTA said:
I am riding the D line to my office now, with my commute from Eastie to Newton being severed by the Sumner closure, and boy am I impressed by the speed of the D branch. I think I fully see how much inspiration to build a GLX there was from the D branch being a functioning light rail in Boston. Easy to construct and easy to ride too!

Thinking about how nice non-street-running green line branches are, what could be the next extension to be built in the GL light rail network?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the world of Green Line Reconfiguration. This is a popular line of proposals on this forum that aims to fundamentally transform MBTA's LRT network to its fullest potential, beyond what we know as Green Line today. Ideally, the revamped LRT system would include all of: legacy streetcars (B and C branches), a more modern LRT system similar to the D branch and GLX, and parts of the Urban Ring.

The quickest summary is the following two posts, which largely reflect what "modern" takes on Green Line Reconfiguration have converged to:
Below are the most common features of recent takes.

Downtown:
  • A Huntington-Seaport subway via Mission Park, LMA, Back Bay, Marginal Rd and South Station
  • Reactivation of the southern portion of Tremont St subway, from the outer tracks of Boylston station, through the old Pleasant St incline, to Nubian
  • An interchange at Bay Village to connect the two trunk lines (e.g. allowing Huntington-Park)
    • The three points above form the backbone of most modern GLR proposals.
  • Short-turning (most) Boylston St subway services (B, C, possibly A) at Park St inner loop, in order to not interfere with Tremont St subway and allow full capacity
New and extended southside branches:
  • D-E connector between Mission Park and Brookline Village, allowing the D to be rerouted via Huntington subway (thus full grade separation from Brookline Village to Symphony)
    • Some proposals have a connector via LMA
  • Branch to Needham Junction or Hersey, together with OL extension to West Roxbury
  • Branch to Harvard via West Station
  • Branch to Watertown or Oak Square
  • E branch extension to Hyde Park or Arborway
  • Branch to Nubian
  • Branch from Park St to Seaport via Bay Village
    • Some proposals do not have this, and instead send all Seaport trains west to Huntington
New and extended northside branches via Lechmere:
  • D branch extension to Porter, and possibly beyond (Watertown or Waltham)
  • E branch extension to Route 16, and possibly beyond
  • Branch to Grand Junction
    • Some proposals do not have this as part of the Green Line system, but instead an Urban Ring route that doesn't interfere with Lechmere or Government Center
  • Branch to Chelsea and Airport BL station via Sullivan
    • Some proposals do not connect this to Lechmere, but instead only to Grand Junction
Additional Urban Ring infrastructure:
  • Connection west of Grand Junction to West Station and somewhere to the southeast (BU, LMA etc)
    • May or may not interfere with Commonwealth Ave and part of the current D branch's Fenway and Longwood stations
  • Connection between Grand Junction and Chelsea branches, typically via an interchange at Brickbottom
  • Some way to implement southern half of Urban Ring, either as LRT or BRT
Of course, most of these do not fit into our current thread, "Reasonable Transit Pitches". I agree with others that the most reasonable ones are Needham and Porter; I'd also add a GLX one-stop extension to Route 16 to the list.
 
Last edited:
Riverside said:
100% I think the likeliest next extension will be to Needham. If the stars align, maybe a short extension of the E to Hyde Square might come first, but I think that's less likely.
Click to expand...

I agree that Needham is the most likely GL extension, but I think the most likely LRT extension is from Mattapan. Many of the stars are aligned on timing and it seems politically much easier to get done.

The optics of "bringing rapid transit to Needham and West Roxbury and more to Newton" beyond OLX+1 aren't great either, possibly to the point that it needs to be paired with SCR2.
 
Teban54 said:
Welcome to the world of Green Line Reconfiguration. This is a popular line of proposals on this forum that aims to fundamentally transform MBTA's LRT network to its fullest potential, beyond what we know as Green Line today. Ideally, the revamped LRT system would include all of: legacy streetcars (B and C branches), a more modern LRT system similar to the D branch and GLX, and parts of the Urban Ring.

The quickest summary is the following two posts, which largely reflect what "modern" takes on Green Line Reconfiguration have converged to:
Below are the most common features of recent takes.

Downtown:
  • A Huntington-Seaport subway via Mission Park, LMA, Back Bay, Marginal Rd and South Station
  • Reactivation of the southern portion of Tremont St subway, from the outer tracks of Boylston station, through the old Pleasant St incline, to Nubian
  • An interchange at Bay Village to connect the two trunk lines (e.g. allowing Huntington-Park)
    • The three points above form the backbone of most modern GLR proposals.
  • Short-turning (most) Boylston St subway services (B, C, possibly A) at Park St inner loop, in order to not interfere with Tremont St subway and allow full capacity
New and extended southside branches:
  • D-E connector between Mission Park and Brookline Village, allowing the D to be rerouted via Huntington subway (thus full grade separation from Brookline Village to Symphony)
    • Some proposals have a connector via LMA
  • Branch to Needham Junction or Hersey, together with OL extension to West Roxbury
  • Branch to Harvard via West Station
  • Branch to Watertown or Oak Square
  • E branch extension to Hyde Park or Arborway
  • Branch to Nubian
  • Branch from Park St to Seaport via Bay Village
    • Some proposals do not have this, and instead send all Seaport trains west to Huntington
New and extended northside branches via Lechmere:
  • D branch extension to Porter, and possibly beyond (Watertown or Waltham)
  • E branch extension to Route 16, and possibly beyond
  • Branch to Grand Junction
    • Some proposals do not have this as part of the Green Line system, but instead an Urban Ring route that doesn't interfere with Lechmere or Government Center
  • Branch to Chelsea and Airport BL station via Sullivan
    • Some proposals do not connect this to Lechmere, but instead only to Grand Junction
Additional Urban Ring infrastructure:
  • Connection west of Grand Junction to West Station and somewhere to the southeast (BU, LMA etc)
    • May or may not interfere with Commonwealth Ave and part of the current D branch's Fenway and Longwood stations
  • Connection between Grand Junction and Chelsea branches, typically via an interchange at Brickbottom
  • Some way to implement southern half of Urban Ring, either as LRT or BRT
Of course, most of these do not fit into our current thread, "Reasonable Transit Pitches". I agree with others that the most reasonable ones are Needham and Porter; I'd also add a GLX one-stop extension to Route 16 to the list.
Click to expand...
An excellent summary, bravo!

The short-term "Reasonable Transit Pitch" version of the Green Line Reconfiguration is an extension of the reservation on Huntington, plus the construction of a surface D-E connector. (I suspect that "Green to Needham" will get sandbagged by bad-faith complaints about lack of capacity in the Central Subway, and a D-E connector would help mitigate that.) Inching closer and closer to a dedicated Huntington Ave rapid transit line really sits at the heart of the Reconfiguration concept, so an extended reservation and D-E connector moves us further in that direction.
737900er said:
I agree that Needham is the most likely GL extension, but I think the most likely LRT extension is from Mattapan. Many of the stars are aligned on timing and it seems politically much easier to get done.

The optics of "bringing rapid transit to Needham and West Roxbury and more to Newton" beyond OLX+1 aren't great either, possibly to the point that it needs to be paired with SCR2.
Click to expand...
Interesting, what kind of Mattapan extension are you envisioning?
 
737900er said:
The optics of "bringing rapid transit to Needham and West Roxbury and more to Newton" beyond OLX+1 aren't great either, possibly to the point that it needs to be paired with SCR2.
Click to expand...
If it's pitched as "freeing up capacity on the Southwest Corridor for electrified Providence Line (and SCR2 if applicable)", it has a decent shot IMO.
 
Riverside said:
The short-term "Reasonable Transit Pitch" version of the Green Line Reconfiguration is an extension of the reservation on Huntington, plus the construction of a surface D-E connector. (I suspect that "Green to Needham" will get sandbagged by bad-faith complaints about lack of capacity in the Central Subway, and a D-E connector would help mitigate that.) Inching closer and closer to a dedicated Huntington Ave rapid transit line really sits at the heart of the Reconfiguration concept, so an extended reservation and D-E connector moves us further in that direction.
Click to expand...
Thinking about it again, I think that's a valid point in itself, and should be something to consider when it comes to planning the Needham GL conversion.

Adding a Needham branch anytime in the foreseeable future will make the Green Line have 5 branches that all share tracks east of Copley. This will likely indeed cause issues with capacity, headway and reliability that affect all branches (maybe except Fenway-Newton Highlands). The problem will persist until the Back Bay-Bay Village-Tremont subway is completed, so that some Kenmore branches can be short-turned at Park St and cease to create bottlenecks.

The only workarounds are short-turning one of the Needham, Riverside and even Cleveland Circle branches at Kenmore, but none of them is politically feasible, as all three have one-seat rides to downtown today. As you said, running the D and/or* Needham via Huntington will mitigate it, but you'll still have 5 branches between Copley and Park, and if anything, it may worsen the situation at Copley junction.

* Likely only one branch to Huntington initially, in order to maintain service to Fenway and Longwood stations

Someone more knowledgeable than me may need to do the calculations about capacity, but I fear that it may be a real bottleneck in Needham branch materializing. And while the thought of a Huntington subway extension and D-E connector being triggered by the need of a Needham branch - possibly even being built before it - sounds intriguing, I doubt there's much chance for this to happen, since it has not been on the mainstream radar nor studied before.

(Slightly off-topic: In a world where we can build a Huntington-Seaport subway in one go, the Needham branch would have been a perfect candidate to be sent to Seaport, maintaining the current one-seat ride to South Station. But that's not happening.)
 
Last edited:
Riverside said:
Interesting, what kind of Mattapan extension are you envisioning?
Click to expand...
It's proposed in the city's Mattapan Square planning documents, as an extension of the current line from Mattapan to Readville. I'm not clear on the routing, whether it would go via River St., or utilize the Fairmont ROW.
 
HenryAlan said:
It's proposed in the city's Mattapan Square planning documents, as an extension of the current line from Mattapan to Readville. I'm not clear on the routing, whether it would go via River St., or utilize the Fairmont ROW.
Click to expand...

Fairmount as it is would probably be faster just because it's a much more direct route.
 
Teban54 said:
Thinking about it again, I think that's a valid point in itself, and should be something to consider when it comes to planning the Needham GL conversion.

Adding a Needham branch anytime in the foreseeable future will make the Green Line have 5 branches that all share tracks east of Copley. This will likely indeed cause issues with capacity, headway and reliability that affect all branches (maybe except Fenway-Newton Highlands). The problem will persist until the Back Bay-Bay Village-Tremont subway is completed, so that some Kenmore branches can be short-turned at Park St and cease to create bottlenecks.

The only workarounds are short-turning one of the Needham, Riverside and even Cleveland Circle branches at Kenmore, but none of them is politically feasible, as all three have one-seat rides to downtown today. As you said, running the D and/or* Needham via Huntington will mitigate it, but you'll still have 5 branches between Copley and Park, and if anything, it may worsen the situation at Copley junction.

* Likely only one branch to Huntington initially, in order to maintain service to Fenway and Longwood stations

Someone more knowledgeable than me may need to do the calculations about capacity, but I fear that it may be a real bottleneck in Needham branch materializing. And while the thought of a Huntington subway extension and D-E connector being triggered by the need of a Needham branch - possibly even being built before it - sounds intriguing, I doubt there's much chance for this to happen, since it has not been on the mainstream radar nor studied before.

(Slightly off-topic: In a world where we can build a Huntington-Seaport subway in one go, the Needham branch would have been a perfect candidate to be sent to Seaport, maintaining the current one-seat ride to South Station. But that's not happening.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess I was a little careless with my words. The substance of the capacity complaint may be valid, I just was (cynically) saying that the valid complaint will be used in bad faith.

I imagine that in a D-E connector world, the 20 tph currently consumed by the D and E would get divvied up between Riverside, Needham, and Heath, probably not evenly. The simplest way to envision this would be to reroute half of E trains to Needham:
  • 12-min freq to Needham
  • 6-min freq to Riverside
  • 12-min freq to Heath
(Worth noting that, on the one hand, the VA Medical Center is roughly a six minute walk from Riverway, which normally would be considered comfortably within the walkshed; however, given the more vulnerable population served by the VA Medical Center, having some level of front-door service remains important.)

6 min probably slightly overserves Riverside, and 12 min probably slightly underserves Heath, so probably you'd want to tweak these a bit -- perhaps swap 1 or 2 Riverside trains per hour out through Heath instead. Those dropped Riverside trains could be supplemented by short-turns at Kenmore, which I think could be feasible.

(Needham is jumping from one train per hour to sub-15 min freqs, so I think 12 min isn't an unreasonable starting point. The three Needham stops currently see a little bit more ridership combined than uses Riverside alone, so I also don't think throughput would be a problem on Day 1.)

But also, keep in mind that a surface D-E connector could easily serve as an Aldgate Junction (actually a dual Aldgate Junction), meaning that 12-min Park St <> Heath frequencies could be supplemented by trains coming from Kenmore and/or Reservoir. (Kenmore would require a somewhat fancier junction at Brookline Village, but a Reservoir <> Heath service would simply require a third leg to the junction at the intersection of Huntington + South Huntington.)

Finally, it's worth remembering that 5 branches is not actually a huge problem. Assuming one branch turns at Park St, we know the Green Line has historically handled 40 trains per hour. 40 divided by 4 branches yields 6-min freqs; 40 divided by 5 branches yields 7.5-min freqs, which is still comfortably within turn-up-and-go, and I suspect would not raise the ire of the community. Especially after this last year on the T... reliable 7.5 min frequencies probably sound pretty good:

1689003510225.png

1689003475132.png

1689003540837.png

1689003575259.png


So, yeah. Particularly if the fifth branch is to Needham, I'm not super convinced that adding a fifth branch creates an immediate capacity concern. The T would definitely still need to keep their eye on the ball and continue work on a long-term plan to fix Copley Junction (e.g. a subway to Pleasant St via Back Bay), but I don't think it needs to be a show-stopper.

(Also, bleh those headways on June 14 [chosen at random] at absolutely dreadful, especially on the E. What even is this?)
 
Riverside said:
Yeah, I guess I was a little careless with my words. The substance of the capacity complaint may be valid, I just was (cynically) saying that the valid complaint will be used in bad faith.

I imagine that in a D-E connector world, the 20 tph currently consumed by the D and E would get divvied up between Riverside, Needham, and Heath, probably not evenly. The simplest way to envision this would be to reroute half of E trains to Needham:
  • 12-min freq to Needham
  • 6-min freq to Riverside
  • 12-min freq to Heath
(Worth noting that, on the one hand, the VA Medical Center is roughly a six minute walk from Riverway, which normally would be considered comfortably within the walkshed; however, given the more vulnerable population served by the VA Medical Center, having some level of front-door service remains important.)

6 min probably slightly overserves Riverside, and 12 min probably slightly underserves Heath, so probably you'd want to tweak these a bit -- perhaps swap 1 or 2 Riverside trains per hour out through Heath instead. Those dropped Riverside trains could be supplemented by short-turns at Kenmore, which I think could be feasible.

(Needham is jumping from one train per hour to sub-15 min freqs, so I think 12 min isn't an unreasonable starting point. The three Needham stops currently see a little bit more ridership combined than uses Riverside alone, so I also don't think throughput would be a problem on Day 1.)

But also, keep in mind that a surface D-E connector could easily serve as an Aldgate Junction (actually a dual Aldgate Junction), meaning that 12-min Park St <> Heath frequencies could be supplemented by trains coming from Kenmore and/or Reservoir. (Kenmore would require a somewhat fancier junction at Brookline Village, but a Reservoir <> Heath service would simply require a third leg to the junction at the intersection of Huntington + South Huntington.)

Finally, it's worth remembering that 5 branches is not actually a huge problem. Assuming one branch turns at Park St, we know the Green Line has historically handled 40 trains per hour. 40 divided by 4 branches yields 6-min freqs; 40 divided by 5 branches yields 7.5-min freqs, which is still comfortably within turn-up-and-go, and I suspect would not raise the ire of the community. Especially after this last year on the T... reliable 7.5 min frequencies probably sound pretty good:

View attachment 40086
View attachment 40085
View attachment 40087
View attachment 40088

So, yeah. Particularly if the fifth branch is to Needham, I'm not super convinced that adding a fifth branch creates an immediate capacity concern. The T would definitely still need to keep their eye on the ball and continue work on a long-term plan to fix Copley Junction (e.g. a subway to Pleasant St via Back Bay), but I don't think it needs to be a show-stopper.

(Also, bleh those headways on June 14 [chosen at random] at absolutely dreadful, especially on the E. What even is this?)
Click to expand...
Gotcha, I realized I overlooked the fact that with a D-E connector, you can basically "sideline" the Heath St branch, whose only unique area of catchment would be Heath St itself (which still has an okay 820 boardings in 2014, comparable to an average station on the C). This does allow you to move some, if not most, Heath trains to Needham.

Moving some Riverside trains to Needham wouldn't be crazy either, as you've alluded to. However, I'm not sure where you got "the three Needham stops currently see a little bit more ridership combined than uses Riverside alone" from: Needham Heights through Hersey have 1,440 inbound boardings and 1,467 outbound alightings in 2018, compared to 2,241 at Riverside alone in 2014, and 4,557 from Riverside to Eliot (almost as much as Chestnut Hill through Newton Highlands). Needham's ridership will likely improve with better service, but still.

Using 35 tph as a starting point (which appears to match the current peak frequency of 6-8 min per branch), I think the following schedule may be workable:
  • 8 tph to Boston College (7.5-min freq)
    • Can add more if there's excess capacity
  • 8 tph to Cleveland Circle (7.5-min freq)
  • 8 tph to Riverside via Kenmore (7.5-min freq)
    • Combined 2.5-min freq at Kenmore and Hynes
    • Can probably move some Riverside trains to B and C, but on the other hand, it's also valuable to maintain good service at Fenway and Longwood stations
  • 6 tph to Needham Junction via Huntington (10-min freq)
    • Combined 4.3-min freq between Newton Highlands and Brookline Village, which may be overkill
    • Alternatively, 7 tph to both Riverside and Needham, for 8.6-min freq on each branch
  • 5 tph to Heath St (12-min freq)
    • Combined 5.5-min freq on Huntington, which is a massive improvement from today's E branch
    • IMO Heath St alone can even do with 4 tph (15-min freq), but this leaves room for a Hyde Park extension
With the following supplements:
  • Up to 3 tph between Heath St and Kenmore via Brookline Village
    • Combined frequency up to 7.5 min at Heath St
  • Up to 2 tph between Needham Junction and Kenmore
    • Combined frequency up to 7.5 min at Needham Junction
But yeah, I see that it would likely not be workable without a D-E connector (in which case you have to split all Fenway trains between Riverside and Needham).

PS. Hersey station has surprisingly good ridership, especially for a station that most GL conversion proposals eliminate. 522 inbound boardings in 2018, the highest on the entire Needham line, higher than any of the other 3 Needham stations and West Roxbury-Roslindale stations, and 36% of ridership in Needham. Its share gets even higher during PM peak. Has there been any discussions on why that's the case?
 
Last edited:
Teban54 said:
PS. Hersey station has surprisingly good ridership, especially for a station that most GL conversion proposals eliminate. 522 inbound boardings in 2018, the highest on the entire Needham line, higher than any of the other 3 Needham stations and West Roxbury-Roslindale stations, and 36% of ridership in Needham. Its share gets even higher during PM peak. Has there been any discussions on why that's the case?
Click to expand...
I think the thought is that Hersey ridership doesn't increase with an RT conversion. It's a pretty residential area, right by Rt 128, so it basically just serves 9-5 commuters to CBD. The inner Needham Line stations, which would become Orange Line under this scenario are areas with substantial transit ridership on other modes, all of which would also convert to an RT option. Less sure about the rest of Needham, but I do think the station locations lend themselves somewhat to drawing people from elsewhere on the Green Line to shop, work, or dine. In fact, all of the Needham Line stations have that potential with Hersey being the single exception.
 
Teban54 said:
However, I'm not sure where you got "the three Needham stops currently see a little bit more ridership combined than uses Riverside alone" from: Needham Heights through Hersey have 1,440 inbound boardings and 1,467 outbound alightings in 2018, compared to 2,241 at Riverside alone in 2014, and 4,557 from Riverside to Eliot (almost as much as Chestnut Hill through Newton Highlands). Needham's ridership will likely improve with better service, but still.
Click to expand...
Ah, sorry. I meant Riverside station itself is similar in ridership to the three Needhams. Yes, Riverside <> Eliot has higher ridership than the current Needham Jct <> Needham Heights, which is why I was suggesting that the Riverside branch could merit higher frequencies than Needham in the short-term. (In the long-term, I think Needham's ridership will explode, but that's a separate discussion.)

Using 35 tph as a starting point (which appears to match the current peak frequency of 6-8 min per branch), I think the following schedule may be workable:
  • 8 tph to Boston College (7.5-min freq)
    • Can add more if there's excess capacity
  • 8 tph to Cleveland Circle (7.5-min freq)
  • 8 tph to Riverside via Kenmore (7.5-min freq)
    • Combined 2.5-min freq at Kenmore and Hynes
    • Can probably move some Riverside trains to B and C, but on the other hand, it's also valuable to maintain good service at Fenway and Longwood stations
  • 6 tph to Needham Junction via Huntington (10-min freq)
    • Combined 4.3-min freq between Newton Highlands and Brookline Village, which may be overkill
    • Alternatively, 7 tph to both Riverside and Needham, for 8.6-min freq on each branch
  • 5 tph to Heath St (12-min freq)
    • Combined 5.5-min freq on Huntington, which is a massive improvement from today's E branch
    • IMO Heath St alone can even do with 4 tph (15-min freq), but this leaves room for a Hyde Park extension
With the following supplements:
  • Up to 3 tph between Heath St and Kenmore via Brookline Village
    • Combined frequency up to 7.5 min at Heath St
  • Up to 2 tph between Needham Junction and Kenmore
    • Combined frequency up to 7.5 min at Needham Junction
But yeah, I see that it would likely not be workable without a D-E connector (in which case you have to split all Fenway trains between Riverside and Needham).
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is a good example of how I would potentially do the spread. And yes -- the 6 + 5 tph on Huntington using D-E plus Needham service is a good example of how the relatively small build of a D-E connector can lead to significant improvements across the network.

PS. Hersey station has surprisingly good ridership, especially for a station that most GL conversion proposals eliminate. 522 inbound boardings in 2018, the highest on the entire Needham line, higher than any of the other 3 Needham stations and West Roxbury-Roslindale stations, and 36% of ridership in Needham. Its share gets even higher during PM peak. Has there been any discussions on why that's the case?
Click to expand...
I believe @F-Line to Dudley's theory is that it's purely from park-n-ride ridership, which is consistent with the lot being 100% utilized in 2018 and the smaller lot at Junction being mostly full, and the smallest lot at Heights being partially full (longest travel time on the train): https://www.ctps.org/data/pdf/programs/cmp/park-and-ride-memo-2017-2018.pdf#page=46

[EDIT to add: yeah I agree with @HenryAlan's take as well. Hersey is probably capped out, until/unless the parking lot is replaced with TOD.]

The thinking is that new Green Line station(s) at the 128 crossing near Gould St would mop up some of it. The numbers you linked to are interesting though. The 2014 Bluebook shows a similar number of boardings to the 2018 passenger survey for Hersey, but the Bluebook shows numbers at Center and Heights that are 3 or 4 times the passenger survey. So... that's a bit uncertain there.

My feeling about Hersey is that there are a range of possibilities, but all of them result in a potentially solvable problem.

1) Commuter Rail continues to serve Hersey (e.g. as a terminal) until OLX arrives
1) a) at which point OLX can either extend to Hersey or can close the station or replace it with a P-n-R at Millennium Park

2) Green Line extends around to Hersey and we just live with it

3) A Mattapan-style shuttle service pings back and forth between Hersey and Needham Junction and/or the OLX terminus

In all cases, it's a solvable problem.
 
Also, assuming single car T10's with a capacity of 400 passengers, one hour's worth of inbound Green Line trains at 10-min frequencies (6 tph) comes out to 2400 passengers.

Which means that one hour's worth of trains would easily be able to mop up the 1400 inbound riders from all four stations in Needham (according to the 2018 survey). The higher numbers in the Bluebook -- 2900 -- would take a bit more than 7 trains' worth, and could be buzzed through in 1h10m or 1h20m.

In reality, the morning rush gets smeared out over about 2 hours (departing Needham between 6am and 8am), during which there will be capacity for 4800 passengers leaving Needham during that time. So there should be plenty of capacity and room to grow. (And if they run double-car T10 super trains, there's no contest.)
 
HenryAlan said:
It's proposed in the city's Mattapan Square planning documents, as an extension of the current line from Mattapan to Readville. I'm not clear on the routing, whether it would go via River St., or utilize the Fairmont ROW.
Click to expand...
Do you by chance have a link? Google is failing me. It's definitely an interesting idea. And could live in harmony with an HRT extension to Mattapan Square -- the "Mattapan High Speed Line" simply becomes Mattapan <> Readville instead of Mattapan <> Ashmont.
 
HenryAlan said:
It's proposed in the city's Mattapan Square planning documents, as an extension of the current line from Mattapan to Readville. I'm not clear on the routing, whether it would go via River St., or utilize the Fairmont ROW.
Click to expand...
As I recall, that section of the Fairmount ROW is wide enough to fit in an additional two tracks, so I think extending the Mattapan-Ashmont LRV line to Readville via the Fairmount line would be feasible.
 
PITCH: Reduce trip times & increase accessibility with new station entrances at:
(starter list off the top of my head)
1) OL: Sullivan Square, West Side
2) Lowell: Anderson Woburn, West Side
3) GLX: Union Square, Boynton Yards End
4) OL: Ruggles, South Side (Ruggles St)
...
What do you want? Nearly all of the above cut 3 to 10 minutes from a trip
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
PITCH: Reduce trip times & accessibility with new station entrances at:
(starter list off the top of my head)
1) OL: Sullivan Square, West Side
2) Lowell: Anderson Woburn, West Side
3) GLX: Union Square, Boynton Yards End
4) OL: Ruggles, South Side (Ruggles St)
...
What do you want? Nearly all of the above cut 3 to 10 minutes from a trip
Click to expand...

OL: Back Bay, East Side. Convert Columbus Ave headhouse from exit only to both exit and entrance.

OL: Mass Ave, South Side. Convert inaccessible exit onto footbridge between Northeastern and Camden St into full-fledged, accessible entrance/exit.

OL: Stony Brook, South Side. Deck over a bit more of the Southwest Corridor tracks, south of the basketball court. Put the headhouse where the basketball court, benches, and small garden are, and put a new basketball court, benches, and small garden on the extended deck. Heck, extend the deck all the way to New Minton and have a greatly expanded parkland.
 
Last edited:
RL: JFK/UMass, South Side. Convert inaccessible exit/footbridge to accessible entrance/exit. Would provide a faster/more direct ped connection from Crescent Ave to Morrissey Blvd + bus loop + CR + supermarket.

GLX: East Somerville, East Side. Accessible connection to Joy St. (and ideally proper northside accessible station exit to Washington St. (baffling oversight/cut given this is a new station))

OL: Sullivan Square, West Side. Repeating for emphasis/agreement ‼

GL: Hynes, East Side. Boylston exit/entrance. (pretty sure this is included with a development?)

Fairmount: Uphams Corner, North Side. E Cottage St exit/entrance.

Lowell: Anderson/Woburn, West Side. Entrance/exit to New Boston St.

Lowell: Lowell, South + West Sides. Hale St + Chelmsford St entrances/exits
 
bigeman312 said:
OL: Mass Ave, South Side. Convert inaccessible exit onto footbridge between Northeastern and Camden St into full-fledged, accessible entrance/exit.
Click to expand...
This one is happening.

Elevator Accessibility Upgrades | Projects | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top