Crazy Transit Pitches

[Equilibria]

With MassDOT planning on rebuilding the I-90 interchange in Allston to open up developable land and Harvard expanding out that way why not have a branch off the B Line that would swing up through this area before it gets developed. This would basically be the first part of the Urban Ring but one that wouldn't require vast new tunnels or running through existing neighborhoods.

I had a street plan for replacing the interchange (which I abandoned to support davem's much better plan) that did exactly that, though since you're a better mapmaker it looks prettier in this version .

The problem with this idea is that until you get all the way to Harvard it's kind of stubby and probably hurts operations without adding much. Whatever gets built in Lower Allston should have a ped bridge to access the B Line as it is, while the rest of the line runs through Harvard, which really wants it but which might not be dense enough or all-hours enough to deserve it. Other than Harvard State Penitentiary, I don't think they plan for a lot of students to live on the Allston campus.

Once you connect to Harvard, it's a really good idea, but that might take decades. I'm also curious about how to keep the bus tunnel functioning with the light rail. If you want to keep the buses there and also keep the rail underground the whole time, how do you preserve the portal while cutting in for the trains?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I had a street plan for replacing the interchange (which I abandoned to support davem's much better plan) that did exactly that, though since you're a better mapmaker it looks prettier in this version .

The problem with this idea is that until you get all the way to Harvard it's kind of stubby and probably hurts operations without adding much. Whatever gets built in Lower Allston should have a ped bridge to access the B Line as it is, while the rest of the line runs through Harvard, which really wants it but which might not be dense enough or all-hours enough to deserve it. Other than Harvard State Penitentiary, I don't think they plan for a lot of students to live on the Allston campus.

Once you connect to Harvard, it's a really good idea, but that might take decades. I'm also curious about how to keep the bus tunnel functioning with the light rail. If you want to keep the buses there and also keep the rail underground the whole time, how do you preserve the portal while cutting in for the trains?

You probably don't go in the tunnel and have a surface turnback near Brattle Sq. at the current TT idling spot, and tap-off a timed transfer to Red. Too much back-tracking required going through the bus tunnel and fighting through traffic to backtrack all the way through Cambridge Common and the side streets.

Now, if the intent is to eventually do a grade separated run by. . .

-- Going around the Stadium and tunneling under the Charles
-- Splitting the JFK complex through the middle and entering the abandoned Red Line tunnel at the Bennett/Brattle/Eliot corner, where space was left between building foundations to future-proof a cut-and-cover.
-- Pulling up to a stub terminal right on the other side of the wall at the bottom of the main-entrance stairs.


. . .you can easily put up with this fugly surface turnback for 20 years. So long as you have a plan to eventually EIS and fund something properly grade separated without backing out. If your N. Harvard stop is next to the Ohiri Field grass prior to turning onto N. Harvard, 1/2 mile of street-running through 4 traffic lights only has to serve 1 curbside stop. That's doable if you can do the timed transfer.

You'd probably want to keep it fully grade separated throughout Allston by wiggling around Beacon Park, slipping under the Cambridge St. overpass on the space occupied by the former Romar Transportation freight siding, then bridge over Rotterdam and Western. That keeps any penalty from the street-running leg nice and taut. When it's time to build the portal alignment you just overpass N. Harvard and circle the Stadium on-alignment to the portal and the Kennedy School courtyard + abandoned tunnel.


FWIW...the Urban Ring BRT branch plan didn't look too much different from this surface stop. I don't think that was going in the bus tunnel either because of the amount of back-tracking required at Cambridge Common to get back over the river. So the 'fugly' short-term workaround really isn't so fugly in the real planning world.

 

[Deetroyt]

I actually think this is fairly reasonable, but maybe it belongs in Crazy transit pitches. The E line tunnel would be continued from Symphony and portal to the surface right before Brigham Circle. This would only require 3 underground stations after Symphony, 1. Northeastern, 2. MFA and 3. Longwood. In this scenario I'd like to keep Brigham Circle as surface for a couple of reasons. D-E connector would still be viable in this scenario, as would E to Heath (or Hyde, or Arborway, etc.). But more importantly, if Brookline village was reconfigured such that trains from Kenmore could turn onto Huntington, I would then have trains coming from BV turn east at Brigham Circle and go street running down Tremont St. to Roxbury crossing. This is only half a mile of street running, and signal priority could be included for the 2 lights it would hit on Tremont. After Roxbury Crossing, it would then have a reservation east down Malcolm X Blvd to Dudley Sq (I even have it going down Roxbury st. to cut into the bus depot behind the new Public Schools bldg). It would continue north on Washington st. (obviously Washington would need to have greenline running down a reservation in the center) and then turn east on Melnea Cass, still in a reservation. It then turns southeast on Mass Ave. towards Newmarket. After crossing under the bridge it would turn right and follow Fairmount line in the industrial parking lot and run alongside Norfolk ave to the Columbia/Mass ave. intersection. It stays in a reservation on Columbia to JFK/Umass station. You'll notice the line down Mass Ave from Melnea Cass to Newmarket is thinner, this is because there is only one rail in the reservation. Return trains turn right after going under the bridge at Newmarket until turning left on Southampton back to the Melnea Cass/Mass Ave/Southampton intersection. I did this because I didn't think either Mass Ave or Southampton could fit a reservation for 2 tracks, I just don't know if either is wide enough. This would be the southern UR, with stops (from East to West) at 1. JFK/Umass, 2. Columbia/Mass Ave intersection, 3. Newmarket, 4. Melnea Cass/Mass Ave/Southampton intersection, 5. Melnea Cass/Washington intersection, 6. Dudley Sq., 7. Roxbury Crossing, 8. Brigham Circle, where it rejoins the E to Brookline Village.

There would need to be some property takings along Norfolk Ave where its running on those empty parking lots after Newmarket, and I don't know for certain if Malcolm X, Melnea Cass or Columbia is wide enough for a reservation, but from Google streetview it looks like they might be. If LRV urban ring ever uses the Kenmore-BV-Brigham Circle boomerang, Brigham Circle would need to stay a surface stop (unless Tremont St. between Brigham and Rox Crossing got tunneled). Anyways, would like to hear your thoughts on this if you have any?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Tunneling to Brigham would probably be a Phase I under any burial plan, so for purposes of getting anything done in the future that is probably a first step you have to eventually do and digest before going further. Tunnel itself is cheap under the reservation; it's of course the stations that are going to drive up the price (I'm going to take a reliable guess that Northeastern is going to push for 'palatial' instead of a couple more quaint little Symphony setups). And yes, Brigham does need to become a surface Blandford-like stop if you're portaling-up.

What you may want to do is cut 1 subway stop out of that. Entrance-to-entrance spacing Kenmore-Hynes, Hynes-Copley, Copley-Arlington, Arlington-Boylston, and Copley-Prudential averages about 1900-2000 ft. shortest walking distance (Kenmore-Hynes the high outlier, Copley-Arlington the low outlier if the Berkeley St. entrance is open). Pru-Symphony and Symphony-Northeastern are only 1350 ft. entrance-to-entrance or subway entrance-to-surface crosswalk, and the other E reservation stops keep to 1200-1300 ft. between nearest station crosswalks. Subway headhouses on both sides of the street save the need for a crosswalk and light cycles at a crosswalk, so the spacing needs are a little bit apples/oranges surface vs. subway. And the platform placement underground does not have to correspond with any particular block...the headhouses do.


So with that in mind. . .

Northeastern
-- Place the platform under the Forsyth St.-Forsyth Way block.
-- 4 headhouses, 2 across-the-street pairs flanking both ends of the platform, Arlington-style (albeit without such a long Berkeley-equivalent walkway). This will be a crush-load station every hour between classes so the separate fare lobbies helps swallow the short-duration crowds.
-- 1 pair of non-invasive Arlington-style easterly stair+elevator headhouses on the corner of the Speare Diamond grass and that little patch of grass across the street, literally staring mid-block at the current surface platform.
-- 1 pair of westerly headhouses on the corner of the MFA's front lawn, and diagonal across the street at Hallenborg Way.

Congratulations, you just consolidated 1 stop without making anyone at either stop walk longer distance when crosswalk time gets factored in.


Longwood
-- Underground platform more or less where the current platform is.
-- 1 fare lobby at one end with 1 pair of across-street headhouses.
-- Headhouse in front of Mass College of Art, likely grafted on/into the building. Across-street headhouse in front of this park at the Ward St./St. Alphonsus corner.

Absolute zero change in walking distance for Longwood station patrons.


Brigham (surface)
-- As-is, except the staggered inbound platform gets moved up across from the outbound platform and the Wigglesworth St./Hospital crosswalk has to get moved to the Worthington block (better spacing anyway) because the portal mouth goes at Wigglesworth.




When it is time to do Phase II to Brookline Village, your subway stops would be. . .

Brigham
-- Platform more or less underneath the circle.
-- 1 lobby.
-- Across-street headhouses opposite ends of the circle. Any opposite ends will do.


Mission Park/Riverway
-- Platform wherever it best fits between the 2 current stops on the Parker Hill Ave.-Riverway block. Location subject to change depending on tunnel alignment into Brookline Village.
-- Probably only 1 side-of-street headhouse, given difficulty of doing across-street pairs around the row houses.
-- 2000 ft. entrance-to-entrance spacing is the gas station at Riverway. Pros: Can loop buses and/or South Huntington trolleys on the surface right in front of the headhouse in an efficient transfer setup, more ridership, immediate Emerald Necklace path connectivity (good bike cage station candidate). Cons: only about 1200 ft. walking distance to Brookline Village station.
-- 1600 ft. entrance-to-entrance spacing is the courtyard in front of Mission Park (knock out that last chunk of brick wall by the driveway and it's all grass in a 100'x100'x100' triangle. Pros: more even station spacing between Brigham and BV. Cons: less transit connectivity, very low ridership for a subway stop, Mission Park residents may have a legit beef about a headhouse with a view into their rear bedroom windows.
-- NOTE: Depending on tunnel alignment to BV you may for engineering reasons be locked into one station entrance location to exclusion of the other, so cover your butt by gaming out either option.


I think if I had to choose and the engineering left me with a choice I'd take the gas station with surface transfer because it's got multiple transit lines, a busy corner, path connectivity, more breathing room, and less abutter concerns. Even if it is a little close to BV. If BV's going to be the line-split superstation and Urban Ring anchor, I don't think it's that big a deal to have Back Bay-Prudential like spacing between the major station and the very minor station. But engineering/EIS for the tunnel will probably answer that station siting debate conclusively one way or the other, so probably not worth worrying about today.

 

[MBTAddict]

If and when I become a billionaire, I'm going to maneuver my way into control of state politics, make a personal donation to MassDOT and the MBTA, and give F-Line to reins.

 

[Deetroyt]

If and when I become a billionaire, I'm going to maneuver my way into control of state politics, make a personal donation to MassDOT and the MBTA, and give F-Line to reins.

I second this!

 

[thinkbiggerboston]

Van, how is the Harvard-BLine connector better than the Harvard-West Station-Back Bay DMU Connector described on your site (2/3 down the page)?

 

[Matthew]

This is changing the subject away from the D-E but I had an interesting thought when it comes to the Green Line.

With MassDOT planning on rebuilding the I-90 interchange in Allston to open up developable land and Harvard expanding out that way why not have a branch off the B Line that would swing up through this area before it gets developed. This would basically be the first part of the Urban Ring but one that wouldn't require vast new tunnels or running through existing neighborhoods.

This route follows the proposed path of "Stadium Way" a roadway that Harvard has proposed for connectivity between Cambridge Street and North Harvard Street, and that we would like to see built prior to the opening of the new interchange. A busway has been considered in the past for Stadium Way and running a streetcar on it would certainly work too. The biggest thing that sinks your plan besides the Charles River crossing is that there are no plans to build an additional vehicular crossing of the Pike. We asked them to investigate it and DOT came back and claimed that the grades were to steep. You can ask dave about that too.

We can continue to push for a vehicular crossing. I think a busway/LRV connection would be great for crosstown transit. A full bridge capable of handling private cars would work too, with a reservation for buses. That would relieve Harvard Ave a great deal. But I don't know if it can happen, and I don't know how much BU would fight such a plan if it were ever looking like it might go somewhere. Such a crossing would probably be found at Malvern, Babcock, or maybe Buick Street vicinity.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Van, how is the Harvard-BLine connector better than the Harvard-West Station-Back Bay DMU Connector described on your site (2/3 down the page)?

DMU is great for basic service but if you are planning a new neighborhood why not make the backbone light rail? DMU will only ever serve so many people that area trying to get between South Station/Financial District and Allston. A light rail line would connect more people to more places via the existing Green Line.

It's more a variation of the Urban Ring. I've always envisioned the Urban Ring as a way to modernize the Green Line and turn it into an entire light rail network in and of itself. The idea is that each section that you build would improve the Green Line by itself so that if funding dries up you aren't stuck with a half functioning subway. The B Line spur to Harvard is the western loop (along with a northern loop connecting Harvard Sq to Union Sq).

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Re: Seaport Transportation

I never really saw the need for a transit tunnel under the harbor when it would have been so much cheaper just to build a Blue Line loop to the airport.

Why do that when you can run Phase I of a heavy-rail ring from the terminals to Sullivan or Brickbottom/Lechmere? You still require a transfer to get to downtown specifically, but can get away with no/minimal tunneling. Seriously just seems way too easy to pass up. Not to mention the instant benefit to serving Chelsea, and adding more connectivity to everywhere else served by the line. It's like the grand slam of transit projects.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: Seaport Transportation

But a Blue Line extension is cheaper and shorter than anything else. I guess MassPort said if the bus shuttle ain't broke don't fix it. If only this was Europe.

 

[paperless paul]

Re: Seaport Transportation

Why do that when you can run Phase I of a heavy-rail ring from the terminals to Sullivan or Brickbottom/Lechmere? You still require a transfer to get to downtown specifically, but can get away with no/minimal tunneling. Seriously just seems way too easy to pass up. Not to mention the instant benefit to serving Chelsea, and adding more connectivity to everywhere else served by the line. It's like the grand slam of transit projects.

I looked at this a bit myself and there's a few things about your proposal I don't understand.

Where do you run it around the airport without using a tunnel? Especially at Terminal E. (ultimately I think this can be sorted but may require a lot of reworking).

How do you run heavy rail around the central garage with a 700' min radius? LRT I understand.

But most importantly, how do get over the Chelsea creek with navigable clearance?

And how do you run it in the future to the Seaport?

 

[davem]

Re: Seaport Transportation

I always assumed that any sort of rail to the airport would...

1) be elevated, a'la the air-train
2) have a single station stop at central parking (already connected to all the terminals), not individual ones at each terminal. I would imagine the train running between the two garages.

An el would avoid most of the issues of getting around all of the existing infrastructure, and allow it to use the existing parking garage as a station. If the airport was to have a second station, I would imagine it being at terminal A's annex, which is rather far flung. It would also have the benefit of (somewhat) serving the Jeffries Point neighborhood, and logan pier.

Edit: Basically, this:

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Re: Seaport Transportation

Where do you run it around the airport without using a tunnel? Especially at Terminal E. (ultimately I think this can be sorted but may require a lot of reworking).

Elevated, otherwise tunnels are needed. I think elevated works best anyway.

Where do you run it around the airport without using a tunnel? Especially at Terminal E. (ultimately I think this can be sorted but may require a lot of reworking).

You can't hit every terminal. At least, not easily. I would just hit E, or maybe E/C, and then line it up straight between the two halves of B.

But most importantly, how do get over the Chelsea creek with navigable clearance?

A short tunnel is probably best. But I'm sure you can still work with an elevated in between Curtis St (Eastie) and Bellingham St (Chelsea). It would go even higher over the creek, so it only has to open for tankers (which it likely would be the case anyway, but in case a new marina pops up or anything).

And how do you run it in the future to the Seaport?

In its proposed phase, it would end at Terminal B. Just dive down under the tarmac and out under the harbor, just east of the Ted Williams.

 

[paperless paul]

Re: Seaport Transportation

Elevated, otherwise tunnels are needed. I think elevated works best anyway.

You can't hit every terminal. At least, not easily. I would just hit E, or maybe E/C, and then line it up straight between the two halves of B.

A short tunnel is probably best. But I'm sure you can still work with an elevated in between Curtis St (Eastie) and Bellingham St (Chelsea). It would go even higher over the creek, so it only has to open for tankers (which it likely would be the case anyway, but in case a new marina pops up or anything).

In its proposed phase, it would end at Terminal B. Just dive down under the tarmac and out under the harbor, just east of the Ted Williams.

Ok. I agree with you and Davem that elevated and limited stops (i.e. not all Terminals) is better.

(1) But, for Davem's proposal splitting the two garages, the access road is at grade and there are elevated pedestrian and auto crossings that look like this. Obviously you could reconfigure the garage circulation but I guess it's not trivial. If you don't stop at the walkway level that connects to the Terminals then you need an elevator up, walk and then elevator down starts to get cumbersome. Or the station goes to the North of both garages.

(2) If you elevate to get to Terminal E, you need to go under the pedestrian walkway but then elevate above the circulation roadway to 2x elevated and back down again etc. It will very much look like Airtrain and starts to become convoluted, perhaps not a deal breaker, but not 'minimal' or trivial.

(3) So in Phase I, it's like Blue line connector?, with just a dead stop underground (underpinning the garage columns), and then two tracks switch to the other direction? I'm not the train expert here, but isn't this a pretty limited capacity set up for a light rail airport connection.

(4) Chelsea creek crossing - again, I think this is the biggest problem. I guess you are saying a movable span but with decent height so only stopped for largest vessels? Ok, but it's a 450' span and supposedly had a tricky erection. This will be a non-trivial project. And how long is the opening for 'large vessels', 20m? 40m? 1hr? At 40m at 4pm in the afternoon, even once a month, this is going to be bad for an airport connector service. Frankly I think a tunnel would be the better option. Relatively short, not too deep, not cheap but better and cheaper. People here make too big a deal I think about tunnel construction.

So, you do all the above and what does it get you?
A heavy rail line ride from Sullivan Square to outside the garage at the airport?
This is a pretty long walk. Is this better than blue line bus transfer directly to each terminal?

Maybe a link with the Chelsea CR stop? Does it link with the blue line?

For this plan to have value do you need to build the harbor tunnel? Do you need to bring a heavy rail from Sullivan to GJct, etc? Which I believe has been called too hard to do.

I think the better two options are:
(1) Improved existing service - limited cost, max benefit

(2) Light rail however far it can go counter-clockwise along the urban ring, tunnel under Chelsea Creek, fair amount of cut and cover tunneling in the airport, to elevated between the garage and circulator roads, multiple stations, loop back on itself and tunnel around the hotel along Hotel Drive.

(3) And / or (1) plus Blue line connector to the Red.

 

[davem]

Re: Seaport Transportation

supposedly had a tricky erection

.

 

[paperless paul]

Re: Seaport Transportation

I always assumed that any sort of rail to the airport would...

1) be elevated, a'la the air-train
2) have a single station stop at central parking (already connected to all the terminals), not individual ones at each terminal. I would imagine the train running between the two garages.

An el would avoid most of the issues of getting around all of the existing infrastructure, and allow it to use the existing parking garage as a station. If the airport was to have a second station, I would imagine it being at terminal A's annex, which is rather far flung. It would also have the benefit of (somewhat) serving the Jeffries Point neighborhood, and logan pier.

Edit: Basically, this:

I agree with your logic on this. But this would have to be light rail, not heavy rail per BostonUrbEx.

Also at Terminal E, it would have to be either above the pedestrian walkway (very high) or transition above the circulator, below the walkway, above the circulator again on way to Term C, and eventually drop down below the walkway to Term B. Would likely need to reconfigure Term E circulator exit. And see other comments about between the garages.

Finally, I think as BostonUrbEx said it would/could/should be a loop back to itself for Phase I. But in your phase II, is this another tunnel? How does it get there? Is it under the existing tunnel? Or is it crossing underneath, then cut and cover on Harborside Dr, then west of existing Harbor tunnel?

 

[paperless paul]

Re: Seaport Transportation

....

Yes, saw this in the original draft, but decided to leave it in.
See what I did there. This could go on all night.

 

[Arlington]

Re: Seaport Transportation

I always assumed that any sort of rail to the airport would...

1) be elevated, a'la the air-train
2) have a single station stop at central parking (already connected to all the terminals), not individual ones at each terminal. I would imagine the train running between two garages.

I like it! Beware the Future Terminal E expansion, though. I think they still plan to put more landslide (or parking?) along today's Central Garage <--> E connector (I can't remember if the central utilities plant in the E zone gets redone or moved) so it may not quite work to elevate a station/track there.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Here's mine:

Yellow is the ring, with blue for stations. Red is the end of the line (temporarily). There's tail tracks to allow for storage, bringing disabled equipment off, allowing higher station entry speeds to the last station, etc.

Keep in mind the B garage would need to be removed and rebuilt around the station, or heavily modified if possible. Eventually that line would continue out to the Seaport, eventually making a full circuit.

I'd design it for Red Line rolling stock (plus room for pantographs), but might have to temporarily share rolling stock with the Orange Line until it is eventually linked to the Red Line.