Crazy Transit Pitches

We actually have to build the storm barrier already.
Yes, go ahead and mock up the Neponset-Winthrop barrier as part of this Crazy Transit Pitch,

Sadly, the most cost-efficient barrier (square miles protected per billion dollars) is a Hull-Winthrop barrier, which ends up being pretty useless for integrating transportation (unless it NIMBYs would let you make 128 a full belt, which I don't advocate)

Neponset-Winthrop (with an Airport spur) would be the kind of thing you'd build with Congestion Charge money.
 
^ Agreed, of course. I thought the FEMA-driven insurance rate hike a couple years would have been the trigger, with the big property insurance companies in the lead. But no dice (yet).
 
I added onto ASAP's NIMBY Map, and I thought BIG (hey, we're in the crazy transit pitch thread, so why not?)
6NWYRHr.png

I just used paint, so this isn't the neatest design ever.
-relocates Logan (I'll probably get a lot of "absolutely not"s, (I know there isn't a need for a brand new airport, but let me defend myself):
Main Pros:
-allows for long term expansion of Logan, if done right
-opens up height in Seaport (and Boston)
-tons of new development space
Main Cons:
-technically not needed right now
-Boston would lose its title for having one of the shortest commute times between the city and its major airport, but the commute still won't be that bad
-cost is extremely high
-major engineering required (but its been done before)

I don't know much about the Harbor Islands, so I could've done something completely wrong with the storm surge wall, including where the wall would need to be left open for ships, but whatever.
 
You kinda put the new airport right in the middle of the main navigation channel.
large chart link

It'd be better to enlarge Deer Island - the water treatment plant there definitely isn't going to be NIMBY.

YGGqq5I.jpg
 
Here's a solution to both the n-s rail link depth issue at south station, and also rail service to south Boston waterfront.

Convert the SL tunnel to commuter rail, and electric dmus. Connect its south end with the rail tracks just south of South sta. Just north of the Federal Reserve bldg., branch off for a n-s rail tunnel beneath the CAT to connect to the north. The existing SL tunnel to the east would provide direct service to the Back Bay and SS.
 
The Silver Line was built to Red Line standards, not railroad standards. I doubt it would work.
 
It'd be better to enlarge Deer Island - the water treatment plant there definitely isn't going to be NIMBY.
I love the idea of redeveloping the current Logan site to both lift the height caps on downtown and get TOD on the old site (particularly as prime, flood-protected space). If Boston had a year 2060 plan, this should be it.
 
The Silver Line was built to Red Line standards, not railroad standards. I doubt it would work.

I'm thinking the SL tunnel is wider than a Red Line standard width because it includes the shy distance from the walls needed for a manually driven bus. Any height issues could be resolved by excavating out the existing concrete floor and replacing it with a lower concrete pad holding standard tracks, which would also need to be low enough to fit in the overhead catenary. The existing crappy concrete floors would need to be replaced anyway for conversion to tracks.

The SL tunnel is not really needed for buses heading to Logan; they can use the existing highway tunnel. My proposal would provide direct rail service between Back Bay and the S Boston waterfront and convention center, as well as a cheap underground route through the South Station area.
 
I'm thinking the SL tunnel is wider than a Red Line standard width because it includes the shy distance from the walls needed for a manually driven bus. Any height issues could be resolved by excavating out the existing concrete floor and replacing it with a lower concrete pad holding standard tracks, which would also need to be low enough to fit in the overhead catenary. The existing crappy concrete floors would need to be replaced anyway for conversion to tracks.

The SL tunnel is not really needed for buses heading to Logan; they can use the existing highway tunnel. My proposal would provide direct rail service between Back Bay and the S Boston waterfront and convention center, as well as a cheap underground route through the South Station area.

You actually cannot just excavate out the floor -- the SL busway tunnel is essentially an underwater, water tight tunnel for most of its length (and really underwater under the Fort Point Channel).
 
You kinda put the new airport right in the middle of the main navigation channel.
large chart link

It'd be better to enlarge Deer Island - the water treatment plant there definitely isn't going to be NIMBY.

Maybe better off just extending / adding / re-locating the runways onto the bird island flats - the water between the airport and deer island is really, really shallow so you could pretty easily:

- Shift the long NW/SE runway out toward deer island, while extending it little to better handle big heavy jets - that would reduce noise around day sq. and in chelsea, while opening up the area just east of 1a for airport operations (you could move Freight up here for example and open up pace for further expansion of Terminal A, for example

- Shift the SE / NW runway (the one that points at downtown) ~3/4 mile to the SW (i.e. keep it parallel to the existing runway but 'slide' it out towards deer island) which would give some more breathing room for downtown and seaport height .... (or just add an additional, new parallel runway there, which wouldn't change anything about downtown height, but would expand capacity while allowing you to...

- Eliminate the "new" runway that points directly at the hyatt harborside.

You could theoretically do all this on piers like at LGA, but probably safer and cheaper in the long term to do it on filled dirt. I imagine the EPA or whomever would shit a brick, but this is crazy pitches so fuck it..

Then you have the opportunity to redevelop "Jeffries Cove" (i might be the only one who calls it that) - the little inlet at the end of Jeffries point. Everything between the ConRAC and the Hyatt (as well as the two light industrial properties Massport own on Jeffires St.) can get rebuilt as waterfront mid-rise hotel, condo, and office - with continuous ferry service to the waterfront and downtown. The lower value existing stuff - employee parking, crappy office building, taxi pen, etc. - can get moved up to the section by 1A, north of airport station, once that long runway slides about a mile in the direction of the harbor.

Don't you think some of Boston's several consulting firms, for example, would love to have an office with walkable access to the airport (and a killer view)???

-
 
Hmm, the puddles say otherwise. :p

OK, theoretically "water tight". We apparently don't know how to do water tight construction in Boston (witness the massive pumping in the Big Dig tunnels and all the ground water issues caused by T tunnels).
 
This may be even too crazy for crazy transit pitches, but hear me out:

To 'solve' the problem of where to put the NSRL (and eliminate the time advantage driving gets over commuter rail to commuters driving into downtown):
- Close all on- and off-ramps on the CAT from the Charles River down to the I-90 interchange
- Restore North St over the Greenway and surface road connection for the Callahan Tunnel
- Boulevardise the East Boston Expressway and implement bi-directional e-tolling for all users (except cars registered in East Boston) to use the Callahan
- Restore surface road connection for the Sumner tunnel and convert it to a fully bike and ped tunnel for access to East Boston (the tunnel is about 1.8km for a ~40min walk at an average/leisurely walking speed of 5km/hr)

With the on- and off-ramps out of the way and eliminating a direct drive into the heart of downtown, you can demolish the on- and off-ramps at the related blocks without touching the already well-established portions of the Greenway (except for the block between High St and Seaport Boulevard). Excavate on those blocks and use a combination of TBM and underpinning to build the tunnels on either side of the Greenway.

One way or another, if we're deciding to invest in transit through the NSRL and fully electrified regional rail, we should pull a 'reverse-Texas' by rolling back the direct downtown connections we've given suburban drivers and stop trying to make expensive transit projects compete with even more expensive road investments.

Capital projects can't happen in a vacuum (or at least this silohed approach to transit expansion/improvements seems to dominate this and the conversation with Boston at large); with any NSRL and regional rail network construction, we should feel like we can hit drivers with more 'sticks' like more road diets and congestion pricing in the core of Boston and Cambridge, maybe even Somerville. I'd love to see a whole regional plan of projects to show balancing of transit 'carrots' and driving 'sticks' so MassDOT can stop proposing projects like the I-90 on- and off-ramps, having to add the Bowker Overpass to the conversation, then nipping any further conversations in the bud outside of the project scope, and then staunchly rejecting any road diets/Bowker tear down because there are no viable transit alternatives to the drivers who would 'flood' the streets...
 
Somewhat off-topic question (preferably for some of our more knowledgeable aviation enthusiasts), but is it possible that advances in aviation technology could reduce the amount of space needed for runways at Logan? I know Hyperloop probably isn't realistic, but is it possible that newer aircraft in the future won't require the same runway lengths or stick to the same ascent/descent rates that current aircraft require? If we're talking the airport in 2060, that's 45 years. Even the newest airliners today will be all but retired by that point. I'd expect some serious evolution. And while fuel efficiency is a major topic today (and may be then), I'd imagine space constraints for airports are going to be a pretty significant factor in airport evolution going forward. Not every city has the benefit of unlimited money like Dubai, Istanbul or Jeddah or unlimited space like Denver. There's also a point at which an airport is really too far from the city center to be convenient (as far as airports go). I guess you could continue to move airports 50+ miles from the city center, but we argue the merits of having airports like Logan, DCA, Billy Bishop, San Diego, etc. so close to the city center all the time. The again, maybe in 45 years we're have affordable, efficient mag-lev like technology that will allow us to move operations from Logan out to a new airport near Gardner and still allow passengers to be downtown in 15 minutes. Who knows.

Still, my (uneducated) guess is that there's probably a breaking point for most places in terms of space available for runways. We have to hit a point where aircraft start requiring less space for takeoff/landing. Then again, maybe not.

If takeoff/landing space required is reduced and ascent/descent rates are altered in someway (or approach patterns), then couldn't that effectively change height restrictions in the city center?
 
Still, my (uneducated) guess is that there's probably a breaking point for most places in terms of space available for runways. We have to hit a point where aircraft start requiring less space for takeoff/landing. Then again, maybe not.

If takeoff/landing space required is reduced and ascent/descent rates are altered in someway (or approach patterns), then couldn't that effectively change height restrictions in the city center?

Takeoff/landing space is being reduced by modern jets. A 787 can take off and land on a much shorter runway than a 747 (of course the 747 is bigger).

But the upside down wedding cake TCA around major airports (which helps dictate building height nearby) is not really designed for normal takeoff/landing operations. It is designed for safety during emergencies. Flameouts on takeoff. Dead engine or reduced engine landings. The safety requirements for these emergency issues is not really changing (rather basic aerodynamics). So I do not expect the safe operating limits around Logan would change much in the coming decades.
 
One-way streets: the scourge of a city - Make Tremont 2-way
8/17/2015, Boston Dwells

There's one way to make sure automobiles are driven really fast down a city street: make it one way. You can see it in any city, on any street. Times Square? One-way streets, cabs flying through the Square at 40-50 miles per hour. They're trying to make the next street light before it changes! And just about all streets in Midtown Manhattan are one-way, either East / West or North / South. (I wish I could remember which #s go East and which #s go West but I can't remember. I seem to remember 7th Ave going downtown, so that's South; 8th Ave goes uptown, so that's North.)

Here in Boston, we have a bunch of roads that go in many directions and plenty are two-way and plenty of one way, and for the small, narrow streets, one-way routes don't seem to cause many problems. Historically, I believe that a lot of these small streets, the ones that go through the South End, South Boston, Fenway, and the North End, probably, as well, were two-way, but were converted to one-way at some point. Why? Because the powers-that-be (City Hall, the DPW, residents) wanted to protect their neighborhoods from "outsiders" - whomever that may be. If you drive into the South End, you'll notice there are a good number of one-way streets that take you out of the neighborhood, but few streets that take you into the neighborhood.

There's Columbus, Tremont, Washington, and Harrison that go back and forth, but for streets off these major streets, they tend more than not to go one-way, out of the neighborhood. You can't just loop around to the next street and come back. You're pushed to the edges of the neighborhood so that if you want to get into the city, you have to take a major street to the edge of the neighborhood and start over. (Details, later.)

As mentioned, on narrow streets, especially those with parking on one or both sides, it's not a problem to have one-way streets, because the congestion of cars maneuvering into and out of parking spots, and the narrowness causing cars coming down the street to be cautious, means incoming traffic must slow down. The benefits are, those people maneuvering their cars into and out of spots aren't dealing with crazy people driving their cars at high speeds while they're trying to concentrate. More important, those exiting and entering their cars do not need to fear for their lives while opening their car doors and moving items into or out of their automobiles. An added benefit is that neighbors on the sidewalks can actually cross the street without fearing for their very lives.

But, a wide, one-way city street is a nightmare. I'm talking four lanes or more (although three lanes is a problem, too). A good example of this is Tremont Street facing the Boston Common, in Midtown. The street section in question begins at Government Center, next to the MBTA Green Line / Blue Line station. It's still State Street coming up there, one way, and the road splits with the one to the right heading to Cambridge Street and the one to the left becoming Tremont Street.

Tremont Street, at this point a four-lane street with no parking on either side (there used to be parking on both, actually!), is a one-way street full of cars, taxis, and buses. It's a mad rush to see who can get from Government Center to the Theater District the quickest. There are several lights, but those can be figured out by the drivers so that they reach each just as they are turning green.

There are stop lights and crosswalks for people to cross over to and from Downtown Crossing to the MBTA Park Street Station, but it's a long walk across four lanes of highway, especially in a wheelchair or pushing a carriage.

The one-way road from Government Center to the Theater District (and, beyond) is a great street to use if you want to leave the city quickly. You just drive South sitting in the center lane and zoom your way to Herald Street, a three-lane (one-way) highway that will take you to the on-ramp to the Southeast Expressway.

Instead, Tremont Street should be two-way, the entire way, from Government Center down past the Park Street Church at Park Street, continuing on til it crosses Boylston Street, but continuing on past Stuart Street, up past the Citi Center for the Performing Arts and Shubert Theater, then over the hill and across the bridge spanning the Massachusetts Turnpike Extension, merging with traffic on the one-way Herald Street.

Except Herald Street will also be two way, with an additional lane of traffic opening up where the line of trees run along the side where the MBTA and commuter trains run underneath.

Of the four lanes that from Government Center to the Theater District, two will come South, from the theaters to City Hall; two others will go South, from City Hall to the theaters. Except, only one lane will be for automobiles; the other will restricted to MBTA (and private) buses. (And, if need be and logistics worked out, then cabs and ubers, as well. But only if this doesn't slow down the traffic.)

This should improve the bus transportation system in the area. The two largest bus routes are the Silver Line 1 and 2 that go up Washington Street solely to turn around so that they can come back down Tremont. Making the route roundtrip on Tremont solves that problem, and should make the trips shorter in length and time.

The other major bus line is the Number 43, which does a convoluted route from the South End down Tremont, crosses between the Public Garden and Boston Common, up Beacon, down Park Street, and then drops passengers before it heads off again into the South End, down Tremont Street, around the Mass Pike Towers, and continuing on Tremont Street through the South End and into Roxbury.

The benefits of this are: the routes are the same in each direction; there's overlap. You are picking the bus up, and also exiting the bus, at the same location, just going different ways.

The Number 43, in fact, may not need its own dedicated bus line.

Of course, all of the Silver Line buses will need their own dedicated bus lines. That means, separate lanes with barriers to entry so no automobiles can use them or park in them (like they do in the South End along Washington Street).
 
That's almost in the realm of reasonable transit pitches. But you still have to loop the bus somewhere.
 
If we're making Tremont bi-directional, Washington Street up to Avenue de Lafayette or even all the way up to Temple Place should also be bi-directional.

Bi-directional Tremont isn't that crazy of a pitch - maybe crazy for the large majority of the Boston driving public whose gut instinct is to just make conditions for driving faster with wide 1-ways. As you point out, since the lights are sequenced, Tremont street becomes a 3/4-lane speedway. I've NEVER seen congestion on Tremont south of Stewart St or between Boylston and Park Sts. Congestion between Park and Court/State Street is largely from turning vehicles trying to filter through pedestrians in crosswalks.

Bi-directional Tremont is just one piece of the puzzle - the whole network of streets in downtown need to be untangled as 2-ways, on-street parking reduced, loading zones enforced, and sidewalks bumped out to put roads on a diet. Even then, you start unraveling the whole ball of transportation policy yarn - if you're going to make conditions worse for cars, improve them for cyclists and transit users. The real answer to keeping outside commuters from driving through neighbourhood streets we want to keep quiet is reducing the overall pool of people for whom commuting or touring around the city in a car is a viable option over transit, biking, and walking (read: congestion pricing, reduction of downtown Interstate off/on-ramps).
 

Back
Top