This mostly makes sense. But if Regional Rail trains are running every 5-8 minutes inside 128, to me, those are subways. So I don't know why they get a "comparable weight" to the other subways. They should probably just be the same. They're subways.
The same reason it's not shown as one color in Munich, it's because it's a collection of services with distinct endpoints that, for the most part, only share relatively short sections. (Although with the service pattern I described it's not that short.)
The same reason it's not shown as one color in Munich, it's because it's a collection of services with distinct endpoints that, for the most part, only share relatively short sections. (Although with the service pattern I described it's not that short.) View attachment 75012
I have to think that thru-running Regional Rail in a future NSRL scenario is going to need to define specific endpoint pairs as "lines", as done with the S Bahn and RER in Europe. Otherwise interpreting the schedule would be a total nightmare for riders.
I have to think that thru-running Regional Rail in a future NSRL scenario is going to need to define specific endpoint pairs as "lines", as done with the S Bahn and RER in Europe. Otherwise interpreting the schedule would be a total nightmare for riders.
The 2003 NSRL Major Investment Study took a very rough stab at trip pairings for the 2-track and 4-track builds in its Operations Study chapter. The results were...not very elegant at all.
Given that there's an inherent mismatch in south vs. north endpoints, I don't see how you run the whole system with fixed endpoints. Some things...like pair-matches with the Old Colony lines and Fall River vs. New Bedford to north...are going to have to vary if you see value in giving them rotation thru to northside instead of consigning certain endpoints to an always-surface turn (and thus having a caste system of run-thru haves and have-nots). Plus for schedule-keeping on a legacy system that's being retrofitted for run-thru instead of having the system grow originally as run-thru, you have to have flexibility to short-turn things that are running hopelessly late before they drag down every interacting schedule. So for that reason too you might only see "advertised" run-thrus to the opposite 128-sited short-turn with anything beyond that being non-guaranteed. Sort of like how SEPTA will only plot a precise schedule on any Regional Rail line through Center City, with the opposing endpoint being up-for-grabs. Although obviously our frequencies would be much higher so the transfer penalty for reaching a "non-guaranteed" destination isn't going to be all that onerous.
End-to-end ridership on a unified system is not going to be that large because the schedules are just too excruciating. It's all about where you draw the line across the divide for where the most inter-region ridership is going to be, and guarantee that. "495 to opposite-side 128" guarantee seems like it would be the organizing principle that satisfies the lion's share of demand vs. threading the needle guaranteeing (and failing pretty often) true endpoint-to-endpoint service. And that pretty much means you only need to match mainline-to-mainline consistently and not so much branch-to-branch.
The 2003 NSRL Major Investment Study took a very rough stab at trip pairings for the 2-track and 4-track builds in its Operations Study chapter. The results were...not very elegant at all.
Given that there's an inherent mismatch in south vs. north endpoints, I don't see how you run the whole system with fixed endpoints. Some things...like pair-matches with the Old Colony lines and Fall River vs. New Bedford to north...are going to have to vary if you see value in giving them rotation thru to northside instead of consigning certain endpoints to an always-surface turn (and thus having a caste system of run-thru haves and have-nots). Plus for schedule-keeping on a legacy system that's being retrofitted for run-thru instead of having the system grow originally as run-thru, you have to have flexibility to short-turn things that are running hopelessly late before they drag down every interacting schedule. So for that reason too you might only see "advertised" run-thrus to the opposite 128-sited short-turn with anything beyond that being non-guaranteed. Sort of like how SEPTA will only plot a precise schedule on any Regional Rail line through Center City, with the opposing endpoint being up-for-grabs. Although obviously our frequencies would be much higher so the transfer penalty for reaching a "non-guaranteed" destination isn't going to be all that onerous.
End-to-end ridership on a unified system is not going to be that large because the schedules are just too excruciating. It's all about where you draw the line across the divide for where the most inter-region ridership is going to be, and guarantee that. "495 to opposite-side 128" guarantee seems like it would be the organizing principle that satisfies the lion's share of demand vs. threading the needle guaranteeing (and failing pretty often) true endpoint-to-endpoint service. And that pretty much means you only need to match mainline-to-mainline consistently and not so much branch-to-branch.
As a rider, I'd be pretty okay to just go catch the next train at my local station, then make a downtown transfer if the destination isn't the one that I need. Keep in mind, the vast majority of trips will involve the terminal zone as one of the destination pairs. It really wouldn't matter to me if some trains servicing my neighborhood went to Newburyport, some to Fitchburg, or wherever.
As a rider, I'd be pretty okay to just go catch the next train at my local station, then make a downtown transfer if the destination isn't the one that I need. Keep in mind, the vast majority of trips will involve the terminal zone as one of the destination pairs. It really wouldn't matter to me if some trains servicing my neighborhood went to Newburyport, some to Fitchburg, or wherever.
But you need an easy way to know which train is which. Defining lines by destination pairs does that (that is how S-bahn lines are designated in Germany, although they share lots of overlapping tunnel/right-of-way). And many people would wait 15 minutes to take a direct train to a destination versus a connection. People quickly learn that to go directly between X station and Y stations, they need an S-8 or S-9.... Skip the S-3 or S-4 that come through, because they will need a transfer.
As a rider, I'd be pretty okay to just go catch the next train at my local station, then make a downtown transfer if the destination isn't the one that I need. Keep in mind, the vast majority of trips will involve the terminal zone as one of the destination pairs. It really wouldn't matter to me if some trains servicing my neighborhood went to Newburyport, some to Fitchburg, or wherever.
That's fair, and maybe that's how it ends up working due to infrastructure limitations. But if at all possible, it'd be much easier for riders if there were just a few clear, consistent routes, at least inside 128-ish.
And that's true that most people are going to/from downtown, but there are some pretty important exceptions. Mainly Back Bay. A rider from northside should be able to know really instantly "is this train going to Back Bay?" Same for Ruggles. Ideally, with NSRL and S-Bahn-like service, there will be other important non-downtown commercial/residential hubs, like Lansdown, Chelsea, Lynn, Quincy, etc.
And that's true that most people are going to/from downtown, but there are some pretty important exceptions. Mainly Back Bay. A rider from northside should be able to know really instantly "is this train going to Back Bay?" Same for Ruggles. Ideally, with NSRL and S-Bahn-like service, there will be other important non-downtown commercial/residential hubs, like Lansdown, Chelsea, Lynn, Quincy, etc.
K, based on this discussion, I slapped together this transit map just for the S-Bahn-like network. It's super rough, but shows how I was thinking it would actually operate and how to best show that.
The four thick color lines work effectively like subways. In that region, trains come every 8-ish minutes or better. You get on one color line and you know where it goes for a long distance in either direction. For example, get on the Blue line at Back Bay, you'll know it goes at least as far as Beverly in the north and Canton Junction in the south. Get on the Green line anywhere and you'll know that train goes as far as Framingham in one direction and Reading in the other.
Past the thick lines, no guarantees. The train might branch there, so you need to check which way it's going. It might short-turn here and not go further. It might keep going to whatever further out terminus.
There are a lot of assumptions in this map that could be wrong but seem reasonable for a really rough sketch like this. I think those proposed short-turn points are right. Needham line is converted to OLX and GLX. Franklin Line runs onto Fairmount. Obviously any of that could change.
What I was hoping for initially upthread was something like this but 1) good, and 2) with all the other existing subways integrated into it as well. The result would be a new Boston subway map with eight lines: the current four plus the four new S-Bahn-like lines. Doing that in a clean and clear way seems like an undertaking, or is at least beyond me.
What I was hoping for initially upthread was something like this but 1) good, and 2) with all the other existing subways integrated into it as well. The result would be a new Boston subway map with eight lines: the current four plus the four new S-Bahn-like lines. Doing that in a clean and clear way seems like an undertaking, or is at least beyond me.
Seems a little bit like you're describing my goal in my ongoing fantasy map, just without all the extra fantasy of SLX, Urban Ring, BLX etc. Maybe with a bit more color distinction between the S-bahn lines. But it's difficult because we have so many colors and connections already, it might become confusing quickly. I thought it would be better to brand them by numbers but sharing a color to signify that they are the same sort of service, similar to the green line branches.
I'm currently still working on making the thickness of the lines represent the different types and frequency of transit. But I could try to put togethr a more short term version, post-NSRL.
I think those proposed short-turn points are right. Needham line is converted to OLX and GLX. Franklin Line runs onto Fairmount. Obviously any of that could change.
I agree with your short turns, almost entirely. I think the pairings I disagree with a bit more. Wouldn't the Farimount line be most compatible with the Newburyport/Rockport line? They both branch in two at 17 miles from the central stations, they both have dense stops in developed population centers, and they both have more stops than the other lines on the trunk (potentially close to similar (11 stops to Beverly vs 12 or 13 stops to Norwood/Walpole) with concrete signs/plans for Everett Junction, Wonderland, South Salem, River Works and more theoretical but discussed infill stops at Revere Beach Parkway, Sullivan, and Encore).
It's not that really, just that Back Bay is very likely to be the destination... and One Seat is preferred. There def would be some grumbling if some NS trains go to Back Bay while others don't.
As a rider, I'd be pretty okay to just go catch the next train at my local station, then make a downtown transfer if the destination isn't the one that I need. Keep in mind, the vast majority of trips will involve the terminal zone as one of the destination pairs. It really wouldn't matter to me if some trains servicing my neighborhood went to Newburyport, some to Fitchburg, or wherever.
That's essentially the SEPTA Regional Rail model and it works well there, in my experience. Although, I personally like matching pairs for Boston for no well thought out reason.
Seems a little bit like you're describing my goal in my ongoing fantasy map, just without all the extra fantasy of SLX, Urban Ring, BLX etc. Maybe with a bit more color distinction between the S-bahn lines. But it's difficult because we have so many colors and connections already, it might become confusing quickly. I thought it would be better to brand them by numbers but sharing a color to signify that they are the same sort of service, similar to the green line branches. View attachment 75075
I'm currently still working on making the thickness of the lines represent the different types and frequency of transit. But I could try to put togethr a more short term version, post-NSRL.
I agree with your short turns, almost entirely. I think the pairings I disagree with a bit more. Wouldn't the Farimount line be most compatible with the Newburyport/Rockport line? They both branch in two at 17 miles from the central stations, they both have dense stops in developed population centers, and they both have more stops than the other lines on the trunk (potentially close to similar (11 stops to Beverly vs 12 or 13 stops to Norwood/Walpole) with concrete signs/plans for Everett Junction, Wonderland, South Salem, River Works and more theoretical but discussed infill stops at Revere Beach Parkway, Sullivan, and Encore).
I have a question about the zones on this map. Why are some of the 128 P&R stations (Quincy Adams 128, Westwood 128, Dedham 128, Needham Crossing 128, Norumbega 128, Whopperton 128, and Reading 128) zone 3 while others (Hartwell 128, Mishawum 128, and Purchase St 128) zone 4?
I have a question about the zones on this map. Why are some of the 128 P&R stations (Quincy Adams 128, Westwood 128, Dedham 128, Needham Crossing 128, Norumbega 128, Whopperton 128, and Reading 128) zone 3 while others (Hartwell 128, Mishawum 128, and Purchase St 128) zone 4?
Thanks, this is a good catch, that is mostly an error on my part. I generally think that 128 is good boundary to draw an approximate zone boundary as a ring of stations that are going to have a different ridership characteristic with P&R. In my overlay map, I include Mishawum and even Anderson RTC in zone 3, so that's an error. But Hartwell and Purchase St are a little different.
Purchase St and the entire Peabody line stuff needs to be in one zone for local trips to be straight forward and 95 branches distinctively northeast after Reading meaning it is a significantly longer ride on rail to there compared to the South and West side of the system. Hartwell (and now that I think of it more, at least Westwood, Dedham, Whopperton, and Norumbega should probably be similarly aligned to Hartwell) is a little odd because it is quite isolated out there, and it brought up a question in my mind. Should we try to make purely P&R stops cost more since it encourages or at least maintains car hierarchy, which has shown to be a bit of a waste of space and costly at other P&R stops around the system. I think there's no way you get around having stations with large parking garages next to 128 but, should we make those stops (which are not dense enough to be walkable or feasible for car free living) cost a little more to get to? Will the $1.70 more in fare make it so that people would drive one stop further in where there isn't as convenient parking/highway present?
Like for me, Reading 128 is a separate class of station even though it is similar distance because it is feasible that someone (some day with such extensive transit improvements) could live in the village car-free and rely on the train to get to Wakefield/Melrose for their day to day. I would think that the T and Mass would want to incentivize that lifestyle over driving your car from the suburbs to the train. But idk, it's a bit of a tricky one to consider when you start bringing up money incentives, we know that right now the CR is so ludicrously expensive that people will take a way longer bus to a bus/train than take the direct train from Lynn/West Roxbury/Roslindale because it's way cheaper, but that's a much larger difference than $1.70.
I agree with your short turns, almost entirely. I think the pairings I disagree with a bit more. Wouldn't the Farimount line be most compatible with the Newburyport/Rockport line? They both branch in two at 17 miles from the central stations, they both have dense stops in developed population centers, and they both have more stops than the other lines on the trunk (potentially close to similar (11 stops to Beverly vs 12 or 13 stops to Norwood/Walpole) with concrete signs/plans for Everett Junction, Wonderland, South Salem, River Works and more theoretical but discussed infill stops at Revere Beach Parkway, Sullivan, and Encore).
As for the pairings, yeah, I really don't know what's best. If you incorporate this into your work, pick what makes sense to you. But here's my reasoning and what I think are the important factors (and I'm doing this from memory, so I might have something wrong here).
The biggest factor is what infrastructure actually gets built. Original quad-tracked NSRL plans had level junctions to connect the two tunnels, one south of South Station and one North of North Station. If that's the case, and you really want to cram lots of trains though, that can be a big constraint. You'd really need to analyze the network and minimize how much trains have to cross over each others tracks. It'd be complicated. With that kind of infrastructure, I doubt my above example works. Maybe you couldn't have reliable pairings at all, and it'd have to work like how Philly apparently runs theirs. I don't know.
One version of NSRL (I forget which) incorporates flying junctions on the north side. That would allow trains to run any pairing without having to cross over other tracks. That would make any kind of pairing much more feasible. That's what I'm assuming will get built.
The next highest consideration is just giving the most people useful one-seat rides. That would be convenient for the most number of people, and means fewer people taking up space on platforms as they wait to transfer. You could do some fine grained analysis to figure the best pairings for that. As a pretty good approximation, I figured that effectively means that the two busiest northside lines need to go to Back Bay, and the busiest also needs to go through Ruggles. Newburyport/Rockport is by far the busiest northside line, so I connected that to Providence. The other three northside lines are basically tied for last, so I didn't even really think about which other should go through Back Bay. Maybe a different one would be better.
FWIW, past NSRL studies have assumed that Providence Line trains have to pair with the Lowell Line because that's where NEC Amtrak trains would continue on. This makes no sense to me. Maybe there is some logic there, but I don't get it.
The things you're pointing out, like stop spacing and number of stops, I don't think are relevant criteria. Or at least I don't get it. What's the reasoning there?
The frequent transit network is expanded as far as possible, at the expense of inefficient routes.
The catch? You can't use more bus service hours than provided in the real MBTA BNRD. (I have no way to measure this myself; so I just made guesstimates)
So... as many unnecessary features and routings from the proposed BNRD and the existing MBTA bus network got removed here; and the frequent transit network is extended wherever (limited to redistributed routes)
No new subway extensions or changes to CR are on this map (rail extensions are typically outside the scope of Jarrett Walker's network redesigns) (CR is typically express so unhelpful for local service)
Every 10 minutes or better:
* OL
* BL
* GL Lechmere-Kenmore
* RL Alewife-JFK UMass
* SLW South Sta-Silver Line Way
* SL4/SL5
* GL B + 57 Kenmore-Packards Corner
* GL E +39 Copley-Heath St
* 1
* 111
* 12/65 Nubian-Ruggles-LMA-Brookline Villahe
* 15/66 Nubian-Roxbury Crossing-Brookline Village
* 19/22 Brookline Village-Peabody Loop
* 23/28 Roxbury Crossing-Peabody Loop
* 28/47 Nubian-Ruggles-LMA-Fenway
* 34/34E/35/36/37 Forest Hills-Roslindale Sq
* 66/86 Harvard-Lower Allston
* 71/73 Harvard-Mt Auburn
* 106/110 Wellington-Sweetser Cir
Every 15 minutes or better:
* RL Ashmont (branch)
* RL Braintree (branch)
* Mattapan Line
* GL B (branch)
* GL C (branch)
* GL D (branch)
* GL E (branch)
* SL1
* SL2
* SL3
* SL4 (branch, no change)
* SL5 (branch, no change)
* 7 (outer terminal changed to Andrew instead of City Point; BNRD extension removed in favor of current DTX terminal)
* 8 (reuses BNRD proposal)
* 9
* 12 (runs from Andrew to Brookline Village via BMC, Nubian, Ruggles, MFA & LMA)
* 15 (inner terminal changed from Ruggles to Brookline Village via Roxbury Crossing. Brigham Circle & Riverway)
* 16
* 19 (inner terminal changed from Kenmore to Brookline Village via Peabody Loop, Egleston Sq, Jackson Sq & Heath St)
* 21 (increased frequency to compensate for 31 removal)
* 22 (inner terminal changed from Ruggles to Brookline Village via Jackson Sq, Heath St & Riverway)
* 23 (no change)
* 28 (inner terminal extended from Ruggles to Kenmore via MFA & LMA)
* 32
* 34/34E (no change; BNRD changes removed)
* 35/36/37 (no change; BNRD changes removed)
* 39 (no change)
* 42 (inner terminal cut back from Broadway/South Station to Nubian, replaced by 41)
* 47 (inner terminal cut from Broadway to Nubian; outer terminal extended from Central Sq to Davis Sq via Union Sq to replace 87/91)
* 57
* 65 (routing changed to match the 47 between LMA and MFA, inner terminal extended from Ruggles to Nubian)
* 66 (no change)
* 69
* 70 (BNRD changes removed, Central Sq-Kendall MIT routing eliminated, inner terminal is University Park, use Red Line)
* 71
* 73
* 74
* 77
* 82 (Thompson Sq to Kendall via Lechmere & Cambridge Crossing)
* 86 (reuses BNRD route)
* 89 (outer terminal extended from Davis to Arlington Ctr via Clarendon Hill to replace 87/88/90)
* 93 (BNRD changes removed)
* 94/99/100 Wellington to Fellsway
* 96 (inner terminal cut back from Union Sq to Davis Sq replaced by 47; outer terminal Malden Sta to replace 101)
* 101 (routing changed from South Medford to run via Magoun Sq, Gilman Sq, and Union Sq; inner terminal extended from Sullivan to Kendall MIT; outer terminal cut from Malden Sta to Medford Sq, replaced with 96)
* 104 (routing changed between Everett and Chelsea to follow 110/112 routing to replace 112)
* 106 (branch to Linden Sq added to replace 108)
* 109 (reuses BNRD route)
* 110
* 116
* 214/216 Quincy Ctr-Sea St (pre-COVID routes restored)
* 220/222 Quincy Ctr-Weymouth (no change)
* 215//238/240 Quincy Ctr-South Quincy
* 441/442/455 Wonderland-Lynn (no change)
* 712/713 Orient Heights-Winthrop (BNRD changes removed)
Every 20 minutes:
* 90 (BNRD extension to Clarendon Hill eliminated, outer terminal cut back to Davis Sq, replaced by 89 extension)
* 95 (routing to Arlington Center removed and replaced with 94; outer terminal stays at Playstead Rd, Winthrop St branch added)
Every 30 minutes:
* 24 (runs from Ashmont to Hyde Park via Mattapan; once per hour extension run to Wolcott Sq via Deadham Line)
* 30 (increased frequency to compensate for removal of 31)
* 41 (runs from Monument to South Station via Jackson Sq, Nubian, BMC, and Broadway; replaces 11 and 42)
* 62/76/84 Alewife - Route 2
* 62/76 East Lexington - Lexington Ctr (renumber to 362/376)
* 64 (Central Sq-Kendall MIT routing eliminated, inner terminal is University Park, use Red Line)
* 70/554 Waltham Sta - West Waltham
* 85 (outer terminal cut back from Assembly to Kendall MIT, replaced with 101 extension)
* 92 (BNRD changes removed)
* 94 (Arlington Center to Wellington via West Medford, Medford Sq & Riverside Ave)
* 106 Lebanon Loop & Linden Sq branches
* 119 (BNRD changes removed)
* 120 (BNRD changes removed)
* 201/202
* 214 (pre-COVID routing restored)
* 216 (pre-COVID routing restored)
* 215
* 220
* 222
* 225
* 226/236 Braintree Sta-East Braintree
* 238/240 South Quincy-Quincy Adams
* 426 (to Wonderland)
* 441/442 Lynn to Marblehead except Swampscott
* 450 (to Wonderland full time)
* 455 (runs via North Shore Rd between Lynn and Wonderland)
* 553/558 Waltham Sta-Auburndale
* 553 Watertown-Newton Corner-West Newton loop
* 712 (BNRD changes removed)
* 713 (BNRD changes removed)
* East Boston Ferry
Every 40-45 minutes:
* 35/36/37 branches
* 95 West Medford-Playstead Rd loop branches
Every 60 minutes:
* 14 (inner terminal changed from Heath St to Ashmont Sta to replace route 26)
* 34E
* 38 (BNRD changes removed)
* 40 (to Wolcott Sq)
* 50 (to Wolcott Sq)
* 51
* 52 (BNRD changes removed, renumber to 562)
* 59 (renumber to 569)
* 60 (inner terminal changed to Brookline Village)
* 61 (no change)
* 62 (to Bedford, renumber to 362)
* 67 (inner terminal changed from Alewife to Davis to replace 80/94 to serve Medford GLX station)
* 70 (to Market Place Dr from Waltham Sta)
* 75 (outer terminal changed to Arlington Ctr to replace route 78 and 67)
* 76 (to Lincoln Lab, renumber to 376)
* 84 (restored pre-COVID route to replace route 78)
* 99 (through routes to 100, serves Middlesex Ave to replace 108 instead of Main St between Malden Ctr and Wellington, remove Woodland Rd and other deviations)
* 100 (through routes to 99)
* 112 (serves Gateway Ctr to replace 97, uses 2nd St, limited to Admirals Hill)
* 132 (serves Woodland Rd to replace 99)
* 134
* 136/137 (most portions)
* 210
* 211 (BNRD changes removed)
* 226
* 230
* 236
* 238 (BNRD changes removed)
* 240
* 245
* 429 (serves Kennedy Dr to replace 411, Lynn Sta reached via Washington St)
* 430 (serves Kennedy Dr to replace 411)
* 435 (via Eastern Ave to replace 424/456, follows 455 routing to Lynn Sta)
* 436 (follows 455 routing to Lynn Sta
* 441 (in Swampscott)
* 442 (in Swampscott)
* 451 (revert 2012 service cuts)
* 465 (serve Peabody Sq, Liberty Tree, Northshore Malls instead)
* 553 (loop segments; Watertown Sq - Waltham Sta via Newton Corner & Newtonville & West Newton)
* 554 (Watertown Sq - Roberts via Newton Corner & Newtonville & Waltham Sta & West Waltham)
* 556 (Watertown Sq - Waltham Highlands via Newton Corner & Waltham Sta)
* 558 (Riverside - Waverley Sq via Auburndale & Waltham Sta)
* 714
* 716
Removed routes:
4, 11, 17, 18, 43, 44, 45, 55, 68, 78, 80, 83, 87, 88, 91, 97, 105, 108, 114, 411, 424, 428, 456, CT3
These routes got removed here as it's possible that if Jarrett Walker were to redraw Boston's frequent network to extend the frequent network; then this could be such concept.
Note that other routes may partially replace these removed routes.
This is specifically a Ridership Concept. NOT a Coverage Concept. (But no coverage routes were removed if it'd leave a municipality without any service at all, coverage routes are only removed where ridership routes already exist)
(though it's so tempting to just remove all the remaining coverage routes and extend the ridership frequent network even more)
Routes that should be every 15 minute frequent routes, but aren't: (either because RLX/OLX/BLX would be useful; and/or more bus service hours are needed than implied by the actual BNRD proposal)
* 94 (Arlington Ctr - West Medford - Medford Sq - Riverside Ave - Wellington)
* 30 (Forest Hills - Roslindale Sq - Mattapan Sta)
* 24 (Ashmont - Mattapan - Hyde Park)
* 50 (Roslindale Sq - Hyde Park only)
* 441/442 (combined portions between Lynn and Marblehead only)
(If you know how to read Jarrett Walker's maps, then the usual obvious red = frequent, blue = middle, green = infrequent. You may want to refer to the text lists for each individual route to follow a specific route. If there is no annotation; assume the present day terminals and/or routing. Maybe later I'll edit this image with the route numbers added later if I feel like it.)
It's an interactive map showing new example rail lines, and what could be possible with more funding. There are a lot of different scenarios, and you can get directions between points. It will show you what your route might look like with different new lines and how much time you might save. It's also got isochrones showing how far you could get from a point in a certain amount of time.
I haven't played with it too much, but looks pretty cool
