Crazy Transit Pitches

[RandomWalk]

I recall a construction photo of the Dewey Square tunnel which show the severed trolley tunnel.

 

[Longfellow]

Not sure if either of these are it.

 

[The EGE]

The Summer Street Concourse goes as far east as halfway between Otis and Devonshire; this hatch is at the far end.

I vaguely recall years ago on here, F-Line or someone saying that BERY originally intended to run a trolley car line in that tunnel you describe that runs above the RL from Washington St to Dewey Square. Of course the SB Central Artery tunnel cuts it off, making use of it for a rapid transit line impossible.

This is one of those rumors that just won't go away. It was never intended for streetcars, nor is it anywhere near tall enough. The existence of the concourse is simply a result of the cut-and-cover construction method. At first the BTC wasn't sure whether to fill the portion under Winter in or have it be for pedestrians (see 1912 report), but the latter was chosen. Per the 1914 report, the portion under Summer was always intended as the station mezzanine.

The reason the concourse ends east of Otis is because of the tunneling method. The tunnel starts going deeper there to go under sewers and eventually Fort Point Channel, so it switched from cut-and-cover to mined tunnel with an arched roof.

I recall a construction photo of the Dewey Square tunnel which show the severed trolley tunnel.

You're probably thinking of the arched Red Line roof being shaved. Pictures here:

https://archboston.com/community/threads/reasonable-transit-pitches.4187/page-63#post-266085

 

[Charlie_mta]

The Summer Street Concourse goes as far east as halfway between Otis and Devonshire; this hatch is at the far end.


This is one of those rumors that just won't go away. It was never intended for streetcars, nor is it anywhere near tall enough. The existence of the concourse is simply a result of the cut-and-cover construction method. At first the BTC wasn't sure whether to fill the portion under Winter in or have it be for pedestrians (see 1912 report), but the latter was chosen. Per the 1914 report, the portion under Summer was always intended as the station mezzanine.

The reason the concourse ends east of Otis is because of the tunneling method. The tunnel starts going deeper there to go under sewers and eventually Fort Point Channel, so it switched from cut-and-cover to mined tunnel with an arched roof.


You're probably thinking of the arched Red Line roof being shaved. Pictures here:

https://archboston.com/community/threads/reasonable-transit-pitches.4187/page-63#post-266085

Sounds good, and thanks for the info. Sorry, F-Line, I didn't mean to misquote you.

 

[RandomWalk]

You're probably thinking of the arched Red Line roof being shaved. Pictures here:

https://archboston.com/community/threads/reasonable-transit-pitches.4187/page-63#post-266085

Bingo. This board never forgets anything. That makes the occasional petty arguments worth it.

 

[Riverside]

I guess I'm on a "Crazy Seaport Transit Pitches" theme here: I'm gonna return to an idea I've idly raised in the past, but raise it now as an honest-to-God serious proposal: realign the Red Line through the Seaport:

There are two alternatives, "easy" [relatively speaking] and "hard":

"Easy": add a single (deeper-level) station at A St under Congress (or even under Summer, if you can get a headhouse on Congress) before cutting under the Mass Pike and tunneling under Track 61 back to the existing Red Line subway (probably south of Broadway and so, yes, a new Broadway station would probably be needed). Part of what makes this "easier" is that Track 61 has been a railroad longer than parts of Southie have existed, so hopefully it would be a "cleaner" dig. The downside is that you still leave a fair amount of the Seaport untouched and only accessible via the Silver Line. (Jobs still are more weighted toward the western end of the Seaport for now, but presumably that will change.) This is 1.4 miles of subway, a bit less than a mile of which is under Track 61.

"Hard": continue under Congress St to a second station at World Trade Center. Then turn southwest along D Street to eventually rejoin the existing subway. Southie gets a much more centrally located station at D & West Broadway. This one is "hard" because it's longer and doesn't have the allure of the Track 61 ROW. But it would provide quite a lot more benefit. This is about 2 miles of subway.

So, why do this?

First, I'd argue that the shape of the subway network "wants" the Red Line to go to the Seaport. The Dorchester Subway turned south just east of South Station because that's where downtown ended at the time. Now, the "downtown" extends further east, and it still makes sense for the Red Line to reach toward "downtown's" eastern boundary before turning south.

Second, the Red Line is ultimately going to offer higher capacity for growth than a BRT or LRT subway will. (Whether the Red Line has the necessary excess capacity to support that growth is a fair question, though.)

Third, the Red Realignment addresses the "transfer" problem that bedevils Seaport transit proposals (both official and crayon): today's Silver Line only connects to the Red Line, meaning that Green and Orange riders must do a very short 1 or 2 stop hop on the Red Line to commute to the Seaport. (And in our crayoning/Green Line Reconfiguration world, access to the Seaport from the northern Green and Orange Lines is still a headache.) With a Red Realignment, all of that goes away; the Seaport becomes as easy to access as Kendall or Harvard.

How does this compare to other projects?

Portal to portal, I believe NSRL is about 2.8 miles. Blue-Red is 0.4 miles. A Huntington Ave Subway extension to Brigham Circle is about 1 mile. An RLX to Arlington Center would be around 1.4 miles, while the further extension to Heights would be 2.8 miles.

So, the Red Realignment would be in the higher echelon of proposals, but not off by an order of magnitude. With a Red Realignment in place, I would see less of a need for a "Gold Line" Back Bay <> South Station connector. On the other hand, this would place increased burden on the Red Line, which might in turn necessitate improvements elsewhere in the system to free up capacity. It's definitely not a surefire winner, but the more I look at it, the more I think it's worth considering -- if we're gonna need to build more transit anyway, why not "go big"?

 

[themissinglink]

I guess I'm on a "Crazy Seaport Transit Pitches" theme here: I'm gonna return to an idea I've idly raised in the past, but raise it now as an honest-to-God serious proposal: realign the Red Line through the Seaport:

View attachment 57375

This would be amazing. It's disappointing that the Seaport realistically isn't going to get rail transit anytime soon.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

"Easy": add a single (deeper-level) station at A St under Congress (or even under Summer, if you can get a headhouse on Congress) before cutting under the Mass Pike and tunneling under Track 61 back to the existing Red Line subway (probably south of Broadway and so, yes, a new Broadway station would probably be needed). Part of what makes this "easier" is that Track 61 has been a railroad longer than parts of Southie have existed, so hopefully it would be a "cleaner" dig. The downside is that you still leave a fair amount of the Seaport untouched and only accessible via the Silver Line. (Jobs still are more weighted toward the western end of the Seaport for now, but presumably that will change.) This is 1.4 miles of subway, a bit less than a mile of which is under Track 61.

Given Gillette's plans for its campus...

Gillette Redevelopment PDA | Bostonplans.org

Development Projects and Planned Development Areas (PDAs) that the Development Review division is coordinating.

www.bostonplans.org

...and the non-Gillette plans for the parcels between there and the existing Fort Point buildings, I'd argue the "easy" option is the only good one b/c it would let you bracket an area whose owner aspire to put up a cool +/-7 million square feet of new development (including ~2 million SF of new housing) in the next 20 years -- and fill in a gap in the current Red Line walkshed.

To boot, you could use the old Broadway station as the site of a transit museum

 

[Riverside]

Given Gillette's plans for its campus...

Gillette Redevelopment PDA | Bostonplans.org

Development Projects and Planned Development Areas (PDAs) that the Development Review division is coordinating.

www.bostonplans.org

...and the non-Gillette plans for the parcels between there and the existing Fort Point buildings, I'd argue the "easy" option is the only good one b/c it would let you bracket an area whose owner aspire to put up a cool +/-7 million square feet of new development (including ~2 million SF of new housing) in the next 20 years -- and fill in a gap in the current Red Line walkshed.

To boot, you could use the old Broadway station as the site of a transit museum

Great points. But wouldn't the "hard" option also address these needs?

But to your point, these development plans would definitely make the "easy" option all the more alluring.

The walkshed point is a good one, and does make me wonder about a pedestrian tunnel under the Channel from the Red Line platforms/lobby. At least some of the NSRL plans have called for a headhouse on the other side of the Channel anyway.