Crazy Transit Pitches

Stlin said:
Basically! It'd likely have really limited utility for not-office park / mall based folks, but the sheer concentration of those types of workplaces in finite pockets along the 128 Corridor, from Danvers to Quincy makes it interesting to me. I'm basically imagining the 128 Alewife shuttles, just PnR oriented. The diversions would possibly be a problem, but with some sort of "traffic skip," especially in your open BRT concept, they'd probably be able to make up that time whenever there's meaningful traffic, absent local congestion.

Generally, I think complexity is a deterrent to transit ridership, so I probably wouldn't extend it along the radial highways, at least not as a first step. Connections seem dicey to me, and I don't think you usually see too much traffic on those radial highways until I95. Although there's similar office park density on I90 / the I495 ring, a lot of office parks are off corridor. I think it would all depend on whether there'd be demand for that out further where there isn't as much traffic.
Click to expand...
I have (multiple) other projects I'm working on that I want to knock out, but I can hear this idea luring me down the rabbit hole...
 
I'm sure there are very good reasons, but why do crayon maps never seem to pitch a restoration of service on Comm Ave all the way to Norumbega (or pick your ~128 end point). Obviously not a viable service under existing conditions, but neither are so many pitches. This seems to be a straightforward, "upzone the whole corridor and build the tracks". There's plenty of RoW, it's pretty poorly used in existing conditions. Are the grades too steep? Something else I'm missing?
 
KCasiglio said:
I'm sure there are very good reasons, but why do crayon maps never seem to pitch a restoration of service on Comm Ave all the way to Norumbega (or pick your ~128 end point). Obviously not a viable service under existing conditions, but neither are so many pitches. This seems to be a straightforward, "upzone the whole corridor and build the tracks". There's plenty of RoW, it's pretty poorly used in existing conditions. Are the grades too steep? Something else I'm missing?
Click to expand...
It could be that people are too busy looking at corridors with more density that are not or underserved as well as areas that have no close connections. Because that would currently have to be hubbed onto the already slow and long (station wise) B or C lines it doesn't make sense to consider it strongly when busses to D or Kenmore might be a better fit (again, for now).
 
KCasiglio said:
I'm sure there are very good reasons, but why do crayon maps never seem to pitch a restoration of service on Comm Ave all the way to Norumbega (or pick your ~128 end point). Obviously not a viable service under existing conditions, but neither are so many pitches. This seems to be a straightforward, "upzone the whole corridor and build the tracks". There's plenty of RoW, it's pretty poorly used in existing conditions. Are the grades too steep? Something else I'm missing?
Click to expand...
Speed, connecting to the already unreliable B branch, lack of density, and few opportunities for increasing density without demolishing existing homes.

In my opinion, to really make it work:
  • Each stop along the route would really need to be a bike Park & Ride, which while easier than a parking garage, is still space intensive.
  • It has to be connected up to the D branch or at least the C, not the B.
  • The Central Subway needs to be sped up a fair bit.
And even that it likely wouldn't be that time-competitive with the D branch at Newton Centre or Framingham/Worcester Line for people that are already cycling to the nearest station.
 
I’ve sometimes sketched a locally-oriented service that runs from Auburndale to Cleveland Circle and then interlines with the C to Kenmore where it loops. But yes, the density is quite low.

@TheRatmeister, good call on the cycling integration. I wonder if low-floor cars and lower-ridership could make it viable for bicycles to be brought on board, at least along the Newton segment.
 
Riverside said:
@TheRatmeister, good call on the cycling integration. I wonder if low-floor cars and lower-ridership could make it viable for bicycles to be brought on board, at least along the Newton segment.
Click to expand...
Folding bikes or scooters? Sure. Full sized bikes? Definitely not, unless you want to attach a whole car filled with bike racks and even then you couldn't fit that many.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Folding bikes or scooters? Sure. Full sized bikes? Definitely not, unless you want to attach a whole car filled with bike racks and even then you couldn't fit that many.
Click to expand...
There are some systems with a few bike racks at the end of every car. I've ridden on such cars in L.A., and they are well used pretty much throughout the day.
 
HenryAlan said:
There are some systems with a few bike racks at the end of every car. I've ridden on such cars in L.A., and they are well used pretty much throughout the day.
Click to expand...
You can definitely build a light rail line that can have a few bike racks, but that's very different from building a line primarily based on "bike-up" ridership with large numbers of people hoping to take bikes on board for their trip. They would fill up rather quickly and most people would just be disappointed. Better (in my opinion) to have everyone leave their bikes at the stops and not start down the rabbit hole of chasing bike capacity on trains.
 
I severely doubt that Comm Ave west of BC will ever be suitable for anything more than a local bus route. It made sense in the streetcar era to access Newton Centre, Newton Highlands, and Norumbega Park - poaching ridership from the railroads - but there was never anything more than single-family houses on Comm Ave itself between BC and Auburndale. Ridership on the bus routes using Comm Ave collapsed after the Highland Branch was converted to light rail, since it provided high-quality frequent transit from the villages where the actual density is. The NETransit history has this to say about the BC-Auburndale route (the only route using Comm Ave by 1964): "Route 535 was discontinued in June 1976. In its final days, it was used primarily by domestics reverse commuting to Newton"

1741981579615.png


Comm Ave would require a massive removal of trees which the locals would riot about, and the existing single-family housing would not be likely to densify fast enough to justify rail. It makes more much sense to focus on densifying the existing rail-served villages (replacing parking lots and single-story commercial), and doing the Riverside TOD. Newton's transit priorities should be getting frequent electric service on the Worcester Line, building the GL spur to Needham (with major TOD potential on the east side of Newton Upper Falls), and upgrading bus service on corridors like Washington Street and Boylston Street where there are pockets of density.
 
Here's the catchment area of Comm Ave Newton that's being discussed, on the population density map:

1742005449521.png


This is quite literally one of the sparsest regions in metro Boston, only after South Brookline. Even south-central Milton's main road corridors are denser.

Notwithstanding Newton's reputation of "not needing transit", if there are places in Newton that we think should get better transit and/or developments... It's along the Worcester Line and points north towards Watertown/Waltham. The second-best option would be along the D. While adding service to Comm Ave West can theoretically provide "full" coverage for Newton, the same can almost be achieved by simply improving the 52 and 59 buses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top