Crazy Transit Pitches

Looks good in general. A couple tweaks I'd make:

* The Needham Line past West Roxbury is better served with a Green Line flank off the D. Otherwise you're running through a whole lot of nothing across the swamp.

* Going via the Logan terminals is an awfully slow way to get to Chelsea, and you can't run E-C-B-A without an awfully expensive tunnel. Better to keep the current SL plans on whatever mode - one branch looping A-B-C-E-return, and one to Chelsea.
 
I was going to do a green line branch and I might change that but with my current plan that would put 3 lines using the center tracks and I was worried it might have negative effects on service levels.

Thanks for the information on the terminal I honestly was planning on having a tunnel built and I was aware it would be slow but I was having trouble finding a good alternative.
 
http://www.gmapgis.com/index.htm?Qwg0T5RZiv.gmp
I was just messing around with Ideas of a major expansion on the MBTA. This program doesn't color code the lines so it may be confusing. If you have any questions as to what I was going for feel free to ask.

Also click the transit button on the top it will make far more sense that way.
 
coleslaw said:
http://www.gmapgis.com/index.htm?Qwg0T5RZiv.gmp
I was just messing around with Ideas of a major expansion on the MBTA. This program doesn't color code the lines so it may be confusing. If you have any questions as to what I was going for feel free to ask.

Also click the transit button on the top it will make far more sense that way.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for recognizing the need for transit service on Rt 16. It is absurd that in order for me to get to Medford (or Malden) from my apartment on the Chelsea/Revere line, I have to take a trip that can amount to 2 hours of traveling.
 
Huntington was reconstructed in 2004 or so which is what you currently see there. That was an MBTA-led project, which is one of the main reasons why it lacks bicycle accommodation of any kind (the city came in and added sharrows pretty recently). It has been criticized for wasting space on the trees along the reservation and for preserving too much on-street parking, which results in narrow sidewalks in many places and no room for bike lanes or cycle tracks. It was definitely a case of beautification over usability (and preserving as much capacity as possible for cars).
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
Thank you so much for recognizing the need for transit service on Rt 16. It is absurd that in order for me to get to Medford (or Malden) from my apartment on the Chelsea/Revere line, I have to take a trip that can amount to 2 hours of traveling.
Click to expand...

Part of what I was trying to do was create ways to get from non-downtown areas to other non-downtown areas more easily. Some parts could still be better and i didn't pit in any loop system yet. Its crazy how under served the areas north of the city are, and those cities/towns are some of the densest in the metro area.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
How's the 66 Ring going to split these differences? OK...say you do pass up the Grand Junction for the $2B Brookline subway for purposes of utter, unassailable mapmaker's perfection.

  • Transfer-to-transfer riders need fewer stops, Brookline local riders need more stops. Every extra non-transfer or low-frequency transfer stop on the route more of the transfer-to-transfer riders take a pass on the Ring and continue fighting the crowds downtown. Every local stop trimmed on the route is going to inconvenience the locals. Mutually exclusive needs, few options for ideal solutions. Picture a typically Massachusetts-like political sausage-making compromise to these divergent needs, and is the end result half as satisfying as it sounds in concept? I'm gonna guess no.
  • It is going to be nearly impossible to do single-ticket B and C transfers when those branchlines are on the surface. And they'll be at diffuse branch frequencies vs. mainline subway frequencies. The GJ Ring would travel with the B in a subway east of BU Bridge and hit all lines at saturation-frequency Kenmore. Is this really a better deal for the transfer crowd?
  • What kind of frequencies are possible on this routing vs. the GJ + Harvard spur? Everything going around the 66 routing has to make the complete circuit from Lechmere to Brookline Village. The GJ + Harvard spur allow you to mix and match: around, then downtown; around-to-around; Harvard-downtown; Harvard around via Lechmere; Harvard around via Brookline Village; etc., etc. More total frequencies from having more short, targeted service patterns. Doesn't that matter more for the transfer crowd who aren't riding the Ring for any appreciable mileage before transferring off?
  • Don't underestimate how crucial it is that the as-designed UR hits the #1 and CT1 in the middle of their routes at the very widest point between subway transfers. Not nearly as many new riders gained just hitting the Harvard and Dudley termini while the slog through the middle on the city's most unimprovable bus route remains much the same.
  • Any way you slice it, a trip to Kenmore down the Harvard spur + a cross-platform transfer + 2 stops out to the D is going to beat the 66 one-seat to Longwood. Let's not even consider the realistic possibility of a direct boomeranging around Kenmore making that a real one-seat...the two-seater takes half as much time as going around the 66. Is it really worth making everyone ride the 66 route to murkily split the difference Ring vs. neighborhood transit when the spur performs that exceedingly better?
  • If Washington St. goes LRT, does a 66 Ring direct from Harvard to Dudley perform noticeably better than either of these Harvard options which will both be available with the as-designed UR? Red Line @ Harvard --> Park --> transfer to Green on Dudley trolley. Or UR/Green @ Harvard --> Boylston or Park --> transfer to outbound Dudley trolley. Some peak-hour crowding downtown, but it's 2 routes' worth of service redundancy.
  • Would you rather put up with those two Harvard-Dudley transfer routes for 20 years apply all that money allotted to building this mapmakers' perfection 66 subway instead to building out the Huntington subway? I think you could complete the circuit to Brookline Village AND relocate it off Copley Jct. to a higher-capacity Back Bay/South End route for the same cash. And still get your Harvard-Dudley thru-routing off the South End junction. In addition to Harvard-Seaport, which you ain't getting by running an ultra-long schedule through Brookline. Is that money better spent blowing the lid off routing options in and around downtown vs. trying to draw a perfect line on a map locked into more limited patterns of service? The $B+ check for the dual Huntington tunnel extensions accelerates the system's evolution to blended service patterns everywhere to everywhere. The many-$B check for the 66 bends the system back towards the less flexible fixed route schedules it's trying to break free from. You can't pay for both those megaprojects in any 30-year span, so which is the better and more transformative investment?




And finally, the 66 just a flat-out better bus if you do take the most logical build path to divorcing those Longwood and Dudley end-to-end riders from the Allston/Brookline stop-to-stop riders. If it can run a heavier-frequency schedule going only Harvard-Brookline Village instead of having to predicate its woeful OTP on the Dudley appendage, it gets a lot more convenient. And if the Ring turns Brookline Village into a super transfer node, the strictly local Allston/Brookline riders who do need to get to Dudley gain the local frequencies and transfer frequencies to get there more reliably than they do today saddled with that overly long and unreliable route. Another example where a local bus becomes a much better and more focused local bus simply by hitting the Ring. It doesn't have to be the Ring to be a primary beneficiary of the Ring.
Click to expand...

After rereading this and spending ALOT of time on Google Earth and street view (one of my favorite pasttimes :) ), I had a couple of thoughts, but also a question first:

How does an LRV version of the Urban Ring "spur-to-Harvard work"? I'm assuming it crosses the Charles and then goes west through the new Beacon Park neighborhood, rather than joining the B toward Kenmore, but does it hug the Charles? Or would it connect with new 'West Station' in Beacon Park? Any connection with Barry's Corner? I don't think I've ever seen an actual routing for it so just curious where it goes, or if this has even been considered yet.

As for the trip from MFA to Ruggles down Ruggles Street (I'm of course thinking of a boomerang Kenmore-Brookline Village that then runs down Huntington),here it seems to me like Ruggles Street could be widened enough to allow for a reserved ROW running down the middle. Not sure how politically feasible it would be, just saying it seems like technically it wouldn't be challenging, as there aren't really any buildings right up against the street, with grass and trees on either side that could simply be paved over to widen it. After stopping at Ruggles it could then continue down Melnea Cass eastward in a reserved ROW, as Melnea Cass is also wide enough for this. If money and political will weren't an issue (this is Crazy Transit pitches after all), would it make sense to widen Ruggles Street? Or would street running for that short segment not slow things down enough to warrant it?
 
Deetroyt said:
After rereading this and spending ALOT of time on Google Earth and street view (one of my favorite pasttimes :) ), I had a couple of thoughts, but also a question first:

How does an LRV version of the Urban Ring "spur-to-Harvard work"? I'm assuming it crosses the Charles and then goes west through the new Beacon Park neighborhood, rather than joining the B toward Kenmore, but does it hug the Charles? Or would it connect with new 'West Station' in Beacon Park? Any connection with Barry's Corner? I don't think I've ever seen an actual routing for it so just curious where it goes, or if this has even been considered yet.
Click to expand...

It's pretty up-for-grabs once it gets to Western Ave, how it gets to BU Bridge, but it would be something sort of like this:

TLS9d9U.png


I think there are some basic sketches of the old official concepts out there somewhere.

As for the trip from MFA to Ruggles down Ruggles Street (I'm of course thinking of a boomerang Kenmore-Brookline Village that then runs down Huntington),here it seems to me like Ruggles Street could be widened enough to allow for a reserved ROW running down the middle. Not sure how politically feasible it would be, just saying it seems like technically it wouldn't be challenging, as there aren't really any buildings right up against the street, with grass and trees on either side that could simply be paved over to widen it. After stopping at Ruggles it could then continue down Melnea Cass eastward in a reserved ROW, as Melnea Cass is also wide enough for this. If money and political will weren't an issue (this is Crazy Transit pitches after all), would it make sense to widen Ruggles Street? Or would street running for that short segment not slow things down enough to warrant it?
Click to expand...

My guess is that if the "Urban Ring Boomerang" from BU to Kenmore to Brookline Village up Huntington ever happens, Huntington will be fully buried by the time the Urban Ring is rumbling through. In that case, it probably makes more sense to keep it buried under Ruggles, under the NEC, and rising up to a portal once it's on alignment with Melnea Cass, which has room for a reservation. Junctioning off of Huntington at Ruggles would be an endeavor, but probably way easier than trying to junction down Tremont at Brigham Circle, and tunneling under Ruggles should be straightforward (I'm pretty sure that land was cleared), unless the Stony Brook culvert causes difficulties.
 
Van put up a similar proposal somewhere around here a few months back, looked around but couldnt find it - I think this Kenmore-W station/HBS-Hvd Sq line might just be the single smartest and most cost effective move we could get for a major new transit expansion... except the tunneling for the last part would be a killer. What about running the line all the way under Mass Ave to Porter -> Union etc - a Green "Circle Line"?
 
Yeah, the route would have followed a very similar path but would have split from the B at Babcock St so to align more with the West Station. That would be the easy part, unfortunately. It would require a tunnel under the Charles and SOMEHOW weaved under Harvard Sq. Someone brought up the idea of reusing the old Red Line tunnels that connected to the old yards (now the JFK School of Government) which could work but I don't know the layout of the tunnels so I can't suggest that as the best alternative. The other option would be a deep bore tunnel to a terminal more lined up with the current Harvard station.

Either way it's something that seriously needs consideration. If this was Europe it would be a no brainer!

Although if I had my way I'd bury the B line out past Packards Corner and built a spur off to Harvard.

Still it isn't worth talking about new Green Line routes without dealing with the capacity issues it already has. A new line off the B would reduce service from BC to Packard's Corner and even extending the C to Lake St wouldn't do much to help. You'd have all of Brighton up in arms against Harvard taking priority over B Line service.
 
The old RL tunnel starts in the current station (there is only a cinderblock wall separating it from the lobby), and ends in Brattle Square at Bennett Street. (That's why there are ventilation grates in front of the Chipotle.) It's no coincidence that the end of the tunnel is directly on alignment with the 50' wide path through the center of the JFK school, Harvard saw the potential for reusing the tunnel in some fashion long ago.

The old RL tunnel is also really wide under Brattle Square, so it could accommodate a stub-end terminal with platforms on either side. Sery from over on rr.net got a tour a few years back. Pics Here.
 
davem said:
It's no coincidence that the end of the tunnel is directly on alignment with the 50' wide path through the center of the JFK school, Harvard saw the potential for reusing the tunnel in some fashion long ago.

Pics Here.
Click to expand...

It is a coincidence. The path is located along an alignment that was used as a public walkway back when the land was occupied by the MBTA's trackless trolley carhouse (Bennett St.) and the old Red Line shops (Eliot Shops). In the early 60s, the MTA opened up part of the trackless trolley yard as a parking lot and allowed public access along a path from Bennett St. to Memorial Drive. When the MBTA facilities were sold to Harvard and developed, the Charles Hotel portion and the Kennedy School portions were developed at different times and the public path remained open. If you go to historic aerials, notice that the public path remains on the same alignment as the separation between the Red Line and the trackless trolley sides of the original transit complex. At one time in the 1980s, Harvard was looking to buy the abandoned tunnel to convert to a parking garage, but the MBTA wished to maintain it as part of the emergency ventilation system for the station (that's why the vents were built in front of the Chipolte building). There are some very large fans that separate the abandoned tunnel from the fare lobby.

Note also that in one of the pics linked, you can see that the tunnel ends at the foundation for the Harvard building.
 
FK4 said:
Van put up a similar proposal somewhere around here a few months back, looked around but couldnt find it - I think this Kenmore-W station/HBS-Hvd Sq line might just be the single smartest and most cost effective move we could get for a major new transit expansion... except the tunneling for the last part would be a killer. What about running the line all the way under Mass Ave to Porter -> Union etc - a Green "Circle Line"?
Click to expand...

Cool idea i hadn't thought of, tho I always imagined the Union Sq. spur to Porter to contine onto Waltham, following the Fitchburg ROW.

vanshnookenraggen said:
Although if I had my way I'd bury the B line out past Packards Corner and built a spur off to Harvard.

Still it isn't worth talking about new Green Line routes without dealing with the capacity issues it already has. A new line off the B would reduce service from BC to Packard's Corner and even extending the C to Lake St wouldn't do much to help. You'd have all of Brighton up in arms against Harvard taking priority over B Line service.
Click to expand...

This is why the D needs to run down a buried Huntington Tunnel to Back Bay and Tufts, where it would enter the old Pleasant Street incline to Boylston, opening capacity for the B, C, Harvard spur, and reactivated A line :))) down the central subway!
 
FK4 said:
What about running the line all the way under Mass Ave to Porter -> Union etc - a Green "Circle Line"?
Click to expand...

...or skip all the tunneling by having it use the existing station bus tunnel and then run down the middle of mass ave, which is super-wide between Harvard and porter (and which could use some 'infill' access - harvard, among others, might be especially happy to have a one-seat ride from the Radcliffe Quad to Allston).

...you might even be happy to bridge over the Charles instead of digging under it, if you had a 'son of Weeks Footrbridge' with trolley tracks in the middle of it (perhaps as an amsterdam-style singletrack pinch?) and pedestrian / bike space on either side, west of the Lars ...
 
Not to be pedantic dick, but tecnically, Bennett Street is Eliot, not Brattle Square ("Harvard Sq" = Eliot, Brattle, Winthrop, Quincy and Harvard Squares, strictly speaking. Putnam Sq, too, if you choose to include it. There's a lot of cool pics floating around of the yard back in the day; here is one:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ck4049/5009097547/

I think for a while there was talk of running a transit line over an expanded Lars Anderson Bridge, back when they also were talking about widening it and filling it with shops like the Ponte Vecchio. I still think a tunnel would be far superior, and would continue it under Mass Ave. That whole stretch of Mass Ave is way too wide and unattractive but I'd rather see a nice median with trees and some taller buildings that could really be served by a subway.

There's a lot of talk about the dual role of the 66, and having a Green Line from Kenmore->Harvard->Porter could really capture a lot of longer distance Cambridge passengers heading toward the LMA and Brookline. If the line avoided West Station, then Kenmore would need a better (ie underground pedestrian tunnel) connection to Yawkey, to facilitate rail passenger headed to Harvard, BU and whatever gets going in the Beacon Yards.
 
Not being a dick, keeping local geography knowledge intact is important. I had originally thought the tunnel ended at Mt Auburn which is why I said Brattle, and when I double checked and saw it was Bennett St I neglected to update the name of the square, thanks!
 
It's not a big deal if this Urban Ring LRT spur to Harvard has to run street-running from N. Harvard St. across the bridge. A tunnel is enormous expense to swallow, so it's best to plan the build in 2 phases spread at least a decade or more apart. Do a grade-separated route through Allston to Ohiri Field @ N. Harvard. Depending on where you touch down at the field it's 2900-3500 ft. and 5 traffic lights of street-running across the bridge, up Eliot St., and looping at the surface at Brattle Sq. where the trackless trolley loop is (better here than going into the bus tunnel and making a cumbersome street-running loop around Cambridge Common). That's roughly equivalent in street-running distance to Brigham Circle-Heath on the E with fewer stops (zero, basically) and significantly shorter overlap with truly heavy traffic (Storrow EB traffic light to Eliot St.).


That is absolutely fine to run for the first dozen to twenty years. You can figure out the Charles crossing, the disruption to the front lawn and walkway of the JFK School, and the utility relocation in the RL tunnel later. That tunnel job is going to cost you as much as the Red-Blue connector, on a far less mission-critical route. Whereas a grade separated Allston route with simple overpasses over Western Ave. and Rotterdam, and a tie-in to the existing TT traction power substation at Bennett Alley outside Brattle is a relatively easy one. Make them separate projects and don't sweat the street-running because you're going to need it for awhile before a Charles crossing and tunnel hookup are at all fundable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top