Crazy Transit Pitches

Re: Seaport-South Boston-Bayside Streetcar System

I don't think you're getting a streetcar that runs on Southie neighborhood streets ever. Maybe a converted/dual-mode transitway tunnel from SS to BCEC/WTC, tunnel under D-Street and emerge to run a streetcar along Summer (or the new Haul Road) to City Point. It would be peripheral to the neighborhood but could funnel passengers from the bus network between Broadway and Andrew in the west and City Point in the east. Maybe even branch it out of the Transitway and have another stub that runs down to the west of the Reserve Channel and ends at First Street.

I think it would be politically unpalatable to blast a streetcar through Southie and reach points in Dorchester.

EDIT:
Something like this perhaps:
TShyD3I.png
 
Re: Seaport-South Boston-Bayside Streetcar System

The southside could be well-handled by BRT, especially if that's how the southern loop of an Urban Ring is completed someday.
 
Re: Seaport-South Boston-Bayside Streetcar System

Get the Green Line to the Transitway first and we'll talk.

9 City Point (more or less today's 9 bus) was a busy Green Line branch off the Pleasant St. portal until its bustitution in Dec. 1953. CP is always a possibility since the 9 is perpetually overloaded. Pluses in favor of streetcar off Silver Line Way is that the Summer St. bridge is wide enough to re-stripe and put the trolleys to the left of the yellow stripe for complete traffic separation (if not physical separation). That means there would only have to be at most about 3/4 mile of actual mixed traffic street-running to reach Marine Park.

Minuses would be that the former Silver Line routing down E. 1st didn't do so hot on ridership the last time around so you probably have to do battle with traffic-heavier E. Broadway instead; demand seems to glom much more closely to the literal 9 route instead of 'close enough' parallel streets. Also can't go totally streetcar-mad off Silver Line Way with a whole Southie-crawling network of tracks because there'll be too much co-mingled bus & trolley traffic running through there. Too many branches of each mode will start to gum up the works more than bringing in high-capacity LRT can help clean it up. Keep in mind that southeast-quadrant Urban Ring may be a critical future addition to the traffic mix. So for new trolleys entering city streets after getting Green as far as SL Way you may be limited to just the drop-in replacement for SL2 (hopefully with some modest street reconfig for better traffic separation) and a go/no-go option on whether to do a poke to City Point.
 
I propose Green Line through the Seaport, into the Transitway to South Station where it emerges and runs at grade in designated ROW/Lanes along Atlantic Avenue/Surface Road/Cross Street to New Chardon where it makes a left/right and runs down an otherwise pedestrian/bike only Canal Street (Two stops - one at the Haymarket/Bullfinch Crossing end, one at the North Station End) before making the impossibly sharp left onto Canal, the sharp right onto Lomasney Way and reconnecting with the Green line at the Portal and continuing to either Union or College Avenue.*

Combined with the new payment systems and surface stops at North Station, Haymarket, Aquarium/Faneuil Hall, and Rowes Wharf, you solve the North Station connection and also provide connectivity to the Seaport via a single transfer (or less) from all branches of the network. A bus connection to Logan via the Ted Williams Tunnel could be offered from the Seaport terminus of the line as the Blue Line connection and APM would easily accommodate the bulk of airport traffic.

*Extra sprinkling of crazy*
Have the line continue down N. Washington instead of turning on New Chardon/Canal, run along a redesigned Rutherford Ave, across the Alford St. Bridge by the Casino, Down Broadway in Everett where it'll reconnect to the rail ROW and run east before connecting to the current SL ROW in Chelsea and complete that route.
 
Lrfox said:
I propose Green Line through the Seaport, into the Transitway to South Station where it emerges and runs at grade in designated ROW/Lanes along Atlantic Avenue/Surface Road/Cross Street to New Chardon where it makes a left/right and runs down an otherwise pedestrian/bike only Canal Street (Two stops - one at the Haymarket/Bullfinch Crossing end, one at the North Station End) before making the impossibly sharp left onto Canal, the sharp right onto Lomasney Way and reconnecting with the Green line at the Portal and continuing to either Union or College Avenue.*

Combined with the new payment systems and surface stops at North Station, Haymarket, Aquarium/Faneuil Hall, and Rowes Wharf, you solve the North Station connection and also provide connectivity to the Seaport via a single transfer (or less) from all branches of the network. A bus connection to Logan via the Ted Williams Tunnel could be offered from the Seaport terminus of the line as the Blue Line connection and APM would easily accommodate the bulk of airport traffic.

*Extra sprinkling of crazy*
Have the line continue down N. Washington instead of turning on New Chardon/Canal, run along a redesigned Rutherford Ave, across the Alford St. Bridge by the Casino, Down Broadway in Everett where it'll reconnect to the rail ROW and run east before connecting to the current SL ROW in Chelsea and complete that route.
Click to expand...

Problem: because of all the Big Dig ramps there is only one way out of the Transitway: west under Essex St. to the tip of Chinatown Park / a.k.a. plaza in front of the Radian. That is the point where you are clear of the Purchase St. entrance ramp to 93S. From there you only have room to incline-up to a surface portal by traveling south a block to Beach St., which ends up being a screwy way to try to get around to the Seaport.

Turning north instead is a no-go because of the Purchase ramp, the State Street building, and the too-sharp-for-any-vehicle 45-degree turn required to get clear underneath Lincoln St. Green. And even if you could get there the incline room isn't enough to clear the Red Line tunnel at Summer St.

Basically, any scheme for linking with the Transitway is "locked" no-budge into that Essex-to-Chinatown Park block. Everything south and west of that plaza tip in front of the Radian is fungible for a routing, but nothing whatsoever north or east will work because of blocking structures meeting bad angles.

If the Boylston hook-in and Chinatown underpinning get too tortured going all the way under Essex in a light rail retry of the Silver Line Phase III tunnel (and it most certainly will be too hard), then it's a pick 'em of some length of reactivated Tremont St. tracks to. . .

  • . . .Marginal Rd. + Hudson St. + Chinatown Park. . .
  • . . .Oak St. + Hudson St. + Chinatown Park. . .
  • . . .Stuart/Kneeland St.'s + Chinatown Park. . .
  • . . .LaGrange/Beach St.'s (veeeery dodgy) + Chinatown Park. . .
. . .to that connecting block of Essex between Chinatown Park and Atlantic. Marginal is the only one of those options that offers an opportunity for a surface portal (Tremont @ Marginal traffic island...same place SL Phase III was going to portal-up).


If you really wanted a Greenway trolley, unfortunately a trajectory out of the Transitway just isn't going to work. That's more a job for unsealing the Haymarket portal and starting the surface journey on New Chardon heading south. I'm not sure a surface trolley is truly necessary if you're willing to do the badly-needed job of building that Green Line-Transitway tunnel connector, because you'd be able to go North Station<->Boylston<->South Station<->SL Way on one seat in that tunnel. But Greenway trolley via Haymarket portal most definitely is feasible.
 
At that point: why not a tunnel connecting Boylston to South Station and the Transitway? I know the tunnel under Essex Street is supposed to be crazy complicated and expensive, but given the complexity and new track mileage of this proposal, I’d imagine the Essex Street tunnel would be both cheaper and more effective at solving this problem.

Depending on the junction at Boylston, you’d be able to mix service patterns to/from the Seport: College Ave - Seaport, Union Square - Seaport, North Station - Seaport, Government Center - Seaport, Park St - Seaport, Riverside - Seaport, Cleveland Circle - Seaport, BC - Seaport, etc.
 
bigeman312 said:
At that point: why not a tunnel connecting Boylston to South Station and the Transitway? I know the tunnel under Essex Street is supposed to be crazy complicated and expensive, but given the complexity and new track mileage of this proposal, I’d imagine the Essex Street tunnel would be both cheaper and more effective at solving this problem.

Depending on the junction at Boylston, you’d be able to mix service patterns to/from the Seport: College Ave - Seaport, Union Square - Seaport, North Station - Seaport, Government Center - Seaport, Park St - Seaport, Riverside - Seaport, Cleveland Circle - Seaport, BC - Seaport, etc.
Click to expand...

If you want to minimize cost, these are the things that most address what cost issues killed SL Phase III. . .

  • Avoiding structural underpinning of existing infrastructure. No stacked stations like Chinatown Under & Boylston Under.
  • Avoiding as much Old Boston infrastructure as possible and ID'ing Urban Renewal land that got cleanroomed, well-documented utilities in the last 50+ years. For example, upper Essex is narrow, a utility minefield for cut-and-cover, and has structural impact uncertainties around some of its oldest buildings. The area around Tufts Med Ctr. to the Pike was all a mid-60's nuke zone.
  • Re-use of as much present/future infrastructure as possible. That means using the outer Boylston platforms instead of building a completely different level, and using as much of the abandoned tunnel as possible. That means provisioning for future later-build uses of the reanimated 4-track tunnel for additional value recapture such as: converting SL-Dudley to streetcar, or re-routing the E off of Copley Jct. through Back Bay Station via Boylston.
Routings-wise you're probably locked into NS/GC/Park southbound because that's where Boylston points, and not having any direct service from the Kenmore direction (though you can reanimate the filled-in ped underpasses at Boylston for switching sides). However any northbound branches and both Urban Ring NW & NE quadrants could get pair-matched, and if the E is re-routed off Copley Jct. that would probably take up Tracks 3 & 4 of the reanimated tunnel (plus remember that Urban Ring NW is going to wrap into Kenmore).



I know we've had this fight on AB before, so won't say this is the only way to do it...just the one that checks off the most boxes for avoidance of known SL Phase III cost blowouts while allowing for most additional value recapture:

  1. Full Tremont St. tunnel reactivation.
  2. Tufts Medical Ctr. 4-track (2 IB-OB islands) station straddling Eliot Norton Park w/ mezzanine walkway to Orange Line level down street.
  3. Continue 4-track tunnel down Tremont to traffic island (where SL Phase III was to portal-up). Provision tunnel for westbound track split for future E relocation + future E-to-Seaport wye track (just a tunnel notch for now). Tremont better than Oak for digging because of width, easier maneuvering around Orange Line.
  4. Turn east under Marginal Rd. Sideways digging access available through Pike retaining wall w/ lane closures to speed construction.
  5. Shortly after turning under Marginal notch tunnel wall for at-grade track split of Washington St. light rail (complete as/when needed). Washington split--when built--would cross under Pike/NEC and portal-up on Herald St. retaining wall.
  6. Pass under Orange Line @ Shawmut Ave. (clean 75-degree angle).
  7. [optional] infill station @ Washington under Quincy School tennis courts. (I only include this as a spacer option with Ink Block catchment on a parcel where there's room...no guesses as to actual demand.)
  8. Turn up Hudson St., proceed to Beach. Street maintains 50 ft. width despite One Greenway building construction because of street-facing plaza space. No unusually difficult structures except for Chinatown restaurants row @ Kneeland (though those already got a cut-and-cover job on the other side for the 93 ramps, so probably no issues).
  9. Proceed under Chinatown Park to corner of Essex, turn into pre-reserved fill for SL Phase III tunnel.

As in last post, if you don't want to go all the way to the Pike you can try cutting down earlier side streets...albeit at increased cost and less infrastructure re-use of the Tremont tunnel. Anything SOUTH or WEST of the tip of Chinatown Park is theoretically feasible, just not EAST or NORTH. This one above is just the one that keeps all the Old Boston impacts and stacking impacts to a minimum while allowing the most pre-build cost savings for additional service appendages later.


Frankly, whatever gets it built soonest is worth doing whether it's direct-as-crow-flies or requires a South End jog to keep the $B's from bloating.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Frankly, whatever gets it built soonest is worth doing whether it's direct-as-crow-flies or requires a South End jog to keep the $B's from bloating.
Click to expand...

By this metric, wouldn't surface routing along Marginal and Hudson be most desirable?

Portal around Chinatown Gate. Take parking and one lane of traffic from the south side of Marginal. Close Hudson to automobile traffic. That would be quicker and cheaper with less tunneling, right?
 
bigeman312 said:
By this metric, wouldn't surface routing along Marginal and Hudson be most desirable?

Portal around Chinatown Gate. Take parking and one lane of traffic from the south side of Marginal. Close Hudson to automobile traffic. That would be quicker and cheaper with less tunneling, right?
Click to expand...

Not really when those blocks are going to be the cheapest digs by tunneling feet being in the urban renewal zone, and inclines are comparably more expensive by tunneling feet. Not to mention the inclines and surface jog are going to be a speed clog significantly lengthening travel times.

You're better off just doing it all high-capacity in the tunnel. Marginal/Hudson doesn't bloat the cost all that much. And, remember: you can route the Urban Ring, Medford + Union/Porter, and an alt-routed relocated E to the Seaport so the value recapture increases exponentially over time by building it complete.
 
bigeman312 said:
By this metric, wouldn't surface routing along Marginal and Hudson be most desirable?

Portal around Chinatown Gate. Take parking and one lane of traffic from the south side of Marginal. Close Hudson to automobile traffic. That would be quicker and cheaper with less tunneling, right?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you put the northern portal in that scenario. It would need to be SOUTH of Chinatown Gate because there's no way for a streetcar to get from Chinatown Park to Hudson St without blowing up the gate itself. So the portal would have to be ON Hudson in front of a bunch of restaurants... Seems like a no-go to me, and the further south/west the portal needs to go, the less cost saving you get. In fact you might end up with cost BLOAT by adding two unnecessary portals for a short surface-run rather than just tunneling the whole way.
 
Send the Blue Line down Storrow using a cut and cover. Continue to BU when you could have it switch over using the Grand Junction to the Worcester Line. Have Transfer Spots at Boston Landing and West Station. Leave the Worcester Line either through a Bridge or Tunnel to the other side of the Pike. Extend from there out to Watertown and Waltham.
 
Why would you build a subway that actively avoids where people want to go? That isn't saving money, it's wasting money.
 
Wouldn't that pretty much take up the row/GJ so the urban ring would be pretty much DOA from Lechmere/Kendall/etc?
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Why would you build a subway that actively avoids where people want to go? That isn't saving money, it's wasting money.
Click to expand...

Yeah. IF Blue is going to go west along the river it needs to hit Kenmore. And probably terminate there. Ultimately the extension would serve as a release valve for the Green Line and Government Center.

bakgwailo said:
Wouldn't that pretty much take up the row/GJ so the urban ring would be pretty much DOA from Lechmere/Kendall/etc?
Click to expand...

Sounds like Ty meant for it to take over the GJ *west* of the BU Bridge. So the potential Green Line branch to Harvard would be axed, but not necessarily the Cambridge portion of the GJ.
 
Too Crazy: Drain and Dam Fort Point Channel and move USPS into where the Channel is now. Maybe put office space above the USPS to help defray the cost. Do whatever you want with the vacated spot.
 
jklo said:
Too Crazy: Drain and Dam Fort Point Channel and move USPS into where the Channel is now. Maybe put office space above the USPS to help defray the cost. Do whatever you want with the vacated spot.
Click to expand...

Something similar: Back in the 1940's they thought about putting a depressed Central Artery down the middle of a drained Fort Point Channel.

32503411847_031e20b653_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Yeah. IF Blue is going to go west along the river it needs to hit Kenmore. And probably terminate there. Ultimately the extension would serve as a release valve for the Green Line and Government Center.



Sounds like Ty meant for it to take over the GJ *west* of the BU Bridge. So the potential Green Line branch to Harvard would be axed, but not necessarily the Cambridge portion of the GJ.
Click to expand...


You also *must* hit Kenmore in order to go anywhere further, because being able to bang a right from Brookline Ave. under the Pike/B&A is how any Allston or D-Line swallowing trajectory becomes possible.


But note well: Charles-Kenmore *only* happens as a Storrow trade-in, and *only* happens as a funded project within the Storrow teardown project area. Any further appendages are completely separate expansion projects in a completely separate project area that can only be mounted AFTER Charles-Kenmore is completely committed (i.e. not as Phase I-Phase II). That's how the funding process would have to work as a transit trade-in: keyed to same project area.
 
Extend the Red Line underneath 2? Alewife is such a cluster that extending it out in any direction would be very helpful and under 2 might be more politically doable than, say, Burlington.

Obviously would not be cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top