Crazy Transit Pitches

F-Line: I actually agree with you a lot. Greenbush is the worst possible model to follow and a part of the problem there is the low population densities around the end of the route. There is a huge capacity for people that just don't live there. The mitigation is of course another story.
I would love to see the project phased and implemented. Taunton is the key here. Unfortunately, all of the obstacles - human and natural - are located in Stoughton, Easton and Raynham. I am not even that sure why the swamp has to be that much of an obstacle either - the track bed is already there. It is already environmentally damaging. Some opponents are just using it as an excuse for their NIMBY purposes.
When I mentioned the "southern triange" as "cakewalk" I only meant that much of the rail infrastructure is there and it is in use. The rails and such were never torn out. I am just talking about the actual tracks. Stations and transit oriented development are something else entirely as you accurately not are driving up the cost out of the achievable zone.
Likewise, with cost, I can't understand the escalation of this. I know that there is a lot of work and I know that massdot always hyperexaggerates contingencies. I think electric is kind of dumb, but how is this a 2 billion dollar project?
 
Data,

Come on, don't you know me enough to know I'm kidding? Of course we can't just say "go screw yourselves" to Fall River, I was only joking. :) But I'm curious as to whether a ferry to New Bedford is feasible in the interim. The infrastructure is in place, and all you need is boats and staff. Fall River is likely out of the question for ferry service. But the fact is, $2bil is quite a bit of waste at this time for what are already dismal ridership projections which will likely turn out to be even lower. If they want BRT where the buses are authorized to fly down a left hand breakdown lane or something, I could be all for that. Projections have shown that it would be faster and incredibly cheap in comparison. The project is a massively bloated piece of pork dangling in front of the voters. I'm all for rail, but we need to focus on what's feasible now.



F-Line,

Perhaps I'm getting the wrong vibe here, but you seem to think ferries are a waste for the MBTA? Maybe I'm just reading into your posts the wrong way. Ferries have just a $3 per passenger operating cost, though (or maybe it's subsidy? so $3 + fare). This seems incredibly cheap and rivals buses and commuter rail in many places -- especially Greenbush. I'm not sure how much a ferry terminal costs in comparison to a station, but I'm sure it's not drastic. Ferries can get into those seacoast villages and downtowns that aren't plopped onto a highway or near a rail line.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The T should not be in the business of running water transit at all, least of all the F1, F2, and F2H South Shore routes.....

Or, if it means that much to these communities, add a Logan Express park-and-ride somewhere and some more limited pickup schedule on 3A in Hingham....

Hull would be the only place transit-penalized in any of these situations because the 714 runs seldom. Well...do your duty and make the 714 run a little more often....

As for the others, if the F2 and F2H go there's no longer a need to run from Long Wharf to Logan because of the Blue Line. And Charlestown Navy Yard is closely paralleled by the 93 and 111 buses that travel up Route 1. Do some judicious looping timed around the old ferry schedule on those routes, or add a bus to that area of Charlestown....

Or better yet...take those two intra-Boston ferries private....

Honestly, the money this mode chews up is pure waste....

I wouldn't even transfer ops to Massport. Massport can make more money off added Logan Express service.... e.
Click to expand...

F-Line -- as usual when you keep on the target you are onto the bulls-eye --when your aim wanders and you start firing like Riff - -- well then we all have to take cover

I would put the ferries in the the hands of Massport

They know how to manage the water transport, have the right kind of connections to the owner / operators of the tourist services, etc., and have a vested interest in service to/from the water-taxi pier at Logan

Of course -- I would coordinate the Massport Transportation services with the T and the other State DOT functions as well as the BRA and the City of Boston

Boston and water transport for tourists is a huge business -- There definitely should be a 'Tourist -Season" Loop Ferry that connects:

1) Logan @ Hyatt Hotel
2) Charlestown & the USS Constitution
3) North Station
4) North End, Greenway & Downtown Waterfront
5) someplace on FPC convenient to the Tea Party Museum
6) Fan Pier & WTC / BCEC
7) Black Falcon

It should be compatible with Charley Card and all the various short-term passes

If commuters want to use it -- Fine

Success of the Harbor Loop might suggest a Charles Loop including: Harvard, Back Bay @ Mass Ave, MIT, Hatch Shell, MOS, North Station
 
0FYcU.png


Splitting up the Green Line and giving it different colors/numbers makes a world of difference.
 
Whoa, do you have the rest of that map?
 
I'm curious - What software to you use, Omaja?
 
The idea of Route 128 circumferential transit comes up from time to time, but always as kind of a vague concept ("it would be great to connect the 128 park-and-rides at X and Y..."), so I thought I'd have a quick brainstorm at what this would actually have to look like. To make it interesting (and have it hit actual population/employment hubs), I avoided running in the median of 128 where possible. A couple other considerations:

1) This was done very quickly, and I'm not an expert in these neighborhoods (other than my own around Riverside, which incidentally was the hardest part of this to figure). I expect to be pilloried for some things, and no consideration was given to specific feasibility concerns (other than trying to hit existing commercial/industrial roads, rail ROW, power lines, etc).

2) I make the huge assumption here that Hanscom is closed and the line could be integrated into the high-tech zone which replaces it, as was suggested by Wigh (I think) a couple of pages ago. Presumably, an extended Red Line would have a transfer with this one at a park-and-ride at Hartwell.

3) I've been meaning to make this comment on many of these proposals, actually: Needham does not need heavy rail service. Needham needs an intra-town light rail service which can be used by residents for short trips within Needham. Commuter rail already provides service to Boston fine, and a truncated line at Needham Junction with a transfer to light rail would continue to get that done. I realize the temptation to convert the ready ROW through Upper Falls and Needham (and the whole Riverside Green Line, by extension) to Heavy Rail, but I just don't see the need for it. Not many people commute to Boston that way, and Riverside could by served by DMUs along the Pike for the suburban park-and-ride set.

Anyway, here's the map: http://g.co/maps/ykwcc
 
Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster. Equilibria, I like your map (and I really like how you incorporated the outer portion of the Highland Branch into the design), though I was wondering what mode of transportation you had envisioned running on this corridor?

One thing that has always bothered me about 128 circumferential proposals, as cool as I think they are, is that the 128 corridor itself seems somewhat asymmetrical. I mean, the southern tip of Boston is, like, 2 miles away from 128, while the northern tip is roughly 8 miles away.

Looking at Google Maps, Burlington, Wakefield, Lynnfield and that area up there just don't look nearly as dense as Needham, Newton, Wellesley or Dedham. But I've never lived north of Boston, so I don't know what it's actually like on the ground. Can someone help me out? It is a matter of real potential for serious growth?

Also, Omaja, your maps are bloody awesome. I really like the idea of your #8 and #11 lines. Please post the rest of your most recent one. :)
 
Thanks, everyone! Glad you like it. I'm still finishing up the rest of it but will definitely share when it's all done. :)

For this map I am using Paint Shop Pro, though I also use Photoshop sometimes.
 
Equilibria said:
3) I've been meaning to make this comment on many of these proposals, actually: Needham does not need heavy rail service. Needham needs an intra-town light rail service which can be used by residents for short trips within Needham. Commuter rail already provides service to Boston fine, and a truncated line at Needham Junction with a transfer to light rail would continue to get that done. I realize the temptation to convert the ready ROW through Upper Falls and Needham (and the whole Riverside Green Line, by extension) to Heavy Rail, but I just don't see the need for it. Not many people commute to Boston that way, and Riverside could by served by DMUs along the Pike for the suburban park-and-ride set.
Click to expand...

I do like the map! I want to start out by saying that.

Now, being as I am one of the people advocating both heavy rail to Needham and heavy rail along the Green Line, I feel the need to defend those proposals.

The Orange Line co-exists with the Commuter Rail just fine between Forest Hills and Back Bay, and the Needham ROW can be expanded or you can even simply put one set of tracks over/under the other set. So, why can't Needham be served by both Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail? In fact, you can run the Needham Line further southwest, into Dover, Medfield, maybe Sherborn, and possibly even connect it to the Worcester Line at Framingham - and in exchange, terminate service to every stop between Needham and Forest Hills except for West Roxbury. Replace them with Heavy Rail (Green Line? Orange Line? Yellow Line?) and now you've got two ways to go from Needham to Boston - the five stop express train to Back Bay (six to South Station), or the cheaper but longer subway ride. Hersey, Highland, and Roslindale Village would all still be just one stop away from a Commuter Rail transfer, Bellevue the odd station out at only two stops away from transfer.

As for the Green Line, I don't expect heavy rail-worthy Ridership at every stop on the Riverside Branch - to be honest, I don't expect the ridership at ANY of those stops, bar Fenway, to be at the level where heavy rail is needed. I argue to convert it to Heavy Rail ANYWAY because of where I DO expect the Heavy Rail meriting ridership - Fenway, Kenmore, and the Central Subway. The Riverside branch is the easiest of all the Green Line branches to convert to heavy rail, you can reroute and connect the other three branches into their own light rail line - or if you really wanted to earn that Craziest Pitch 2012 award, just connect the B and E branches for Boston College - Arborway/Forest Hills service, call that the Lime Line, and then paint the whole C branch Silver and extend it under Boylston and Essex Streets past Chinatown to replace your choice of Silver Line bus routes - through South Station into South Boston, or through Tufts Medical along Washington Street.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Why can't Needham be served by both Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail? In fact, you can run the Needham Line further southwest, into Dover, Medfield, maybe Sherborn, and possibly even connect it to the Worcester Line at Framingham - and in exchange, terminate service to every stop between Needham and Forest Hills except for West Roxbury. Replace them with Heavy Rail (Green Line? Orange Line? Yellow Line?) and now you've got two ways to go from Needham to Boston - the five stop express train to Back Bay (six to South Station), or the cheaper but longer subway ride. Hersey, Highland, and Roslindale Village would all still be just one stop away from a Commuter Rail transfer, Bellevue the odd station out at only two stops away from transfer.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you like the map :).

I'm not advocating ending commuter rail service on the Needham line, and the extension you propose was an idea I liked when you mentioned it earlier. I'm referring solely to the former Charles River Railroad Upper Falls - Needham Junction stretch. I also see your point about the Central Subway and Kenmore area needing heavy rail-grade service. As long as we're pitching crazy things, though, I think that might be better accomplished by a heavy rail line to more dense areas beyond Kenmore, such as Allston, Brighton, Watertown, or even the Pike-side areas of Newton (which are more dense than the areas through which the Riverside Line runs, and have much worse transit service).

Having used the Riverside Line fairly frequently all my life, I see it as a huge asset for people in Newton to get to other parts of Newton and Brookline. As an intra-suburban light rail service, it justifies itself, and I think there are many other areas around 128 where similar service could function (Waltham and Needham being the 2 closest). I just don't think that you'll lose that many Downtown-bound riders by instituting a LRT-CR transfer at Needham Junction, and LRT has the potential for more appropriate costs, additional station locations, easier grade crossings, and better integration into pedestrianized neighborhood centers like those along Highland Ave.

I've lived in neighborhoods with local HRT lines in Chicago and the Bay Area, and it's significantly less inviting/practical to use them for short local trips (though BART was specifically not designed for that use).

Ironically, of course, the other branches of the Green Line are far more appropriate for heavy rail conversion, but far harder to actually convert.
 
Equilibria said:
I'm not advocating ending commuter rail service on the Needham line, and the extension you propose was an idea I liked when you mentioned it earlier. I'm referring solely to the former Charles River Railroad Upper Falls - Needham Junction stretch. I also see your point about the Central Subway and Kenmore area needing heavy rail-grade service. As long as we're pitching crazy things, though, I think that might be better accomplished by a heavy rail line to more dense areas beyond Kenmore, such as Allston, Brighton, Watertown, or even the Pike-side areas of Newton (which are more dense than the areas through which the Riverside Line runs, and have much worse transit service).
Click to expand...

Actually, it's interesting you bring up the Pike areas, because it didn't occur to me until well after I'd proposed my Green Line Extension Conversion that by dropping a heavy rail stop at Yawkey the option to run a new branch or even a brand new line down the existing Pike ROW becomes available.

When I get more time to go back and revisit all of my proposals, I might run the Purple Line down that way. Why not connect Brandeis/Roberts to Auburndale - South Station - Dedham/Westwood/Norton/Canton? We'd even get a non-CR single seat ride between Back Bay and South Station out of the arrangement.
 
Equilibria said:
The idea of Route 128 circumferential transit comes up from time to time, but always as kind of a vague concept ("it would be great to connect the 128 park-and-rides at X and Y..."), so I thought I'd have a quick brainstorm at what this would actually have to look like. To make it interesting (and have it hit actual population/employment hubs), I avoided running in the median of 128 where possible. A couple other considerations:
......
2) I make the huge assumption here that Hanscom is closed and the line could be integrated into the high-tech zone which replaces it, as was suggested by Wigh (I think) a couple of pages ago. Presumably, an extended Red Line would have a transfer with this one at a park-and-ride at Hartwell.

.......
Click to expand...

Equili --- Most Crazy Transit Pitches are just that --- But there is a real matter for which considerable thinking has to be done for the future. That Not so Crazy Transit Pitch involves what to with respect to the Conversion of Hanscom AFB to civilian use.

Unless the new President and New Congress reverses the current trajectory -- there will be another BRAC in FY 14/15 and I don't think Hanscom will survive it. Going from a 3 Star AF Lt. Gen who is resident and in-charge of Electronics Systems for the entire AF to a 2 Star Maj. Gen reporting to a 3 Star at Wright Pat in Ohio; and then losing the AF Band of Liberty (ostensibly as a cost cutting measure) this summer is the beginning of the end.

So the process needs to begin NOW as to how to best capitalize on this prime real estate location on Rt-128, with runways and existing surrounding public and private land into essentially an uber-High-Tech version of Devens.

Raw materials for the project:

Hanscom AFB:
846 acres
735 private homes
149 other buildings

Hanscom Field Airport -- 1,125 acres (455 ha) which contains two paved runways: 5/23 measuring 5,106 x 150 ft (1,556 x 46 m) and 11/29 measuring 7,001 x 150 ft (2,134 x 46 m

When land in Lexington, Bedford, Lincoln, and Concord adjacent to Hanscom is taken into consideration there is a total of about 5 sq. miles that can be developed fairly intensively - Note that the closure of Hanscom AFB will likely result in the transfer of some land to the Minuteman National Historic Park

There can be essentially unlimited opportunities for development and the subsequent creation of a High tech nexus. In 20 years when development is built-out where the base is now located and its immediate surroundings:

1) several more million sq ft. can be built
2) thousands of more people could be working
3) some few hundreds will be living
4) there undoubtedly will be some retail and perhaps a major hotel
5) possibility of limited commercial air service
6) What about Transit?

Will there be the long hypothesized Red Line on Rt-128 -- perhaps with a Mattapan-type LRV covering the whole Hanscom re-development area?

Let's see if we can perhaps provide some useful guidance to the process.

Read more: Budget cuts at Hanscom Air Force Base have wide impact - Bedford, MA - Bedford Minuteman http://www.wickedlocal.com/bedford/...Air-Force-Base-have-wide-impact#ixzz1r21EWakd
 
^

I agree. I believe it was Ted Kennedy who saved Hanscom several times over the past 20 years or so, and he's gone, and I doubt Kerry has the stature to do the same. The energy between now and then should be spent not just on planning the future of the base from an urban design and economic perspective, but also planning the ways in which MIT can serve as a catalyst to replace the Air Force. Problem is, the Air Force won't be willing to cooperate until well after it's clear that they're leaving.

From every perspective but that of the small contractors who depend on the Air Force, the closure of Hanscom is a positive. It opens a lot of land to productive use (and taxation) in a high-demand area, and also opens up the airport tremendously. Access to the civilian side of Hanscom is terrible right now because the AFB is blocking it off from Hartwell and the easiest highway connection. An expanded Hartwell Ave. with a transit connection would be an excellent development.

The problem, of course, is that any move to make Hanscom more accessible will be met with fiery pitchforks by some of the worst and most seasoned NIMBYs in New England, who would likely also fight everything you propose in the name of their quiet neighborhood and the NHP. Without the AFB, Massport may have a political fight on their hands to even keep the airport operational, much less serving the couple of commercial shuttle flights to DC and NYC it should see daily.
 
Equilibria said:
^

I agree. I believe it was Ted Kennedy who saved Hanscom several times over the past 20 years or so, and he's gone, and I doubt Kerry has the stature to do the same. The energy between now and then should be spent not just on planning the future of the base from an urban design and economic perspective, but also planning the ways in which MIT can serve as a catalyst to replace the Air Force. Problem is, the Air Force won't be willing to cooperate until well after it's clear that they're leaving.

From every perspective but that of the small contractors who depend on the Air Force, the closure of Hanscom is a positive. It opens a lot of land to productive use (and taxation) in a high-demand area, and also opens up the airport tremendously. Access to the civilian side of Hanscom is terrible right now because the AFB is blocking it off from Hartwell and the easiest highway connection. An expanded Hartwell Ave. with a transit connection would be an excellent development.

The problem, of course, is that any move to make Hanscom more accessible will be met with fiery pitchforks by some of the worst and most seasoned NIMBYs in New England, who would likely also fight everything you propose in the name of their quiet neighborhood and the NHP. Without the AFB, Massport may have a political fight on their hands to even keep the airport operational, much less serving the couple of commercial shuttle flights to DC and NYC it should see daily.
Click to expand...

Equilib -- I've created a new Thread focused on the New Hanscom as there is much more to the discussion of the optimal development than just the Red Line
 
Equilibria said:
I'm glad you like the map :).

I'm not advocating ending commuter rail service on the Needham line, and the extension you propose was an idea I liked when you mentioned it earlier. I'm referring solely to the former Charles River Railroad Upper Falls - Needham Junction stretch. I also see your point about the Central Subway and Kenmore area needing heavy rail-grade service. As long as we're pitching crazy things, though, I think that might be better accomplished by a heavy rail line to more dense areas beyond Kenmore, such as Allston, Brighton, Watertown, or even the Pike-side areas of Newton (which are more dense than the areas through which the Riverside Line runs, and have much worse transit service).

Having used the Riverside Line fairly frequently all my life, I see it as a huge asset for people in Newton to get to other parts of Newton and Brookline. As an intra-suburban light rail service, it justifies itself, and I think there are many other areas around 128 where similar service could function (Waltham and Needham being the 2 closest). I just don't think that you'll lose that many Downtown-bound riders by instituting a LRT-CR transfer at Needham Junction, and LRT has the potential for more appropriate costs, additional station locations, easier grade crossings, and better integration into pedestrianized neighborhood centers like those along Highland Ave.

I've lived in neighborhoods with local HRT lines in Chicago and the Bay Area, and it's significantly less inviting/practical to use them for short local trips (though BART was specifically not designed for that use).

Ironically, of course, the other branches of the Green Line are far more appropriate for heavy rail conversion, but far harder to actually convert.
Click to expand...

Needham would work a lot better as a CR line if it only had a 128 stop. TV Place/Highland Ave. screams for one with the redevelopable land there, parking space, and the needed relief on Highland Ave. from all the commuters bum-rushing the Needham Heights stop. It's less than a mile of track rehab. If they don't build a golden pyramid of a stop there that's a farebox-recoverable capital cost within a decade since it would probably become the Needham Line's best patronized stop by far due to the highway access. Riverside's parking is going to become constrained in time by the new development going on around the station. The humongous gaps in 128 park-and-rides between Riverside and Dedham Corporate + Westwood/128 and Anderson/Woburn to the north makes that load worse.

Much better case for increasing service on the Needham Line, double-tracking through West Rox, etc. if it takes on functions beyond simply the neighborhood stops. Right now it's essentially a bastardized Mattapan Line on slow too-infrequent diesel equipment, the proverbial weakling of the CR system now that Fairmount's been spiffed up. Of course it was the first target for service cuts...it always it. It never had weekend service until about 10 years ago, and they tried to Arborway it out of existence when the SW Corridor was rebuilt. It was suspended for nearly 9 years in the 70's and 80's until threats of lawsuit got the T to stop dragging its feet on rehab. It's about 1 comprelling hook away from having significant utility, and 128 access is that. The ROW crosses it twice, but the stations are all highway-inconvenient neighborhood stops with little parking. It needs a big-deal capper that can take advantage of the highway, let the neighborhood stops be neighborhood stops, and offer up a TOD destination. Doing TV Place up as that beachhead is that kind of slight role adjustment to the line that opens up possibility of future "Indigo'ing" it with higher headways, DMU's, etc. Much like Fairmount when it inevitably gets extended 1 stop from Readville to Westwood/128.


That is also an excellent interim step before considering the Green Line spur on the Needham half and the Orange Line on the Boston-proper half. A lot's got to get sorted out first before Green could ever go there...CBTC signaling being the top one to enable the headways, and probably the D-to-E connector being the other for rush hour management. And Green has to get built before the arguably higher-priority Orange to Rozzie/W. Rox because Needham's no better equipped to survive on the awful 59 bus alone than it was during the CR-less 80's, and would most definitely launch the lawsuit nukes if they got severed. A TV Place/128 CR stop would be a cheapie value-enhancer and route-primer that probably helps the light rail conversion case 20 years down the road. It's a much better near-term option than pissing the ROW away entirely for another rail trail (the bicycle lobby is already descending like vultures to pave it over).
 
The problem with a big park and ride at the intersection of 128 and the Needham Line is that the area is in a nature preserve. It would be hard to build the station, probably impossible to do any TOD. Hersey is not far from Rt. 128 off the Great Plane Ave. exit. Really, the only good option for that line is converting the Needham and Boston sections to light and heavy rail respectively. I can't see anyway to enhance the line as you've described, given the environmental constraints.

Now, if we did convert, then it might indeed be possible to extend the Lalemont trail alongside the ROW. The section through Cutler Park would be spectacular.
 
HenryAlan said:
The problem with a big park and ride at the intersection of 128 and the Needham Line is that the area is in a nature preserve. It would be hard to build the station, probably impossible to do any TOD. Hersey is not far from Rt. 128 off the Great Plane Ave. exit. Really, the only good option for that line is converting the Needham and Boston sections to light and heavy rail respectively. I can't see anyway to enhance the line as you've described, given the environmental constraints.

Now, if we did convert, then it might indeed be possible to extend the Lalemont trail alongside the ROW. The section through Cutler Park would be spectacular.
Click to expand...


I don't see the attraction to doing anything to the CR in Needham
aside for the thin industrial belt along Rt-128 -- there is very little opportunity for development in Needham -- the population has been unchanged since 1970 and the residents are rich, have large lots and are satisfied

Needham, like Wellesley and Weston is going to remain a bedroom community
 
whighlander said:
I don't see the attraction to doing anything to the CR in Needham
aside for the thin industrial belt along Rt-128 -- there is very little opportunity for development in Needham -- the population has been unchanged since 1970 and the residents are rich, have large lots and are satisfied

Needham, like Wellesley and Weston is going to remain a bedroom community
Click to expand...

My impulse for LRT in Needham is mostly due to the thought that the ROW in West Roxbury isn't wide enough to accommodate both HRT and commuter rail. If that is the case (maybe F-Line can confirm), then maintaining the Needham Line for the sake of people in Needham means permanently condemning an urban, high density area to a less optimal service. What makes the needs of Needham more compelling than the needs of West Roxbury and Roslindale?

Possible compromises?

  1. Maintain existing Needham Line as is, but express from West Roxbury to Forest Hills. Run DMU (or optimally EMU) local service from West Roxbury inbound, stopping at Highland, Bellevue, Roslindale, etc. The DMU service would have mass transit level headways and the stations would have fare restricted platforms. A small yard for off service MU storage could be built in space between the West Roxbury Shaws and Catholic Memorial High School.
  2. Run the Needham line in the opposite direction, connecting to the Worcester line, leaving the Boston section of the ROW free for an Orange Line extension.

Option 1 is probably the best for Needham, as it would likely shave about 10 minutes from the trip. It's also pretty good for West Roxbury and Roslindale, though perhaps not quite as good as a direct Orange Line connection. Option 2 is more of the crazy transit pitch variety, because I really have no idea why it would be done, but just thought I'd toss it out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top