Crazy Transit Pitches

[Riverside]

I’ll try to reply more later, but this idea is extremely similar to the “Red-X” proposal put forth by @F-Line to Dudley and others. I’ll see if I can find direct links.

 

[BostonBoy]

I still think it is. Additional frequencies is a service increase, but anyone who doesn't presently have to transfer being forced to now transfer is not likely to see that as a benefit even if the trains on the branch itself run more frequently. It's still an additional inconvenience that doesn't presently exist. Not that it would necessarily mean it's a bad idea to do, mind you, just that the current riders who would be impacted probably wouldn't like it and might get shouty about it. (Which, again, there are tradeoffs in public transportation policy, sometimes people get the short end of the stick, I just tend to flag things where there might be significant political/PR problems that could harm or scuttle a project that perhaps could be avoided entirely. Or, as you suggest, possibly the greater frequencies on-net improve things enough to offset the impact to the people who now have to transfer, which is a selling point but not quite the same as not being a downgrade to those specific passengers.)

If the proposal is to begin a Yellow line at Columbia, wouldn't it presume the Braintree branch of the Red Line would merge, but south of Savin Hill, thus preserving a single seat ride to the core, from Quincy and Braintree?

 

[Riverside]

This is the most recent post on the Red-X: http://archboston.com/community/threads/crazy-transit-pitches.3664/page-204

If I find the others, I’ll edit this post.

 

[Brattle Loop]

If the proposal is to begin a Yellow line at Columbia, wouldn't it presume the Braintree branch of the Red Line would merge, but south of Savin Hill, thus preserving a single seat ride to the core, from Quincy and Braintree?

Wash's original proposal on the previous page said "take over the Braintree Branch" which I interpreted as meaning it would be re-routed into the Congress Street Tunnel (Yellow Line) rather than the Cambridge-Dorchester Tunnel (Red Line) it currently uses. Branching it would solve that problem, but probably leave the headways in the Congress Street Tunnel...sparse.

 

[roy_mustang76]

Wash's original proposal on the previous page said "take over the Braintree Branch" which I interpreted as meaning it would be re-routed into the Congress Street Tunnel (Yellow Line) rather than the Cambridge-Dorchester Tunnel (Red Line) it currently uses. Branching it would solve that problem, but probably leave the headways in the Congress Street Tunnel...sparse.

This is a problem the "Red X" idea that this Yellow Line parallels solves pretty well. Both southern branches would feed both northern branches in an alternating pattern, meaning the Congress Street Tunnel would still have good amounts of service (and the fact that service branches at JFK would be irrelevant for Chelsea and Everett, much as how the southern branching isn't terribly relevant today for Cambridge since every train takes them into the CBD). It does inject a level of additional thought for riders on the branches that doesn't currently exist and I'm sure there would be some griping by the Braintree branch riders, but pitching a doubling of service to the CBD (since every train would hit South Station at a minimum, even if on different platforms, and existing service levels to Park + points north would remain) should potentially carry the day, especially since it's a slam dunk case for getting Chelsea/Everett/East Malden support.

Just to reiterate, Red X gives Braintree riders two routings: current routing to Kendall via Park, and Everett via Haymarket. Nothing lost except simplicity.

 

[jklo]

I'm sure Braintree riders greatly perfer the current routing since it goes to Kendall.

 

[Wash]

I’ll try to reply more later, but this idea is extremely similar to the “Red-X” proposal put forth by @F-Line to Dudley and others. I’ll see if I can find direct links.

Yeah this proposal is pretty much that, but without the branching and with a different routing north of North Station. Didn't quite remember all the details.

 

[bakgwailo]

I was spitballing options for the south end with Fairmount as an idea. My initial idea was just to rapid transit-ify Fairmount, but I'd forgotten about the freight rights, so it couldn't cannibalize the surface ROW. Being Crazy Transit Pitches I'm fine with tunneling under the Fairmount surface ROW.

The Seaport commentary in my original post was unrelated to anything Fairmount. That was purely me looking at various potential places to send a Congress Street Tunnel other than Braintree. Not as ideal a Seaport Transit Pitch as Green + Silver in the Transitway, but that's a different thread.

How wide is the Fairmont ROW? I am terrible at this, but, eyeballing a few places on Google Maps at least looks to me like it could support 3 tracks, which could then be 1 RR and 2 rapid transit (obviously land for stations/etc would need to be figured out).

 

[Brattle Loop]

How wide is the Fairmont ROW? I am terrible at this, but, eyeballing a few places on Google Maps at least looks to me like it could support 3 tracks, which could then be 1 RR and 2 rapid transit (obviously land for stations/etc would need to be figured out).

Parts of it are very narrow. There are a number of overpasses (and bridges) that aren't wide enough for three tracks, though most of them probably have enough room to widen (though it would be expensive). Several of the current station sites are also quite narrow; per Google Maps parts of Talbot Ave are about 44 feet wide including the platforms, so even if there's technically enough room to squeeze three tracks through there that (relatively new) station has to go (and others will likely be in the same boat). Then there's this where the ROW shrinks to maybe 39-40 feet at most with properties and structures directly-abutting the ROW. That very well might not be sufficient space at all, because there has to be a fence separating the rapid transit section from the RR section (like on the Orange Line and the GLX).

Ultimately RT+RR might well be physically impossible at non-megaproject cost, though it's almost certainly infeasible even beyond that because of the difficulty of station siting given the constrained ROW available. It's unfortunate that Fairmount can't be taken off the RR mode entirely because it would otherwise be ideal for RT conversion, but short of irresponsibly paying CSX the fortune it would take for them to relinquish their rights (and someone else more knowledgeable could speak to whether that would shoot the region in the foot on future freight considerations) it has to stay RR...unfortunately probably only RR.

 

[The EGE]

Brattle Loop is correct. The only part of the line where you could feasibly fit rapid transit plus railroad is south of River Street for a Red Line extension - there were so many freight sidings between there and Readville that the ROW is generally wider. Ironically, several bridges elsewhere on the line were provisioned for four tracks in the early 20th century - Norfolk Street, for example.

 

[Charlie_mta]

My idea for a new LRT line from the Back Back Bay via South Station and North Station to Charlestown and then to Chelsea. It would begin at a junction with the Green Line subway west of Boylston Station, continue in a deep tunnel to the existing Silverline Tunnel at South Station, share that tunnel along Atlantic Ave, and then branch off of it to tunnel under the Central Artery to North Station, utilizing the deep foundations provisioned when the Central Artery was built. From North Station the LRT tunnel would continue to Charlestown and surface in a portal just north of 5th Street in Chelsea, utilizing some dead space there between the Tobin Bridge and Chelsea St. The LRT line would continue on the surface to a high level bridge over the Mystic River along the west side of the Tobin Bridge, then descend into Chelsea as a surface line to tie into the Silver Line/Amtrak Chelsea station, continuing on to Everett as a surface line, and connecting in with an LRT Urban Ring line that would go to Sullivan Sqaure and Cambridge. Here's the layout. Yellow circles are stations.

 

[Brattle Loop]

It would begin at a junction with the Green Line subway west of Boylston Station, continue in a deep tunnel to the existing Silverline Tunnel at South Station

Tunneling under Essex Street, albeit as BRT, was studied for Silver Line Phase III and would be very difficult and expensive. Coming from the Boylston Street Subway makes the problem worse. While there's likely sufficient room in the area of the unused provision for an extension to Post Office Square to shiv a junction there, you then have to underpin potentially both levels of Boylston Station (destroying National Historic Landmarks is generally frowned upon, especially if they're liable to be re-used in a Crazy Transit Pitches world for service to Nubian to replace the Elevated, and even if you can destroy Boylston Under you still have to underpin 1897-vintage Boylston proper) and 1908-vintage Chinatown station. Underpinning these old stations was another problem identified in the SL Phase III study that projected potential cost blowouts so bad it made the Feds run in terror. The Green Line Reconfiguration thread has very-thorough rundowns by F-Line to Dudley and others on the extremely dubious prospects of anything down Essex Street for connecting Green to the Silver Line Transitway. The more-apparently-feasible options all involve re-using the Tremont tunnels, meaning you'd be feeding service in and out of Park with no direct Back Bay/Kenmore access (though a simple transfer).

existing Silverline Tunnel at South Station, share that tunnel along Atlantic Ave, and then branch off of it to tunnel under the Central Artery to North Station, utilizing the deep foundations provisioned when the Central Artery was built

This would preclude the NSRL from using the Central Artery alignment, which is the only viable four-track alignment that doesn't require the present administrations ludicrous suggestion of Congress Street + Artery NSRL alignments. In my opinion the NSRL should take precedence, but others may have different views. I'm also curious as to the technical feasibility of approaching from under the east side of the O'Neill tunnel, but that probably depends on whether there's enough space for the new tunnel branch to dive under the road tunnel.

The LRT line would continue on the surface to a high level bridge over the Mystic River along the west side of the Tobin Bridge, then descend into Chelsea as a surface line to tie into the Silver Line/Amtrak Chelsea station

While I take no position on the viability of a surface line in Chelsea, the route you've mapped between the Tobin Bridge and the SL3 busway is physically impossible. There are far too many places where the buildings are far too close to the highway structure to be able to fit any type of rail ROW, and it's both extremely unlikely and extremely inadvisable to be able to share space between LRVs and the highway traffic. There's probably enough room for alternate surface routes, but not the mapped one.

This proposal seems to be a mash-up of Silver Line Phase III, parts of the NSRL, and a new Charlestown-Chelsea service. While it would need to be studied again the general consensus in the Green Line Reconfiguration thread was that the reduced tunnel width going from BRT to LRT doesn't nearly help enough to ameliorate the cost and technical difficulty of tunneling down Essex Street (which is the only meaningful way to go if a Back Bay/Kenmore direct run is a project requirement. If it's not, re-using the Tremont tunnels and running via Park Street is likely easier and less expensive overall). There's no specific reason or need for that element of the project to be tied to any of the others; its benefit is in relieving the load on Red and helping deal with the Seaport's transit woes. The Central Artery section fulfills the second-subway function of the NSRL to some degree (and probably with a somewhat less onerous South Station transfer) but without the greater-scope benefits of the NSRL to the Commuter Rail system, which may be in fact precluded (and at the very least would become significantly more expensive). Also not a project that needs to be tied to any of the others. The Charlestown-Chelsea run is not necessarily a bad idea, just one that would need to be studied for cost-benefits on how to do it, but there's absolutely no reason I can see that says that if you want to serve these places it has to be linked to a or this subway, as opposed to, for example, a spur off the Urban Ring or some other route. So there's a lot that's interesting, but I for one don't see much in the way of benefits of aligning these pieces into one single project (and some significant drawbacks, which is unsurprising as the last time the state tried it, they begat the disjointed Silver Line, left permanently incomplete by that same nasty Essex Street stretch.)

 

[Charlie_mta]

Tunneling under Essex Street, albeit as BRT, was studied for Silver Line Phase III and would be very difficult and expensive. Coming from the Boylston Street Subway makes the problem worse. While there's likely sufficient room in the area of the unused provision for an extension to Post Office Square to shiv a junction there, you then have to underpin potentially both levels of Boylston Station (destroying National Historic Landmarks is generally frowned upon, especially if they're liable to be re-used in a Crazy Transit Pitches world for service to Nubian to replace the Elevated, and even if you can destroy Boylston Under you still have to underpin 1897-vintage Boylston proper) and 1908-vintage Chinatown station. Underpinning these old stations was another problem identified in the SL Phase III study that projected potential cost blowouts so bad it made the Feds run in terror. The Green Line Reconfiguration thread has very-thorough rundowns by F-Line to Dudley and others on the extremely dubious prospects of anything down Essex Street for connecting Green to the Silver Line Transitway. The more-apparently-feasible options all involve re-using the Tremont tunnels, meaning you'd be feeding service in and out of Park with no direct Back Bay/Kenmore access (though a simple transfer).



This would preclude the NSRL from using the Central Artery alignment, which is the only viable four-track alignment that doesn't require the present administrations ludicrous suggestion of Congress Street + Artery NSRL alignments. In my opinion the NSRL should take precedence, but others may have different views. I'm also curious as to the technical feasibility of approaching from under the east side of the O'Neill tunnel, but that probably depends on whether there's enough space for the new tunnel branch to dive under the road tunnel.



While I take no position on the viability of a surface line in Chelsea, the route you've mapped between the Tobin Bridge and the SL3 busway is physically impossible. There are far too many places where the buildings are far too close to the highway structure to be able to fit any type of rail ROW, and it's both extremely unlikely and extremely inadvisable to be able to share space between LRVs and the highway traffic. There's probably enough room for alternate surface routes, but not the mapped one.

This proposal seems to be a mash-up of Silver Line Phase III, parts of the NSRL, and a new Charlestown-Chelsea service. While it would need to be studied again the general consensus in the Green Line Reconfiguration thread was that the reduced tunnel width going from BRT to LRT doesn't nearly help enough to ameliorate the cost and technical difficulty of tunneling down Essex Street (which is the only meaningful way to go if a Back Bay/Kenmore direct run is a project requirement. If it's not, re-using the Tremont tunnels and running via Park Street is likely easier and less expensive overall). There's no specific reason or need for that element of the project to be tied to any of the others; its benefit is in relieving the load on Red and helping deal with the Seaport's transit woes. The Central Artery section fulfills the second-subway function of the NSRL to some degree (and probably with a somewhat less onerous South Station transfer) but without the greater-scope benefits of the NSRL to the Commuter Rail system, which may be in fact precluded (and at the very least would become significantly more expensive). Also not a project that needs to be tied to any of the others. The Charlestown-Chelsea run is not necessarily a bad idea, just one that would need to be studied for cost-benefits on how to do it, but there's absolutely no reason I can see that says that if you want to serve these places it has to be linked to a or this subway, as opposed to, for example, a spur off the Urban Ring or some other route. So there's a lot that's interesting, but I for one don't see much in the way of benefits of aligning these pieces into one single project (and some significant drawbacks, which is unsurprising as the last time the state tried it, they begat the disjointed Silver Line, left permanently incomplete by that same nasty Essex Street stretch.)

Good points all. What I would really like to see is the portion built from North Station to Chelsea. Once the line crosses the Mystic River on a high bridge as shown on the layout i did, it could use the space occupied by the long SB on-ramp that climbs up from Chelsea, which would be removed. There is already another on-ramp to the Tobin a few blocks from there. Once the LRT line reached the northern end of the SB on-ramp (to be removed), space runs out alongside the expressway to fit in an LRT line there, as you pointed out. A couple of options for the LRT to continue north is to tunnel under the expressway for a few blocks until the expressway becomes fully elevated again, or run a short elevated LRT structure along and above Everett Ave to the commuter rail line. All crazy transit stuff, but somehow an LRT line could be threaded through that tight spot.

 

[Brattle Loop]

Good points all. What I would really like to see is the portion built from North Station to Chelsea. Once the line crosses the Mystic River on a high bridge as shown on the layout i did, it could use the space occupied by the long SB on-ramp that climbs up from Chelsea, which would be removed. There is already another on-ramp to the Tobin a few blocks from there. Once the LRT line reached the northern end of the SB on-ramp (to be removed), space runs out alongside the expressway to fit in an LRT line there, as you pointed out. A couple of options for the LRT to continue north is to tunnel under the expressway for a few blocks until the expressway becomes fully elevated again, or run a short elevated LRT structure along and above Everett Ave to the commuter rail line. All crazy transit stuff, but somehow an LRT line could be threaded through that tight spot.

There's definitely ways of building that segment, some Crazier than others but that's the point of this thread. My main objection there was that the specifically-mapped route was physically impossible to build (at least on the west side of the expressway, because of the tight constraints around the 4th Street off-ramp, where the highway's lower level is already at ground level. Having looked at again, there might be room on the east side if you sacrificed the off-ramp).

 

[donkeybutlers]

What is the feasibility of extending the E line through Heath St (with a connection to the orange line at Jackson Square) then down the new center running bus lanes on Columbus ave? I am thinking his could end in Egleston as a first stage or more ideally or in a latter stage connect through Seaver St. to Blue Hill ave or continue in a cross town direction along Columbia Rd. In either version this would enable cross town trips in the center and south of the city, especially for people in Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan getting to work/medical care in the LMA and it would massively expand transit access and reliability in parts of the city who currently lack consistent rapid transit.

If the line extended all the way it would be a long single seat ride downtown but could be sped up by switching to orange at Jackson or the Fairmont line at either Blue Hill Ave with that route or at Four Corners on the other. Other possible routes or possible connections could be made down Talbot Ave to Ashmont (this could be a truly transformative option if you extended it into the Mattapan High Speed line, potentially creating a loop with the route down Blue Hill, connecting the red and orange lines in the south of the city, as well as connect to the Fairmont line at Talbot ave) or down Morton St to Lower mills (which would also connect to the line but wouldn't have the same potential to create a single seat ride). Also in my Ideal mental map I see the silverline becoming the light rail line it always should have been and extending to connect with this proposal at Egleston (down Washington and for old times sake lets just say with with a contemporary style light rail L) and/or down Warren st from Blue hill ave (this looks like a possible choke point though it widens further down.)

I know there used to be trolly lines on most of this route (I deliberately picked streets that once had them and retain the width to make it possible) so I am thinking as "crazy" as it sounds politically it should be possible physically, is there a constraint I may be missing? Maps attached:

 

[The EGE]

The goal should always be to keep the subway services as reliable as possible. Even with dedicated lanes on part of the route, a crosstown extension to Grove Hall would obliterate any hope of making the E reliable. It also wouldn't offer much improvement over the current 22 and 29 connections to multiple LMA-serving routes (which, unlike the E, go through the heart of the LMA) at Ruggles.

 

[KCasiglio]

l

Good points all. What I would really like to see is the portion built from North Station to Chelsea. Once the line crosses the Mystic River on a high bridge as shown on the layout i did, it could use the space occupied by the long SB on-ramp that climbs up from Chelsea, which would be removed. There is already another on-ramp to the Tobin a few blocks from there. Once the LRT line reached the northern end of the SB on-ramp (to be removed), space runs out alongside the expressway to fit in an LRT line there, as you pointed out. A couple of options for the LRT to continue north is to tunnel under the expressway for a few blocks until the expressway becomes fully elevated again, or run a short elevated LRT structure along and above Everett Ave to the commuter rail line. All crazy transit stuff, but somehow an LRT line could be threaded through that tight spot.

Something I've been tinkering with since the congress st discussion popped up recently: downgrading rt 1 from a fully separated highway south of Squire Rd, and building a new *gasp* HRT line. The new line would run south from there on a RoW that would look very similar to Burgin Parkway in Quincy, cross the mystic along an appropriated deck of the Tobin, bang a left into a tunnel and run parallel to the orange from North Station to Haymarket and follow the Congress St alignment to South Station. From there, continue south underneath Hudson St, under the pike, and on to Nubian Sq. Connects to all existing lines as well as UR at Chelsea

The massive cemeteries in the northern portion do make me doubt the potential quality of service to the Everett side of the highway, but it would be huge for Revere and Chelsea.

To me this line would have NSRL level potential to change people's transportation behavior (although also NSRL level costs and much more political resistance) and get A LOT of people out of their cars. It's also a big equity move, finally providing the "equal or better" service to Roxbury and woefully underserved Latino communities Revere/Chelsea. There's great redevelopment opportunity at the northern terminus and would even be just a short bike ride from Saugus center.

I'm probably missing something obvious as to why this is could never work, so someone please educate me.

 

[donkeybutlers]

I really don't see Ruggles as the heart of the LMA i see the heart of the LMA as Longwood Avenue after which it is named and on which it is centered (with the heart being around children's hospital or Longwood at Brookline) and Ruggles certainly is not right where all the jobs are. The E literally stops at Longwood Ave. and Brigham Circle. Ruggles is the edge of Fenway and lower Roxbury to me.

I guess I disagree that these current routes are really sufficient or accomplish what this would in terms of connection. extending the Silver line down warren to BHA would also take pressure off of this more meandering route being a direct connection downtown, which isn't really the point of the connection to E. The LMA will continue to grow, this city is lucky to have this many world class hospitals in such close proximity, but as it does more and more workers need to get there and the direct options right now are limited from communities in this city where a lot of the workers live.

I also think more generally this city lacks any crosstown rail connection and that ultimately will need to change at some point as now established, non-downtown, but urban, job centers like LMA, Seaport, Assembly, Kendall, Etc grow and new ones like North point, Beacon Park, Widett Circle/redeveloped Southbay, Dorchester Bay City and Suffolk downs really start to come online in the next decades.

 

[Riverside]

Extending the E to Jackson Square is an idea well worth considering. I think that extending the tracks down Columbus and Seaver and then down Blue Hill is also well worth considering (especially since I believe it would be more feasible and manageable than trying to get trolleys down Warren). However, I think it doesn't make sense to run the E itself much further than Jackson or Egleston. A separate service (or set of services) which don't enter the subway would be more flexible and more reliable, and has a stronger justification based on current ridership patterns.

That being said, an extension to Jackson Square is a good first step -- much more easily done than converting the Silver Line to LRT at this point. And once the Green Line's tracks reach Jackson Square, then a new Dorchester LRT network could have access to existing Green Line maintenance facilities.

And while I wouldn't be wild about running a trolley from Mattapan all the way into the subway (too long and too many opportunities for delay), I could see a trolley running from Mattapan to Jackson to Heath up to Riverway, before turning west and joining up with the D Line (as we've discussed many many times) at Brookline Village to head into Kenmore, and use the loop there to turn. That would provide direct service to the LMA, connections to the Orange and Green Lines, and major transfer opportunities at Kenmore, including journeys onward to Cambridge. Moreover, most of the legs on that journey are wide enough to accommodate dedicated lanes, or already have dedicated ROWs.

Quick sketch:

 

[Brattle Loop]

Something I've been tinkering with since the congress st discussion popped up recently: downgrading rt 1 from a fully separated highway south of Squire Rd, and building a new *gasp* HRT line. The new line would run south from there on a RoW that would look very similar to Burgin Parkway in Quincy, cross the mystic along an appropriated deck of the Tobin, bang a left into a tunnel and run parallel to the orange from North Station to Haymarket and follow the Congress St alignment to South Station.

I'm going to leave aside the question of whether the Tobin could be partly re-purposed for HRT because it's way out of my wheelhouse. I'm also not going to touch the idea of Route 1 reconfiguration partly for that same reason and partly because in Crazy Transit Pitches world where you go at either end of the Congress Street Tunnel is choose-your-own-adventure. (Though I will say I am more bullish on a plan that doesn't require tunneling through huge swaths of Charlestown, Chelsea, and Everett.)

I've been looking at what maps I can find more closely, and I think there's a serious issue with the north end of this (and other) proposal for the Congress Street alignment. The area around the existing Orange Line tunnel from North Station to Haymarket is incredibly constrained. It's very hard to find maps of the tunnels, but I suspect there's not sufficient room for even a running tunnel with no stops let alone a tunnel with stations between the Orange Line's Haymarket North Extension and the Big Dig's O'Neill Tunnel, so I think a parallel tunnel on a similar level to the Green and Orange is probably physically impossible. You'd have to dig down. (That's probably true of most of the Congress Street alignments trying to head up to Charlestown, and it's not a deal-breaker, just a factor that needs to be considered.) Once you get south of Orange/Green on Congress it's clear sailing down to the Greenway, so that part's fine.

From there, continue south underneath Hudson St, under the pike, and on to Nubian Sq. Connects to all existing lines as well as UR at Chelsea

Once the Congress Street Tunnel reaches the Greenway it's more choose-your-own-adventure (within reason, preferably not in such a way that precludes the NSRL's Central Artery alignment). I'm not a fan of this route proposal for two reasons. One, Hudson Street was provisionally identified in the Green Line Reconfiguration thread as the best candidate for connecting the Green Line to the Silver Line Transitway (aka the replacement for the never-built Silver Line Phase III) via the disused Tremont Street tunnels and Marginal Rd, and I don't love the prospect of this alignment possibly precluding that option when this tunnel has a much freer range of options. Second, I think LRT out of the Tremont Street tunnels is a better, more feasible service pattern for Nubian via Washington than a giant new tunneling project. I get that this is Crazy Transit Pitches, but the transit pitch for Nubian, before any others, is replacement of the Elevated with something that works better than the born-broken Silver Line. Green Line via Tremont would get easy transfers to the westbound GL branches (and potentially the Seaport if you built that leg), downstairs transfers to Red at Park, downstairs transfers to Blue at Government, and easy transfers to Orange at North and Haymarket. The Congress Street alignment's transfers would be net worse (Blue at State and possibly Red at south might be about similar) while the Green and Orange would be less convenient at North/Haymarket because there's almost certainly not room for stations on the same level. A lot of that's personal opinion and preference, but, again, Congress Street's got tons of options of where you go on either end.