Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,323
- Reaction score
- 5,938
Even just mentioning a potential monorail on the RKG would elicit phenomenal pearl clutching from the local public.
Crazy Transit Pitches
- Thread starter BostonUrbEx
- Start date
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
I just mean anywhere. Run it along Storrow and the Pike, or the harbor, or Southie…
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,547
- Reaction score
- 3,146
One would think that we have learned by now that we do not tolerate overhead transportation infrastructure very well here in Boston. We build it out of expediency, but almost immediately the cries to "down the X" start. Eventually we develop the political will to put the obnoxious transportation stuff underground.
Think of all the overhead roads and rails that have come and gone here, and how many remaining are the topics of "Down the X" projects. Perhaps we should learn and not build more?
Think of all the overhead roads and rails that have come and gone here, and how many remaining are the topics of "Down the X" projects. Perhaps we should learn and not build more?
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
But how many have the panache of a 19th century suspended monorail?
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,547
- Reaction score
- 3,146
I am sure there is an engineer's quote about the Fitzgerald Expressway that is very similar.
shockingboston
New member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 32
Long time lurker, seldom poster. Decided to dive into Crazy Transit Pitch. I always felt there should be better Rapid Transit in the Dorchester Area. I lived on Blue Hill Ave (for too long), few blocks south of Talbot Ave; taking the 28 or 29 or walking up to Talbot to get the 22 as another option, you realize real fast the transportation on Blue Hill Ave is inadequate. I remember the crowds at my stop jockeying for position. Or trying to board a Bus at Ruggles or Dudley and the Bus being full. I remember some mornings and evenings where at least two Buses, closely following each other, would be full and skip my stop. When I was younger and more motivated, I complained to the MBTA about the Bus frequency and Bus crowding along Blue Hill Ave. I received a half-ass reply basically stating that the MBTA is aware of the issue and trying to improve routes leading to Dudley Station (Nubian). This was 15 yrs ago, so my angst is outdated, but I still believe Blue Hill Ave deserves Rapid Transit.
Overview:
Since my new Lines do not directly connect to Downtown Area stations, I figure I could not use the standard letter for the Line designations.
All surface track. No tunnels. I would love for a underground subway system, but I do not think it is feasible.
Use Green Line style trains.
Provide Rapid Transit option to Franklin Park. Franklin Park should have a rapid transit stop.
Option #1:
Line ZE – Mattapan Station to Heath St Station
(Mattapan Station) Blue Hill Ave to Warren
Warren St to Nubian Station
Nubian Station to Huntington Ave via Malcom X BLVD/Tremont St (also there is a stop at Roxbury Crossing for Orange Line transfer)
Once on Huntington use existing E line to Heath St.
A tie to an existing track system (E line) should allow for the trains to be retired, maintenance, stored, etc.
Option #2:
Line ZE but with a spur
Line ZE – Mattapan Station to Heath St Station
Line ZE2 – Mattapan Station to Andrew Station
(Mattapan Station) Blue Hill Ave to Franklin Park
Franklin Park to Mass Ave. via Columbia Rd.
Mass Ave/Boston St. to Andrew Station (Transfer to Red Line)
Overview:
Since my new Lines do not directly connect to Downtown Area stations, I figure I could not use the standard letter for the Line designations.
All surface track. No tunnels. I would love for a underground subway system, but I do not think it is feasible.
Use Green Line style trains.
Provide Rapid Transit option to Franklin Park. Franklin Park should have a rapid transit stop.
Option #1:
Line ZE – Mattapan Station to Heath St Station
(Mattapan Station) Blue Hill Ave to Warren
Warren St to Nubian Station
Nubian Station to Huntington Ave via Malcom X BLVD/Tremont St (also there is a stop at Roxbury Crossing for Orange Line transfer)
Once on Huntington use existing E line to Heath St.
A tie to an existing track system (E line) should allow for the trains to be retired, maintenance, stored, etc.
Option #2:
Line ZE but with a spur
Line ZE – Mattapan Station to Heath St Station
Line ZE2 – Mattapan Station to Andrew Station
(Mattapan Station) Blue Hill Ave to Franklin Park
Franklin Park to Mass Ave. via Columbia Rd.
Mass Ave/Boston St. to Andrew Station (Transfer to Red Line)
Brattle Loop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 2,077
The first option (ZE) would almost certainly be an operational nightmare. Parts of the route (especially Tremont and parts of Warren) would require surface running without apparent room for even bus/train lane separation (and whether there's room in some other areas for reservations rather than shared pavement, even if restricted to transit is also unclear). Dispatching that much street running, would be extremely difficult. Even in a world where the T wasn't reflexively allergic to street running, there's so much of it required on this route that it would likely result in difficulty maintaining a proper schedule. Add to that that it wouldn't feed a proper trunk line; everything from Mattapan to Nubian through to Huntington would be piped into a single branch of the Green Line, which is probably not a load the E-branch can bear. It'd be one thing if were debating a surface route from Mattapan to Nubian if Nubian had a trunk line up to downtown (i.e. if the Elevated were still there, or if it were replaced with a Green Line branch out of the disused Tremont tunnels), but even then we'd probably be talking about a lot of Mattapan cars short-turning at Nubian (and feeding their traffic in from there). Not feeding any of these cars into the Central Subway would avoid tangling with its capacity constraints, but would also render the service less immediately useful, given the forced transfer it would require (not to mention that dispatching the E's existing street running would be even harder with half of it headed for downtown and the other half headed for its own street running section).
The other proposal, ZE2, suffers from a few of the same operational issues, albeit not as badly. Not being chained to a single branch of the Green Line is a plus. It would, however, still involve a lot of surface running. Columbia as far as Mass Ave is probably wide enough for a reservation, but Boston Street would be mandatory street running with all the attendant complications. It might be less complicated to simply run to JFK/UMass for the Red Line connection. Either way, though, the forced transfer problem remains. Mattapan proper already has a (forced transfer) connection to a rapid transit trunk line, and there's no particular reason why an LRV surface service along Blue Hill is preferable when all it does is change which mode is first before the forced transfer.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,249
- Reaction score
- 2,042
Great pitch! Regardless of feasibility, this is an interesting concept and I'm glad you posted it.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,884
- Reaction score
- 3,712
I like these ideas, especially the Blue Hill/Columbia Rd line, both of which should work quite well with a center running reservation. The last mile problem of street running on Boston St, is tough to solve, though. Since it's crazy transit, why not go with a cut and cover tunnel for that stretch?
Welcome to the thread! I agree with @Brattle Loop in that there are some feasibility challenges here, but I like the way you’re thinking! I’ll try to reply with a few more comments later, but wanted to express my appreciation for jumping into the thread!
You might enjoy looking at the Better Bus Profiles for the routes you mentioned if you haven’t already. Some really valuable data on the those routes are used: https://www.mbta.com/projects/better-bus-project/update/bus-route-profiles-now-available
shockingboston
New member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 32
Thank you for the feedback.
I figure this concept would require major changes to traffic patterns and on-street parking. Some areas would have center running track as on Huntington Ave (similar to around Northeastern area) and some would be more integrated with traffic as on Huntington Ave, similar to conditions between Tremont and Heath St.
I think this proposal would eliminate most on-street parking along the route. Some area my be able to maintain parking areas, such parts Blue Hill Ave and Columbia Road.
Parts of Blue Hill Ave, Warren St. and Columbia Rd are just as wide as Huntington Ave; I assume this similarity means the MBTA has a framework it could use for development.
I would prefer underground tunnels along most of the route.
Boston St and Tremont St are the worst parts of the concept. These streets would probably be designated as one-way traffic for vehicles, to allow for double track of the concept line.
The Buses along Blue Hill Ave, barely maintain their schedule during morning and afternoon rush hour. A street car or center lane system would do much better.
I figure this concept would require major changes to traffic patterns and on-street parking. Some areas would have center running track as on Huntington Ave (similar to around Northeastern area) and some would be more integrated with traffic as on Huntington Ave, similar to conditions between Tremont and Heath St.
I think this proposal would eliminate most on-street parking along the route. Some area my be able to maintain parking areas, such parts Blue Hill Ave and Columbia Road.
Parts of Blue Hill Ave, Warren St. and Columbia Rd are just as wide as Huntington Ave; I assume this similarity means the MBTA has a framework it could use for development.
I would prefer underground tunnels along most of the route.
Boston St and Tremont St are the worst parts of the concept. These streets would probably be designated as one-way traffic for vehicles, to allow for double track of the concept line.
The Buses along Blue Hill Ave, barely maintain their schedule during morning and afternoon rush hour. A street car or center lane system would do much better.
shockingboston
New member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 32
Branch ZE concept:
Section view of new Tremont St and Boston St. (not to scale)
Section view of new Tremont St and Boston St. (not to scale)
A few thoughts for you! Typed on my phone on the train, so we’ll see how this goes…
[Edit: I see you’ve proposed dedicated lanes in Boston St and elsewhere — great stuff!]
Folks have suggested some alternatives that are worth considering. As mentioned, JFK/UMass can be reached by wider roads and so could swap for Andrew in your Columbia Road proposal. On the other branch, you might consider traveling via Columbus Ave and Egleston rather than Warren St and Nubian — if you are going to build LRT, it’ll be able to do what LRT is best at if it has a fully dedicated ROW.
But it’s worth stepping back for a moment and considering why to build light rail. Off the top of my head, there are certain scenarios where LRT is usually the strongest contender:
Obviously your proposal doesn’t meet the subway criterion — running this route all the way to Park St would be impractical. It’s also worth pointing out that this corridor needs speedier transit, but it also still will need local transit with relatively closely-spaced stops. That doesn’t rule out LRT, but it also isn’t necessarily playing to its strengths.
The thing about the Dorchester bus network, though, is that it’s not like the rest of the network. It’s not hub-and-spoke: it’s a lattice with high frequency connections in all possible combinations between 3 northern termini (Nubian/Ruggles, Egleston/Jackson Sq, Forest Hills) and 2 southern termini (Ashmont and Mattapan).
Converting an extended version of the 28 to LRT wouldn’t be a bad thing, per se, but I would guess that it would underperform slightly: you’re going to need to keep running the 23 and the 29 and the other overlapping bus routes because it won’t be feasible to terminate those routes at the LRT with a forced transfer.
The question then that I think is worth asking: what’s the benefit in spending X dollars on one LRT line, vs spending that same money creating multiple high quality BRT corridors?
And it may well be that 1 LRT line still wins in that comparison! I don’t know. My initial guess is that center-running lanes with priority signaling, near-level boarding platforms, and all-door boarding will get you a large fraction of the benefit you’d get with a full LRT line — wild guess, but maybe potentially 85%? So then the question is whether that last 15% is worth the expense
“Mixed traffic” light rail obviously still exists (Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and others) but for the most part everyone agrees that it really is a last resort, because it simply doesn’t work very well. Heck, it doesn’t really work for buses when there’s even modest traffic, which is why you see a greater and greater focus on adding bus lanes wherever possible: transit works best when it has its own dedicated space.
[Edit: I see you’ve proposed dedicated lanes in Boston St and elsewhere — great stuff!]
Folks have suggested some alternatives that are worth considering. As mentioned, JFK/UMass can be reached by wider roads and so could swap for Andrew in your Columbia Road proposal. On the other branch, you might consider traveling via Columbus Ave and Egleston rather than Warren St and Nubian — if you are going to build LRT, it’ll be able to do what LRT is best at if it has a fully dedicated ROW.
But it’s worth stepping back for a moment and considering why to build light rail. Off the top of my head, there are certain scenarios where LRT is usually the strongest contender:
- If you need to run into a subway, light rail is usually the way to go. AFAIK, every legacy light rail system in the US had a subway section. You can run BRT into a tunnel, but it doesn’t work as well
- If you have a linear corridor that has even and consistent ridership across and within the whole corridor, and where you have major “anchors” at multiple points along the corridor, and which stands head-and-shoulders above surrounding corridors in terms of ridership, LRT is a strong contender
- If you have the space and distance to run vehicles at higher speed, LRT provides a smoother ride
- If you need maximum capacity but can’t build heavy rail, that points to LRT over BRT — buses need to carry their own power supply, which always puts them at a capacity disadvantage against LRT
Obviously your proposal doesn’t meet the subway criterion — running this route all the way to Park St would be impractical. It’s also worth pointing out that this corridor needs speedier transit, but it also still will need local transit with relatively closely-spaced stops. That doesn’t rule out LRT, but it also isn’t necessarily playing to its strengths.
The thing about the Dorchester bus network, though, is that it’s not like the rest of the network. It’s not hub-and-spoke: it’s a lattice with high frequency connections in all possible combinations between 3 northern termini (Nubian/Ruggles, Egleston/Jackson Sq, Forest Hills) and 2 southern termini (Ashmont and Mattapan).
Converting an extended version of the 28 to LRT wouldn’t be a bad thing, per se, but I would guess that it would underperform slightly: you’re going to need to keep running the 23 and the 29 and the other overlapping bus routes because it won’t be feasible to terminate those routes at the LRT with a forced transfer.
The question then that I think is worth asking: what’s the benefit in spending X dollars on one LRT line, vs spending that same money creating multiple high quality BRT corridors?
And it may well be that 1 LRT line still wins in that comparison! I don’t know. My initial guess is that center-running lanes with priority signaling, near-level boarding platforms, and all-door boarding will get you a large fraction of the benefit you’d get with a full LRT line — wild guess, but maybe potentially 85%? So then the question is whether that last 15% is worth the expense
Brattle Loop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 2,077
And, to add more questions on top, does that calculation change (in either direction) if we extend LRT to Nubian?
shockingboston
New member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 32
The main drive behind adding LRT - Increase capacity and through the use of signal prioritization, improve transit times along those corridors. From experience (during morning/evening rush hours) of seeing full buses (some times back to back) skipping stops; I have been on a #28 bus that pick-up at Talbot then the driver would decide to express to Dudley Station, because the Bus is full; I have been at Ruggles and Dudley and not able to get on a bus because its full. The 28, 29, 22 directly and indirectly serve at least three highschools, Burke, Latin Academy, O'Bryant/Madison.
I think the dedicated bus lanes help with frequency but do not address capacity. I believe a concept like what I propose could reduce car ownership for residents along the route (especially with the reduction of on-street parking) [wishful thinking].
shockingboston
New member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 32
EDIT: Uploaded Correct Map
After review of comments and additional thought, I revised portions of the branch lines.
ZE – Mattapan to Park St – Connect with E-branch at Huntington Ave/Tremont intersection (Brigham Circle).
Changes – remove Heath St. Provides one-seat ride to downtown. Allows for connection to mainline branches.
ZF – Forest Hills to JFK
Changes – remove Andrew St. One-seat from JFK to Forest Hills.
Overall:
Franklin Park gains improved transit options.
Possibility to shorten bus routes for #19, #22, #23. Eliminate #16, #45, #28, #29.
I wonder about the feasibility of cut and cover tunnel construction method. Around JFK we could add back some elevated track; platform would be on second level.
After review of comments and additional thought, I revised portions of the branch lines.
ZE – Mattapan to Park St – Connect with E-branch at Huntington Ave/Tremont intersection (Brigham Circle).
Changes – remove Heath St. Provides one-seat ride to downtown. Allows for connection to mainline branches.
ZF – Forest Hills to JFK
Changes – remove Andrew St. One-seat from JFK to Forest Hills.
Overall:
Franklin Park gains improved transit options.
Possibility to shorten bus routes for #19, #22, #23. Eliminate #16, #45, #28, #29.
I wonder about the feasibility of cut and cover tunnel construction method. Around JFK we could add back some elevated track; platform would be on second level.
Last edited:
Brattle Loop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 2,077
Unfortunately, while this would make the service more useable because of eliminating a forced transfer at/near Heath, it would have the downside of chaining the entire service to the Central Subway, which doesn't necessarily have a ton of spare capacity to feed an extension this long, not to mention the operational problems that would be exacerbated by increasing the number of cars running through already-troublesome Copley Junction.
Not too sure what the demand between these points is that merits connecting them. Circumferential service between the radial lines would be beneficial, but I'm not sure this is the best solution. Particularly the first half, from Forest Hills to Blue Hill Avenue, which serves very little density between the park and the cemetery. The second half has greater density, but the route is also pretty close (extremely at certain points) to the Fairmount Line, which is extant service with full grade separation requiring significantly less new investment at the infrastructure level to improve service.
Now, don't get me wrong, both of these proposals identify useful transit corridors around Blue Hill Ave and its surrounding arteries. Neither of them specifically screams "light rail line", to me, though. The ZF proposal is far too much work for far too little return, especially if the transit options on Blue Hill were already amped up (either as the ZE or something else), because between the lack of density on the Forest Hills side and the proximity of Fairmount and the Red Line on the JFK side, there's no particular reason to choose that route as the circumferential line, especially when improved bus service would require little to no infrastructural improvement (apart from, perhaps, bus lanes; the roads are already there after all) essentially feeding into the existing hubs, rather than connecting them in a manner that is linked in a way that doesn't appear to be particularly in-demand.
Not sure if you're referencing tunneling for ZF, ZE, or both. I can't identify any areas on either route that look like they'd be fatally narrow for tunneling, but there's a big difference between "possible" and "feasible", at least outside the God Mode thread. Both routes would involve miles of tunneling, all or most of it under streets that may well not have well-documented utilities (that depends on the specific routes), all of which is technically feasible at whatever the (expensive) going rate is for tunneling. The ZF would fail on a cost-benefit analysis for tunneling (I suspect it would likely fail for surface LRT as well) given how big the cost would be for such meager benefit (it'd be somewhere between one and two miles of tunneling before you're clear of the park and its total lack of density; that alone might well kill the cost-benefit calculus for a tunnel). Tunneling ZE would at least make it less operationally nightmarish as an E-branch extension, but it would cost an absolute fortune. It'd be something like 4.5 miles of new tunneling just from Mattapan to Nubian alone (for comparison, that's roughly a mile more than the entire Green Line tunnel from the Science Park portal to the Kenmore portals), and at that point, if you're taking on that kind of cost, you'd be better off forgetting the E entirely, and plowing on straight from Nubian to the disused Tremont tunnels, because at least there there's some spare capacity in the Central Subway. Even then, I suspect that LRT on Blue Hill might well inherently fail cost-benefit analyses given how long the route is just from Mattapan to Nubian, how parts of it cannot be anything but street running (unless it's a tunnel), and how nowhere that currently exists has a high-capacity pipeline from Nubian into downtown. It's always good to see new and creative proposals, but I do think that operationally there might be some better, if more mundane, solutions for improving transit in these areas.
lainpimicaja
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 145
- Reaction score
- 552
Don't forget to add something running from Ruggles to Mattapan Square. With the Columbus Ave center-running extension and Blue Hill Ave moving forward, it's probably the least "crazy" in terms of a transit pitch.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,884
- Reaction score
- 3,712
I like this quite a bit, and it's almost all on streets wide enough for a reservation. Among many other issues, it addresses transit for the housing going up on the grounds of the old Boston State Hospital. It might be nice to extend further along Morton St. to reduce that distance a bit further. Have you considered having ZF go all the way to Blue Hill Ave before leaving Morton?
shockingboston
New member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 32
Thanks for the info regarding the conditions of the existing tunnels/track at Copley Junction. I do not have the ridership data for people getting on/off from Brigham Circle to Heath St., but the stops between Heath St. and Brigham could be eliminated. E route would then terminate at Mattapan.
For the ZF route, my thoughts for the need:
1. Increase transit options to Franklin park. This should reduce car traffic to the park. Park at Forest Hill and take the train. People that live along the CR route to Forest Hills may opt to taking the train, instead of driving. Similar for families coming from Milton areas or south. Park at Mattapan St. then train to Franklin.
2. Eliminate bus route #16.
3. Provide better transit options along Columbia Rd.
4. Provide improved transit options to Upham Corner. With the Strand Theater trying to rebound and additional apartments in review for the area, improved transit is a good thing.
For the ZF route, my thoughts for the need:
1. Increase Transit along Blue Hill Ave.
2. One seat ride from Park St. to Franklin Park. That sounds awesome, IMO.
3. Reduce the need for a car along Blue Hill Ave. Improved transit to Downtown, Nubian, Red Line access.
4. Eliminate a few bus routes. Shorten a few more routes to terminate at stops/stations along ZE. Reduce the number for buses that run to Nubian.
I know I do not have the facts to back it up, but I believe ZE would be a top 5 branch line in terms of ridership usage. Due to the number of shopping centers, "town centers" (i.e. Uphams, Grove Hall, etc.), schools, Public Spaces etc. the ridership would increase overtime.