- Apr 28, 2020
- Reaction score
As for a surface LRV line on the RKG, yes, it will impact vehicular traffic, especially at the on/off ramps to the Central Artery, and it would eat one lane in each direction of the surface road as well. But, again, priorities. Is the RKG to be hard-wired for cars only, or can some of that traffic capacity be sacrificed for transit? I would vote for the latter.
I don't particularly care, in the abstract, whether we sacrifice road capacity for transit, but those roads - and particularly those intersections - are a minefield. I don't know how manageable schedule-keeping would be on this thing (especially at peak road traffic times), which isn't necessarily fatal, though it becomes a bigger problem if this is a load-bearing spine meant for service beyond the Greenway.
The surface LRV line would ramp down to the existing busway tunnel in an alignment aimed at the Essex Street loop (at South Station).
The Transitway is under Atlantic running basically northeast-southwest for the block in front of the Federal Reserve. By the time it reaches Congress, it's already turning east to go under Atlantic Wharf and the InterContinental parcel, meaning it's probably impossible to dig down to the outbound/Seaport-bound side of the bus tunnel until you're south of Atlantic. Not impossible, but you'd be chewing up a lot of lanes/sidewalks/green space on that block to fit it, and it'd either have to be two portals bracketing the tunnel or accept a flat junction within the tunnel (eurgh).
Ideally that existing busway tunnel would carry the new LRV line and be extended south and west toward a connection with the Green Line system south of Copley Square or elsewhere as previously discussed on AB
I fail to see what purpose this line would serve. There are basically two classes of connections proposed (not necessarily mutually exclusives) between the Transitway and the existing Green Line; connecting to the existing main trunk as a southern branch via the disused Tremont lead tunnels (i.e. F-Line's Hudson St. routing) or connecting to the western branches (either via a new subway connection via Back Bay with optional junction at the Tremont leads as in some of Riverside's ideas, or a revived SL Phase III routing via Essex/Boylston). I fail to see what advantage is obtained by linking those lines to a surface route with, at best, inferior connections to the Blue and Orange lines and a basically-the-same connection to the Red Line. The capacity gains would be relatively minimal, because the traffic impacts of the surface route mean that they would have to have relatively-low-frequency service with ample padding to avoid completely nuking the rest of the connected network every time something caused the surface traffic to snarl and cause a meltdown. To me, it seems like a lot of headache for very little significant gain.