Crazy Transit Pitches

[F-Line to Dudley]

Two options there: Deepen the roadways in the underpass a few feet, installing permanent pumps as needed to dewater them. Or, leave them as is, and have the busses use the ramps as a through route with bus-activated traffic lights across Mass Ave.

It's the Longfellow underpass, not Mass Ave., that you can't fix for. 10'6" on the westbound side on a road that can't be depressed any further because of the adjacent intersection, and no up-and-over possibility because of the Red Line tracks.

 

[Charlie_mta]

It's the Longfellow underpass, not Mass Ave., that you can't fix for. 10'6" on the westbound side on a road that can't be depressed any further because of the adjacent intersection, and no up-and-over possibility because of the Red Line tracks.

Oops, sorry about that. I was thinking Mass Ave, not Longfellow Bridge.

 

[Riverside]

Harvard Bridge kills the ferry plan dead. Very low clearance ever since the 1990 rehabilitation eliminated the draw span. Even the sailboats on the river can't clear it with their masts up. So you'd be limited to speedboats akin to some of the smaller craft moored at Charles Yacht Club (not even all of those boats will fit), which constricts you to paratransit-sized capacity. Like 5-8 passengers per trip...maybe 10-12 if you came up with some particularly novel design. Far too small for anything load-bearing.

So obviously what you’re saying is that we’re good to go on full-size ferries pinging back and forth between North Station and Kendall. (I jest, I jest.)

Sounds like a bored retiree should get some of his motorboat-owning buddies together to run a small fleet of “dollar van” ferries, trucking people down the river. (I jest, I jest.)

 

[ritchiew]

Like 5-8 passengers per trip...maybe 10-12

I'm pretty sure this cruise boat already does the whole proposed route, and even goes as far as Harvard. It seats 75.

Charles I Vessel | Charles River Boat Company

The Charles I is a classic riverboat that is perfect for cruising The Charles River & Boston’s Harbor, this yacht is available for private events & parties.

charlesriverboat.com

Hopefully I just solved the last and only problem with this scheme. I want to see it implemented right away.

 

[HenryAlan]

I'm pretty sure this cruise boat already does the whole proposed route, and even goes as far as Harvard. It seats 75.

Yes, it does. I attended a party on that boat and it's low to the water profile made it possible to cruise well past Mass Ave. I suspect the Casino shuttles could also handle it, though I don't know that they are as large as we'd want for a public ferry service. Definitely there are boats that can handle both the capacity and the bridge profile, though.

 

[Stlin]

I believe Manila and some other Asian / european cities have large ferry boats that are specifically designed to cope with low air drafts and small (water) drafts - something along those lines would probably work as the Charles is pretty calm. That said... We don't need something huge- this is Boston, not London. Something ~20-40 would probably be more than sufficient.

That said... Why limit it to just North Station to Cambridgeport? That feels like a journey thats not worth launching a service for. I believe that while the further west you go the bridges get lower and smaller and the river narrower and curvier, the Charles is navigable to small boats as far as the Watertown Dock. I like the idea of a "water-bus" hitting Watertown Dock, Arsenal, and Harvard before Cambridgeport and Kendall - I feel with rush hour traffic, it'd be competitive with the 70 bus, or taking the 71 into Harvard.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I believe Manila and some other Asian / european cities have large ferry boats that are specifically designed to cope with low air drafts and small (water) drafts - something along those lines would probably work as the Charles is pretty calm. That said... We don't need something huge- this is Boston, not London. Something ~20-40 would probably be more than sufficient.

That said... Why limit it to just North Station to Cambridgeport? That feels like a journey thats not worth launching a service for. I believe that while the further west you go the bridges get lower and smaller and the river narrower and curvier, the Charles is navigable to small boats as far as the Watertown Dock. I like the idea of a "water-bus" hitting Watertown Dock, Arsenal, and Harvard before Cambridgeport and Kendall - I feel with rush hour traffic, it'd be competitive with the 70 bus, or taking the 71 into Harvard.

Travel on the Charles is really slow, because it is all a "no wake" zone for powered craft (due to all the small sail craft and crew shells). Travel time to the Watertown damn from North Station is about an hour (not including time for stops, which are also very slow on ferries -- much longer dwell time for docking, unloading, loading, casting off at each stop than a bus or subway car)!

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

Travel on the Charles is really slow, because it is all a "no wake" zone for powered craft (due to all the small sail craft and crew shells). Travel time to the Watertown damn from North Station is about an hour (not including time for stops, which are also very slow on ferries -- much longer dwell time for docking, unloading, loading, casting off at each stop than a bus or subway car)!

What if we sped the ferries up by separating them with walls from the other river traffic, so their wakes don't disrupt the other boats? Of course, at that point, you'd have to give them guiderails so the walls don't have to be too far apart. And maybe drain the water out to ensure good contact with the rails, and put a roof over the walls to make sure the whole thing doesn't fill up with water, and --

...Oh. Whoops. I made a subway.

 

[JeffDowntown]

What if we sped the ferries up by separating them with walls from the other river traffic, so their wakes don't disrupt the other boats? Of course, at that point, you'd have to give them guiderails so the walls don't have to be too far apart. And maybe drain the water out to ensure good contact with the rails, and put a roof over the walls to make sure the whole thing doesn't fill up with water, and --

...Oh. Whoops. I made a subway.

BLXXX to Watertown.

 

[Riverside]

I believe Manila and some other Asian / european cities have large ferry boats that are specifically designed to cope with low air drafts and small (water) drafts - something along those lines would probably work as the Charles is pretty calm. That said... We don't need something huge- this is Boston, not London. Something ~20-40 would probably be more than sufficient.

That said... Why limit it to just North Station to Cambridgeport? That feels like a journey thats not worth launching a service for. I believe that while the further west you go the bridges get lower and smaller and the river narrower and curvier, the Charles is navigable to small boats as far as the Watertown Dock. I like the idea of a "water-bus" hitting Watertown Dock, Arsenal, and Harvard before Cambridgeport and Kendall - I feel with rush hour traffic, it'd be competitive with the 70 bus, or taking the 71 into Harvard.

Part of the reason I didn't go farther than Cambridgeport was because at that point the Charles begins to curve around and becomes much more roundabout for journeys to North Station; the interesting thing about the North Station <> Kendall pair is that the "as the crow flies" route is indeed directly through the Charles, so a water service can potentially be more direct. This is true to a lesser extent for the MIT and BU pairs as well.

That said, some upstream destination pairs would indeed be linked pretty directly via a path along the river:

• Harvard <> BU
• Harvard <> Arsenal
• Harvard <> Watertown
• Watertown <> Arsenal

So, like many transit routes, a Watertown <> North Station service could be built off of shorter journey pairs, even if the longer journeys are less competitive.

Travel on the Charles is really slow, because it is all a "no wake" zone for powered craft (due to all the small sail craft and crew shells). Travel time to the Watertown damn from North Station is about an hour (not including time for stops, which are also very slow on ferries -- much longer dwell time for docking, unloading, loading, casting off at each stop than a bus or subway car)!

I suspect Kendall, rather than North Station, would be the primary destination for this service, although it doesn't make a huge difference either way. I don't know how precise your figure of one hour is, but compared to the current transit methods, that's not super far off from the status quo:

Of course, it should be noted that driving completely knocks both surface transit and ferries out of the water (no pun intended).

That being said, a Harvard <> BU ferry, at 6 mph, would take 15 minutes and would probably beat the current 2-seat transit journey:

 

[fatnoah]

but compared to the current transit methods, that's not super far off from the status quo:

It's also a single-seat ride and, speaking as someone who just worked a ferry into their commute (N. Station to Seaport), it's a far more pleasant ride.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Part of the reason I didn't go farther than Cambridgeport was because at that point the Charles begins to curve around and becomes much more roundabout for journeys to North Station; the interesting thing about the North Station <> Kendall pair is that the "as the crow flies" route is indeed directly through the Charles, so a water service can potentially be more direct. This is true to a lesser extent for the MIT and BU pairs as well.

That said, some upstream destination pairs would indeed be linked pretty directly via a path along the river:

• Harvard <> BU
• Harvard <> Arsenal
• Harvard <> Watertown
• Watertown <> Arsenal

So, like many transit routes, a Watertown <> North Station service could be built off of shorter journey pairs, even if the longer journeys are less competitive.

I suspect Kendall, rather than North Station, would be the primary destination for this service, although it doesn't make a huge difference either way. I don't know how precise your figure of one hour is, but compared to the current transit methods, that's not super far off from the status quo:

View attachment 38882

Of course, it should be noted that driving completely knocks both surface transit and ferries out of the water (no pun intended).

That being said, a Harvard <> BU ferry, at 6 mph, would take 15 minutes and would probably beat the current 2-seat transit journey:

View attachment 38883

This is the quote from the Charles River Alliance of Boaters:
"Power boaters should plan on a one hour run from Sunset Bay, home to Newton Yacht Club, Watertown Yacht Club, and the public launch ramp, to the locks leading to Boston Harbor. The speed limit is 6 mph above the BU Bridge, 10 mph between the BU Bridge and the old lock by the Science Museum."

And that is one hour without any stops.

 

[Riverside]

This is the quote from the Charles River Alliance of Boaters:
"Power boaters should plan on a one hour run from Sunset Bay, home to Newton Yacht Club, Watertown Yacht Club, and the public launch ramp, to the locks leading to Boston Harbor. The speed limit is 6 mph above the BU Bridge, 10 mph between the BU Bridge and the old lock by the Science Museum."

And that is one hour without any stops.

Nice, that's really interesting.

I think the thing that strikes me about all this is what a comment it makes about the current public transit system that going non-stop at 6 mph in a boat on a slightly circuitous route is broadly as fast as using transit (especially if there are any delays on the transit side).

 

[Teban54]

Nice, that's really interesting.

I think the thing that strikes me about all this is what a comment it makes about the current public transit system that going non-stop at 6 mph in a boat on a slightly circuitous route is broadly as fast as using transit (especially if there are any delays on the transit side).

It also highlights the need for better transit options for Watertown: Despite having three high-frequency buses in the BNRD (T57, T70, T71), it does not seem to be an adequate solution given the density, and given the lack of better bus infrastructure planned along any of the three corridors.

Newton Corner Commuter Rail station and BRT-ifying one of the corridors (likely T70) seem like the most realistic short-term solutions. I would really love to see something like Blue-to-Watertown happen, but I doubt it will in our lifetimes.

 

[Tallguy]

It also highlights the need for better transit options for Watertown: Despite having three high-frequency buses in the BNRD (T57, T70, T71), it does not seem to be an adequate solution given the density, and given the lack of better bus infrastructure planned along any of the three corridors.

Newton Corner Commuter Rail station and BRT-ifying one of the corridors (likely T70) seem like the most realistic short-term solutions. I would really love to see something like Blue-to-Watertown happen, but I doubt it will in our lifetimes.

A Fanuiel infill would help as well

 

[Riverside]

Shifting gears from ferries:

What kinds of obstacles -- whether they be physical, regulatory, or otherwise -- preclude LRT vehicles from using HRT tracks for non-revenue moves? Prompted by discussion in the If I Were God/Goddess thread, I was thinking about what it would take to run a small LRT line on the North Shore. Obviously, when you reach a certain size for an LRT subnetwork, you should just build a yard and run the thing independently. But what if it's just a short line?

What I'm thinking about is whether a non-revenue connection could be built between LRT "Urban Ring" tracks and Blue Line tracks near Wood Island or Airport, and then run LRT cars out-of-service up the Blue Line outside of peak hours to then run on, like, a Lynn-Marblehead service or something. As far as I know, both sets of overhead catenary use the same voltage, and it's the same gauge, and all of the curves should be doable for LRT if they are doable for HRT.

The other place I've thought about something like this is Lexington. I like the idea of extending the Red Line to Arlington Center or Arlington Heights, but it seems less convincing to go further. The lower density of Lexington could be friendly to an LRT line -- but if you build RLX, how do you connect to the the larger LRT network? Assuming a GLX to Porter with a non-revenue extension to Alewife, and assuming it's possible to run LRT cars over Red Line tracks outside of peak, then you could run a short LRT line through Lexington without needing to build new yards. (I think.)

The only place that I know of right now that runs LRT and HRT on the same tracks is Cleveland (though I understand they're abandoning that with their next set of rolling stock).

 

[737900er]

Didn't someone on this board also propose running Type 9s around Logan with a non-revenue connection to Orient Heights?

 

[BosMaineiac]

Shifting gears from ferries:

What kinds of obstacles -- whether they be physical, regulatory, or otherwise -- preclude LRT vehicles from using HRT tracks for non-revenue moves? Prompted by discussion in the If I Were God/Goddess thread, I was thinking about what it would take to run a small LRT line on the North Shore. Obviously, when you reach a certain size for an LRT subnetwork, you should just build a yard and run the thing independently. But what if it's just a short line?

What I'm thinking about is whether a non-revenue connection could be built between LRT "Urban Ring" tracks and Blue Line tracks near Wood Island or Airport, and then run LRT cars out-of-service up the Blue Line outside of peak hours to then run on, like, a Lynn-Marblehead service or something. As far as I know, both sets of overhead catenary use the same voltage, and it's the same gauge, and all of the curves should be doable for LRT if they are doable for HRT.

The other place I've thought about something like this is Lexington. I like the idea of extending the Red Line to Arlington Center or Arlington Heights, but it seems less convincing to go further. The lower density of Lexington could be friendly to an LRT line -- but if you build RLX, how do you connect to the the larger LRT network? Assuming a GLX to Porter with a non-revenue extension to Alewife, and assuming it's possible to run LRT cars over Red Line tracks outside of peak, then you could run a short LRT line through Lexington without needing to build new yards. (I think.)

The only place that I know of right now that runs LRT and HRT on the same tracks is Cleveland (though I understand they're abandoning that with their next set of rolling stock).

I think the only thing you'd need to ensure it would work is the wheel profile, which is different for LRT and HRT based on performance requirements. The LRT may be restricted in speed, which would probably be okay for non-revenue service. I'm unsure of regulatory requirements for running LRT on HRT but they both fall under the FTA jurisdiction so it may be possible. I think the tougher part for your proposal for the red line would be building a connection from the red line tunnel at Porter (deepest in the system) to an at-grade connection with extended green line tracks where there's little space in the ROW.

 

[jklo]

The other place I've thought about something like this is Lexington. I like the idea of extending the Red Line to Arlington Center or Arlington Heights, but it seems less convincing to go further.

I'm convinced that RLX has to go all the way to 128 if it's ever going to be built because Arlington (and I imagine Lexington would be too) don't want their town to have the last stop. And it's probably have to be a tunnel all the way too. Which would blow out the costs.

 

[BosMaineiac]

I'm convinced that RLX has to go all the way to 128 if it's ever going to be built because Arlington (and I imagine Lexington would be too) don't want their town to have the last stop. And it's probably have to be a tunnel all the way too. Which would blow out the costs.

I think the real driver for a full RLX would be Massport using Hanscom as an auxiliary airport to Logan for commercial flights, but don't tell anyone in Lexington that