Teban54
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2021
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 2,576
TL;DR:This image shows the version proposed by the MIS study, but you're right, I don't think it's the best option, the GJ would better serve as a trunk line for services that branch out, and I've already given a few reasons why I don't think light rail is actually the best plan for that. I've spread it out over a few comments, but I'll condense it all here: My general opinion is that the best transit mode for a converted GJ is a busway for these reasons:
- Buses can handle steeper gradients than light rail, making grade separation via over/underpasses easier
- Additional buses can be operated by private entities such as labs, universities, or other companies, which is really useful in a place like Kendall.
- Buses give you the most flexibility to merge routes on and off the ROW
- And of course, buses can utilize the existing road network
View attachment 43997
- A bus corridor for Kendall has better options than tearing up Grand Junction and paving a busway
- A micro-level "Kendall network" really shouldn't be separated from a macro-level "circumferential route", especially for mid-range destinations
- For such a service, a Grand Junction heavy-metro LRT line achieves the best balance in the real world
- Need to tear up tracks and pave roads - which cost $$
- Limited catchment along the route (at the western edge of the office area, and not too many residents nearby)
- Hard to do a busway through Brickbottom and GLMF/CRMF
- IMO, this is why any service using this part of Grand Junction (Brickbottom) really should be rail, especially GL-compatible rail
- Bad transfers to the Red Line
Instead, how about this route?
The main feature is a dedicated busway along Galileo Galilei Way, Binney St and Land Blvd, either in dedicated lanes or as an elevated (preferred but $$). The blue section near Kendall can also be used as an alternative route, greatly enhancing Red Line transfer at the cost of grade separation.
Compared to a Grand Junction-only busway, this tackles almost all its difficulties one by one:
- Uses existing road infrastructure - can start running immediately if you don't need grade separation
- Covers a much greater part of Kendall (Binney St labs) and East Cambridge
- Avoids the mess of Brickbottom Junction, while still providing feasible ways to Sullivan
- Much better Red Line transfer possible
- And, as a bonus, also connects to Lechmere (GLX and developments there)
The effectiveness of such a feeder network with buses is also questionable. The 64 bus, which connects Kendall to Cambridgeport, Allston and Oak Square, doesn't have great ridership. The 85 to Union Square is even worse. The CT2 does better than both, but it has a lot more catchment and is decidedly NOT a local feeder route for Kendall. And even though the Bus Network Redesign initially had the 83 bus to Kendall, it was reverted back to Central in the final draft due to community feedback.
And who's to say that such a bus network alone, as the only enhancement for Kendall, is really the best way to satisfy someone going to Kendall from… Sullivan? Kenmore? Chelsea? South End?
Which leads to another question…
Is there really a need to completely separate a micro-level "Kendall feeder network" from a macro-level "circumferential route"?
Let's first try to sketch out some characteristics of both.
Kendall network:
- Goal: Bring people to Kendall
- Should ideally have wide coverage to a variety of places
- On paper, this suggests many branches
- Slower service may be OK??? That's a big question mark - more on this soon
- Red Line transfer is not as important
- Goal: Bring people away from the transfer stations downtown
- Should ideally hit most transfer stations and transit hubs
- On paper, this suggests one continuous line that crosses all other lines is sufficient. But…
- Should also hope to hit as many destinations (employment centers) as possible
- To maximize 2-seat-rides and minimize 3-seat-rides
- Speed is crucial
- Transfers to other lines are crucial
The ring boundaries are not supposed to be exact, and nodes at the corners can swing either way. Places along the Red Line are excluded.
But the high-level picture is, these "variety of places" can be roughly divided into tiers, each with different needs:
- Red:Immediate neighborhoods
- Parts of Cambridge, Charlestown, Lechmere/GLX
- Blue:Transfer nodes (mostly)
- Sullivan/North Station, Kenmore/GL branches, Ruggles/Back Bay, Nubian
- Some of these are near the red/blue boundary, but still
- Green:Faraway neighborhoods
- Everett, Chelsea, Medford, Allston/Brighton/Brookline, Roxbury/Dorchester
- Don't forget there are places even further away that are not shown:
- Revere/Lynn, Malden, Watertown, Newton, Forest Hills, Mattapan, Quincy, etc
Many transfer hubs happen to fall here. And by virtue of them being transfer nodes, these passengers often come from other transit modes with origins that are much further away. They're also more likely to have the option to continue riding into downtown and transfer there.
For someone arriving at Sullivan, Ruggles, etc, what they need is not a non-grade-separated service with frequent stops (like T101, even though that's better than the status quo). What they'll most likely need is:
Yes, that's what I'm saying: At that distance, a micro-level Kendall subnetwork coincides with a macro-level circumferential route.an orbital line with more central, limited stops
So we really should be taking a layered approach even when looking at Kendall's needs. What we need are probably a fast connection with long stop spacing that happens to also serve as an "orbital line meant to better connect the city", plus short-to-medium-haul feeder buses for nearby neighborhoods (red ring, maybe some of blue ring, mayyybe Kenmore) and the handful connections that aren't served by the former.
Fortunately for Kendall, these two objectives (mid-haul micro network + macro ring route) align pretty well - a single spine serves most of the blue ring. That's a feature, not a bug. No need to go to two extremes of "buses vs. deep-bored HRT" just to achieve perfect separation.
Is "heavy-metro circumferential LRT down Grand Junction" the best way to do this? No, but it's the most realistic compromise between cost, flexibility and (sufficient) capacity.
- First of all, does a macro ring route need to connect at Kendall in the first place? Not necessarily: Kendall, Central and Harvard each has its own merits. But I believe Kendall has strong arguments going for it - such as how it also double duties as a much-needed Kendall subnetwork.
- I'll say this for the 128th time: A 95% grade-separated, 2+ Type 10 sets "heavy metro" LRT through Grand Junction is the most realistic option through Kendall. And it gives you much more flexibility that HRT doesn't have, at the cost of losing 1/3 of HRT's capacity:
- Ability to get something running first, and then incrementally do grade separation later while not subjecting to low capacity forever
- Possibility of branches - there are already strong arguments for branches on both ends, Sullivan/North Station and Kenmore/West Station. Yes, buses can do branches too, but if LRT can do the same thing, why not?
In an ideal sandbox world, the following alignment is probably ideal for a purely macro-level circumferential route. But good luck seeing this fully-TBM route happen in 2223.