Actually, a question. There's money in the CIP for a new Northside CR MoW facility to be built in Billerica, presumably at Iron Horse Park. Presumably that will replace the CR MoW yard at Alewife. I'm fully aware that the 2004 PMT ridership for an infill station here was dismal, but what else would you do here if the site were vacant? I would think at minimum a footbridge from Wheeler.
Crazy Transit Pitches
- Thread starter BostonUrbEx
- Start date
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,196
- Reaction score
- 9,002
I don't think it's going to replace Alewife. Alewife is way over-capacity, and they've been stuffing work cars on sidings across the northside unprotected from trespassers because there's such an overall space crunch. Most likely you'll see Billerica become HQ for the T's roster of freight work cars and all manner of heavy track critters, while Alewife gets freed up for hi-rail and inspection vehicles (logical, because those get more general use and have greater need to be centrally located).
There've been various proposals for a footbridge between Cambridgepark and Fawcett St., but all of those would've been a little bit west of the MOW building. Unlike the City-proposed footbridge east of the parkway by Danehy Park, it was always assumed that private interests would be picking up most of the tab for the Cambridgepark one (not surprisingly, little has come of it).
RandomWalk
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 3,024
- Reaction score
- 4,270
I thought they wanted to colocate a MoW facility with the South Salem station.
Longfellow
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2023
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 473
That study is a little sad. I liked the proposals people had here of digging underground for grand junction and then using a modular station design.
Hooledeli
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2024
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 27
hello, had an idea for a blue-orange line junction at state
i wanted to understand the doability of this junction before i spend time exploring possible service patterns so i came to you all
heres my very basic mockup of how the junction could theoretically work
"cyan" is the name of a theoretical new service that comes from beyond aquarium and goes past chinatown, it would use the orange line's inbound platforms and the blue line's outbound
there is a crossover just east of the blue line platforms
i wanted to understand the doability of this junction before i spend time exploring possible service patterns so i came to you all
heres my very basic mockup of how the junction could theoretically work
"cyan" is the name of a theoretical new service that comes from beyond aquarium and goes past chinatown, it would use the orange line's inbound platforms and the blue line's outbound
there is a crossover just east of the blue line platforms
I know they share car width, but do they share loading heights?
They're off by 3 inches - but that's within the range of adjustable air ballasts. (Which the current fleets are not equipped with - they require a visit to the shops.)
Last edited:
Not sure where to put this, but here is a map of every rail line and trolleybus in Boston ever, based on maps by Alexandra Rapp.
Blue is rapid transit, Gray is non electrified mainline rail, dark green is electrified mainline rail, light green is trolleybuses, pink is streetcar tunnels, red is surface streetcars, and yellow is horsecar lines that were never electrified.
Blue is rapid transit, Gray is non electrified mainline rail, dark green is electrified mainline rail, light green is trolleybuses, pink is streetcar tunnels, red is surface streetcars, and yellow is horsecar lines that were never electrified.
This is incredible. Puts my small attempt at mapping all streetcars to shame lol.
Pitch: Silver Line BRT Phase 3 - but - even cheaper
In search of bridging the missing link from SL Phase 3 BRT - SL4/5 Nubian/South End to SL1/2 Seaport/Airport (and onward to Chelsea) I was thinking that Boston and the State could make the long-desired link with a "small" tunneling project. My understanding of the Silver Line Piers Transitway is that the out-of-service loop is somewhere between E and Beach Streets under Atlantic Avenue. The pitch is to replace that loop - with a portal to the surface that "lands" right at Kneeland. There it can turn to connect to a (side or) center-running transitway along Kneeland using space from a fairly massive road diet -- 5 or 4 lanes at some places to 3 or 2.
This proposal "misses" the GL to SL connection that could make a big network difference - but - there's still a fairly decent travel market according to the BNR data for South Boston/Seaport and the Downtown, JP, Roxbury, and Mission Hill neighborhoods.
Ideally one would build a portal from Essex Street at Surface Road down to the tunnel - but it looks like such a short distance (500 feet in Google Maps) that I have a hard time believing that it would be workable given all the stuff underground there. I also don't know how the SL platforms align - my recollection was that Essex Street is probably too close/maybe just at the platforms.
In search of bridging the missing link from SL Phase 3 BRT - SL4/5 Nubian/South End to SL1/2 Seaport/Airport (and onward to Chelsea) I was thinking that Boston and the State could make the long-desired link with a "small" tunneling project. My understanding of the Silver Line Piers Transitway is that the out-of-service loop is somewhere between E and Beach Streets under Atlantic Avenue. The pitch is to replace that loop - with a portal to the surface that "lands" right at Kneeland. There it can turn to connect to a (side or) center-running transitway along Kneeland using space from a fairly massive road diet -- 5 or 4 lanes at some places to 3 or 2.
This proposal "misses" the GL to SL connection that could make a big network difference - but - there's still a fairly decent travel market according to the BNR data for South Boston/Seaport and the Downtown, JP, Roxbury, and Mission Hill neighborhoods.
Ideally one would build a portal from Essex Street at Surface Road down to the tunnel - but it looks like such a short distance (500 feet in Google Maps) that I have a hard time believing that it would be workable given all the stuff underground there. I also don't know how the SL platforms align - my recollection was that Essex Street is probably too close/maybe just at the platforms.
TheRatmeister
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2023
- Messages
- 976
- Reaction score
- 1,789
The loop is actually under the CAT there if I recall correctly, you'd need to use the 'hook' that comes out on Essex St. But assuming you do that I believe it would actually work.
Good timing, since I've been reading up on the original Phase 3 proposal, but the loop is actually over the CAT.
Last edited:
Thanks! I guess this goes to show that I might be feasible to actually make the hard turn and pop up just at South St and Essex St. I know the east side interceptor is somewhere along South St but perhaps with the bus tunnel aka Transit way being relatively shallow, it might be possible to get up to grade fast enough and not chase the grade into the interceptor.
So, fun fact: per Wikipedia the general service pattern you're proposing got a full workup by the then Secretary of Transportation in 2006, after the federal grant application for phase 3 got pulled. The general routing would have used the Essex leg, built a transfer to Park and DTX using what is now the Winter St concourse probably via Lincoln & Summer, and northbound used Kneeland and Surface. I imagine that would still probably remain the best routing today.
Since we're talking about it, my current research into phase 3 is focused on what amount of the project scope was related to the requirement that phase 1, what is now SL 4, would be routed into the transitway at Boylston to continue on to South Station and the Seaport. By 2004, under Essex to Boylston was well settled - the question of where to put the portal and how you'd route its associated tunnel to Boylston wasn't. I'm fully aware of the legacy of "equal or better," but... That was a commitment to getting downtown. Seaport wasn't a thing in 87, and was barely a thing in 2006. what needs to happen to make it ok for the T to just ... Not connect SLs 4&5 to 1-3 as a OSR, and instead make it a transfer to a Greenified SL2? I have my thoughts on this, which I'll need to flesh out in a future post.
TheRatmeister
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2023
- Messages
- 976
- Reaction score
- 1,789
This is honestly so much of a crackpot idea that I'm not sure where it belongs, it's originally somewhat based on a bad idea from someone who is extremely anti-Green Line on Reddit. I present to you GLRC but Blue Line:
A new flying Y junction would connect the Blue Line to the Tremont St subway, taking over the outer tracks through Boylston and through a new Washington St subway, continuing down to Mattapan. Is this a good idea? Probably not. Is it interesting? Definitely yes.
A new flying Y junction would connect the Blue Line to the Tremont St subway, taking over the outer tracks through Boylston and through a new Washington St subway, continuing down to Mattapan. Is this a good idea? Probably not. Is it interesting? Definitely yes.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 2,065
I like the Oak Square restoration of Green Line service. I like the Blue Line extensions to Charles and Salem. I can get behind the D-E interlining. I like that there is rapid transit to Mattapan. The rest of it is highly questionable, though.
TheRatmeister
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2023
- Messages
- 976
- Reaction score
- 1,789
Those are really just side notes. The Blue Line to Boylston is the main idea, and you're absolutely right that it's highly questionable. A less questionable version might be something like doing GLRC but sending the Arborway branch up through Longwood/Fenway, then using high floor vehicles on Huntington/GLX/D branches, but that leaves you stuck with high floor vehicles on a Washington St route which could be fine or even preferable for the first section to Nubian but less great once you're paralleling the Fairmount Line and more frequent stops are better.
Last edited:
TheRatmeister
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2023
- Messages
- 976
- Reaction score
- 1,789
So, the big issue with adding more Capeflyer service is that it requires using the lift bridge more, which the ACoE won't allow. So what if we don't do that, and build a rail connection over one of the road bridges instead? Running from either the Kingston or Middleborough/Lakeville lines, it would follow Rt 3/495 respectively before crossing over into the cape and then... I haven't crayoned that part out yet. But it seems like going for the Northern route would be easier.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,334
- Reaction score
- 5,971
I'm guessing the road bridge grades over the Cape Cod Canal might be too steep for rail, but that would need to be verified. My vote would be to just build a high level fixed span rail bridge. The approaches would be long to accommodate rail grade maximums, but c'est la vie.
TheRatmeister
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2023
- Messages
- 976
- Reaction score
- 1,789
Right, silly FRA rules strike again. Yeah at that point just build a rail bridge over the current lift bridge.