Crazy Transit Pitches

While we're talking about station naming, does anyone know how the hell "ICA" ended up on "Hynes/ICA?"

Before they built their incredible new space, the ICA was just a little art gallery jammed in a firehouse that violated fire codes. The BPL doesn't even have it's name on a station, but the ICA did...
 
While we're talking about station naming, does anyone know how the hell "ICA" ended up on "Hynes/ICA?"

Before they built their incredible new space, the ICA was just a little art gallery jammed in a firehouse that violated fire codes. The BPL doesn't even have it's name on a station, but the ICA did...

Deal struck back in the day to get people to the ICA via the T. (The ICA hosted a Maplethorpe exhibit in 1990.) Mr recollection was a lot of pressure from nABB about parking and because that side of the street is part of their isolation/preservation zone this resulted. It was actually pretty effective and I think brought more traffic to the ICA than the Maplethorpe exhibit did.

A street name - and especially in a town like Boston where (for the most part - the major exceptions that come to mind are South Boston / SPID and the Back Bay) the roads are based on cow paths from the 1800s

The roads in Boston have no relationship to cow paths, from the 19th century or any other time.
 
It was actually the maps that are in the station right now that I was thinking of when I laid out that hierarchy, since, as you say, the difference is mostly academic when factoring internet/smartphone access.

For people who don't have smartphones or were poor planners or just like looking at the map, the information contained within a station name is more useful - and especially so when dealing with the non-geographically-accurate system map.

I see your point. I am not in total agreement, but I don't see a reason to belabor the point nor derail this thread any longer.

You are absolutely correct on there sometimes being no better alternative, though. (Though, let me say for the record that if it was up to me, Park Street would immediately be renamed Boston Common effective immediately.)

Aw, no man! You can't change Park Street, it's historic! ;) No, but seriously, I would not like that. It's the first subway station in the entire US and it's a cool, though I agree, very unhelpful, name.

As for linking the four major transit hubs... I would argue that Back Bay doesn't quite count, since it's already linked to North Station via Orange Line and through service between Back Bay and South Station is a trivial thing.

Connecting North Station, South Station and the Airport in a triangle - that'd be the best course to take, I think. I came very close to drafting an AirTrain Boston-Logan that would replace the Silver Bus with an El, but I'm certain it's impossible to get clearance to build a bridge approximately where the Ted Williams Tunnel is right now, and I don't like my chances much better on a bridge over the Chelsea River. (To say nothing of what the public's reaction to that might be...)

I agree that Back Bay isn't as important, but I think it could/should become more important. If Boston had a more interconnected, less hub-and-spoke style subway system downtown, it might become feasible to terminate some trains at Back Bay instead of South Station. You could route some Old Colony trains across the Fort Point turn, or stop some Providence or Worcester trains short. This would relieve capacity problems at South Station, but would only be feasible, of course, if there was a rapid transit network in place to support it. (And I'm not sure there is such a one now.)

As for your AirTrain, what about an El over the current Blue Line subway? Have the line split at Aquarium, one branch going to North Station, the other to South? Heck, you could easily throw in a N-S Shuttle that way, as well. You could run it from the Airport, over Marginal Street or Summer Street in Eastie, across the harbor, and then up and down Atlantic Avenue.

The roads in Boston have no relationship to cow paths, from the 19th century or any other time.

I think CBS was exaggerating to make his point. This article had some interesting things to say about Boston's streets: http://www.celebrateboston.com/strange/cow-paths.htm
 
Reworking my crazy pitch map a bit and using these individual line maps as guides. Lines 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are works in progress - Google Maps is being a pain today for some reason. :)

Lines 1, 2, 3 and 9 are heavy rail with Lines 4, 5 and 7 as light rail.

Line 1: Burlington Mall - Roslindale Village
Line 2: Lynn - Riverside / Needham Center
Line 3: Oak Grove - West Roxbury
Line 4: Boston College - Belmont
Line 5: Cleveland Circle - City Point / JFK-UMass
Line 7: Malden Eastern - Forest Hills
Line 9: West Medford - Dedham Mall / Blue Hill Vista-Route 128
 
Nice maps! Your Bedford station is still in Lexington. Guessing you're identifying it by the street name, but it could be confusing for riders who could think they're in Bedford.
 
I would hope not, sandwiched between a Route 128 stop and Arlington. Changed it anyway, just to be safe. :)
 
The roads in Boston have no relationship to cow paths, from the 19th century or any other time.

BBF -- Not quite

There are a number of roads in the olde parte of Bostone that relate to since vanished topography

Generally in the 17th and early 18th Century when there were a fair number of cows in town -- people would lead or urge the cows to pasture on the Boston Common --- if there was a hill in the way the path of least resistance was around the hill. Boston in those days had a lot of smallish and 3 major hills so there were plenty of curving paths which eventurally became streets -- curving streets. In a few cases there was sea water to avoid and so the paths went around it.

Then the fun really begins:

1) in a few cases the streets stayed curving as they got wider to accomdate the growing town and later city -- some are still in existence -- High Street, Quaker lane
2) in nearly all cases the hills were removed to fill the harbor to increase the land area of the town and later city -- Pemberton Hill was leveled but -- Pemberton Square remains
3) in some cases the streets were straightened as they were widened -- buildings were moved
4) in some cases buildings were built with curvature to accomodate the curve in the street the hill having vanished -- the Bulfinch Tontine Crecenst being one of the most notable -- but long since gone -- the Sears Crecent now located on City Hall Plaza is the most relevant where a curving street still exists although the curve is new
5) Most of the buildings were torn down when the streets were widened -- in a few cases the curved buiding remains though the street was widened and straightened -- Kilby St & Liberty Square
6) in a few cases new curves were introduced to connect old streets for new developments such as Government Center and the Charles River Park

Other stage bits of topography involved water that was later filled or mudflat later filled -- these are now mostly manifested in strange names:
1) Dock Square -- formerly the location of the 'Town Dock"
2) Canal Street -- there was a canal
3) Causeway Street -- there was a causeway
4) Fort Point Channel - relates to an old fort attop hill sitting on the harbor -- fort, hill and point are now long since restructured only a small bit of the harbor -- Fort Point channel sill comes close to the original location

Oldandnewboston.jpg



The exercise is left to the reader & the pedestrian to find others -- its kind of fun
 
Last edited:
^ Heavy Rail in Belmont? Never lol.

But since this IS crazy transit pitches, it would make sense for the B Line to be heavy rail were the transit system redesigned today. The density is definitely there.
 
Because it would share the Kenmore-Boylston segment with Line 5 (former Green Line C branch plus extension to South Boston).

I envision these light rail lines with much more efficient trains, though, like this:

Montpellier_fg07.jpg


Tram_Barcelona.JPG


U_25500_Villemomble_fr_01.jpg


Twice as long as the current Type 7s and Type 8s, fully articulated and interlocking design from end to end, better seating layout, etc. etc. Also convert to a proof of payment system outside of the major stations.
 
^ Those are so sexy. Of course Boston doesn't get to have them because we insist on paying more for customized shitboxes, rather than shave a few inches off of a few tunnels... I can't wait for the day when those are running down the Green Line.
 
^ Heavy Rail in Belmont? Never lol.

But since this IS crazy transit pitches, it would make sense for the B Line to be heavy rail were the transit system redesigned today. The density is definitely there.

I think if the system were left basically as is -- Red, Blue, Orange and Green -- it would make sense to convert it to heavy rail because you're pretty much leaving everything as a hub-and-spoke system centered on downtown. But considering the network density, a lot of the volume that flows only via the B line would instead be routed via other lines.

BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ Those are so sexy. Of course Boston doesn't get to have them because we insist on paying more for customized shitboxes, rather than shave a few inches off of a few tunnels... I can't wait for the day when those are running down the Green Line.

I know - so incredibly aggravating because it isn't even remotely logical. Unless, of course, you are a union that wants to see your members paid as much as possible for doing as little work as possible. ;)
 
I think if the system were left basically as is -- Red, Blue, Orange and Green -- it would make sense to convert it to heavy rail because you're pretty much leaving everything as a hub-and-spoke system centered on downtown. But considering the network density, a lot of the volume that flows only via the B line would instead be routed via other lines.

Good point. The ridership in your system would be much more diffuse than it is now. As it is, the B would be fine if we still had the A drawing riders to the north of Comm Ave.


I know - so incredibly aggravating because it isn't even remotely logical. Unless, of course, you are a union that wants to see your members paid as much as possible for doing as little work as possible. ;)

Ugh it's all such a mess.
 
Good point. The ridership in your system would be much more diffuse than it is now. As it is, the B would be fine if we still had the A drawing riders to the north of Comm Ave.

While I like the idea of restoring the "A" trolley, it isn't like the corridor goes unserved. The 57 bus attracts 11500 riders a weekday (Feb 09) which is a little less than the "C" receives. I'm sure it turns away some riders, especially with the poor frequencies off-peak, but it definitely is picking up riders who would otherwise go on the "B".
 
While I like the idea of restoring the "A" trolley, it isn't like the corridor goes unserved. The 57 bus attracts 11500 riders a weekday (Feb 09) which is a little less than the "C" receives. I'm sure it turns away some riders, especially with the poor frequencies off-peak, but it definitely is picking up riders who would otherwise go on the "B".

Which is why the T should be upgrading the level of service on this corridor and reassign the buses to a less-served market. It makes more sense to build more expensive infrastructure where you know it will be used.
 
As bad as the trains are, the bus system seems to be in even worse shape in terms of horrific scheduling, poor service, and limited hours. The fact that the A was allowed to be torn up in the first place was incredibly short-sighted. Traffic along Washington Street and Brighton Avenue is usually ridiculous with no means to really avoid it (signal priority and dedicated right-of-way for trolleys, etc.).
 
Buying new buses is easier than buying new trolleys. Especially since the MBTA insists on "special and unique" designs.

I'm pretty confident that even if the "A" existed now that the MBTA would not have installed the signal priority systems and it would be just as bad as the "B". But signal priority and dedicated lanes don't require trolleys. They could do it for the 57 bus just as easily. They kinda sorta half-assed it for the Silver Line, after all.

So, basically, if the MBTA was competently managed and operated, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
Buying new buses is easier than buying new trolleys. Especially since the MBTA insists on "special and unique" designs.

I'm pretty confident that even if the "A" existed now that the MBTA would not have installed the signal priority systems and it would be just as bad as the "B". But signal priority and dedicated lanes don't require trolleys. They could do it for the 57 bus just as easily. They kinda sorta half-assed it for the Silver Line, after all.

So, basically, if the MBTA was competently managed and operated, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

True, but the return isn't as high, either. Bus routes don't attract the level of investment and development that proximity to rail does. Union Square, Brighton Center and Oak Square would likely be significantly denser/mixed use and more vibrant than they are today if the A were still around.
 

Back
Top