Crazy Transit Pitches

[RandomWalk]

My borderline crazy pitch: Extending the B line down Commonwealth Ave to Newton Center. Mostly crazy due to the NIMBY reaction.

 

[HenryAlan]

My borderline crazy pitch: Extending the C line down Commonwealth Ave to Newton Center. Mostly crazy due to the NIMBY reaction.

Comm Ave or Beacon Street? You can certainly send the C-Line trains to Comm Ave via the connection on Chestnut Hill Ave. But I think of Newton Center as being on Beacon Street, not Comm Ave. Why not just extend on Beacon for this NIMBY infuriating idea?

 

[RandomWalk]

Shoot I missed a key typo. I meant the B line.

 

[The EGE]

There's a mile of insufficient density between BC and Newton Center, and the latter is already well served by the D. Streetcar service on that part of Comm Ave ended in 1930, and bus service in 1976.

A one-stop extension of the B to the west side of BC would be plausible, though the dorms are concentrated nearer Lake Street.

 

[TheRatmeister]

A one-stop extension of the B to the west side of BC would be plausible, though the dorms are concentrated nearer Lake Street.

That's something I've always included on my fantasy maps. If they wanted to, they could build a station along Linden Ln to ensure that basically the entire campus is within 10 minutes walking from the Green Line.

But it would probably need to be entirely funded by BC, so if they don't feel like it then it's not happening.

 

[RandomWalk]

My logic is that it could be tied to an MBTA Communities Act upzoning along Comm Ave. Get a modern take on the row of interwar brick apartment buildings.

Like I said, crazy pitch…

 

[BOS2BON]

Has anyone here taken a look at CR service along the Merrimack River (E-W from Lowell to Lawrence/Haverhill or Newburyport)?

 

[CheapLeak]

The tracks to Newburyport are unfortunately long gone, but by what I see, you could run a Fitchburg-Lowell-Haverhill service.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Has anyone here taken a look at CR service along the Merrimack River (E-W from Lowell to Lawrence/Haverhill or Newburyport)?

MEVA bus #24 does Lowell-Lawrence every 30 minutes, making 4 intermediate stops with 40-minute travel time. MEVA bus #11 does Lawrence-Haverhill-Newburyport hourly, making 6 intermediate stops with 1-hour travel time. If there was any demand for such a service, we'd see it in anomalously high bus ridership statistics and by a push for further bus enhancements. I don't think either route is bursting at the seams.

The tracks to Newburyport are unfortunately long gone, but by what I see, you could run a Fitchburg-Lowell-Haverhill service.

Painfully slow and indirect trip. In 1946, Boston & Maine's New York-Portland State of Maine did Ayer-Lowell in 33 minutes with no intermediate stops, and Lowell-Lawrence in 33 minutes with no intermediate stops. Fitchburg-Ayer on CR is 18 minutes, and Ballardvale-Haverhill on CR is 35 minutes. A pretty unappetizing slog overall, especially since you'd probably be sticking a couple of intermediate stops on the Stony Brook Branch between Ayer and North Chelmsford and 1 intermediate in Tewksbury on the Lowell Branch between Lowell and Andover. It doesn't help that the rail routes aren't as direct as the highways. 495 does Lowell-Lawrence in 4 fewer miles than the rails, and 495+2 does Fitchburg-Lowell in 3 fewer miles than the rails. If there's a market for Gateway City-linking commuter service, it's something you try with a coach bus on the highways not Commuter Rail.

 

[BOS2BON]

The tracks to Newburyport are unfortunately long gone, but by what I see, you could run a Fitchburg-Lowell-Haverhill service.

I'm aware, at least they will end up as some nice rail trails. But this is CRAZY TRANSIT pitches thread....let a man dream

 

[BOS2BON]

MEVA bus #24 does Lowell-Lawrence every 30 minutes, making 4 intermediate stops with 40-minute travel time. MEVA bus #11 does Lawrence-Haverhill-Newburyport hourly, making 6 intermediate stops with 1-hour travel time. If there was any demand for such a service, we'd see it in anomalously high bus ridership statistics and by a push for further bus enhancements. I don't think either route is bursting at the seams.

Painfully slow and indirect trip. In 1946, Boston & Maine's New York-Portland State of Maine did Ayer-Lowell in 33 minutes with no intermediate stops, and Lowell-Lawrence in 33 minutes with no intermediate stops. Fitchburg-Ayer on CR is 18 minutes, and Ballardvale-Haverhill on CR is 35 minutes. A pretty unappetizing slog overall, especially since you'd probably be sticking a couple of intermediate stops on the Stony Brook Branch between Ayer and North Chelmsford and 1 intermediate in Tewksbury on the Lowell Branch between Lowell and Andover. It doesn't help that the rail routes aren't as direct as the highways. 495 does Lowell-Lawrence in 4 fewer miles than the rails, and 495+2 does Fitchburg-Lowell in 3 fewer miles than the rails. If there's a market for Gateway City-linking commuter service, it's something you try with a coach bus on the highways not Commuter Rail.

I've been happy with the improvements MEVA has been making over the past couple of years. But yeah I agree with you, the demand isn't quite there yet. As nice as it would be to be able to hop on a train and head to the beach, I don't think this juice is worth the squeeze so to speak. I didn't realize that the Lowell-Lawrence trip was that big of a difference between the historic rail route vs 495.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I didn't realize that the Lowell-Lawrence trip was that big of a difference between the historic rail route vs 495.

The most direct historic rail route between Lowell-Lawrence was the Boston & Lowell's Lowell & Lawrence route, which tracked closer to where 495 is today (the 495/93 cloverleaf interchange is built right on top of the ROW). But that got abandoned by B&M as redundant 90 years ago, and its ROW is mostly obliterated by new development. The Lowell Branch + Western Route is about 2.5 miles longer than the L&L and has sharper curves, but it carried more overall traffic so it was kept.

 

[Riverside]

The Merrimack Corridor and its historical east-west ROWs always look super enticing for an unconventional rail proposal. And maybe in some relatively distant future, where Lawrence-Haverhill and Lowell are both bigger cities, there could be something. But as F-Line points out, the region just doesn't seem to be there yet. And it's worth noting that the Lowell <> Ballardvale connection looks enticing, but it's actually super indirect -- over 14 miles between Lowell and Lawrence, for what is less than 9.5 miles as the crow flies. I'd have to go back and look at the distances and speeds -- and retest Google Maps' travel time estimates with traffic -- but my recollection is that traffic would have to be pretty bad for rail along that route to be competitive.

 

[Riverside]

Cataloguing the "Red X"

This post may just end up being a collection of dates and links. If so, so be it. I went looking through the archives to try to find the origination of the "Red X" concept. It actually dates back much further than I thought (and I'm not even completely sure I've found the starting point!).

There are probably other discussions I haven't captured here, especially in more recent threads. But from a historical lookback, I think this is pretty close to being comprehensive.

~~~

November 2011: @F-Line to Dudley proposes using a Red X to negate the need for a mainline Central Station on the NSRL, utilizing instead the shorter trainsets of the Red Line to build a smaller station, with a less expensive portal than one at South Bay. From what I can tell, this is the origination point of the proposal.

Columbia Jct. on the Red Line funnels traffic to a giant X pattern without any intermixing of tracks. It's just the northeast leg of that X isn't really a branch, only 2 miles of yard leads. But if it were a branch, you'd have exactly the same capacity on that fork as the subway. Lo and behold, Cabot Yard ends about 400 feet away from where the N-S NEC/Fairmount/Old Colony tunnels would all converge. $4B for 2 lightly-used commuter rail portals, or $250M to dig a much shorter (because the incline can be way steeper than a RR) subway tunnel under Cabot feeding the Link via those sorely underutilized yard leads. Could also feed it via the abandoned upper-level Broadway tunnel for just a few hundred feet more under-street digging and angling into that same exact Cabot incline to the Link). Fork the branches at Columbia Jct. and use 100% of that track capacity. Send a lot of Braintree service through there so those Old Colony riders get compensated with one-seat subway access to North Station. Build a small, tight Aquarium transfer to the Blue Line and let the RR side speed past it. That's a buildable Central Station option with of the small 1-platform/6-car footprint and rapid-transit grades. Expand the upper level of the North Station superstation over the Orange Line tracks and put the new line there. Later phase...double-up the Orange Line portal to 4-track and send these Red Line trains out there and across BET to take over the Green Line Medford extension. Then you can plan real rapid-transit to Woburn and get 4 branches firing on all cylinders on the big Red X.

July 2012: @F-Line to Dudley again describes using 2 out of the 4 tracks of a CA/T NSRL alignment for a Red Line branch, via the Cabot Yard Leads:

Now, I think Central Station works if 2 of the 4 Link tracks are a Red Line branch spurred off the Cabot Yard leads providing a real N-S rapid transit connection for the first time since the Atlantic Ave. El stopped running. Because then it's a minimalist claustrophobic platform fittable with only a few feet of wall widening, and gets called "Aquarium Under". It can fit 6 rapid transit cars easy on flat ground without sloping...and the RR trains can just blast by on the other 2 tracks behind the fence. Or build the cut, 2-track the tunnel, and leave the empty space for the rapid transit berth to be added later if you're cost-concerned. But don't build it as some 4-track, 2-island platform subterranean Back Bay that gums up the schedule, can't be used by half the trains, and gives passengers vertigo with the disconcerting slop

December 2013: @asap_mozart implicitly suggests a non-interlined version of the Red X with a proposal for a Chelsea <> Braintree "Burgundy Line"; the actual path across downtown is not explicit. @George_Apley then describes the core idea of using the Cabot Yard Leads in conjunction with a NSRL build (using 2 out of the 4 tracks of a CA/T alignment) to create a second northern "branch" of the Red Line. @F-Line to Dudley elaborates a few posts later, including detailing integration into the North Station Superstation. @Equilibria later asks about where Red X is supposed to go on the northern end, and subsequently discusses with F-Line.

January 2014: @asap_mozart again suggests a modification to Red Line ops. F-Line notes the potential to achieve Ashmont/Braintree <> South Station short-turns by using the Cabot Yard Leads to get close to South Station, and notes that integration with the NSRL would be needed to go anywhere further.

April 2014: @George_Apley summarizes the concept. Initial replies suggest that the concept is not well-known on the board.

November 2014: @F-Line to Dudley makes a passing comment about the Red X concept

September 2015: @F-Line to Dudley makes another passing comment about the Red X concept

June 2019: Without discussing the Red X concept itself, @F-Line to Dudley lays out the underlying topology created by the position of the Cabot Yard relative to the two southern branches and the subway

July 2019: @F-Line to Dudley resurrects the Red X concept by connecting it (in the second half of the post) to the Congress St alignment from the 2018 NSRL Reassessment

December 2019: @F-Line to Dudley rearticulates the Red X concept by again tying it to the Congress St alignment described in the 2018 NSRL Reassessment

September 2020: @F-Line to Dudley goes into detail around more specific alignments. In follow-ups, F-Line explains why his first choice for northside takeover would be the Lowell Line. @The EGE lays out a sketch for a greenfield HRT extension to Everett and Chelsea, using the Red X. Subsequent discussion around Red X being a stronger alternative than branching the Orange Line (with further elaboration on the next page). F-Line also offers his ops take on why the Red X provide better flexibility all around.

George_Apley includes a visualization:

August 2021: @Wash proposes a "Yellow Line" very similar to the Red X, but without interlining. @Brattle Loop implicitly articulates the value and necessity of interlining in order to maintain existing connectivity provided by the current Red Line

 

[themissinglink]

I'd love to see the "Red X" concept become a reality someday. My only worry is the Dorchester pinch next to the Commuter Rail tracks, specifically at Savin Hill. A lot of people suggest that the Red Line should be consolidated from 4 tracks to 2 at Savin Hill to make room for more Commuter Rail tracks. It seems like that kind of solution for the Dorchester pinch could throw a wrench into "Red X" becoming a reality.

 

[Riverside]

I'd love to see the "Red X" concept become a reality someday. My only worry is the Dorchester pinch next to the Commuter Rail tracks, specifically at Savin Hill. A lot of people suggest that the Red Line should be consolidated from 4 tracks to 2 at Savin Hill to make room for more Commuter Rail tracks. It seems like that kind of solution for the Dorchester pinch could throw a wrench into "Red X" becoming a reality.

Yeah I mean, I have two feelings about this:

1) I love the Red X for its creativity, and I definitely can imagine a strong case for it. It's also definitely not my top priority personally, and I don't think it should block other projects. The ops complexity of it is a double-edged sword, and I think the fact that it's actually pretty hard to map elegantly articulates its downsides. It's essentially a "Northern Line topology"... and TfL has been trying to deinterline the Northern Line for years. I'm not saying that that model couldn't work here! But I do think it's a point against it. And the benefits of the interlining -- doubling frequencies on Braintree and Ashmont/Mattapan -- are significant, but I don't think they are earth-shattering.

2) If the Red X ever does get seriously considered as a project, it'll be -- like all expansions -- expensive. Let's say that the Red Line junction gets relocated to Harrison Square (the actual divergence point); that means that re-double tracking Harrison <> JFK/UMass moves into scope for the Red X build, which is unfortunate, but doesn't need to be fatal.

 

[riptide]

Thanks for putting that post together @Riverside, especially for doing all that digging through pages of threads from years past. The Red X is a cool concept, but it’s equally cool to see how it evolved over time and which discussions prompted its refining.

 

[Riverside]

So, the Orange Line does a whole lot of nothing between Assembly and Malden Center. After stopping at Wellington -- a park-n-ride with some nearby TOD, though not very much in walking distance -- it runs non-stop for 1.7 miles, one of the longest gaps between stations in the entire system. Meanwhile, just across the Malden River, sits Everett, the only municipality to directly border Boston (albeit barely) that lacks rapid transit service.

The Orange Line does strong ridership in Malden, so it doesn't make sense to divert trains away from there to serve a branch to Everett. But, this long gap between Wellington and Malden Center raises another possibility, in lieu of a branch: a diversion.

For example:

Crossing the river at/near the dam, just north of Assembly, the Orange Line could run along the Eastern Route ROW to a new stop at Encore (or could run on a viaduct through the Gateway Center parking lot, with a pleasant pedestrian bridge connecting to Encore). A new "Everett" station could make use of the space just north of the Revere Beach Parkway, and include a bus transfer facility, absorbing the routes that currently terminate at Wellington; with some clever overpass spaghetti, the routes to Sullivan could make a brief diversion to this new station before returning to Broadway. (The Orange Line would probably need to dip below grade here to achieve grade separation north at Spalding St and Wellington Ave.) From there, the Orange Line would take the largely grade-separated Northern Strand ROW north to an adequate river crossing point. One example is suggested above. Then it can return to the existing ROW to continue to Malden.

Whither Wellington in this scenario? It could turn into a commuter rail station, for one. Or it could receive a dinky shuttle service that pings back and forth to Assembly. Or it could receive a branch of the Green Line, running East Somerville - Sullivan - Assembly - Wellington. The Orange Line yard would stay in place, in any case.

A more modest, but also more tightly curved, alternative would be to double back to the current ROW more aggressively:

In the scenario above, a viaduct over Revere Beach Parkway brings the Orange Line back to its current ROW, with a relocated Wellington station located closer to residential areas and developments. The challenges here arise with "Everett" station; for one, fitting in a tangent platform will require relatively tight curves, which will exact a speed penalty, on top of the added stopping time for two new stations. Additionally, the Northern Strand @ Revere Beach Parkway location is already a difficult one for the Broadway bus routes to reach; moving the station further west (as probably required to achieve modest curves) would exacerbate that further.

In general, this is really just a rearticulation of the original vision for the Main Line Elevated, which originally had been planned to extend from Everett to Malden. Finding the right alignment would not be trivial, but it wouldn't need to be herculean either.

One of the things I've started paying a lot more attention to is the role transit plays in river crossings. In this particular situation, Everett gets dinged both by the Mystic River to the south and the Malden River to the west. Think about it: if the Malden River were filled in (or covered over), Everett's neighborhoods could have extended seamlessly into Malden's, with an infill at Rivers Edge providing at least some service to the city. As it is today, however, the river totally cuts it off. Even people who might be willing to do a long walk, or a bike ride... just can't.

This is why I think an "Everett diversion" could be more valuable than it looks. Even though it would not travel particularly deep into Everett itself, it would still provide a new river crossing, which would then open up a world of possibilities for the city to develop new points of access and development.

 

[TheRatmeister]

For example:

I don't think it's possible to make that curve. Not only do the platforms at Assembly go further north, ending around Foley St, but there is also the Earhart Dam to contend with, plus the need to get 30-ish feet of height clearance over the river necessitates some pretty steep gradients. That part is probably doable but it's certainly not making it any easier. All three of those factors combined make me think it's not possible for an Everett Diversion to also serve Assembly and avoid demolishing part of the Gateway Center.

In terms of benefits, I think it's hard to justify. You wouldn't be catching that many people in the walkshed of a potential Sweetser Circle station, so you'd be relying on bus transfers. Which then begs the question, what does this project do that the Alford St busway doesn't do? I'd argue that it's not much.

This seems like a case where you either build a subway line through Everett or you don't, there's no half-assing it.

 

[TheRatmeister]

But maybe an equally crazy idea, what if you did a diversion or possibly branch like this:

This would allow the Orange Line to serve new areas of Malden (and a tiny bit of Everett) without removing service to Malden Center. (although Oak Grove gets anywhere from 50%-100% shafted, depending on if it's a branch or diversion.)