Crazy Transit Pitches

[whighlander]

I think this is FANTASTIC. A stylistic note on the lines: I always like when transit maps clearly differentiate between types of transit - the type of line should indicate whether this is a light rail underground, steetcar, heavy rail, DMU/CR, trolleybus, etc. (Another reason why the current SL ticks me off so much.) One should arrive at a station knowing what type of transit to expect based on the system map.

Shep -- I think you are on to something here -- although too much differentiation will make the map excessively complex to decode

Howabout:
1) Commuter Rail -- i.e. low frequency of service rail with mostly open platforms
2) Underground or Elevated Transit (bus, lightrail or heavyrail) -- e.g Red, Blue, Orange, Green Line Central Subway, Green Line to Leachmere, Silver Line (SS to World Trade Center)
3) surface protected / segregated ROW transit -- e.g. Green Line Huntington @ MFA or Comm Ave @ BU
4) Street running transit (trolley, electric bus, diesel bus) -- Green Line in the street, #77A, #77 bus, Silver Line everywhere else

The above is sufficient -- I don't think it makes a heap of difference whether the wheels and tires are steel, or the wheels are steel but the tires are rubber -- what matters is:
a) frequency of service
b) how busy and sophisticated the stations -- i.e. amenities and overall accessibility
c) how likely are there going to be delays caused by street traffic
d) can you make a transfer within the station without wandering about the city

 

[BostonUrbEx]

I don't think the Riverworks is a big deal. GE only still has the plant to the west of the tracks. To the east, it's been sold off. Personally I think that parcel to the east, as well as the waterfront wasteland across the Lynnway from it, should be redeveloped into a massive Seaport-esque place. Only without all the flaws, of course.... That would make good use of a station there.

 

[whighlander]

I don't think the Riverworks is a big deal. GE only still has the plant to the west of the tracks. To the east, it's been sold off. Personally I think that parcel to the east, as well as the waterfront wasteland across the Lynnway from it, should be redeveloped into a massive Seaport-esque place. Only without all the flaws, of course.... That would make good use of a station there.

Urb -- part of the Riverworks was the Navy Reduction Gear Plant from the days of when GE built Marine Steam Turbines in Lynn and the gearing to connect to the propulsion shaft

That part might be owned by the Navy, just as a number of other nominally "private-sector" Military-Industrial-Complex facilities all around the US dating back to WWII

it's undoubtedly also a major industrial clean-up site -- similar to the "Industriplex Site" in Woburn which took decades to clean to the level of "suitable for industrial or commercial use only"

 

[omaja]

Nice map. Couple comments:

'Mountfort'? That doesn't make geographic sense there. It's on the other side of the pike and the other side of St Mary. How about 'Cottage Farm' instead?

The location I am referring to is at Comm Ave/Mountfort/BU Bridge, not Beacon Street. I suppose it could be named Boston University Bridge, too.

Isn't River Works the stop that nobody uses? Why keep it?

It is listed on all MBTA Commuter Rail maps and serves a very specific purpose, as limited as it may be, which is why I included it.

The whole Prospect-Union-Inman triangle doesn't make sense. Those three should be in a line. The GLX stop for Union Square will be at Prospect.

I designated a new station at Washington Street as "Union" to provide transfer at Line 12. Aside from that, how would you put this in one line?

And I'm not sure I'm happy with creating a second zone at all, or the fact that you renamed Aquarium Station.

I am actually quite surprised we don't already have a second zone at least to cover the Braintree branch of the Red Line. You could probably throw in most of the D out to Riverside as well.

It makes sense: travel farther, you pay more. For example, it's crazy to think that people who take the Red Line from Braintree to Park -- a distance 3x that of my Washington-to-Park commute on the B Line -- pay the same. It wouldn't be a hugh price differential between zone 1 and zone 2, but it should definitely be there to cover greater operating costs and less passengers to spread those costs around.

As far as Aquarium, it's a similar argument a la BPL v. Copley. It makes sense to me that in both cases the prevailing naming convention should be a square, street or other geographic marker. Obviously your mileage may vary.

I think this is FANTASTIC. A stylistic note on the lines: I always like when transit maps clearly differentiate between types of transit - the type of line should indicate whether this is a light rail underground, steetcar, heavy rail, DMU/CR, trolleybus, etc. (Another reason why the current SL ticks me off so much.) One should arrive at a station knowing what type of transit to expect based on the system map.

All of the lines are rail (light/heavy/suburban) and in all cases I would want the lines to be in a dedicated street-running right of wway (a la B, C and E to Brigham), elevated or underground. In that way, I don't think it is necessary to clutter up the map with too many different types of lines, etc., especially when each line could transition multiple times between street/underground/elevated. At a minimum, I do plan to differentiate between the commuter lines (letters and thicker lines) and rapid transit (numbers and thinner lines) and at least note which of the rapid transit lines are light rail v. heavy rail.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

I am actually quite surprised we don't already have a second zone at least to cover the Braintree branch of the Red Line - you could probably throw in most of the D out to Riverside as well. It makes sense - travel farther, you pay marginally more. For example, it's crazy to think that people who take the Red Line from Braintree to Park - a distance 3x that of my Washington-to-Park commute on the B Line -- pay the same. It wouldn't be a hugh price differential between zone 1 and zone 2, but it should definitely be there to cover greater operating costs and less passengers to spread those costs around.

If it isn't going to be a huge differential, why not just hike fares across the board? It seems like a folly to install the requisite infrastructure for zone fares just to grab an extra, say, $1 per ride from Braintree and Riverside. Instead of going for that, hiking fares by $0.50 across the board probably puts far more money in your pocket overall. The way I see it - fares SHOULD work out to an equitable price for riding the train about halfway through the system. Then, anyone taking longer trips is being subsidized by the 'on at Park, off at DTX' crowd.

 

[whighlander]

If it isn't going to be a huge differential, why not just hike fares across the board? It seems like a folly to install the requisite infrastructure for zone fares just to grab an extra, say, $1 per ride from Braintree and Riverside. Instead of going for that, hiking fares by $0.50 across the board probably puts far more money in your pocket overall. The way I see it - fares SHOULD work out to an equitable price for riding the train about halfway through the system. Then, anyone taking longer trips is being subsidized by the 'on at Park, off at DTX' crowd.

Commute -- let's bring back Charlie on the MTA -- you pay something to get-on and then you pay to get off depending on how busy the station is that you are using

So if you go HHHHHHHHHAvd to PAAAAAAAAAhk you would pay the more than someone getting on at Back of the Hill on the Green Line E and getting off at South Street on the B Line or Capen St. on the Mattapan Red Line Trolley (with its sub suburban usage)

 

[omaja]

If it isn't going to be a huge differential, why not just hike fares across the board? It seems like a folly to install the requisite infrastructure for zone fares just to grab an extra, say, $1 per ride from Braintree and Riverside. Instead of going for that, hiking fares by $0.50 across the board probably puts far more money in your pocket overall. The way I see it - fares SHOULD work out to an equitable price for riding the train about halfway through the system. Then, anyone taking longer trips is being subsidized by the 'on at Park, off at DTX' crowd.

The CharlieCard should make fare zones relatively simple to institute, right? Not to mention, over 90 percent of the current system is already in my Zone 1, so we'd really be talking about most of the extensions to farther-out suburbs.

 

[bbfen]

So the stations with less use are cheaper than ones with high use? Hrm. Interesting..... theory? But was that really how the exit fares worked?

 

[datadyne007]

It makes sense: travel farther, you pay more. For example, it's crazy to think that people who take the Red Line from Braintree to Park -- a distance 3x that of my Washington-to-Park commute on the B Line -- pay the same. It wouldn't be a hugh price differential between zone 1 and zone 2, but it should definitely be there to cover greater operating costs and less passengers to spread those costs around.

The Braintree branch had exit fares until 2007.

Park St to Braintree is only a travel distance of about 11 miles. That's not a lot at all. We're supposed to be encouraging people to use transit and densifying the transit corridor. Berlin's U and S-Bahn uses roughly an 11-mile radius from Hauptbahnhof as the boundary for Zone B (A+B are one transit ticket). (Hbf<>Honow, Hbf<>Wannsee, etc). I also agree with hiking fares higher across the board a little later down the road once the system covers areas that have densified.

What's also interesting about Berlin is that they have the ShortTrip ticket which is valid for up to 3 rapid-transit stations or 6 tram or bus stops. Standard AB fare is 2,30 and the ShortTrip ticket is 1,40.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

The CharlieCard should make fare zones relatively simple to institute, right? Not to mention, over 90 percent of the current system is already in my Zone 1, so we'd really be talking about most of the extensions to farther-out suburbs.

Really, to me, that just seems like another strike against a multiple zone fare system. If the majority of your system is already within the first zone, why bother with the second zone if it only is going to cover the far flung fringes?

Again, the problem is it seems to me like a folly to hike fares on the extreme fringes - instead of making 10% of the people pay $1 more, you can make 100% of the people pay just $0.10 more. You get the same amount of new money in your pocket and 'fares are going up a dime for everyone' is both equitable and much easier to swallow than 'if you live in Newton, Needham, Braintree or JP, great news! You now have the privilege of paying an extra $1 that nobody else has to!'

So the stations with less use are cheaper than ones with high use? Hrm. Interesting..... theory? But was that really how the exit fares worked?

Not at all. Exit fares are distance priced, this scheme would be demand priced - congestion tolling, if you will.

Unfortunately, one of the reasons congestion tolling can and does work is because there are options to go around the toll - so when peak pricing occurs, people go around the toll, and pricing falls. When pricing falls enough, people take the toll, and the cycle continues. It's load balanced in that way.

Here, there is no option that you can choose to avoid congestion tolling. It would be similar to taking a series of five pipes carrying water to the same place and then jamming four of them, forcing all the water into pipe five, straining it, and driving the prices up - but there's no longer an option to switch from one pipe to another, less jammed pipe. There's no way to apply downward pressure, and so prices keep climbing, and climbing, and climbing.

(I suppose, to be fair, if the bus system is not part of this scheme, you can load balance that way by forcing people onto the bus or onto taxis, but...)

 

[statler]

I read a lot about NYC's bedrock and how it shaped NYC skyline and transit system. I know almost nothing of Boston's.

I know a lot of Boston is landfill but there must be some bedrock down there. Does anyone know how deep you would have to go to build a new subway system through bedrock?

 

[datadyne007]

I read a lot about NYC's bedrock and how it shaped NYC skyline and transit system. I know almost nothing of Boston's.

I know a lot of Boston is landfill but there must be some bedrock down there. Does anyone know how deep you would have to go to build a new subway system through bedrock?

Porter (deep-bore) is about 110' below the surface, IIRC...

 

[omaja]

The Braintree branch had exit fares until 2007.

Which coincided with the institution of outbound fare collection on the Green Line, no? Why they didn't institute outbound fare collection on the Green Line while simultaneously discontinuing exit fares/instituting a separate fare zone for the Braintree branch is beyond me. Would have been a win-win: "cheaper" fares on the Braintree branch (compared to the $2.50 entry fare + $1.25 exit fare) and better revenue capture on the Green Line.

Park St to Braintree is only a travel distance of about 11 miles. That's not a lot at all. We're supposed to be encouraging people to use transit and densifying the transit corridor. Berlin's U and S-Bahn uses roughly an 11-mile radius from Hauptbahnhof as the boundary for Zone B (A+B are one transit ticket). (Hbf<>Honow, Hbf<>Wannsee, etc). I also agree with hiking fares higher across the board a little later down the road once the system covers areas that have densified.

What's also interesting about Berlin is that they have the ShortTrip ticket which is valid for up to 3 rapid-transit stations or 6 tram or bus stops. Standard AB fare is 2,30 and the ShortTrip ticket is 1,40.

I'm not sure I follow the need for a fare zone A if AB is the same? Maybe allowing for separate zone fares but making a combined 1+2 pass to cover the area inside/along 128 would work. The passes are where most of the money is made anyway.

Speaking of which, I think Boston must be one of the only places where a monthly pass is the same price as four weekly passes. What's up with that?

Really, to me, that just seems like another strike against a multiple zone fare system. If the majority of your system is already within the first zone, why bother with the second zone if it only is going to cover the far flung fringes?

Again, the problem is it seems to me like a folly to hike fares on the extreme fringes - instead of making 10% of the people pay $1 more, you can make 100% of the people pay just $0.10 more. You get the same amount of new money in your pocket and 'fares are going up a dime for everyone' is both equitable and much easier to swallow than 'if you live in Newton, Needham, Braintree or JP, great news! You now have the privilege of paying an extra $1 that nobody else has to!'

Because it doesn't make sense (as noted by the use of fare zones in systems all over the world) for users in the core to completely subsidize service to the fringes. If we're talking about reorganizing and expanding the entire system, fare zones certainly should be a part of the discussion.

 

[datadyne007]

I'm not sure I follow the need for a fare zone A if AB is the same? Maybe allowing for separate zone fares but making a combined 1+2 pass to cover the area inside/along 128 would work. The passes are where most of the money is made anyway.

I don't understand it either. Zone A is just the bounds of the Ring-Bahn. A+B is just all of Berlin to the city limits. My local friends there couldn't give me an answer either.

Edit: Zone A is necessary because of the necessity of the BC ticket, which is not valid in the urban core (Zone A).

Speaking of which, I think Boston must be one of the only places where a monthly pass is the same price as four weekly passes. What's up with that?

I agree. It's really crazy.

 

[Riverside]

Omaja, really like the map. Although some of it at the top and bottom seems to be cut off...?

The fare zones don't bother me; they seem sensible.

I am just fine changing Aquarium to Long Wharf. Emphasize the ferry connection. And in case the New England Aquarium tanks (*rimshot*), we're not left with an anachronistic name.

I love how the 7 and the 11 avoid downtown (no sarcasm). Creative.

Some questions:
-any particular reason why the 2 does not run all the way to Needham Junction?
-similarly, why not run the 10 over to Brandeis? Maybe not full service on that extra leg, but I have to think between Brandeis and Roberts, you'd get enough. Or does the D make an (unmarked on this map) stop there and run frequent DMU service inside of 128?
-did you give any thought to extending the 7 across Dorchester to Ashmont as a crosstown line?
-your blue and yellow RER lines, is there a particular reason they don't stop at Sullivan Square? Seems like a logical interchange location.
-does the 9 run in a separate subway from the NSRL through the North End? Or is that station located underneath 93 at Fulton or North Streets?

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Is anyone able to superimpose the NYC subway map over Boston? Merely out of curiosity. I wonder how far it would reach from the core.

 

[Riverside]

Is anyone able to superimpose the NYC subway map over Boston? Merely out of curiosity. I wonder how far it would reach from the core.

Well, not precisely what you wanted, although easily available and does sorta answer your question: http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?subways

Estimating using a line-drawing tool on my PDF viewer, it looks like Battery Park to the northern Bronx is roughly equal to Riverside to Wonderland. Of course, NYC's system also branches out at least that far from Battery Park going east into Brooklyn, clearly dwarfing the T.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Because it doesn't make sense (as noted by the use of fare zones in systems all over the world) for users in the core to completely subsidize service to the fringes. If we're talking about reorganizing and expanding the entire system, fare zones certainly should be a part of the discussion.

Au contraire - it makes perfect sense to have the high density, high frequency core subsidizing the fringes - especially here, where 'the fringes' are still being defined as more or less totally within the boundaries of 128. As has been mentioned, that kind of radius is considered a single zone in networks with multiple zones - and New York's system, which is almost certainly as big or bigger than your proposal, manages without multiple zones.

It may be morally 'unfair,' but forcing the edges of the system to pay more creates a usage disincentive in that zone. Why pay more when you can drive into the cheap zone - why stop driving when you're almost already there?

It just doesn't make economic sense to throw up any more reasons for someone to not use the system.

 

[Riverside]

^^ Ehn, if the fare difference is 50¢ or less, it'd probably cost more to drive into Zone 1 than it does to take the T, don't you think? And that's assuming free parking. And within Omaja's Zone 1, only Alewife and Wellington, I believe, have any sort of large parking arrangements.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

^^ Ehn, if the fare difference is 50¢ or less, it'd probably cost more to drive into Zone 1 than it does to take the T, don't you think? And that's assuming free parking. And within Omaja's Zone 1, only Alewife and Wellington, I believe, have any sort of large parking arrangements.

That's assuming a cost differential of $0 or less - i.e. parking in Zone 1 either costs the same or is cheaper than parking in Zone 2. I don't consider 'costs the same' to be an unreasonable assumption to make.

The cost in fuel to drive from a Zone 2 station to the next closest Zone 1 is likely $1 or less. Depreciation is a sunk cost and not worth factoring, but it probably still works out in favor of driving into Zone 1 unless the Zone 2 cost is $0.50 or less - as you've suggested it would be, but again, spreading that half dollar to everyone in the form of a global $0.05 ~ $0.10 fare hike is easier to swallow and puts more money into your pocket.