Crazy Transit Pitches

[Shepard]

Crazy Transit Pitch: Allow Facebook or Google to operate the MBTA and fund system expansion. All rides will be free, but the operating company can gather all sorts of marketing data on each passenger based on commuting patterns and ridership, and can display personalized advertisements adjacent to wherever they're sitting or standing.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Crazy Transit Pitch: Allow Facebook or Google to operate the MBTA and fund system expansion. All rides will be free, but the operating company can gather all sorts of marketing data on each passenger based on commuting patterns and ridership, and can display personalized advertisements adjacent to wherever they're sitting or standing.

Doubleplusgood idea, Comrade Shepard!

 

[Shepard]

They're tracking your movements via your smartphone anyway, even if you're not dumb enough to voluntarily "check in" to places via Foursquare and Facebook.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

They're tracking your movements via your smartphone anyway, even if you're not dumb enough to voluntarily "check in" to places via Foursquare and Facebook.

Difference is the smartphone is a tracking device I can "forget" somewhere, and also, that tracking isn't being used for targeted advertising.

 

[whighlander]

Difference is the smartphone is a tracking device I can "forget" somewhere, and also, that tracking isn't being used for targeted advertising.

No-one can track your smart phone if you don't want them to do it -- you are in control not Big Brother!

 

[omaja]

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

Still tweaking the outskirts as I'm trying to stylize to fit all of the commuter rail stations based on zone (instead of accurate distance).

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

You mean the 8 and 11? The 10 (north-south crosstown) and 12 (circle) also bypass Downtown, though not as cleverly as the 8 and 11. Lots of places to go that shouldn't require a transfer all the way at Park-Downtown Crossing, Government Center, or state.

-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?

Regarding Needham, it seemed a bit excessive to have two full-service light rail stations within 1500 feet of each other.

Regarding the 10: the D does continue off the map to a stop at Brandeis/Roberts. The D would provide frequent short-turn service between Brandeis/Roberts and Riverside with more traditional commuter rail headways out towards Worcester and Wachusett. The entire line would be double-tracked and electrified.

-did you give any thought to extending the 7 across Dorchester to Ashmont as a crosstown line?

No, I never really thought of it, but it would definitely be a natural extension down Morton Street and Gallivan Boulevard. I'll look into adding it in my final map.

-your blue and yellow RER lines, is there a particular reason they don't stop at Sullivan Square? Seems like a logical interchange location.

You're definitely right - it's a missing link in my map. I guess I was thinking that North Station would suffice with connections to both the 3 and 7 that Sullivan would provide, but Sullivan would certainly be integral in distributing inbound North Shore suburban traffic via transfer to the 12.

-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?

It is a separate subway under Atlantic Ave/Fleet St/Bennett St/Sheafe St/Causeway St; the North End station would be at the intersection of Fleet and Hanover.

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.

Berlin's 11-mile radius is technically a two-zone system, though that is more for the benefit of suburbanites making intra-suburban travel as datadyne07 noted. I was really working off of the makeup of Paris whereby a six-mile radius covered the entire Metro network; the RER was for purely suburban service. Obviously this doesn't translate perfectly in Boston where geography and municipal boundaries are a bit tougher to cope with. Nevertheless, I could see a zoning system like Berlin working well, but maintain that anything that touches or exceeds 128, or includes massive parking facilities, be excluded from the central-most zones. Though it may be the case that to make zoning politically palatable that anything currently operating be included as zone 1, regardless of distance.

At the end of the day you still have the natural disincentive of traffic and lack of inexpensive city parking which will fuel (pun intended) demand for transit - even if the suburban zones are more expensive. Not to mention, the people in Boston furthest out are the ones who generally have more money to pay for it. This is the reverse of New York where the vast majority of the subway system at the core of Manhattan/Brooklyn is where the median annual incomes are greatest.

 

[Equilibria]

Regarding Needham, it seemed a bit excessive to have two full-service light rail stations within 1500 feet of each other.

That's a light rail line? It's colored blue... that was my biggest issue with this map (and almost every other one like it) actually - the suburban service to Newton and Needham works better as light rail in the first place.

 

[George_Apley]

^ I don't think omaja's colors necessarily correspond to the current system.

 

[Riverside]

^ I don't think omaja's colors necessarily correspond to the current system.

True, but does that mean that the current Blue Line to East Boston, Revere and Lynn has been converted back to LR? Omaja?

You mean the 8 and 11? The 10 (north-south crosstown) and 12 (circle) also bypass Downtown, though not as cleverly as the 8 and 11. Lots of places to go that shouldn't require a transfer all the way at Park-Downtown Crossing, Government Center, or state.

Haha, yeah, the 8. I thought it was interesting how you replaced the 57 from Oak Square to Kenmore with not one, but three transit lines. Have to admit I'm a little less keen on that, tbh, but it certainly works and is interesting to consider.

Here's a crazy, crazy idea: switch the 8 and the 4 west of Mountfort. Make the 4 go from BC to Medford City Hall, and run the 8 from Watertown to Belmont. Yes, it breaks up the B line once and for all, but who cares? The people who live along Commonwealth who want to get into downtown directly can go a few blocks south to the 5 or make an easy transfer anywhere between Packard's Corner and Mountfort.

This decentralizes somewhat service into downtown from Allston/Brighton, and eliminates the three-transfer model for Brighton-Boston passengers:
-5 –> Boston (Seaport and South Boston)
-4 –> Cambridge and Medford (MIT and Kendall)
-8 –> Cambridge and Chelsea (Central and Lechmere)
-11 –> Boston (Government Center and North Station)
-D –> Boston (Financial District)

Hmm, I dunno, looking at it on the screen, it doesn't sound as good as it did in my head! Oh well. One other advantage of this alignment is that it would be easy (in the future) to extend the 11 up through Belmont to Waverly and over to Belmont Center to make a nifty (though currently unnecessary) loop. Fun to consider, in any case.

Regarding Needham, it seemed a bit excessive to have two full-service light rail stations within 1500 feet of each other.

Makes sense, but see above; the 2 née Blue Line is LR now?

Regarding the 10: the D does continue off the map to a stop at Brandeis/Roberts. The D would provide frequent short-turn service between Brandeis/Roberts and Riverside with more traditional commuter rail headways out towards Worcester and Wachusett. The entire line would be double-tracked and electrified.

Cool stuff.

No, I never really thought of it, but it would definitely be a natural extension down Morton Street and Gallivan Boulevard. I'll look into adding it in my final map.

Well, I don't know how good of an idea it is, but I've included it in several of my own maps over the years, and I like it, at the very least aesthetically. It's a nice, logical crosstown route that fills in a gap between your 12 and 1 (which is done very nicely, I might add; that is another crosstown route that I'm fond of). Taken together with their north-south trunk lines, those crosstown routes make a nice net that recall Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan's heritage as streetcar suburbs.

One thought: though it may be hard to swing cartographically, you could definitely (in my mind) have the 1 stop at Blue Hill Ave and transfer to the 6 and 9, if you imagine the 9's platforms as being between Blue Hill Ave and Cummins Highway (which is not unreasonable, imho). But it may not be worth the trouble.

You're definitely right - it's a missing link in my map. I guess I was thinking that North Station would suffice with connections to both the 3 and 7 that Sullivan would provide, but Sullivan would certainly be integral in distributing inbound North Shore suburban traffic via transfer to the 12.

Hmm, you have a point though. I can see how the cost of having an extra stop before downtown Boston might not be offset by the better distribution of traffic as done by the 12. Particularly since most people would need to transfer off of the 12 anyway to one of the "spoke" lines, most of which they'd be able to access downtown. Still, it would reduce the strain on the downtown hub of stations. Tricky call.

It is a separate subway under Atlantic Ave/Fleet St/Bennett St/Sheafe St/Causeway St; the North End station would be at the intersection of Fleet and Hanover.

Ooh, very cool. A subway actually through the North End. Ha, glad I don't have present that proposal to a state board. But seriously, I like it. A good way to service an area of what used to be called "Boston City" (from what I can gather) while somewhat decentralizing the service. Is the 9 HR, LR or D/EMU?

Not to mention, the people in Boston furthest out are the ones who generally have more money to pay for it. This is the reverse of New York where the vast majority of the subway system at the core of Manhattan/Brooklyn is where the median annual incomes are greatest.

Never thought about that, but that's really cool. (Well, in an academic sense. Gap between haves and have-nots? Not so cool. Obviously.)

 

[Max Power]

Never thought about that, but that's really cool. (Well, in an academic sense. Gap between haves and have-nots? Not so cool. Obviously.)

I think it's a wash though. The have's are all rolling around town in those cabs and black cars anyways.

 

[Riverside]

Oh, I'm sure, I just meant that it's interesting how the relationship between average income and distance from the urban core is inverted between Boston and NYC in that respect.

EDIT: Although Beacon Hill and Back Bay do spring to mind as counterarguments...

 

[HenryAlan]

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.

We used to have zones on the D and Braintree lines. We also had free outbound on GL surface routes, and I believe at one time you had to pay another nickel to get off of that train. All of these were eventually eliminated because they caused great confusion, and tended to be hugely unfair at the border between one zone and another. For a current example of this concept, look at commuter rail zone 1 compared to 1A. I can board a train in Roslindale, pay $4.25, and ride it a mile to Forest Hills, where somebody will board and sit next to me, paying only $1.70. That's an incredibly expensive mile between Rozzie Square and Forest Hills.

Zone based systems work and can be fair when there is a distinct separation. It's fair, for example, that somebody riding BART from Oakland pays more, than somebody boarding in SF, because they have to cross the bay. It's not so fair to have the kind of zones you've proposed, even more so when we consider that the system map you've drawn would encourage a significant number of trips that stayed along the outer sections of the map.

That said, I love your map, both stylistically and for what it proposes. If we could get a quarter of this, the 'T would be amazing.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

We used to have zones on the D and Braintree lines. We also had free outbound on GL surface routes, and I believe at one time you had to pay another nickel to get off of that train. All of these were eventually eliminated because they caused great confusion, and tended to be hugely unfair at the border between one zone and another. For a current example of this concept, look at commuter rail zone 1 compared to 1A. I can board a train in Roslindale, pay $4.25, and ride it a mile to Forest Hills, where somebody will board and sit next to me, paying only $1.70. That's an incredibly expensive mile between Rozzie Square and Forest Hills.

Zone based systems work and can be fair when there is a distinct separation. It's fair, for example, that somebody riding BART from Oakland pays more, than somebody boarding in SF, because they have to cross the bay. It's not so fair to have the kind of zones you've proposed, even more so when we consider that the system map you've drawn would encourage a significant number of trips that stayed along the outer sections of the map.

That said, I love your map, both stylistically and for what it proposes. If we could get a quarter of this, the 'T would be amazing.

I have the exact same problem with Zone 1A/1 as I do with the idea of zoning the subway network, really. What's defined as Zone 1A seems pretty much completely arbitrary unless someone knows something I don't.

I understand that there's a point where zoning becomes necessary - and I think that point is when (if) the subways ever cross 128.

Aside: can't you also hop on a bus at Roslindale and ride it to Forest Hills to dodge part of the fare?

 

[omaja]

True, but does that mean that the current Blue Line to East Boston, Revere and Lynn has been converted back to LR? Omaja?

No, I misspoke there; it is a heavy rail extension of the current Blue Line.

Haha, yeah, the 8. I thought it was interesting how you replaced the 57 from Oak Square to Kenmore with not one, but three transit lines. Have to admit I'm a little less keen on that, tbh, but it certainly works and is interesting to consider.

But what percentage of the 57’s traffic is actually bound for Kenmore? No scientific data on my part, but it seems that the majority are connecting to inbound BCD trains. If the destination is Downtown, there are plenty of single connections to Downtown via the Allston-Franklin (RER D) Central (1) or Sullivan (3) – all of which would probably be faster than the current 57-to-Kenmore-to-BCD train set up now. Having the 8 wouldn’t necessarily preclude the 57 from continuing to run along its current route, though, as it serves many local stops as it is.

Ooh, very cool. A subway actually through the North End. Ha, glad I don't have present that proposal to a state board. But seriously, I like it. A good way to service an area of what used to be called "Boston City" (from what I can gather) while somewhat decentralizing the service. Is the 9 HR, LR or D/EMU?

Yeah, it’s a shame that so much of this would either be cost prohibitive or a political nightmare (or both). The 9 would be heavy rail. Here’s what I envision for the whole system:

Oh, I'm sure, I just meant that it's interesting how the relationship between average income and distance from the urban core is inverted between Boston and NYC in that respect.

EDIT: Although Beacon Hill and Back Bay do spring to mind as counterarguments...

Radical Cartography has some pretty neat maps to illustrate what I mean. Whereas Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn provide an abundance of wealth at the core, Beacon Hill and Back Bay are only a very tiny fraction of the MBTA’s rapid transit service area. Only once you are outside the MTA’s service area do median incomes rise again (CT, NJ, Long Island, Westchester County, etc.).

We used to have zones on the D and Braintree lines. We also had free outbound on GL surface routes, and I believe at one time you had to pay another nickel to get off of that train. All of these were eventually eliminated because they caused great confusion, and tended to be hugely unfair at the border between one zone and another. For a current example of this concept, look at commuter rail zone 1 compared to 1A. I can board a train in Roslindale, pay $4.25, and ride it a mile to Forest Hills, where somebody will board and sit next to me, paying only $1.70. That's an incredibly expensive mile between Rozzie Square and Forest Hills.

Zone based systems work and can be fair when there is a distinct separation.

The main issue with Boston’s previous ‘zoning’ was that there wasn’t a seamless way to implement it; it was clunky and inefficient all around. The advent of the CharlieCard alleviates much of this. As for the difference in commuter rail fares, that is really a consequence of not having an integrated suburban network that compliments the rapid transit. Not to mention, the commuter rail ‘competes’ for passengers at Forest Hills; no one would pay 2.5x the amount of money to ride the commuter rail in from Forest Hills when the Orange Line is right there and with much more frequent service.

It's not so fair to have the kind of zones you've proposed, even more so when we consider that the system map you've drawn would encourage a significant number of trips that stayed along the outer sections of the map.

That said, I love your map, both stylistically and for what it proposes. If we could get a quarter of this, the 'T would be amazing.

The easily solution to intra-suburban traffic would be something a la Berlin’s ABC zones: the inner-most zone A would need to be determined, but AB would include everything inside 128, and C would be anything outside. As for fare differences, modeling after Berlin’s 30 euro cent increments, it may be something like: AB = $2.50, BC = $2.75, ABC = $3.00. Obviously most people have passes which would need a bit of tweaking to get just right as well.

I have the exact same problem with Zone 1A/1 as I do with the idea of zoning the subway network, really. What's defined as Zone 1A seems pretty much completely arbitrary unless someone knows something I don't.

From what I can tell, 1A is Boston and the immediate surroundings (roughly a six-mile radius from Downtown) and 1 is generally everything inside of 128.

 

[HenryAlan]

Aside: can't you also hop on a bus at Roslindale and ride it to Forest Hills to dodge part of the fare?

True, and I can save even more by boarding the Orange Line at Forest Hills. But the commuter rail is faster and more comfortable, so I'm willing to pay more for it. I just wish the more was a dollar or maybe dollar and fifty cents, rather than $2.55.

 

[omaja]

A close view of the southwest with new zones:

A = Inside Line 12 circle line
B = Inside 128
C = Inside 495
D = Remainder of MA
E = RI and NH

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

A close view of the southwest with new zones:

A = Inside Line 12 circle line
B = Inside 128
C = Inside 495
D = Remainder of MA
E = RI and NH

B2 should terminate at Providence - RI will eventually take over in-state commuter rail operation for Westerly-Woonsocket, and there's no reason not to roll back the Providence line to its original terminus at that point.

Why not extend A4 to Newport?

Other than that, it looks good.

 

[Riverside]

B2 should terminate at Providence - RI will eventually take over in-state commuter rail operation for Westerly-Woonsocket, and there's no reason not to roll back the Providence line to its original terminus at that point.

Why not extend A4 to Newport?

Other than that, it looks good.

I agree about Providence. Perhaps indicate in a separate color the proposed RIDOT network? (I personally like the addition of a Providence-Fall River line along 195, but that's a bit pie-in-the-sky, sadly.) That said, though, in any case, no Pawtucket station?

A4 to Newport? Ehn, maybe on a seasonal basis is my feeling. My very strong understanding, as a local, is that Newport wouldn't want commuter rail service, to Fall River, Boston or Providence.

My feeling, though, is that if you are proposing all that expansion of the subway, you should do a little bit of commuter rail expansion as well. I'm surprised, for example, that you kept the B6 ending at Forge Park. Why not connect to a RIDOT network at Woonsocket? It's not that much farther, and it would connect northern RI with Boston. (I personally like the idea of running such a line down through Woonsocket, and out the extra mile to a Park and Ride at Branch Village and Route 146. But that's just me.)

Also, this is just me, but I think RIDOT should run Providence-Foxboro service, under the same (but obviously reversed) arrangement that the T currently runs service down to Wickford Jct. I also wish that the current Foxboro train station were renamed "Patriot Place," in the hope that someday, local trains will service a separate "Foxboro" station near that community's downtown. But that is just a pipe dream. (And yes, I know that goes against my rule against naming stations after businesses.)

I do like the extension of the 7, and the additions of Woodhaven and Fairlawn.

One aesthetic quibble: I love the typeface and size of the RT station names, but I care less for the station names (and actually the station markers) on the RER lines. Both too small and too indistinct for my taste. Perhaps make the RER lines thicker, and thus the station markers larger?

Oh also: it is my very strong opinion that Plimptonville should be closed. According to the 2010 Blue Book, there were only 30 boardings there on an average day. The only other station (among those designed only to take passengers on, unlike JFK/UMass or Malden) I saw that had fewer boardings was Silver Hill with 21 (which should also be closed). Your call, of course, but that's my feeling.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

I agree about Providence. Perhaps indicate in a separate color the proposed RIDOT network? (I personally like the addition of a Providence-Fall River line along 195, but that's a bit pie-in-the-sky, sadly.) That said, though, in any case, no Pawtucket station?

A4 to Newport? Ehn, maybe on a seasonal basis is my feeling. My very strong understanding, as a local, is that Newport wouldn't want commuter rail service, to Fall River, Boston or Providence.

My feeling, though, is that if you are proposing all that expansion of the subway, you should do a little bit of commuter rail expansion as well. I'm surprised, for example, that you kept the B6 ending at Forge Park. Why not connect to a RIDOT network at Woonsocket? It's not that much farther, and it would connect northern RI with Boston. (I personally like the idea of running such a line down through Woonsocket, and out the extra mile to a Park and Ride at Branch Village and Route 146. But that's just me.)

In the future, Interstate corridors will (should) be used as (median running) HSR corridors wherever it is possible to do so, to minimize the impact of HSR service on local/regional trains and to allow for the ROW to be optimized for higher top speeds. Running HSR down Interstate medians also provides great advertising (nothing like a train blowing past your traffic jam at 300+ kmph...), creates potential for rail projects to benefit from highway money, and reinforces the notion that roads and rails can coexist instead of being mutually exclusive. 195 (or, one can hope, future I-82) would therefore be used for a Hartford-Providence-Hyannis HSR line.

Newport might not 'want' commuter service yet/ever, but the rest of the state wants it, I imagine Salve Regina and people using the 60 bus want it, and the city of Newport just might need it. And even if they don't want it now, I'm confident they'll be wanting it in the future.

The ROW that would be used to extend from Forge Park to Woonsocket, as I understand it, is so torn up and encroached upon and problematic that using it for anything is going to be like pulling teeth, but it is worth doing in my opinion. Similarly, a Providence-Worcester line would be great if we can get it.

 

[whighlander]

In the future, Interstate corridors will (should) be used as (median running) HSR corridors wherever it is possible to do so, to minimize the impact of HSR service on local/regional trains and to allow for the ROW to be optimized for higher top speeds. Running HSR down Interstate medians also provides great advertising (nothing like a train blowing past your traffic jam at 300+ kmph...), creates potential for rail projects to benefit from highway money, and reinforces the notion that roads and rails can coexist instead of being mutually exclusive. 195 (or, one can hope, future I-82) would therefore be used for a Hartford-Providence-Hyannis HSR line.
.

Commute -- there is no justification in the Northeast Corridor to go faster than 250 kph -- the distances are short enough -- you just need keep stops to a minimum

Cost of pushing the train start to climb rapidly with top speed running while the total travel time is not much changed as long as you keep the start/stop process to a minimum