Crazy Transit Pitches

[Arborway]

Modern elevated LRT doesn't take up a lot of space. L.A. finished their new EL in April.

(apologies for the crappy angles, I had just finished a mega bike ride and was ready to drop)

 

[Charlie_mta]

The B and C should be elevated, and the old A line route to Watertown Square as well. To go with that, the Green Line from Kenmore Square to Government Center should be 4-tracked with an additional tunnel.

 

[omaja]

Modern elevated LRT doesn't take up a lot of space. L.A. finished their new EL in April.

(apologies for the crappy angles, I had just finished a mega bike ride and was ready to drop)

Neither do the segments of the Paris Metro which are elevated. Something like this would fit in much better in Boston compared to the glorified freeway viaduct LA has constructed. This is mostly due to the Metro's rolling stock being dimensionally similar to a typical light rail vehicle. Also something to consider for elevated rail: all Paris lines with elevated sections are equipped with rubber tired trains for noise reduction. Imagine how much quieter Commonwealth, Beacon, and the notoriously noisy underground stations (Boylston, Government Center... I'm looking at you) would be.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

The B and C should be elevated, and the old A line route to Watertown Square as well. To go with that, the Green Line from Kenmore Square to Government Center should be 4-tracked with an additional tunnel.

Can't be done and shouldn't be done between Park Street and Government Center because of the burial grounds.

 

[bbfen]

The B and C should be elevated, and the old A line route to Watertown Square as well. To go with that, the Green Line from Kenmore Square to Government Center should be 4-tracked with an additional tunnel.

One more, with feeling. The C line does not need to be elevated. It needs to drop either Kent or Hawes St stops, reno a few platforms for 3-car consists, get signal priority and that's it.

 

[Matthew]

Nice pics. Note to Brutalists: this is how it's supposed to be done.

But I agree that signal priority will do just fine here in Boston, and for like 0.00001% of the cost.

 

[MBTAddict]

Those photos from Paris look amazing, but I think I would lean more towards something like the Lechmere viaduct for the middle of Comm Ave. Make it slightly less bulky and fill in underneath with space for new businesses.

 

[Matthew]

The Lechmere viaduct is impressive but everything built in 1910 is waaay overbuilt. Prime example: Hell's Gate bridge and viaduct.

If elevated ever was considered for Comm Ave, I'd hope they'd go for something leaner and perhaps something that could accommodate space for other activities underneath. Like they do in Japan. Unfortunately, Americans seem to be completely incapable of making good use of space underneath elevated viaducts, or making them pleasant at all. So, signal priority it is. Also: fewer stairs/escalators/elevators always a good thing.

 

[datadyne007]

We actually have a thread for elevated discussion here because this thread (and the other) tends to stray into the elevated talk every so often.

My precedent of choice (of no surprise to anyone, esp. tobyjug ) is the U2 viaduct that runs down Berlin's Schönhauser Allee.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

For today's Crazy Transit Pitch, the Blue Line eats... the Red Line!?

Yes, that's right! Somewhere between Aquarium and State, the Blue Line would split, with one branch proceeding on to its present end at Bowdoin, and the other entering a new deep bore tunnel that would bring it to existing Red Line trackage, which it would join at South Station (with an optional stop beforehand at Post Office Square.)

From there, the Blue Line would become the existing Ashmont Branch of the Red Line - all Red Line trains would operate Braintree-only going forward.

 

[Downburst]

I'm adding this to "Crazy Transit Pitches" because I can't realistically see the MBTA adopting this map, but this is a poster done by Stonebrown Design that represents the T through travel times.

I personally think it's a great idea. Anyone else?

The artist's comments:

Stations are spaced according to travel time between them. (You don't need to tell me these times are, let's say, optimistic. They're based on scheduled travel time from MBTA's trip planner. Your results will vary.)

Of course, this doesn’t make a useful replacement for the official diagram. Not only does it omit helpful information about connections to trains, buses, and ferries, but it suffers many of the same problems that geographically accurate transit maps do: some areas are too crowded and some are too sparse.
Still, it could help you decide if it’s worth it to take that apartment on the B line.

For example, seeing all schedules in a single map shows that not all Green Line branches are created equal. It takes just as long to get from downtown to Boston College on the B line as it does to get to Riverside on the D line, despite being about half the distance. And even though they’re just a few blocks apart, Chestnut Hill Ave (B line), Cleveland Circle (C line) and Reservoir (D line) are 27, 20, and 14 minutes from Kenmore, respectively.

Don't forget to add time for delayed trains, broken trains, missing trains, and full trains. Have you considered getting a bike?

I particularly like the disclaimer in the legend:

 

[omaja]

For today's Crazy Transit Pitch, the Blue Line eats... the Red Line!?

Yes, that's right! Somewhere between Aquarium and State, the Blue Line would split, with one branch proceeding on to its present end at Bowdoin, and the other entering a new deep bore tunnel that would bring it to existing Red Line trackage, which it would join at South Station (with an optional stop beforehand at Post Office Square.)

From there, the Blue Line would become the existing Ashmont Branch of the Red Line - all Red Line trains would operate Braintree-only going forward.

Wouldn't this reduce possible connections at State by half (since you're diverting trains towards South Station) and reduce Red Line service (since you'd have to make space for Blue Line trains between South Station and JFK/UMass)?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Wouldn't this reduce possible connections at State by half (since you're diverting trains towards South Station) and reduce Red Line service (since you'd have to make space for Blue Line trains between South Station and JFK/UMass)?

Yes and yes, but it'd also reduce the need to make connections by at least half (with South Station, Broadway, Andrew and JFK/UMass all becoming transfer points - not to mention State/Aquarium being in reasonable proximity to each other and State still reachable by 50% of Blue Line trains plus the Orange Line) and the reduced service levels in Cambridge could translate nicely into Mass. Ave. Subway service - turning JFK/UMass into a major transfer point at the same time.

But yes, this is probably not a smart idea.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Ive added to my Crazy Rail dream...this will service Bostonians better...

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215312482559953359515.00049d22c1d2aeb0dbe48&msa=0&ll=42.368184,-70.936661&spn=0.342436,0.837021

Green line Extensions to Waltham via Watertown and Cambridge
Green Line Extension to Alrington via Cambridge
Green line Extension to Auburndale , via the B Branch
Green line Extension to Needham
Green line Extension to Revere & Chelsea via Charlestown and a New Tunnel under Boston Harbor
Green line Extension to Everett via East Somerville
Green Line Extension to Airport via Chelsea , Everett and Somerville
Orange line Extension to Needham
Alewife Brook Parkway station on the Fitchberg line
VFW Parkway Station on the Salem line
Old Malden Indigo line
Marblehill Indigo line

 

[omaja]

Thirteen branches of the Green Line?! And to think people get confused with our current four westbound branches. I'm curious - what's the thought behind all of that expansion but only one heavy rail extension?

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Thirteen branches of the Green Line?! And to think people get confused with our current four westbound branches. I'm curious - what's the thought behind all of that expansion but only one heavy rail extension?

Heavy Rail is a pain to expand , with CTBC Signals the Green line could double the amount of trains that run on it...also large Europe cities have more complex Tram networks then Boston. Give the Routes Numbers or letters instead destinations..... Philly has 8 Tram lines with plans for another 14 over the next 2 decades....no confusion thier. I guess you can thread a Red line up to Arlington but that would require tunneling...

 

[Riverside]

There are things I like and don't like about your map, Nexis. While I am all for expansion of the Green Line (see my earlier map), when you reach this level of complexity, I think it might be good to begin differentiating services based on color, not just letter. (ie. split the Green Line up into a Green Line, Gold Line and Teal Line [or whatever]).

Some specifics:
-While I admire the creativity of extending the B out to Auburndale, I don't really find it plausible at all, especially given how close it gets to the D at Newton Center. Maybe the demand exists; I don't know. But I have yet to see the ridership stats to suggest that it does.
-B to Auburndale but no E to Forest Hills?
-I'm not loving the Mattapan via Seaver alignment of the Green Line. If you must route it through Huntington (and I can see how you would feel that you did), I would route it over to Ruggles station, down Ruggles Street (yes, it's oneway, but that can be solved easily enough) to Washington Street, through Dudley Square and down Warren Street. As it is now, the trolley duplicates the Orange Line almost precisely for a mile and a half.
-All those GL branches and still no cross-Cambridge service? You could run it down the Grand Junction, down Prospect to Central, down Kirkland to Harvard even.
-Actually, looking at it again, I've realized that there is no circumferential rapid transit service to speak of. This is essentially an expanded hub-and-spoke system. Not feeling that so much...
-Not sure I'm crazy about sending the Mattapan Line down to Readville. Looks like you duplicate service a lot down there, between the Mattapan Line and the two Indigo Lines.
-You argue that HR expansion is expensive, but you've extended the Orange Line out to meet a branch of the GL in Needham. I used to do this myself, but it seems pretty clearly overkill now. Needham is not a HRT-friendly environment, so I don't see why the OL should go that far.
-No Indigo Line to 128/University Park?
-While I like the idea of a South Shore Indigo Line, I'm not sure what you get by only running it down to Braintree. I mean, yeah, express service from Braintree, Quincy Center and JFK/UMass, but that already exists as CR and isn't wildly popular.

Honestly, if we're getting really crazy here, I would convert the entire Braintree branch of the RL to DMU/EMU, to allow CR service to utilize those tracks as well, removing that single-track bottleneck nightmare. Maybe cut away a few stations, and replace the Red Line with a streetcar network. Quincy is certainly dense enough to support one.

Things I like:
-Indigo Line to Wellesley.
-Blue Line to MGH *via the West End*.
-Red Line to Southie
-Blue Line to Lynn, with agressive Indigo Line expansion along the rest of the North Shore
-Green Line to Arlington
-Green Line to Revere
-Green Line to Waltham, from north and south

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Honestly, if we're getting really crazy here, I would convert the entire Braintree branch of the RL to DMU/EMU, to allow CR service to utilize those tracks as well, removing that single-track bottleneck nightmare. Maybe cut away a few stations, and replace the Red Line with a streetcar network. Quincy is certainly dense enough to support one.

You don't even have to get crazy to deal with the single-track bottleneck nightmare.

Two new switches at Savin Hill. That's it. You get two new track switches to move Braintree Trains into Savin Hill station, and bam - you didn't just solve your bottleneck, you went from one track to three and you didn't even need to do anything crazy to make that happen.

(Also, you got rid of the weird double-platform JFK/UMass setup, and that's priceless.)

 

[Shepard]

Why did you route Mattapan service off the E line as opposed to down the Tremont Street Tunnel via Dudley?

 

[Matthew]

You don't even have to get crazy to deal with the single-track bottleneck nightmare.

Two new switches at Savin Hill. That's it. You get two new track switches to move Braintree Trains into Savin Hill station, and bam - you didn't just solve your bottleneck, you went from one track to three and you didn't even need to do anything crazy to make that happen.

(Also, you got rid of the weird double-platform JFK/UMass setup, and that's priceless.)

Don't forget to rebuild the flying junction south of Savin Hill...