Crazy Transit Pitches

[davem]

Providing it could be Charlied, it would be fair to have the DMU fare be the same amount higher than the subway that the subway is over the bus.

 

[Shepard]

Providing it could be Charlied, it would be fair to have the DMU fare be the same amount higher than the subway that the subway is over the bus.

Why? We're not talking about RER-type express services here. Fairmount isn't like that. Fitchburg/Cedarwood gives a nice express to Porter, and Worcester/Riverside gives a nice express between South Station, Back Bay and Yawkey, but I don't think those are grounds for higher fare. They should be incentivizing, not disincentivizing, use of these services to take pressure off the existing subways.

 

[bigeman312]

Why? We're not talking about RER-type express services here. Fairmount isn't like that. Fitchburg/Cedarwood gives a nice express to Porter, and Worcester/Riverside gives a nice express between South Station, Back Bay and Yawkey, but I don't think those are grounds for higher fare. They should be incentivizing, not disincentivizing, use of these services to take pressure off the existing subways.

Fairmount should be DMU'd and subway fare'd. I have mixed feelings about DMU on Fitchburg or Worcester Lines, so I'll ignore them for now. This proposal was about higher DMU fares on North Shore DMU. That is a different animal than Fairmount.

Fairmount would be serving an urban, rapid-transit corridor and should be encouraged to become a quasi-subway line. North Shore DMU would serve a dense suburban area with urban pockets, and would have more potential as a commuter-oriented DMU line. So, North Shore DMU should be encouraged to become more of a commuter rail/rapid-transit hybrid. Fairmount serves people making shorter trips within the city, while North Shore DMU would serve an area farther from downtown than existing rapid lines and cater to people taking longer trips than subway lines. It should be priced accordingly - as a rapid transit/commuter rail hybrid.

 

[cozzyd]

The way you have the DMU service listed, zone 1 is a very dense urban area. Also, Sullivan would be a much better stop than Assembly because of all the bus connections.

 

[bigeman312]

The way you have the DMU service listed, zone 1 is a very dense urban area. Also, Sullivan would be a much better stop than Assembly because of all the bus connections.

Very true!

...
DMU Fares, Off-Peak:
1: $2.50
2: $3.25
3: $4.00

DMU Fare, Peak:
1: $3.75
2: $4.75
3: $5.75

I like the idea of peak pricing, though, so I'll revise it to:
Off-Peak:
1: $2.00
2: $3.00
3: $4.00

Peak:
1: $3.00
2: $4.50
3: $5.75

Any idea if some bus routes are going to be rerouted to Assembly and/or added/elimated with the Orange Line station opening next year?

 

[omaja]

Fairmount should be DMU'd and subway fare'd. I have mixed feelings about DMU on Fitchburg or Worcester Lines, so I'll ignore them for now. This proposal was about higher DMU fares on North Shore DMU. That is a different animal than Fairmount.

Fairmount would be serving an urban, rapid-transit corridor and should be encouraged to become a quasi-subway line. North Shore DMU would serve a dense suburban area with urban pockets, and would have more potential as a commuter-oriented DMU line. So, North Shore DMU should be encouraged to become more of a commuter rail/rapid-transit hybrid. Fairmount serves people making shorter trips within the city, while North Shore DMU would serve an area farther from downtown than existing rapid lines and cater to people taking longer trips than subway lines. It should be priced accordingly - as a rapid transit/commuter rail hybrid.

Agreed. An easy delineating line is really 128 which is ~10 miles from Downtown:

Any trips via commuter rail or subway which originate and terminate in this zone would be at the normal subway fare.

 

[bobthebuilder]

To continue a thought from a comment I made elsewhere....

I've had the idea in my head for a little while (I'm sure I'm not the only one) of a new branch of the green line, extending from the curve just before the Boylston stop coming inbound, roughly under essex st to the silver line tunnels, converting the silver line tunnels to light rail. One thing I haven't really hashed out is getting past I-93. The green line would probably have to go under, which would mean that it would actually pass under the red line (i think) then back up on the other side of south station. There seems like there would be enough distance to make the grade manageable.

I have a very limited knowledge of what actually exists underground in the affected areas, but I believe there is an ancient tunnel that at least exists from boylston st pointing in the right direction, although I'm not sure how long. I would assume that this tunnel probably isn't sufficient, so regardless new bores would be needed.

Also, to my understanding the silver line was intended to be converted to a light rail tunnel eventually, although I'm not sure if that is true or just hearsay.

So let's say that all of that is actually feasible, and we're as far as the silver line coming out of the tunnel at D street, would it be possible to keep the green line underground at this point and pass under the turnpike and continue on pointing towards Southie? If this is impossible, than my plan B would be a quick fly over to cross the pike, then back underground towards southie.

From that point, the train could remain underground and a tunnel could be bored roughly under L street.

Admittedly, my plan is rife with flaws, hence why I filed it under crazy transit pitches, and like I said, I have very little understanding of what the boston underground looks like, as there doesn't seem to be much info available.

Spouting off a bit here, but imagine taking BIM to the next level, and instead of just modeling buildings, modeling the underground infrastructure? You could create a massive BIM world with the individual buildings overlayed on top of the streets layer, and underground layer, to the point where you could take a cross section anywhere in the city, and see what's there.

 

[George_Apley]

Zoom in to the Boylston stop. That routing down and around to South Station is the only way you're getting the GL there from the Central Subway. Essex Street would be too much of a clusterfuck to dig under.

The ancient tunnel points down Tremont, not down Essex. It's definitely able to be utilized.

EDIT: Here's the relevant part that I'm talking about.

The transitway tunnel was indeed designed to be able to accommodate tracks and dual-mode transit to Seaport. Still could do that today if it was hooked up to the larger LRV system. As far as I know, the Transitway tunnel already goes under the CA/T and over the Red Line. I believe he busses currently turn around next to the CA/T around Chinatown Park. F-Line may know more about that.

You would have to do streetcars in Southie or nothing. Lots of Southie is fill, and also has never been dug in besides utilities. Not worth tearing up residential streets for. Southie residents would probably rather continue taking the bus to Broadway or Andrew than that.

 

[Shepard]

Let's talk for a few minutes about a Mass Ave subway Red Line extension. Every time I wait for the #1 bus along Mass Ave I curse the lack of this important radial rapid transit connection* - branching off at Central and either connecting back into the mainline via Southampton (around Andrew) or Columbia (around JFK/UMass)

Obviously this is a crazy transit pitch - but it shouldn't be. It wouldn't engender the new transit ridership of, say, the BLXLYNN (especially in conjunction with BLXMGH) but my gut instinct says the total ridership would end up rivaling that of the mainline Red, and take pressure off almost every single downtown connection point in the process.

So: has the feasibility of this link (probably a mix of deep bore and cut cover) ever been seriously studied, or ridership projected?



*I curse equal amounts waiting for the 66, although I believe the solution for the 66 is better routing through Allston, bus lanes and signal priority.

 

[George_Apley]

The engineering would be prohibitively expensive. That's what makes it a crazy transit pitch. Cut and cover would lead to crazy mitigation costs (a la the Copley station elevator project nightmare, but times 100). Deep bore through what? Fill?

The cross-town Mass Ave subway was one of the last things to go on my "potentially feasible" fantasy map, and I parted with it begrudgingly, but I was convinced that the project would end up being an enormous nightmare.

 

[cozzyd]

Bus reservation is probably the best we can ever get on Mass Ave, and even that will be difficult...

 

[CSTH]

The engineering would be prohibitively expensive. That's what makes it a crazy transit pitch.

Re: Digging the back bay: see also Amsterdam Nord/Zuid metro line. Getting your head around the cost and delays for that undertaking should keep all of us from considering getting underground in any of Boston's filled flatlands, ever.

http://www.iamsterdam.com/Digging Deeper the Noord Zuid line

 

[c_combat]

*I curse equal amounts waiting for the 66, although I believe the solution for the 66 is better routing through Allston, bus lanes and signal priority.

I was considering what the urban ring idea would be like, and based off of a few maps I've seen others draw, I think a subway under Harvard Ave would be awesome. I like the Idea of it going from Sullivan to JFK UMASS. It would be a huge pain for a substantial amount of time but I think most could be done with the cut/cover method. Tunnel boring would have to be done in only a few areas, under Harvard and the Charles for example, but I don't think it sounds too crazy.

I've put it into my fantasy MBTA map. I had to add it after I had to take the 66 no less than 3 times in one day a few weeks ago.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: Digging the back bay: see also Amsterdam Nord/Zuid metro line. Getting your head around the cost and delays for that undertaking should keep all of us from considering getting underground in any of Boston's filled flatlands, ever.

http://www.iamsterdam.com/Digging ... Zuid line

Right. I hated coming to terms with it, but it is what it is. A lot of our city is built on landfill and glacial sludge, with no bedrock in sight for tens or hundreds of meters down. It's a nightmare of utilities, unstable land, building pilings, watersheds etc.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Go back to page 73 of this thread; we talked a little about the geological challenges of tunneling.

http://written-in-stone-seen-throug...chitectural-geology-of-boston-roxbury_27.html

^This site has the bedrock maps of greater Boston. First map on the page copied below.

The pale tan coloring on the map shows all the glacial mush that's impossible to deep-bore tunnel under. The speckled tan area is slightly rockier debris field...not exactly solid, but bulky enough to support the integrity of Beacon Hill, Brookline Hills, Newton Highlands, etc. That little green toothpick threading from North Cambridge to the Middlesex Fels is a very dense, very hard volcanic dike. Black lines are geologic faults, which you can see cluster around the Charles, Muddy, and Neponset basins. For a reference point you can see they've added all the major water crossings: Longfellow, Mass Ave. bridge, Tobin, etc. Most of the mushiest mush goes 1/2 to 1 mile deep.

Everything we've dug in the tan mush is cut-and-cover, including the Big Dig. The only thing deeper than cut-and-cover ever dug in the speckled tan debris field are the cross-Harbor tunnels and the Charles-Park St. bore of the Red Line through Beacon Hill where the steepest side of the hill afforded soft-digging on a level trajectory without disruption above. And the only place where a TBM has carved out bedrock underneath developed property with no surface disruption is...that little few-blocks-wide toothpick of a volcanic dike from Porter-Davis.


There is nothing else. Tunneling inbound under Mass Ave. is a cut-and-cover job that not only stays in the mushiest of the mush as far south as Huntington, but also has to cross 4, if not 5, faultlines en route. Now consider the price tag NYC is swallowing for the 2nd Ave. Subway. Manhattan is one of the most solid slabs of coastline bedrock on the East Coast. Highly-compressed metamorphic rock with giant seams of marble running through midtown. It's easy to build some of the world's oldest and tallest skyscrapers on that little island for a reason.

If you take 2nd Ave. and re-project the costs to building through mush that requires more mitigation to abutting structures and mitigation to soil movement for all the faults it has to cross...price tag probably soars to half a Big Dig. More expensive than the SL Phase III that was too expensive to build, more expensive than the Urban Ring that was too expensive to build, and possibly as expensive or more than the N-S Link. With way more economic disruption because it's Mass Ave. that's going to be carved up in segments for a full decade. That's totally untenable. I think that would be totally untenable even if we went megaproject-mad and started tearing up streets for all the other officially-proposed downtown transit projects.



I know everybody wants this, but it's beyond the realm of physical possibility. No engineer with a straight face would sign off on a routing so self-defeating on required mitigation. This has nothing to do with political will or not thinking big enough...the very act of trying to construct it and fund all the mitigation required with that construction is patently insane. Its own transit Moby Dick-like pursuit. Civil engineering just doesn't work that way.

 

[c_combat]

Bummer... I was thinking about an elevated rail, but I doubt Brookline residents would go for that going thru their section of Harvard Ave.

 

[davem]

Where the red line branches off Mass Ave on to Main St is right before MITs campus of buildings with large setbacks begin. A lot of the buildings between the split and MIT are short buildings likely to be demolished in favor of something taller soon. After MIT, the hypothetical subway could jut left and go underneath Charlesgate and the beginning of the Fens. Then bang a left after the MFA and go beneath Ruggles St, dive under Ruggles and follow Melnea Cass to Widett Circle, where it can reconnect with the Red Line at Andrew, forming a loop.\

It is NOT ideal, but it does parallel the congested parts of Mass Ave, and allows mostly cut-and-cover to be used, since it follows either parks or really wide roads. It only effects buildings at the intersection of Louis Prang St and Huntington which would need to be underpinned for the curve, one building by Ruggles, and a block or two of buildings in Cambridge before MIT. You still get all the connections too, Green Line @ Kenmore, E Line @ MFA (also gets you heavy rail service to Longwood) and the Orange Line @ Ruggles.



As for the 66/Harvard Ave corridor, in 100 years we may see the density to support a subway there, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. I live right there and don't think a subway would be worth it. Also Harvard Ave is really narrow, curvy, and hilly. Horrible to build a subway anywhere near. I think the best thing they could do would be to make a limited-stops circulator bus that goes Pleasant>Beacon>Winchester/Kelton>Allston>Brighton>Comm Ave.

 

[c_combat]

I moved this from the other thread. I shoulda put it in the Crazy Pitches thread to begin with. I wish it could be bigger, but oh well.

There's the reorganized GL which may or may not work as well as I originally thought.

There's an urban ring (I like to call the "Gold Line") that a lot of people have discussed and I'm learning more of the intricacies involved.

Then there is what I think is the most feasible idea of.. a circulating street car route in the Seaport District. (hard to see on this map though)

... and of course a Blue Line connection to MGH, which would be... pretty cool.

I wish there was a way to get this image bigger. Is that possible? What do you guys think of these ideas?

 

[JeffDowntown]

The engineering would be prohibitively expensive. That's what makes it a crazy transit pitch. Cut and cover would lead to crazy mitigation costs (a la the Copley station elevator project nightmare, but times 100). Deep bore through what? Fill?

The cross-town Mass Ave subway was one of the last things to go on my "potentially feasible" fantasy map, and I parted with it begrudgingly, but I was convinced that the project would end up being an enormous nightmare.

Deep bore through Boston Blue Clay, under the fill. The South End, Back Bay and Cambridge waterfront fills were not deep -- they were tidal mud flats. Deep bore is not out of the question, except here in Boston we are too unimaginative to use it!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Deep bore through Boston Blue Clay, under the fill. The South End, Back Bay and Cambridge waterfront fills were not deep -- they were tidal mud flats. Deep bore is not out of the question, except here in Boston we are too unimaginative to use it!

No...no...no. Go read up on the geology engineers have to contend with before making assumptions like that about "unimagination" or lack of political will.


Yes...you can theoretically deep bore. At what cost, and at how many complications? It's not easy-scoop clay of uniform composition. It's a glacial debris field of of terrain scraped off the western hills...loose rubble with boulders and soils deposited from umpteen different locations. Filled on top by a layer of mudflat silt and a whole lot of human landfill. And lined with faults because all this fill has points of instability that can shift over time as debris settles. There's absolutely nothing homogenous about the ground composition, and nothing "native" or permanent to Boston like bedrock is native. What you get on one 100 ft. stretch of tunneling can be completely different from what you get on the next hundred feet, and how you have to mitigate the tunnel and surroundings can be different every few feet. It's not predictable or mappable until you're actively digging. This added billions to the Big Dig cost and prevented seamless underground boring there.

If it costs $4B per mile to build a Mass Ave. subway--which is a distinct possibility--something is very wrong with the political will if it gets pushed that hell or high water. It's antithetical to civil engineering sanity to fight an uphill battle at any cost just to say you can. Engineering's supposed to mitigate challenges, not escalate. Choosing the most difficult possible path to build is irresponsible: fiscally, logistically, logically. It's a sign that something's dreadfully wrong with planning. One example of that run-amok would be the Tappan Zee Bridge being built over the single widest and hardest crossing point of the Hudson because of a stupid inter-agency political turf war. It will now cost $16B or higher to replace at that location. Attempting to do a deep-bore under Mass Ave. through the geological equivalent of vomit is Tappan Zee-crazy. So is the cheaper cut-and-covering with how much economic ruin it bring for the years if not decades that Mass Ave. businesses would be disrupted during such invasive construction.

Even the Big Dig played by the rules and chose path of least engineering resistance despite its enormous complexity and lifetime-long design compromises like the leaky slurry walls.


I'll say it again: civil engineering DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. And trying to force it to work that way with the political equivalent of rabies so a 2D map of the city has pretty straight lines on it is not a virtuous thing: it's a serious brain illness. One that can't be substantiated with logic...only belief that things must be so because I say so, and if you don't agree you're the problem. The Tappan Zee Bridge was built from political spite, not factual arguments. So is the Mass Ave. subway if "unimaginative" pols are the prime argument for proceeding at mutually-assured financial destruction and construction so arduous we could build a completed Silver Line and N-S Link in less time with less disruption for less money.