Crazy Transit Pitches

11gslsh.jpg


For the generations of tomorrow.
 
Still pushing to rip the power plant out by the roots for Olympic Park, I see? ;)
 
I would love to see the blue line resemble something like this, at least to Kenmore, it definitely needs to be longer. Also like the F-line, reactivating the A and the E to arborway and just in general the whole thing. I want the T to look like this yesterday. Throw in some kind of urban ring and Boston would be in good shape.
 
bobthebuilder said:
I would love to see the blue line resemble something like this, at least to Kenmore, it definitely needs to be longer. Also like the F-line, reactivating the A and the E to arborway and just in general the whole thing. I want the T to look like this yesterday. Throw in some kind of urban ring and Boston would be in good shape.
Click to expand...

Yea man, at least to Kenmore. With the D ROW as it is could be annexed to blue as the outer suburbs' populations increase and redevelopment takes place in Newton's little villages and automobile dependency decreases in the coming generations. At least that what I'm considering. It would be sick if the BL did go to Kenmore now though. I originally thought cut/cover under Beacon, but I doubt it would happen that way. More like a cut/cover under the Esplanade shore or something along Storrow Dr. I'd still like to see the Essex St. tunnel for the C to Seaport Dist. happen. It would be a pain but it would be worth the convenience in the long run in my opinion. The Orange Line branching in this way would be cool if the Chelsea area were to be utilized as civic space and have the industrial use reallocated or relocated somewhere else somehow. It's some tall orders, but if our society could invest in these sorts of things instead of things like taxpayer-funded corporate welfare, I don't see this is a long shot.
 
A riverbank subway would probably have to be a trade-in with Storrow - either removing the road altogether, or making it a limited surface boulevard. We're a long way away from being culturally ready as a city to part with Storrow Drive, at least not until the Mass Pike is better integrated with the city.

I personally still prefer to see the Riverside line preserved as Green, to preserve an Urban Ring route connecting Kenmore to LMA (boomerang from Kenmore down Riverside to BV, then using a D to E connector up Huntington Ave), mostly because the presented routing options for the UR through Brookline/Fenway are FUBAR.

I doubt you'd need both Orange and Blue to Chelsea. But I know your OL branch assumes massive land reclamation and mitigation in Everett, so I won't argue with you on that.

It really is a gorgeous fantasy map. Mine is much more LRV heavy, while yours beefs up the HRV in places mine doesn't. I also assume (in my own crazy way) that N/S Link has sufficiently beefed up rail services through to NH and ME that the transit lines are extended to 128. I guess we all live in la-la-land to a certain extent in this thread :)

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zlB7eZcVeXLk.kGguq6iTII0g

PS - Anyone know what happened to F-Line? He's been MIA for a month or so. Real life presumably took over.
 
I've been inspired to redo my map. Still not finished, I'm going to play with the colors, and the C and Arsenal Branch still need stations added.

Routings:
[1] HARVARD - QUINCY (via Mass Ave)
[2] HANSCOM - RANDOLPH (via Downtown)
[3] KENDALL GREEN - MATTAPAN (via Downtown)
[4] WALTHAM - LYNN
[5] HARVARD - SALEM
[6] READING - READVILLE
[7] LYNN - NEEHDHAM

(A) ARSENAL - BLACK FALCON
(B) B.C. - RUMFORD
(C) CLVELAND CIRCLE - RUMFORD
(D) RIVERSIDE - STONEHAM
(E) FOREST HILLS - STONEHAM
(F) MATTAPAN - LECHMERE
(G) NEEDHAM - BLACK FALCON

13157925123_3ed1c2f20f_o.png
 
Kinda inconsistent to show multiple branches on a trunk lines in the Seaport but not anywhere else.
 
Out of curiosity, what programs are you guys using to make your transit maps?
 
c_combat said:


For the generations of tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I also love the visual there. However, I think the central lines might be a bit too crowded, particularly with the Green line. 4 different branches there is tricky, particularly if many are extended in length.
 
Played around a bit more today, the lines and stations are all set, haven't started work on the water or CR yet. I'm not sure about the background color.

Comments, as always, are appreciate. I'd also like to thank c-combat, his beautiful map inspired me to do something with mine, and finally learn how to work with illustrator.

13206554423_a3729d6225_o.png


** The [4] and [5] are reversed in the South. Readville should be [5] and Greendale [4].
 
That looks great, davem. Kind of reminds me of the KickMaps of NYC and London.

My only two comments:
1. Perhaps it would be best to draw combined lines like 1/2/3 and 6/7 as distinct lines since the routes separate and join at different points? Right now you can't tell whether the 1/2/3 takes the downtown route or Mass Ave subway, or which of the 6/7 goes through Chelsea or East Boston.

The KickMap does this really well - even goes so far as to have different symbols depending on service availability (i.e. weekday-only routes, rush-hour express, etc.) which would likely be needed in Boston with a system of this complexity. This image from their site is a bit old, but you get the idea.

1_midmanhattan_comparison.jpg


2. There's a typo in all of the stations on the E line with Jamaica in the name.
 
I'd argue that the Charles River is really important for your map Dave (and every map of Boston really). I understand that you might not have considered it yet as you are working out the diagrammatic representation, but now is the time to start planning it in before you get too comfortable with the way you have laid things out. The current map right now as drawn is very confusing, even as a diagram since there are no geographical landmarks/landforms for orientation.

Fantastic work though. It really makes you reconsider what could be metro Boston.
 
omaja said:
1. Perhaps it would be best to draw combined lines like 1/2/3 and 6/7 as distinct lines since the routes separate and join at different points? Right now you can't tell whether the 1/2/3 takes the downtown route or Mass Ave subway, or which of the 6/7 goes through Chelsea or East Boston.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I haven't decided exactly what I'm going to do, this isn't the final iteration however. I'm either going to do multiple lines, or have the numbers by the side of the lines downtown, like NYC.

omaja said:
2. There's a typo in all of the stations on the E line with Jamaica in the name.
Click to expand...
*sigh* the dangers of copy/pasting.

datadyne007 said:
I'd argue that the Charles River is really important for your map Dave (and every map of Boston really). I understand that you might not have considered it yet as you are working out the diagrammatic representation, but now is the time to start planning it in before you get too comfortable with the way you have laid things out. The current map right now as drawn is very confusing, even as a diagram since there are no geographical landmarks/landforms for orientation.
Click to expand...

Luckily, I've been keeping it in my head as I've been drawing everything out, hence the large gaps between stations here and there. For an idea, here it is drawn in by hand quick:
13212125743_39e3fdb4f1_k.jpg



I'm tossing around the idea of putting in parkland as well as a very saturated green. The parks are a huge way-finding point alongside all the water, especially Olmsted system. I'm probably going to ghost in 128, 95, 90, and the major routes that would have park-and-rides as well. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
What's the routing on the 6 between Brighton and Watertown? That seems to me to be one of the more speculative leaps here...

I second the idea of highlighting parks, and I'd also argue for highlighting beaches as well.
 
I think MFA and LMA are critical omissions on the E/G in your map Dave. MFA rightly serves a major cultural institution and LMA is heavily trafficked by the hospital workers, Colleges of the Fenway and the BLS.

Edit: It seems like you're burying under Huntington, so I guess a wider station spacing makes more sense in that scenario. I guess it's a double-edged sword. Faster headways with less convenience or slower headways with more convenience? Maybe the E and G branch really should run on the surface (it really wouldn't be bad with proper signal priority), unless you have some other plan to mitigate the crush loads that the E line faces at those stations.
 
Shepard said:
What's the routing on the 6 between Brighton and Watertown? That seems to me to be one of the more speculative leaps here...

I second the idea of highlighting parks, and I'd also argue for highlighting beaches as well.
Click to expand...

He's using an abandoned ROW - I forget the name. It's not remotely buildable, though... past Watertown Square a bunch of it is built on. Most of that line would need to go underground.

It's not even worth commenting on the fact that this is crazy, that's the whole point. It would be great if someone would make a map in this style for the existing T... it's way better than their new map.
 
I don't think he's following an abandoned ROW there across the Charles... maybe there was a crossing I don't know about? Dave?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top