Crazy Transit Pitches

[davem]

Van, in addition to adding in the northern Somerville/Medford extensions (and the E to Hyde Square, because it might happen), why not have your Kenmore shuttle terminate at Reservoir? It could make use of dedicated platforms instead of fouling the main at Brookline Village; unless you envision the D-E connector having new platforms at BV.


Also, something that's always confused me about the Stuart St subway proposal: IIRC, the second bellmouth is south of Stuart St, right before where Pleasant Street used to be. Meaning that to utilize the abandoned Boylston tracks, you would have to cut into the Tremont tunnel mid-way, in the two track section, rendering it useless for a future extension to Dudley or the Seaport. That (along with the difficulties of utility relocation) is why I've started leaning towards F-Line's idea of hugging the Pike trench beneath Marginal Road and away from the MTA Stuart Street idea.

It also serves a slightly more distinct area, getting rid of the argument about spending unpteen dollars to build a new subway 2 blocks away form an existing one. You also go directly beneath the Back Bay Garage, allowing for a GL station at back bay and an OL connection sooner than Haymarket. Thoughts?

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Van, in addition to adding in the northern Somerville/Medford extensions (and the E to Hyde Square, because it might happen), why not have your Kenmore shuttle terminate at Reservoir? It could make use of dedicated platforms instead of fouling the main at Brookline Village; unless you envision the D-E connector having new platforms at BV.

Didn't even think about that but it could work. An express C Line if you will. I had envisioned new platforms at BV but this is probably a cheaper solution and one that increases service through Brookline.

Also, something that's always confused me about the Stuart St subway proposal: IIRC, the second bellmouth is south of Stuart St, right before where Pleasant Street used to be. Meaning that to utilize the abandoned Boylston tracks, you would have to cut into the Tremont tunnel mid-way, in the two track section, rendering it useless for a future extension to Dudley or the Seaport. That (along with the difficulties of utility relocation) is why I've started leaning towards F-Line's idea of hugging the Pike trench beneath Marginal Road and away from the MTA Stuart Street idea.
It also serves a slightly more distinct area, getting rid of the argument about spending unpteen dollars to build a new subway 2 blocks away form an existing one. You also go directly beneath the Back Bay Garage, allowing for a GL station at back bay and an OL connection sooner than Haymarket. Thoughts?

I suppose the Margin St alignment might be better but I'm not totally convinced as I think it would only present new and different problems. While Margin St might not have the same utilities in place it does have the Pike abutting it and two on ramps to work around. A connection to Back Bay Station is still possible with the Stuart St alignment since either one would require an expensive connection above or below the Mass Pike.

It's a shame the Orange Line Southwest Corridor was built so close as really any alignment you chose would duplicate that service to some extent. Either alignment you are going to be a block or two from an existing subway.

The best argument for a Margin St alignment would be to allow for future Dudley Sq service but that honestly seems even more remote.

 

[George_Apley]

The best argument for a Margin St alignment would be to allow for future Dudley Sq service but that honestly seems even more remote.

I don't think Dudley is more remote than a Stuart Street Subway coupled with an extended Huntington Ave Subway. Dudley's really easy by comparison. The Tremont Tunnel is already there, and the tunneling down Suffolk to the Pike is blasted clear by 1950s Urban Renewal. Portal up to Washington on the southern edge of the Pike and street run in a reservation to Dudley. That strikes me as far more likely than blowing up Stuart Street and whatever mitigation effects there would be in the Back Bay understreetscape and the surrounding buildings.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Ok here is a look at the map with the Margin St alignment and possible Washington St-Dudley Sq service. I've moved the E to Washington St since the only way to extend service from Brigham Circle to Hyde Sq would be a tunnel through Mission Hill and for the levels of service I doubt it would justify the extra tunnel. And besides the new station at Brigham Circle would attract the 39 riders and still save them time.

 

[Riverside]

I've actually been tossing around something similar to that, Van, possibly inspired in part by your earlier proposals involving a D-E conversion.

First, build a connection between Riverway and Brookline Village. Ideally, put in a wye at Brookline Village, but so long as traffic from Newton can make it to Huntington, we're good. An extension of the Huntington subway also fulfills this requirement, but it's not mandatory.

Now, we have several options.

First: route all (or most) E line trains down the Highland Branch, and then down to Needham. This allows for an expansion of service, without disrupting capacities in the Central Subway and, theoretically, without requiring acquisition of additional rolling stock. Depending on project ridership of the Needham Branch, some fraction of trains could be "short-turned," diverted down to Heath.

Second: using the Kenmore Loop, divert C line trains around the bend, down to Brookline Village, so they run Cleveland Circle–Coolidge Corner–Kenmore–Brookline Village. The C Line has the lowest ridership of all the branches, and it is well positioned to take advantage of the Kenmore Loop. Anchored at both ends by connections to the D/E Line, and with a hub connection at Kenmore to the B Line, commuters will still have plenty of options to get to downtown. Furthermore, this will increase capacity in the Central Subway, either permitting increased frequency on any of the other three lines, or the addition of new service into the Central Subway. Likewise, with a shortened route, the Brookline Shuttle could probably be operated with a reduced rolling stock, freeing up cars for use on other, heavier-use lines.

(Optionally, the Kenmore hub could be enhanced by a Blue Line extension, especially if such an extension included express services. This would be great, to be sure, but it is not required.)

Third: the fun part: adding new [south-side] services. With the C Line diverted out of the picture, we have several options. A semi-resurrected A Line , branching off the B at Packard's Corner, just going to Oak Square, is one option. A more intense option would be a branch to Dudley, and/or a branch to the Seaport, following the loop-de-loop alignment which has been discussed previously in this thread. A dark horse candidate would be a semi-resurrected Arborway branch, possibly to Hyde Square, possibly to Jackson Square, or possibly all the way down to Forest Hills.

If we decide to go with any expansion that resurrects the Tremont Street Subway, one of the other three branches would probably terminate at Park Street, to avoid creating a bottleneck between Park and Government Center.

What about north-side service? Well, one downside of this plan is that it leaves the Boylston Street Subway a little underserviced. We can boost frequencies on the B Line some, but not that much. Even if we resurrect an A Line, that's still a one-third cut in service.

One way to ameliorate this would be to treat certain north-side routes as separate branches, and "short-turn" these services at various points.

These could potentially include Kenmore (though it's a bit difficult to short-turn there from the east), Packard's Corner (assuming no A Line, with the goal of increasing service to BU), or, my personal favorite, Brookline Village (in which case, the Brookline Shuttle would probably be curtailed to Kenmore, and just become a Beacon Shuttle).

(If a proper wye is installed at Brookline Village, service could even be run in a large loop.)

So, a potential service arrangement might look like this:

B: Boston College – Government Center via Kenmore
C: Brookline Village – Medford Hillside/Route 16 via Kenmore
D: Riverside – Lechmere via Huntington
E: Needham Junction – Park via Huntington
F: Dudley – Union Square via Washington
S: Cleveland Circle – Kenmore via Beacon

or this:

A: Oak Square – Union Square via Kenmore
B: Boston College – Lechmere via Kenmore
C: Cleveland Circle – Brookline Village via Kenmore
D: Riverside – Medford Hillside via Huntington
E: Needham Junction – Park via Huntington

 

[lexicon506]

Question: in the hypothetical riverbank subway, why run the Blue Line under Storrow? Wouldn't it be logistically a lot simpler to run it under Beacon St?

 

[davem]

Question: in the hypothetical riverbank subway, why run the Blue Line under Storrow? Wouldn't it be logistically a lot simpler to run it under Beacon St?

Beacon Street:
-Utilities, many of which are undocumented
-Historic buildings on rotting piles on both sides of street
-Active multi-modal traffic
-Trees
-Remnants of the mill dam that formed Beacon St in the first place (probably)
-Must dig down full depth of tunnel

Storrow Drive
-Newish fill, no utilities
-Historic seawall running along Back St, protecting historic building foundations from being compromised
-No immediately adjacent structures
-Auto Traffic on a highway (close one lane, dig, cover, rinse, repeat)
-Existing tunnel segments to potentially reuse for transit
-Only need to dig a few feet, Back St is at higher grade than the esplanade

 

[George_Apley]

Question: in the hypothetical riverbank subway, why run the Blue Line under Storrow? Wouldn't it be logistically a lot simpler to run it under Beacon St?

Aside from what Dave said, how are you getting the Blue Line from Charles/MGH to Beacon Street? You'd have to go under Storrow anyway to get from Charles Circle to Arlington Street and then a tight turn onto a more difficult tunneling route. Just keeping with the Storrow footprint is a much simpler build.

 

[Equilibria]

First, build a connection between Riverway and Brookline Village. Ideally, put in a wye at Brookline Village, but so long as traffic from Newton can make it to Huntington, we're good. An extension of the Huntington subway also fulfills this requirement, but it's not mandatory.

That's going to be a problem, though. Brookline Village cannot geometrically accommodate a traditional wye - the cut is too narrow for four parallel tracks. The only way I can see to do it is to take out Pearl St. and put a portal there, merging in in the middle of the current station, which would be moved. To go the other way, you'd have to go through (and largely destroy) the Brookline Avenue playground, which would also require a second tunnel under the Muddy.

I just don't think that's worth it. Frankly, I'd abandon that stretch altogether and allow the new Brigham Circle and LMA subway stations to handle the load. For Red Sox games, a few special trains could run express on the C to Kenmore from Reservoir, with a cross-platform transfer from the D.

Another alternative would be to build the new Brookline Village underground, and have the Longwood/Fenway stretch get routed into a fully underground Hyde Square branch. No wye required, and it allows Fenway to become more of a destination commercial center for it's immediate surrounding neighborhoods (rather than Brookline).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The D-to-E connector in its most recent incarnation is just a little line-item spec on the MPO wish list for a straight track connector for equipment swaps and bolstering service on Huntington. So for that few mil in new track you'd probably just have a curbside stop on Pearl adjacent to the D platforms for short-turns and a simple track merge right before the current platforms for anything that may be merging to continue on the D. That's all you need for E Brookline Village (curbside) or E Reservoir (regular platforms) patterns doubling up service on the under-capacity Prudential-Riverway segment during peak hours and throttling back Heath (or further) to more South Huntington- and street-running -appropriate headways. They would not be thinking grander than that for the initial build because it defeats the purpose of getting the little bit of added revenue and non-revenue convenience at price tag of < $10M.

There is room to do universal movements at BV if the air rights parking garage over the tracks gets remade. Peeling off a wye track where Pearl curves for a high-capacity junction would only involve relocating that one ramp into the garage elsewhere so a ground-level track could slip around the concrete stilts. There's a couple more invasive issues, though, that would make you not want to do this until really heavy bi-directional service patterns start using this station, such as Urban Ring LRT doing a Kenmore zigzag.

-- The wye would by 500 ft. east of the current platforms, meaning the only way to inexpensively give every pattern equitable access to the station is to lay another set of cheap curbside stops on the curve at Pearl well east of the station. A not-very convenient walk to the main station if you're grabbing any old train and choosing to cross platforms to switch branches. Probably would need some sort of time-limited free Charlie transfer there because of the required walking distance between platforms.

-- Or...rebuild the entire station under the air rights as a superstation. Easily engineerable because that garage is so flimsy you can just partially blow up and rebuild--maybe with widened stilts on the west half of it accomodating Kenmore-style 4 tracks/platforms--and then stitch it back together with equal capacity and no additional impacts to the abutting buildings. Maybe even with a track-level provision for a later Huntington subway tunnel to merge in on the east side of the air rights to keep it all future-proofed. The rebuilt garage can even have +1 parking levels when it's rebuilt back together if the abutters want that extra capacity. None of that's hard or invasive.

-- Superstation would be real nice for the station's increased stature, and the 60 and 66 already turn down Pearl for the direct transfer so the extra distance affects no buses. However, you would have to do some beneficial retooling of the whole Station St./Pearl block for accessibility to offset the increased walking distance from Washington. And chances are Dana Farber's going to want to seize on the opportunity for hosting a major transfer superstation behind its property by redoing that brutalist old box of a building for something taller and grander. So you'd have to have a comprehensive TOD redev plan in place for the site before it's time to do the superstation.



Hence, no one is thinking about these things now for the track connection when just slapping curbside tracks and foregoing the wye gets the basics covered cheaply. So consider that a little nothing of a Phase I that logically would have to go on the table with an E extension of Hyde Sq. Then punt the superstation makeover of the whole block until you know for sure that the Urban Ring is coming through via Kenmore. It's not worth thinking about today in terms any more complicated than a D-to-E curbside stop on Pearl shared with the 66 until the UR is on the table and the capacity is needed for big boarding loads.

But compromise on eventually moving the station 500 ft. east under the stilts and remaking the block in the process, and it's a relatively easy, inexpensive, and non-invasive build to get that major anchor stop.

 

[FK4]

The whole argument is moot because Brookline (and Boston, for that matter) will never allow a surface connection between the E and D - even when they finally get around to fixing the urban renewal disaster at multi-lane Rt 9 right there, they will never will allow what I admittedly the traffic problems caused by trains frequently crossing Rt 9. And I would imagine that a tunnel connection would have to be deep indeed, owing to the Muddy River, and too expensive to justify either way. Brookline also will never have any interest in a superstation at that location.

I also live pretty close to Hyde Square, and bringing the E there, similarly, ain't happenin'. It would be great if the T took you there, but the streets are narrow and the rush hour congestion on Perkins and Centre is severe. A train would worsen that and wouldnt save anyone riding it any time.

Personally, I think it would be awesome if the E was all tunnel, maybe ending somewhere up around Angell. +/- another branch of the Green that ran express under Stuart, the CSC, then ran under Boylston and Brookline Ave to Brookline Village and then split to head toward either the E or the D, for overlap service. But sadly, all of these are "crazy" since none will ever come to pass...

Edit... I guess there's no point in pointing out why certain things won't happen in the crazy transit pitches section... but Brookline will never change, this I know..

 

[Matthew]

(a) Traffic is caused by too many automobiles, not the trains.

(b) Boston/MBTA is really way too queasy and whiny about street running. San Francisco does extensive street running on streets much smaller than Centre Street. Fact is, both Jamaica Plain and Brookline are suburban in character, and there's no excuse nor cost-justification to tunnel there. Plenty of space on the surface. The T just needs a good hard kick in the ass to get its head out.

 

[Equilibria]

(a) Traffic is caused by too many automobiles, not the trains.

(b) Boston/MBTA is really way too queasy and whiny about street running. San Francisco does extensive street running on streets much smaller than Centre Street. Fact is, both Jamaica Plain and Brookline are suburban in character, and there's no excuse nor cost-justification to tunnel there. Plenty of space on the surface. The T just needs a good hard kick in the ass to get its head out.

Traffic is caused by too many vehicles, regardless of mode. Trains can help remove cars if they're going where the cars are going. I'm not sure what percentage of Centre St. commuters have destinations along the Green Line, so I couldn't say whether the trains would solve more problems than they'd create.

 

[Matthew]

Again, trains don't create "traffic problems." That's nonsense made up by automobile promoters of the twentieth century, who are annoyed that the vehicle in front of them might be going 15 mph instead of 35 mph, preventing them from punching the pedal to the metal. But you must understand that slower speeds do not equal congestion, and in a city, slower speeds are appropriate. As you say, if trains are just another vehicle on the street, then they have every right to be there, as much as that single passenger vehicle.

 

[Equilibria]

Again, trains don't create "traffic problems." That's nonsense made up by automobile promoters of the twentieth century, who are annoyed that the vehicle in front of them might be going 15 mph instead of 35 mph, preventing them from punching the pedal to the metal. But you must understand that slower speeds do not equal congestion, and in a city, slower speeds are appropriate. As you say, if trains are just another vehicle on the street, then they have every right to be there, as much as that single passenger vehicle.

At risk of causing another lengthy argument (so I'll keep these posts short), trains add vehicles to the road. In the case of light rail, it can be one lengthy train every 10 minutes or so. I get that that's not that many, but it's also not insignificant given the size of the vehicles and the fact that, yes, they go way slower than cars.

I'm not arguing that trains do not have the "right" to the road. LRVs are perfectly capable of 35 or even 55mph when they are freed of obstructions and conflicts. They go slow in street-running traffic because (I believe) they are heavy and require much longer stopping distances than cars do. Put them underground and things get faster for everyone.

BTW, I'm not sure where you get the idea that 35mph is an unreasonable expectation in a suburban area. That's not "pedal-to-the-metal". 15mph is the speed one would expect when driving in the Financial District or through the back lanes of the North End. Generally speaking, neighborhoods where cars should not expect to go faster than 15mph are ones where major transit (as opposed to trams) should be grade-separated to begin with.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

You do realize this "street-running" on Route 9 comprises of exactly 600 ft. of 6-lane roadway with a median, right? 400 ft. or less if the track turns out on this grassy knoll up River Rd. in between light cycles, then shoots between this driveway to a traffic light installed at Brookline Ave. & Pearl.

1200 total feet, shorter than the Chestnut Hill Ave. B-to-C/D connector, and 2/3 of it runs on the glorified bus loop called Pearl St. Of all the places to start another hand-wringing debate about street-running, this is the last one to care about. The B blocks more traffic at individual Comm Ave. grade crossings than the whole of the D-to-E connector ever would.

 

[Equilibria]

You do realize this "street-running" on Route 9 comprises of exactly 600 ft. of 6-lane roadway with a median, right? 400 ft. or less if the track turns out on this grassy knoll up River Rd. in between light cycles, then shoots between this driveway to a traffic light installed at Brookline Ave. & Pearl.

1200 total feet, shorter than the Chestnut Hill Ave. B-to-C/D connector, and 2/3 of it runs on the glorified bus loop called Pearl St. Of all the places to start another hand-wringing debate about street-running, this is the last one to care about. The B blocks more traffic at individual Comm Ave. grade crossings than the whole of the D-to-E connector ever would.

He's talking about Centre. I have no opinion on the D/E connector being on the surface.

 

[Matthew]

South Huntington's wide enough for a reservation if they really wanted it, up to Perkins or so. Or at least painted lanes like San Francisco. Perkins is not a street anyone should be going 35 mph on.

My point is simply this: the argument that "trains create traffic congestion" is the same argument that was used to remove most of the trolley lines in Boston and even originally separated lines like the "A" branch. It's not a valid argument in any scientific or logical sense, it's simply a political grenade. It doesn't make any sense at all except for people who just want to kill the trolleys, damn the consequences.

Trolleys don't exist to remove cars from roads. They exist to provide transportation for people. The perspective of justifying transit by always forcing it to answer the question "Does it remove cars from roads?" is first of all wrong (it doesn't) and misguided (that's not what it's for). Following that principle is how you end up with the extremely backwards and regressive condition of American transit systems, while all the car drivers are screaming at each other in traffic congestion.

We shouldn't build subways in suburban areas like JP because it is extremely expensive for little return. Plus, we already went through the trouble of building a grade separated open cut line not too far away. Back on Centre Street, there is already a public right-of-way dedicated to travel: it is the surface street, and it's no accident that trolleys are also known as "streetcars." The fact that privatized co-option of the street is given higher priority than public use of the public way is a historical perversion, and I fully understand the politics of it, but that doesn't make it right or something that you need to feel obligated to defend.

 

[Equilibria]

Trolleys don't exist to remove cars from roads. They exist to provide transportation for people. The perspective of justifying transit by always forcing it to answer the question "Does it remove cars from roads?" is first of all wrong (it doesn't) and misguided (that's not what it's for).

Where exactly is it you think all that "transportation for people" is happening that doesn't involve cars? Is there some large transit-riding constituency you think is telecommuting because there's no transit option to precisely where they work?

In a city where the predominant (actually, it isn't - it's only around 50%) mode of transportation is the automobile, you must ALWAYS judge transit by how many cars it's likely to remove. That's how traffic and congestion and all of those things you claim to hate are measured. Cluttering the street with unnecessary infrastructure just to stick it to the people who still choose or need to drive isn't good planning any more than ripping up tracks in reservations was good planning.

Back on Centre Street, there is already a public right-of-way dedicated to travel: it is the surface street, and it's no accident that trolleys are also known as "streetcars." The fact that privatized co-option of the street is given higher priority than public use of the public way is a historical perversion, and I fully understand the politics of it, but that doesn't make it right or something that you need to feel obligated to defend.

I feel obligated to defend it when I see it characterized like this. The "privatized co-option of the street" consists of ordinary citizens, like you and like me (neither of whom drive to work, I feel safe in assuming) trying to get around.

Transit publicly-owned, yes. It carries more people per square meter than cars. It is not, however, some populist dream machine pitted against the MAN with his evil private vehicles. Both modes are used by people who need to get around. No one is coopting or stealing anything from anybody. The street belongs to the drivers just as much as it belongs to you, no more, no less.

 

[Matthew]

The street belongs to the drivers just as much as it belongs to you, no more, no less.

Then why do you believe that transit must defend itself by showing how many cars it removes from the street?

Do you ask that of anyone else who moves into the area and brings a car?

Why does transit have a special burden in your view?

In a city where the predominant (actually, it isn't - it's only around 50%) mode of transportation is the automobile, you must ALWAYS judge transit by how many cars it's likely to remove

(Less than 50%, actually, but that doesn't change anything).

The metric that you want to judge transit by must be based on how it helps people, and that includes people who aren't in cars. Judging it by a metric that is based on removing cars from the road is a car-based metric and not a people-based metric, even if it might indirectly help some people, it's not the right approach to get Good Transit.

There is no single metric that encompasses all needs. However I'll give an example real quick: you could ask questions like "how many opportunities does this transit line design open up for how many people within so many minutes of travel?" or some near approximation that is easier to quantify (I didn't say this was easy). Or you could fall back to something as basic as "how many people per hour can be transported along this corridor" although from an urban planning perspective this isn't as useful.