Crazy Transit Pitches

Well said. To piggy-back on that, here's my tweak on @AndrewOnTheMBTA 's pitch (let me know what you think):

  1. Truncate the E-Branch to Brigham Circle (current inbound platform) for the duration of construction, leaving the Brigham Circle - Copley stretch untouched.
  2. Cut-and-cover under Huntington/Washington from Brigham Circle to Brookline Village for a stretch of Green Line subway with three portals and two intermediate underground stations:
    • Portal 1: Just east of the Huntington/Tremont/Francis (Brigham Circle) intersection, feeding the current Huntington Ave reservation to the east
    • Portal 2: Just south of the South Huntington/Huntington (Riverway) intersection, feeding the current street-running E-Branch tracks on South Huntington
    • Portal 3: Near a junction with the D-Branch near Brookline Village (see the Green Line Reconfiguration thread)
    • Station 1: Mission Park (served by all trains)
    • Station 2: Riverway (west of junction/portal/intersection of South Huntington and current E-Branch)
  3. Take the cut-and-covered section of roadway and build center running bus lanes from Brookline Village to Brigham Circle for the 66 (entire duration of center running bus lanes), the 39 (from Riverway to Brigham Circle), 60/65 (a short stretch of Route 9), with four stops:
    • Brookline Village (66) at the western end of bus lanes
    • Washington/Walnut (60, 65, 66)
    • Riverway (39, 66) east of the South Huntington intersection
    • Mission Park (39, 66)
  4. Leverage this operational improvement and extend the E-Branch from Heath Street to Hyde Square.
I believe this gets you most of the advantages of a full tunnel, with much less disruption. The reservation inbound from Brigham Circle may be easy to bury, but that is much less problematic than the current Brigham Circle - Riverway street-running (and 66 and 39 bus running) section

EDITED TO ADD DETAIL (stations and stops)
 
Last edited:
jbray said:
You cannot cut and cover a river.
Click to expand...

Not technically, no. But the "Muddy River" is routed through a culvert here. While, strictly speaking, you wouldn't "cut" the culvert, it is quite feasible to work around a culvert (over or under, with the possibility to replace the culvert) as part of a project like this, without having to involve a tunnel-boring machine. In fact, there are many precedents to doing so both locally and worldwide. For example, Stony Brook (the watercourse, not the eponymous T station) did not preclude digging of the Southwest Corridor trench in the 1980s.
 
Believe it or no, we already have cut-and-covered the Muddy River:
1638210902296.png


I'd have to look up the old BTC reports to be sure, but I believe it was just culverted during construction. EDIT: 1912 report says that flow was with stopped with cofferdams, and redirected into the existing Stony Brook conduit (which was largely empty except for storm drainage).

1638211215178.png

Given this width and flow rate at Route 9, I suspect culverting it for tunneling would not be a major issue.
 
bigeman312 said:
Well said. To piggy-back on that, here's my tweak on @AndrewOnTheMBTA 's pitch (let me know what you think):

  1. Truncate the E-Branch to Brigham Circle (current inbound platform) for the duration of construction, leaving the Brigham Circle - Copley stretch untouched.
  2. Cut-and-cover under Huntington/Washington from Brigham Circle to Brookline Village for a stretch of Green Line subway with three portals and two intermediate underground stations:
    • Portal 1: Just east of the Huntington/Tremont/Francis (Brigham Circle) intersection, feeding the current Huntington Ave reservation to the east
    • Portal 2: Just south of the South Huntington/Huntington (Riverway) intersection, feeding the current street-running E-Branch tracks on South Huntington
    • Portal 3: Near a junction with the D-Branch near Brookline Village (see the Green Line Reconfiguration thread)
    • Station 1: Mission Park (served by all trains)
    • Station 2: Riverway (west of junction/portal/intersection of South Huntington and current E-Branch)
  3. Take the cut-and-covered section of roadway and build center running bus lanes from Brookline Village to Brigham Circle for the 66 (entire duration of center running bus lanes), the 39 (from Riverway to Brigham Circle), 60/65 (a short stretch of Route 9), with four stops:
    • Brookline Village (66) at the western end of bus lanes
    • Washington/Walnut (60, 65, 66)
    • Riverway (39, 66) east of the South Huntington intersection
    • Mission Park (39, 66)
  4. Leverage this operational improvement and extend the E-Branch from Heath Street to Hyde Square.
I believe this gets you most of the advantages of a full tunnel, with much less disruption. The reservation inbound from Brigham Circle may be easy to bury, but that is much less problematic than the current Brigham Circle - Riverway street-running (and 66 and 39 bus running) section

EDITED TO ADD DETAIL (stations and stops)
Click to expand...

I like this as a solution to some of the existing E-Branch capacity constraints and operational issues past Brigham Circle, though not as a replacement for burying the surface E (I can't tell if this was meant as staged construction before doing that, or just leaving Brigham-Copley untouched) because Copley Junction is itself a constraint on Green Line capacity, and there's not much point building a D-E connection if D's coming off of the Highland Branch have to deal with Huntington's traffic signals (even with trolley priority, it'll still be slower than the D) and Copley Junction. (But as an adjunct to the proposals in the GL Reconfiguration thread, I like it)
 
Brattle Loop said:
I like this as a solution to some of the existing E-Branch capacity constraints and operational issues past Brigham Circle, though not as a replacement for burying the surface E (I can't tell if this was meant as staged construction before doing that, or just leaving Brigham-Copley untouched) because Copley Junction is itself a constraint on Green Line capacity, and there's not much point building a D-E connection if D's coming off of the Highland Branch have to deal with Huntington's traffic signals (even with trolley priority, it'll still be slower than the D) and Copley Junction. (But as an adjunct to the proposals in the GL Reconfiguration thread, I like it)
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not as a "we will never do anything more" solution, but rather as a "ready to go in the interim and wouldn't preclude any Copley Junction changes."
 
Cool find.

From that image, the following transit proposals were completed (in a similar if not identical form):
The following have not been completed:
  • Re-routing of the Red Line (nee Cambridge / Ashmont Line) around Andrew.
  • Extension of the Huntington Ave Subway with interlining with the D-Branch.
  • A second Green Line (nee Central Subway Trolley Lines) tunnel.
  • Burying the B-Branch under Comm Ave.
I would say the proposal discussed here is just about the most likely of any of these not-yet-completed to actually happen.

Side note: boy am I happy that the Inner Belt never happened. Having spent way too much of my life reading through old MBTA/MTA/Massachusetts transit and transportation plans, it makes me gag a little when reading some of the plans of the '50s and '60s.
 
bigeman312 said:
Not technically, no. But the "Muddy River" is routed through a culvert here. While, strictly speaking, you wouldn't "cut" the culvert, it is quite feasible to work around a culvert (over or under, with the possibility to replace the culvert) as part of a project like this, without having to involve a tunnel-boring machine. In fact, there are many precedents to doing so both locally and worldwide. For example, Stony Brook (the watercourse, not the eponymous T station) did not preclude digging of the Southwest Corridor trench in the 1980s.
Click to expand...
The EGE said:
Believe it or no, we already have cut-and-covered the Muddy River:
Given this width and flow rate at Route 9, I suspect culverting it for tunneling would not be a major issue.
Click to expand...
I've been outted as an ignorant! But seriously, I appreciate the correction. What would be the cost on this type of work-around (which was kind of my indirect point)? Also, one does wonder what kind of red tape exists now for this kind of work that didn't in 100 years ago or even 40. Not that I don't support it, it's just that we couldn't even put a temporary structure in the Charles without creating political gridlock.

Charlie_mta said:
The MBTA ad Boston Redevelopment Authority had plans in 1965 similar to the above discussion:

51713725976_b626ec1f4b_b.jpg
Click to expand...
Am I reading this wrong or does this preserve Copley junction for the Huntington Ave Subway? Maybe it intends to have a crossover and intersection after Back Bay, but it reads like the Stuart Street Subway would surface to join the B&A while the Huntington goes underneath.
 
jbray said:
IAm I reading this wrong or does this preserve Copley junction for the Huntington Ave Subway? Maybe it intends to have a crossover and intersection after Back Bay, but it reads like the Stuart Street Subway would surface to join the B&A while the Huntington goes underneath.
Click to expand...
It's kind of a sloppy map in that it shows alternative routes that aren't clearly marked as alternatives. The Stuart St subway is an alternative, so that's why the Copley junction isn't shown as being abandoned,
 
Last edited:
jbray said:
Also, one does wonder what kind of red tape exists now for this kind of work that didn't in 100 years ago or even 40. Not that I don't support it, it's just that we couldn't even put a temporary structure in the Charles without creating political gridlock.
Click to expand...

It's not in the same sphere of a problem. The area we are talking about is a very low flow already routed through a culvert under Route 9. We are not talking about a navigable river like the Charles. A re-routing of a culvert of this size for road construction is something that civil engineers have no difficulty with. It's commonplace and not particularly newsworthy.

There are certainly aspects of my proposal that would run into difficulty, but working around that culvert is not one of them. Some of these difficult aspects include funding, potential pushback from people who don't want the construction disruption in their neighborhood or along their commute, potential pushback from people who feel their way of life is being threatened by losing parking spaces, where to include the junction with the D-Branch, and other things like that.
 
Picking up on something started in the Red-Blue connector thread.

From the R-B thread:
Tallguy said:
The case for BL to Kendall is strong, but fizzles out after IMO
GJs future is Light Rail. Its nearly all there right now
Click to expand...

IF the Red-Blue connector project encompassed the Red-Blue connection at/under Charles/MGH AND then the Blue Line continued under the river to Kendall, it would seem it would be quite useful to create a 3-line mega station near the center of Kendall Square. Ideally Red, Blue, and the Grand Junction LRV lines would all intersect to support commuting to/from Kendall, one of the areas of greater Boston where in-person work is most likely to continue due to all the Kendall labs. An advantage of Blue all the way to Kendall (even though it will likely already run to Charles/MGH in the near future) is that there's demand for to/from Logan Airport travel from Kendall. This would enable a zero-transfer ride to Logan from Kendall (among other advantages).

Anyway, we run into geography issues since the intersection of Grand Junction, Red, and Blue wouldn't be close enough to each other at Kendall (particularly GJ being too far west)...unless...

The huge MIT Volpe project is going to be digging out the multi-acre side just north of the heart of Kendall square. A giant underground garage bathtub with slurry walls, etc., is already planned. What if the Blue line tunneled under the Charles just north of the Longfellow and then proceeded under the Broad Canal to the Volpe site, terminating in/under the new Volpe bathtub. There would be space for a small storage yard, etc., under there. Then, underground walkways could be provided to both the legacy Kendall RL station as well as to the intersection of the GJ (only about 900 feet away from edge of Volpe parcel to the Broadway/GJ intersection). We could create a large underground plaza connecting Red, Blue, and Grand Junction at Kendall. It could include people movers to help span the large distances.

This would also help with the fact that the Broadway/Main/Third intersection is currently a cars-pedestrian shitshow with no obvious way to improve it without going underground.

It would seem that we'd rarely have the opportunity to create such a large/underground plaza/station in a dense urban area as we will soon have with the Volpe construction.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't Volpe be against any tunnel underneath it for security reasons?
 
jklo said:
Wouldn't Volpe be against any tunnel underneath it for security reasons?
Click to expand...

Sure, but no need to go under that. The new fed parcel is marked "GSA" here:
vp1.png

https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media...lPermits/sp368/sp368_appgraphic1_20210603.pdf

^So, my idea would be south of Potter, west of Third, etc. In any case, the massive bathtub excavation I am talking about has yet to take place, whereas the new Fed sub-parcel will be done soon. The upcoming excavation I'm referring to is within Potter, Third, Broadway, etc. Notice how the Broad Canal basically points directly at this, providing the clearance to get to the under-river tunnel.
 
Last edited:
bigpicture7 said:
Picking up on something started in the Red-Blue connector thread.

From the R-B thread:


IF the Red-Blue connector project encompassed the Red-Blue connection at/under Charles/MGH AND then the Blue Line continued under the river to Kendall, it would seem it would be quite useful to create a 3-line mega station near the center of Kendall Square. Ideally Red, Blue, and the Grand Junction LRV lines would all intersect to support commuting to/from Kendall, one of the areas of greater Boston where in-person work is most likely to continue due to all the Kendall labs. An advantage of Blue all the way to Kendall (even though it will likely already run to Charles/MGH in the near future) is that there's demand for to/from Logan Airport travel from Kendall. This would enable a zero-transfer ride to Logan from Kendall (among other advantages).

Anyway, we run into geography issues since the intersection of Grand Junction, Red, and Blue wouldn't be close enough to each other at Kendall (particularly GJ being too far west)...unless...

The huge MIT Volpe project is going to be digging out the multi-acre side just north of the heart of Kendall square. A giant underground garage bathtub with slurry walls, etc., is already planned. What if the Blue line tunneled under the Charles just north of the Longfellow and then proceeded under the Broad Canal to the Volpe site, terminating in/under the new Volpe bathtub. There would be space for a small storage yard, etc., under there. Then, underground walkways could be provided to both the legacy Kendall RL station as well as to the intersection of the GJ (only about 900 feet away from edge of Volpe parcel to the Broadway/GJ intersection). We could create a large underground plaza connecting Red, Blue, and Grand Junction at Kendall. It could include people movers to help span the large distances.

This would also help with the fact that the Broadway/Main/Third intersection is currently a cars-pedestrian shitshow with no obvious way to improve it without going underground.

It would seem that we'd rarely have the opportunity to create such a large/underground plaza/station in a dense urban area as we will soon have with the Volpe construction.
Click to expand...

Read up on Ari's Commonwealth Magazine article on just this. I'm on mobile so this may not be formatted perfectly..
Red-Blue-1.jpg
 
stefal said:
Read up on Ari's Commonwealth Magazine article on just this. I'm on mobile so this may not be formatted perfectly..
View attachment 19300
Click to expand...

Wow, that's great. Full credit to Ari. I can honestly say I hadn't seen that before making my post above.

The only things I'd push back on regarding his article: his connection to GJ as shown does indeed go through the GSA "keep out" area, so that'd probably have to change (and as I suggested, it could just be a pedestrian tunnel/people mover elsewhere; it could even possibly cut through the BPX parcels just west of this, since they're about to do a ton of digging there for the garage demo/electrical substation work anyway). And also, if we're going to do a major project here, I think it'd definitely worth exploring if we could create a central underground pedestrian plaza with connections to GJ/Red/Blue; I get that all of the below-ground pedestrian connections might not seem necessary purely from a transit ops standpoint, but from an above ground pedestrians/traffic standpoint, I think it would help (people coming off the T are constantly jaywalking that Broadway/Third/main disaster intersection).

Two other really key points Ari makes: BL tunnel access to the volpe site would be relatively smooth sailing since there are no underground utilities (or above ground structures) to deal with along the Broad canal; further, the Broad canal used to go directly to/through the Volpe site (until 1969), so it would literally be a matter of retracing the canal's current/old path. Lastly, on the magnitude of this opportunity: when else is an entire city block going to be excavated like this anyway? It's sort of now-or-never for something like this.
 
Last edited:
bigpicture7 said:
Lastly, on the magnitude of this opportunity: when else is an entire city block going to be excavated like this anyway? It's sort of now-or-never for something like this.
Click to expand...

I may be injecting too much reality into this thread, but I'm curious as to when all this digging is supposed to take place? Even if we wanted to send the Blue Line to Kendall (I'm not a fan of the idea because I don't see all that much gain over Red-Blue at Charles for a lot higher cost, but at least part of that is I think the GJ alignment is wholly unsuitable for HRT) it'd inevitably take time to plan, design, engineer, and approve (let alone fund) such an endeavor, and while those aren't usually concerns in Crazy Transit Pitches, the fact that the Volpe dig is already planned to some degree makes me wonder if it's even possible for the timelines to line up properly, 'cause if they don't the idea's dead in the water anyway.
 
Brattle Loop said:
I may be injecting too much reality into this thread, but I'm curious as to when all this digging is supposed to take place? Even if we wanted to send the Blue Line to Kendall (I'm not a fan of the idea because I don't see all that much gain over Red-Blue at Charles for a lot higher cost, but at least part of that is I think the GJ alignment is wholly unsuitable for HRT) it'd inevitably take time to plan, design, engineer, and approve (let alone fund) such an endeavor, and while those aren't usually concerns in Crazy Transit Pitches, the fact that the Volpe dig is already planned to some degree makes me wonder if it's even possible for the timelines to line up properly, 'cause if they don't the idea's dead in the water anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I posted this in crazy-land for a reason, haha. But in a serious attempt to answer your question, the city granted the special permit on 7/20/2021 and the latest documentation from the developer (MIT) states: "MIT expects to construct the project over a 10- to 20-year period...following three (3) phases".
(see p. 47, "Development Schedule and Phasing" from the June 12, 2021 "Application Narrative")
www.cambridgema.gov

PB368

special permit application
www.cambridgema.gov www.cambridgema.gov

In sum, the answer is highly vague at this point. Given the long project timeline, and the fact that before anything can happen "old Volpe" still needs to be vacated / moved to the new adjacent Gov. site, and demo'd/remediated, it is in the realm of "not entirely impossible" that there'd be enough time to do this. Highly, highly unlikely though. If this were to happen, I'd imagine that the structural provisions under this site would be designed/built well ahead of the tunnels/etc (and they'd be connected later) so as to not miss this particular opportunity, and to allow for more time for design of the whole rest of the BL-to-Kendall.

As completely crazy as this is, one must admit this is not as crazy as some of the transit pitches on this thread ; ). And it was even less crazy when Ari proposed it in 2018.
 
Last edited:
bigpicture7 said:
Yeah, I posted this in crazy-land for a reason, haha. But in a serious attempt to answer your question, the city granted the special permit on 7/20/2021 and the latest documentation from the developer (MIT) states: "MIT expects to construct the project over a 10- to 20-year period...following three (3) phases".
(see p. 47, "Development Schedule and Phasing" from the June 12, 2021 "Application Narrative")
www.cambridgema.gov

PB368

special permit application
www.cambridgema.gov www.cambridgema.gov

In sum, the answer is highly vague at this point. Given the long project timeline, and the fact that before anything can happen "old Volpe" still needs to be vacated / moved to the new adjacent Gov. site, and demo'd/remediated, it is in the realm of "not entirely impossible" that there'd be enough time to do this. Highly, highly unlikely though. If this were to happen, I'd imagine that the structural provisions under this site would be designed/built well ahead of the tunnels/etc (and they'd be connected later) so as to not miss this particular opportunity, and to allow for more time for design of the whole rest of the BL-to-Kendall.

As completely crazy as this is, one must admit this is not as crazy as some of the transit pitches on this thread ; ). And it was even less crazy when Ari proposed it in 2018.
Click to expand...

It's definitely not that crazy, and thanks for the project info. I agree that it's unlikely to happen because it's not really any kind of official (even the less ambitious Red-Blue is only now back from the dead...in the same week that Baker put a date on leaving office, coincidentally or not) and because if provisions aren't made for it (and there's no meaningful reason they would be if there isn't even an official proposal for it) the site could get eaten up before this thing could get off (or is that under?) the ground. But as long as it's not physically impossible it's not all that crazy for a Crazy Transit Pitch. Definitely merits consideration versus the other options for Blue extensions (Riverbank to Kenmore among them.)
 
bigpicture7 said:
The only things I'd push back on regarding his article: his connection to GJ as shown does indeed go through the GSA "keep out" area, so that'd probably have to change (and as I suggested, it could just be a pedestrian tunnel/people mover elsewhere; it could even possibly cut through the BPX parcels just west of this, since they're about to do a ton of digging there for the garage demo/electrical substation work anyway).
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that that whole row of buildings would be redeveloped from Broadway and Binney between the garage and Volpe, so even better for an alternative route.
*Searches*
Ok, seems just the northernmost building of the row is slated for redev currently, but that's pretty much all you'd need anyway to bypass the GSA 'keep out' area. And given the size of the buildings being proposed in the Volpe area, the rest of them probably are gonna be up for redev soonish too.
wmygedudghaypeipcql0

courbanize.com

Kendall Square: MXD Substation Development Plan

A vibrant mixed-use development supporting long-term investment in critical electrical infrastructure.
courbanize.com courbanize.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top