Crazy Transit Pitches

[Tallguy]

You could increase ridership by 30% without problem

 

[Tallguy]

Will it cost $1B? Yes, but Roxbury deserves the same nice things as Somerville

 

[Brattle Loop]

Will it cost $1B? Yes, but Roxbury deserves the same nice things as Somerville

And they, however briefly, studied tunneled HRT (as a Blue extension) to do what GLX does. It sank faster than Titanic after it hit the iceberg because the cost blowout was so ridiculously higher than the LRT option along existing ROWs. In a vacuum I agree that Roxbury deserves good transit, and that surface LRT would be, at least in some ways, inferior to the elevated, and inferior to a tunneled HRT line (though I remain unconvinced that OL branching is viable-in-practice north of BBY even if there are some reasons to believe it might be possible on paper). This isn't the God Mode thread, though. "Deserves nice things" isn't a transit pitch. Lots of places "deserve nice things". The transit pitch here is transit better than the Silver Lie. Surface LRT is a better product than the bus, and serves one major role that the Silver Line physically can't: providing direct connections to all of the RT lines (and North Station) inside fare control and with primarily downstairs or cross-platform transfers rather than the much-less-convenient-and-mostly-outdoors SL transfers, and does all of it at a fraction of the cost of an Orange Line branch, on a mode more amenable to branching than HRT. "Deserves nice things" isn't going to survive encounter with the real-world consideration of that massive a cost differential, meaning that, in the real world, the conversation is almost certainly never going to be "Green or Orange", it's going to be "Green" or "Silver bus". If you want to ignore real-world considerations, we have the God Mode thread for that; here, these things matter, and they're fatal to an Orange-over-Green proposal.

 

[Tallguy]

Thank you for the which thread lecture.

 

[Teban54]

Which is suggesting major surgery to a tunnel that wasn't designed to be expanded, which would be required to remain open during as much of the construction as possible. The geometry would be interesting, given the proximity of Tufts Medical Center station and the portal, not to mention the fact that that tunnel is mostly curving in the wrong direction for a Shawmut alignment the whole time. Either way, it'd be a fairly-complex project to build that junction, followed by the relatively-simpler tunneling under streets to Nubian at the going rate, which would cost a fortune. From a technical standpoint it's probably all feasible (though with some operational question marks), but from a Transit Pitches standpoint it's impossible. No, surface-running Green is not "equal or better" than the elevated in many respects; it's a damn sight better than the cruddy silver bus that exists now without so much as a single connection to the RT lines inside fare control. The state and the T were perfectly content in replacing the elevated with nothing, then hamstringing its replacement by choosing a lousy mode and stapling it to a completely different project (Seaport transit). Meaning the real-world decision isn't "Green or Orange". If this OL branch were officially proposed, even an honest tunneling cost estimate would look like the Big Dig compared to a Green Line branch on the surface, because the only new tunneling that's needed would be between the sealed portal and Washington Street. You'd need to show why the state would fund the "better" service in the face of an option that's a.) way cheaper and b.) way better than the existing service, in a historical context where they've demonstrated that they do not care, particularly, about Nubian's quality-of-service.

I know you're just being realistic, but reading this makes me depressed.

A Green Line tunnel from Tremont St subway that digs under Washington St all the way to Nubian, in theory, shouldn't be costing a fortune nor be so hard to push politically. Yet here we are.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I know you're just being realistic, but reading this makes me depressed.

A Green Line tunnel from Tremont St subway that digs under Washington St all the way to Nubian, in theory, shouldn't be costing a fortune nor be so hard to push politically. Yet here we are.

It is depressing. If we could find some way of sustainably getting tunneling costs under control (it's not like nowhere in the world can tunnel cheaper), we could get a legitimately useful debate over "surface, slower, and cheaper" or "tunnel, faster, and more expensive" (and while that technically applies to Orange or Green tunnels, I think Green's the better option for a variety of reasons including the fact that if you rebuilt the outer loop at Park Street, you could essentially run Nubian-Park purely on Tremont capacity that exists now and isn't used).

The political problem is substantial. It's unambiguously not a stretch for Nubian to be demanding proper transit; even disregarding the fact that they had it and it was stolen and belatedly replaced by a bus-dressed-as-transit, it's a dense corridor without a transit spine (it's a blatant gap on Google Maps with the transit overlay active). So there's absolutely a sellable political case for "something better than the Silver Line". The devil here is in the details of what that "something better" is. Because Nubian's hardly the only place deserving of transportation dollars, and that competition for limited funds means that the political case for "sufficiently better" is a lot stronger than "best possible" in a vacuum. Tunneling (especially with stations), without some major changes that seriously reduce costs, is going to put such a price premium that it makes it hard for the politicians to accept that this option is the best one, rather than one that's "almost as good, and a lot cheaper". That part isn't even that depressing; it's probably on balance a good thing that the politicians have to consider the whole picture and do the best possible for the most people, even if that means some people get something less than they would like, it's still better than nothing. The really depressing part is that the costs are so absurd (making that political calculus a reality), and that there's no readily-identifiable easy fix for that problem, because of all of the people who benefit from those costs being so high (and, even more depressingly, who therefore have a vested interest to use their wealth and power to influence politicians against the kind of steps that would unlock more efficient construction).

 

[Riverside]

I'll toss this out into cyberspace sans my usual 1,000 words:

Beefed up Green Line (plus a Seaport Line not illustrated here) picks up the heavy lifting at Back Bay, Orange Line gets wholesale redirected under Shawmut or Washington (no branching) to Nubian before cutting over via Dudley St or Malcolm X to pick back up the Southwest Corridor at Roxbury Crossing or a bit south. Requires a proper Urban Ring service between the Regional Rail station at Ruggles and Longwood. Also benefits from a full NSRL build that reduces Regional Rail <> Orange transfers at Back Bay.

Station placement on all lines is just illustrative.

Reduces overlapping walksheds between E and Orange, maintains Orange access to Forest Hills and service to Jamaica Plain, removes the need for a junction at Tufts Medical Center, narrows the scope of a tunnel to the most limited extent I can come up with. The beefed-up-Green Line would need to be really beefed up, but with an extended Huntington tunnel and D-E connection, you could have a light rail rapid transit line that runs entirely in isolated ROW, with much longer trainsets than we see today, maybe even with semi-high level boarding, etc etc. And since you have Orange handling Washington service, you have that much more capacity available to increase frequencies on the Huntington-Boylston Green Line.

Far from perfect and would be wildly expensive. But it looks pretty on the map, so...

EDIT: A pithy punchline: if we're going to spend the $1B to do this, I'd want to make the damned thing sing, and I think this approach stands a chance of hitting that high-cost-high-benefit threshold.

 

[Riverside]

I can't help myself:

Seaport LRT leverages old Orange Line ROW on Southwest Corridor to maintain maximal capacity on Green Line, maintains service to Ruggles and then does a goofy switchback to link both Regional Rail @ Ruggles and nu-Orange @ Roxbury Crossing with LMA.

 

[shockingboston]

Wow... the wealth of knowledge and understanding of transit network on this site is awesome (thank you @Riverside and @Brattle Loop and all the other comments). I truly enjoy it. To further clarify why I posted my crazy transit pitch:

My idea for this project is not to add light rail just to add light rail. I believe there is a need for improved transit that the dedicate bus lane will fail to deliver.

In regards to the Blue Hill Ave, Columbus Ave/Seaver, Columbia Rd corridors, to evaluate for improved transit options, I assume you consider changes in housing density (probably give additional attention to Affordable Housing, Senior Housing and Rooming Homes) and are there more places people need to go (i.e. Schools/Education, Stores, Healthcare Facilities, Public Facilities, Community Centers, Entertainment, Restaurants, Parks). My assumption would be that a transit planner would add the best transit in dense residential neighborhoods, regardless of cost. Obviously, I do not understand the economics of transit planning, but anyone living in these areas can attest to the transit issues along these streets.

The streets/corridors mention above include dense residential areas and key locations. Since there area has transit option, through the use of buses, the question is: Is the bus network along these corridors adequate for a growing area?

My thoughts:

I believe the bus network along these streets is inadequate; the frequency and reliability of the bus network in this area has reduced the possible number of transit riders (based on my opinion). With improved transit options, ridership will increase (which should help the cost justification). With faster transit and increase capacity through light rail cars, more area residents will see the benefits of using public transportation. The dedicated bus lanes will improve transit times but the bottle necks at Warren and Seaver will impact the potential of this improvement. What did Somerville and Medford show that those areas required better transit than the bus option? I have to imagine this area shows the same promise. I believe Nubian, Upham, Grove Hall, Franklin Park are all areas people need to transit to, with better transit that what is available now. If there is an existing study of adding rail along these corridor, can you let me know where to find it?

 

[Tallguy]

It is depressing. If we could find some way of sustainably getting tunneling costs under control (it's not like nowhere in the world can tunnel cheaper), we could get a legitimately useful debate over "surface, slower, and cheaper" or "tunnel, faster, and more expensive" (and while that technically applies to Orange or Green tunnels, I think Green's the better option for a variety of reasons including the fact that if you rebuilt the outer loop at Park Street, you could essentially run Nubian-Park purely on Tremont capacity that exists now and isn't used).

The political problem is substantial. It's unambiguously not a stretch for Nubian to be demanding proper transit; even disregarding the fact that they had it and it was stolen and belatedly replaced by a bus-dressed-as-transit, it's a dense corridor without a transit spine (it's a blatant gap on Google Maps with the transit overlay active). So there's absolutely a sellable political case for "something better than the Silver Line". The devil here is in the details of what that "something better" is. Because Nubian's hardly the only place deserving of transportation dollars, and that competition for limited funds means that the political case for "sufficiently better" is a lot stronger than "best possible" in a vacuum. Tunneling (especially with stations), without some major changes that seriously reduce costs, is going to put such a price premium that it makes it hard for the politicians to accept that this option is the best one, rather than one that's "almost as good, and a lot cheaper". That part isn't even that depressing; it's probably on balance a good thing that the politicians have to consider the whole picture and do the best possible for the most people, even if that means some people get something less than they would like, it's still better than nothing. The really depressing part is that the costs are so absurd (making that political calculus a reality), and that there's no readily-identifiable easy fix for that problem, because of all of the people who benefit from those costs being so high (and, even more depressingly, who therefore have a vested interest to use their wealth and power to influence politicians against the kind of steps that would unlock more efficient construction).

So, it is a national problem to some extent, but there are some possible solutions on the way.
One option is plasma cutting. A startup called Earthgrid, which is concentrating on small utility tunnels right now, plans on transit tunnels as a phase 2. Their costs seem to be cheap enough to be transformative.
Also, if Madman Musk stopped trying to sell hyperloops lite, Boring Co's 13ft tunnels could be the basic for useful transit. Both the London deep Underground and Glasgow's subway run in slightly smaller tunnels and they should be able to built for about 40M per mile(per track) The key is achieving critical mass, having enough tunnels to support a decent sized fleet.
We keep hearing rumors of 21ft tunnels for around 40M per mile raw, but it's like Loch Ness sightings. If they ever get their shite together and could do say 55-⁶0M fitted out, then some options pop up. Nubian for say 160M plus 4 stations makes underground happen.
But other countries with comparable wage structures manage to do things much cheaper. We need to force our public officials to get it done. Why does a comparable sized garage cost 60M in Springfield and 450M in Quincy and why aren't any politicians raising holy hell?

 

[Brattle Loop]

But other countries with comparable wage structures manage to do things much cheaper. We need to force our public officials to get it done. Why does a comparable sized garage cost 60M in Springfield and 450M in Quincy and why aren't any politicians raising holy hell?

The politicians aren't raising holy hell because there's no meaningful incentive for them to do so, for the most part. It's not their money, and, on the whole, it's not that often that there's a sufficiently-sizeable constituency for (a) transit project(s) that can make life difficult for politicians who don't meet their needs. It took, what, the better part of two decades for Nubian to get it's nominal elevated replacement in the Silver Line, and even that was just an upgraded shiny bus line. It took decades upon decades for Somerville and Medford to get the GLX. Sure, the local representatives care, but they're rarely a sufficient number to make a difference all by themselves. Add to that, in this state anyway, the bizarre operating structure of the state House of Representatives means that the Speaker effectively operates as a dictator, and anything they don't care about tends to die (and a lot of them have not cared about transit).

That's the structural factor. Add in, as I referenced earlier, the fact that that cost bloat doesn't just disappear into the wind. That excess money is going into people's pockets, be it on the labor side (New York's sandhogs are somewhat infamous for this) or to construction companies, design and engineering firms, materials, who names it. A lot of those have a vested interest in politicians who don't ask questions about whether the cost estimates should be lower. And the vast majority of voters, while they might care if a project that's budgeted at 600 million clocks in at 1.2 billion, they're probably never going to even think of whether the proper question should be why it's budgeted at 600 mil instead of 350 mil. Advocacy can absolutely help out with some of these problems, both in the "getting politicians to care" part, and in the "understanding the sandbagging" part.

 

[Riverside]

Wow... the wealth of knowledge and understanding of transit network on this site is awesome (thank you @Riverside and @Brattle Loop and all the other comments). I truly enjoy it. To further clarify why I posted my crazy transit pitch:

My idea for this project is not to add light rail just to add light rail. I believe there is a need for improved transit that the dedicate bus lane will fail to deliver.

In regards to the Blue Hill Ave, Columbus Ave/Seaver, Columbia Rd corridors, to evaluate for improved transit options, I assume you consider changes in housing density (probably give additional attention to Affordable Housing, Senior Housing and Rooming Homes) and are there more places people need to go (i.e. Schools/Education, Stores, Healthcare Facilities, Public Facilities, Community Centers, Entertainment, Restaurants, Parks). My assumption would be that a transit planner would add the best transit in dense residential neighborhoods, regardless of cost. Obviously, I do not understand the economics of transit planning, but anyone living in these areas can attest to the transit issues along these streets.

The streets/corridors mention above include dense residential areas and key locations. Since there area has transit option, through the use of buses, the question is: Is the bus network along these corridors adequate for a growing area?

My thoughts:

I believe the bus network along these streets is inadequate; the frequency and reliability of the bus network in this area has reduced the possible number of transit riders (based on my opinion). With improved transit options, ridership will increase (which should help the cost justification). With faster transit and increase capacity through light rail cars, more area residents will see the benefits of using public transportation. The dedicated bus lanes will improve transit times but the bottle necks at Warren and Seaver will impact the potential of this improvement. What did Somerville and Medford show that those areas required better transit than the bus option? I have to imagine this area shows the same promise. I believe Nubian, Upham, Grove Hall, Franklin Park are all areas people need to transit to, with better transit that what is available now. If there is an existing study of adding rail along these corridor, can you let me know where to find it?

I certainly agree with you about the value of and need for transit. I’m just not convinced that the problems faced by the buses in Dorchester can be solved by light rail — it seems to me that light rail will face the same problems and in some ways be even more affected by them. (I think the “Franklin Park Line” corridor has probably the best chance of LRT being significantly more effective than buses, but even in that case it seems far from certain.)

 

[AndrewOnTheMBTA]

This is a borderline God mode proposal: I was considering a LRT line running as a cut n cover, partially tunnel bored route from Central Square in Cambridge to Washington St and Mass Ave under Mass Ave (tunneling under Mass Ave bridge under the Charles).

This would replace a good chunk of the 1 and meant to replicate CT1. There could be a possible extension to BMC and Newmarket - to fully replicate the CT1 and to connect to a future Indigo line.

If this kept going, it could connect at Columbia Rd to proposed center-running LRT proposed by others.

This is kind of a mini Crenshaw K line - connecting to ends of a system on the west side.

Also, as a connector line - it would link red to green to orange to silver and indigo (eventually). If SL was converted to F Line to Nubian, then there would be an even better connection - not to get carried away.

This is a crazy pitch especially becausd I dont think the area is dense enough. Also - cost, engineering, politics.

 

[Brattle Loop]

This is a borderline God mode proposal: I was considering a LRT line running as a cut n cover, partially tunnel bored route from Central Square in Cambridge to Washington St and Mass Ave under Mass Ave (tunneling under Mass Ave bridge under the Charles).

This would replace a good chunk of the 1 and meant to replicate CT1. There could be a possible extension to BMC and Newmarket - to fully replicate the CT1 and to connect to a future Indigo line.

If this kept going, it could connect at Columbia Rd to proposed center-running LRT proposed by others.

This is kind of a mini Crenshaw K line - connecting to ends of a system on the west side.

Also, as a connector line - it would link red to green to orange to silver and indigo (eventually). If SL was converted to F Line to Nubian, then there would be an even better connection - not to get carried away.

This is a crazy pitch especially becausd I dont think the area is dense enough. Also - cost, engineering, politics.

Interesting proposal. Let's start with the good news:

First: it's pretty feasible on basic, mandatory-step-one "physically possible" grounds. The chosen route is nice and wide, no interacting with any of those nasty-hard-to-build under narrow streets some proposals rely on (including real-world proposals...looking at you, Essex St. Silver Line...) I'm not an engineer, but I do wonder about the feasibility of boring a tunnel under a river bridge (though I'm sure the people on the Cambridge-side shore of said bridge would be able to answer that concern), but it's not direct-constrained on the land immediately adjacent to the overwater section of the bridge, so it's probably quite feasible to tunnel just offset from the bridge if necessary.

Second: it hits lots of transfers to and from the radial lines along its route, providing ample connectivity. It's quite an alluring thing, a route that direct hitting that many transfer nodes with that much width to play with. Especially if it continued to JFK/UMass, it'd get you a large-segment circumferential route bracketed by the Red Line at both ends, potentially relieving some of the downtown transfer stress on the RL.

Now, the bad news:

First: the cost. Central Square has some problems as a starting point. The Red Line tunnel is already there under Mass Ave until Main Street, meaning you have two options, both of them annoying. You can either build your terminal underneath the existing Central station, which makes for a shorter transfer and better allows for future potential extension, but which requires deeper-down tunneling and underpinning the existing station and several hundred to a thousand or so feet of existing tunnel, which increases the cost. Or, you can build the terminal south of Main Street, where you could do it shallower and cheaper, though complicating the transfer by requiring either a long (and still not free) pedestrian tunnel or a kludgy surface transfer. The Charles River tunnel would be one of the T's longer water crossings, the river is quite wide there, which will increase the cost further. Utility would require transfers to the Green (at Hynes at the very least, where you at least don't have to underpin the entire station) and Orange (at Mass Ave, where you have to dig below the Northeast Corridor) and points beyond, all of which is a lot of money in tunnels and stations. All of which exacerbates...

Two: the connectivity problem. Mass Ave almost seems like it goes out of its way to avoid any of the major transfer nodes. Hynes, Symphony, Mass Ave OL, and Mass/Washington SL are none of them major bus terminals, have no room to become major bus terminals, and are mostly (weirdly) about one stop away from a major bus terminal. That's a problem because the buses aren't going to be feeding into this line nearly as well as they are into others. So the double-transfer problem crops up; someone whose bus dumps them at Kenmore or Ruggles or Nubian would have to take the existing line one or two stops, then transfer to the new line. The existing 1 bus serves a more useful circumferential function than this proposal despite its 'worse' mode, in part because it can be fed by the big bus hubs at Nubian and Harvard. This can't do that. It just replaces the 1 bus with a more expensive, higher capacity (thus likely worse headways) mode along part of its route. Anyone whose destination isn't on the stretch between Central and Mass/Washington (or Newmarket slash JFK/UMass in a full-build version) would need to double-transfer, and they won't, they'll just ignore this line in favor of transferring at Park or DTX just like they do now.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like the idea of upgrading the Mass Ave corridor. I thought I recalled hearing something about them installing bus lanes, and if the MBTA wasn't so allergic to the very notion of street running, I could be intrigued by discussion of a surface LRT service of some kind. The circumferential service concept connecting the radial lines is genuinely beneficial and something the system absolutely could do with, but between the tunneling costs and the route missing both all the major bus hubs and Longwood Medical Area, I think it'd fail a cost-benefit analysis, especially compared to something lower-impact but much-cheaper like BRT-ing the 1.

(Not quite a pitch of my own, but I do wonder what people - @Riverside for one - would think about the prospects of a [tunneled or surface] circumferential line that missed some or all of the bus hubs but hit the LMA. Is Longwood strong enough on its own that it'd be worth sacrificing some of the bus connections if it opened up the route possibilities?)

 

[Riverside]

Somewhere waaaaaaay upthread we previously discussed a Red Line bypass branch under Mass Ave. I don't remember the reasons why, but I think we eventually concluded that it would be expensive on an order of magnitude that would make it non-competitive against other possible uses for such fabulous sums of money. In general though, I do think Mass Ave merits additional transit infrastructure.

Ironically, the notion of a mode-split Northside/Southside Urban Ring is a pretty strong reason in favor of stronger transit on Mass Ave: a weakness of the mode-split is that journeys across the mode split "axis" would force a transfer. On the east end, this is relatively easily addressed: extend your Ted Williams Tunnel BRT service past Airport station and run alongside LRT for some distance so that Chelsea <> Seaport commuters don't need to do a cross-platform transfer at Airport. (There are other ways to solve this problem on the east end of the Ring, I'm just giving an example.)

On the west end, this is harder, as the LRT corridors (e.g. Grand Junction, BU - West Station - Harvard) are less amenable to shared running with BRT. Your Northside LRT routes from Harvard and Cambridgeport have to end somewhere in the vague area of Kenmore or Longwood, and your Southside BRT routes coming from Nubian and Ruggles basically have to do the same, preventing the one-seat ride from Harvard or Cambridgeport to Nubian...

...which is exactly where Mass Ave transit (i.e. the T1) fills the gap. It's not perfect -- Allston <> Nubian journeys are still two-seaters -- but it hits the major anchors of Harvard and Nubian, and offers transfers to both trunks of Green, Orange, Washington, and potentially Blue-to-Kenmore.

So, if someone can come up with a good way to run LRT from Harvard (not Central, has to be Harvard) down Mass Ave, I'd be all for it.

@Brattle Loop I'd have to think about it. While I appreciate that you are asking a question somewhat in the abstract, I'm not sure I can think of a circumferential route through Longwood that wouldn't hit most of the bus hubs. I guess potentially there are routes that would avoid the likes of Kenmore or Ruggles, but if we did manage to swing a subway through LMA (somehow), then you'd have a case to relocate those hubs to Longwood.

Maybe something that ran from Jackson Square to Central Square?

Which of course is wildly infeasible, but which I think technically meets your criterion of "circumferential, hits LMA, misses all the bus hubs."

 

[Brattle Loop]

@Brattle Loop I'd have to think about it. While I appreciate that you are asking a question somewhat in the abstract, I'm not sure I can think of a circumferential route through Longwood that wouldn't hit most of the bus hubs. I guess potentially there are routes that would avoid the likes of Kenmore or Ruggles, but if we did manage to swing a subway through LMA (somehow), then you'd have a case to relocate those hubs to Longwood.

Yeah, I was kind of spitballing on that one. There's a couple of alignments of questionable feasibility (around Fenway and the green spaces there) that have been discussed in various pitches that get Longwood but are suboptimal at hitting some of the existing bus terminals (among many other problems), so I think I was really wondering whether if one had to choose, would it be Longwood or the buses. I agree with you that the answer to that question is that you'd do both, by moving the buses to Longwood. (So, not only do I appreciate the thoughtful response, I think that absolutely counts as an answer, and a good one at that.)

...which is exactly where Mass Ave transit (i.e. the T1) fills the gap. It's not perfect -- Allston <> Nubian journeys are still two-seaters -- but it hits the major anchors of Harvard and Nubian, and offers transfers to both trunks of Green, Orange, Washington, and potentially Blue-to-Kenmore.

So, if someone can come up with a good way to run LRT from Harvard (not Central, has to be Harvard) down Mass Ave, I'd be all for it.

Mass Ave's pretty wide. Think stealing the center lanes and median for a shared bus/surface LRT dedicated lane section (maybe semi-protected, but not a dedicated reservation) would work? There's good width there most of the way from Cambridge to Melnea Cass (and potentially up Southampton to Andrew, even). Hitting Nubian proper would be a detour off of Mass, obviously, though not for very far (at branch frequencies would a flat junction at Mass and Washington be a killer for the F-branch? Can we get a Toronto-style grand union?). I agree that Harvard need to get it, pity that there's no identifiable geometry into the bus tunnel, though.

 

[Riverside]

Mass Ave's pretty wide. Think stealing the center lanes and median for a shared bus/surface LRT dedicated lane section (maybe semi-protected, but not a dedicated reservation) would work? There's good width there most of the way from Cambridge to Melnea Cass (and potentially up Southampton to Andrew, even).

I'm relatively confident dedicated center bus lanes would be possible and maybe even locally seen as desirable in the next couple of years, which really will be a coup for the T1. From the Better Bus Profile, you can see the wide variance in travel time, including wide disparities in peak vs off-peak scheduled times, as well as poor performance of actual vs scheduled times:

I mean, like. Srsly. That's like literally twice as long due to traffic.

Hitting Nubian proper would be a detour off of Mass, obviously, though not for very far (at branch frequencies would a flat junction at Mass and Washington be a killer for the F-branch? Can we get a Toronto-style grand union?). I agree that Harvard need to get it, pity that there's no identifiable geometry into the bus tunnel, though.

I think you have to do the hookaround to hit BUMC before circling back to Nubian:

It looks less pretty on a map, but it's definitely worth it -- BUMC is a major employment center:

I just checked Google Maps, asked it for directions from Mass Ave station on the Orange Line to Nubian at 5:10pm on a Tuesday: the 1 was scheduled to take 24 minutes (!) to make the journey, which literally is as fast as walking. I compared that to the travel time at night, which is 14 minutes and a bit more reasonable. Bus lanes will be a game changer.

As for LRT… I really want it to make sense, and maybe someday it will, but I just don’t see it right now. It’s a similar problem to Dorchester — I think semi-BRT nets huge benefits and LRT then adds a premium cost on top of that but with less added benefit.

I really should write a blog post about when to crayon BRT vs LRT — I think there’s a lot of interesting ground to cover on this topic. Need to get my thoughts in order first, though.

 

[Brattle Loop]

As for LRT… I really want it to make sense, and maybe someday it will, but I just don’t see it right now. It’s a similar problem to Dorchester — I think semi-BRT nets huge benefits and LRT then adds a premium cost on top of that but with less added benefit.

I agree. If there was a Crazy Transit Pitches way of connecting to a Nubian LRT branch out of Tremont on one end and GJ LRT (or Porter, even) such that a circumferential route with direct downtown connection could be done, it might bump the benefits up to more worthwhile if it meant more load-relief on the radial lines, especially downtown, but that's a stretch, and hardly the best use of resources even when it comes to the circumferential service need.

I really should write a blog post about when to crayon BRT vs LRT — I think there’s a lot of interesting ground to cover on this topic. Need to get my thoughts in order first, though.

I'll look forward to that one.

 

[Koopzilla24]

Apologies if it’s already been said, I’m new here and couldn’t find it, but what are thoughts on the feasibility of transforming the Needham branch into an independent light rail line or shuttle from Needham Heights to Forest Hills? Similar to how the function of the Ashmont-Mattapan Line.

The branch length is about the same as the west surface portion of the GL-D branch and there could be infill stations at Baker St, Millenium Park, Greenfale Ave, and Rt 135. I feel as though this would better serve to connect Needham, WR, and Roslindale to each other and Downtown Boston. Having it be light rail would likely result in faster or similar trip times downtown despite needing to transfer at Forest Hills with the OL improvements and as the current diesel locomotives are kneecapped by the close stop spacing. It could even be renovated as a cross-platform transfer with the OL.

As it’d be a chore and costly for the city to electricity the entire branch (despite it conveniently connected to the NEC), I’d propose CAF Urbos 3 supercapacitor tram technology with overhead pantograph fast charging at the stops along the line. The MBTA already has a standing relationship with CAF and could likely strike a decent deal on this. On top of all that there’s enough space for a maintenance yard and charging facilities in the former Wye (I think) at Needham Junction.

Ideally this would extend north from Needham Heights to reconnect with the D branch between Eliot and Newton Highlands but I doubt anyone would want the greenway removed to allow that to happen.

 

[Teban54]

Some comments on the Mass Ave discussion. (Although I do take the 1 bus frequently, I rarely do so during rush hours.)

The 1 bus is already among the busiest bus routes, up there with the 66 - and that's with skipping Kenmore and Ruggles. While this may not be enough for LRT, much less tunnel LRT, the demand is clearly there to justify BRT or at least full-fledged bus lanes on the entire Mass Ave.

I also think missing Kenmore can be a blessing in disguise:

• The Mass Ave routing allows it to be much closer to the Back Bay area (@ Hynes station). Indeed, in my personal experience that's the busiest stop on a northbound 1 towards Cambridge. Whether they're commuters or shoppers, that's ridership that you won't get on a more Urban-Ring-like service through Kenmore or further west.
• Is Kenmore itself really that important of a bus hub? I don't think it's on the level of Ruggles or Nubian. The Green Line branches all go through Hynes so connection is maintained. The bus terminal at Kenmore is rather small, and with the sole exception of the 57 (though it is quite significant), all other Kenmore bus routes - 8, 19, 60, 65, even T28 in the redesign - head towards LMA first. If we're talking about a route that's allowed to deviate from Mass Ave, it's probably better to find a way to get to LMA so that you still connect to these buses.

Of course, the existing Mass Ave routing obviously doesn't come close to serving LMA. My main point is more that missing Kenmore or LMA isn't undermining the route's utility, and it should be seen as its own ROW, with unique demands that gravitate from Hynes, BUMC and transfers to all the east-west subway lines. Let Urban Ring do the job for the LMA crowds.

I also think the 1's current demand in Cambridge is more local than one may think. More than half the riders in Cambridge that cross the river board at Central or south of it, both in my experience and in the figures that @Riverside posted above. They're either transfers from the Red Line (I kind of doubt it, and for them whether the line goes to Harvard won't matter that much), or Cambridge residents. So I don't think too many people are transferring from other Harvard buses to the 1. While reaching Harvard is obviously great for the network, the line still has value even if that's too challenging (especially for a tunnel LRT).

Missing Nubian would be a big problem, however. That's why I do agree BRT is more realistic.

Mass Ave theoretically has enough width to support bus lanes (even on Harvard bridge with some modifications and/or if we opt for bus/bike lanes). However, a portion of Mass Ave between Memorial Dr and Albany St (Cambridge) through MIT was repainted this summer with brand new bus lanes, yet they still don't cover the entire stretch in both directions. There are still junctions where bus lanes were given up for separate left/straight traffic lanes. I think it will still take significantly more work and political power to BRT-ify the whole route.