Crazy Transit Pitches

[Riverside]

I think the only thing you'd need to ensure it would work is the wheel profile, which is different for LRT and HRT based on performance requirements. The LRT may be restricted in speed, which would probably be okay for non-revenue service. I'm unsure of regulatory requirements for running LRT on HRT but they both fall under the FTA jurisdiction so it may be possible. I think the tougher part for your proposal for the red line would be building a connection from the red line tunnel at Porter (deepest in the system) to an at-grade connection with extended green line tracks where there's little space in the ROW.

Oh, good point about the wheel profiles. Sounds like it’s time for some dual-gauge tracks! (Mostly kidding.)

Yeah, to clarify about a Red/Green interface — I was assuming LRT would continue west from Porter at grade and then turn north along the old Lexington Branch ROW, with a portal of some kind north of Alewife (ie north of where the current tail tracks have their curve). Do I have any clue where I would put this portal? No I do not. Does that potentially kill this idea dead? Yes it very well might.

 

[The EGE]

For non-revenue moves at some restricted speed, the wheel profile issue probably isn't physically a blocker. From 1924 to 1952, East Boston Tunnel (now Blue Line) trains only had a small maintenance facility at Maverick. For heavier work, they were operated on ex-streetcar trackage from the Joy Street Portal to the Longfellow Bridge, where they switched onto Cambridge-Dorchester Line (now Red Line) tracks to get to Eliot Shops (near Harvard Square). From 1956 to 1971, Mattapan Line streetcars were regularly towed between Ashmont and Bennett Yard (next to Eliot) behind non-revenue Red Line trains, using a special coupler to match coupler heights.

Financially, both of those moves were only practical because almost everything already existed - the connections at Eliot/Bennett and Ashmont already existed to transfer work equipment, and Longfellow just required a couple of new switches and some gates. Anything that involves major construction like that Alewife portal is probably going to be more expensive than the solution currently used on the Mattapan Line: have a small facility for running maintenance, and truck to Everett or Riverside for the rare major work.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

I'm convinced that RLX has to go all the way to 128 if it's ever going to be built because Arlington (and I imagine Lexington would be too) don't want their town to have the last stop. And it's probably have to be a tunnel all the way too. Which would blow out the costs.

I can't remember if it's in the original 1947 Metropolitan Transit Recess Commission report, or one of its follow-ups in subsequent years, but one idea they floated was a Mattapan Trolley-style setup at a then-future Alewife station with lines running north through Arlington and Lexington and (IIRC) out to Waltham along the commuter rail tracks.

In a regional rail world, I doubt that the Waltham route makes any sense these days, but if you could make LRT and bikes play nice together on the Watertown branch line and the Minuteman ROW out to Bedford or Hartwell Ave. in Lexington, would Type 10s have enough capacity to support future growth in either place?

 

[Charlie_mta]

For non-revenue moves at some restricted speed, the wheel profile issue probably isn't physically a blocker. From 1924 to 1952, East Boston Tunnel (now Blue Line) trains only had a small maintenance facility at Maverick. For heavier work, they were operated on ex-streetcar trackage from the Joy Street Portal to the Longfellow Bridge, where they switched onto Cambridge-Dorchester Line (now Red Line) tracks to get to Eliot Shops (near Harvard Square). From 1956 to 1971, Mattapan Line streetcars were regularly towed between Ashmont and Bennett Yard (next to Eliot) behind non-revenue Red Line trains, using a special coupler to match coupler heights.

Financially, both of those moves were only practical because almost everything already existed - the connections at Eliot/Bennett and Ashmont already existed to transfer work equipment, and Longfellow just required a couple of new switches and some gates. Anything that involves major construction like that Alewife portal is probably going to be more expensive than the solution currently used on the Mattapan Line: have a small facility for running maintenance, and truck to Everett or Riverside for the rare major work.

When I was a kid back in the 1950s I used to see holders for overhead trolley car wires on the ceiling above the tracks in the (now) Red Line stations. The wire was gone but the holders were still there. Does anyone know what the overhead trolley wire was used for?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

When I was a kid back in the 1950s I used to see holders for overhead trolley car wires on the ceiling above the tracks in the (now) Red Line stations. The wire was gone but the holders were still there. Does anyone know what the overhead trolley wire was used for?

Work equipment. BERy and the MTA had specialized electric work vehicles that ran on trolley wire, so they could be used across the entirety of the system. In the modern era almost all of that specialty work equipment is diesel, so there's no need for the overhead wire.

 

[ritchiew]

Ok, my first crazy transit pitch:

A Red Line extension to Arlington Heights should include a stop at Lake Street and Mass Ave. Call it East Arlington Station. That point is in the middle of the most population dense part of Arlington, and would be about a mile from Davis, Alewife, or Arlington Center. This would require not following the Minuteman path, at least for the portion south of AC. But not doing it would mean building rapid transit that goes a long way to skip over the densest part of town.

So first, this is the most population dense part of Arlington. Most of the town is single family homes, but this area isn’t. It’s all duplexes on small lots, plus some pockets of apartment buildings. To roughly quantify it, I was just looking at populations in census blocks within a quarter mile from different possible stations in Arlington. AH = 3589; AC = 3109; EA = 4792. That ordering holds true any way I can find to look at. And there are other draws to that intersection, like restaurants, shops, and a historic movie theater. It' small, but there's stuff there.

Next, why not just follow the Minuteman and put the station where it intersects with Lake Street? That’s only a quarter mile away from my proposed spot on Mass Ave, but that makes a big difference. The walk shed would start getting cut off by the pond and the highway, and also move farther away from apartments north of nearby Broadway. (To be clear, that reduced walkshed would still probably have more people than at AC.) Also, having the station on Mass Ave would be much better for bus connections, and closer to amenities.

So to include an East Arlington Station, there are a couple of routes the RL could take. 1) Past Alewife, tunnel under homes towards Lake and Mass Ave. From there, follow Mass Ave north to AC, and then just follow the Minuteman the rest of the way, like is usually proposed. Or 2) past Davis, split the RL into two branches at Mass Ave. One would go north under Mass Ave until AC. The other would follow the current path to Alewife, with the possibility of extending it further along the Fitchburg line to Belmont or Waltham.
Those two options look like this:

 

[Tallguy]

Option 1 is interesting, but it would at least double the cost

 

[-anarresti-]

I've been interested for a while in how to bring LRT to the Seaport and to Southie, so to that end, I submit my first crazy transit pitch: A loop line through South Station.

The key contingency in all of this is the sale and redevelopment of the USPS Fort Point facility. Removing it from the picture makes a few interesting things possible.

After leaving Broadway, trolleys would serve the big new development, following a pedestrianized Dorchester Ave and then turning off into a portal where it would connect to the existing Silver Line tunnel by blowing through the bus loop there. Trolleys would serve the existing transitway stations until Silver Line Way, then follow Summer St into Southie and back up along Broadway.

I imagine that this line would be an especially good, nearly 1-1 replacement for the frequently overcrowded 7 bus, bringing a large boost in frequency, capacity, and rider-comfort, and would follow a better alignment by hitting the denser parts of the Waterfront. The weekend boost to ridership between Downtown, the Seaport, and Southie would presumably be quite large. Benefits over the 9 bus are a bit less certain, since crosstown commuters would need to transfer at Broadway in order to continue on toward Back Bay, though at AM peak Broadway is by-far the most common stop for alightings for riders coming from Southie, so this would benefit that set of riders quite a bit while hurting crosstown connectivity.

What would be the fate of SL1/3? Well I imagine that buses would start to turn around at Silver Line Way, not entering the transitway, killing the one seat ride from South Station to the Airport and to Chelsea. However, imagining that Red-Blue comes to fruition beforehand and with SL6/7 better-connecting Chelsea on the other side, perhaps it can be stomached. With a faster trip on LRT to Silver Line Way, a free transfer, ditching the mode-switch, and perhaps allowing the Silver Line to take the State Police ramp into the Ted Williams tunnel, trips from South Station to the Airport and to Chelsea may even become more appealing, in spite of the transfer.

As others have mentioned before, space for a yard is pretty tight down here, so some property-takings are inevitable. The only spot that I could identify is at the Massport site at 85 Fargo St, which you can see I just sort of crayoned-in. It's on the other side of Summer St though, so I'm not sure how that intersection would need to be reconfigured to make this feasible (perhaps via a trench, but is there even enough room for the inclines on both ends to work, and will the water table simply make it a nightmare?)

Also, does anyone know whether extending the Silver Line tunnel to Dorchester Ave would block NSRL tunnels? If so, my plan should of obviously be regarded as dead on arrival.

So, is a short loop line with only a single in-station transfer to just one other rapid transit service a recipe for low-ridership? Sydney Monorail 2.0? Clearly it does have a few major drawbacks. I can't compare it to any of the plans that call for a reconfigured Green Line to feed a Huntington Ave subway into South Station and to the Seaport, mostly because I don't have the expertise. It would be significantly cheaper, though, and in my mind readily achievable as a medium-term project. But is it the best project for the long-term? I highly doubt it, and there are other projects elsewhere that are more important. Enjoyable thought experiment though.

 

[Tallguy]

So, you could retain a one seat to the airport by either a) running them up to the roof of the bus station or b)running them in the Transitway tunnel with steering guides on the wheels to allow similar speeds

 

[Teban54]

I've been interested for a while in how to bring LRT to the Seaport and to Southie, so to that end, I submit my first crazy transit pitch: A loop line through South Station.

View attachment 39234

First of all, that's a pretty creative proposal! I've seen a few pitches of light rail lines connecting Seaport to South Boston and beyond, but can't recall anyone suggesting an extension from the South Station end to Broadway.

That said, unfortunately it may face some issues getting out of South Station. @F-Line to Dudley has mentioned a few times that an extension of the Transitway south of South Station is likely infeasible due to vertical space constraints, as the current South Station SL level and the bus turnback loop to the south are just above an I-93 ramp.

A few quick searches gave me the following posts: this, this and this.

I'm not sure if a trajectory to the southeast is feasible by avoiding the conflict with I-93, especially if you plan on abandoning the bus loop and making the tunnel LRT only.

I imagine that this line would be an especially good, nearly 1-1 replacement for the frequently overcrowded 7 bus, bringing a large boost in frequency, capacity, and rider-comfort, and would follow a better alignment by hitting the denser parts of the Waterfront. T

I'll say that's a no, for two reasons:

• The 7 bus has substantial boarding east of L St, which your proposed route does not capture.
• The 7 also has many passengers alighting in the Financial District and Downtown Crossing, which are also not served by your route.

These are best illustrated in the bus route profile as shown below. Keep in mind this was pre-Covid, when the 7 ran frequent short-turn trips at South Station, resulting in more than half the AM peak inbound trips not serving downtown. This is no longer true today.

I took a look at the more recent data from Fall 2022. On weekday inbound trips in a single day, on average:

• 295 riders board between City Point Terminal and P St. The O St and P St stops, where most of these boardings occur, require a 10-min walk from your route.
• 200 riders board at N St (5-min walk from your route).
• 559 riders board at the L St stops, which are on your route.

So about 47% of riders board at stops that will be removed in your proposal, with half of them requiring a non-trivial walk.

And then there's additional walking at the other end of the route. Comparing South Station alightings and downtown alightings:

• 591 riders alight at South Station.
• 673 riders alight at the two downtown stops (Franklin @ Devonshire, Otis @ Summer). The former accounts for roughly 2/3 of these alightings (457 riders). Franklin @ Devonshire is a 6-min walk from South Station, but some offices may be further north.

Once again, more than half of the existing riders will be inconvenienced by the proposal at the downtown end alone.

An argument can be made that it's manageable and worth the tradeoff for better service, but that's still a very significant amount of riders - probably three quarters of people who take the 7 today will need to walk more to take your proposed line.

What would be the fate of SL1/3? Well I imagine that buses would start to turn around at Silver Line Way, not entering the transitway, killing the one seat ride from South Station to the Airport and to Chelsea. However, imagining that Red-Blue comes to fruition beforehand and with SL6/7 better-connecting Chelsea on the other side, perhaps it can be stomached. With a faster trip on LRT to Silver Line Way, a free transfer, ditching the mode-switch, and perhaps allowing the Silver Line to take the State Police ramp into the Ted Williams tunnel, trips from South Station to the Airport and to Chelsea may even become more appealing, in spite of the transfer.

Handling SL1/3 in a world with the Transitway being turned into LRT has been discussed somewhat frequently here. Among current ideas, the two most notable ones (that do not involve mixing LRT with BRT in the Transitway) are:

• Send both bus routes to Summer St, where there's some effort at BRT infrastructure being planned, and terminate at street level at South Station (or the new bus terminal under construction, which will be much closer to the station - correct me if I'm wrong)
• Make the SL1 express from South Station to Logan Airport, skipping Seaport; SL3 goes to Summer St
  • Rationale: Relatively few riders utilize the Logan-Seaport connection, as most SL1 riders are travelling either Logan-SS or Seaport-SS
  • SL3 mayyy be able to terminate within Seaport in a post-Red-Blue world

I do think South Station is a non-negotiable for both routes at least before Red-Blue. (Most of) SL1's riders from Logan are going to South Station to connect to the subway, especially the Red Line, and commuter rail. SL3's riders - from both Chelsea and Blue Line transfers - additionally see South Station as a way to get to the Financial District, with a one-seat ride from Chelsea. A forced transfer at Silver Line Way or WTC just doesn't make the cut, especially for SL1.

SL3 does need to keep serving Seaport, as it has significant Chelsea-Seaport and Airport Station (BL)-Seaport markets.

@Riverside has done some excellent analyses on ridership patterns on SL1 and SL3. He may be able to add more to the discussion.

Also, does anyone know whether extending the Silver Line tunnel to Dorchester Ave would block NSRL tunnels? If so, my plan should of obviously be regarded as dead on arrival.

IIRC, the NSRL tunnels will be way below the Silver Line platform level at South Station, so that itself is not a concern.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I've been interested for a while in how to bring LRT to the Seaport and to Southie, so to that end, I submit my first crazy transit pitch: A loop line through South Station.

View attachment 39234

The key contingency in all of this is the sale and redevelopment of the USPS Fort Point facility. Removing it from the picture makes a few interesting things possible.

After leaving Broadway, trolleys would serve the big new development, following a pedestrianized Dorchester Ave and then turning off into a portal where it would connect to the existing Silver Line tunnel by blowing through the bus loop there. Trolleys would serve the existing transitway stations until Silver Line Way, then follow Summer St into Southie and back up along Broadway.

I imagine that this line would be an especially good, nearly 1-1 replacement for the frequently overcrowded 7 bus, bringing a large boost in frequency, capacity, and rider-comfort, and would follow a better alignment by hitting the denser parts of the Waterfront. The weekend boost to ridership between Downtown, the Seaport, and Southie would presumably be quite large. Benefits over the 9 bus are a bit less certain, since crosstown commuters would need to transfer at Broadway in order to continue on toward Back Bay, though at AM peak Broadway is by-far the most common stop for alightings for riders coming from Southie, so this would benefit that set of riders quite a bit while hurting crosstown connectivity.

What would be the fate of SL1/3? Well I imagine that buses would start to turn around at Silver Line Way, not entering the transitway, killing the one seat ride from South Station to the Airport and to Chelsea. However, imagining that Red-Blue comes to fruition beforehand and with SL6/7 better-connecting Chelsea on the other side, perhaps it can be stomached. With a faster trip on LRT to Silver Line Way, a free transfer, ditching the mode-switch, and perhaps allowing the Silver Line to take the State Police ramp into the Ted Williams tunnel, trips from South Station to the Airport and to Chelsea may even become more appealing, in spite of the transfer.

As others have mentioned before, space for a yard is pretty tight down here, so some property-takings are inevitable. The only spot that I could identify is at the Massport site at 85 Fargo St, which you can see I just sort of crayoned-in. It's on the other side of Summer St though, so I'm not sure how that intersection would need to be reconfigured to make this feasible (perhaps via a trench, but is there even enough room for the inclines on both ends to work, and will the water table simply make it a nightmare?)

View attachment 39213

Also, does anyone know whether extending the Silver Line tunnel to Dorchester Ave would block NSRL tunnels? If so, my plan should of obviously be regarded as dead on arrival.

So, is a short loop line with only a single in-station transfer to just one other rapid transit service a recipe for low-ridership? Sydney Monorail 2.0? Clearly it does have a few major drawbacks. I can't compare it to any of the plans that call for a reconfigured Green Line to feed a Huntington Ave subway into South Station and to the Seaport, mostly because I don't have the expertise. It would be significantly cheaper, though, and in my mind readily achievable as a medium-term project. But is it the best project for the long-term? I highly doubt it, and there are other projects elsewhere that are more important. Enjoyable thought experiment though.

As hinted at in the follow-up posts, the SL bus loop is not under Atlantic Ave, it is over at the word South in your map, Essex and Surface. There are also Big Big I-93 and ramp tunnels under both Atlantic and Surface. There is no way to take the SL tunnel south in ANY ALIGNMENT south of the loop. The only access is from the west. So there is no way to get over to Dorchester Ave in a tunnel.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

As hinted at in the follow-up posts, the SL bus loop is not under Atlantic Ave, it is over at the word South in your map, Essex and Surface. There are also Big Big I-93 and ramp tunnels under both Atlantic and Surface. There is no way to take the SL tunnel south in ANY ALIGNMENT south of the loop. The only access is from the west. So there is no way to get over to Dorchester Ave in a tunnel.

The loop's under Atlantic, but the dead-endedness of the stub is because of the orientation of the I-93 tunnels as they rise to the South Bay portal. They infringe on the SL tunnel's level as you advance down Atlantic.

The corner of Atlantic/Essex is where the wall is notched for the hook-in for the unbuilt SL Phase III. Essex is utility cleanroomed by the Big Dig to Surface Rd. for a tunnel (from somewhere) to be built, as that's the only feasible entrypoint. But there's no actual tunnel under there today.

 

[Tallguy]

The loop's under Atlantic, but the dead-endedness of the stub is because of the orientation of the I-93 tunnels as they rise to the South Bay portal. They infringe on the SL tunnel's level as you advance down Atlantic.

The corner of Atlantic/Essex is where the wall is notched for the hook-in for the unbuilt SL Phase III. Essex is utility cleanroomed by the Big Dig to Surface Rd. for a tunnel (from somewhere) to be built, as that's the only feasible entrypoint. But there's no actual tunnel under there today.

The only remotely possibly feasible way would be through the old subway loop under SS tracks, although I don't know their respective elevations AND IF the foundations of the bus station and the new tower have completely obliterated the possible path.
And further caveat, I am not advocating for this instead of a GL connection as described above

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The only remotely possibly feasible way would be through the old subway loop under SS tracks, although I don't know their respective elevations AND IF the foundations of the bus station and the new tower have completely obliterated the possible path.
And further caveat, I am not advocating for this instead of a GL connection as described above

The old underground RR turning loop was at a very shallow level, in the building basement. You basically pass by the former connection to the loop platform when walking down the stairs to the Red/Silver mezzanine, with the old platform area cannibalized for basement office space. It's one whole level above the actual Silver Line tunnel, so a direct interface (even assuming, as you mention, that the leads are still unimpacted) isn't possible.

 

[Vagabond]

Ok, my first crazy transit pitch:

A Red Line extension to Arlington Heights should include a stop at Lake Street and Mass Ave. Call it East Arlington Station. That point is in the middle of the most population dense part of Arlington, and would be about a mile from Davis, Alewife, or Arlington Center. This would require not following the Minuteman path, at least for the portion south of AC. But not doing it would mean building rapid transit that goes a long way to skip over the densest part of town.

So first, this is the most population dense part of Arlington. Most of the town is single family homes, but this area isn’t. It’s all duplexes on small lots, plus some pockets of apartment buildings. To roughly quantify it, I was just looking at populations in census blocks within a quarter mile from different possible stations in Arlington. AH = 3589; AC = 3109; EA = 4792. That ordering holds true any way I can find to look at. And there are other draws to that intersection, like restaurants, shops, and a historic movie theater. It' small, but there's stuff there.

Next, why not just follow the Minuteman and put the station where it intersects with Lake Street? That’s only a quarter mile away from my proposed spot on Mass Ave, but that makes a big difference. The walk shed would start getting cut off by the pond and the highway, and also move farther away from apartments north of nearby Broadway. (To be clear, that reduced walkshed would still probably have more people than at AC.) Also, having the station on Mass Ave would be much better for bus connections, and closer to amenities.

So to include an East Arlington Station, there are a couple of routes the RL could take. 1) Past Alewife, tunnel under homes towards Lake and Mass Ave. From there, follow Mass Ave north to AC, and then just follow the Minuteman the rest of the way, like is usually proposed. Or 2) past Davis, split the RL into two branches at Mass Ave. One would go north under Mass Ave until AC. The other would follow the current path to Alewife, with the possibility of extending it further along the Fitchburg line to Belmont or Waltham.
Those two options look like this:
View attachment 39190View attachment 39191

Keep your plan of Red from Davis up Mass Ave and skip Alewife.

I despise Alewife - it's just a terrible clusterfuck, the building is falling down, and its primary purpose is to support further out suburbs and bus connections.

You can't get rid of it without 2 features.
1 - adding a larger station somewhere farther out easily accessible from route 2. Probably on the Lex/Arl line at Rt 2
2- maintaining some level of T service to the growing Alewife business district, but scaled to the neighborhood (I.e. not heavy rail). This is accomplished by extending the GLXUnion past Porter to Fresh Pond (or beyond)


EDIT: Before the "95 or bust" crowd chimes in... it's a very steep dropoff of population density outside of Arlington. Your added "riders per mile" gets pretty ugly if you add in Lexington.

 

[Koopzilla24]

Keep your plan of Red from Davis up Mass Ave and skip Alewife.

I despise Alewife - it's just a terrible clusterfuck, the building is falling down, and its primary purpose is to support further out suburbs and bus connections.

You can't get rid of it without 2 features.
1 - adding a larger station somewhere farther out easily accessible from route 2. Probably on the Lex/Arl line at Rt 2
2- maintaining some level of T service to the growing Alewife business district, but scaled to the neighborhood (I.e. not heavy rail). This is accomplished by extending the GLXUnion past Porter to Fresh Pond (or beyond)


EDIT: Before the "95 or bust" crowd chimes in... it's a very steep dropoff of population density outside of Arlington. Your added "riders per mile" gets pretty ugly if you add in Lexington.
View attachment 39371

At least in the case of extension to Lexington, they’ve wanted it for 50+ years and have actively been open to densifying. They went above and beyond with the new zoning mandate and residents are vocal about the need for more affordable housing in the town. A Red Line extension there could be a catalyst for a new transit oriented developments on the oversized downtown parking lots adjacent to the old cutoff ROW.

 

[Charlie_mta]

At least in the case of extension to Lexington, they’ve wanted it for 50+ years and have actively been open to densifying. They went above and beyond with the new zoning mandate and residents are vocal about the need for more affordable housing in the town. A Red Line extension there could be a catalyst for a new transit oriented developments on the oversized downtown parking lots adjacent to the old cutoff ROW.

That's encouraging to hear about Lexington's receptivity to an RLX. If Arlington is still against it, then build RLX to Lexington with no stations at all in Arlington. Not a good transportation planning solution, but maybe a good pragmatic one.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

That's encouraging to hear about Lexington's receptivity to an RLX. If Arlington is still against it, then build RLX to Lexington with no stations at all in Arlington. Not a good transportation planning solution, but maybe a good pragmatic one.

Arlington no longer opposes.

 

[Teban54]

So now the main obstacles for RLX are funding and Minuteman?

Unfortunately, the former will likely remain a problem for the foreseeable future.

 

[BostonBoy]

The old underground RR turning loop was at a very shallow level, in the building basement. You basically pass by the former connection to the loop platform when walking down the stairs to the Red/Silver mezzanine, with the old platform area cannibalized for basement office space. It's one whole level above the actual Silver Line tunnel, so a direct interface (even assuming, as you mention, that the leads are still unimpacted) isn't possible.