Crazy Transit Pitches

[Riverside]

This is a terminology mix-up.

...

Back to the mix-up:


The “surface GL branches” are not rapid transit nor do they function as rapid transit (except arguably, the GLX, but that doesn’t appear to be what you’re referring to). Rather, it’s light rail, with only one (the Green Line E branch) running regular service on an undivided street. One could use the term streetcar/tram when referring to this section.

So, like I said, there are many words that can be used to describe the difference between streetcars/trams and rapid transit (also known as metro or heavy rail): grade separation, speed, capacity, dedicated right-of-way, infrastructure, distance between stations, vehicle size, network scale.

I hope this helps and I know this terminology can be tricky, nuanced, and have overlap.

Ultimately you can use whatever words you want in whatever way you want. But using these terms the way they are understood both generally and by those reading this forum will help you be understood better. Over my decade of being way too active on this board I’ve often thought that having a terms and abbreviations reference page would be helpful. That’s all I was trying to help with.

If you don’t want to use these terms in the same way they are generally used and understood, it’s your prerogative and no big deal to me. You may run into more of these confusions, though. I enjoy reading your posts, nonetheless, and welcome to this forum! I hope you remain an active contributor for years to come.

Have a nice day!

I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful here. I do want to say, 1) I significantly disagree with your interpretation of the term "rapid transit", and 2) this is just my personal opinion, but I do feel the way you've presented this sounds a bit condescending and dismissive. I am mindful that I myself often "over-explain" and probably sound condescending and dismissive as well, so I don't mean to be harsh.

But I think the term "rapid transit" is particularly vague and almost always requires additional clarification; you've suggested here that there are hard-and-fast rules about what "counts" as rapid transit, and you've used that claim to dismiss the (actually very different) point that TheRatmeister was making:

One last note: What separates rapid transit lines from streetcar/tram routes? In my mind, it's one word: Frequency. Rapid transit lines should provide 10m headways or lower on an extended, cohesive corridor, rather than achieving this with merging many services onto a shorter trunk route. That's why Columbus Ave doesn't get to be a rapid transit line on this map. As you can see on the map however, rapid transit style LRT service can certainly coexist with a local streetcar service, I think BHA is an excellent example of where this makes sense.

To me, this reads as a point about the "placemaking" aspects of the question, "What gets shown on the T map with the same visual language as the Red, Orange, Blue, and Green Lines?" Regardless of any broader definition of "rapid transit", the question at hand here is a very specific one about Boston's context and local ideas about what constitutes a "line". And in that context, the broader definition really doesn't matter (even if it should).

@TheRatmeister, I think this is a very cool map! I've thought about similar things (and in fact have a draft blog post entitled "Light Rail for All"), and I like how you are trying to tease out a niche where LRT rolling stock is used for slightly lower-frequency service that would feel meaningfully different in character from, for example, the Green Line.

Some assorted thoughts:

Aqua Line: what's your thinking on your current Pleasant St alignment vs continuing with median-running on Route 20 all the way to Waltham Central Square?

GL F: I like the thought process you've used on the rest of the map, and along those lines my challenge to you would be to find an interesting way to split this route into two. For example, I've been playing around with a Park St <> MLK Blvd route complemented by a route that runs along Blue Hill Ave + Seaver St. You have some other routes on this map of similar length, like that Medford-Revere route, but I think, for example, the Medford-Revere route works because the Revere Beach Parkway and the rest of Route 16 have already taken care of pruning traffic lights and intersections, which speeds up travel. Blue Hill Ave, by contrast, looks like it has a crosswalk roughly every 1000 feet or less, while Revere Beach Parkway, by comparison, appears to run the entire 1.4 mile stretch between Winthrop Ave and Garfield Ave without a single crosswalk. (What the actual eff, jeez. I mean, it's good for your map, but jeez.)

To be clear, I agree that the entire GL F corridor merits the kind of service you're describing, I just think it shouldn't be a single service.

2: I like the idea of a branching Mass Ave service! Especially one that still serves Nubian! You could also instead/additionally run a Kendall-Mass Ave-Ruggles-Nubian service along the route you've shown here, which would fill a gap @Teban54 and I have been chatting about.

16: You might consider rerouting this directly through Franklin Park. Yes, it would have to be in mixed traffic, but it would be much more direct, and it would be an absolutely gorgeous ride. (It could be worth trying to estimate the speeds on Morton + Blue Hill under your current alignment and compare them to possible speeds through the park itself -- my wild guess is that Morton + Blue Hill would not be fast enough to offset the longer distance.)

Here's ones I wanted to include or considering including but opted not to:

• Ashmont-JFK via Gallivan and Morrissey: I felt like it paralleled the RL too much and didn't serve a huge purpose
• American Legion Hwy: Mainly strip malls and big box stores, not a great route without major redevelopment
• Hyde Park Ave: Mostly too narrow, also generally parallels the CR, why not just improve that?
• Washington St (Brighton): Again, too narrow. If all the street parking is removed then maybe it's possible but good luck with that. That one can go in the god-mode thread for now.
• Mass Ave north of Harvard Sq: Again felt like it paralleled the RL too much to make sense
• Blue Hills Pkwy south of Mattapan: If Milton really wants it they can pay for it, but we all no that's a no and a no.
• Talbot Ave: Again, slightly too narrow, would require removing all the street parking
• The 66: Even with all the street parking removed it would still likely require mixed traffic running, and lots of the street parking removal would need to happen in Brookline, see previous post in this thread.

I'd urge you to reconsider Hyde Park Ave and the 77's corridor (Mass Ave to Arlington). The 32 along Hyde Park Ave is a Top 10 ridership route, with ridership figures in the ballpark of the Green Line C Branch, and historically ran at frequencies equal or better than the Braintree Branch every day until 10pm, except Sundays. The Better Bus Profile noted that overcrowding was a significant problem on the route. To me, that points to the rare situation where mixed street-running light rail can still be the right move, since LRT vehicles are always going to beat diesel buses on capacity.

The 77 is not quite the behemoth that the 32 is, but it still is a high ridership route running along a relatively wide street. I can understand some hesitance about paralleling the Red Line all the way to Harvard (although note that a large fraction of riders still go all the way to Harvard, suggesting that it is their final destination, rather than transferring to the Red at the earlier opportunity at Porter), but in that case why not terminate at Porter, or reclaim part of the bike path to terminate at Davis?

My particular nitpicks notwithstanding, it's a very cool map and a cool concept!

 

[Riverside]

If you're trying to convert Track 61 to rapid transit with this scheme, be aware that there's no room for a second track and no room for station platforms in the cut so the headways and access would be borderline useless. As well as there being manifold problems on how to actually connect it to a rapid transit source given the mass of mission-critical infrastructure near Southampton and the fact that the NSRL lead tunnel would be traveling very shallow underground in that same area blocking a tunnel interface.

You might not have read the posts upthread with context. The idea here is that Track 61 would be fed by a light rail line that hooks up into Broadway Upper's old streetcar tunnel (via a short tunnel under, e.g. East 4th St), viaducts across Cabot Yard, and joins a subway under I-93 or Albany St to head south toward Nubian. There are definitely problems with that plan (in particular, how you get from a Cabot Yard viaduct into a subway under the highway), but they steer well clear of Southampton and stay well above the South Bay NSRL tunnel.

Also:

be aware that there's no room for a second track

Citation please? As mentioned above, the cut appears to be 60 feet wide, and even without relocating any of the pavement, the "rail half" of the cut seems to be 30 feet wide, which (assuming GLX track spacing) I think should be fine for light rail?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Citation please? As mentioned above, the cut appears to be 60 feet wide, and even without relocating any of the pavement, the "rail half" of the cut seems to be 30 feet wide, which (assuming GLX track spacing) I think should be fine for light rail?

The rail portion isn't anywhere close to that spacious. Between Dot Ave. and W. 2nd St. it's about 15-17 ft. wide. There's no way to widen it without deleting the Haul Road outright.

 

[Riverside]

The rail portion isn't anywhere close to that spacious. Between Dot Ave. and W. 2nd St. it's about 15-17 ft. wide. There's no way to widen it without deleting the Haul Road outright.

Yeah, I got confused when I cited the 30' figure. 15-17 feet seems like a bit of an undermeasurement -- looks closer to 20 to me -- but either way, the cut itself looks to be pretty consistently at least 55 feet wide.

That is tight, but it seems like an overstatement to suggest that there will be no choice but to delete the Haul Road. Plus, the only direct abutters I see are south of West Fifth St -- out of scope of the area being discussed. If even 5 feet can be reclaimed to widen the ROW to an even 60 feet, then you've got what should be plenty of room for two LRT tracks and two lanes of traffic with shoulders:

It's not a guarantee of course, but I don't think it's a matter of "must delete Haul Road".

 

[TheRatmeister]

To me, this reads as a point about the "placemaking" aspects of the question, "What gets shown on the T map with the same visual language as the Red, Orange, Blue, and Green Lines?" Regardless of any broader definition of "rapid transit", the question at hand here is a very specific one about Boston's context and local ideas about what constitutes a "line". And in that context, the broader definition really doesn't matter (even if it should).

@TheRatmeister, I think this is a very cool map! I've thought about similar things (and in fact have a draft blog post entitled "Light Rail for All"), and I like how you are trying to tease out a niche where LRT rolling stock is used for slightly lower-frequency service that would feel meaningfully different in character from, for example, the Green Line.

You've hit the nail right on the head, and you've said it much better than I did.

Aqua Line: what's your thinking on your current Pleasant St alignment vs continuing with median-running on Route 20 all the way to Waltham Central Square?

For the Aqua line, it seems like there's a ~1300m section along Main St where median running wouldn't be possible without removing a whole lot of street parking. It does seem like the parking here is underutilized so maybe it wouldn't be a problem but it does somewhat go against the idea of the map. The total mixed traffic sections along Elm St and Pleasant St would only be around 500m, and they seem to be much less busy. Another factor is that The Chemistry seems to have huge potential for redevelopment as a kinda run down industrial area near a CR station, and having a line running through it could be a major boon. That being said, it's certainly a less elegant route and maybe I'm overestimating the value of the Main St street parking, and building that whole section as median running is the best solution. I don't really think there's a clear winner here.

GL F: I like the thought process you've used on the rest of the map, and along those lines my challenge to you would be to find an interesting way to split this route into two. For example, I've been playing around with a Park St <> MLK Blvd route complemented by a route that runs along Blue Hill Ave + Seaver St. You have some other routes on this map of similar length, like that Medford-Revere route, but I think, for example, the Medford-Revere route works because the Revere Beach Parkway and the rest of Route 16 have already taken care of pruning traffic lights and intersections, which speeds up travel. Blue Hill Ave, by contrast, looks like it has a crosswalk roughly every 1000 feet or less, while Revere Beach Parkway, by comparison, appears to run the entire 1.4 mile stretch between Winthrop Ave and Garfield Ave without a single crosswalk. (What the actual eff, jeez. I mean, it's good for your map, but jeez.)

To be clear, I agree that the entire GL F corridor merits the kind of service you're describing, I just think it shouldn't be a single service.

For the F branch BHA would need a more complete redesign and should have many of its cross streets removed. (Frankly Beacon St, Comm Ave, and Huntington Ave need this too.) But I'm certainly open to the idea that maybe south of Seaver St frequency should be achieved through interlining these smaller routes rather than having one super frequent one. Again, food for thought.

2: I like the idea of a branching Mass Ave service! Especially one that still serves Nubian! You could also instead/additionally run a Kendall-Mass Ave-Ruggles-Nubian service along the route you've shown here, which would fill a gap @Teban54 and I have been chatting about.

Definitely a possibility, but I think this would end up being most useful during peak times and not super useful outside those times, maybe a peak only or high-frequency peak/lower frequency off-peak service makes sense for this one.

16: You might consider rerouting this directly through Franklin Park. Yes, it would have to be in mixed traffic, but it would be much more direct, and it would be an absolutely gorgeous ride. (It could be worth trying to estimate the speeds on Morton + Blue Hill under your current alignment and compare them to possible speeds through the park itself -- my wild guess is that Morton + Blue Hill would not be fast enough to offset the longer distance.)

You're probably right, and this is also an area where reducing street parking might be more possible because, you know, park.

I'd urge you to reconsider Hyde Park Ave and the 77's corridor (Mass Ave to Arlington). The 32 along Hyde Park Ave is a Top 10 ridership route, with ridership figures in the ballpark of the Green Line C Branch, and historically ran at frequencies equal or better than the Braintree Branch every day until 10pm, except Sundays. The Better Bus Profile noted that overcrowding was a significant problem on the route. To me, that points to the rare situation where mixed street-running light rail can still be the right move, since LRT vehicles are always going to beat diesel buses on capacity.

Short-term you're definitely right. Longer term, I think the corridor would be better served by regular, more frequent regional rail service with an infill station at Canterbury St. This type of service would likely make a mixed-traffic streetcar route much less relevant, so committing to it when regional rail is really something we should be aiming for soon, especially on the NEC.

The 77 is not quite the behemoth that the 32 is, but it still is a high ridership route running along a relatively wide street. I can understand some hesitance about paralleling the Red Line all the way to Harvard (although note that a large fraction of riders still go all the way to Harvard, suggesting that it is their final destination, rather than transferring to the Red at the earlier opportunity at Porter), but in that case why not terminate at Porter, or reclaim part of the bike path to terminate at Davis?

Again with the immediate situation you're probably right, but longer-term maybe we should take the money we'd spend on constructing light rail all the way to Arlington and just put it towards an RL extension instead. Given the provisions made at Alewife for this extension I'd certainly hope/expect that it's not insanely expensive when compared to surface light rail.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Again with the immediate situation you're probably right, but longer-term maybe we should take the money we'd spend on constructing light rail all the way to Arlington and just put it towards an RL extension instead. Given the provisions made at Alewife for this extension I'd certainly hope/expect that it's not insanely expensive when compared to surface light rail.

For a Red Line extension to Arlington or beyond, there would have to be cut-and-cover to Arlington Center, maybe even beyond that, to preserve the Minuteman trail. That may be true for light rail as well. as its tracks would be just as wide as a Red Line.

 

[bigeman312]

I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful here. I do want to say, 1) I significantly disagree with your interpretation of the term "rapid transit", and 2) this is just my personal opinion, but I do feel the way you've presented this sounds a bit condescending and dismissive. I am mindful that I myself often "over-explain" and probably sound condescending and dismissive as well, so I don't mean to be harsh.

But I think the term "rapid transit" is particularly vague and almost always requires additional clarification; you've suggested here that there are hard-and-fast rules about what "counts" as rapid transit, and you've used that claim to dismiss the (actually very different) point that TheRatmeister was making:

To me, this reads as a point about the "placemaking" aspects of the question, "What gets shown on the T map with the same visual language as the Red, Orange, Blue, and Green Lines?" Regardless of any broader definition of "rapid transit", the question at hand here is a very specific one about Boston's context and local ideas about what constitutes a "line". And in that context, the broader definition really doesn't matter (even if it should).

@TheRatmeister, I think this is a very cool map! I've thought about similar things (and in fact have a draft blog post entitled "Light Rail for All"), and I like how you are trying to tease out a niche where LRT rolling stock is used for slightly lower-frequency service that would feel meaningfully different in character from, for example, the Green Line.

Some assorted thoughts:

Aqua Line: what's your thinking on your current Pleasant St alignment vs continuing with median-running on Route 20 all the way to Waltham Central Square?

GL F: I like the thought process you've used on the rest of the map, and along those lines my challenge to you would be to find an interesting way to split this route into two. For example, I've been playing around with a Park St <> MLK Blvd route complemented by a route that runs along Blue Hill Ave + Seaver St. You have some other routes on this map of similar length, like that Medford-Revere route, but I think, for example, the Medford-Revere route works because the Revere Beach Parkway and the rest of Route 16 have already taken care of pruning traffic lights and intersections, which speeds up travel. Blue Hill Ave, by contrast, looks like it has a crosswalk roughly every 1000 feet or less, while Revere Beach Parkway, by comparison, appears to run the entire 1.4 mile stretch between Winthrop Ave and Garfield Ave without a single crosswalk. (What the actual eff, jeez. I mean, it's good for your map, but jeez.)

To be clear, I agree that the entire GL F corridor merits the kind of service you're describing, I just think it shouldn't be a single service.

2: I like the idea of a branching Mass Ave service! Especially one that still serves Nubian! You could also instead/additionally run a Kendall-Mass Ave-Ruggles-Nubian service along the route you've shown here, which would fill a gap @Teban54 and I have been chatting about.

16: You might consider rerouting this directly through Franklin Park. Yes, it would have to be in mixed traffic, but it would be much more direct, and it would be an absolutely gorgeous ride. (It could be worth trying to estimate the speeds on Morton + Blue Hill under your current alignment and compare them to possible speeds through the park itself -- my wild guess is that Morton + Blue Hill would not be fast enough to offset the longer distance.)

I'd urge you to reconsider Hyde Park Ave and the 77's corridor (Mass Ave to Arlington). The 32 along Hyde Park Ave is a Top 10 ridership route, with ridership figures in the ballpark of the Green Line C Branch, and historically ran at frequencies equal or better than the Braintree Branch every day until 10pm, except Sundays. The Better Bus Profile noted that overcrowding was a significant problem on the route. To me, that points to the rare situation where mixed street-running light rail can still be the right move, since LRT vehicles are always going to beat diesel buses on capacity.

The 77 is not quite the behemoth that the 32 is, but it still is a high ridership route running along a relatively wide street. I can understand some hesitance about paralleling the Red Line all the way to Harvard (although note that a large fraction of riders still go all the way to Harvard, suggesting that it is their final destination, rather than transferring to the Red at the earlier opportunity at Porter), but in that case why not terminate at Porter, or reclaim part of the bike path to terminate at Davis?

My particular nitpicks notwithstanding, it's a very cool map and a cool concept!

Thank you for the feedback! I’ll keep that in mind.

 

[Teban54]

Re: What is rapid transit?

In a nutshell, I don't think there's a clear-cut definition or a single criterion. Too many factors come into play: frequency, capacity, speed, stop spacing, ROW and grade separation, fares and integration with the system, etc. This is especially true in US cities, where construction costs and political factors often force a variety of mode choices instead of brute-force "heavy rail for everything".

• Should a bus route that runs 1-min headways count as rapid transit (with various examples around the world)?
• Are heavy rail lines no longer rapid transit when they run every 20-30 minutes (Boston's Red Line branches today, NYC (A) train's two branches at certain times)?
• What about regional rail with rapid-transit-like headways: is the Elizabeth Line really a "line", is PATH rapid transit despite being classified as mainline rail, and will Fairmount Line count as rapid transit if it's running EMUs with better frequency than the Ashmont branch?
• Capacity alone isn't the answer either: is a Green Line ride from Kenmore to Park St with trains every 2 minutes any worse than an Orange Line ride from Ruggles to Downtown Crossing with trains every 9 minutes?
• Should the D branch be disqualified just because pedestrians can cross the tracks at the stations?

In particular, whether a transit agency puts a route on a map isn't very useful for classification. Such decisions are often due to political factors or the agency's desire on what modes to advertise. Boston's Silver Line is a living proof of that - most people would think of the Washington St component as a half-hearted effort and a broken promise to neighborhoods that had rapid transit taken away, and the SL1 is equally infamous for its Ted Williams-related delays. However, it would be disingenuous to treat the South Station-WTC section exactly the same as the rest of the Silver Line.

Instead, I think the classification should take on a more holistic approach that aims to evaluate the quality of service provided. @Riverside's thoughts here are a good starting point:

• Light metro: LRT and BRT services, with smaller vehicles and smaller infrastructure footprints, particularly useful for suburban radial service and urban circumferential service
• Heavy metro: your standard HRT, as well as rapid-transit-frequency mainline rail, and Los Angeles-style light rail (e.g. longer trains, high-level boarding, dedicated ROWs).
• Regional metro: reimagined commuter rail – 15-minute headways, limited stops within 128, service to suburbs and satellite cities.

It should also be noted that nothing is black and white. The B, C and E branches have a mix of legacy streetcars and heavy-rail-like service (with the only difference being smaller vehicles), but that provides a better outcome for riders than forcing them to transfer between two modes at Kenmore or Copley, even though the latter provides clearer separation between "rapid transit" and "not rapid transit". Ultimately, it depends on what people need and what works best for their needs.

----------------------------------------------

Related to the last point...

Moving away from an orbital rail route to what I'd say the "Urban Ring" project was actually aiming for, here's a map I threw together that imagines if key bus corridors that mainly run along wide streets were operated as median-running light rail instead, perhaps with small amounts of mixed traffic running to fill in a few gaps here and there. If you kinda squint it looks like a ring, but that's really not what it's meant to be used for. You can see the routes and interact with the map here. [...]

I think this is a very useful starting point for reasoning about corridors that can potentially support dedicated transit lanes. The main critique I have is: much like the discussion above, I feel that such an approach focuses too much on feasibility and road width, and not enough on demands and travel patterns (existing or new).

@Riverside's comment on running the 16 through Franklin Park already starts to hint at that. A couple more illustrative examples:

• Mystic Valley Parkway. Virtually no catchment along the route, so you're basically only serving Medford Square, but the existing patterns there gear towards Tufts/Davis (96) and Malden Center (101). Even the 134's route via Riverside Ave gets more intermediate ridership. If the focus is to quickly go from Medford Square to rapid transit, improving connections to GLX may be better.
• Revere Beach Parkway is a bit better, but has similar problems. The road perfectly misses the hearts of Everett, Chelsea and Revere - in part because parkways were built to avoid density, but rapid transit should be built towards them. You may be able to get people walk to LRT stations along the route, but the stations will still mostly be located at highway interchanges, large pedestrian-unfriendly intersections, etc.
• South Boston: Dorchester St is wider, but many more people take the 9 bus, which goes through the narrower W Broadway to the namesake RL station, than the 10 to Andrew.

In general, I feel that while wider streets certainly make it more plausible for dedicated ROWs, we shouldn't be completely glued to that. Short sections running in mixed traffic (whether as LRT or BRT) should definitely be considered if the ridership warrants them.

This is not to take away many of the very innovative ideas that you're proposing, of course! I particularly like the 2 route from Mass Ave bridge to Ruggles and Nubian (that uses shared infrastructure with the 1), though I'd send it to Kendall over Harvard. Meanwhile, I'd prefer sending the 1 to JFK/UMass over Andrew for the Fairmount and Regional Rail connection, eliminating parking on southern Mass Ave.

 

[Teban54]

Re: Seaport connections

My main issue with any north-south route to Seaport, especially Track 61, is that it doesn't serve Courthouse which is the bigger fish today.

In Fall 2022, Courthouse station on weekdays (SL1/2/3/W, all times) see 1654.9 boardings and 1800 alightings. WTC station (not counting the Congress St stop) has 1170.5 boardings and 961.7 alightings. That's actually very impressive for Courthouse, considering the vast majority of these riders come from South Station and only ride for one stop.

• FYI, these two numbers for South Station are 5548.3 and 5829. Silver Line Way are 1334.6 and 1274.5.

In addition to Courthouse's prominence, it also shows that demands in Seaport have significant east-west spread. Unless/until the empty parking lots around BCEC are redeveloped, there's not really a better corridor to serve Seaport than the SL Transitway itself.

It also shows that a lot of the recent developments have centered at Courthouse, as WTC had higher ridership than Courthouse in the 2014 blue book. Courthouse is also more of a commercial and retail center, while WTC and SLW are more residential (though WTC's ridership patterns are more similar to Courthouse than SLW).

This has stayed on my mind so I've gone and pulled up the Fall 2022 data to compare Southie and Seaport in terms of bus ridership per week. Here's the breakdown for seaport:

	Boardings	Alightings
SL1/2/3/W (Including Drydock)	10871.1	11626.9

And Southie:

	Boardings	Alightings
7	1285	1007.2
9	4048.6	3388.7
10	1372.1	1446.5
11	1580	1195
Total	8285.7	7037.4

So given these numbers, I think one conclusion that can be drawn is that despite headways of 20+ minutes on local bus routes compared to routes with 10 minute headways on an underground, grade-separated ROW, boardings on the Silver Line to Seaport are only ~30% higher. There's a bigger difference in alightings, which might be caused by people ride-sharing back to Southie in the evening rather than taking public transit, and by originally getting to Seaport by walking from South Station, though it's unclear. I think with further development of industrial areas and changes to zoning in Southie, along with improved transit service, it's far from unreasonable to say that Southie might provide more ridership than Seaport to a hypothetical urban ring, although a proper study would be necessary to actually look into this rather than make guesses from bus ridership.

The conclusion I personally drew from this great analysis is "both Seaport and South Boston need better options", and not so much "South Boston should be preferred over Seaport". Not necessarily a disagreement, more of a note.

In addition, density in South Boston is also skewed east to west, just like Seaport. Even a station at Broadway/Dorchester still leaves a 25-min walk for someone in City Point, and especially if that station is for a circumferential route, they may end up still taking a bus to Red Line stations.

Also FWIW, in Winter 2022 (my archived system map PDF), rush hour frequencies are 7 mins on the 7 bus, 6-7 mins on the 9 bus, and 11-12 mins on the 11 bus. Each of these individual frequencies almost beats the SL1/2/3 frequencies one-to-one (SL1 is 9-12, SL2 is 8-10, SL3 is 9-10). The South Boston routes' off-peak frequencies are indeed bad, but that's an issue systemwide with most non-key bus routes (and it may be argued that the South Boston frequencies that heavily favor rush hours may be a chicken-and-egg problem).

----------------------------------------------

Digging up this bit of the conversation, I'd still like to see exactly why the #66 bus route was rejected. But one big knock against it, that I don't think got mentioned here, is just that you'd have to build a subway through Brookline. The politics of that seem... impossible. Like, if a GJ route and a #66 route were both comparably beneficial, the #66 route wouldn't really be an option just because of Brookline politics. You'd have to make the case that the costs are so much lower or the benefits so much higher before a Brookline routing becomes feasible.

Just thinking about it this morning while reading the Spotlight article on Brookline's long history of exclusionary zoning.

Brookline homes: One wealthy liberal town reckons with its past

Brookline broadcasts an ethos of inclusivity, but it has become a preserve for the privileged. This is no accident, but the fruit of decades of exclusionary actions. Now facing a state mandate to allow more multifamily housing, Brookline faces a choice: What kind of town does it want to be?

apps.bostonglobe.com

One of the Urban Ring documents did consider a cross-Brookline tunnel like the following, though I can't recall what the doc is now. Whether that's realistic is another question, as it's even worse to Brookline than tunneling under the 66.

 

[Charlie_mta]

One of the Urban Ring documents did consider a cross-Brookline tunnel like the following, though I can't recall what the doc is now. Whether that's realistic is another question, as it's even worse to Brookline than tunneling under the 66.
View attachment 44470

If the cross-Brookline tunnel you show could be deep bore, I don't see why Brookline would object to it, as the surface properties would be basically undisturbed. The only touchy issue politically might be a station at Beacon Street. If that proved to be a deal breaker, then just delete it from the project.
I like the idea for this tunnel. Deep bore under the Charles River and Brookline, with the portal a few blocks north of Memorial Drive.

 

[clam]

You lose me at this:



Ultimately, this is a semantic debate and not super interesting. But if you polled archboston about whether the Silver Line constitutes “rapid transit” with respect to following:



you would get an overwhelming consensus that the Silver Line does not fit that term. Rather, it would be referred to as a series of bus routes, or if we’re being very generous, as bus rapid transit (BRT).

Ultimately you can use whatever words you want in whatever way you want. But using these terms the way they are understood both generally and by those reading this forum will help you be understood better. Over my decade of being way too active on this board I’ve often thought that having a terms and abbreviations reference page would be helpful. That’s all I was trying to help with.

If you don’t want to use these terms in the same way they are generally used and understood, it’s your prerogative and no big deal to me. You may run into more of these confusions, though. I enjoy reading your posts, nonetheless, and welcome to this forum! I hope you remain an active contributor for years to come.

Have a nice day!

Weird to be hostile and wrong at the same time, you really think that the Silver Line isn't rapid transit? Can you spell out BRT and get back to us on that

 

[HenryAlan]

Weird to be hostile and wrong at the same time, you really think that the Silver Line isn't rapid transit? Can you spell out BRT and get back to us on that

True, BRT stands for Bus Rapid Transit. And the MBTA does claim that the Silver Line is BRT. That said, most people who understand what is meant by BRT would not so label the Silver Line. It fails on most tests of the definition.

The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy evaluated the Silver Line in 2017 (Click for PDF of report) and concluded that it was not BRT, giving it a score of 37 points. You can argue that it is in fact BRT, and I'd be interested in seeing such a discussion, but the mere fact that the transit agency labels it as such, does not mean that it is. The label and words in the acronym do not define the service so much as the actual characteristics of the bus route.

 

[Equilibria]

How crazy would it be to consign freight movements on track 61 to street running along the bypass road? Is traffic on that road heavy? How frequently would freight trains travel that way?

Almost never.

Weird to be hostile and wrong at the same time, you really think that the Silver Line isn't rapid transit? Can you spell out BRT and get back to us on that

Don't confuse a marketing term with a real-world definition. The Piers Transitway is pretty arguably BRT - it's grade-separated and out of traffic and the buses can run at a pretty good clip within it. Same goes for SL3 to Chelsea. The rest of the Silver Line is not BRT in any way other than the MBTA's delusional marketing as such. In fact, other routes on the system have more BRT priority infrastructure (center-running bus lanes, for example) than SL1 does.

 

[bigeman312]

Weird to be hostile and wrong at the same time, you really think that the Silver Line isn't rapid transit? Can you spell out BRT and get back to us on that

The others explained why the Silver Line isn’t seen as rapid transit, and like I said that semantic debate isn’t the most interesting one to have. I know that I’m firmly in the “Silver Line is just a series of local bus routes with marketing” camp.

More important to me, I’m not trying to be hostile. I truly enjoy @TheRatmeister ’s contributions and I hope they don’t get discouraged from posting. I’m a big fan of archboston and I apologize if the post came off as hostile, as that was not my intention.

 

[Charlie_mta]

The others explained why the Silver Line isn’t seen as rapid transit, and like I said that semantic debate isn’t the most interesting one to have. I know that I’m firmly in the “Silver Line is just a series of local bus routes with marketing” camp.

More important to me, I’m not trying to be hostile. I truly enjoy @TheRatmeister ’s contributions and I hope they don’t get discouraged from posting. I’m a big fan of archboston and I apologize if the post came off as hostile, as that was not my intention.

IMO, the SL in Chelsea and the Seaport district fit the BRT category. The SL in E Boston, the South End and Roxbury do not.

 

[737900er]

IMO, the SL in Chelsea and the Seaport district fit the BRT category. The SL in E Boston, the South End and Roxbury do not.

Many of the criticisms of SL3 in Chelsea are equally applicable to the B/C/E branches.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Many of the criticisms of SL3 in Chelsea are equally applicable to the B/C/E branches.

The Ted Williams Tunnel and Chelsea Draw delays on SL3 put it in a special category (and pretty badly violate a true BRT concept). It's like it is grade separated except in the places where it really really needs to be grade separated for consistent performance.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Ok

The Ted Williams Tunnel and Chelsea Draw delays on SL3 put it in a special category (and pretty badly violate a true BRT concept). It's like it is grade separated except in the places where it really really needs to be grade separated for consistent performance.

Agreed. I was referring only to the busway segment in Chelsea. The bridge is bad.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Ok

Agreed. I was referring only to the busway segment in Chelsea. The bridge is bad.

Busway segments in Chelsea are solid BRT. We need to extend them on to Everett.

 

[bigeman312]

Ok

Agreed. I was referring only to the busway segment in Chelsea. The bridge is bad.

We can certainly all agree that there are elements of BRT. None of the routes meet the internationally recognized BRT Standard, though. I defer to that standard, as it is quite sensible.