Crazy Transit Pitches

[Delvin4519]

Fairly high since the line is fully grade separated and hits the center(s) of Newton. I suspect the line might have gone to Needham rather than Riverside though.

I wonder, under such an alternate history timeline where the Highland Branch were to be abandoned for several years (or a decade or so), would a hookup with the Green Line still have happened, or would reproposals decades later to reactivate the Highland Branch have kept it separated from the Green Line?

The Highland Branch reopened in 1959 as the Green Line D branch after just over a year of conversion, and 10 years later a shortage of vehicles caused the closure of the A branch in 1969, which had previously served much more densely populated urban areas unlike the Highland Branch.

I would be curious under an alternate timeline where the Highland Branch had been outright abandoned in 1958, or had lasted an additional 10 years into the 1960s, if there would have been opposition to restoring the Highland Branch as an additional Green Line branch. By the late 1960s, the MBTA did not have enough Green Line cars to add an extra branch to the GL. In such a case, the T would have had needed to decide whether to sacrifice an existing urban Green Line branch for a new branch on previously commuter rail tracks, abandon plans to restore the Highland Branch, or restore the Highland Branch as something else.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I wonder, under such an alternate history timeline where the Highland Branch were to be abandoned for several years (or a decade or so), would a hookup with the Green Line still have happened, or would reproposals decades later to reactivate the Highland Branch have kept it separated from the Green Line?

I have to imagine that the same incentives that saw it connected with the GL in our world still ultimately prevail, mainly the fact that connecting it to anything else is just so much harder (and more expensive) that it kills the value proposition entirely.

 

[Charlie_mta]

..and 10 years later a shortage of vehicles caused the closure of the A branch in 1969, which had previously served much more densely populated urban areas unlike the Highland Branch.

I don't buy the story that the A branch closed because of a shortage of cars caused by the Riverside line. I think the closure was due to the MBTA's aversion to street-running, because they could have re-opened the A Branch when new cars were procured, but they didn't. Same with the E Line to Arborway.

 

[Delvin4519]

I don't buy the story that the A branch closed because of a shortage of cars caused by the Riverside line. I think the closure was due to the MBTA's aversion to street-running, because they could have re-opened the A Branch when new cars were procured, but they didn't. Same with the E Line to Arborway.

It's probably more that the opening of the branch accelerated the trend of the decline of street running rail services. For the 1959 opening of the Riverside line, the T simply took the streetcars away from Harvard Square lines and reallocatted them to the Riverside line at the time. It seems like they couldn't be bothered to simply add additional cars rather than pulling it from elsewhere at the time.

I have to imagine that the same incentives that saw it connected with the GL in our world still ultimately prevail, mainly the fact that connecting it to anything else is just so much harder (and more expensive) that it kills the value proposition entirely.

I would wonder what would the originally intended headways be on the outer portion of the Highland Branch, had every other train short-turned at Reservior.

I'm only seeing the signalling system at the time had 2 minute headways east of Reservior and 4 minutes between Reservior and Riverside (which was later upgraded to 2 minutes after the high demand on the outer portion). The only other source I could find is that the MBTA in 1959 ran 134 daily round trips across the Highland Branch all the way to Riverside. This would mean an average headway of 8.7 minutes across all hours of the day (peak and off peak averaged), which is comfortably SUAG frequencies.

That could mean that either:
1. The T was either going to run to run 180 - 268 trips east of Reservior on the inner portion (which would be 4.3 - 6.5 min headways east of Reservior, closer to the signalling system design capacity).
2. Or the other way around, the T originally intended to only operate 67 - 90 round trips on the outer portion (Riverside to Reservior), which would give an average headway of every 15 - 17.2 minutes for the segment within Newton. That would be more akin to regional rail scheduling, which is "check departure times but journey whenever" (perhaps 12-15 min peak and 20 min off peak?).

I just find the D branch and Braintre branches to be quite unique/peculiar in the system, being the longest branches providing frequent service, extending far past any other frequent services, having gotten "lucky" in a way.

 

[Delvin4519]

I've always found Lynn Central Sq., Waltham Center, and Quincy Center, to each be unique in how each of the three locations have existed outside the original BERy service area, yet are (or were always) strong anchors of demand within the larger/expanded map of the metro. Omissions of the three locations from an (alternate history) "BERy frequent rail service" network would still result in heavy feeding from Quincy, Lynn, and Waltham.

Someone might probably find this useful, but I've expanded my "mainline railway ROW walksheds" map all the way to Route 128 in all directions. This means I have a map of all possible walksheds to the Highland Branch (D Branch Newton), Red Line to Braintree, as well as proposals for the Green Line to Needham, Orange Line to Reading, Red Line to Lexington, Blue Line to Salem, etc.

The "10 minute walkshed" to each railway is defined as a 10 minute walk to any abandoned rail trail, active R/R crossing, ROW intersection, etc.,. It is not necessary restricted to historical or present day stations only, but is meant to show what all possible infill stations would cover by showing walksheds to all R/R crossings. This allows one to easily find & see underserved areas of Lynn and Quincy that do not have adequate access to rapid transit, even if all the lines got extended to 128.

It also shows how once one gets out of BERy's streetcar suburbs (or Lynn/Waltham/Quincy), how the street grid quickly becomes hostile to walk up & go service, and the common 1km stop spacing between rapid transit stations no longer becomes suitable past the streetcar suburbs. Notice how despite the railways being continous, that the rail transit walksheds are more broken apart as one gets closer to 128.

Parts of eastern Quincy, northern Weymouth, and northern Lynn, are quite underserved by the railways on this map. It's also worth noting how much of Burlington, which grew long after the decline of the railroads and the rise of the automobile, is essentially all auto-oriented.

 

[The EGE]

It's also worth noting how much of Burlington, which grew long after the decline of the railroads and the rise of the automobile, is essentially all auto-oriented.

It's always fascinated me how the railroads completely avoided Burlington. Only a handful of municipalities in eastern MA didn't have any mainline rail at all. By my count, only 11 east of Worcester didn't: West Newbury, Burlington, Dracut, Pembroke, Norwell, Rehoboth, Acushnet, Mashpee, plus three on Martha's Vineyard. Of those only Acushnet and the MV trio never had streetcars either.

Honorable mentions go to Carlisle with about 800 feet of the Framingham and Lowell, and Bolton with 400 feet of the Central Mass (plus the completed but never-opened Lancaster Railroad).

Burlington really did grow later compared to its surroundings. It didn't hit 1000 residents until the 1920s, and it quadrupled in population (3k to 12k) in the 1950s as 128 and 3 were built.

 

[Teban54]

There is a recent discussion on Reddit's r/transit sub about why cities stopped building cut-and-cover (C&C) tunnels, motivated by this article. While I haven't read the original article yet, the discussion seems interesting. A lot of common points include C&C's disruption to neighborhoods, with various claims of "city X was gonna C&C corridor Y, glad they didn't" or "it wiped out the local community", etc. Utility relocation was also a frequently mentioned issue.

I know @TheRatmeister (and possibly others) had previously expressed opinions that roads like Everett's Upper Broadway and Revere's Broadway are good candidates for C&C. (By this standard, the 57 corridor would be another candidate?) However, they seem exactly like the type of corridors where these concerns are the most salient.

Somebody also made the following claim, although I haven't found the source and have asked for it:

Long time ago I found a paper about Boston's blue line extension to Charles MGH. It stated that TBM is cheaper if you have to dig more than 3km of tunnels. Under that length mining them mechanically is also interesting iirc.

 

[bigpicture7]

Somebody also made the following claim, although I haven't found the source and have asked for it:

This one?

https://www.mass.gov/doc/summary-memorandum-tunnel-constructability/download

 

[Teban54]

This one?

https://www.mass.gov/doc/summary-memorandum-tunnel-constructability/download

Damn, stop giving me even more stuff to read when I don't have time to do so!

/sarcasm

 

[AndrewOnTheMBTA]

There is a recent discussion on Reddit's r/transit sub about why cities stopped building cut-and-cover (C&C) tunnels, motivated by this article. While I haven't read the original article yet, the discussion seems interesting. A lot of common points include C&C's disruption to neighborhoods, with various claims of "city X was gonna C&C corridor Y, glad they didn't" or "it wiped out the local community", etc. Utility relocation was also a frequently mentioned issue.

I know @TheRatmeister (and possibly others) had previously expressed opinions that roads like Everett's Upper Broadway and Revere's Broadway are good candidates for C&C. (By this standard, the 57 corridor would be another candidate?) However, they seem exactly like the type of corridors where these concerns are the most salient.

Somebody also made the following claim, although I haven't found the source and have asked for it:

So I take away a lot from the article, but they also embed this article which truly relates to the article in engineering too: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-skyscrapers-are-so-short/.

My main takeaway: we can build cut n cover much more cheaply and we know of economic and legal burdens which inhibit development of new subways (especially C&C) in urban areas. They're disruptive, polluting, and shut down roads. They also can damage and spur lawsuits if building in tight areas. Tunnel boring actually preclude a lot of the problems of C&C. And it's speed isn't so bad anymore. All that said, TB is not economically favorable and cut n cover is a nonstarter with how much it disrupts. So if we want any new subway developed, it would probably be TB, but the sticker shock is where it gets stuck. If we want to build subways, the cost has to be accepted...

Secondly, the embedded article points to the great link between physical limits, economic limits, and legal limits on new engineering. This can be applied to subways IMO. Our physical constraints are far behind what we can do dictated by economic and legal limits. Maybe one day this will improve...

 

[AndrewOnTheMBTA]

I don't recall how recently this has been proposed/crayon-ed, but just based on the high-density sections of South Boston and the South End, there's a crazy corridor for a light rail line along Broadway from City Point/Broadway @ P St, to Back Bay, making stops at L/Broadway, Dorchester St/Broadway, D/Broadway, Broadway Station, Ink Block/ E Berkeley + Washington, and Back Bay.

This is just a fantastic line for a light rail subway but I think the engineering is just so far-fetched it couldn't happen. It would more or less be an urban ring half measure to replace the 9 bus. I'd have to look at what the 9 ridership is, and see if it's even a high demand area for transit, if replaced.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I don't recall how recently this has been proposed/crayon-ed, but just based on the high-density sections of South Boston and the South End, there's a crazy corridor for a light rail line along Broadway from City Point/Broadway @ P St, to Back Bay, making stops at L/Broadway, Dorchester St/Broadway, D/Broadway, Broadway Station, Ink Block/ E Berkeley + Washington, and Back Bay.

This is just a fantastic line for a light rail subway but I think the engineering is just so far-fetched it couldn't happen. It would more or less be an urban ring half measure to replace the 9 bus. I'd have to look at what the 9 ridership is, and see if it's even a high demand area for transit, if replaced.

That is certainly a major historical streetcar corridor, serviced from the Pleasant Street Portal on the pre-Green-Line (back when Broadway connected through to Bay Village).

 

[Teban54]

I don't recall how recently this has been proposed/crayon-ed, but just based on the high-density sections of South Boston and the South End, there's a crazy corridor for a light rail line along Broadway from City Point/Broadway @ P St, to Back Bay, making stops at L/Broadway, Dorchester St/Broadway, D/Broadway, Broadway Station, Ink Block/ E Berkeley + Washington, and Back Bay.

This is just a fantastic line for a light rail subway but I think the engineering is just so far-fetched it couldn't happen. It would more or less be an urban ring half measure to replace the 9 bus. I'd have to look at what the 9 ridership is, and see if it's even a high demand area for transit, if replaced.

You may find this (god-mode-ish) proposal of mine interesting:

While I didn't draw it explicitly here, you can easily imagine the line being extended further into South Boston.

More realistically, though, a streetcar through South Boston sounds more realistic. Personally, I have the following axioms regarding such a route:

1. Broadway is likely a better choice for a Red Line connection than Andrew. Not only is it closer to downtown (and thus other connections), but South Boston's employment profile is extremely heavily skewed towards downtown Boston: it probably has one of the highest concentrations of workers from any neighborhood to any employment center in Boston, if not the single highest. Plus, the 9 bus to Broadway is much more heavily utilized than the 10 bus to Andrew.
2. Given #1, the best way to meet South Boston's demands is probably a streetcar that feeds into Bay Village and the Tremont St subway (Green Line/GL Reconfiguration). Such a streetcar can continue west from Broadway via the 9 bus's route, using some combination of Herald St, Traveler St and E Berkeley St, until it gets to Bay Village interchange which we've discussed extensively for the GL Reconfiguration concept.
3. In case #2 has operational challenges due to capacity of the Tremont St tunnel, another interesting alternative is to run the streetcar to Arlington, Copley and Kenmore via the Central Subway. This can be done via a "Charles St connector", which I had previously discussed here (and briefly mentioned here).
4. South Boston itself probably doesn't warrant a dedicated HRT tunnel. Its population is about 37k, and while that's impressive, most HRT half-lines typically serve 60-80k in their walksheds alone, not to mention numerous bus connections. Plus, given the small size of the neighborhood, fewer stations means longer walks to a station, which may reduce or even eliminate the time savings from grade separation.
5. #4 might also suggest that an LRT tunnel through South Boston may not be worth the cost either. While the level of service would be more appropriate for the population, I doubt HRT vs. LRT changes the construction costs meaningfully enough. However, this part is more debatable.

 

[Charlie_mta]

You may find this (god-mode-ish) proposal of mine interesting:

While I didn't draw it explicitly here, you can easily imagine the line being extended further into South Boston.

More realistically, though, a streetcar through South Boston sounds more realistic. Personally, I have the following axioms regarding such a route:

1. Broadway is likely a better choice for a Red Line connection than Andrew. Not only is it closer to downtown (and thus other connections), but South Boston's employment profile is extremely heavily skewed towards downtown Boston: it probably has one of the highest concentrations of workers from any neighborhood to any employment center in Boston, if not the single highest. Plus, the 9 bus to Broadway is much more heavily utilized than the 10 bus to Andrew.
2. Given #1, the best way to meet South Boston's demands is probably a streetcar that feeds into Bay Village and the Tremont St subway (Green Line/GL Reconfiguration). Such a streetcar can continue west from Broadway via the 9 bus's route, using some combination of Herald St, Traveler St and E Berkeley St, until it gets to Bay Village interchange which we've discussed extensively for the GL Reconfiguration concept.
3. In case #2 has operational challenges due to capacity of the Tremont St tunnel, another interesting alternative is to run the streetcar to Arlington Copley and Kenmore via the Central Subway. This can be done via a "Charles St connector", which I had previously discussed here (and briefly mentioned here).
4. South Boston itself probably doesn't warrant a dedicated HRT tunnel. Its population is about 37k, and while that's impressive, most HRT half-lines typically serve 60-80k in their walksheds alone, not to mention numerous bus connections. Plus, given the small size of the neighborhood, fewer stations means longer walks to a station, which may reduce or even eliminate the time savings from grade separation.
5. #4 might also suggest that an LRT tunnel through South Boston may not be worth the cost either. While the level of service would be more appropriate for the population, I doubt HRT vs. LRT changes the construction costs meaningfully enough. However, this part is more debatable.

I like it, but would extend the northern end of it to Chelsea via a new transit-friendly Tobin Bridge replacement.

 

[AndrewOnTheMBTA]

Does the grade of Broadway allow for a street/median/shoulder-running LRT?

 

[Teban54]

I like it, but would extend the northern end of it to Chelsea via a new transit-friendly Tobin Bridge replacement.

Isn't that the exact same thing you said last time?

Anyway, in my unlimited-budget (or in other words, purely merit-based) crayon world, I actually prefer sending radial lines to both Everett and Chelsea, and there are two routes downtown that nicely pair with them: one via the Red X (aka the Financial District line) and the other via the route above (aka the Kendall-Copley line, which IMO is a way better alternative than the commonly suggested Mass Ave subway). In such a world, it makes more sense to pair Red X with Chelsea and Kendall-Copley with Everett instead, to reduce the detour from Chelsea to Kendall.

Quick and unpolished drawing of the proposal:

Remarks:

• A lot of decisions can be made about the Chelsea line's routing further north (surprisingly, Route 1 may have slightly higher density than Revere Broadway), which direction it turns to the north (west to Northgate/Linden or east to Wonderland), etc.
• The Lilac Line's stop spacing may be too close, especially near Albany St. I included that station both to offer a transfer to my "Nubian via I-93" El and to touch the corner of possible future developments to the north of Widett Circle, but I admit it doesn't seem to do the job well given the drawback of stop spacing.
• The Teal Line can skip Haymarket as both GL and OL stop there (and I'm not sure if the area has enough room for a third pair of platforms).
• I've also considered the idea of having the Red X (the Teal Line) take a detour to Seaport, but it's not explicitly shown here.
• I forgot to include Assembly station on the Lilac Line, even though I intended to.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Isn't that the exact same thing you said last time?

Yes, that would be because you posted exactly the same map as last time. Deja vu all over again.

 

[Teban54]

Yes, that would be because you posted exactly the same map as last time. Deja vu all over again.

And apparently I replied to you with the exact same thing about Red X's involvement last time... But this time I actually made a map!

 

[TheRatmeister]

Isn't that the exact same thing you said last time?

Anyway, in my unlimited-budget (or in other words, purely merit-based) crayon world, I actually prefer sending radial lines to both Everett and Chelsea, and there are two routes downtown that nicely pair with them: one via the Red X (aka the Financial District line) and the other via the route above (aka the Kendall-Copley line, which IMO is a way better alternative than the commonly suggested Mass Ave subway). In such a world, it makes more sense to pair Red X with Chelsea and Kendall-Copley with Everett instead, to reduce the detour from Chelsea to Kendall.

Quick and unpolished drawing of the proposal:

View attachment 50515

Remarks:

• A lot of decisions can be made about the Chelsea line's routing further north (surprisingly, Route 1 may have slightly higher density than Revere Broadway), which direction it turns to the north (west to Northgate/Linden or east to Wonderland), etc.
• The Lilac Line's stop spacing may be too close, especially near Albany St. I included that station both to offer a transfer to my "Nubian via I-93" El and to touch the corner of possible future developments to the north of Widett Circle, but I admit it doesn't seem to do the job well given the drawback of stop spacing.
• The Teal Line can skip Haymarket as both GL and OL stop there (and I'm not sure if the area has enough room for a third pair of platforms).
• I've also considered the idea of having the Red X (the Teal Line) take a detour to Seaport, but it's not explicitly shown here.
• I forgot to include Assembly station on the Lilac Line, even though I intended to.

If we're just crayoning a new subway route, what about some kind of blend between the two to make a U-shape, something like this?

S
Stops at:

• Medford Sq
• George St
• Harvard St
• Winter Hill
• Gilman Sq
• Union Sq
• Inman Sq
• The Port
• Mass Ave/GJ
• Hynes
• Back Bay
• Holy Cross
• Ink Block
• South Station
• Post Office Sq
• Aquarium
• North End
• Constitution
• Bunker Hill
• Sullivan Sq
• Encore
• Mystic Landing
• Carrington
• Glendale
• Woodlawn
• Linden

I'd really consider all of these more of god-mode pitches though, there's not really any shortcuts you can take to make any of these routes easier/cheaper besides a short elevated between Sullivan and Sweetsner Circle and a shallower bit under Broadway in Southie. Everything else needs to be bored anywhere from somewhat deep to very deep with large underground stations able to accommodate the ~400-450ft long trains you'd really want on a highly radial route. You'd be looking at a similar amount of bored tunnel for this line as for the BL to Brandeis extension and UR between Wonderland and City Point combined.

 

[Teban54]

If we're just crayoning a new subway route, what about some kind of blend between the two to make a U-shape, something like this?View attachment 50517S

I'm not too hot about a line to Medford Square. The 101's route closely parallels GLX, and density drops off a bit north of your Winter Hill station. Medford as a whole is pretty auto-centric and less dense, and the parts that aren't (along the Salem St corridor) would require a bus connection anyway. These regions may still warrant better transit in the form of improvements on the 101 corridor; or, if Medford Square in particular is the target, a surface or elevated route along Route 16 (or even I-93) may be possible, which feels appropriate for the population served. At the very least, the 101 corridor falls way behind any corridors involving Everett and Chelsea as candidates for another radial route, and I can't imagine it being chosen unless we have 3 radial routes to spare, if not 4.

If the intention is to give Gilman Square and Union Square Somerville a true HRT line to downtown, I actually think pursuing GLX improvements will be a much, much better use of resources. This can even include improving terminal capacity such that 2 bullets can terminate at Medford/Tufts instead of one (E).

(Also, the intention of my Kendall-Copley line is a combination of better connections to Kendall and better connections from Cambridge to Back Bay. It appears that your proposal will need an infill on the Red Line to do either of these things.)