Crazy Transit Pitches

My borderline crazy pitch: Extending the B line down Commonwealth Ave to Newton Center. Mostly crazy due to the NIMBY reaction.
 
Last edited:
RandomWalk said:
My borderline crazy pitch: Extending the C line down Commonwealth Ave to Newton Center. Mostly crazy due to the NIMBY reaction.
Click to expand...
Comm Ave or Beacon Street? You can certainly send the C-Line trains to Comm Ave via the connection on Chestnut Hill Ave. But I think of Newton Center as being on Beacon Street, not Comm Ave. Why not just extend on Beacon for this NIMBY infuriating idea?
 
There's a mile of insufficient density between BC and Newton Center, and the latter is already well served by the D. Streetcar service on that part of Comm Ave ended in 1930, and bus service in 1976.

A one-stop extension of the B to the west side of BC would be plausible, though the dorms are concentrated nearer Lake Street.
 
The EGE said:
A one-stop extension of the B to the west side of BC would be plausible, though the dorms are concentrated nearer Lake Street.
Click to expand...
That's something I've always included on my fantasy maps. If they wanted to, they could build a station along Linden Ln to ensure that basically the entire campus is within 10 minutes walking from the Green Line.

But it would probably need to be entirely funded by BC, so if they don't feel like it then it's not happening.
 
My logic is that it could be tied to an MBTA Communities Act upzoning along Comm Ave. Get a modern take on the row of interwar brick apartment buildings.

Like I said, crazy pitch…
 
Last edited:
The tracks to Newburyport are unfortunately long gone, but by what I see, you could run a Fitchburg-Lowell-Haverhill service.
 
BOS2BON said:
Has anyone here taken a look at CR service along the Merrimack River (E-W from Lowell to Lawrence/Haverhill or Newburyport)?
Click to expand...
MEVA bus #24 does Lowell-Lawrence every 30 minutes, making 4 intermediate stops with 40-minute travel time. MEVA bus #11 does Lawrence-Haverhill-Newburyport hourly, making 6 intermediate stops with 1-hour travel time. If there was any demand for such a service, we'd see it in anomalously high bus ridership statistics and by a push for further bus enhancements. I don't think either route is bursting at the seams.
CheapLeak said:
The tracks to Newburyport are unfortunately long gone, but by what I see, you could run a Fitchburg-Lowell-Haverhill service.
Click to expand...
Painfully slow and indirect trip. In 1946, Boston & Maine's New York-Portland State of Maine did Ayer-Lowell in 33 minutes with no intermediate stops, and Lowell-Lawrence in 33 minutes with no intermediate stops. Fitchburg-Ayer on CR is 18 minutes, and Ballardvale-Haverhill on CR is 35 minutes. A pretty unappetizing slog overall, especially since you'd probably be sticking a couple of intermediate stops on the Stony Brook Branch between Ayer and North Chelmsford and 1 intermediate in Tewksbury on the Lowell Branch between Lowell and Andover. It doesn't help that the rail routes aren't as direct as the highways. 495 does Lowell-Lawrence in 4 fewer miles than the rails, and 495+2 does Fitchburg-Lowell in 3 fewer miles than the rails. If there's a market for Gateway City-linking commuter service, it's something you try with a coach bus on the highways not Commuter Rail.
 
CheapLeak said:
The tracks to Newburyport are unfortunately long gone, but by what I see, you could run a Fitchburg-Lowell-Haverhill service.
Click to expand...
I'm aware, at least they will end up as some nice rail trails. But this is CRAZY TRANSIT pitches thread....let a man dream 😭😭😭
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
MEVA bus #24 does Lowell-Lawrence every 30 minutes, making 4 intermediate stops with 40-minute travel time. MEVA bus #11 does Lawrence-Haverhill-Newburyport hourly, making 6 intermediate stops with 1-hour travel time. If there was any demand for such a service, we'd see it in anomalously high bus ridership statistics and by a push for further bus enhancements. I don't think either route is bursting at the seams.

Painfully slow and indirect trip. In 1946, Boston & Maine's New York-Portland State of Maine did Ayer-Lowell in 33 minutes with no intermediate stops, and Lowell-Lawrence in 33 minutes with no intermediate stops. Fitchburg-Ayer on CR is 18 minutes, and Ballardvale-Haverhill on CR is 35 minutes. A pretty unappetizing slog overall, especially since you'd probably be sticking a couple of intermediate stops on the Stony Brook Branch between Ayer and North Chelmsford and 1 intermediate in Tewksbury on the Lowell Branch between Lowell and Andover. It doesn't help that the rail routes aren't as direct as the highways. 495 does Lowell-Lawrence in 4 fewer miles than the rails, and 495+2 does Fitchburg-Lowell in 3 fewer miles than the rails. If there's a market for Gateway City-linking commuter service, it's something you try with a coach bus on the highways not Commuter Rail.
Click to expand...
I've been happy with the improvements MEVA has been making over the past couple of years. But yeah I agree with you, the demand isn't quite there yet. As nice as it would be to be able to hop on a train and head to the beach, I don't think this juice is worth the squeeze so to speak. I didn't realize that the Lowell-Lawrence trip was that big of a difference between the historic rail route vs 495.
 
BOS2BON said:
I didn't realize that the Lowell-Lawrence trip was that big of a difference between the historic rail route vs 495.
Click to expand...
The most direct historic rail route between Lowell-Lawrence was the Boston & Lowell's Lowell & Lawrence route, which tracked closer to where 495 is today (the 495/93 cloverleaf interchange is built right on top of the ROW). But that got abandoned by B&M as redundant 90 years ago, and its ROW is mostly obliterated by new development. The Lowell Branch + Western Route is about 2.5 miles longer than the L&L and has sharper curves, but it carried more overall traffic so it was kept.
 
The Merrimack Corridor and its historical east-west ROWs always look super enticing for an unconventional rail proposal. And maybe in some relatively distant future, where Lawrence-Haverhill and Lowell are both bigger cities, there could be something. But as F-Line points out, the region just doesn't seem to be there yet. And it's worth noting that the Lowell <> Ballardvale connection looks enticing, but it's actually super indirect -- over 14 miles between Lowell and Lawrence, for what is less than 9.5 miles as the crow flies. I'd have to go back and look at the distances and speeds -- and retest Google Maps' travel time estimates with traffic -- but my recollection is that traffic would have to be pretty bad for rail along that route to be competitive.
 
Cataloguing the "Red X"

This post may just end up being a collection of dates and links. If so, so be it. I went looking through the archives to try to find the origination of the "Red X" concept. It actually dates back much further than I thought (and I'm not even completely sure I've found the starting point!).

There are probably other discussions I haven't captured here, especially in more recent threads. But from a historical lookback, I think this is pretty close to being comprehensive.

~~~

November 2011: @F-Line to Dudley proposes using a Red X to negate the need for a mainline Central Station on the NSRL, utilizing instead the shorter trainsets of the Red Line to build a smaller station, with a less expensive portal than one at South Bay. From what I can tell, this is the origination point of the proposal.

Columbia Jct. on the Red Line funnels traffic to a giant X pattern without any intermixing of tracks. It's just the northeast leg of that X isn't really a branch, only 2 miles of yard leads. But if it were a branch, you'd have exactly the same capacity on that fork as the subway. Lo and behold, Cabot Yard ends about 400 feet away from where the N-S NEC/Fairmount/Old Colony tunnels would all converge. $4B for 2 lightly-used commuter rail portals, or $250M to dig a much shorter (because the incline can be way steeper than a RR) subway tunnel under Cabot feeding the Link via those sorely underutilized yard leads. Could also feed it via the abandoned upper-level Broadway tunnel for just a few hundred feet more under-street digging and angling into that same exact Cabot incline to the Link). Fork the branches at Columbia Jct. and use 100% of that track capacity. Send a lot of Braintree service through there so those Old Colony riders get compensated with one-seat subway access to North Station. Build a small, tight Aquarium transfer to the Blue Line and let the RR side speed past it. That's a buildable Central Station option with of the small 1-platform/6-car footprint and rapid-transit grades. Expand the upper level of the North Station superstation over the Orange Line tracks and put the new line there. Later phase...double-up the Orange Line portal to 4-track and send these Red Line trains out there and across BET to take over the Green Line Medford extension. Then you can plan real rapid-transit to Woburn and get 4 branches firing on all cylinders on the big Red X.
Click to expand...

July 2012: @F-Line to Dudley again describes using 2 out of the 4 tracks of a CA/T NSRL alignment for a Red Line branch, via the Cabot Yard Leads:

Now, I think Central Station works if 2 of the 4 Link tracks are a Red Line branch spurred off the Cabot Yard leads providing a real N-S rapid transit connection for the first time since the Atlantic Ave. El stopped running. Because then it's a minimalist claustrophobic platform fittable with only a few feet of wall widening, and gets called "Aquarium Under". It can fit 6 rapid transit cars easy on flat ground without sloping...and the RR trains can just blast by on the other 2 tracks behind the fence. Or build the cut, 2-track the tunnel, and leave the empty space for the rapid transit berth to be added later if you're cost-concerned. But don't build it as some 4-track, 2-island platform subterranean Back Bay that gums up the schedule, can't be used by half the trains, and gives passengers vertigo with the disconcerting slop
Click to expand...

December 2013: @asap_mozart implicitly suggests a non-interlined version of the Red X with a proposal for a Chelsea <> Braintree "Burgundy Line"; the actual path across downtown is not explicit. @George_Apley then describes the core idea of using the Cabot Yard Leads in conjunction with a NSRL build (using 2 out of the 4 tracks of a CA/T alignment) to create a second northern "branch" of the Red Line. @F-Line to Dudley elaborates a few posts later, including detailing integration into the North Station Superstation. @Equilibria later asks about where Red X is supposed to go on the northern end, and subsequently discusses with F-Line.

January 2014: @asap_mozart again suggests a modification to Red Line ops. F-Line notes the potential to achieve Ashmont/Braintree <> South Station short-turns by using the Cabot Yard Leads to get close to South Station, and notes that integration with the NSRL would be needed to go anywhere further.

April 2014: @George_Apley summarizes the concept. Initial replies suggest that the concept is not well-known on the board.

November 2014: @F-Line to Dudley makes a passing comment about the Red X concept

September 2015: @F-Line to Dudley makes another passing comment about the Red X concept

June 2019: Without discussing the Red X concept itself, @F-Line to Dudley lays out the underlying topology created by the position of the Cabot Yard relative to the two southern branches and the subway

July 2019: @F-Line to Dudley resurrects the Red X concept by connecting it (in the second half of the post) to the Congress St alignment from the 2018 NSRL Reassessment

December 2019: @F-Line to Dudley rearticulates the Red X concept by again tying it to the Congress St alignment described in the 2018 NSRL Reassessment

September 2020: @F-Line to Dudley goes into detail around more specific alignments. In follow-ups, F-Line explains why his first choice for northside takeover would be the Lowell Line. @The EGE lays out a sketch for a greenfield HRT extension to Everett and Chelsea, using the Red X. Subsequent discussion around Red X being a stronger alternative than branching the Orange Line (with further elaboration on the next page). F-Line also offers his ops take on why the Red X provide better flexibility all around.

George_Apley includes a visualization:

1734913227796.png


August 2021: @Wash proposes a "Yellow Line" very similar to the Red X, but without interlining. @Brattle Loop implicitly articulates the value and necessity of interlining in order to maintain existing connectivity provided by the current Red Line
 
I'd love to see the "Red X" concept become a reality someday. My only worry is the Dorchester pinch next to the Commuter Rail tracks, specifically at Savin Hill. A lot of people suggest that the Red Line should be consolidated from 4 tracks to 2 at Savin Hill to make room for more Commuter Rail tracks. It seems like that kind of solution for the Dorchester pinch could throw a wrench into "Red X" becoming a reality.
 
themissinglink said:
I'd love to see the "Red X" concept become a reality someday. My only worry is the Dorchester pinch next to the Commuter Rail tracks, specifically at Savin Hill. A lot of people suggest that the Red Line should be consolidated from 4 tracks to 2 at Savin Hill to make room for more Commuter Rail tracks. It seems like that kind of solution for the Dorchester pinch could throw a wrench into "Red X" becoming a reality.
Click to expand...
Yeah I mean, I have two feelings about this:

1) I love the Red X for its creativity, and I definitely can imagine a strong case for it. It's also definitely not my top priority personally, and I don't think it should block other projects. The ops complexity of it is a double-edged sword, and I think the fact that it's actually pretty hard to map elegantly articulates its downsides. It's essentially a "Northern Line topology"... and TfL has been trying to deinterline the Northern Line for years. I'm not saying that that model couldn't work here! But I do think it's a point against it. And the benefits of the interlining -- doubling frequencies on Braintree and Ashmont/Mattapan -- are significant, but I don't think they are earth-shattering.

2) If the Red X ever does get seriously considered as a project, it'll be -- like all expansions -- expensive. Let's say that the Red Line junction gets relocated to Harrison Square (the actual divergence point); that means that re-double tracking Harrison <> JFK/UMass moves into scope for the Red X build, which is unfortunate, but doesn't need to be fatal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top