Crazy Transit Pitches

[jbray]

It feels like there should be better consensus on the order of projects in the advocacy community or even what projects. We don't even have consensus at to whether the grand junction in Cambridge should be urban ring or radial. Here are the projects (as I see them), and I'm going to rank them in the timeline by start date (there's no reason they can't be concurrent):

Major "New" Projects
North-South Rail Link
East-West
Urban Ring (Grand Junction all the way)
South Coast Phase 2
Double Tracking the Old Colony Pinch (Cape Rail?)
Stuart Street Subway
South End/Roxbury/Blue Hills Ave Rail Corridor (Nubian)
Chelsea Subway (to North Station Only?)
Everett Subway (to Sullivan Only? North Station via New Rutherford? OL Branch? Cambridge centered line?)
Congress Street Subway (Chelsea? to...? Nubian? RedX?)

Extensions
Red-Blue Connector
Blue to Lynn
GLX to Route 16 (West Medford?)
Roslindale OLX
RLX to Arlington Heights
GLX to Porter/Harvard
OLX West Roxbury/GLX Needham
RLX to Mattapan
RLX to Lexington
BLX Kenmore/Salem

Some of those are permutations but you get the idea.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

2.5-min headways in the core, though... man I just don't know. (And really, if we are matching "4-5 minutes" at Malden, that points to 2 minutes in the core.) I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it also seems like it's far from certain that it can be done.

This is the intractable problem. You've gotta get transfer dwells in the core down before you can be talking headways like that. And with Red and Blue both aiming for 3-minute headways to flush downtown even fuller with riders, very old and access-constipated State and DTX won't be able to get Orange's doors closed on those transfer swells in time to clear the adjacent signal block without cascading delays at peak. The systems that use automation to achieve incredibly dense frequencies usually have their transfers spread over a LARGE number of stations so the transfer swells aren't singularly severe at any one of them even at max loading, because at that level of service density literally any dwell delay will mess with the tighter-than-tight frequencies. We've got the unfortunate gravitational singularity in the Big 4 downtown transfer stations, with a largely structurally unimprovable egress situation making the flushing of a platform between trains much more difficult. The only way to make it possible within those constraints is building radial transit first to take a big bite out of the transfers by redistributing them across the system.

Like...I could see Orange shooting for 1.5-2 minutes if we built the UR to Sullivan + Ruggles and/or if NSRL really gutted the Back Bay-North Station core with lots more people staying on Purple Line run-thrus. But the Red Line pretty much faces a 3-minute frequency cap because of Harvard curve (and likely gets hammered with tons of brand new core-to-Cambridge ridership in an NSRL universe), so the transfer swells at DTX are always going to be a bit outsized and impose a practical limiter on how fast you can get Orange's doors closed at peak. It honestly might not be enough for sustaining OLT base service levels to major bus hubs on multiple branches.

 

[Tallguy]

View attachment 59606
Keep in mind this does not take into account bus-bus transfers, and doesn't isolate only the Everett stops, just routes that go through Everett. I highly doubt that 65% of Sullivan's ridership comes from people coming from Everett, for example. Here's the list of routes for each station:

Sullvan: 104, 105, 109 (Pre BNRD just keep that in mind)
Wellington: 97, 99, 105, 106, 110, 112
Malden Center: 97, 99, 104, 105, 106

General conclusions:

• If we assume that 50% of bus riders at Everett transfer to buses to go to Kendall, while 50% go to Downtown or Longwood via the OL, then Sullivan is roughly 1/3 dependent on Everett ridership, although potentially less now that the 104 has been rerouted.
• No matter how you slice it Wellington is highly dependent on bus transfers from Everett. An Everett subway would pass through Sweetser Circle and no-doubt steal much of this ridership.
• That 20% figure for Malden Center is probably very optimistic. It includes the 105 and 106 which I would highly doubt many people are riding from Everett on. If they are omitted then it drops down to 11%.

Therefore, I think it can reasonably be said that if an Everett Subway was built, Wellington ridership would plummet, Sullivan would suffer both in terms of bus transfers and subway ridership but it probably wouldn't be catastrophic, and Malden Center would be basically unscathed. That would generally support the conclusion that branching the OL with basically anything worse than 90 second trunk headways is not a great idea.

I think the fact that an Everett Subway could easily connect to an Urban Ring serving Kendall and Longwood also hurts the merit of such a proposal, 90 second headways basically demand full automation which has proved to be very expensive. The full automation of the 10 mile long Paris Line 1 (About the same length as the OL) cost €750,000,000 (inflation adjusted), while the construction of the Line 14 extension cost around €360,000,000 per mile. The Sullivan-Longwood segment of the Urban Ring (Via the GJ) would be about 4.2 miles, for a price of roughly double what it would cost to automate the Orange Line, assuming the construction costs scale evenly from Paris to Boston. That seems like a better deal personally.

The line presently had a six minute frequency at best. Three minute trunk frequency would mean that Malden would get the same frequency it gets now. And, as much of the Everett ridership would be coming from Sullivan and Wellington, there should be significant overcapacity on the line as well. 90 second frequency is overkill

 

[TheRatmeister]

If we assume a normal capacity of 900 pax per train, and 10 TPH, then in 2019 the northern OL was around 2/3 of its maximum capacity of what it would have as a branch, assuming three minute headways on the trunk. If we use the crush capacity of 1350 pax per train it was at a bit less than 50% of its max capacity. In other words, my required 1.5 minute headways estimate was too pessimistic, 3 minute headways on the trunk would be fine.

But the headways have to be 3 minutes or less. If they drop to 4 minutes on the trunk, then after Community College the trains would be eating into their crush capacity. So, can the OL handle three minute headways? I'm not sure. According to the TM data dashboard, in September of 2019 dwells as high as two minutes were common in rush hour even with headways of <5 minutes. That would suggest that no, it's not feasible and the maximum OL headways are more like 4-5 minutes. If that's the case, there is essentially no (comfortable) capacity to spare on the OL for continued growth after a branch, assuming that passenger numbers return to 2019 levels at some point. If headways are more like 5 minutes, even at crush loads there's less than 25% of the line's capacity left. That's not a lot.

 

[Riverside]

On the topic of a subway through Everett, I do want to draw our attention back to the question of "where would the stations be?", because I think that will drive these decisions more than we might expect (like I described upthread).

 

[Riverside]

It feels like there should be better consensus on the order of projects in the advocacy community or even what projects.

So I'm gonna be difficult here and nudge a little bit on this; why should there be a better consensus?

From my perspective, having multiple projects that are "advocacy-ready" is beneficial because it allows us (as advocates) to respond to evolving political situations and public sentiments, capitalizing on moments as they come. I do think there's need for consensus around the most immediate next project, and I think we've got that: Red-Blue Connector, supplanting (at long last) GLX. But it's not obvious to me that consensus beyond that is necessarily desirable (to say nothing of likely not being possible).

That all being said, it's always fun (and worthwhile) to discuss and compare potential projects. To that end, I'd like to suggest a "creative constraint": set a limit of overall route-miles, and rank projects within constraints of that list.

I've been working on a blog post, analyzing the different eras of transit expansion and construction in Boston, and I think they are illustrative (these do not look at mainline rail/commuter rail):

• Initial Builds (1897-1922): 22 miles of ROW, all greenfield
• First Extensions (1923-1950ish): 7.5 miles, mostly reusing existing ROW
• Post-War Suburban Expansions (1950ish-1987): 34.8 miles of new transit, overwhelmingly reusing existing ROW
• [Big Dig {1990-2000ish}: Notable because it sucked all of the oxygen out of the room]
• Post Big Dig (2000ish-present): 6.25 miles, mostly existing ROW

So, an interesting (and I'd argue useful) constraint to a discussion about ranking projects is to ask ourselves which era we want to compare ourselves to. The heady days of Initial Builds where 22 miles of grade-separated transit was built over 25 years? The reactionary days of First Extensions or Post Big Dig, which saw less than 8 miles each of new construction over similar timeframes? Or the Post-War Suburban Expansions, which saw rates similar to Initial Builds but almost exclusively reusing existing ROWs?

(I'll try to post some thoughts on project rankings with these constraints later in the week, but for now I need to go to bed!)

 

[TheRatmeister]

On the topic of a subway through Everett, I do want to draw our attention back to the question of "where would the stations be?", because I think that will drive these decisions more than we might expect (like I described upthread).

Here's the 109 outbound data. If we just put stations at the 'spikey' stops, then the stations would be at:

• Dexter St (Encore)
• Sweetser Circle
• 2nd St/School St (Everett Sq or renamed, I vote Carrington after Walter Carrington.)
• High St/Hancock St
• Ferry St (Glendale)
• Lynn St (Woodlawn)
• Eastern Ave (Faulkner?)
• Linden Sq (Linden)

Thoughts:

• High St/Hancock St is probably redundant. If the Everett Sq/Carrington stop is moved up to Everett City Hall, that leaves a pretty even stop spacing between Sweetser Circle, Everett Square/Carrington, and Glendale stations.
• As you get towards Linden ridership drops, and these station sites become more speculative, designed for future development rather than existing ones.
• I'm not sure that Linden and Faulkner are both necessary, if Faulkner is eliminated then a more direct route could be taken to Linden.

 

[ritchiew]

On the topic of a subway through Everett, I do want to draw our attention back to the question of "where would the stations be?", because I think that will drive these decisions more than we might expect (like I described upthread).

Hehe. I brought up the idea of automation as I was thinking over your question. I seem to have derailed the conversation with that. Sorry about that.

I think the Orange Line deviation is a neat idea, but agree with most of the criticism. Here are some general thoughts:

I'll guess you've come across this, but here's a nice article on stop spacing. He bases most of his logic on how far people are willing to walk. He says there is a sharp drop-off in ridership past a 1/4 mile walk for slower, more local transit, like a bus. In that article he says people are generally willing to walk 3/5 mile for rapid transit. In the most recent edition of his book Human Transit, he changes that to 1/2 mile for rapid transit. (The book is wonderful, btw. I highly recommend. Get the new 2024 edition.) Everett isn't a super dense downtown where you have to also consider shorter spacing to spread heavy passenger loads across multiple stations. This also isn't where you'd want big park-and-rides, which would justify wider stop spacing. So using walking distance is pretty good model to figure reasonable stop spacing, I think.

Assuming people will walk 1/2 mile to get to a transit stop, then ideal stop spacing is..... there is no ideal stop spacing. It depends on specific goals, values, thinking on ridership v coverage, costs, and on and on (really, I recommend the book Human Transit). But I'm going to throw out 3/4 miles as a pretty decent heuristic. That creates some wasteful overlap in walkshed. But it also catches more people off the direct corridor who would otherwise be too far from a station. Natural station spots are unlikely to happen at exactly 3/4 mile intervals, so I'll give a range. Following the logic in that article, stop spacing of less than 1/2 mile in a place like Everett is pretty bad. That would create lots of wasteful overlaps in the walksheds, but add little extra coverage. Having stops that close together at that extreme would require some real justification. Stops further than 1 mile would also be bad. That would leave a coverage gap along the main corridor. That would also need some justification, like a big drop in density.

Then for actually picking stations in that range, there are a few other things to consider. One is multimodal access, which really drives ridership. That might mean prioritizing a place where you could build a whole bus station. At the very least it means prioritizing intersections that could easily facilitate busses, which means the intersection of two or more major streets. If Everett were a grid, that could be just abound anywhere, but it's really, really not. All those smaller, shorter residential streets that don't connect very easily would be a pain for lots of buses.

The other thing to consider is trip generators. Areas with businesses generate more trips then areas that are more purely residential. Schools, hospitals, government buildings, etc draw more. (These two factors, bus access and business proximity, are pretty big. I've been thinking about that since the recent quiz on least busy Red Line station. Shawmut and Fields Corner aren't that far apart, but Fields Corner has double the AM ridership.)

(continued)

 

[ritchiew]

With that long winded explanation of my thinking out of the way, here's how I would evaluate station locations:

Everett Square - Yup. Easy. Dense residential. Apartment buildings. Businesses. City Hall and other government offices. Medical clinics. Good bus connections from along Broadway. Less-good-but-doable bus connections possible for buses coming from cross streets and adjacent neighborhoods. This is probably the single most important spot to hit if you were to do an OL deviation. And of course you'd stop here if you did an OL branch, GL branch, or some modified UR through Everett.

Glendale - You weren't sure if this spot is good enough, but yes it totally is. From my crude measuring, the immediate area is even slightly denser than Everett Square. Numbers from @TheRatmeister bear that out, since the intersection of Broadway and Ferry actually has the second highest number of alightings (just barely). Buses along Broadway or Ferry would give basically straight shots to the station. Also, it's roughly 3/4 miles from Everett Square. Perfect.

Parkway - Depends. The walkability there is bad. Job and residential density is really low compared to most of the rest of the city (though that might be changing with new, planned developments). Presumably this station is to be an intermodal hub. It's a good place to catch buses from Broadway or the Parkway. TransitMatters also floated the idea of putting a Commuter Rail infill station there in their report on modernizing that line. It's only 1/2 mile from Everett Square, but you could justify that short distance because this could be a major intermodal hub. Plus the 1/2 mile walk to Everett Square has a big manmade obstacle in the way (f'n parkway). If you were building an Everett branch of the OL, or GL, or UR, then yes, you would put a stop here. However, this station isn't very compelling in your plan for an Orange Line deviation into Everett. In each of those plans, this replaces or duplicates the existing intermodal hub at Wellington. Moving the hub from Wellington to Parkway would be better for Everett riders, but worse for Medford riders, and then it's really splitting hairs which is better. It seems pretty close to a wash. It's certainly not so big an advantage that you'd do an expensive deviation.

Casino/Potential Stadium - Yes, but again, depends. The walkshed is currently bad, and the casino isn't actually that big a draw on its own. But there are some big plans for the area, including the potential stadium and maybe a whole new neighborhood on disused industrial space. I don't know all the details what is getting redeveloped, so I can't pick an exact spot for you. But there is some place on Alford that would make sense, roughly 3/4 miles from Parkway. I did said "depends," though. Again, this would be a good stop if you were building a new line, and so it's already along the way. But I don't think netting this stop is a compelling reason to do an Orange Line deviation. The people developing that area are doing it knowing full well there's no rapid transit there. That might hurt their businesses, but that's kind of just on them. They could have paid the premium to build closer to transit, but they didn't. I don't think we need to now bend over backwards to reroute a train closer to them.

Infill along Main Street - This could be a good addition. There's stuff going on on Main Street, but a little sparse on businesses and bigger apartment buildings. This stop would make sense if you were doing an OL deviation. However, if you were just looking at ideal spots for stations in Everett, this would rank kind of low. Anyone from Everett correct me, but Broadway just has more going on than Main, by a lot. Glendale (Broadway and Ferry) would be a more important stop than anything along Main Street. And I don't know how to serve them both with one project.

Infill along Broadway - So, somewhere between Everett Square and Glendale. For reasons I explained above, I think that spacing is wastefully tight. Unless there's some big trip generator I'm missing there, it's overkill in my opinion.

Infill along Ferry Street - I'll assume this isn't possible with any OL deviation. But for a new line, it makes sense. The new line would run up Broadway, then turn northwest onto Ferry. This station would be at maybe Cross Street. This looks like Main Street, in that it has some businesses and other ridership generators, but much less than Broadway. A line could serve this while also hitting Glendale, which is good. @TheRatmeister seems to be throwing out the idea of following the 109 up Broadway instead, and I think I agree.

Broadway and Lynn, or Broadway and Eastern - Glendale to Lynn Street is kind of short (<1/2 mile) and Glendale to Eastern is kind of far (>1 mile). @TheRatmeister lists these and suggests dropping Eastern, in part because then the route (if you want to follow the 109) would go more directly to Linden Square. That's pretty reasonable, but I think I'd do the opposite. Skip the intersection of Broadway and Lynn. This area is not very dense, especially with the big cemeteries adjacent, and that justifies wider stop spacing. Also, a Broadway and Eastern station could be a decent bus hub. Multiple bus routes run on nearby Salem Street, and a bus network redesign could funnel them to this station, instead of having to go the long way to Malden Center.

Linden Square - We're now well out of Everett, and the density is dropping off considerably. Everything past Glendale is really dropping off in priority. But this is still a good stop. The route from the last stop is a bit under a mile and could be done cheaply cutting under a historic rail line (current bike path). This stop has the most alightings on the 109, apparently, likely because of the other good bus connections.

Northgate Shopping Center - This is Crazy Transit Pitches, right? Past Linden Square, head under Route 1 for a terminal station at Northgate Shopping Center. That could be a great bus terminal for people coming in on Route 1. That's also like 100 acres of parking lot and low rise commercial that could be redeveloped for TOD.

 

[Riverside]

Hehe. I brought up the idea of automation as I was thinking over your question. I seem to have derailed the conversation with that. Sorry about that.

I think the Orange Line deviation is a neat idea, but agree with most of the criticism. Here are some general thoughts:

<snip>

(continued)

With that long winded explanation of my thinking out of the way, here's how I would evaluate station locations:

Everett Square - Yup. Easy. Dense residential. Apartment buildings. Businesses. City Hall and other government offices. Medical clinics. Good bus connections from along Broadway. Less-good-but-doable bus connections possible for buses coming from cross streets and adjacent neighborhoods. This is probably the single most important spot to hit if you were to do an OL deviation. And of course you'd stop here if you did an OL branch, GL branch, or some modified UR through Everett.

Glendale - You weren't sure if this spot is good enough, but yes it totally is. From my crude measuring, the immediate area is even slightly denser than Everett Square. Numbers from @TheRatmeister bear that out, since the intersection of Broadway and Ferry actually has the second highest number of alightings (just barely). Buses along Broadway or Ferry would give basically straight shots to the station. Also, it's roughly 3/4 miles from Everett Square. Perfect.

Parkway - Depends. The walkability there is bad. Job and residential density is really low compared to most of the rest of the city (though that might be changing with new, planned developments). Presumably this station is to be an intermodal hub. It's a good place to catch buses from Broadway or the Parkway. TransitMatters also floated the idea of putting a Commuter Rail infill station there in their report on modernizing that line. It's only 1/2 mile from Everett Square, but you could justify that short distance because this could be a major intermodal hub. Plus the 1/2 mile walk to Everett Square has a big manmade obstacle in the way (f'n parkway). If you were building an Everett branch of the OL, or GL, or UR, then yes, you would put a stop here. However, this station isn't very compelling in your plan for an Orange Line deviation into Everett. In each of those plans, this replaces or duplicates the existing intermodal hub at Wellington. Moving the hub from Wellington to Parkway would be better for Everett riders, but worse for Medford riders, and then it's really splitting hairs which is better. It seems pretty close to a wash. It's certainly not so big an advantage that you'd do an expensive deviation.

Casino/Potential Stadium - Yes, but again, depends. The walkshed is currently bad, and the casino isn't actually that big a draw on its own. But there are some big plans for the area, including the potential stadium and maybe a whole new neighborhood on disused industrial space. I don't know all the details what is getting redeveloped, so I can't pick an exact spot for you. But there is some place on Alford that would make sense, roughly 3/4 miles from Parkway. I did said "depends," though. Again, this would be a good stop if you were building a new line, and so it's already along the way. But I don't think netting this stop is a compelling reason to do an Orange Line deviation. The people developing that area are doing it knowing full well there's no rapid transit there. That might hurt their businesses, but that's kind of just on them. They could have paid the premium to build closer to transit, but they didn't. I don't think we need to now bend over backwards to reroute a train closer to them.

Infill along Main Street - This could be a good addition. There's stuff going on on Main Street, but a little sparse on businesses and bigger apartment buildings. This stop would make sense if you were doing an OL deviation. However, if you were just looking at ideal spots for stations in Everett, this would rank kind of low. Anyone from Everett correct me, but Broadway just has more going on than Main, by a lot. Glendale (Broadway and Ferry) would be a more important stop than anything along Main Street. And I don't know how to serve them both with one project.

Infill along Broadway - So, somewhere between Everett Square and Glendale. For reasons I explained above, I think that spacing is wastefully tight. Unless there's some big trip generator I'm missing there, it's overkill in my opinion.

Infill along Ferry Street - I'll assume this isn't possible with any OL deviation. But for a new line, it makes sense. The new line would run up Broadway, then turn northwest onto Ferry. This station would be at maybe Cross Street. This looks like Main Street, in that it has some businesses and other ridership generators, but much less than Broadway. A line could serve this while also hitting Glendale, which is good. @TheRatmeister seems to be throwing out the idea of following the 109 up Broadway instead, and I think I agree.

Broadway and Lynn, or Broadway and Eastern - Glendale to Lynn Street is kind of short (<1/2 mile) and Glendale to Eastern is kind of far (>1 mile). @TheRatmeister lists these and suggests dropping Eastern, in part because then the route (if you want to follow the 109) would go more directly to Linden Square. That's pretty reasonable, but I think I'd do the opposite. Skip the intersection of Broadway and Lynn. This area is not very dense, especially with the big cemeteries adjacent, and that justifies wider stop spacing. Also, a Broadway and Eastern station could be a decent bus hub. Multiple bus routes run on nearby Salem Street, and a bus network redesign could funnel them to this station, instead of having to go the long way to Malden Center.

Linden Square - We're now well out of Everett, and the density is dropping off considerably. Everything past Glendale is really dropping off in priority. But this is still a good stop. The route from the last stop is a bit under a mile and could be done cheaply cutting under a historic rail line (current bike path). This stop has the most alightings on the 109, apparently, likely because of the other good bus connections.

Northgate Shopping Center - This is Crazy Transit Pitches, right? Past Linden Square, head under Route 1 for a terminal station at Northgate Shopping Center. That could be a great bus terminal for people coming in on Route 1. That's also like 100 acres of parking lot and low rise commercial that could be redeveloped for TOD.

This is an excellent analysis, fantastic! (Including the parts I snipped for space.) Very compelling. I'll try to pull together some thoughtful responses later, but just wanted to give a big thumbs-up here.

Also shoutout to @TheRatmeister -- that data is super useful and compelling. I'd also be curious about ridership on the Ferry St segment of the (pre-BNRD) 104. Topologically, an "Everett Diversion" could theoretically still "work" in a triangular shape (Everett Square -> Broadway -> Glendale -> Ferry St -> Malden Center), and I'd be curious if Broadway or Ferry St sees the stronger ridership.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Also shoutout to @TheRatmeister -- that data is super useful and compelling. I'd also be curious about ridership on the Ferry St segment of the (pre-BNRD) 104. Topologically, an "Everett Diversion" could theoretically still "work" in a triangular shape (Everett Square -> Broadway -> Glendale -> Ferry St -> Malden Center), and I'd be curious if Broadway or Ferry St sees the stronger ridership.

Here's the 104 data from Fall 2023. In terms of ons+offs Broadway outpaces Ferry St by almost 2:1 in ridership. The Ferry St segment is generally quite low in ridership generally, with Rich/Belmont and to a lesser extent Harvard/Winthrop being the exceptions. Being roughly 15 minutes walking from Ferry/Broadway, that's roughly the outer limit of the hypothetical station walkshed.

For funsies, here's the data for the routes along Main St (99 and 106 with a smidge of 105):

The data for this line is generally quite flat, but between Winthrop St and Bradford St could probably be considered the "peak" with a smaller spike at Pleasant St/Malden Center (not the station). For any OL diversion, a "West Everett" station should be somewhere around there.

I don't think there's really a clear winner between a shorter diversion and a longer one. A shorter diversion would allow for serving River's Edge, a longer one would serve more of the high ridership on Broadway. I would say that Main St and Ferry St are generally about equal though.

 

[jbray]

So I'm gonna be difficult here and nudge a little bit on this; why should there be a better consensus?

From my perspective, having multiple projects that are "advocacy-ready" is beneficial because it allows us (as advocates) to respond to evolving political situations and public sentiments, capitalizing on moments as they come. I do think there's need for consensus around the most immediate next project, and I think we've got that: Red-Blue Connector, supplanting (at long last) GLX. But it's not obvious to me that consensus beyond that is necessarily desirable (to say nothing of likely not being possible).

That all being said, it's always fun (and worthwhile) to discuss and compare potential projects. To that end, I'd like to suggest a "creative constraint": set a limit of overall route-miles, and rank projects within constraints of that list.

I've been working on a blog post, analyzing the different eras of transit expansion and construction in Boston, and I think they are illustrative (these do not look at mainline rail/commuter rail):

• Initial Builds (1897-1922): 22 miles of ROW, all greenfield
• First Extensions (1923-1950ish): 7.5 miles, mostly reusing existing ROW
• Post-War Suburban Expansions (1950ish-1987): 34.8 miles of new transit, overwhelmingly reusing existing ROW
• [Big Dig {1990-2000ish}: Notable because it sucked all of the oxygen out of the room]
• Post Big Dig (2000ish-present): 6.25 miles, mostly existing ROW

So, an interesting (and I'd argue useful) constraint to a discussion about ranking projects is to ask ourselves which era we want to compare ourselves to. The heady days of Initial Builds where 22 miles of grade-separated transit was built over 25 years? The reactionary days of First Extensions or Post Big Dig, which saw less than 8 miles each of new construction over similar timeframes? Or the Post-War Suburban Expansions, which saw rates similar to Initial Builds but almost exclusively reusing existing ROWs?

(I'll try to post some thoughts on project rankings with these constraints later in the week, but for now I need to go to bed!)

I think it's a fair question. I full heartedly agree that we should have a multitude of advocacy ready projects but it feels like we're missing the next step with is a multitude of projects getting sustained advocacy. In my mind, we should have two-three major projects being pushed for, two-three medium to big-sized projects, and two-three small to medium sized projects being truly supported by the advocates. Think (and these are just examples):

-RR Electrification, N/S, E-W
-R-B, Blue to Lynn, Urban Ring Bus ROW (in anticipation of a fully rail UR).
-Roslindale, Route 16, Center running bus lanes on TBus routes or D street grade separation.

By having the community be all in, we have pressure to make them happen as opposed to everyone being so tied up in their pet projects that we squabble over funds going one way or another publicly in forums where getting buy in from less interested citizens is tougher.

I was inspired by a few conversations I've had here and elsewhere where there's retrenchment around what is worthwhile (@TheRatmeister and I going at it over Milton vs Lexington, OLX/GLX to a NIMBY West Roxbury/Needham before an RLX to a less NIMBY AH?, etc.). What made me bring it up now is that is we just take @Teban54 's density map as a guide, Charlestown and Chelsea "deserve" a subway on Broadway before Everett (not dramatically so, mind you). With the Tobin tunnel idea, there's a very real opportunity to advocate for transit space as part of the build but it's likely to not happen because the groundswell to define the Chelsea ROW is non-existent. Everett is much more likely to get rail first because there is an effort at the advocate, municipal, and now, business level to get transit there. I'm not saying that the consensus needs to be rigid, just that we should have some consensus on what projects should get a larger market share of the outward conversation.

 

[jbray]

The way I see it, @TheRatmeister is right and a light rail urban ring is going to be the realistic first step for Everett. Eng announcing that they are going to try and make the Haymarket-North extension 55 mph signifies a real commitment to the OL being fast for Malden and even suggests that ideas like Ari's Wyoming Hill +1 should maybe be a bigger part of the conversation. @Riverside 's compromise green branch is the next step until we can determine and build destination pairs and actual core subways through the cores of Boston or Cambridge while we can't make everything Green line, we can certainly start adding separated ROWs that use the green (or OL) core to then later be removed.

With that vision in mind, I agree with most of @ritchiew with some deviations and edited to be in order outbound:

With that long winded explanation of my thinking out of the way, here's how I would evaluate station locations:

Casino/Potential Stadium - Yes, but again, depends. The walkshed is currently bad, and the casino isn't actually that big a draw on its own. But there are some big plans for the area, including the potential stadium and maybe a whole new neighborhood on disused industrial space. I don't know all the details what is getting redeveloped, so I can't pick an exact spot for you. But there is some place on Alford that would make sense, roughly 3/4 miles from Parkway. I did said "depends," though. Again, this would be a good stop if you were building a new line, and so it's already along the way. But I don't think netting this stop is a compelling reason to do an Orange Line deviation. The people developing that area are doing it knowing full well there's no rapid transit there. That might hurt their businesses, but that's kind of just on them. They could have paid the premium to build closer to transit, but they didn't. I don't think we need to now bend over backwards to reroute a train closer to them.

If there's a connection to Gateway center that also would be a huge space for development akin to another Assembly. The ROW on Riverside's compromise is perfect because allows connections to the Casino, Assembly, and the Urban ring. It's also not bad spacing compared to the other river crossing stations like Charles-Kendall or South Station-Courthouse. Given a full development of the area plus the Casino and the stadium, it's a no-brainer.

Parkway - Depends. The walkability there is bad. Job and residential density is really low compared to most of the rest of the city (though that might be changing with new, planned developments). Presumably this station is to be an intermodal hub. It's a good place to catch buses from Broadway or the Parkway. TransitMatters also floated the idea of putting a Commuter Rail infill station there in their report on modernizing that line. It's only 1/2 mile from Everett Square, but you could justify that short distance because this could be a major intermodal hub. Plus the 1/2 mile walk to Everett Square has a big manmade obstacle in the way (f'n parkway). If you were building an Everett branch of the OL, or GL, or UR, then yes, you would put a stop here. However, this station isn't very compelling in your plan for an Orange Line deviation into Everett. In each of those plans, this replaces or duplicates the existing intermodal hub at Wellington. Moving the hub from Wellington to Parkway would be better for Everett riders, but worse for Medford riders, and then it's really splitting hairs which is better. It seems pretty close to a wash. It's certainly not so big an advantage that you'd do an expensive deviation.

This is an infill-only if the Revere Beach Parkway gets BRT on it. Having a good way to get from Wonderland to Wellington that interfaces with an Everett subway and the UR is a must, but not before then. Even buses on Main don't really justify but I wouldn't fight it if they wanted it in the original build.

Broadway and Lynn, or Broadway and Eastern - Glendale to Lynn Street is kind of short (<1/2 mile) and Glendale to Eastern is kind of far (>1 mile). @TheRatmeister lists these and suggests dropping Eastern, in part because then the route (if you want to follow the 109) would go more directly to Linden Square. That's pretty reasonable, but I think I'd do the opposite. Skip the intersection of Broadway and Lynn. This area is not very dense, especially with the big cemeteries adjacent, and that justifies wider stop spacing. Also, a Broadway and Eastern station could be a decent bus hub. Multiple bus routes run on nearby Salem Street, and a bus network redesign could funnel them to this station, instead of having to go the long way to Malden Center.

I disagree here. The station would consolidate the ridership of Lynn, Shute, and Estes as one stop, presumably under the park closer to Shute; that's 1000 riders already which is comparable to Ferry/Glenndale. At the same time, I also agree that Eastern should be kept due to it's location as the crossing on 99 and 60. The parking lots of Eastern Ave are ripe for redevelopment. and it's easy to put big feeder buses there. The stop spacing is akin to Porter, Davis, and Alewife and, if River's Edge is made an OL infill, the OL from Sullivan to Malden Center. That's not to say that one of these stations could be infill, but they both have a right to exist.

Northgate Shopping Center - This is Crazy Transit Pitches, right? Past Linden Square, head under Route 1 for a terminal station at Northgate Shopping Center. That could be a great bus terminal for people coming in on Route 1. That's also like 100 acres of parking lot and low rise commercial that could be redeveloped for TOD.

This is complicated but I also agree with it. Outside of repurposed industrial in Everett and Chelsea, this is where some kind of a yard will have to go. That's not to say that TOD shouldn't be here, just that we need to consider the necessary logistical requirements. I also envision this along with a Chelsea-Broadway subway that goes all the way to 60 at the rotary and then heads north into Northgate, I just don't know which line I think should go to Saugus and which should maybe go the the Western Ave area of Lynn? That's super sketchy and with Climate change plus where is the money coming from(?) feels impossible so I too look at Northgate as a big terminus.

 

[samsongam]

This is an infill-only if the Revere Beach Parkway gets BRT on it. Having a good way to get from Wonderland to Wellington that interfaces with an Everett subway and the UR is a must, but not before then. Even buses on Main don't really justify but I wouldn't fight it if they wanted it in the original build.

I've been working on updating my fantasy map and transit ideas around Sweetser Circle for the past few months. If the plan is to go into Everett aligned with Broadway (I prefer a branch of the UR rather than an orange line diversion), then a stop at the parkway would be fantastic for transfers. There are 5 bus routes (2 frequent) that hit Sweetser Circle already, plus SLX will go through here as well in the nearish future. The potential regional rail stop + UR to Chelsea would make this a core station in the area. Additionally, the majority of the residential from the Exxon site plans and the decent density on Charlton St are closer to Sweester Circle than to the Casino or Everett Center. I definitely think that a stop here would be pivotal and much more than an infill.

Northgate Shopping Center - This is Crazy Transit Pitches, right? Past Linden Square, head under Route 1 for a terminal station at Northgate Shopping Center. That could be a great bus terminal for people coming in on Route 1. That's also like 100 acres of parking lot and low rise commercial that could be redeveloped for TOD.

Completely agree with Northgate as the terminus, along with TOD and a yard. Seems like a big opportunity and any future transit that might come with a Tobin replacement following 1 could terminate here as well. I have yards in red here and development opportunities in blue.

 

[Riverside]

What a great discussion! The level of detail, data, thoughtfulness, and graphics (!) -- what a pleasure to read.

Let me see if I have specific responses, and then if I have any overall comments...

I think the Orange Line deviation is a neat idea, but agree with most of the criticism. Here are some general thoughts:

I'll guess you've come across this, but here's a nice article on stop spacing. He bases most of his logic on how far people are willing to walk. He says there is a sharp drop-off in ridership past a 1/4 mile walk for slower, more local transit, like a bus. In that article he says people are generally willing to walk 3/5 mile for rapid transit. In the most recent edition of his book Human Transit, he changes that to 1/2 mile for rapid transit. (The book is wonderful, btw. I highly recommend. Get the new 2024 edition.) Everett isn't a super dense downtown where you have to also consider shorter spacing to spread heavy passenger loads across multiple stations. This also isn't where you'd want big park-and-rides, which would justify wider stop spacing. So using walking distance is pretty good model to figure reasonable stop spacing, I think.

I'm not sure I'd seen that specific blog post, but it is indeed material I'm familiar with (Some day, I'll get around to posting my "Hexagonal Theory of Transit", which is related.)

In general, I agree with Walker's analysis. However, I think it's slightly incomplete in this particular context. The dynamics and tensions he describes apply when you have a singular service that needs to meet multiple needs. But a corridor like Everett Broadway should still have a local bus service even with rapid transit, which creates a "local service upstairs, express service downstairs" structure. (If we're talking about a subway.)

(Why should there still be a local bus "upstairs"? For one thing, the coverage use case remains important. Not all journeys will be made from Everett to a job center; some will be, for example, a grandmother heading to MGH for a doctor's appointment, who has a much lower tolerance for long walks. The high ridership of the 104 doesn't indicate that it should be replaced by rapid transit; it indicates that it is doing "double duty" and should be relieved by rapid transit.)

In this context, that double layer of service (potentially) means that the "express" service could/should lean toward "ridership-focused" stop spacing. I'm not sure that will materially change our analysis specific to Everett, but I do think it's an important dynamic to keep in mind.

But I'm going to throw out 3/4 miles as a pretty decent heuristic. ...

That might mean prioritizing a place where you could build a whole bus station. At the very least it means prioritizing intersections that could easily facilitate busses, which means the intersection of two or more major streets. If Everett were a grid, that could be just abound anywhere, but it's really, really not. All those smaller, shorter residential streets that don't connect very easily would be a pain for lots of buses.

The other thing to consider is trip generators. Areas with businesses generate more trips then areas that are more purely residential. Schools, hospitals, government buildings, etc draw more. (These two factors, bus access and business proximity, are pretty big. I've been thinking about that since the recent quiz on least busy Red Line station. Shawmut and Fields Corner aren't that far apart, but Fields Corner has double the AM ridership.)

Agree with all of this.

Everett Square - Yup. Easy. Dense residential. Apartment buildings. Businesses. City Hall and other government offices. Medical clinics. Good bus connections from along Broadway. Less-good-but-doable bus connections possible for buses coming from cross streets and adjacent neighborhoods. This is probably the single most important spot to hit if you were to do an OL deviation. And of course you'd stop here if you did an OL branch, GL branch, or some modified UR through Everett.

Agreed. From what I can gather, "Everett Square" is slightly "stretched" along Broadway (I think one source suggested "2nd St to Summer St", about a quarter mile), which does raise a little bit of a question in terms of where exactly you'd put the station (and headhouses), which in turn might impact the "cadence" of subsequent stops. Also worth noting that the ridership data suggests a significant number of northbound boardings here.

Glendale - You weren't sure if this spot is good enough, but yes it totally is. From my crude measuring, the immediate area is even slightly denser than Everett Square. Numbers from @TheRatmeister bear that out, since the intersection of Broadway and Ferry actually has the second highest number of alightings (just barely). Buses along Broadway or Ferry would give basically straight shots to the station. Also, it's roughly 3/4 miles from Everett Square. Perfect.

Yeah, my original comment may have overstated my skepticism, but @TheRatmeister's data is very compelling.

For the 109, adding the ridership from Gladstone St to Mansfield St, plus half of High St (which could go into either a "Glendale" or "Square" walkshed) yields just over 2,100 riders. The other half of High St, plus the subsequent stops up to and including Ferry St come out to just under the same amount. Adding the lower ridership stops beyond up to Lynn St (same distance as High St <> Ferry St) nets another 1,000. On top of those, the 104 adds ~2,400, then ~1,800, and then ~1,400 riders respectively. The Main St routes are a little more tentative, but Santilli Circle <> Winthrop St yields another 900 riders for "Square". Which gives us:

• "Square": 5,400 riders
• "Glendale": 6,300 riders
  • south of Ferry St: 3,900
  • beyond Ferry St: 2,400

Parkway - ... this replaces or duplicates the existing intermodal hub at Wellington. ...

This is a good articulation of the crux of the issue with "Parkway". I think you've convinced me that a Deviation that only hits "Parkway" would not be worth the trouble. However, I really like @samsongam's envisioning of what "Parkway" might look like. Assuming we aren't talking about a "Minimal Deviation," then a transfer hub here makes a lot of sense.

Casino/Potential Stadium - ... But I don't think netting this stop is a compelling reason to do an Orange Line deviation. ...

Agreed.

 

[Riverside]

Infill along Main Street - This could be a good addition. There's stuff going on on Main Street, but a little sparse on businesses and bigger apartment buildings. This stop would make sense if you were doing an OL deviation. However, if you were just looking at ideal spots for stations in Everett, this would rank kind of low. Anyone from Everett correct me, but Broadway just has more going on than Main, by a lot. Glendale (Broadway and Ferry) would be a more important stop than anything along Main Street. And I don't know how to serve them both with one project.

Agreed.

Infill along Broadway - So, somewhere between Everett Square and Glendale. For reasons I explained above, I think that spacing is wastefully tight. Unless there's some big trip generator I'm missing there, it's overkill in my opinion.

I see where you're coming from, though I'm a little less confident. The ridership along Broadway is spiky, but it's not that spiky, rather being generally high along the whole corridor up to Ferry St. I think this is where the question of the "Square" station placement becomes germane: a station near Summer St would make an infill unnecessary, but closer to 2nd St would start to stretch things. (To some extent, headhouse location due to station length due to LRT vs HRT mode might tip the scales here as well.)

Infill along Ferry Street - I'll assume this isn't possible with any OL deviation. But for a new line, it makes sense. The new line would run up Broadway, then turn northwest onto Ferry. This station would be at maybe Cross Street. This looks like Main Street, in that it has some businesses and other ridership generators, but much less than Broadway. A line could serve this while also hitting Glendale, which is good. @TheRatmeister seems to be throwing out the idea of following the 109 up Broadway instead, and I think I agree.

Well, in theory a Ferry Street infill could be available on a Glendale deviation that then returns to Malden Center. But that would be a pretty substantial deviation for Malden riders, adding over a mile and three or four stations, which is probably a bridge too far.

Broadway and Lynn, or Broadway and Eastern - Glendale to Lynn Street is kind of short (<1/2 mile) and Glendale to Eastern is kind of far (>1 mile). @TheRatmeister lists these and suggests dropping Eastern, in part because then the route (if you want to follow the 109) would go more directly to Linden Square. That's pretty reasonable, but I think I'd do the opposite. Skip the intersection of Broadway and Lynn. This area is not very dense, especially with the big cemeteries adjacent, and that justifies wider stop spacing. Also, a Broadway and Eastern station could be a decent bus hub. Multiple bus routes run on nearby Salem Street, and a bus network redesign could funnel them to this station, instead of having to go the long way to Malden Center.

Salem St in Malden is a relatively active bus corridor, so I agree that a Broadway/Eastern looks intriguing. That said, Broadway is where the Salem St routes diverge; the lower frequency "branches" from that corridor could potentially be redirected to a transfer terminal at Linden Square, and leave Salem St itself for a short taut service pinging from Malden Center to Linden Square or Northgate. That probably lowers the competitiveness for a Broadway/Eastern station a bit.

Linden Square - We're now well out of Everett, and the density is dropping off considerably. Everything past Glendale is really dropping off in priority. But this is still a good stop. The route from the last stop is a bit under a mile and could be done cheaply cutting under a historic rail line (current bike path). This stop has the most alightings on the 109, apparently, likely because of the other good bus connections.

Northgate Shopping Center - This is Crazy Transit Pitches, right? Past Linden Square, head under Route 1 for a terminal station at Northgate Shopping Center. That could be a great bus terminal for people coming in on Route 1. That's also like 100 acres of parking lot and low rise commercial that could be redeveloped for TOD.

Linden Square was the most surprising data point to me. Combine that with the possibility of TOD at Northgate plus a park-n-ride for Route 1, and I think you've got a pretty interesting case for a station here. But, getting back to my original point, it's not obvious that it must be a station on an Everett line -- you could reach Linden/Northgate by way of:

• Orange branch from Malden Center via Northern Strand
• Everett Broadway service
• Something along Route 1 (i.e. a Tobin Bridge service)
• Chelsea/Revere Broadway

The way I see it, @TheRatmeister is right and a light rail urban ring is going to be the realistic first step for Everett. Eng announcing that they are going to try and make the Haymarket-North extension 55 mph signifies a real commitment to the OL being fast for Malden and even suggests that ideas like Ari's Wyoming Hill +1 should maybe be a bigger part of the conversation. @Riverside 's compromise green branch is the next step until we can determine and build destination pairs and actual core subways through the cores of Boston or Cambridge while we can't make everything Green line, we can certainly start adding separated ROWs that use the green (or OL) core to then later be removed.

Yeah, I agree with all of this.

Casino/Potential Stadium: If there's a connection to Gateway center that also would be a huge space for development akin to another Assembly. The ROW on Riverside's compromise is perfect because allows connections to the Casino, Assembly, and the Urban ring. It's also not bad spacing compared to the other river crossing stations like Charles-Kendall or South Station-Courthouse. Given a full development of the area plus the Casino and the stadium, it's a no-brainer.

Agreed, though I do still agree with @ritchiew that it's not strong enough on its own. (And it is true that the ROW I drew I could pose engineering challenges.)

Broadway and Lynn, or Broadway and Eastern: I disagree here. The station would consolidate the ridership of Lynn, Shute, and Estes as one stop, presumably under the park closer to Shute; that's 1000 riders already which is comparable to Ferry/Glenndale.

Yes, but that's combined over a distance of 1,000 feet. "Glendale"'s ridership significantly increases if considered over a comparable area.

I think Broadway/Lynn is a good example of a challenge with an Everett Line: as strong as Linden/Northgate appears to be, it's not a strong enough anchor, nor is there a consistent enough corridor between it and "Square", for it to be "obvious" that an Everett Line should run all the way to it. Which means, each potential station isn't just an "infill", but rather represents x additional feet of subway extension. An Everett Subway running from "Square" to Broadway/Lynn would be half again as expensive as one that terminates at Glendale.

The upside to that is that you can do an Everett Subway in phases more easily than some extensions. "Square" as Phase 1, "Glendale" as Phase 2, etc etc.

Completely agree with Northgate as the terminus, along with TOD and a yard. Seems like a big opportunity and any future transit that might come with a Tobin replacement following 1 could terminate here as well. I have yards in red here and development opportunities in blue.

I really like this! I look forward to seeing the full map!

 

[Riverside]

Should we (do we?) have an Everett transit thread?

 

[TheRatmeister]

I think Broadway/Lynn is a good example of a challenge with an Everett Line: as strong as Linden/Northgate appears to be, it's not a strong enough anchor, nor is there a consistent enough corridor between it and "Square", for it to be "obvious" that an Everett Line should run all the way to it. Which means, each potential station isn't just an "infill", but rather represents x additional feet of subway extension. An Everett Subway running from "Square" to Broadway/Lynn would be half again as expensive as one that terminates at Glendale.

The upside to that is that you can do an Everett Subway in phases more easily than some extensions. "Square" as Phase 1, "Glendale" as Phase 2, etc etc.

Strong agree. There isn't really any need to go all the way to Linden, Northgate, Saugus, or any other northern terminus if the ridership isn't there. The only reason you might want to do that would be yard space, but Sweetser Circle is just a better spot for that regardless.

But just to price out what a "Phase 1" Urban Ring would be like, assuming a route from Nubian to Sweetser Circle via Ruggles, Longwood, and Kendall, that would be about 2.5 miles of subway, plus another 1/4 mile around Sullivan for about $2.75 billion based on the cost of the Regional Connector in LA or the Central Subway in SF. If the remaining ~4.25 mi is elevated, that would be around another $2.5 billion if we go off Honolulu Skyline costs for a grand total of around $5.5B for a Nubian-Everett line.

For the adjacent projects, it would be about $1B to reach Glendale or probably around $2-2.5B for a full Linden extension, $2B to Chelsea, or ~$5B to Wonderland via Revere, $3B for the South Boston extension to City Point, and $7B for the Aqua Line out to Weston/128 via West Station, Watertown Sq, and Waltham Center. Or about $23B total for the whole UR+Aqua Line+Everett/Chelsea Lines, which is approximately 2/3 of a Big Dig.

 

[themissinglink]

Should we (do we?) have an Everett transit thread?

I don't think we do, but it would be a good idea. Maybe put it under "Design A Better Boston" like this thread?

 

[ritchiew]

But, getting back to my original point, it's not obvious that it must be a station on an Everett line

Yeah, I got a little carried away analyzing any possible station, and I should have really highlighted my answer to your original question.

I would say the essential Everett stations are Everett Square and Glendale. That's where there is the highest density. That's were you can set up good bus connections to bring in lots more people. Those will serve the most Everett residents by far. Those two stations must be on the Everett Line.

All the other possible stations I and y'all have listed are much lower priority. Some would be good stations, but they only become important once you've figured out how to serve Everett Square and Glendale.

I see where you're coming from, though I'm a little less confident. The ridership along Broadway is spiky, but it's not that spiky, rather being generally high along the whole corridor up to Ferry St. I think this is where the question of the "Square" station placement becomes germane: a station near Summer St would make an infill unnecessary, but closer to 2nd St would start to stretch things. (To some extent, headhouse location due to station length due to LRT vs HRT mode might tip the scales here as well.)

About an infill along Broadway, I still disagree, but these are some reasonable points. I do think you refute your own point here a bit when you said that Broadway would still have a local service "upstairs" as a bus. That would serve this stretch alright, even if the Everett Square station were at 2nd. But if you were going to have one spot where you allow maybe-over-tight spacing, this would definitely be the place to do it.