Eliminate the River Roads?

[Digital_Islandboy]

The Route MA-2 traffic doesn't just go away. There's a big span of area without Commuter Rail along Route MA-2 into Cambridge which abruptly turns into small surface roads along the Belmont border.
Therein some cars shift to Lake Street,
some continue down MA-16 toward Mystic Valley Parkway,
and the vast majority proceed down Alewife Brook Parkway and toward Fresh Pond Parkway and onwards to the river roads.
The big trucks from Route MA-2 take Concord Avenue and go through Harvard Square because they cannot go down the river roads.

I'd still feel it would be more logical that if the Blue Line were to extend westward, it should swing south all the way to reach Back Bay Station, then follow the Pike down Hynes Station and Lansdowne. Having Blue follow Storrow is just a huge waste since half of the walkshed is water and it bypasses the major Back Bay transfer hub.

If an I-90 widening consumes more space in the Back Bay area, that's just going to make a westward Blue Line extension more tricky.

Beyond CharlesMGH there's also the parking garage underneath the Boston Common.

What about if Blue Line were extended from Bowdoin, to Charles MGH, cross the Charles river to corner of Vassar + Main Street (which is where the Grand Junction /Urban Ring Line would be situated. This allows eventual connections towards Assembly Row and Allston West End (Commuter Rail)Station.
The Blue Line could then turn to Mass Ave. Stop at MIT (main steps) at 77 Mass Ave. Continue down Mass Ave. (Cross Charles again) Stop at same Hynes station, Stop at a combined Symphony/Mass Ave. Stop which connects to both Green-Orange at both ends of the platform. One stop at Washington Street Silver Line, and then terminate at Boston City Hospital(a/k/a Boston Medical Center) you then clear most of the clogged #1 buses which never are enough.) And ad redundancy in case any one line isn't working is what often makes people not want to trust the MBTA to begin with.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I'd still feel it would be more logical that if the Blue Line were to extend westward, it should swing south all the way to reach Back Bay Station, then follow the Pike down Hynes Station and Lansdowne. Having Blue follow Storrow is just a huge waste since half of the walkshed is water and it bypasses the major Back Bay transfer hub.

If an I-90 widening consumes more space in the Back Bay area, that's just going to make a westward Blue Line extension more tricky.

I think it's worth doing regardless of transit implications, frankly.

But to speak briefly on said transit and going to Back Bay station:

1. Would it actually be useful? For people going to/from MGH, sure, but apart from that I really can't think of much
2. Would we be willing to massively inflate the project cost to accomplish this? Like, multiple times more expensive, billions more expensive.

 

[Delvin4519]

I think it's worth doing regardless of transit implications, frankly.

But to speak briefly on said transit and going to Back Bay station:

1. Would it actually be useful? For people going to/from MGH, sure, but apart from that I really can't think of much
2. Would we be willing to massively inflate the project cost to accomplish this? Like, multiple times more expensive, billions more expensive.

Back Bay is the employment and transfer hub in the west of Boston's CBD.

Are we really going to be forcing transit riders to go the long way around bypassing the CBD, just so car drivers can drive right into the the CBD's center? Sending Blue via Storrow literally skips the core of the employment district. That's one way to get your subway line to horribly underperform in ridership. And it's going to be worse here, since Brighton riders already have to hop on the 86 just to get from Brighton Center to the new Brighton Depot infill on the then-quad-tracked B & A.

Would Brighton and Watertown transit riders be happy hauling themselves on a two-transfer, 3 seat ride to get to Back Bay? Or a 3 transfer 4 seat ride to get to any of the southbound Amtrak/Orange Line routes? Because what's a OSR on the 501 and 504 today would mean: a 5 minute bus ride or 15 minute walk to Newton Corner or Brighton Depot on a quad-tracked B & A, then transfer in the cold and wait 4 - 7 minutes for a subway to Lansdowne, then get out at Lansdowne, then either switch to CR to Back Bay, or walk several minutes across the street in the cold, then make a trek underground at Kenmore to pick up a Green Line streetcar, after 3 - 5 minutes or so, for a 5 minute trip continuing to Copley. Or the other choice is continue on Blue, getting out on the side of the river and be left with a 15 minute walk in the cold just to get to Back Bay, because there are no bus routes on Storrow.

All that, and is that going to be any faster than driving, or taking a dinky 501, 504 bus, or 57 bus + GL to downtown? All that transfer penalties, twice or thrice? And driving to Back Bay and Kenmore is a straight shot on the Pike? Why bother with a 3 seat transit ride, when the Pike takes a driver door to door from Allston-Brighton to the front door of Copley Square by car?

Now, if you really want to cut costs, you can have Blue eat the Common's parking garage, and scrap that parking garage. You can have Blue eat the western half of the Green Line central subway tunnel west of Copley/Arlington, and relegate the eastern half east of Copley to the E. You can also have Blue eat some travel lanes off from the Pike.

Rule of thumb is that transit should serve the city center, and cars must go the long way around the city. We've got this flipped upside down here somehow.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Are we really going to be forcing transit riders to go the long way around bypassing the CBD, just so car drivers can drive right into the the CBD's center?

no? The difficulty of tunneling to Back Bay and then tunneling back out to Kenmore is entirely unrelated to any car infrastructure unless you're proposing to keep Storrow and close the Pike instead.

Would Brighton and Watertown transit riders be happy hauling themselves on a two-transfer, 3 seat ride to get to Back Bay?

Even going via Storrow it's one transfer at Kenmore, which would likely look pretty similar to the BL-GL connection at Government Center. Hardly what I would call arduous.

Now, if you really want to cut costs, you can have Blue eat the Common's parking garage, and scrap that parking garage. You can have Blue eat the western half of the Green Line central subway tunnel west of Copley/Arlington, and relegate the eastern half east of Copley to the E. You can also have Blue eat some travel lanes off from the Pike.

Those are some pretty massive sacrifices when you could also just accept that commuters going to Back Bay aren't worth $2 billion when a pretty easy two seat ride is an option. There are so many places where you could spend $2 billion more effectively.

Would Brighton and Watertown transit riders be happy hauling themselves on a two-transfer, 3 seat ride to get to Back Bay? Or a 3 transfer 4 seat ride to get to any of the southbound Amtrak/Orange Line routes? Because what's a OSR on the 501 and 504 today would mean a 5 minute bus ride or 15 minute walk to Newton Corner or Brighton Depot on a quad-tracked B & A, then transfer in the cold and wait 4 - 7 minutes for a subway to Lansdowne, then get out at Lansdowne, then either switch to CR to Back Bay, or walk several minutes across the street in the cold then make a trek underground at Kenmore to pick up a Green Line streetcar after 5 minutes or so to continue to Copley. Or the other choice is continue on Blue, getting out on the side of the river and be left with a 15 minute walk in the cold just to get to Back Bay, because there are no bus routes on Storrow.

1. You're really focused on Brighton here, which is not and would not be served well at all by any B&A based line. (Not that the B&A is much better at serving anywhere else to be honest, that's why I've never suggested using it for rapid transit beyond just crossing Allston.) For someone coming from Watertown Sq, a commute to the Back Bay area would be something like walk to the station at Watertown Sq, or maybe cycle or take a short bus ride, then ride the Blue Line 15 minutes to Kenmore, and then do a quick 2ish minute transfer onto the GL before riding 5 more minutes (ish) to Copley.
2. There's no world where a transfer to Kenmore would be 5 minutes and involve going out into the street. Even if we're using the B&A and going to Back Bay, serving Lansdowne over Kenmore makes zero sense. Because of space constraints it probably wouldn't even be cheaper.
3. You know it's not actually that cold most of the year, right? If trains are a bit more crowded from people going the long way around for ~1/3 of the year while there aren't many tourists around I don't think that's the end of the world.

 

[Delvin4519]

no? The difficulty of tunneling to Back Bay and then tunneling back out to Kenmore is entirely unrelated to any car infrastructure unless you're proposing to keep Storrow and close the Pike instead.

Even going via Storrow it's one transfer at Kenmore, which would likely look pretty similar to the BL-GL connection at Government Center. Hardly what I would call arduous.

Those are some pretty massive sacrifices when you could also just accept that commuters going to Back Bay aren't worth $2 billion when a pretty easy two seat ride is an option. There are so many places where you could spend $2 billion more effectively.

1. You're really focused on Brighton here, which is not and would not be served well at all by any B&A based line. (Not that the B&A is much better at serving anywhere else to be honest, that's why I've never suggested using it for rapid transit beyond just crossing Allston.) For someone coming from Watertown Sq, a commute to the Back Bay area would be something like walk to the station at Watertown Sq, or maybe cycle or take a short bus ride, then ride the Blue Line 15 minutes to Kenmore, and then do a quick 2ish minute transfer onto the GL before riding 5 more minutes (ish) to Copley.
2. There's no world where a transfer to Kenmore would be 5 minutes and involve going out into the street. Even if we're using the B&A and going to Back Bay, serving Lansdowne over Kenmore makes zero sense. Because of space constraints it probably wouldn't even be cheaper.
3. You know it's not actually that cold most of the year, right? If trains are a bit more crowded from people going the long way around for ~1/3 of the year while there aren't many tourists around I don't think that's the end of the world.

B & A is pretty much the only direct routing to Newton and Watertown, unless we're planning to tunnel under Allston-Brighton (which would be somewhat roundabout from Watertown).

The routing assumes it follows B & A all the way to Brookline Ave,, if Blue eats the GL central subway tunnel (or if we quad track it), then it can serve Kenmore. We don't have a direct connection between Lansdowne and Kenmore today. It is 5 minutes per Google Maps.

 

[TheRatmeister]

B & A is pretty much the only direct routing to Newton and Watertown, unless we're planning to tunnel under Allston-Brighton (which would be somewhat roundabout from Watertown).

Sure, it's definitely a useful way to get through Allston, but it's terrible at actually serving Allston/Brighton. Basing any hypothetical commutes on that segment is rather silly. The main beneficiaries of any subway line that goes from Kenmore out west somewhere would probably be Watertown and Waltham.

if Blue eats the GL central subway tunnel

and then the B/C branches just get shafted?

(or if we quad track it)

Not possible unless you don't mind either major damage to the Old South Church/BPL, adding the new tracks below the existing ones rather than beside them, or moving the two new tracks somewhere else, say 1/3 of a mile north where there's a conveniently located, entirely reserved ROW, and definitely not possible without any of those if you need two of those tracks to be heavy rail tracks with high platforms at stations.

We don't have a direct connection between Lansdowne and Kenmore today.

I don't think this is a major missing transit connection. It's probably faster to get out and walk. If you're trying to say that a B&A line serving Lansdowne wouldn't serve Kenmore, my point is that doing that would be quite frankly idiotic. There isn't the space at Lansdowne for a new station unless its either underground somewhere or you don't mind removing 3 Pike lanes which isn't happening. Just building the stop at Kenmore would be both cheaper and more useful since it's not like we're strapped for places to connect to the Worcester Line.

 

[Delvin4519]

Sure, it's definitely a useful way to get through Allston, but it's terrible at actually serving Allston/Brighton. Basing any hypothetical commutes on that segment is rather silly. The main beneficiaries of any subway line that goes from Kenmore out west somewhere would probably be Watertown and Waltham.

and then the B/C branches just get shafted?

Not possible unless you don't mind either major damage to the Old South Church/BPL, adding the new tracks below the existing ones rather than beside them, or moving the two new tracks somewhere else, say 1/3 of a mile north where there's a conveniently located, entirely reserved ROW, and definitely not possible without any of those if you need two of those tracks to be heavy rail tracks with high platforms at stations.

I don't think this is a major missing transit connection. It's probably faster to get out and walk. If you're trying to say that a B&A line serving Lansdowne wouldn't serve Kenmore, my point is that doing that would be quite frankly idiotic. There isn't the space at Lansdowne for a new station unless its either underground somewhere or you don't mind removing 3 Pike lanes which isn't happening. Just building the stop at Kenmore would be both cheaper and more useful since it's not like we're strapped for places to connect to the Worcester Line.

The bus network in Allston-Brighton would need reconfiguring to align with the new rapid transit line. Oak Square to Kenmore is 35 minutes during rush hour on the 57. From Brighton Center it is 28 minutes. We're not running buses stuck in traffic after the B & A subway gets built. We're sending all the buses to outlying bus terminals and requiring bus to subway transfers there like with OL northside. From Brighton Center to Brighton Depot on the 86 is just 4 minutes. The remaining non-truncated bus routes become crosstown routes with increased frequency. The B & A has some underutlized space that can be used for terminating buses as bus hubs, which the 57 corridor lacks.

Blue-Green is only a 2 seat ride if the subway stop is at your front door and you don't plan to take OL, Amtrak, or any of it. If you're coming from a bus transfer it's a 3 seat ride. If you want to switch to OL to Tufts Medical, F-Hills, or Amtrak, that becomes a 4 seat ride on top of the bus transfer.

If we keep GL as is and BL comes from Storrow, where are we putting the BL's Kenmore transfer station? I generally default to placing it along the highway/RR ROW itself.

That's why I favor having the BL go all the way to the Pike and follow the Pike alignment to begin with, to avoid Boylston St. that has that church over there.

Sure the ROW is 1/3 mile north of Boylston, but you once again have the problem that Back Bay is far too important to skip, a 15 minute walk to the north. See how difficult LMA and Nubian are with the OL a 15 minute walk away? That's Back Bay with the BL at Storrow. And we're doing this so car drivers can drive to the front door of Copley Square with an extra lane on the Pike?

 

[TheRatmeister]

I generally default to placing it along the highway/RR ROW itself.

There really isn't room for that. Either you dig out under Lansdowne station, or remove at least 3 lanes of Pike. The first is so expensive that it makes no sense compared to just digging out under Kenmore, and the second is just not happening for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

And we're doing this so car drivers can drive to the front door of Copley Square with an extra lane on the Pike?

Again, no? Unless you want to basically remove the Pike, the width of the Pike is not relevant to any BL expansion. Whether or not the pike has an extra lane, it still takes a $2 billion tunnel to get from Charles/MGH to Back Bay and up to Kenmore, whereas if you dig up Storrow you can just put it in a trench, then cover it over with a park. Yes Back Bay is important, but $2 billion could get you a whole Needham Line replacement, RL to Mattapan, Washington St Light Rail, a Huntington Ave Subway extension, or so many other projects.

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

I-90 is right there though, that is always an option. I think even the most environmentally-minded people would, at a minimum, settle for a widening I-90 to 8 lanes all the way into Boston and adding a new Bowker exit it if allowed for removing Storrow. I certainly would, in a heartbeat.

And I suspect basically everyone would be thrilled at saving the cost of totally replacing the tunnel under the Hatch Shell, plus some revenue from selling some of the land currently used for highway infrastructure in the West End.

I understand just where you're referring to.
However, between the sources where Route MA-2 picks up most traffic from Interstate-95/MA-128 or points west from Concord, MA. MA-2 itself, and then fans out towards being an existing 8 lane highway now, (in Arlington). Then at the base of the east-facing slope of Arlington Highlands, towards when it abruptly and quickly shifts to being 4-lane at base of this slope (in Belmont), and then further quickly sheds 2-more lanes to becoming a 2-lane in each direction road at the Cambridge Discovery Park neighborhood, from this point to "Bowker" are probably about 4-5 miles. Meaning to shed this off to Interstate-90 still leaves a gap mainly held by river roads of ~3 miles as the crow flies.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I understand just where you're referring to.
However, between the sources where Route MA-2 picks up most traffic from Interstate-95/MA-128 or points west from Concord, MA. MA-2 itself, and then fans out towards being an existing 8 lane highway now, (in Arlington). Then at the base of the east-facing slope of Arlington Highlands, towards when it abruptly and quickly shifts to being 4-lane at base of this slope (in Belmont), and then further quickly sheds 2-more lanes to becoming a 2-lane in each direction road at the Cambridge Discovery Park neighborhood, from this point to "Bowker" are probably about 4-5 miles. Meaning to shed this off to Interstate-90 still leaves a gap mainly held by river roads of ~3 miles as the crow flies.

I'll chant the mantra again: highway lanes are not the answer. Bus, rail transit, commuter rail, and active transportation (bikes, e-bikes and walking) are the answer.

 

[thepixelnation]

1. Would it actually be useful? For people going to/from MGH, sure, but apart from that I really can't think of much

east boston/north blue line access to an amtrak/commuter station would be a great addition. if we're going to continue to have a north/south disconnect with amtrak/commuter rail, it's never a bad idea to connect another northern part of the city with southern commuter/amtrak.

 

[Delvin4519]

east boston/north blue line access to an amtrak/commuter station would be a great addition. if we're going to continue to have a north/south disconnect with amtrak/commuter rail, it's never a bad idea to connect another northern part of the city with southern commuter/amtrak.

This. Quincy/Milton/Braintree riders get OSR to Kendall, Central, and Harvard. Weston/Newton/Wellesley drivers can drive to the front door of Copley Square (and the absurd idea to give them an extra 2 lanes to do so). Apparently, somehow, Eastie and Lynn; communities that would be better served with OSR, need to make a dinky transfer to get to Back Bay.

That transfer penalty getting to Back Bay would still be hurting Eastie and Lynn riders. Getting between the Red Line and Eastie/Lynn is already a PITA today with the Green transfers. Red Line riders have access to 2 of Boston's employment districts (Kendall, DTX). Orange Line and Green Line riders have OSR to 2 employment districts as well (Back Bay, DTX). By skipping Back Bay, Blue Line riders from Eastie and Lynn only have access to a single employment district... DTX. That's it. Poorer access to opportunities from Eastie and Lynn.

If you're coming from the 436 bus in Lynn, that would be a 3SR to get to Back Bay (436 + BL + GL), or 4SR to LMA (or 3SR + 10-15 minute walk); meanwhile Quincy riders enjoy their luxury OSR to Kendall/Central/Harvard/Davis (2SR from Quincy bus terminal routes).

Plenty of cities, especially in Australia, are having to dig new rail transit tunnels in the CBD. Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, etc.

Sure, if it's super costly to get from Charles MGH to Kenmore, what that means is that every single other transit project moves further up the priority list than BLX-West. We'd build NSRL, RLX to Arlington, BLX-Salem, OLX-West Roxbury, GLX-Needham/West Medford, with higher priority, before the westward expansion of the Blue Line (as long as Boston stays afloat above the sea, that is).

The last thing we need is a expensive widening of the Pike of 2 extra lanes that's only going to worsen the cost of BLX-West. IMO, it's absolutely worth the swing south of the BL to get to the Pike and Back Bay Station. If Quincy has OSR to Kendall, Lynn deserves OSR to Back Bay. There's no need to tunnel underneath the 57 since the B & A exists. If we're going to do any tunneling, it is to give Lynn, Eastie, and Allston-Brighton riders that critical rapid transit CBD connection; not underneath the 57 in Allston-Brighton, and definitely not 2 extra lanes for cars on the Pike.

 

[Charlie_mta]

The last thing we need is a expensive widening of the Pike of 2 extra lanes

Widening the Pike through Boston would not only cost many, many $ billions (and I doubt if it's even physically possible to build it), it would also eliminate the slim pieces of space that would be needed for additional on/off ramps at the Bowker and South Cove, needed to eliminate or reduce Storrow Drive in the future.
The obvious and most cost-effective option is to build BLX alongside a reduced Storrow Drive, with the BLX covered over next to Back Street, connecting to Kenmore, then to West Station and beyond.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Sure, if it's super costly to get from Charles MGH to Kenmore, what that means is that every single other transit project moves further up the priority list than BLX-West. We'd build NSRL, RLX to Arlington, BLX-Salem, OLX-West Roxbury, GLX-Needham/West Medford, with higher priority, before the westward expansion of the Blue Line (as long as Boston stays afloat above the sea, that is).

Yes. That's exactly what's going to happen if you insist on a Back Bay Big Dig...it crashes to the bottom of the priority pile. Nothing gets built because you went too perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good. The only reason BLX-Kenmore via Storrow looks tasty is because it would be so inexpensive for what it achieves. You don't net a buildable project choosing the hardest possible path because perfection.

Why does the whole world need a OSR to Back Bay Station, anyway? Once RLT/OLT/BLT come to fruition, two-seaters net 3-4.5 min. headways at the transfer points. Is that supposed to be crap?

 

[Longfellow]

Do we have a priority list of projects? Has anyone on this forum tried to rank the large capital project proposals based on what "should" be done first, cost, etc?

 

[TheRatmeister]

Do we have a priority list of projects? Has anyone on this forum tried to rank the large capital project proposals based on what "should" be done first, cost, etc?

I think to make such a list is to become completely detached from the real world and its priorities, useful or not. Lots of these have various prerequisites or conditions that could alter their standing, but just for the sake of making a list, if I was God Emperor of All Dunks (and probably other things too), this would be my priority list(s) based on current conditions.

Small:

1. GL-F to Nubian
2. GL-E to Hyde Sq
3. Huntington Ave Subway extension
4. Light rail between Nubian and Mattapan, of some form
5. Mass. Ave Light Rail

Medium:

1. BLX to Salem
2. D/E connector, Second Central Subway and transitway connector
3. Needham line replacement
4. Old Colony double tracking
5. RLX to Arlington
6. Mattapan Line replacement
7. BL between Charles/MGH and Kenmore
8. OL to Reading

Large:

1. CR Electrification
2. Aqua Line (Waltham to Sweetser Circle via Watertown, West Station, Kendall, and Sullivan)
3. UR between Cambridgeport and Andrew
4. Everett/Chelsea UR branches
5. NSRL
6. Airport rail link, of some form