Looks great. A quick one that I found is that you have Needham Heights as the label for both the actual station and also for Needham Junction. If I notice anything else, I'll add to this post.
well that's stupid, how did I not see that?
Alrighty, let's give this a go! Yeah, lots of really fun stuff in here. Are there things that aren't viable? Ehn, probably. Do I care about that for the purpose of this post? Not at all.Any way here they are!
MBTA Maxima:
MBTA Maxima (Alt):
Here's the lines on Google Map as Reference (for the first version only).
What a great week for fantasy T maps!
I believe you mean "Audubon Circle" for the C's St Mary's St, not "Adubon Circle", right?
The purpose of the Pink Line on this map is to provide a dedicated route to get people to/through the Kendall/MIT area from the other lines. Community College has lots of space for a large transfer station, two YL tracks and PL tracks, preferably with cross-platform interchange, and 4 CR platforms to get North-side CR riders onto the YL and PL. But if you just wanted to get from North Station (Or anywhere in downtown, really) to Kendall, it doesn't really make sense to go the long way around, and the space at North Station could be better used for increased CR service.
That is just an oversight. I'll add that
It would not be a CR line in the traditional sense, more like the River Line in NJ. The reason I gave it a different treatment than the Needham Trolley is that it doesn't connect two parts of the rapid transit network, it's a radial line that would primarily serve suburbanites heading into and out of Boston.
Where Cambridge St meets the GJ
I would say the reasoning is 3-fold:
Yeah, that's an option. The main way I can see to do that would be to make the stop spacing on the RL wider. That can be a project for another time.
...yes.
I understand it's tempting to have a "tangential" line that offers circumferential-like service around the core and radial-like service further out (conceptual sketch below). That said, as I elaborated in this comment (motivated by this Alon Levy post), such routes typically underperform in ridership.
Yes, this is a concern, but I would say that the main 'meat' of the blog post is "If you're building an orbital line, don't neglect making transfers and orbital connections for the purpose of getting a radial bit in." and I don't think that's really applies here, especially with the Chelsea branch pulling double duty as a radial and orbital route. For most BL trips the transfer downtown will probably be faster than any urban ring route just because of how geography works out, so I don't think there's a major "lost opportunity" for a transfer here. If there was significant demand for an Everett-Revere line then it would be a bigger consideration, but 110 and 112 ridership don't really support that conclusion either.I understand it's tempting to have a "tangential" line that offers circumferential-like service around the core and radial-like service further out (conceptual sketch below). That said, as I elaborated in this comment (motivated by this Alon Levy post), such routes typically underperform in ridership.
For the specific example, it appears that Everett, Chelsea and Revere are much better off with proper radial route(s) in an ideal world, and their densities seem to support that (further analysis needed).
Of course, such a route is reasonable in a "better than nothing" situation if your constraint is "no other routes in downtown" (either due to cost or some other concerns).
Really appreciate the feedback from y'all! When I have more time I'll have to integrate these thoughts. Obviously the Line 5 would be a cost blowout, especially with One More Tunnel through downtown hahaha, I can't decide between Everett or Chelsea getting the direct high speed connection.
So this is interesting, in a version of the "full build" you could still follow the tracks that far without property acquistion? I'll probably put it out to Anderson then.
Yeah I think the Pink / Green line would ideally be almost completely grade separated ala Seattle with the Silver service being more legacy, hopefully with signal upgrades and priority but definitely a different division. The (Blue) Line 4 would be their express from Kenmore.
Yeah I'm assuming these would get better names eventually, but it's nice to have an obvious marker for now for reference.
Yeah! I think it wouldn't be that bad if they were the same color and you note the service patterns at the end. I kinda figured less interlining would be better for operation here, interested in the thoughts against that though, obviously Ashmont losing a OSR to Kendall is tough but in a world with 3 min freq. a transfer is much easier
I sorta envisioned this as one final regional interchange, like Back Bay; lots of connections to the metro and the regional system making it a major hub and reliever for those in the suburbs. It would need way more development but again it felt like a natural end point for everything.
Honestly, it was a wide open reservation and my thought was those from deeper into Roxbury might want a one seat ride into Longwood (plus it fills a gap on the other side of Fort Hill) I'm not sure how the cost/benefit works out obviously!
The Line 4 or Line 5 into Kendall just makes sense, I lived in the area for two years and it really needs more connections. The platforms are small for the ridership it gets! I don't have time to respond to each point but I do really like the idea of Longwood getting more rapid transit for sure. An Indigo service is probably enough for West Station and the Newtons!
It really depends on what you think the future of the CR could be. Personally I see a future where the CR is a mix of regional/commuter and intercity rail, and with this context a line to Concord is actually a reasonable length. But if your CR future is a system built around getting people to, through, and around Boston, Concord might not be on the agenda.
I vote Everett, it's better positioned for a radial line through downtown. Chelsea is set up perfectly for an orbital connection over a rebuilt Tobin Bridge, and you can finish the ring at the Airport, Wonderland, or other places if you so desired.
My interpretation of Alon's blogpost goes both ways: there's also "If you're building a radial line, don't make it go round and round avoiding the downtown core for the purpose of getting a circumferential bit in." And yes, I've seen various examples elsewhere where such lines underperform in radial ridership (e.g. Shanghai's Lines 3 and 6, which I mentioned in that comment).
I've always found it fascinating how the geographical routings of the railroads essentially required riders from Chelsea and Linden Sq. to first ride their way westbound to meet the B & M mainline along the Malden River for a radial connection downtown. The gap from the Eastern Railway/B & RB & L railroads in the east, and the B & M railroad in the west, is the largest gap of radial routes on the north side, centered along Route 1 and the high ridership 111. The Route 1 corridor, while it never had a proper radial railway ROW to begin with, at least has route 1 itself, as a ROW used for transportation purposes (that being for highway use instead of mass/public transit). The main issue north of Woodlawn is the giant cemetary that essentially cuts away at ridership potential to get to Linden Sq., and most density from Linden Sq., points towards Glendale Sq./Malden Center via the existing Saugus Branch ROW, as opposed to the 111 routing.
You're right that cost would be greater, but I think the benefit of bringing a subway line to Waltham, Watertown, and Brighton is also much greater than connecting Everett to downtown. (And the cost can potentially be brought down if 50% or more can be built in cuttings/above ground, which I think is actually possible.) You could study this to death though so ultimately though I'm just making the call based on vibes.
The NH Main property lines in Medford and Winchester average 80-120 ft. wide, so it can probably all be done within the property lines. The only tricky part would be Winchester Center station itself. GLXX would have to shift sides of the ROW from west to east to avoid the first freight sidings in Winchester, and widening the viaduct is problematic. What you'd probably do in incline-down into the station parking lot, go under in a short subway with a station, then cross under the rotary to under Shore Rd. and incline back up onto the embankment. Winchester Center CR station up on the viaduct can stay or go.
You can handle Concord with the super-express layering that the previous NHDOT study proposed. An Anderson<>Lowell<>South Nashua express skipping most of the MA intermediates would attract riders, no doubt, because of how freaking fast it would be and the extra frequencies it would bring to City of Lowell. It's more about whether NHDOT is willing to subsidize much of a schedule to Concord. The local stops in NH probably don't have thaaaaat much more to give in ridership after :30 Regional Rail implants itself to Manchester, and Concord is a small city (population 44,000) despite its importance as the capitol. Ultimately it's up to them how they want to slice it.
The interesting twist in this whole discussion of "tangential lines to the north" is that, according to the SLX Alternative Analysis, the SL6 route's alternatives from Everett (Glendale) to Kendall outperformed the alternative to Haymarket in both ridership and public support. I wouldn't necessarily treat that as an indication that Everett residents prefer Kendall over downtown, though, for two good reasons:
Very interesting route indeed! You can probably also piece this route (the portion from Navy Yard to Kendall) together with any bus route from the west. (The 64 was what I was thinking, but it may be too long. If only the first BNRD draft's route 55 was kept...)
The roundabout route for Chelsea to get to downtown Boston likely has to deal with the history of the geography, which @Riverside explained very well here. By the time Tobin Bridge was built in 1948, the era of railroad companies or BERy being able to grab land for their preferred routes was long gone; besides, I'm not sure if anyone really placed much thought into a more direct connection for Chelsea at the time. Even the ambitious 1945 BERy expansion map was totally blank in Chelsea.
Regarding your proposed line, the section between Nubian and Longwood (D) makes perfect sense, and I had implicitly suggested a similar L-hook line in the past. Where it worries me in an ideal world is that sections west of Coolidge Corner becomes a tangential line again, as Brighton Center residents have to go all the way to Nubian if they want a one-seat ride downtown. While @Riverside had explored ideas of making the Green Line radiate out from LMA instead of Kenmore, going down to Nubian feels too roundabout.
Yes, these are very fair statements. I'd say that if I'm specifically tasked with using a single line (the Yellow Line) to serve as many needs as possible, I'd probably come to a similar design as yours in the northeastern quadrant. (This is also exactly what @Riverside did here.)
Essentially, digging up the streets of Brookline and Brighton is probably not in the cards, nor necessary to get to the 50% number.
