Fantasy T maps

[Delvin4519]

How about a v3 of the "fantasy frequent network" map of Greater Boston?

At long last, I now present the:
Blue Line Extension to Salem (from Swampscott) - pretty big extension of the frequent transit network (4th iteration)

(Thicker and darker lines denote higher frequency, excluding CR (thin lines) and historical RRs; ignore the fantasy map that is Malden/Melrose, that is part of the fantasy land "Boston Metropolitan Railway" concept below)

On my third iteration of the fantasy frequency map that extended the Blue Line to Swampscott (NOT Salem), Salem stuck out as the biggest remaining transit desert on that map. The Salem area is the most unique out of all the outlying densely populated areas; being an major extension of the Lynn terminal, out of the 3 outlying major terminals outside of the inner core (Lynn/Quincy/Waltham). Compared the KBR status of the 220/222 in Quincy under BNRD, population densities in Salem are actually enough to give 3 corridors of 15 minute KBR frequencies, surprisingly! These corridors would be the 435/465 to Peabody, 451/451A to Beverly, and the 454/455 to Salem State.

Danvers gets a circuit, technically 15 minute headways between Danvers and Salem if going via either side of the circuit from Danvers Sq. Marblehead has issues with reverse branching, but technically it'd be KBR levels if it weren't for reverse branching.

Aside from the restoration of the 454 (and the 465 technically), no new routes in the North Shore or metro north are introduced or re-introduced; beyond those that existed across the MBTA since 2012 (BLX massively improves service span of the 428/436/439/451). Instead, the focus should be on providing quality high frequency service in dense urban cores; instead of crappy hourly service suburban/rural routes.

After the Blue Line Extension to Salem, the high frequency grid could extend from Salem to include portions of Beverly and Peabody, although the frequent coverage area would no longer be contiguous between Lynn and Salem, once Salem gets rail frequencies instead of bus frequencies out from Swampscott. The vast majority of large contiguous areas with over 10,000 people per square mile (3,850 people per sq kilometer) could be covered with frequent service.

Notably absent on this map is Reading, Lexington, Needham, all of the Green Line D Branch within Newton, South Braintree station of the Red Line, as well as a small area between Newton Corner and Oak Square. This does not mean they don't deserve frequent service. The D Branch in Newton and South Braintree station of the Red Line are more or less "unicorns" in a way. They simply got lucky and gained high frequency service, despite having lower densities further removed from Boston; before other more densely populated transit deserts did (including Beverly, Charlestown, Roslindale, Medford, East Malden, Everett, etc.).

This also means that after BLX-Salem, there aren't really any additional rapid transit extensions that would signficantly impact the bus system in a signficant positive way (as far as iterating my map again, goes). BLX-Salem is the "last" major one (in terms of a 22 km/14 mi distance to Downtown Boston). If a rapid transit extension after that needs to redistribute bus headways outwards, then rapid transit swallowing Peabody and Beverly is the only possible way after that (Enjoy messing around with the Salem RR tunnel). Only then, can one start introducing new suburban/rural bus routes extending outwards in the North Shore. If I made such a 5th map, I'd have rapid transit swallowing the Peabody and Beverly KBRs whole, bus terminals shifting outwards to the Peabody/Beverly railroad junctions. Then redistribute bus headways to restore KBR frequency on the 455 between Salem and Hawthrone's Crossing filling in the gap left behind with BLX-Salem, and maybe perhaps the then-truncated 435 to Peabody terminal and the outer segment of the 450 could gain KBR status (removing the 424).

Spoiler: Full maps

Population served with fantasy frequent service: 1,459,620 (86.9%) - MBTA today: 765,262 (45.5%)
Population served with rapid transit: 936,400 (55.7%)
Population of BERy/Lynn/Waltham/Quincy/Melrose/Salem/Peabody/Beverly (>10,000 ppl/mi^2): 1,680,104

The MBTA should've included space on their spider frequency map to fit in the North Shore out to Beverly . Without BLX-Salem they really left off the entire North Shore off the spider frequency map. I had to shift the entire Lynn area and condense it/cram it into the northeast corner of the map, to maintain the same aspect ratio as the original MBTA spider map. It was the only way to slot in Salem, Peabody Square, and Beverly; onto the high frequency grid and keep the image the same size as the original MBTA spider frequency map.

Spoiler: Full map

Rapid transit milage: 138 miles (222 kilometers), #26 compared to Aug. 2024 worldwide metro systems (wikipedia), #10 outside of China/Russia.

BLX-Salem compared to the rest of the fantasy frequent map: (This version of the map once again includes all historical RRs compared to the BLX-Salem snippet above, I've collapsed the original post above to only show this one now)

Spoiler: Full map

Imagine in Riverside's "Boston Metropolitan Railway" concept, the Blue Line eventually gets converted to standard gauge and through routed with the Cambridge Subway? (i.e., instead of the Cambridge-Dorchester tunnel, the Cambridge Subway instead runs to East Boston and onwards to Revere Beach. The Shawmut Branch and Quincy Center Branch railroads instead remain on the mainline and connected via NSRL. Now extend the Cambridge-East Boston subway from Lynn to Salem and there would be this madness of a line where one side ends 5.5km (3.4mi) away from Boston, and the other 22km (14 miles out)! Kinda wild to think about! Then throw in an extension to Beverly Junction for a bit more craziness!

 

[jbray]

If we're talking about burying the A branch in the tunnel and building a new subway through Back Bay, at that point, one may as well just send rail transit down the B & A railroad along the Pike... [SNIP]

Long time lurker, but first time posting, and absolutely loving the discussion of A branch to Brighton. I use the bike lanes through Brighton Center, down Washington, Brighton Ave and Comm Ave every morning because the 57 is so slow and inconsistent (also since my destination is near Lechmere). I definitely agree that keeping them is a huge win, but consistent high frequency transit on this corridor is a greater need, and bike lane alternatives do exist. [SNIP]

First off, Welcome @ehamwey it's good to have you here! Second, I combined these two responses for a reason. I've been away from the forum for a while due to having two kids under four so I am a bit out of touch with the pulse here; I don't really understand why this forum (overall) doesn't want to consider replacing the Worcester line inside of 128 with rapid transit like 1945 plan did. I don't agree in the eastern section, @Delvin4519 , with your use of the B&A because the orange line and the commuter rail already have space and that type of tunnel would probably best serve the Huntington tunnel. I could see using a B&A tunnel around Kenmore to replace the B and the C lines, moving Blue line and/or a Comm Ave subway into Kenmore (as it currently stands) and joining the (now) two tunnels with a connection to Landsdowne. I think it was @Riverside who really figured out something that I agree with which is that West Station already exists and its Kenmore and I think he even tried to connect the Grand Junction in as well. To circle back to the A Line: I don't see it's value when we could just replace the Pike stations with rapid transit. You could even go up to West Station, come back down Cambridge Street, and then take North Beacon to the Pike if we should want to include both the new neighborhood, a nod to the A line, and utilize B&A, Utility lite space. Getting CrAzY we can just tunnel under the A from Cambridge street onward and connect back on at or around Newtonville (Which would be great in the same world as Ratmeister's Blue Line to 128).

I see three issues I'm trying to solve for:

• - Stop hubbing lines onto the green line.
  • Not solved by reinstating the A as is
  • The ultimate band-aid for resource starved dreamers.
• -Speed up the Worcester Commuter rail by taking off the intra-128 stops
  • An expansion beyond Oak Square?
• -Meaningfully connect an inbound route here to a pathway that goes through the entire peninsula.

That last point is why I don't like a full B&A look. It just terminates? It takes the Congress street alignment away from a more worthy south-westerly direction? All of the ROWs we're discussing here (short the A) either were connected into proto south station or went into the station at the end of Comm ave on the public garden. We already have the B&A to South Station so use the missing ROW on Comm ave. Replace the missing ROW on the B&A west (lost to the pike) to institute frequent local service and make the Worcester line competitive with the highway. It shouldn't take an hour and a half (I'm aware that that isn't the only hurdle). I'm advocating here for a Blue line on the embankment, a new line on comm ave, and separation of the B & C from the D & E.

ehamwey is talking about DMU/EMU service on the B&A inside of 128 but we're also over here still advocating for the Blue line to get to Lynn (SALEM!) so as to separate local need from intercity and regional rail. There should be connections between regional and local service, but the fact that we have a regional service running local stations is not great.

 

[jbray]

I see this a lot, too, and as a strong proponent for and happy user of more bike infrastructure, I tend to disagree with such arguments. The example I use most often is the Columbus Ave center running bus lanes project. There was no room in the corridor to accommodate bike lanes but the transit value add was substantial. I'll take that over bike lanes every day, especially if there is an effort to eventually develop alternatives. As for the Minuteman Bikeway, that's a tougher sell in my opinion because it's not an example of improving bad transit for people with few other options. And there is now a pretty long history of that ROW being used by a lot of bike riders. Temporary narrowing or closure during construction would be completely fine, but permanently diminishing the resource is something I'm not persuaded should happen.

You could argue the antecedent on this that the built form of Lexington and Arlington were centered on the gravity that the rail line provided and now everything we've done since has been a band-aid to get around its absence. That's the original resource and it connected the two cities to Boston; the resource was already diminished. Restoring that connection has way more utilitarian value than the path. Would you replace Magoun to Medford/Tufts with a Bike Highway?

I'm not saying it's not a loss: I ride the Fitchburg cut-off most days for work; I understand the value of what would be lost. What I am saying is that I have alternatives to get to downtown in a quick one or two seat train ride. Arlington and Lexington have a bike path to a station that buses have to fight through traffic to get to as the alt. Given that the 77 is one of the most ridden routes in the system, giving it an upgrade by making that a train service seems like a better use for the two communities than the bike path (for commuting).

 

[TheRatmeister]

You could argue the antecedent on this that the built form of Lexington and Arlington were centered on the gravity that the rail line provided and now everything we've done since has been a band-aid to get around its absence. That's the original resource and it connected the two cities to Boston; the resource was already diminished. Restoring that connection has way more utilitarian value than the path. Would you replace Magoun to Medford/Tufts with a Bike Highway?

I'm not saying it's not a loss: I ride the Fitchburg cut-off most days for work; I understand the value of what would be lost. What I am saying is that I have alternatives to get to downtown in a quick one or two seat train ride. Arlington and Lexington have a bike path to a station that buses have to fight through traffic to get to as the alt. Given that the 77 is one of the most ridden routes in the system, giving it an upgrade by making that a train service seems like a better use for the two communities than the bike path (for commuting).

I'm still not convinced we need to choose between the two here. The whole ROW seems to be wide enough for a single track and bike path, and parts of the ROW are wide enough for double-tracking. Given that we'd only be targeting a around 15 minute headways, that's fine.

 

[jbray]

I'm still not convinced we need to choose between the two here. The whole ROW seems to be wide enough for a single track and bike path, and parts of the ROW are wide enough for double-tracking. Given that we'd only be targeting a around 15 minute headways, that's fine.

I'm out of touch on this: Why would we use RR frequency on a rapid transit line? Why would we single track the red line north of Alewife/Arlington Center?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'm out of touch on this: Why would we use RR frequency on a rapid transit line? Why would we single track the red line north of Alewife/Arlington Center?

It wouldn't be the Red Line. It would be a Mattapan-like trolley or DLRV dinky disconnected from the rest of the network that pings between Arlington Heights RL terminal and 128/Hanscom-or-Burlington on wider headways.

I don't personally agree that that's the best solution, but it has been talked up by several people Crazy Transit Pitches-style on various aB threads as a means of shoehorning both rail and trail north of Arlington as well as treating the stark density disparity Arlington (high) vs. Lexington-Bedford (low).

 

[jbray]

It wouldn't be the Red Line. It would be a Mattapan-like trolley or DLRV dinky disconnected from the rest of the network that pings between Arlington Heights RL terminal and 128/Hanscom-or-Burlington on wider headways.

I don't personally agree that that's the best solution, but it has been talked up by several people Crazy Transit Pitches-style on various aB threads as a means of shoehorning both rail and trail north of Arlington as well as treating the stark density disparity Arlington (high) vs. Lexington-Bedford (low).

Okay, thank you. I don't agree with that myself. Lexington will not always be that away and setting up another Mattapan High Speed Line seems like a bad call given the political pushback on it's changeover shows that half-measures can become entrenched. That's what we're talking about though @HenryAlan? These were land-banked to preserve rail rows to prevent more land taking should the row be needed and now we've repurposed them and people don't want to change back. I want to defend the half measure as, "at least there is transit" but I can't see how any rail connection built to 128 shouldn't just be the real deal. At least the MHSL ends in just a local node but 128 is way more connected than that. I'm not talking about Bedford depot here; we haven't sorted out what beyond 128 should look like density wise (green belt?).

 

[KCasiglio]

Okay, thank you. I don't agree with that myself. Lexington will not always be that away and setting up another Mattapan High Speed Line seems like a bad call given the political pushback on it's changeover shows that half-measures can become entrenched. That's what we're talking about though @HenryAlan? These were land-banked to preserve rail rows to prevent more land taking should the row be needed and now we've repurposed them and people don't want to change back. I want to defend the half measure as, "at least there is transit" but I can't see how any rail connection built to 128 shouldn't just be the real deal. At least the MHSL ends in just a local node but 128 is way more connected than that. I'm not talking about Bedford depot here; we haven't sorted out what beyond 128 should look like density wise (green belt?).

Agreed. I think a single track trolley pinging between 128 and AH is set up to fail. It's penny wise and pound short, similar (if not a perfect comparison) to the silver live tunnel where demand will quickly exceed capacity.

(Also I want to mention I'm not ignoring your probably right rebuttal to my Washingston St post, I'm just trying to find the time to actually dig in and see if the street network can be made to work. Glad to see you back here.)

 

[TheRatmeister]

I want to defend the half measure as, "at least there is transit" but I can't see how any rail connection built to 128 shouldn't just be the real deal

Because RL to Bedford is (IMO) a total non-starter for both political and practical reasons. A subway line is much more noisy and disruptive than a trolley that goes through every 15-30 minutes which makes it a no-go politically, and because of all the required grade-separations you'd need at least 2 miles of cutting/tunnel on the 8 mi extension to Bedford VA. The cost difference between a trolley and a subway extension is at least an order of magnitude and there's just no way that the RL offers so much more benefit as to justify the enormous cost.

we haven't sorted out what beyond 128 should look like density wise (green belt?).

No matter what political decisions are now or in the near-ish future Lexington/Bedford isn't going to be even close to as dense as Arlington or Cambridge. There is no reasonable future at a scale worth planning for today where Lexington turns into a major satellite city worthy of its own subway line.

It's penny wise and pound short, similar (if not a perfect comparison) to the silver live tunnel where demand will quickly exceed capacity.

If the D-Branch through Newton isn't bursting at the seams I fail to see why we should expect a line through Lexington where population density is 4 times lower to be different.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Okay, thank you. I don't agree with that myself. Lexington will not always be that away and setting up another Mattapan High Speed Line seems like a bad call given the political pushback on it's changeover shows that half-measures can become entrenched. That's what we're talking about though @HenryAlan? These were land-banked to preserve rail rows to prevent more land taking should the row be needed and now we've repurposed them and people don't want to change back. I want to defend the half measure as, "at least there is transit" but I can't see how any rail connection built to 128 shouldn't just be the real deal. At least the MHSL ends in just a local node but 128 is way more connected than that. I'm not talking about Bedford depot here; we haven't sorted out what beyond 128 should look like density wise (green belt?).

The density conundrum is why a Red Line extension will never be considered as a uni-build Alewife-to-128. It's pretty clearly going to be a first phase of Arlington Heights dug under a (post-construction better than before) trail, then implanting bus hubs at the two extension stops so the 3-minute Red frequencies are flinging off some awfully frequent buses, then seeing how things percolate for a generation with B.U.F.F. connecting bus service through Lexington and between AH-Burlington on the relatively uncongested outlying roads. If some tipping point is reached because of that buildout, then study the rail build options vis-a-vis replacing-or-accommodating the trail and see what shakes out. I have a hard time seeing anything shaking out because Lexington is not very dense and has a tight ceiling for how much denser local zoning is ever going to allow it to become, but at least that's the proper sequence for ultimately figuring it all out. In the interim, the buses don't work with Alewife as a terminal so RLX really is needed as far as Heights to fashion an effective network of last-mile connections. And to Heights it wouldn't fuck with the trail at all, so that sidesteps the Faustian bargaining of which one gets priority. We're got fair amount of advocacy unity on the need for that Phase I.

 

[KCasiglio]

If the D-Branch through Newton isn't bursting at the seams I fail to see why we should expect a line through Lexington where population density is 4 times lower to be different.

I would posit that the D line and close proximity alternatives are in a different stratosphere of capacity than this potential trolley. Ill grant that the quality of service will probably suppress demand to a degree but that doesn't seem like an argument in favor.

If we're not getting the corresponding land use policy changes to justify an extension I think we should just...not build an extension.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I would posit that the D line and close proximity alternatives are in a different stratosphere of capacity than this potential trolley

Not really. Vehicles would probably be the same or very similar so the capacity comparison is really just a frequency comparison. If there is so much demand that 15 minute rush hour headways with double type-10s are no longer enough than we can start with the expensive grade separation and double tracking projects that would precede full subway conversion.

If we're not getting the corresponding land use policy changes to justify an extension I think we should just...not build an extension.

I think some level of improved service is justified. Both Bedford and Lexington are suburbs with a high number of commuters going into Boston, and the route has some decent nodes already such as Lexington Center and Bedford VA which are directly on the line, and Hanscom AFB/Lincoln Lab are a very short shuttle ride away. For being so infrequent and slow (Particularly around rush hour), the 62 and 76 do fairly well on ridership with about 1k weekday riders between them.

 

[jbray]

So a couple of things:
Lexington is one of the good faith operators in the MBTA zoning. They are rezoning East Lexington (down the street from AH), Lexington Center, and Hartwell ave. If the urbanism movement is gaining steam, we should be trying to tie expansion to places of reasonable development. All three locations are stations (at least to me). Hartwell ave is where I personally think the logical terminus is. The private bus connections that are currently at Alewife would be better served there. It's a better connection for people to jobs and is much more reasonable close to Burlington Mall. Riverside comparisons are apt to a point because there is also local commuter rail service that people can choose that's faster to downtown. Is utility as a park and ride is still there but there's nothing like that for Lexington and Burlington.

All that said, I do understand that this is empire by degrees. My original-original comment about bikers being against the extension was specifically to Arlington Center and the Heights. That is where people were pushing back (not here). We know, here, that there's enough space but I also believe that if there wasn't, the trade off is reasonable still.

I also don't think that Bedford Depot and especially Bedford VA are reasonable extensions for the Red line. I was not advocating for that and that's why I said that I wasn't including it. I don't know that it will ever be reasonable for them to have rapid transit that isn't bus or, at most, streetcar based. I think it's well taken that Lexington won't be Cambridge in a meaningful timeline but it could absolutely resemble parts of Newton which has service or even Malden like 15 years ago, there's too much pressure for it not to change at all. Would it be easier to justify if we were extending the green line through Lexington? Of course, but the red line is right there and so that's the tool for the job instead of constant appendages inside of 128.

Part of my stubbornness here is because I think we're way behind on a 128 light rail given its incredible density as a jobs corridor from just south of 90 to Reading. Having the Red line available or the idea of where the red line should be available to tie in should be part of that conversation.

 

[KCasiglio]

Not really. Vehicles would probably be the same or very similar so the capacity comparison is really just a frequency comparison. If there is so much demand that 15 minute rush hour headways with double type-10s are no longer enough than we can start with the expensive grade separation and double tracking projects that would precede full subway conversion

Apologies, I'm not saying the cars themselves are higher capacity, I'm saying the transit network that serves the area is. There are commuter rail alternatives for people in Needham or Wellesley for example that aren't there for Burlington or Bedford.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Apologies, I'm not saying the cars themselves are higher capacity, I'm saying the transit network that serves the area is. There are commuter rail alternatives for people in Needham or Wellesley for example that aren't there for Burlington or Bedford.

Compared to the D branch the CR barely registers. Newton Centre alone is comparable in ridership to the stations at Newtonville through Wellesley Farms all put together. I think you're right that there would be more park and ride commuters than on the D branch, but again that's not actually that many people, especially given that I doubt we're building a giant parking garage in the middle of Bedford.

 

[Delvin4519]

The density conundrum is why a Red Line extension will never be considered as a uni-build Alewife-to-128. It's pretty clearly going to be a first phase of Arlington Heights dug under a (post-construction better than before) trail, then implanting bus hubs at the two extension stops so the 3-minute Red frequencies are flinging off some awfully frequent buses, then seeing how things percolate for a generation with B.U.F.F. connecting bus service through Lexington and between AH-Burlington on the relatively uncongested outlying roads.

In the interim, the buses don't work with Alewife as a terminal so RLX really is needed as far as Heights to fashion an effective network of last-mile connections.

Would it be possible to curtail the 77 from A-Heights to A-Center to end the bus route duplication between A-Center and A-Heights? Shortening the 77 where it overlaps RLX inside Arlington itself would free up more buses as the 77 is already a high frequency route and it consumes a lot of buses. The frequencies can be reinvested into other routes like the 67, 87, 95, or 96; which provide better crosstown connections. It would make a more signficant impact in addition to the 350 and the 62/76 vacating Alewife for the new A-Center/A-Heights terminals.

The portion of the 77 between Porter and A-Center would stay given that segment of the 77 serves North Cambridge "station" rather than Alewife or Davis, which would be 3 different "stations" had the historical RR station on N. Cambridge/Mass Ave. been kept; as well it's distance and density away from the ROW.

I would envison something like this with the 77 after it is cutailed to A-Center after RLX opens to A-Heights, with the 62/76 vacated out to A-Heights. Pleasant St. could get a new semi-crosstown route via Belmont to either Harvard/Mt. Auburn/Watertown/or Brighton.

I don't really understand why this forum (overall) doesn't want to consider replacing the Worcester line inside of 128 with rapid transit like 1945 plan did. I don't agree in the eastern section, @Delvin4519 , with your use of the B&A because the orange line and the commuter rail already have space and that type of tunnel would probably best serve the Huntington tunnel. I could see using a B&A tunnel around Kenmore to replace the B and the C lines, moving Blue line and/or a Comm Ave subway into Kenmore (as it currently stands) and joining the (now) two tunnels with a connection to Landsdowne. I think it was @Riverside who really figured out something that I agree with which is that West Station already exists and its Kenmore and I think he even tried to connect the Grand Junction in as well. To circle back to the A Line: I don't see it's value when we could just replace the Pike stations with rapid transit. You could even go up to West Station, come back down Cambridge Street, and then take North Beacon to the Pike if we should want to include both the new neighborhood, a nod to the A line, and utilize B&A, Utility lite space. Getting CrAzY we can just tunnel under the A from Cambridge street onward and connect back on at or around Newtonville (Which would be great in the same world as Ratmeister's Blue Line to 128).

I see three issues I'm trying to solve for:

• - Stop hubbing lines onto the green line.
  • Not solved by reinstating the A as is
  • The ultimate band-aid for resource starved dreamers.
• -Speed up the Worcester Commuter rail by taking off the intra-128 stops
  • An expansion beyond Oak Square?

ehamwey is talking about DMU/EMU service on the B&A inside of 128 but we're also over here still advocating for the Blue line to get to Lynn (SALEM!) so as to separate local need from intercity and regional rail. There should be connections between regional and local service, but the fact that we have a regional service running local stations is not great.

A-Line is only a band-aid for the missing B & A subway line. It really will not fit into the system once rapid transit makes it extension down the Mass-Pike to Newton Corner. Travel times on the A-Branch are going to suck, especially during off peak hours, simply because the street running segment down Cambridge St and Washington St. in Allston-Brighton will be mandatory capped at 18 MPH (30 KMH) due to the mixed traffic operation. This will make for slower, longer off-peak trip times; compared to the excessive speeding 57 buses and cars make down those routes today at 25 MPH (40 KMH) or even 40 MPH (64 KMH) during off peak hours!!!

Plus once Needham and West Rox are made to vacate the mainline tracks in favor of OLX-West Rox and GLX-Needham, there will be 5 branches being shivved into the Green Line Central Subway tunnel from GLX-Needham. A-Branch to Brighton will make that 6 branches. At that point, none of the Green Line branches will get anything more than timetabled "plan when to leave" 12 minute headways.

A-Branch will also similarly fail to fit in the revised bus system once rapid transit is extended down the Pike. One can envison from Brighton Center after the B & A subway gets built, Brighton Center could get:

• High frequency 86 to Brighton Depot and continuing to Harvard with SUAG headways for B & A rapid transit and crosstown connections
• High frequency 64 to Allston Depot and continuing to Central Sq. with SUAG headways for B & A rapid transit and crosstown connections (rerouted to serve B-Center)
• High frequency 65 to Brookline Village with SUAG headways for rapid transit and crosstown connections
• High frequency 86 to Reservior with SUAG headways for rapid transit and crosstown connections

The B & A rapid transit line will tie in Brighton Center with good enough transit just like Revere Center and Everett Square gets under BNRD. High frequency bus routes spanning in all directions to bring riders from the main neighborhood square to a multitide of rapid transit connections and crosstown connections. Brighton Center is not that different from Everett Square and Revere Center in lacking a direct railway ROW for front door rail service.

Unlike the 64, 65, 86, the B, and the C; the 57 bus/A-Branch does a terrible job at bringing riders to rapid transit. Why are we trying to provide Brighton Center riders with the longest, slowest possible route to get to rapid transit?

• Kenmore/Lansdowne is 4.8 km (3 miles; 24 minutes) away from B-Center, awfully far away from Brighton Center and very long and slow to get there.
• Allston Depot is 2 km (1.2 miles; 8 minutes) away from B-Center via a high frequency rerouted 64 bus to serve B-Center and the B & A rapid transit line
• Brighton Depot is 1.2 km (0.75 miles; 5 minutes) away from B-Center via a massive frequency enhanced 86 bus
• Reservior is 1.8 km (1.1 miles; 7 minutes) away from B-Center via a massive frequency enhanced 86 bus
• Brookline Village is 3.6 km (2.25 miles; 13 minutes) away from B-Center via a massive frequency enhanced 65 bus. Critical connection to Longwood Medical Area and crosstown bus connections to continue to southside OL.

Kenmore/Lansdowne/Brookline-Junction couldn't be the furthest away from Brighton Center. Even Brookline Village is significantly closer and a shorter ride to Brighton Center in just half the time compared to Kenmore at 1pm on a weekday!

 

[KCasiglio]

I'd be VERY interested in an updated version of this map, and hopefully we get something like it with the upcoming GoBoston 2030 update. Bluebikes has so much more reach than Hubway did a decade ago, and with Turo and GetAround coming on the scene I don't think there is an inch of Boston that isn't within a 10 minute walk of carshare.

So actually just came across something comparable (though not a map) in LiveableStreets Alliance's 2023 progress report on GoBoston 2030. Notably GetAround and Turo don't appear to have been considered carshare, but none the less page 22 states that 72.9% live within a 10 minute walk of all three.

Overall, the greatest gaps inthe City’s progress towardreaching this target are for theMattapan, Hyde Park, and WestRoxbury neighborhoods.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/livablestreetsalliance/pages/7652/attachments/original/1696963429/Not_on_a_Shelf_2023-compressed.pdf?1696963429

 

[wolfinator]

Many fantasy maps take the current system and add on to or redesign it. Rightly so, these maps show a real possible future. However, for this map, I thought it would be fun to start from scratch. This map presents an alternate history of the MBTA. In this history, leaders and planners they somehow brought a more functional, well-balanced, and efficient system to Greater Boston. This map assumes that the right-of-ways available for rapid transit construction in the 20th century were quite different. For example, in this history, an old freight railroad lay along modern Blue Hill Ave, meaning that the Northeast corridor runs through Dorchester and the heart of Roxbury rather than Jamaica Plain. Of course, that fact would have ripple effects for development and road layout, etc... Which I ignored; I tried to assume modern-day development was somehow the same or similar. This map is not supposed to be realistic to any modern-day image of Boston; however, it shows one design of an idealized transit system. Thanks for the inspiration @vanshnookenraggen and @Teban54

I am not sure if this Map is a good fit for AB because we can't endlessly argue over realistic scenarios , but it is worth a try.

Feel free to add how this system would affect your commutes or travels if it were a reality and whether it would destroy your residence.

Recent scroller and first-time poster

 

[Riverside]

View attachment 56905

Aw hell yeah.

 

[Riverside]

Many fantasy maps take the current system and add on to or redesign it. Rightly so, these maps show a real possible future. However, for this map, I thought it would be fun to start from scratch. This map presents an alternate history of the MBTA. In this history, leaders and planners they somehow brought a more functional, well-balanced, and efficient system to Greater Boston. This map assumes that the right-of-ways available for rapid transit construction in the 20th century were quite different. For example, in this history, an old freight railroad lay along modern Blue Hill Ave, meaning that the Northeast corridor runs through Dorchester and the heart of Roxbury rather than Jamaica Plain. Of course, that fact would have ripple effects for development and road layout, etc... Which I ignored; I tried to assume modern-day development was somehow the same or similar. This map is not supposed to be realistic to any modern-day image of Boston; however, it shows one design of an idealized transit system. Thanks for the inspiration @vanshnookenraggen and @Teban54

I am not sure if this Map is a good fit for AB because we can't endlessly argue over realistic scenarios , but it is worth a try.

Feel free to add how this system would affect your commutes or travels if it were a reality and whether it would destroy your residence.

Recent scroller and first-time posterView attachment 56905

Cool stuff, in no particular order:

• One of the reasons I love maps like this is that it forces us to examine our underlying assumptions about our real transit network. For example, in your map, South Station and North Station don't exist/no longer exist, so your network doesn't have to be built around them; one result of that, for example, is that the divergence between the northern routes out of downtown (which IRL happens at North Station with the Green-Orange split) is moved closer to the core. This draws attention to the fact that the current network is shaped, not just by the "natural" demand of jobs and housing placement, but also by arbitrary locations of North and South Stations
• Similarly, I love how maps like this allows us to imagine different ways to "divvy" up the region from a network perspective; for example, I really like how your map creates a transfer hub at Washington Square on the Green Line. That's actually pretty consistent with the geography and the historical surface routes in the early 20th century (where a Washington St <> Huntington Ave streetcar played a strong role, just like yours does here), but most crayon maps pay no special attention to Washington Square
• I see that you used one of the alternate proposals for the East Boston Tunnel -- nice! Integrating it into the Boylston St Subway service (your Green Line) reflects early ideas for the subway-streetcar system
• Your degree of interlining is very cool, and feels very "real". I admit that I don't think it's necessarily ideal (see below), but it does have the air of early-20th-century transit planning to me, and feels like the kind of thing that would have seemed to make sense at the time but which planners would regret about two generations later
  • By interlining, you've really created two subway lines -- a north-south Red/Orange and east-west Yellow/Green -- each with three or two branches, respectively. Let's say you want a train to come every 6 minutes on each branch of the Red/Orange Line. (In 2018, this was the core Red Line's off-peak headway; the Orange Line's was 7 minutes. Both are worse than that today.) That in turn means that the central shared section will see a train every 2 minutes. That's definitely within the realm of possibility, but it's a tall order
  • In 2018, the Red Line's core peak headway was 4 minutes (which is more common); this would in turn mean that you have a train going down each branch every 12 minutes, which would be pretty low for a place like Nubian Square
  • There are other ways to divide those up, though. If your core headway is 3 minutes (aggressive but potentially doable), then you could divide the branches unevenly, with the Readville and Belmont legs getting "half-frequencies" (6 min headways) and the Braintree, Mattapan, Burlington, and Melrose legs getting "quarter-frequencies" (12 min headways)
  • (If you want to read about decreasing frequencies on branches in absurd detail, you can read more here.)
• Oh wow I just noticed that your Orange and Green Lines also briefly interline, oh man that would be soooooo hard to schedule + dispatch But, again, not entirely unrealistic; a lot of US subways were built when the cities were smaller, trains shorter, etc, meaning the capacity constraints of interlining might not have seemed so acute. Anyway, I'll stop now
• I'm curious -- in your "lore"/backstory, was your Blue Line built significantly later? It reminds me a bit of the Jubilee Line: fully dedicated tracks with no interlining, more tunneling (including across the Charles!), providing redundancy and therefore capacity relief on key segments (again, such as across the Charles, but also an express Boston Center <> Fenway route, paralleling the Green Line but with much fewer stops)
• Oh wow (I say again), that Boston Center subway complex would be huge -- looks like over 1,000 feet between the Blue and Green/Orange platforms
  • Oh, was Boston Center kinda a "Government Center" redev project? With a dash of Canary Wharf to it? I can imagine a historic "Old State House" station getting linked to a brand new Blue Line subway with Regional Rail infill, where the RR <> Blue Link was seen as more important in order to relieve pressure at New England Station (great name)
• I like the inclusion of a short subway through Watertown. That's something we don't imagine very often anymore (short subways on branches in the inner suburbs)
• I also like how you have subtly depicted different mainline ROWs as well -- for example, your Worcester Line seems to veer off toward Weston. And Framingham by way of Needham is an interesting stringing together of towns, which, again, has the air of believability
• Also, Green Line to Framingham -- very cool
• Wait, also, Orange Line to West Concord -- also very cool

My only note -- and this is only because this is a personal bugbear of mine that I care too much about -- the public park near the State House is called "Boston Common", singular, despite many people now pluralizing it to "Boston Commons". So my suggestion would be to rename that Red Line station either The Common or State House or some combination of the two. (On the other hand -- and perhaps this was your intention anyway --, you could also just handwave this away and say that the official name was changed in this alternate history you've come up with!)

Great stuff. Very cool map, really delightful to explore.