Fastest Proposal-to-build in MBTA History?

[Equilibria]

We have Focus40 here which is basically that, the difference is we don't have many new corridors in need of HRT/LRV compared to a younger transit system like Seattle. I think the MBTA's plate is plenty full with regional rail, overhauling the existing lines and stations, and redoing the bus system, which they are already doing. https://www.mbtafocus40.com/

I agree that's true in a pragmatic sense, but only because Focus40 didn't capture a lot of the low-hanging fruit. RBX and Blue-Lynn were in there, but Orange-West Roxbury, Green-Needham, etc. were not. The language "we're imagining" suggested that they'd be bringing in innovative concepts, and it was used as either (a) a parking spot for perpetually stalled infamous concepts or (b) crazy, unbuildable notions like a subway across the Common. For the Green Line, "we're imagining" included Green-Mystic Valley, which is something they should be diligently working to fund and break ground on, not something they're dreaming of.

The MBTA has definitely done a good job of late advancing useful "transformations" like Regional Rail and Bus Transformation (network redesign, BEB facilities plan, etc). But if the plate is full that just means the bandwidth is too low. There's no way for the MBTA to advocate for more bandwidth (people and funding) until it's honest with the Legislature, Governor, and public about what it could do.

We have a revitalized thread dedicated to drawing the map Charlie_mta is talking about. We may have fewer corridors than Seattle and Austin, but we surely have them, and until the MBTA admits they exist, they stand no chance of ever being built.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Assembly Station was in planning during the IKEA is coming years. I remember thinking how bizarre it was to imagine planners believing people could/would use transit to shop at IKEA!

1999 was when the City endorsed the master plan for that one...so 15 years to Opening Day. May have escaped some notice in surrounding communities while it was percolating along, but it was definitely a hot topic in Somerville.

 

[jass]

Assembly Station was in planning during the IKEA is coming years. I remember thinking how bizarre it was to imagine planners believing people could/would use transit to shop at IKEA!

Dont forget the soccer stadium (ie Revolution Drive)

 

[millerm277]

Assembly Station was in planning during the IKEA is coming years. I remember thinking how bizarre it was to imagine planners believing people could/would use transit to shop at IKEA!

Just mentioning - That is totally a thing and tons of people will do that if you give them the option.

In the non-COVID times, IKEA in Brooklyn runs both a shuttle bus from downtown Brooklyn (Borough Hall) and a subsidizes ferry rides from Manhattan (Wall St) to get people to the store and they're well used. (in addition to the MTA bus running there).

There's plenty of smaller household items people buy there that are reasonable to lug back on transit, and people also go to look at furniture and then get it delivered.

 

[Tallguy]

I agree that's true in a pragmatic sense, but only because Focus40 didn't capture a lot of the low-hanging fruit. RBX and Blue-Lynn were in there, but Orange-West Roxbury, Green-Needham, etc. were not. The language "we're imagining" suggested that they'd be bringing in innovative concepts, and it was used as either (a) a parking spot for perpetually stalled infamous concepts or (b) crazy, unbuildable notions like a subway across the Common. For the Green Line, "we're imagining" included Green-Mystic Valley, which is something they should be diligently working to fund and break ground on, not something they're dreaming of.

The MBTA has definitely done a good job of late advancing useful "transformations" like Regional Rail and Bus Transformation (network redesign, BEB facilities plan, etc). But if the plate is full that just means the bandwidth is too low. There's no way for the MBTA to advocate for more bandwidth (people and funding) until it's honest with the Legislature, Governor, and public about what it could do.

We have a revitalized thread dedicated to drawing the map Charlie_mta is talking about. We may have fewer corridors than Seattle and Austin, but we surely have them, and until the MBTA admits they exist, they stand no chance of ever being built.

I agree. The team the T will be dismantling soon could be the nucleus of a long term plan. RBC, GJ GL, Needham GL and OLX could span most of a career(although I would prefer sooner) and that just scratches the surface. There are enough station rebuilds and infills to keep an in-house team busy for many years.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Just mentioning - That is totally a thing and tons of people will do that if you give them the option.

In the non-COVID times, IKEA in Brooklyn runs both a shuttle bus from downtown Brooklyn (Borough Hall) and a subsidizes ferry rides from Manhattan (Wall St) to get people to the store and they're well used. (in addition to the MTA bus running there).

There's plenty of smaller household items people buy there that are reasonable to lug back on transit, and people also go to look at furniture and then get it delivered.

I am sure there are people who responsibly use transit to access a store like IKEA.

But given what I have seen on the T, an IKEA on the Orange Line just seemed like an invitation to some truly horrible decisions on the part of people trying to transport IKEA furniture boxes home.

 

[AndrewOnTheMBTA]

Almost every rapid transit extension since 1945 was proposed then, if not before (particularly the 1926 report). Riverside, Wonderland (proposal to Lynn), Braintree, Oak Grove (Reading), and GLX (Woburn) were all 1926 proposals reprised in 1945; the 1926 study also recommended a study of a circumferential route that would probably have resembled the Urban Ring. Southwest Corridor was discussed in 1926 but not 1945 (where an extension to Dedham via West Roxbury was planned); it didn't come back until I-95 planning in the 60s. Red Line extension to North Cambridge was first discussed in the 1930s; the 1945 report called for a circuitous route via East Arlington, then a Mattapan-like run to Arlington Heights. By 1966, northwards from Harvard toward Porter and thence to Arlington was favored; going via Davis was first proposed in 1972.

I would call SL3 so derivative of the UR that it hardly counts as the record. SL Waterfront went from first official proposal to open in 17 years, as the need for rapid transit to the Seaport wasn't even considered until the 1974 base closing. Almost ever other major corridor has been known for decades.

Interestingly, Red-Blue is actually largely recent - it didn't appear in any official proposals until 1978, though it was briefly considered by the BERy in 1924. The 1926 proposal, and some plans in the 1970s, instead had an extension south to Park Street to hook into the Green Line.

I know this is the quiet part, but I wouldn't even include BRT or the busway in this considering the lower level of infra needed (power substations, overhead caterernary/3rd rail, rails, rail yard, rolling stock).

 

[AndrewOnTheMBTA]

I know this is the quiet part, but I wouldn't even include BRT or the busway in this considering the lower level of infra needed (power substations, overhead caterernary/3rd rail, rails, rail yard, rolling stock).

Also, in total time from approval to opening, Greenbush Line wasn't too too bad compared to other large projects (10 years or less?)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Also, in total time from approval to opening, Greenbush Line wasn't too too bad compared to other large projects (10 years or less?)

No. Greenbush had been in-study since the early-80's alongside Middleboro/Wareham and Plymouth, and had been a restoration point of advocacy along with the other two since the late-60's. It got broken off into a separate project and given a later deadline date in the CLF Transit Commitments because the NIMBY issues (the ones that ultimately begat the Hingham tunnel) were such a singular time suck. That project ended up becoming a particularly noxious one for overly-long/slow gestation period.

 

[Riverside]

I think Boston Landing would be a contender here. According to the Wikipedia article, announced in 2012, built starting in 2015, open in 2017. "Discussed" in 1998 as part of Urban Ring planning, analyzed in 2007-2009. Still overall quite fast, and I think ended up having a very short time between "Oh wow it's really happening?" and "Oh wow it's actually open!"

I think the spirit of the original question really is just, what project had the fastest velocity at any point during its development? (Regardless of how long its development took, and how long it puttered around in the "vague idea" stage.)

I think SL3 and Boston Landing are top of that list. Possibly also some of the ongoing Regional Rail efforts -- I'm still amazed at some of the frequencies and clockfacing we're seeing right now, I would've bet at least a few more years there. (Caveat covid blah blah blah.)

And while I don't think Red-Blue is going to per se happen "fast", I do think it's a good callout to mention that it's actually a relatively young proposal -- one of the few that doesn't have roots in the BERy era.

 

[Arlington]

Assembly Station was in planning during the IKEA is coming years. I remember thinking how bizarre it was to imagine planners believing people could/would use transit to shop at IKEA!

This was true by 2006 (I've edited my post above). By 2006 you had FRIT clearly planning TOD (and wanting IKEA's parcel), and IKEA looking to maximize their $ on a by-then inevitable exit (because Stoughton was drawing effectively from the North Shore)

 

[Stlin]

How about South Attleboro? As I recall planning was only begun in the wake of the 1981 RI cutback and subsequent pawtucket closure, with the station's construction approved in 1987, complete in 1988, albeit without MAAB required accessibility, opening 1990.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

How about South Attleboro? As I recall planning was only begun in the wake of the 1981 RI cutback and subsequent pawtucket closure, with the station's construction approved in 1987, complete in 1988, albeit without MAAB required accessibility, opening 1990.

That kind of gets lumped in with the asterisks of earlier-era Commuter Rail being a perennial exercise in shock crisis-triaging. The Route 1/1A corridors weren't easily accessible to Attleboro Station, so the "Oh, shit!" loss of Pawtucket-Central Falls was a bona fide nutpunch that got the local political delegations this side of the state line on high alert. Still took balance of a decade to hash it out for only 1 stop that ended up cutting just about every conceivable corner on value engineering (such that we're paying for it now).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

OK...I've got one:

Windsor Gardens

Opened in 1971 very close to the bottoming-out spiral of passenger rail traffic in a place nowhere near any other stop that had ever existed (Plimptonville 1.2 miles south, Norwood Central 1.8 miles north...nothing ever historically spanning them). And built for the sole sake of TOD (before that was even a defined term) supporting a new 1000-unit luxury apartment complex nearing completion. During the first subsidy era of Commuter Rail when Penn Central was still owner/operator, the state cheques were purely passive support, and baseline service was very limited in its guarantees. And against all odds it did pretty darn well on ridership such that it's rarely been an express skip on schedules. The apartment complex was greenlit somewhere around '65...meaning it took no more than a half-dozen years from absolute zero to first train.

That's probably pretty close to the record right there.

 

[ceo]

Assembly Station was in planning during the IKEA is coming years. I remember thinking how bizarre it was to imagine planners believing people could/would use transit to shop at IKEA!

I recall IKEA was making noises about developing some sort of cheap lightweight hand-truck thingy to make it easy for people to schlep their Billy bookcases etc. on the Orange Line. That was before they bailed on Assembly, of course.

 

[jbray]

And while I don't think Red-Blue is going to per se happen "fast", I do think it's a good callout to mention that it's actually a relatively young proposal -- one of the few that doesn't have roots in the BERy era.

BERy had intended the Cambridge tunnel to connect to what is now the blue line as its routing but these plans fell apart by 1903, resulting in the Cambridge-Dorchester tunnel we have now. Charles station was studied as a connection between the two from the get-go, prior to it's existence on the red line (Study in 1924-25, Opened in 1932).

 

[fatnoah]

It was a specific set of build recs trying to muscle top-down planning...so the intention distilled in that oft-circulated final map fully was "we will build this" and not, sadly, the Crazy Transit Retro-Pitches it's been recast as since the Internet rediscovered it from obscurity. Some of the reports that fed into it worked out other Alts. that did end up on the cutting room floor, but for the final map the state actually bought up a majority of the ROW's in question for the expressed purpose of git 'R dun.

From what I've found (and posted elsewhere on this site, IIRC) these transit plans were positioned as elements of the overall transit plan, and as complements to the planned highways, with the implication that Highways + Transit were necessary elements to move people efficiently around the Boston metro.

 

[Charlie_mta]

And while I don't think Red-Blue is going to per se happen "fast", I do think it's a good callout to mention that it's actually a relatively young proposal -- one of the few that doesn't have roots in the BERy era.

A Blue Line extension in a tunnel under Cambridge Street to Charles Station was first proposed by BERY in the 1920s when Cambridge Street was widened to it's current width. So it's been an official proposal for almost 100 years now. See the Boston Globe article from 1924 at https://www.newspapers.com/clip/57692766/the-boston-globe/