Green Line Reconfiguration

[F-Line to Dudley]

Okay, thanks for the detail. I see how there just isn't enough space for the outbound tracks to have a flying junction, and an at-grade solution makes just as problems as it solves.

So UR trains will have a few options out of Brookline Village. (1) Shoot up Huntington and either loop at TMC/Bay Village, or continue into one of the routings offered by the Bay Village station. (2) Stay on the Riverside line [to Reservoir and short-turn?]. (3) Loop down to Heath Street or Forest Hills.

So I guess the question is one you've brought up, and we've all been discussing. Is there any route to connect Dudley to the UR that's worth the cost. It seems like the routes here are also threefold. (1) Spend a lot of $$ trying to get down Ruggles St to connect UR to Orange, then portal-up on Melnea Cass and join the 'F-Line' to Dudley at the Wash intersection. (2) Lay a lot of street-running track down the length of Heath Street; deck the NEC and run GL above; Transfer for OL at Roxbury Crossing; street run down Malcolm X to loop at Dudley. (3) Build what rail conections we can; let Silver Line-style quasi BRT handle connections between key nodes on the south side.

I guess we can always revisit an UR southern leg if/when the acreage bound between Ruggles/Melnea Cass to the north, Tremont and Malcolm X to the south, Huntington to the west and Washington to the east is up for substantial redevelopment.

The southern half of the Ring has all sorts of problems from lack of contiguous grade separation. It's entirely possible we have to do a north LRT half and a south BRT half. The BRT half going Kenmore-->BV via Brookline Ave., some pick-'em routing to Ruggles and Dudley, Melnea Cass to Southie hitting Newmarket and the Red Line (pick-'em of either hitting Broadway or Andrew), and the Transitway. I prefer Andrew so it can actually serve the Southie neighborhood, but Broadway + bootstrap on the Haul Rd. has a speed advantage; let the study numbers inform that decision on whether more stops or more speed prevails for optimal utilization.

As integrity-of-concept goes the half-and-half works quite well, even if Roxbury and Dorchester aren't going to be totally thrilled with BRT and having to transfer to rapid transit at one of the quadrant nodes (Southie, Dudley + pick-em of local Orange stop, or TBD Huntington/BV/Kenmore). I think in that case you really do need to build more fingers touching the southern neighborhoods: Arborway non-optionally, dust off the 28X BRT proposal Dudley-Mattapan, the JFK/UMass UR BRT spur that sometimes gets kicked around, far better and more frequent Southie-scooping Transitway service, etc.


But, yes...that SW quadrant is doable on the surface out of Heath + RX with the air rights. It might not carry the traffic levels of full grade separation or a complete LRT ring (because SE quadrant is just no-go on anything but BRT), but it accomplishes the destination-pair goals within-cost and lets the money get spent on the Green Line capacity-bearing trunks. It's also fast; based on the bus schedules and improvements from fewer stops, trolley lane prioritization on MX Blvd. and the Huntington light, and the SW Corridor grade separation...I think 10 minutes under peak load is entirely accurate for BV-Dudley. That's the sort of bargaining we should be making. It doesn't happen at all if we dig our feet in on more mega-expensive grade separation. And in fact BILLION-DOLLAR grade separation will flat-out ensure that some of the capacity-increasing pieces of the Green Line don't get built, which harms everything by eliminating so many future expansion routes. Perfect is truly the enemy of good if we're going to get hung up on that stuff. The base build is daunting, but at least we know the transformation to the Green Line current and future will amoritize its cost over the span of decades (if the stations are responsibly built). Can't say the same if we start mandating absolute-perfection appendages.

The difference between Crazy Transit Pitches and ambitious-but-buildable is how much flexibility there are in the demands. Like conceding the SW quadrant to a (pretty brisk) surface route, conceding a straight or boomerang path from BU Bridge to LMA to a cross-platform transfer if a one-seat connection just isn't buildable, and definitely conceding the SE quadrant to BRT on can't-get-there-from-here-on-rails grounds. The result is still stratospherically better and more growth-supporting than the system we have today.

 

[Shepard]

Thanks, F-Line. I think this is the post that best summarizes everything that's been mentioned so far.

I agree...the downtown non-negotiables are pretty much swallowing a Silver Line Phase III-level expense (the original estimate, not the final). But we knew 20 years ago that whatever form it would take would hit that cost figure. So that's not a surprise for how much it blows the ceiling off downtown transit utility.

For the rest of the essentials...these are probably the most expensive connecting legs. And none of them hit $B's if we can keep the opulence of the stations under control.

-- Brigham-BV (because of the 'harder' tunneling). But because the length is similar to Red-Blue and the similar street width is there with few tall buildings. This is the justifiable "last (less-than) mile" for the utility of thru-routing the D. Similar overall cost to Red-Blue's base cost (not the ridiculous 40% bloat contingency the state used solely to justify killing the project). $250M. Limit it to 1 station (Riverway, Mission Park...wherever the siting best fits the name) and it's probably equivalent. Keep in mind as well...you are recycling the electrification trunk for the E.

-- Northeastern portal to Brigham. But only because of the 3-4 required subway stations and under-pavement disruption on the width of the subway stations. The end-to-end under-reservation dig should not be expensive because it can be a shallower tunnel with utility relocations limited to cross streets. Figure $75-85M per station if you're cost-vigilant, and $75M for the whole of the under-reservation tunneling length. Don't think there's any question this segment with proper NU and LMA subway stations funneled out of Back Bay with Seaport connectivity is a good value. Likewise...recycling the E's electrification.

-- Chelsea/Airport branch. 1 Mystic crossing (as mentioned, relocate commuter rail to the new southerly span because it'll whack the painful Eastern Route speed restriction...then use the Eastern Route bridge for LRT), 2 Wellington-style duck-unders at the BET freight wye and past Santilli circle for switching sides of the Eastern Route (these would be culverts, not subways), and longest end-to-end length of any critical connecting branch. I still think this can come in less than what the official BRT UR plan proposes because SL Gateway preps the eastern third and less-opulent station shelters would keep costs from sailing like SL Washington St. pointlessly did. Also...you are running streetcar tracks on the Chelsea lift bridge for 1 block with signal priority. There is absolutely no reason to build a parallel bridge over the river. Maybe $500M because it requires the Mystic crossing and an electrification trunk spanning between Orange Line + GLX carhouse feeds and the Blue Line feed, with likely +1 substations. But...Sullivan + Assembly + Everett Casino + Chelsea UR + Airport connectivity. And the Santilli Circle + Eastern Ave. stations trap some Everett and Chelsea residential density. That's a shitload of bang-for-buck.

-- Blandford portal-to-BU West tunnel extension. Way less than the other tunnels because it can be reasonably limited to 1 subway station at the extreme-widest part of Comm Ave., and the junction + portal splits have lots of cleanroom space at the BU Academy parking lot, BU Bridge hillside, and underneath the start of the Pike incline for slipping the BU West portal approach back on-alignment with no highway surface disruption. $85M for BU Central station because you may want a 4-tracker for the branch split, $50M for the under-reservation tunneling, $75M for the junction. Recycles B electrical feed. For what that does to the freakin' B alone I'll take that.

-- Grand Junction. The only structures you have to build are 1) the Fitchburg Line duck-under (i.e. culvert, not subway) to the Union Branch. And there's plenty of room under the McGrath overpass to flank each Union track with a merging track eastbound. And 2) the Mass Ave. grade separation. Cambridge St. grade separation is a nice-to-have, but you can add that later if you're that cost-constrained. Main not eliminable, Broadway probably not eliminable, Binney too low-traffic to bother with. Putting the trolleys on regular traffic signal coordination is the difference for keeping the traffic impacts minimal over today vs. a DMU where the RR has 100% priority at all times. Then keep the surface station costs reasonable. Only deviation off existing alignment is the short curve on the BU Bridge hillside into the portal. $350M if you keep the stations minimalist because of the electrification trunk spanning B, Red @ Kendall, and GLX. Most of that tied up in the Mass Ave. overpass + elevated station and the electric feed.

-- Washington St. LRT conversion. Treat the forking tunnel as part of the Seaport build since you'll have to notch a track split at Marginal/Pike regardless. I believe there's still an ex-El electric trunk under the street backstopping Orange, so you can glom off that. The original trackless trolley plan's costs seemed to be making that assumption. So it's just lay tracks and recycle the Silver stops and signal priority. I can't see this exceeding $150-200M if it's kept cost-controlled.

-- Substation upgrades writ-large. The electric trunks are all interconnected, and every HRT, LRT, Transitway, and trackless trolley wire uses the same voltage. So substation boosts can be distributed systemwide. They don't necessarily need to be located on this new-construction proper. A little fuzzy to figure costs because some might be tied to necessary future Orange/Red/Blue/Central Subway boosters where extra slack space compartments are made available at the substations for plugging in more equipment. Impossible to figure costs, but treat as an MBTA Rapid Transit-wide project.



EVERYTHING after this can be an independently funded addon.

-- BV to Dudley streetcar (if you're taking my routing). May want to do this first, but it's less-critical than the real load-bearing flanks. Recycles trolley tracks + electrification trunk between Huntington and Heath. Gloms off Orange electrification on the SW Corridor. *Maybe* even BV-to-Huntington if the D-to-E surface connection that's occasionally floated around gets built earlier. Assume that the S. Huntington light gets reconfigured earlier. They really should take that gas station and adjacent blighted properties to spread the street around a wide center yellow stripe for prioritized trolley turning. So the only costs involved are 1) Heath St. and MX Blvd. streetcar tracks, 2) SW Corridor air rights beams, 3) Rox Xing-Dudley electrification. Can't see this costing any more than that Hyde Sq. extension of the E + the cost of the air rights cover which can be shared with DCR for the linear park extension.

-- Union-Porter extension. But STEP is aggressively pursuing this so it might get done well earlier and be n/a in terms of "Green Line Reconfiguration".

-- Harvard Branch, which is going to require at least 1 overpass at Western Ave. (maybe not Cambridge St. if you recycle the old Romar freight siding underpass) and some Harvard cooperation. Especially if you want to keep that streetcar jog limited to the 1500 ft. between Ohiri Field and Memorial Dr. and use the JFK school's lawn for grade separation to Brattle. Don't even THINK about building the Charles crossing and subway connection for 20 years. That Soldiers Field Rd. bridge sucks, but you can live with that short a length on the startup headways this branch will serve and the TOTAL grade separation everywhere else.

-- All other. I'm gonna choose to disagree with FK4 on the need for Arborway, but that's just my preference. Oak Sq., Watertown, etc. etc. That's ALL later and independent.


This will obviously have to happen in an era of U.S. governance where funding sources for transit are radically different. Like...lower-case interstate highway different. And assuming that rapid transit development is going to get way more than the pittance of help it currently gets from the feds, even if that "Rail Interstate" initiative focuses 75% of its attention on the mainline rail network and not metro systems.

And definitely a sea change in Massachusetts transit funding and MassDOT attitudes asphalt expansion vs. rail expansion. But, shit, the system as we know it isn't going to survive without that kind of sea change so it's not like this is optional. Maybe when we're up to 5 or 6 consecutive House Speakers leaving office in a perp walk instead of the three-and-counting we're currently on we'll finally get a keeper of the purse strings less corrupt and dictatorial who actually gives a crap about the wellbeing of the state's long-term mobility.



We're thinking big, but not Crazy Transit Pitches unlimited big. If we're willing to take on a megaproject like the Seaport connector + Back Bay connector, I don't see what's so daunting about taking on the other core pieces of the UR load-bearing trunks and ROW's. It's mostly surface and reservation digs with other longstanding justifications.

Just keep the Crazy Transit Pitches addons like the Ruggles St. subway from mission-creeping this to death and beat the state into submission on overspending for stations. BERy used to do wonderfully functional stations within-budget. That's not a new or scary concept.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'd add to your list that reserving the Harvard ROW through Allston should be a top priority and working with Harvard to leave the land for a future transportation route. I know they are mostly sitting on the land as DOT still has to reconfigure the interchange but that means NOW is the time to talk with them. Hell, at the very least make the ROW a BRT line connecting Kenmore, West Station, and Harvard Sq. That solves your river crossing until the need is so great it justifies the cost.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'd add to your list that reserving the Harvard ROW through Allston should be a top priority and working with Harvard to leave the land for a future transportation route. I know they are mostly sitting on the land as DOT still has to reconfigure the interchange but that means NOW is the time to talk with them. Hell, at the very least make the ROW a BRT line connecting Kenmore, West Station, and Harvard Sq. That solves your river crossing until the need is so great it justifies the cost.

The Campus master plan renderings I've seen (have no idea if they're dated) do keep a path open through Allston Village by setting back all the buildings on that path well far back of the new street grid. But...you don't want to hold out for tunneling perfection because if Harvard has to wait 25 more years for under-Charles crossing money to materialize there's no telling if they're going to keep that reservation or start filling it in with building annexes and other stuff. Claim it with some sort of action plan or lose it. That's why I don't think retching at the prospect of 1000 ft. of street-running over that congested JFK bridge is any reason to kill the project and abdicate a claim to the ROW. Holding out for perfection functionally means holding out for the same 66 bus...forever.

The tougher sell is going to be bargaining with the University over some sort of grade separation assist to the Brattle Sq. surface terminal so you can get the hell off JFK St. immediately at the Memorial Dr. light. Are they going to throw up blockers at bisecting the park and stubbing out here if that's the difference between having a rapid transit line connecting BOTH of their campuses with a one-seat? I sure hope not. It's not that much park space to:

-- Cross diagonal off the Memorial/bridge light here down this path: http://goo.gl/maps/6rX4j. Preserving the current path bisection of the NE triangle of the park from the rest of it.

-- Bookend the tracks with a short fence, and flank it on both sides with a replacement path.

-- Stick a ped grade crossing approximately where the to-be-moved monument and east-west cross path are.

-- Curve down the split between buildings, with a connecting sidewalk next to the track fence on one side. Same width as the current path, bleeding into the platform. Loses the trees, trolleys would roar inches from the windows of that office annex on the right, and standees on the platform might crowd out walkers on the path where they converge at the plaza. But absolute zero gets structurally disrupted.

-- Stub it at 2 two-car side platforms at the sidewalk plaza. Inside that granite-outlined 'box' in the brick sidewalk out as far as the Charles Hotel sign so not too much plaza space and sidewalk width gets eaten. You probably can't do triplet consists here in the available space, but you can't do that at Heath Loop either so there shouldn't be expectations of every single branch having 3 cars as long as nearly all of them can. I wouldn't, for example, expect that something street-running like the Washington St. line is going to do 3-car. Nor would Oak Sq. (BV-Dudley...yeah, that one probably can).

-- Do non-revenue street-running tracks from there around the block for picking up/dropping off a spare trainset at the Bennett Alley trackless trolley parking spots. In normal ops the trains would reverse on platform, but you need the protect train set for headway adjustments and a place to stuff a disablement much like you often see at Heath Loop. Bennett's only long enough for 2 cars, so there's another reason for no triplets.

-- Clean up a small slice of the abandoned Red Line tunnel and erect a false wall on one side of it making a Winter St. concourse equivalent into the station's fare control (which is only separated from the abandoned tunnel by false walls). Pop up a small, narrowish-stair Brattle Sq.-style headhouse + elevator on the plaza in front of the trolley terminal to serve the tap-on/tap-off timed transfers between Green and Red.

Absolutely no mobility is lost except for the ultimate frisbee players being totally slightly bummed at bogarting 2 acres of playing surface...maaaan.

I'd put up with 1000 ft. of street-running over the bridge and 2 traffic lights on an otherwise grade-separated route, a 2-car maximum consist, and a timed tap transfer outside of fare control for 20 years if that's what got it built without needing to wait for the megabucks Charles tunnel that's probably too long a wait for preserving the ROW. Actually, that's a frickin' excellent setup in terms of very good service for minimalist impacts and minimalist cost.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

There could be a new new light rail/pedestrian bridge instead. I see using the existing bridge with street running along JFK St a non-starter. It's already bad on the 66, imagine what traffic will be like when the Allston campus starts to grow.

The biggest hurdle is on the Cambridge side where you will have to have the bridge span Memorial Dr and drop fast enough to fit through that walking path between the JFK School buildings. You could then street run into the bus tunnel which would require at most making the bus layover lanes into rail-only ROW. It takes away more surface space than a tunnel but I feel like throwing in a bike/pedestrian path on the bridge would be a good compromise. Any park space lost would be offset by an easy path to the parks/play fields across the river in Allston.

 

[FK4]

This would no longer belong in the Green thread, but if we get a good bridge over the pike, you could run a pretty good BRT line on its own ROW from Kenmore to Harvard, and the only street running would be Kenmore to wherever it dove into Beacon Yards, and across the JFK Bridge. This could be a placeholder for the ROW, and to whet the appetite of riders for a planned Green Line extension when the funds for a tunnel could be gathered. I agree with Van that streetrunning a Green Line train through Harvard Square simply wont work. And with all the complaining about Cambridge's greenspace being mismanaged, the ?Harvard-managed JFK Park or whatever it's called is an excellent greenspace, and nobody is going to allow it to be compromised by trains.

 

[George_Apley]

^ The most frustrating thing about the funds for GLX to Harvard is that Harvard could likely pay for it on its own with little damage to their endowment...

Not that it would be reasonable for them to do so, but the money should not really a huge obstacle.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

From what I remember their endowment took a huge hit from the financial crisis. Not sure where it stands today. A transit ROW through Allston should be brought up somehow before the opportunity is lost.

 

[George_Apley]

^ It was $36.4B in 2014. And yes, the opportunity should not be lost. Granted, if the GJ is preserved to the loop then that covers a decent distance through the area.

 

[FK4]

In order of time, and importance, according to ME:

1. Seaport tunnel and E extension along the Pike. Have to do this first, since it establishes a second trunk line and removes some pressure.
2. Bury the B, and activate the GJ to Kendall and Sullivan
3. Kenmore reconstruction to accommodate the Urban Ring/GJ line, and bury the E to Brookline Village
4. Harvard Line (down here only because BRT can cover this for a while)
5. Ancillary lines

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'm not going to sift through the thread to find the exact quote but either F-Line or Alon brought up the fact that the GJ only works if there are south side or western CR maintenance facilities built to cover the lost GJ connection. That alone is a billion dollar project that will face years of environmental review. So even if that was started tomorrow you gotta cool your jets on GJ light rail service.

There is a reason that the UR was originally planned in phases and the first two being bus improvements. The GJ ROW isn't going anywhere so if you want to make the switch it isn't as crucial that you rush to save the ROW (e.g. Harvard-Allston).

Having a second trunk line through the Back Bay is an inevitability at this point. The need was there 100 years ago (Riverbank subway) and the growth in subway ridership will only continue.

I'm still 50/50 on the routings. Since the whole point is to connect the Seaport to the Back Bay a Boylston-Seaport route wouldn't be as balanced; more riders would be coming from the west along Boylston to Park St so taking one of the existing routes and sending it to the Seaport would force a significant proportion of riders to transfer (no bueno). If, however, you have a new service from lets say Reservoir to the Seaport via Huntington then you can focus more on the riders FROM the Seaport going to the Back Bay. But a Huntington route would mean that anyone needing to get from the Seaport to BU, Allston, or Brighton would have to make a complicated transfer from Green to Red to Green or (if we are going off of the F-Line loop back design) from Green to Green to Green; and if a traveler who has never been to Boston before is going to be lost very quickly. This is why I prefer a Boylston-Seaport route. It's more straight forward and a transfer at Boylston to the proposed Huntington Ave subway is more obvious than some weird loop-back.


*****************************************************************

I've also given the Kenmore loop that F-Line designed more thought that while I still think a slingshot service that flips back down the D line is too much, it still may be worthwhile to somehow connect the existing loop to the B line. This would give any UR service a proper terminal. It may be that to keep headways on track you'd need to build a 4 track extension of the Comm Ave subway to BU Bridge but since that subway isn't even built yet that might be totally feasible. Basically connect the new outer tracks coming in from Comm Ave to the C/D junction at Kenmore and loop any UR trains there. Have the 4 tracks go to BU Central, possibly having a pocket track built, so that you can stage the trains better. Also if the Huntington Ave extension is built and most D line trains are rerouted then you'd be able to fit more UR trains on the outer/C line tracks at Kenmore.

 

[George_Apley]

But a Huntington route would mean that anyone needing to get from the Seaport to BU, Allston, or Brighton would have to make a complicated transfer from Green to Red to Green or (if we are going off of the F-Line loop back design) from Green to Green to Green; and if a traveler who has never been to Boston before is going to be lost very quickly.

Huh? Green to Green to Green? Why? Say you're on a train from BU and you want to go to the Seaport. Take the train to Boylston. Get off. Board a Seaport-bound train. Voila. Two-seat ride.

 

[Transitmass]

But a Huntington route would mean that anyone needing to get from the Seaport to BU, Allston, or Brighton would have to make a complicated transfer from Green to Red to Green or (if we are going off of the F-Line loop back design) from Green to Green to Green; and if a traveler who has never been to Boston before is going to be lost very quickly. This is why I prefer a Boylston-Seaport route. It's more straight forward and a transfer at Boylston to the proposed Huntington Ave subway is more obvious than some weird loop-back.

I can appreciate this sentiment but I don't think the priorities are correct if this is your concern. I think that it's critical to integrate the Seaport into the greater subway system with a green line connection. While I don't have the article to link to I saw a recent article in the Globe that said by 2030, if all of the proposed developments are built, the Seaport will have more jobs and residents than Back Bay currently does. That just gives some idea as to the scale of the issue.

Such a vital CBD needs to be part of the greater whole. Worrying about a small subset of trips (Seaport to BU/Brighton) is not the main problem. Getting to the Seaport to work is the main problem. It plainly sucks to get to the Seaport on mass transit now from most points of origin. The round the horn connection would greatly improve that trip even if some people would have to make cross platform transfers. It would be a stellar improvement for commuters and tourists will handle themselves just fine.

In short, I think a Boylston alignment to connect to the Seaport kneecaps a green line connection to Seaport. In a perfect world I'd say do it but I genuinely feel that this is an either or provision. Either compromise on the around the horn connection or don't see this connection made at all because Boylston alignment is just too pricey.

I hate to beat this line to death, but it's one of those something something something enemy of the good scenarios...

 

[davem]

Regarding Harvard-Allston, it only cost around 200mil to build the transitway tunnel from south station to courthouse, including stations. Considering there is ample staging room and relatively uncontaminated river bottom (there has never been industry in this location), I really think the costs are being overblown. Not to mention once across the river you could run on a surface reservation to the BU bridge, saving even more. Downtown needs its capacity issues fixed first, but in the grand scheme of things GL to Harvard could be done pretty freaking cheap.

 

[George_Apley]

So, assuming that all the upgrades we're discussing happen (excluding any sort of southern UR), would it feasibly be able to handle the following service patterns (or similar)?

Letters are obviously speculative. Not a real fan of keeping it consecutive through the alphabet, but not feeling particularly creative...

‘A’ Oak Square - Park via Packards, BU Central, Copley
‘B’ Boston College - Government Center via Packards, BU Central, Copley
‘C’ Cleveland - North Station via Copley
‘D’ Riverside - Anderson(or Mystic/Rte.16) via Copley, Lechmere
‘E’ Newton Corner - Heath via Watertown, Porter, Lechmere, Bay Village*, Back Bay
‘F’ Dudley - North Station via Bay Village
‘G’ Needham Junction - City Point** via Back Bay, South Station
‘H’ Arborway/Forest Hills - City Point via Back Bay, South Station
‘I’ City Point - Anderson (or Mystic/Rte.16) via South Station, Bay Village, Lechmere,
‘J’ Government Center - Airport via Lechmere, Sullivan (UR)
‘K’ Government Center - Heath via Lechmere, Kendall, BU Central, Kenmore, Brookline Village (UR)
‘L’ Airport - Reservoir via Sullivan, Kendall, BU Central, Kenmore, Brookline Village (UR)
‘M’ Harvard - Bay Village via Soldiers Field, BU Central, Kenmore, Brookline Village, Back Bay (UR)

* Bay Village is what I'm calling TMC transfer hub.
** I'm assuming the GL can continue out of the transitway and follow Summer Street/ the planned haul road to a terminal at the bus loop at the edge of Southie with lots of bus transfers.

Is this too many lines to handle? Or could proper dispatching manage it given all the improvements being accomplished?

 

[HenryAlan]

It is, admittedly, a very circuitous route for the UR but given the costs of the alternative it may be the only affordable way to build it.

I don't think that is a problem, since the urban ring should really be mostly considered a series of connected crosstown routes. Nobody in Dorchester is going to use it to get to Harvard, and to be honest, probably not many from JP would do so either. But people will use it to get to Brookline from there, and from Brookline to Cambridge, etc. Ring lines are inefficient at moving people from one spoke to another beyond the spokes that are next to each other, or within the same quadrant.

I think the bigger problem with the boomerang/sling shot approach is that it completely ignores one of the main transit needs that is supposed to justify the urban ring in the first place. LMA is poorly served by the two spokes, and the boomerang leaves it poorly served by the two spokes. There needs to be a station at the intersection of Brookline Ave. and Longwood for a proper crosstown route to make sense. Yes, it's more expensive to do that, but in the end, paying more for the right solution seems the better value.

 

[Shepard]

Henry, so what you do is keep the slingshot as the Green Line "northern ring" and run BRT through the heart of Longwood from Kenmore to Dudley and beyond as part of a slightly-overlapping "southern ring." I think that's the best compromise - a longwood dig just won't happen because of the costs.

 

[George_Apley]

I really don't get the point that LMA is poorly served by transit. Pretty much every part of LMA is well less than 1/2 a mile from the three stations that serve it. What it lacks is connectivity to other "innovation" districts like Harvard, Kendall and the seaport.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I can appreciate this sentiment but I don't think the priorities are correct if this is your concern. I think that it's critical to integrate the Seaport into the greater subway system with a green line connection. While I don't have the article to link to I saw a recent article in the Globe that said by 2030, if all of the proposed developments are built, the Seaport will have more jobs and residents than Back Bay currently does. That just gives some idea as to the scale of the issue.

Such a vital CBD needs to be part of the greater whole. Worrying about a small subset of trips (Seaport to BU/Brighton) is not the main problem. Getting to the Seaport to work is the main problem. It plainly sucks to get to the Seaport on mass transit now from most points of origin. The round the horn connection would greatly improve that trip even if some people would have to make cross platform transfers. It would be a stellar improvement for commuters and tourists will handle themselves just fine.

I totally agree, that was my point. Maybe I wasn't succinct enough.

In short, I think a Boylston alignment to connect to the Seaport kneecaps a green line connection to Seaport. In a perfect world I'd say do it but I genuinely feel that this is an either or provision. Either compromise on the around the horn connection or don't see this connection made at all because Boylston alignment is just too pricey.

I hate to beat this line to death, but it's one of those something something something enemy of the good scenarios...

I guess what I'm saying is if a Boylston-Seaport route will ultimately serve more people better then it would be worth the extra cost.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Regarding Harvard-Allston, it only cost around 200mil to build the transitway tunnel from south station to courthouse, including stations. Considering there is ample staging room and relatively uncontaminated river bottom (there has never been industry in this location), I really think the costs are being overblown. Not to mention once across the river you could run on a surface reservation to the BU bridge, saving even more. Downtown needs its capacity issues fixed first, but in the grand scheme of things GL to Harvard could be done pretty freaking cheap.

I firmly believe that a tunnel is the only viable option. and one that will be well worth the cost. I actually like the idea of a new bridge but I can see the people of Cambridge opposing losing park space permanently rather than just temporarily (for construction). The most expensive part will be the short tunnel segment and refurbishing the existing tunnels for the terminal. On this board we tend to either ignore cost or consider it so much that some ideas seem like they come from the dollar store. There comes a point where spending the extra dollar will be worth more than going cheap. As an example just look at what has been spent on the Silver Line and what it might cost to convert it to light rail. Now imagine if it had been planned as light rail all along and how much money would be saved. You can say perfect is the enemy of good but I say if you do it right the first time you won't have to worry about that.