Huntington Extended Subway Stations
So, if we extend the subway under Huntington, do we keep the existing stop locations? In theory, one might think that moving from a surface light rail line to a subway would have fewer stations, but, on closer inspection, that's not obvious to me.
It's about 6,300 feet from Francis St to Mass Ave (each alternating color shows a 500' stretch):
View attachment 48970
The existing stop spacing is roughly every 1500 feet. There is some variance to that, in part to accommodate surface conditions. For example, the Francis St stop (Brigham Circle) is actually located some 200' away from Francis St.
Simplifying things slightly,
1500' spacing would put subway stops at
- Francis St
- Longwood Ave
- Ruggles St
- Forsyth St
View attachment 48971
Things get a little stretched at the eastern end. If you measure 1500' from Mass Ave, the station locations don't change that much -- the LMA-equivalent station moves from Longwood Ave to St Alphonsus St -- so I'm willing to overlook the slight deviation from the idealized model.
1500' is comparable to the distance between most of the core downtown stations.
---
At
2000 feet, we have stations at
- Francis St
- Evans Way
- Parker St
View attachment 48972
One notable downside here is that you lose a station at Ruggles St, the potential location for an Urban Ring busway. This station location also means that LMA, MFA, and Northeastern riders all see their stop move significantly (and hospitals along Longwood Ave see a longer walk).
2000' is an unusual spacing without many comparable ones across the system. Assuming an infill at Kent Square/Netherlands, the Fenway Branch from Fenway to Brookline Hills would be the most similar.
---
3000' spacing mirrors the Orange Line stations to the east, providing stations at
View attachment 48973
This option regains the Ruggles St connection, but loses more direct service to Northeastern and to Longwood Ave.
Alternatively, you could move the pair of new stations further east -- reducing the spacing between the Northeastern stop and Symphony, but centering on the current Northeastern and LMA stops, which I
think are the highest among this quartet of stations. (I am struggling with pivot tables tonight, so someone should check me.)
View attachment 48983
This option (likely) eliminates a Ruggles St connection, but, as mentioned, regains access to more of Northeastern and LMA.
3000' is comparable to Orange Line Southwest Corridor spacing, as well as spacing on the Ashmont Branch, and (to a varying extent) the spacing on GLX.
---
So which one is best?
In general, the 3000' options seem too far apart to me. That's a lot of walks which will be made significantly longer (almost certainly longer than the potential time savings on the train).
The 1500' option honestly does not strike me as unreasonably close. High ridership stretch, elongated linear destination zone, and comparable to Boston's original downtown. And, even with the benefits of a "heavy metro" design, this subway
would still be served by LRT vehicles, running shorter consists than HRT: having four stations means you can having four trains loading and unloading passengers simultaneously; fewer stations mean fewer vehicle doors opening simultaneously. So, 1500' still seems like a reasonable contender.
In general, 2000' strikes a good happy medium. Existing walks are lengthened somewhat, but not severely. New stations focus on points of higher ridership. The only fly in the ointment is the potential loss of an Urban Ring connection at Ruggles St. There are, of course, many ways to address that; while my (current) Urban Ring proposal calls for a crossing via Ruggles St, other proposals do not.
So, one thing I think this examination does reveal is that the value of a Ruggles St station really is the question to answer regarding stop spacing. If it's not needed, then you have a lot more flexibility, and probably the 2000' option would be fine. But if the Ruggles St station is required, then (IMO) the only option is to continue with 1500'.
For the moment, I plan to continue crayoning using the 1500' model. One simple reason: I don't think the potential public discussion about (what is essentially) stop consolidation is particularly useful at this point. Insofar as I have a platform for advocacy, I'd like to keep attention focused on the idea of an extended Huntington Subway itself, and not get too caught up in station placement. (That's not to forestall such discussion here; I'm just saying that I see it as secondary.)