Green Line Reconfiguration

[Riverside]

One could argue that the Kenmore and Lechmere (and Maverick) models are really the same network structure -- it simply depends on whether some of the surface street cars survived, or got converted to buses. Even Kenmore is a partial bus conversion fan out.

Yeah, it's true that the overall shapes of networks are the same between Kenmore and Lechmere Models, but the key distinction I'm drawing is whether the through-running streetcars survived, or if they were replaced with truncated bustitutions with forced transfers.

Historically all supported some street running cars entering the tunnels.

North Station was another historical subway to street car fan out point -- feeding Charlestown, Chelsea, East Boston and Revere via the Charlestown and old Mystic River bridges. Bus replacement remaining is largely the fan out from Haymarket.

Not to be overly fussy about it, but I am trying to get at a slightly more subtle phenomenon than just "where did subway-streetcars emerge and fan out from?" Specifically I'm focusing on how (early 20th century) transit agencies deal(t) with the problem of long-distance surface routes from the suburbs. For the Haymarket Portal, this would've been the services to Malden, Melrose, and the North Shore, which were all truncated to the "Lechmeres" of their respective corridors.

I think you could make the case that LA has the Kenmore model at 7th & Flower, where street running trains converge from the west (E-Line) and south (A-Line), then portal down to the connector for express through downtown.

Yeah, I was thinking about that too... I think the divergence point is a little closer to the core than might be expected with a Kenmore Model. (Assuming we use Kenmore itself as the prototype.) A Kenmore node should be far enough out from the core that you could fit a reasonable local surface route between it and the core. So, in Boston, this would have been the predecessor to the 55 or to the 49/SL5 (or the 92/93). LA's streetcar subway actually seems more evocative of the original Tremont Street Subway -- just get the streetcars off of the streets of downtown, and sort the rest out later.

I also think that LA's light rail lines don't really fit the definition of "surface route" as I mean it here -- with stop spacing often in excess of 1 mile, it's really a rapid transit line that happens to run in the median of a street. (Just like the D isn't really a "surface route" despite running on the surface.) I mean, with LA stop spacing, the MBTA's C would have stops only at Cleveland Circle, Washington Square, Coolidge Corner, St. Mary's St, and Kenmore. (Or even just Cleveland Circle, Coolidge Corner, and Kenmore.)

(Los Angeles boggles the mind.)

 

[JeffDowntown]

Just want to point out that the Lechmere, Maverick models were not initially bustitution. They were both originally streetcar to streetcar transfer points when longer distance surface lines stopped entering the tunnels at those points in the early 1920's. Bustitution came much later (1950's ish).

 

[Riverside]

Yes, that is fair to point out that the truncated streetcar routes were not immediately converted to buses. That's why (for the most part) I've been talking about "surface routes", in an effort to be agnostic to whether we're talking about streetcars or buses (or trackless trolleys, as quite a few routes were initially converted to, before eventually being replaced by buses).

I feel like I'm probably being annoyingly pedantic here, and I promise I'm not trying to be annoying, but I think there's also a little bit of mythbusting that is worth doing around bustitution. Bustitution, in general, began almost as soon as buses became available. BERy began bustituting minor routes as early as 1925.

By 1931, most of Cambridge's network was bus:

By 1936, over 50 BERy routes were bus. By 1939, the streetcar network had contracted to something approximating today's Key Bus Network (note that some routes had been replaced by trackless trolleys rather than buses):

1940 saw streetcars along the following routes/corridors:

• An Eastie <> Revere route that would eventually be replaced by the Blue Line
• the Maverick routes (incl all Eastie routes plus the 116/117)
• Charlestown (92, 93)
• Fellsway
• the 101 (Broadway/Main St/Medford Sq)
• the 89, 88, 87 (all to Clarendon Hill)
• the 77, 73, and 71 out of Harvard
• the 70 from Central
• the A, B, C and E/39
• the 1
• most of the South End and Roxbury routes, but not as many of the Dorchester routes
• the 32, 34, and 36 out of Forest Hills, plus the 30 from Roslindale Village
• the Mattapan Line
• the 7, 9, and 10

By the end of 1949, that list had winnowed significantly:

• An Eastie <> Revere route that would eventually be replaced by the Blue Line
• the Maverick routes (incl all Eastie routes plus the 116/117)
• Charlestown (92, 93)
• Fellsway
• the 101 (Broadway/Main St/Medford Sq)
• the 89, 88, 87 (all to Clarendon Hill)
• the 77, 73, and 71 out of Harvard
• the 70 from Central
• the A, B, C and E/39
• the 1
  • by 1950, the 1's corridor only ran streetcars south of the Charles River
• most of the South End and Roxbury routes, but not as many of the Dorchester routes
  • by 1950, streetcars were limited to Mass Ave, Tremont St (today's 43), Columbus Ave, Seaver St and Blue Hill (akin to today's 29), and the southern half of Washington St (today's 42)
• the 32, 34, and 36 out of Forest Hills, plus the 30 from Roslindale Village
• the Mattapan Line
• the 7, 9, and 10

The abandonments/conversions in the 50s were definitely more prominent and dramatic, but the decade started off with a shell of the earlier streetcar system (using current numbers to describe the routes):

• 1950: the 70 from Central
• 1951: the 36 from FH
• 1952: all of the Maverick lines, plus the 34
• 1953: all of the Southie lines plus the remaining Mass Ave crosstown route
• 1955: Fellsway, the 77 north of North Cambridge, the 29 corridor from Egleston, and the 42 corridor
• 1956: the 29 corridor north of Egleston to Lenox St
• 1958: the remaining routes out of Harvard (survived as trackless trolleys into the 2020s)
• 1961: the 43 to Lenox St

Which left us with the A, B, C, E/39, and Mattapan Lines at the start of the MBTA era.

I know this is well beyond the point you (JeffDowntown) were making, but I think there is sometimes a narrative created that the demise of the streetcar coincided with the post-war rise of suburbia and automobile, and I just don't think that holds up under scrutiny.

 

[JeffDowntown]

In reality, streetcars mixed poorly with automobiles on the city streets (recognized issues starting in the 1920's well before suburban post war flight). Trackless trollies and buses mixed in automobile traffic better in the cities. (And they were being pushed by huge corporate forces like GM.)

And let's face it, streetcars on regular roadways (no dedicated reservation) cannot pull to the side of the street to collect and discharge passengers. Dropping passengers in the middle of an automobile filled street is frigging scary.

 

[TheRatmeister]

In reality, streetcars mixed poorly with automobiles on the city streets (recognized issues starting in the 1920's well before suburban post war flight). Trackless trollies and buses mixed in automobile traffic better in the cities. (And they were being pushed by huge corporate forces like GM.)

And let's face it, streetcars on regular roadways (no dedicated reservation) cannot pull to the side of the street to collect and discharge passengers. Dropping passengers in the middle of an automobile filled street is frigging scary.

Plus the infrastructure costs on lesser used routes didn't make sense. Many of the streetcar routes didn't really make sense even when they were built, and were just built out of a streetcar mania. From what I understand this was what killed most of the Eastern Mass routes.

 

[The EGE]

Several other factors also resulted in streetcar systems using buses beginning in the early 1920s. (The BERy's first bus route was on North Beacon in 1922.) While jitneys had been around (and eating into profits) since circa 1914, it wasn't until the early 1920s that the technology was really mature enough to replace streetcar lines. The late 1910s and early 1920s were a bad time for street railways: from 1913 to 1920, operating costs in the state doubled, and the number of autos quintupled.

The rural lines were basically never paying propositions. Those attached to city systems were largely subsidized by them, while others did nothing but lose money. Most every populated area was already served by steam trains, and not many people lived in the forests in between. These were not the speedy Midwest interurbans that could almost compete on speed; most averaged just 10-15 mph. Some of the worst offenders, like the Huckleberry Line (Lee–Huntington), were cut by the end of the 1910s. Cuts before ~1925 were generally lines so unprofitable that the streetcar company didn't bother buying buses, instead letting someone else have a go, while those after 1925 were mostly replaced directly with buses. Almost all the rural lines were abandoned in the 1920s, leaving a disconnected set of city networks. The last few rural lines were the Berkshire Street Railway (1930), some of the Massachusetts Northeastern lines (1930), the Eastern Mass lines from Boston to Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence (all 1931); and the Boston and Worcester (1932).

Cities did have buses replace lighter lines in the 1920s, but the heavier city lines tended to pay their way. I would be surprised if more than a handful of city lines in MA were not profitable at some point. The only substantial city to actually lose streetcars in the 1920s was Waltham. Even the smaller systems - Greenfield, Northampton, Holyoke, Athol/Orange, Fitchburg/Leominster, Attleboro - survived until the Depression wiped out ridership. (Greenfield and Orange/Athol would have been abandoned by their private operator in 1924, but they were taken over by the municipalities.) Many of the 1920s BERY bus routes were expansion into new territory rather than replacement of streetcar lines.

Several years into the depression, the mindset switched from "use the railway infrastructure until it wears out" to "switch to buses as soon as buying them is cheaper". The Eastern Mass made that change in 1935. Previously it had only bustituted the smaller divisions (Melrose in 1931, Norwood and Taunton in 1932), but the bigger cities were switched quickly: Lawrence and Lowell in 1935; Haverhill and Fall River in 1936; Salem, Lynn, and Brockton in 1937. Only the Quincy and Stoneham lines with heavy commuter ridership and direct service to BERy stations lasted into the 1940s*. Springfield converted in 1940; Worcester and New Bedford only lasted to 1945 and 1947 because the war prevented conversions. Only the BERy still ran streetcars after 1948.

* see following post

 

[The EGE]

Some other services did run directly into BERy rapid transit stations, but generally heavy commuter routes. The Lexington and Boston ran into Sullivan from 1903 to 1912, then Harvard until 1924. The Eastern Mass ran its Lowell and Lawrence intercity lines into Sullivan Square until 1931, and several routes into Forest Hills (the last was East Walpole in 1932). The Hyde Park portions of several of the long-surviving BERy routes were also Eastern Mass until 1923. The Middlesex and Boston ran some service until Park Street from 1903 to 1914. The Eastern Mass and BERy operated joint Revere Beach-Maverick service.

The other "foreign" service to a BERy station was the Eastern Mass service into Scollay Square via the Chelsea Bridge. As Riverside mapped out, this was an extensive service covering the North Shore as far as Salem. The Chelsea-Scollay section was cut in 1935 when the bridge was rebuilt; the Chelsea, Everett, and Revere lines were sold to BERy in 1936. Only the two Revere Beach lines, now the 116 and 117, were rerouted over BERy tracks to Maverick. There's a lot of fascinating "what ifs" with this service. What if the bridge hadn't been rebuilt, or (as originally planned), streetcar service was maintained? What if the Sumner Tunnel hadn't been available as a bus route? Would we have seen Chelsea or even Lynn service continue to Scollay until later? Would more lines have be redirected to Maverick?

Even more wild, what if the Boston and Eastern had been completed? It was a circa-1910 plan by the BERY and the Bay State (Eastern Mass predecessor) to construct a high-speed interurban-style line from East Boston to Beverly, with branches to Revere Beach and Danvers. Original plans called for it to feed into the East Boston Tunnel, but by 1912, the plan was for a new harbor tunnel and a terminal at Post Office Square.

 

[FK4]

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

• Francis St
• Ruggles St

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.)

I think OL mirroring is best. It sucks to imagine giving up all the nice streetcar stops, but for local traffic, there’s the 39 which already has its own lane now in Huntington. So it makes the most sense to have wide (3k ft) spacing to me.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I think OL mirroring is best. It sucks to imagine giving up all the nice streetcar stops, but for local traffic, there’s the 39 which already has its own lane now in Huntington. So it makes the most sense to have wide (3k ft) spacing to me.

Woah, throwback. Strong disagree, for three reasons.

1. 3k feet is probably too wide given the density
2. If you are going with that stop spacing, IE keeping two of the 4 existing stations, MFA and Brigham Circle don't seem like the right ones to keep. LMA and Northeastern are both higher ridership stops
3. Assuming everyone is fine with the walk, and again assuming GLRC here beause that's the whole point, you'd end up with a Longwood "superstation" at Brigham Circle with the 2500 per day Ons it has right now, plus around 1900 from LMA assuming an even split, plus the 2900 from the current Longwood D branch stop, plus probably another 750-1000 from Brookline Village. That's ridership comparable to Copley, Government Center, or Park St, all famously overcrowded stops.

The fewest stations I think you could get away with is three, one at Forsyth St, one at Evans Way, and one at Smith St. But you're still making compromises on walking distance within LMA, a potential UR transfer, and walkshed coverage of Wentworth/Northeastern that seem hard to justify for one single station's worth of cost-savings.

there’s the 39 which already has its own lane now in Huntington.

Would it even make sense to keep the 39 here? Even if a restored Arborway service needed to run in mixed traffic most of the way, the time savings from running in the subway would almost certainly make up for that.

 

[FK4]

Woah, throwback. Strong disagree, for three reasons.

1. 3k feet is probably too wide given the density
2. If you are going with that stop spacing, IE keeping two of the 4 existing stations, MFA and Brigham Circle don't seem like the right ones to keep. LMA and Northeastern are both higher ridership stops
3. Assuming everyone is fine with the walk, and again assuming GLRC here beause that's the whole point, you'd end up with a Longwood "superstation" at Brigham Circle with the 2500 per day Ons it has right now, plus around 1900 from LMA assuming an even split, plus the 2900 from the current Longwood D branch stop, plus probably another 750-1000 from Brookline Village. That's ridership comparable to Copley, Government Center, or Park St, all famously overcrowded stops.

The fewest stations I think you could get away with is three, one at Forsyth St, one at Evans Way, and one at Smith St. But you're still making compromises on walking distance within LMA, a potential UR transfer, and walkshed coverage of Wentworth/Northeastern that seem hard to justify for one single station's worth of cost-savings.

Would it even make sense to keep the 39 here? Even if a restored Arborway service needed to run in mixed traffic most of the way, the time savings from running in the subway would almost certainly make up for that.

Got it. For pacing, yeah, can't argue with that. Still, I'd think it makes sense to pace stops out more than the current surface level uses, to boost efficiency. And I don't see why you wouldn't keep the 39. GL to Arborway is never gonna happen, so the 39 will still be around. And it makes sense to have stops for local traffic above and more rapid transit underneath, no?

 

[TheRatmeister]

GL to Arborway is never gonna happen, so the 39 will still be around

If you're fine with street-running it's not an expensive project. The Hyde Square extension has been estimated at around $50 million, so $100m per mile for a total of around $150m ish. It's hard to see how the capacity gains wouldn't justify that, and demand would likely increase from the streetcar sex appeal given that 39 ridership is down compared to the former Arborway line.

 

[HenryAlan]

Several years into the depression, the mindset switched from "use the railway infrastructure until it wears out" to "switch to buses as soon as buying them is cheaper". The Eastern Mass made that change in 1935. Previously it had only bustituted the smaller divisions (Melrose in 1931, Norwood and Taunton in 1932), but the bigger cities were switched quickly: Lawrence and Lowell in 1935; Haverhill and Fall River in 1936; Salem, Lynn, and Brockton in 1937. Only the Quincy and Stoneham lines with heavy commuter ridership and direct service to BERy stations lasted into the 1940s*. Springfield converted in 1940; Worcester and New Bedford only lasted to 1945 and 1947 because the war prevented conversions. Only the BERy still ran streetcars after 1948.

Lots of awesome information in that post. The quoted paragraph made me wonder about something regarding bustitution. During the depression, the federal government invested heavily in road construction, in part to stimulate economic activity. But a consequence was that it made bus operation more feasible for transit companies. Better and more roadways made the buses run more effectively. Might the streetcars have survived to a greater extent if the operators could have avoided any further infrastructure investment and maintenance?

 

[JeffDowntown]

Lots of awesome information in that post. The quoted paragraph made me wonder about something regarding bustitution. During the depression, the federal government invested heavily in road construction, in part to stimulate economic activity. But a consequence was that it made bus operation more feasible for transit companies. Better and more roadways made the buses run more effectively. Might the streetcars have survived to a greater extent if the operators could have avoided any further infrastructure investment and maintenance?

I believe, to survive, streetcars needed dedicated reservations. There are simply too many issues with street running in the middle of a road full of cars. Most of the streetcars that survived have at least some reservation space. It is kind of like the issue with BRT -- without dedicated space they never really achieve rapid transit status.

 

[Riverside]

Even more wild, what if the Boston and Eastern had been completed? It was a circa-1910 plan by the BERY and the Bay State (Eastern Mass predecessor) to construct a high-speed interurban-style line from East Boston to Beverly, with branches to Revere Beach and Danvers. Original plans called for it to feed into the East Boston Tunnel, but by 1912, the plan was for a new harbor tunnel and a terminal at Post Office Square.

I had never heard of this proposal until today, wow! I may need to map this out later. Another harbor tunnel would have been really interesting, and frankly seems like it would have had a high likelihood of surviving til today; the waters of the harbor (and the Mystic and Chelsea Creek) form a defining geographic divide that makes fixed crossings highly valuable.

 

[FK4]

If you're fine with street-running it's not an expensive project. The Hyde Square extension has been estimated at around $50 million, so $100m per mile for a total of around $150m ish. It's hard to see how the capacity gains wouldn't justify that, and demand would likely increase from the streetcar sex appeal given that 39 ridership is down compared to the former Arborway line.

It’s not about cost… too much opposition and too many barriers to getting arborway back. Despite being far more expensive, it seems more likely we’ll see many other components of green line reconfig before seeing arborway come back.

 

[Riverside]

The fewest stations I think you could get away with is three, one at Forsyth St, one at Evans Way, and one at Smith St [using 2000-foot spacing]. But you're still making compromises on walking distance within LMA, a potential UR transfer, and walkshed coverage of Wentworth/Northeastern that seem hard to justify for one single station's worth of cost-savings.

Yes, this is mostly where I've landed as well; 3 stops at 2000' feet is doable, and could be fine if needed (see below). But I think there is a reasonable case for matching the current stop spacing (with Brigham Circle shifted slightly southwest to absorb Fenwood Road's walkshed.

I still find The EGE's argument compelling though:

I think spacing depends a lot on what the plan is for serving the LMA - i.e, whether the Huntington mainline is the primary access from the rapid transit network. If it is, then you need station entrances as close to [the corners of] Francis and Longwood as possible, which lends itself to a 1500' spacing. The current configuration with the staggered platforms at Brigham Circle is pretty bad for this.

If there's an actual LMA station via new construction - D-E connector via Longwood Avenue (my preferred configuration), Urban Ring, Blue Line via Brookline Avenue - then you have more leeway on the Huntington stop locations. My crayon map is 2000' spacing, with stations centered between Forsyth and Hemenway, at Evans Way, and at Francis.

The point about proximity to intersections is a really good one; Huntington is unusual because, even though it's a main throughfare, it doesn't actually run through the employment "heart" of the region -- everything is down a cross-street. Insofar as "stop spacing" is really "how far should riders have to walk", that means that keeping walksheds equivalent to a more typical CBD will require closer stop spacing.

From a future-proofing perspective, though: if there is a new station built somewhere in Longwood, there is a good chance it would be built under Longwood Ave -- maybe in front of Children's or at the intersection with Brookline Ave. Likelier in the southwestern quadrant of the neighborhood, given the distribution of jobs and shape of the neighborhood.

Exact location notwithstanding, it'll be on the far half of the neighborhood from Huntington, meaning there will need to be a path to the other side. A TBM could enable more creative routes, but generally we can assume that Longwood Ave (or maybe Francis St) would be the likeliest path. So any station location would need to be able to accommodate a (flying) junction at one of those cross-streets, especially Longwood Ave. The 2000' spacing, with a stop at Evans Way, fits that criterion.

1500' spacing (today's) can probably accommodate that as well, but probably should treat the need for a flying junction as a constraint. (This might point, incidentally, to a split level station, particularly since I'd guess that a Longwood Ave Subway would have vertically stacked tracks.)

 

[CheapLeak]

Some other services did run directly into BERy rapid transit stations, but generally heavy commuter routes. The Lexington and Boston ran into Sullivan from 1903 to 1912, then Harvard until 1924. The Eastern Mass ran its Lowell and Lawrence intercity lines into Sullivan Square until 1931, and several routes into Forest Hills (the last was East Walpole in 1932). The Hyde Park portions of several of the long-surviving BERy routes were also Eastern Mass until 1923. The Middlesex and Boston ran some service until Park Street from 1903 to 1914. The Eastern Mass and BERy operated joint Revere Beach-Maverick service.

The other "foreign" service to a BERy station was the Eastern Mass service into Scollay Square via the Chelsea Bridge. As Riverside mapped out, this was an extensive service covering the North Shore as far as Salem. The Chelsea-Scollay section was cut in 1935 when the bridge was rebuilt; the Chelsea, Everett, and Revere lines were sold to BERy in 1936. Only the two Revere Beach lines, now the 116 and 117, were rerouted over BERy tracks to Maverick. There's a lot of fascinating "what ifs" with this service. What if the bridge hadn't been rebuilt, or (as originally planned), streetcar service was maintained? What if the Sumner Tunnel hadn't been available as a bus route? Would we have seen Chelsea or even Lynn service continue to Scollay until later? Would more lines have be redirected to Maverick?

Even more wild, what if the Boston and Eastern had been completed? It was a circa-1910 plan by the BERY and the Bay State (Eastern Mass predecessor) to construct a high-speed interurban-style line from East Boston to Beverly, with branches to Revere Beach and Danvers. Original plans called for it to feed into the East Boston Tunnel, but by 1912, the plan was for a new harbor tunnel and a terminal at Post Office Square.

Is there any documents about this line, or is it one of those were we have to rely on the newspaper?

 

[The EGE]

Very little, as is common for railroads that never got built. A B&M statement opposing the line is available, and the City of Boston Archives has plans (not digitized).

 

[CheapLeak]

Well disappointing, but thanks for sharing about that.

 

[Riverside]

Would it even make sense to keep the 39 here? Even if a restored Arborway service needed to run in mixed traffic most of the way, the time savings from running in the subway would almost certainly make up for that.

Got it. For pacing, yeah, can't argue with that. Still, I'd think it makes sense to pace stops out more than the current surface level uses, to boost efficiency. And I don't see why you wouldn't keep the 39. GL to Arborway is never gonna happen, so the 39 will still be around. And it makes sense to have stops for local traffic above and more rapid transit underneath, no?

If you're fine with street-running it's not an expensive project. The Hyde Square extension has been estimated at around $50 million, so $100m per mile for a total of around $150m ish. It's hard to see how the capacity gains wouldn't justify that, and demand would likely increase from the streetcar sex appeal given that 39 ridership is down compared to the former Arborway line.

It’s not about cost… too much opposition and too many barriers to getting arborway back. Despite being far more expensive, it seems more likely we’ll see many other components of green line reconfig before seeing arborway come back.

I feel pretty strongly that the 39 is a success story and should continue to exist in some form no matter what.

Assuming no light rail extension beyond Hyde Square: maintain as is (with as many BRT enhancements as you can fit). Assuming surface light rail extension beyond Hyde Square: maintain the northern half of the 39 along Huntington (probably rerouted to terminate at Brookline Village). Assuming (somehow) a light rail extension in a subway all the way to Forest Hills: maintain as is (with as many BRT enhancements as you can fit).

If we're going to go to all the trouble of getting the B and C out of the Central Subway, and go to the trouble of modernizing the D & E to be as "rapid transit-y" as possible, why would we then turn around and add a 1.3-2 miles long surface line to it? (Down narrow streets where there's no hope of a dedicated reservation.)

If nothing else, the 39 should remain as a local bus running from residential JP into its proximate "downtown" of Longwood. Longwood <> Forest Hills sits comfortably in the 2-3 mile range where inner surface routes can outcompete rapid transit due to the overall low travel time, added convenience of having a closer stop, and the lack of transfer penalty. The Downtown Crossing Bus Connections map illustrates this vividly:

The lone surviving routes into downtown (minus the 55, RIP) are all in the 2-3 mile range, they all serve residential areas, and the higher ridership ones run through neighborhoods that don't have a rapid transit connection to downtown. The 39 would match all of these criteria.

And I'd argue that the 39 also has a role to play in terms of serving Back Bay as well. Back Bay is actually much less accessible than it looks. If you live to its east or west (i.e. along the Green or Orange Lines), you're golden. If you live to its south, you've got the 9 and 10, but otherwise are out of luck; if you live even just in Nubian Square -- less than 1.5 miles from Copley -- you've got an annoying commute with either a transfer or a lengthy walk. And if you live north of Back Bay (i.e. Cambridge), have fun.

The ramification of this is that the Orange and Green Lines pull double duty on all of the "dog leg" journeys required to reach Back Bay from, e.g. Warren St (bus to Ruggles/Roxbury Crossing -> Orange to Back Bay) or Cambridge (1 to Hynes -> Green to Copley, or Red to Park -> Green to Copley), in addition to carrying their own riders from their respective corridors. Without the 39, riders in JP will either gravitate to the Orange Line (crowding trains before they even arrive at Ruggles), or will have to transfer to the Reconfigured E, eating up capacity there.

Back Bay actually doesn't have a lot of access points aside from the Green and Orange Lines (and commuter rail). The 39 provides good capacity relief.

demand would likely increase from the streetcar sex appeal given that 39 ridership is down compared to the former Arborway line.

It seems worth noting that the relocated Orange Line opened just a couple of years after Arborway closed. (How have I not noticed that coincidence before?) The 39's reduced ridership (which I'd love to see a citation for -- I don't doubt you, I'd just be interested in the data) is probably in part due to that, especially since Orange provides an OSR to downtown that the 39 doesn't.

That being said, if we really do think there is pent-up demand for a streetcar, then the 39 could just be converted to a streetcar, running surface level all the way to Back Bay. Marrying that into an extended Huntington Subway is unnecessary.