Green Line Reconfiguration

[FK4]

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?

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:



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.

Nicely summarized thoughts here.

I think there is still room for improving the 39’s route in JP. Over time, perhaps in phases, eliminating more parking along Centre, eg, and having a couple stretches where it could bypass the big jams in downtown JP. And yes to it being a legit success story in its own right.

Your final comment is interesting since it’s something I’ve thought about a lot—why are we stuck with only GL-size trains as the only light rail we could ever consider? Many cities have smaller trams that are less imposing, less “heavy”, and might ultimately work better on city streets than big GL train cars.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

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:

View attachment 58720

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.

View attachment 58721
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.

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.

The 39's ridership has been in a free fall for 25 years. In the 1990 and 1997 Blue Books it was the single busiest bus on the system with 19,040-19,057 daily boardings. In the 2004 Blue Book it was down to 17,405. In the 2009 and 2014 Blue Books it was down to 14,405-14,877. In the current Better Bus Project's bus profiles counts it was down to 11,600 and has been eclipsed in the rankings by the #1 and #28.

None of that has anything to do with migration to the Orange Line. And capacity on it has increased lots in the span of the decline given the introduction on 60-footer buses on the route in the early/mid-2000's.

 

[TheRatmeister]

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.

The difference can best be seen by comparing older 39 data, like the 2009 or 2010 Blue Books, to the current numbers. In winter 2005 the 39 saw around 14k weekday boardings, it's now down to 10k. That difference hasn't been made up by the Orange Line from what I can tell. Ridership at Stony Brook and Green St has stayed pretty much stagnant. @F-Line to Dudley has more detailed numbers.

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.)

Because the demand is there, and because it wouldn't severely restrict the operations of the two western branches. With 7.5 minute peak headways on both the Riverside and Needham Branches, that leaves almost 4 minutes between trains to slip Arborway trains in, which with a flying junction would not be particularly challenging.

If nothing else, the 39 should remain as a local bus running from residential JP into its proximate "downtown" of Longwood

My point is that a streetcar could do this better. It would serve the residential areas of JP, in mixed traffic if necessary, before diving into the subway around just after Riverway to travel up to LMA in 2.5 minutes, the 39 currently takes 6-8. All while dramatically increasing capacity on the route for the "crunch" portions of the route around Forest Hills and Riverway, where the vehicles are most crowded.

I also feel like you're really overestimating how local the 39 is north of Riverway. Between Riverway and Copley the 39 makes 11 stops compared to the E's 9. Parker/Forsyth and Ring @ Boylston are the only extras. Sacrificing 7-10 minutes of end-end travel time for 8% of the passengers seems like a poor choice of priorities.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Many cities have smaller trams that are less imposing, less “heavy”, and might ultimately work better on city streets than big GL train cars.

The big benefit of trams over buses is that they're scalable and can have higher capacities. If you're not taking advantage of that, for the most part you're better off with buses. There are some other advantages, like I mentioned trams have a certain sex appeal that should not be discounted, they can work better in pedestrianized downtowns, and can travel faster on dedicated ROWs if they exist, but in most cases those advantages are either irrelevant or not worth the cost difference.

 

[The EGE]

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.)

This is the key to this whole discussion. Within the next few years, all of the Green Line except maybe the quarter-mile of South Huntington will be on dedicated ROW. That is the only way to have trains operate reliably; without reliable surface operations, any subway will operate well below capacity. Extending the E into JP where dedicated lanes are unlikely to be possible hurts subway reliability for everyone.

 

[FK4]

This is the key to this whole discussion. Within the next few years, all of the Green Line except maybe the quarter-mile of South Huntington will be on dedicated ROW. That is the only way to have trains operate reliably; without reliable surface operations, any subway will operate well below capacity. Extending the E into JP where dedicated lanes are unlikely to be possible hurts subway reliability for everyone.

I also think that this is just a corridor that adds far less value than any other component of proposed GL reconfiguration projects, even though other projects would be vastly more costly.

GLX on dedicated ROW to Nubian, to Harvard, and to South Station (ideally thruput thru the Seaport as well), with a Back Bay tunnel under Stuart with Tufts becoming a major new transfer station, in my mind open up the most territory and vast new opportunities across the whole system. You get OSR from Roxbury to LMA, major improvement in crosstown access opening up Kenmore and Harvard connection, and ease up central tunnel congestion and at the same alleviate pressure on multiple downtown transfer stations by letting the GL function as a multi-layered people mover creating critical redundancy across the system.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I also think that this is just a corridor that adds far less value than any other component of proposed GL reconfiguration projects, even though other projects would be vastly more costly.

I don't know, 9-10k daily riders for $200m sounds like a pretty good deal.

 

[737900er]

I don't know, 9-10k daily riders for $200m sounds like a pretty good deal.

If I was God I would leave the existing reservation as a transitway after the cut & cover tunnel was built and run a Forest Hills<->Northeastern streetcar (maybe you even continue it to Mattapan...).
Depending on the D-E connector configuration, you might even be able to squeeze in a Forest Hills<->Kenmore service pattern too.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Depending on the D-E connector configuration, you might even be able to squeeze in a Forest Hills<->Kenmore service pattern too.

That would probably rake in ridership if BLX-Kenmore were built, because the two-seat ride to Downtown with a Kenmore transfer would probably be a little faster and less crowded than the one-seat staying on Green. Brookline Village would become a major transfer/diverging point, the LMA access is well-preserved, and BV-Kemore on the D could use some service bolstering in a universe where most Needham and Riverside thru service is going to be re-routed into a Huntington subway. The ability to filet JP service patterns from differing but useful directions proves very key in managing subway congestion with a street-running branch attached.

I don't know, 9-10k daily riders for $200m sounds like a pretty good deal.

Doubly so because most of the construction is only stations. The electrical infrastructure is still active under the street all the way to Forest Hills because the ex-E trunk acts as a 600V DC interconnect between the outer E and outer Orange Line. If it needs any substation work, it's only with augmenting upgrades to the existing subs not the pain and suffering of siting and constructing new ones.

 

[FK4]

That would probably rake in ridership if BLX-Kenmore were built, because the two-seat ride to Downtown with a Kenmore transfer would probably be a little faster and less crowded than the one-seat staying on Green. Brookline Village would become a major transfer/diverging point, the LMA access is well-preserved, and BV-Kemore on the D could use some service bolstering in a universe where most Needham and Riverside thru service is going to be re-routed into a Huntington subway. The ability to filet JP service patterns from differing but useful directions proves very key in managing subway congestion with a street-running branch attached.

Doubly so because most of the construction is only stations. The electrical infrastructure is still active under the street all the way to Forest Hills because the ex-E trunk acts as a 600V DC interconnect between the outer E and outer Orange Line. If it needs any substation work, it's only with augmenting upgrades to the existing subs not the pain and suffering of siting and constructing new ones.

theres no way arborway restoration gets 9k new riders. Dont know where that figure comes from but it ain’t real world. JP is 40,000 people, and most of JP takes the OL now: hardly any parts of JP are more than a brisk, 15min walk. Even if the endless opposition (and I have yet to meet anyone in JP who is pro arborway, having lived there myself, many friends and family still there, spend a lot of time and make my transit interests known to all) to this somehow abated, the only trips that get better are LMA access, and there are better ways to do that, albeit more expensive.

 

[TheRatmeister]

theres no way arborway restoration gets 9k new riders. Dont know where that figure comes from but it ain’t real world.

The figure comes from comparing what 39 ridership is now to what it used to be, although it would presumably counting boardings+alightments rather than just boardings like GSE, so we'll say 4500 to keep it consistent. Let's do out all the math.

In the 1997 Blue Book, 39 ridership was 19,057 on weekdays. In fall 2023 it was 9,222, a decrease of 9,818 boardings or 4909 passengers assuming everyone came back the same way. In 1993 (The latest year with good data in the 1997 Blue Book, 1995 has a very strange dip), Stony Brook and Green St had 2441 and 2962 daily boardings, respectively. In 2019 (because the early 2023 pre-slowening numbers are bad, 1773 and 1549 pax respectively), daily boardings at Stony Brook and Green St were 3501 and 3055, respectively. In other words, ~1,100 weekday riders switched to the Orange Line, leaving a remaining "unaccounted for" difference of ~3,800 daily passengers. This is the lower bound, the number of people who used to take transit and don't anymore. It's also pretty safe to say that the line would get some additional new riders from induced demand in JP, plus some new bus transfers from routes like the 31 who otherwise would have used the 28, freeing up some capacity there.

Even if the endless opposition

Opposition to what? We're talking maybe 40-50 parking spaces lost for floating island stops. I find it truly hard to believe that a majority of people would be against restored streetcar service because 40-50 parking spaces would need to be lost.

the only trips that get better are LMA access

Plus Huntington, but besides semantics that's still around 7,000 daily passengers, or 14k boardings. (And yes, that ignores 39 riders who only duplicate the E.) That's a lot. So what if the improvements are mainly to LMA and Huntington access? There are a lot of people going there.

 

[Riverside]

I feel like I'm in a somewhat unusually argumentative mood today, so I will try to keep that in check as I reply.

First, in general I do want to say that if the T started breaking ground on an Arborway re-extension tomorrow, I'd be thrilled. Like, it's not that I think it's a bad idea. I disagree with some of the points made in this conversation, but I do want to make it clear at the start that I'm not opposed to the project (especially in a pre-GLR world).

Now, to some specific points:

TheRatmeister originally mentioned this (emphasis mine):

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.

This intrigued me, which is why I asked for a citation. What I'd been expecting to see was some data from the early-mid '80s showing ridership on the Arborway Line itself, and then some data from the late '80s or early '90s, showing lower ridership on the 39. This would demonstrate the "streetcar sex appeal" TheRatmeister was suggesting would increased demand for a restored Arborway service relative to current 39 levels.

F-Line and TheRatmeister cited (interesting) figures from the last 30 years, which definitely do demonstrate a decline in the 39's ridership:

The 39's ridership has been in a free fall for 25 years. In the 1990 and 1997 Blue Books it was the single busiest bus on the system with 19,040-19,057 daily boardings. In the 2004 Blue Book it was down to 17,405. In the 2009 and 2014 Blue Books it was down to 14,405-14,877. In the current Better Bus Project's bus profiles counts it was down to 11,600 and has been eclipsed in the rankings by the #1 and #28.

None of that has anything to do with migration to the Orange Line. And capacity on it has increased lots in the span of the decline given the introduction on 60-footer buses on the route in the early/mid-2000's.

The difference can best be seen by comparing older 39 data, like the 2009 or 2010 Blue Books, to the current numbers. In winter 2005 the 39 saw around 14k weekday boardings, it's now down to 10k. That difference hasn't been made up by the Orange Line from what I can tell. Ridership at Stony Brook and Green St has stayed pretty much stagnant. @F-Line to Dudley has more detailed numbers.

These figures are worth closer examination, but I don't think they demonstrate streetcar sex appeal, and don't particularly suggest that ridership would increase with the return of a streetcar and/or with the return of a 1SR to downtown (more on that below).

If anything, prima facie these numbers would suggest that demand has dropped for JP <> LMA and JP <> Back Bay 1SRs. That doesn't seem implausible to me; it's been 40 years, which is plenty of time for people to get new jobs, new families to move in and out of the neighborhood, etc. If analysis concluded that "JP residents commute to a broader range of destinations today than they did 40 years ago", that would not be a particularly shocking finding. Jamaica Plain was very different in the '70s and '80s, with a forceful legacy of redlining. Gentrification set in during the '90s, and seems to have run unabated since.

All of which is to say, I don't think a restored Arborway Line is necessarily likely to win back the riders who have abandoned the 39.

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.)
Because the demand is there, and because it wouldn't severely restrict the operations of the two western branches. With 7.5 minute peak headways on both the Riverside and Needham Branches, that leaves almost 4 minutes between trains to slip Arborway trains in, which with a flying junction would not be particularly challenging. [emphasis added]

Delays of more than 4 minutes are not hard to imagine on a surface route with as much exposure to the external environment as new-Arborway would have. A few unusually long dwells, and then we get a Riverside train stuck behind an Arborway train that should've cleared out of the signal block ahead 3 minutes ago. This is the point @The EGE was making: a subway is maximally efficient with predictable scheduling because predictability allows you to schedule/run trains closer together.

(Note: I'm mindful that I'm leaning into a kind of "purism" about siloing surface routes from the grade-separated "Gold Line" services of the GLR. Like, maybe it wouldn't actually make much difference to have the variability of a surface line added to the mix. I feel confident that a new-Arborway would prevent automated service on the rest of the Gold Line, but outside of that scenario, I grant that it's unclear whether the purism is worth it. But I do think it's a valid concern to raise.)

 

[Riverside]

If nothing else, the 39 should remain as a local bus running from residential JP into its proximate "downtown" of Longwood

My point is that a streetcar could do this better. It would serve the residential areas of JP, in mixed traffic if necessary, before diving into the subway around just after Riverway to travel up to LMA in 2.5 minutes, the 39 currently takes 6-8. All while dramatically increasing capacity on the route for the "crunch" portions of the route around Forest Hills and Riverway, where the vehicles are most crowded.

I also feel like you're really overestimating how local the 39 is north of Riverway. Between Riverway and Copley the 39 makes 11 stops compared to the E's 9. Parker/Forsyth and Ring @ Boylston are the only extras. Sacrificing 7-10 minutes of end-end travel time for 8% of the passengers seems like a poor choice of priorities.

Many cities have smaller trams that are less imposing, less “heavy”, and might ultimately work better on city streets than big GL train cars.
The big benefit of trams over buses is that they're scalable and can have higher capacities. If you're not taking advantage of that, for the most part you're better off with buses. There are some other advantages, like I mentioned trams have a certain sex appeal that should not be discounted, they can work better in pedestrianized downtowns, and can travel faster on dedicated ROWs if they exist, but in most cases those advantages are either irrelevant or not worth the cost difference.

The other big benefit of trams/streetcars/light rail is that they can go into subways effectively, whereas buses can't. (The Silver Line Transitway and Seattle's formerly BRT subway are the exceptions that prove the rule, IMO.) This sounds like what you are arguing for in the first quote above -- something akin to the original Tremont Street Subway, where a local surface line enters a short subway at the edge of downtown, in order to bypass congestion and provide a speedier ride. (In this case, LMA being the "downtown".) Since we've already got three models, I'll go ahead and propose a fourth: the Tremont Model.

In a vacuum, I agree with you that this model would be valuable. (And in fact this is something I've been working on a crayon for.) But I think mixing the Tremont Model of a new-Arborway Line with the Lechmere Model of the Green Line Reconfiguration overall seems like it would undercut the efficacy of both.

That being said, I do think there are ways to provide a new-Arborway service without impacting the Lechmere Model. For one, Huntington is plenty wide, so you could just build a four track subway. ("Just build a four track subway," he says casually and airily as he copy-pastes lines on a map.) Run the surface route(s) on one set of tracks, and the sealed-ROW rapid transit services on the other. The question of where to terminate the surface routes is an open one, but there are definitely options.

The other (not necessarily mutually exclusive) idea would be, as F-Line suggests, to run the new-Arborway Line into Kenmore instead of Huntington. Like F-Line said, especially with a Francis St infill, good access to Longwood would remain and, especially with BLX to Kenmore and Urban Ring services, Kenmore would be an extremely strong transfer node.

In any case though, I think my overall point is that, regardless of its potential ridership, a 1.3-2 mile surface route is incompatible with the goals of a Lechmere-Model Huntington Extended Subway. If we want the 1.3-2 mile surface route, great! We just need to recognize that it creates a Kenmore Model that recapitulates the benefits and drawbacks we are familiar with on the Green Line today. And we totally could build a system around that, if we wanted to:

• (A,) B and C run as is through Boylston Street Subway to Park St/Gov't Center
• Blue Line eats Riverside and gets extended to Needham (see below)
• New-Arborway runs into extended Huntington Subway and through-runs via Park to a northern branch (let's say Union)
• A within-subway short-turn service originating at Brigham Circle runs via Huntington to the Seaport (probably with South Station <> Seaport short-turns to boost frequencies)
• F Line to Nubian through-runs via Park and grabs the other northern branch

Personally, I don't think this model is as efficient, but it seems perfectly viable.

Spoiler: Blue-to-Needham

To briefly rehash the Blue-to-Needham question: you could either bite the bullet and grade-separate the ROW through downtown Needham, or (as I brought up somewhere earlier this year) you could run Blue to Needham Heights, Orange to Needham Junction, and a short trolley shuttle between them to pick up Needham Center; that would serve the majority of Needham riders and would not require major construction in downtown.

 

[FK4]

@TheRatmeister and @Riverside a significant missing piece here is that JP has changed—a LOT—in the last two decades (and more). So has the Huntington corridor. You can't just grab stats from 1997 and assume that x number of train riders then equates to x number of riders now when JP went from a working class part of town to highly gentrified, and the LMA and Fenway institutions have taken over vast swaths of the Mission Hill/Huntington Ave corridor. So I just dont think analyzing numbers that old tells much of a story as to what would happen now with a new Arborway.

The fact is that restoring the Arborway is not that popular in JP. Old timers do not have fond memories of the GL on Centre, and most people think it's a crazy idea to bring it back. I used to be very pro-restore but I have come to see that it adds very little and will just wind up being even more of a clusterfuck than it already is on Centre. And the GL trains are too big. A smaller-size tram would at least potentially address that issue, but perhaps at the expense of capacity.

Even if this did happen, I dont think you would want all the trains going to Kenmore. In my mind, the remaining equity/justice angle for Arborway (since Im not super in favor of plunking in a new transit line to a gentrified neighborhood that already has good transit access via Orange, and clearly is not going to gain much population anytime soon (JP will build more along Washington, but Centre St territory is basically a museum)) is that it connects Forest Hills, a major bus hub for Mattapan and Hyde Park, to the LMA—and Brigham Circle is much better access to much of LMA than is Longwood Station.

I wonder if this Back Bay subway alternative tunnel under Stuart, to Tufts, South Station, and then the Seaport Transitway could all be taken over by a tram. That way, you'd avoid having the E need to interact with the GL at all, and just have a separate tram line—smallish cars, but high frequency—running from Forest Hills to the Seaport.

 

[Tallguy]

The main issue of Red-Blue is that it's literally a full billion dollars just to extend the tunnel 1,000 feet down the road. Other countries outside the anglosphere can and have done this much cheaper. If Red-Blue were only a fraction of the cost, there'd be extra bandwidth to do both outward expansion and downtown capacity optimization. A full billion to extend the tunnel 1,000 feet further eats all the bandwidth away and there's no breathing room left over for anything else. It essentially pushes every other expansion proect, including NSRL, further away, and further back.

I still like Ari's idea of a viaduct out of the exstant portal even if it means turning every other train at Bowdoin due to a single tail track. 250M tops and a lot less disruptive

 

[Charlie_mta]

I still like Ari's idea of a viaduct out of the exstant portal even if it means turning every other train at Bowdoin due to a single tail track. 250M tops and a lot less disruptive

I'd like to see a double track viaduct out of the Joy St. portal to Charles. The only logistical problem is the fire station needing cross-street access at the location where the viaduct would be rising up from ground level.