If You Were God/Goddess | Transit & Infrastructure Sandbox

Let's draw some lines on some maps.

Let's assume that Boston has five "downtowns": Downtown/Financial District, Back Bay, Longwood Medical Area, Kendall, and the Seaport. (This is a somewhat arbitrary assumption, I grant.)

Let's further assume that there are five "BERY-style" bus transfer hubs, each located very roughly 2 miles away from the center of Downtown, at which commuters transfer from their local bus route to an express rapid transit OSR directly to Downtown: Nubian/Ruggles, Kenmore, Harvard, Sullivan, and Maverick.

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it: create transit paths that provide an OSR from each bus transfer hub to each of the five downtowns. (List to fill in copied in spoiler box below.)

Some additional notes:
  • Lines may curve and bend, within reason; making every path a dog leg would not be in the spirit of the challenge
  • Lines can run in parallel between downtown nodes
  • Lines may branch on the outside of the 2 mile circle, but may not branch within the circle; if you need to branch, you must build a second trunk in parallel
    • (4 track subways would be okay though)
  • The definitions of each downtown area are up for interpretation, within reason
  • Paths can serve the transfer hubs without actually serving the tranfer hub directly if you are able to intersect all bus routes feeding in to that hub at a reasonably close distance
    • For example, you could serve the Maverick hub using dual transfers at Airport station and (say) Meridian & Bennington
  • "Nubian/Ruggles" is nebulously defined for any number of reasons, so make of that what you will
Nubian/Ruggles to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Kenmore to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Harvard to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Sullivan to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Maverick to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Definitely an interesting challenge! To clarify: Are you suggesting additional lines and extensions based on the current rapid transit network, or an alternative universe in which there are no existing Red, Orange, Blue and Green lines and we start everything from scratch?
 
Definitely an interesting challenge! To clarify: Are you suggesting additional lines and extensions based on the current rapid transit network, or an alternative universe in which there are no existing Red, Orange, Blue and Green lines and we start everything from scratch?
Fair question! I think solutions using either framework will be interesting. So perhaps we’ll say that either approach is good, just clarify up front whether your solution is in a “stet” framework or “blank slate”.

(Also bear in mind that one could also do realignments — eg realign Red to have a brief diversion into the Seaport. Idk if we’d consider that stet vs blank slate, so I’d just say we should clarify our thought processes when we answer.)
 
Let's draw some lines on some maps.

Let's assume that Boston has five "downtowns": Downtown/Financial District, Back Bay, Longwood Medical Area, Kendall, and the Seaport. (This is a somewhat arbitrary assumption, I grant.)

Let's further assume that there are five "BERY-style" bus transfer hubs, each located very roughly 2 miles away from the center of Downtown, at which commuters transfer from their local bus route to an express rapid transit OSR directly to Downtown: Nubian/Ruggles, Kenmore, Harvard, Sullivan, and Maverick.

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it: create transit paths that provide an OSR from each bus transfer hub to each of the five downtowns. (List to fill in copied in spoiler box below.)

Some additional notes:
  • Lines may curve and bend, within reason; making every path a dog leg would not be in the spirit of the challenge
  • Lines can run in parallel between downtown nodes
  • Lines may branch on the outside of the 2 mile circle, but may not branch within the circle; if you need to branch, you must build a second trunk in parallel
    • (4 track subways would be okay though)
  • The definitions of each downtown area are up for interpretation, within reason
  • Paths can serve the transfer hubs without actually serving the tranfer hub directly if you are able to intersect all bus routes feeding in to that hub at a reasonably close distance
    • For example, you could serve the Maverick hub using dual transfers at Airport station and (say) Meridian & Bennington
  • "Nubian/Ruggles" is nebulously defined for any number of reasons, so make of that what you will
Nubian/Ruggles to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Kenmore to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Harvard to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Sullivan to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Maverick to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
I mean the obvious solution would be a Chicago-style loop, ideally with flying junctions instead of flat ones to minimize headways. Assuming 1 clockwise tracks and 1 counter clockwise track and fully automatic operation you'd be looking at minimum headways of around 5 minutes on three branches and 3 minutes on two branches. (I'd pick Harvard and Sullivan for more frequent service.)
 
Last edited:
Let's draw some lines on some maps.

Let's assume that Boston has five "downtowns": Downtown/Financial District, Back Bay, Longwood Medical Area, Kendall, and the Seaport. (This is a somewhat arbitrary assumption, I grant.)

Let's further assume that there are five "BERY-style" bus transfer hubs, each located very roughly 2 miles away from the center of Downtown, at which commuters transfer from their local bus route to an express rapid transit OSR directly to Downtown: Nubian/Ruggles, Kenmore, Harvard, Sullivan, and Maverick.

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it: create transit paths that provide an OSR from each bus transfer hub to each of the five downtowns. (List to fill in copied in spoiler box below.)

Some additional notes:
  • Lines may curve and bend, within reason; making every path a dog leg would not be in the spirit of the challenge
  • Lines can run in parallel between downtown nodes
  • Lines may branch on the outside of the 2 mile circle, but may not branch within the circle; if you need to branch, you must build a second trunk in parallel
    • (4 track subways would be okay though)
  • The definitions of each downtown area are up for interpretation, within reason
  • Paths can serve the transfer hubs without actually serving the tranfer hub directly if you are able to intersect all bus routes feeding in to that hub at a reasonably close distance
    • For example, you could serve the Maverick hub using dual transfers at Airport station and (say) Meridian & Bennington
  • "Nubian/Ruggles" is nebulously defined for any number of reasons, so make of that what you will
Nubian/Ruggles to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Kenmore to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Harvard to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Sullivan to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Maverick to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Needed a map for clarity (also added in the Lechmere terminal).

A route from Kendall to LMA can easilly swoop in the Kenmore terminal, so Kenmore already has that advantage going for it. The route to Sullivan can be routed to Lechmere before cutting across the Inner Belt floodplain to get to Sullivan.

1724628948037.png
 
Last edited:
Needed a map for clarity (also added in the Lechmere terminal).
Arguably, I think it might make sense to combine Sullivan and Lechmere as one entity for this thought exercise (especially for those who interpret it as an alternative reality situation), similar to Ruggles/Nubian.

Even in the real world, the two pairs of bus hubs are each sufficiently close to one another, with one served by heavy rail and one by a mode with lower capacity (LRT or BRT). If BERy didn't build the short segment to Lechmere (and thus GLX was never built), the Lechmere buses would have most likely been extended to either Sullivan or Community College, similar to the fate of most Nubian buses.

(My thoughts on the actual challenge will come in a few days once I write them down in a more organized manner.)
 
With GLX active, Lechmere is no longer a bus hub anywhere near the importance of Sullivan et al. The only high-frequency route with BNRD will be the 101, which also serves Sullivan anyway.
 
Arguably, I think it might make sense to combine Sullivan and Lechmere as one entity for this thought exercise (especially for those who interpret it as an alternative reality situation), similar to Ruggles/Nubian.

Even in the real world, the two pairs of bus hubs are each sufficiently close to one another, with one served by heavy rail and one by a mode with lower capacity (LRT or BRT). If BERy didn't build the short segment to Lechmere (and thus GLX was never built), the Lechmere buses would have most likely been extended to either Sullivan or Community College, similar to the fate of most Nubian buses.

(My thoughts on the actual challenge will come in a few days once I write them down in a more organized manner.)
They wouldn't be extended to Community College I would think. The 80, 87, and 88 would all be extended to Sullivan via Washington St. The 69 would probably be leftover and get extended to Haymarket as the sole route to East Cambridge from downtown (Merrimack St. is plenty wide enough luckily). McGrath Hwy wouldn't have any bus service, rather with the southern end of being accessible from the 69 and the northen end from the buses on Washington St.

The area around Cambridge Crossing was, and still is, one of the most recent redevelopments in Boston's urban history, and was always historically a floodplain without any streetcar suburb development. It was a huge void separating Charlestown's Main St served by the 92, away from Cambridge's Cambridge St. served by the 69. Even when the OL was relocated to follow the RR ROWs, Community College Cambridge Crossing was never built with a busway in mind, so it wouldn't be a very helpful bus terminal; the same way that Porter and Union Sq lack infrastructure to be used as, or can't be used as bus terminals.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I pretty intentionally excluded Lechmere from the set of hubs.

First, it's much much closer to Downtown than almost any of the others. Maverick is about as close (depending where in Downtown you measure from), but Boston Harbor artificially inflates that distance in practice (being significantly harder to cross than the Charles River), making it a special case rather than precedent.

Second, if you look at the role it played historically in the rapid transit system, I'd argue it's more akin to Boylston/Pleasant Street (or perhaps Copley) than to Kenmore. The predecessors to the 87 and 88 used to run into the Central Subway via Lechmere just like the predecessors to the 9 and 43 ran in via Pleasant St; those routes were eventually truncated once the distinction between dedicated ROW-running and street-running became prized. But I'd argue the truncation points were often more coincidental than anything else. The proto-versions of the 87, 88, the 9, the 55 (Ipswich Street Lines), and the 39 were all eventually truncated where they intersected a rapid transit line. But Boylston/Pleasant Street, Copley, Massachusetts (Hynes Convention Center) and Lechmere can't all be seen as being on equal footing (at least not for the purposes of this exercise).

Third, I agree with @Teban54 -- it's easy enough to imagine Lechmere's longer-distance routes (e.g. 87 and 88) being redirected to Sullivan, and its inner route (69) sent to City Square/Community College. (Worth pointing out as well that, IIRC, the predecessor to the 111 used to terminate at City Sq -- there's a je-ne-sais-quoi difference between bus transfer points like City, Massachusetts, Egleston, Pleasant Street, Broadway, etc, and the hubs I'm describing here.)

Mostly though, this is a distance thing. Measured from Post Office Square, Nubian, Kenmore, Harvard, and Sullivan are 2.5 miles, 2.1 miles, 3.4 miles, and 2.1 miles away respectively. (Harvard is unusually far, due to the way that Cambridge was stretched from its original settlement at Harvard Square eastward toward what is now the Longfellow Bridge; most of Cambridge had been built out long before Back Bay was filled in.) Lechmere isn't as far, and I argue it became a hub mostly due to the coincidence of where BERy's ability to build a dedicated ROW ran out.

That all being said: this exercise obviously is meant to be, you know, fun, so if peeps want to add Lechmere to the list of hubs (IMO making the challenge much harder), then by all means, go for it!
 
Another question that I can’t really decide where it fits, but since it could be relevant to the megalopolis discussion, I’ll stick it here:

Are there any studies (or information in general) about how important aesthetics are when considering elevated rail lines? For example, consider the Canton Viaduct. It’s a genuinely pretty piece of infrastructure and is appreciated as such. When designing elevated rail lines, is there consideration of making the viaducts similarly aesthetically pleasing? Any sort of architectural style would work just fine, as long as it’s something the locals would appreciate.

I know that elevated rail tends to be unpopular and unsightly in many situations, but they, generally, are pretty utilitarian in their design. I’m quite curious how much that plays a part.

Not about the aesthetics specifically, but this reminded me about something Ive noticed about viaducts in general. Many times when falling asleep Ill put on youtube videos of people just driving around in random cities around the world and something that Ive always kinda noticed is that 1. Asian cities with highways through them mostly build them on very tall concrete viaducts and 2. When highways are built on very tall concrete viaducts they allow much more light in around them allowing very lively neighborhoods to exist unlike in the US where we either trenched the highways or only built them just high enough for trucks to pass under.

Heres a random spot I picked directly under a highway viaduct in nagoya japan.
IMG_0690.png


Now lining up under the viaduct in eastie by santarpios so the highway passes over at the same angle.
IMG_0692.png


Which one is a more lively area? Having a single concrete pier and the viaduct very high off the ground makes a massive difference.


Rail viaducts dont take up as much room but the effect is still there.

Honolulu
IMG_0697.png


Vs chicago
IMG_0699.png


Unfortunately in the us there arent very many examples to go off of with highways or rail lines being built on really tall concrete single pier viaducts, so a lot of americans still see elevated lines as creaky loud leaky ugly ways of building transit lines. If modern viaducts can allow vibrant neighborhoods to exist under/alongside massive highways then they most definitely can allow vibrant neighborhoods to exist under much smaller rail viaducts.
 
Not about the aesthetics specifically, but this reminded me about something Ive noticed about viaducts in general. Many times when falling asleep Ill put on youtube videos of people just driving around in random cities around the world and something that Ive always kinda noticed is that 1. Asian cities with highways through them mostly build them on very tall concrete viaducts and 2. When highways are built on very tall concrete viaducts they allow much more light in around them allowing very lively neighborhoods to exist unlike in the US where we either trenched the highways or only built them just high enough for trucks to pass under.

Heres a random spot I picked directly under a highway viaduct in nagoya japan.
View attachment 54482

Now lining up under the viaduct in eastie by santarpios so the highway passes over at the same angle.
View attachment 54483

Which one is a more lively area? Having a single concrete pier and the viaduct very high off the ground makes a massive difference.


Rail viaducts dont take up as much room but the effect is still there.

Honolulu
View attachment 54489

Vs chicago
View attachment 54490

Unfortunately in the us there arent very many examples to go off of with highways or rail lines being built on really tall concrete single pier viaducts, so a lot of americans still see elevated lines as creaky loud leaky ugly ways of building transit lines. If modern viaducts can allow vibrant neighborhoods to exist under/alongside massive highways then they most definitely can allow vibrant neighborhoods to exist under much smaller rail viaducts.
That last photo in Chicago is awesome, an absolutely beautiful structure. I love elevated lines if they're done right, which that one is, on its own right-of-way, not hovering above a narrow street, and very aesthetically pleasing. Elevated structures that are higher in elevation, and/or are routed on wide streets (or a totally separate right-of-way), are generally better for noise and shadow management. The prime example of a poorly placed elevated rail line was the Orange Line in Charlestown running between City Sq and Sullivan Sq along a very narrow street. It was great ride when I was a kid, me standing at the front door of the lead car, looking ahead as the train hurtled along just a few feet away from the tenement buildings all along Main Street. A great experience for the rider, but I'm sure a lousy one for the people who lived along and below the line.
So, that unfortunate elevated line is burned in the collective memory of Boston, but I hope that in the future some really well designed and well placed elevated lines can be built in and around the Boston metro area.
 
That last photo in Chicago is awesome, an absolutely beautiful structure.
I also love the look of the old Chicago Els. But I can be pretty sure that a Green Line train passing there is unbearably loud. Like, feel-it-in-your-teeth loud. Interrupt-a-conversation-two-blocks-away kind of loud. I have a nostalgia for those trains, so I'm always surprised going back to visit friends and see just how unpleasant they often are. When they rebuild sections now, it's a lot more concrete. They lack some of the charm, but they are so much nicer to be around.
 
That last photo in Chicago is awesome, an absolutely beautiful structure. I love elevated lines if they're done right, which that one is, on its own right-of-way, not hovering above a narrow street, and very aesthetically pleasing. Elevated structures that are higher in elevation, and/or are routed on wide streets (or a totally separate right-of-way), are generally better for noise and shadow management. The prime example of a poorly placed elevated rail line was the Orange Line in Charlestown running between City Sq and Sullivan Sq along a very narrow street. It was great ride when I was a kid, me standing at the front door of the lead car, looking ahead as the train hurtled along just a few feet away from the tenement buildings all along Main Street. A great experience for the rider, but I'm sure a lousy one for the people who lived along and below the line.
So, that unfortunate elevated line is burned in the collective memory of Boston, but I hope that in the future some really well designed and well placed elevated lines can be built in and around the Boston metro area.
Exactly -- EL's through residential neighborhoods tend to blight the neighborhood. Happened in both Charlestown and Washington Street, South End in Boston.

If you have more space, or can afford quieter structures and vehicles, it might not be as bad. My experience in Japan is they tend to have more societal tolerance for obnoxious zoning decisions (like elevated highways and Els, as well as placement of industrial facilities) that we do here in the US.
 
This is more alternate history inspired by a Wikipedia dive into the Toronto streetcar system's history. The operating principal wasn't to design a "good" streetcar system for Boston, but trying to guess at what one would look like if we never got rid of ours, based on minimal shifts in our actual timeline.

Starting point: What if the wave of streetcar-to-trackless-trolley and streetcar-to-bus conversions in 1948 and early 1949 created some kind of revolt -- maybe the legislators for Dorchester (where these bustitutions were concentrated) somehow got up in arms and those for Watertown, Brookline, Hyde Park, Somerville, Medford, etc. got worried about losing transit access for their constituents as well, just enough to halt those plans. Maybe legislators in outlying towns come to see the streetcars as a better alternative to the flagging commuter service provided by the railroads.

In Massachusetts political history, things like this have historically sometimes been enough to kill radical change and leave the affected bureaucracy to muddle through. So let's say that happens -- a pause on paving over streetcar lines wholesale just long enough for the MTA to opt for a slower strategy, pruning the network over the next 20 years as its finances keep getting worse. This sees places like Somerville and Medford lose their streetcars in favor of buses, one by one, until the T can claim it's "not economical" to keep streetcar service in place north of Cambridge.

Where it goes next: The MTA's decision to convert the Highland branch to light rail in 1958 still goes forward (albeit after short-turning what became the A, B and C branches via the Kenmore loop and stopping what's now the E at Brigham Circle to prevent congesting the Central Subway), as does the Revere Beach & Lynn conversion. The latter means a lot of East Boston service gets taken out, with the #116 and #117 cars lingering until the 1973 Chelsea fire, when the T takes advantage of the chaos to bustitute them, too, and reallocates the now-aging PCC cars elsewhere in the system.

The freeway revolt and the Sargent/Dukakis transit expansions also happen. However, the Braintree branch of the Red Line doesn't go forward because the streetcars eat up too much of the operations and maintenance budget and reborn commuter rail service on the Old Colony lines is substituted instead.

The #77 car is converted to trackless trolleys early in the Red Line's northern expansion process to save costs before Arlington's opposition to the subway means no one is even willing to consider dusting off an idea from the late 1940s to convert the Lexington and West Cambridge tracks to light rail.

When the Orange Line is shifted to the Southwest Corridor, the existence of streetcars still serving then-Dudley Square and the Pleasant Street portal still in service to take the #23 (consolidated from several routes as part of the Orange Line's move) makes it possible to add the first new streetcar line in generations that gives a one-seat ride between Dudley and Lechmere. The #10, #47 and #76 routes survive (albeit consolidated into two that run Harvard<>Dudley and City Point<>Dudley) as a stopgap-turned-permanent to fulfill a need for circumferential service, as identified in Governor Sargent's 1972 Boston Transportation Planning Review that formed the foundation of the next 40 years of transit-building in the region.

Maybe the feds listen to reason and let us build the Silver Line as light rail that connects South Station to Southie via Summer Street, since a trolley barn would still exist at City Point in this universe.

By the year 2000, that leaves you with a system that looks like this, with most routes running in dedicated medians on major arteries. But does it make for a better system, or just one that's kind of SEPTA-like? I'm not sure.

1724865198315.png


Southern Division
  • Ashmont<>Mattapan
  • Mattapan<>Forest Hills
  • The Dedham Center<>Forest Hills (maybe folks who know that town's history better can say if this is realistic given attitudes at the time)
  • Hyde Park VA<>Forest Hills
Western Division
  • Waverly<>Harvard
  • Watertown<>Harvard
  • Watertown<>Central (via Western Ave.)
  • Watertown<>Kenmore (via Oak Square)
  • Boston College<>Kenmore
  • Reservoir<>Kenmore
Central Division
  • City Point<>Broadway (cut back from the Central Subway when the Pike and Southeast Expressway came through and the New York Streets were buldozed)
  • City Point<>Dudley (via Andrew)
  • Dudley<>Central
Green Line
  • Riverside<>Park Street loop
  • Brigham Circle<>Park Street loop
  • Mattapan<>Lechmere
  • Dudley<>Lechmere
 
Let's draw some lines on some maps.

Let's assume that Boston has five "downtowns": Downtown/Financial District, Back Bay, Longwood Medical Area, Kendall, and the Seaport. (This is a somewhat arbitrary assumption, I grant.)

Let's further assume that there are five "BERY-style" bus transfer hubs, each located very roughly 2 miles away from the center of Downtown, at which commuters transfer from their local bus route to an express rapid transit OSR directly to Downtown: Nubian/Ruggles, Kenmore, Harvard, Sullivan, and Maverick.

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it: create transit paths that provide an OSR from each bus transfer hub to each of the five downtowns. (List to fill in copied in spoiler box below.)

Some additional notes:
  • Lines may curve and bend, within reason; making every path a dog leg would not be in the spirit of the challenge
  • Lines can run in parallel between downtown nodes
  • Lines may branch on the outside of the 2 mile circle, but may not branch within the circle; if you need to branch, you must build a second trunk in parallel
    • (4 track subways would be okay though)
  • The definitions of each downtown area are up for interpretation, within reason
  • Paths can serve the transfer hubs without actually serving the tranfer hub directly if you are able to intersect all bus routes feeding in to that hub at a reasonably close distance
    • For example, you could serve the Maverick hub using dual transfers at Airport station and (say) Meridian & Bennington
  • "Nubian/Ruggles" is nebulously defined for any number of reasons, so make of that what you will
Nubian/Ruggles to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Kenmore to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Harvard to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Sullivan to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
Maverick to:
  • Downtown:
  • Back Bay:
  • Longwood:
  • Kendall:
  • Seaport:
This was a neat idea, but it's looking like you might have to start us off. Did you figure out any reasonable (..."reasonable"...) plan?

The little bit I was considering it, it kept looking like the result would be bad, or at least wildly wasteful, rapid transit system. Like, I could really generously argue for the merits of a new harbor tunnel. But connecting Maverick to all these points requires two new harbor tunnels, which starts to look crazy, and that's just for starters.
 
So starting with the existing routes, I think the thing that immediately leaps out at me is that if we could somehow interline all of the lines this is an almost trivial problem. A few choice tunnels in downtown and you can thru-run any line to any destination and technically solve the prompt. However, there are some glaring problems with this approach, namely operational efficacy (redundancy, frequency, etc). I'm also not sure Maverick is the best choice of bus hub due to the difficulty in connecting to it, but I'm not sure of the actual ridership numbers. That said, here's my starting map:
1725903128384.png


As can be seen, Longwood totally messes this up. It's not served by anything right now (other than a streetcar named "E"), and so connecting it to each bus hub is going to involve compromises. That said, I think it's doable. The following lines don't super care about mode, but I'm generally assuming LRT unless otherwise noted, with the form of that along each segment just being "whatever is easiest".

  1. Construction of the (more or less) traditional Urban Ring connects Longwood to every hub other than Harvard, and involves a very long trek over to Maverick. The biggest issue here is that the Maverick end has to just kind of dead-end somewhere in Eastie unless we're making it into another trunk line into the city (and with a line that long I don't think that's feasible). This also nets us all connections to Kendall. It turns out building the super obvious line we should have built thirty years ago is a good idea.
  2. Continuing on from building obvious connections, SL Phase 3 in the form of a green Line continuation to the Seaport and Maverick via some form of cross-harbor tunnel also gains quite a few connections, finishing off Maverick as a bus hub that needs work. This also finishes connecting Kenmore to everything it needs.
  3. The above connection also allows us to upgrade the Silver Line into a Green Line branch and connect Nubian to the Seaport, finishing that bus hub off.
  4. This just leaves Sullivan and Harvard as the problem children. Sullivan just needs a connection to the Seaport, so I think we can call that Maverick hub a proper through-connection at this point, and imagine a service pattern something like the following. I know this would have let us avoid most of the Urban Ring if I'd just connected Maverick to Nubian/Ruggles this way at first, but letting us have that Sullivan connection with the fewest shenanigans possible is worth it.
    1. Ruggles-Sullivan via Kendall (connects Sullivan to Longwood)
    2. Ruggles-Sullivan via Maverick (connects Maverick to Longwood)
    3. Maverick-Kenmore via Kendall (connects Maverick to Kendall)
    4. Maverick-Kenmore via Ruggles (finishes the two-split-circles service pattern, not actually needed. Faster Maverick->Longwood connection).
    5. Boylston Subway-Maverick in whatever frequencies that above allows (connects Maverick with downtown and back Bay)
  5. So now we have Harvard. Built-in connections to Downtown and Kendall and that's it. I'm sorely tempted to say that South Station counts as service the Seaport, but that's definitely against the spirit of this. I think something like the proposed Red-X solves this somewhat nicely, though it has to twist and turn quite a bit.
    1. Diverge from the Red Line more than two miles from downtown and turn up Columbia Road, and then onto Dorchester St.
    2. Tunnel under the channel and turn onto Summer St.
    3. To serve Back Bay and Longwood we have to diverge from the traditional "HRT goes to downtown" model and run deep under the CAT mess after tunnelling under Fort Point Channel, making our way over to Stuart St.
      1. You can also try to just totally re-use plans for the Green Line Marginal Way subway, but I think we need a deep-bore here anyway, so it's worth it to serve more points north of the pike. You can totally just run alongside the pike here, though.
    4. Take over the Huntington subway plans to make it out to Longwood.
    5. Turn onto the Fenway and continue up Park Dr and onto Mountfort.
    6. Use whatever ROW you need to make it through the Alston Yards project and onto Harvard. People have suggested a variety of routes for this, so you have your pick.

This leaves us with:
1725905123640.png


And so we do it for the low-low cost of the Urban Ring, upgrades to the Green Line to take it to Nubian, Silver Line Phase 3, new Cross-harbor transit tunnel, and one new HRT line making heavy use of semi-extant plans for the Red X and Green Line ROWs.

I hope I didn't miss anything.

EDIT: For reference, I don't like that this makes heavy use of an Urban Ring to connect Maverick to points west, but I do think this is a somewhat realistic way to connect all but Harvard to various destinations.

EDIT2: I tried this without the urban ring, and I think you'd need at least three new tunnels to connect the problem children (Kendall to anything but Harvard, Maverick to Seaport, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Love the concept of this God Mode sandbox for transportation! I might go into more detail on specific portions of this another time, but for now I’d like to sketch out a vision for completely re-imagining transportation in the Greater Boston area. I’m defining this as everything in the 128 belt. I’m throwing budget, politics, and feasibility out the window and focusing on what could have been, or what still could be. I’m a hardcore urbanist and this entire idea revolves around a few things like sustainability, community, public health, and combating climate change.

Today, I would say Boston’s transportation system has the following components: roads, transit, and protected facilities for active transportation like paths, protected bike lanes, and sidewalks. We have too many roads and highways, and not nearly enough transit.

For freeways/expressways specifically, which are divided and limited access, we would have none of them within 128. This was the original vision for freeways, for them to connect cities but not run through them. This would solve lots of localized issues with freeways, like Charlestown being cut off from the surrounding towns. And the Corridor of Death in Somerville. And the shameful scar that splits the Fells in two. This complete lack of freeways in Greater Boston would require far more public transit than we have today. Which leads me to...

Public transit. The public transit system today we can split up into a few different components too:

  • 1: Long-distance service: Amtrak for train, and mostly Flixbus otherwise.
  • 2: Regional service: Commuter rail
  • 3: Subway (heavy rail and light rail)
  • 4: local bus
Boston’s transit network would focus on speed, frequency, and reliability. Here’s what I would do for all of these (plus one new transit mode I would add). Also, this plan assumes that a direct North-South Rail Link has been built.

Long-distance trains: There would be an extensive network for long-distance passenger rail, using a mix of maglev and traditional, electrified high-speed rail. Some of the more likely destinations available via direct service from Boston (from either North or South Station) include : Portland ME, Bangor ME, Portsmouth NH, Manchester NH, Montreal, Toronto, Worcester, Springfield, Detroit, Chicago, NYC, Philly, DC, Charlotte, Atlanta.

Regional trains: The TransitMatters playbook for the commuter rail system should be implemented, transforming it into a regional rail service. This means fully electrifying all lines, building full-length, high platforms at all stations, and adding infill stations where it makes sense. South Coast Full Build should be done. And many new lines would be added, like:

  • North Station – South Station – Logan Airport (perhaps connecting to a new people mover)
  • Providence – Worcester – Fitchburg
  • Providence – Fall River – New Bedford – Bourne – Hyannis – Provincetown
  • Portsmouth – Newburyport – Haverhill – Lawrence – Lowell – Fitchburg
  • A new route in the 128 right-of-way. Perhaps use the space that’s being taken to add a lane, and remove an existing lane to make it work (the outer urban ring)
Subway: Urbanists used to chatter about extending the subway lines substantially, going all the way to 128 in all directions. I no longer think this is necessary, since electrified regional rail would be sufficient for getting the suburbanites in and out of the city. But there are certainly some new services that I would add:

  • Extend the Blue Line on the west end to Charles/MGH, then continue on to Kendall.
  • Extend the Blue Line on the east end to Lynn and Salem.
  • Extend the Green Line from Union Square to Porter
  • Probably need to add some brand-new, independent subway lines (whether light or heavy rail), to provide one-seat rides to downtown Boston from: Watertown Square, Seaport, Everett, Waltham, and Nubian.
  • An inner urban ring, likely as a completely subterranean heavy rail line. Would need to be deep as heck but would be transformative.
Trams: This would be like a modern revival of the old streetcar system. They would use similar light rail vehicles as we see on the green line today, although perhaps with only one car at a time (especially if they ran every 3-5minutes). They would primarily operate in and around Greater Boston’s urban core: in Boston proper, Cambridge, Brookline, Quincy, etc. They would connect with subway and regional rail stations whenever possible. But perhaps the most innovative aspect of the new tram system would be that they would run completely at-grade.

How would this be possible? Because they would operate on a new type of street, which I call a tram street. These streets are like you see in many parts of Europe such as Switzerland. They are generally closed to private motor vehicle traffic, instead used by police and fire, delivery vehicles (which should only be big trucks when carrying something massive like i-beams for a high-rise anyway), and potentially abutters. So there would be no need for sidewalks, protected bike lanes, etc. Boston’s tram stops would cost a tiny fraction compared to subway stops – they would be like a simple bus stop. And the quality of life on these streets would be the envy of the world. People walking, cycling, chatting, playing. Far less noise and pollution since car traffic would be rare. And these streets would be far safer. A majority of the streets in Boston’s urban core should be tram streets.

Bus: Buses would still play an important role, as they are cheaper than other modes of public transit and they are flexible as their routes can be changed. Buses would no longer operate in the urban core of Boston, instead terminating at subway or tram stops. But bus routes would still serve quieter areas that are more suburban. And they would be more pleasant to ride as there would be plenty of physically-separated bus lanes on main corridors.
 
Love the concept of this God Mode sandbox for transportation! I might go into more detail on specific portions of this another time, but for now I’d like to sketch out a vision for completely re-imagining transportation in the Greater Boston area. I’m defining this as everything in the 128 belt. I’m throwing budget, politics, and feasibility out the window and focusing on what could have been, or what still could be. I’m a hardcore urbanist and this entire idea revolves around a few things like sustainability, community, public health, and combating climate change.

Today, I would say Boston’s transportation system has the following components: roads, transit, and protected facilities for active transportation like paths, protected bike lanes, and sidewalks. We have too many roads and highways, and not nearly enough transit.

For freeways/expressways specifically, which are divided and limited access, we would have none of them within 128. This was the original vision for freeways, for them to connect cities but not run through them. This would solve lots of localized issues with freeways, like Charlestown being cut off from the surrounding towns. And the Corridor of Death in Somerville. And the shameful scar that splits the Fells in two. This complete lack of freeways in Greater Boston would require far more public transit than we have today. Which leads me to...

Public transit. The public transit system today we can split up into a few different components too:

  • 1: Long-distance service: Amtrak for train, and mostly Flixbus otherwise.
  • 2: Regional service: Commuter rail
  • 3: Subway (heavy rail and light rail)
  • 4: local bus
Boston’s transit network would focus on speed, frequency, and reliability. Here’s what I would do for all of these (plus one new transit mode I would add). Also, this plan assumes that a direct North-South Rail Link has been built.

Long-distance trains: There would be an extensive network for long-distance passenger rail, using a mix of maglev and traditional, electrified high-speed rail. Some of the more likely destinations available via direct service from Boston (from either North or South Station) include : Portland ME, Bangor ME, Portsmouth NH, Manchester NH, Montreal, Toronto, Worcester, Springfield, Detroit, Chicago, NYC, Philly, DC, Charlotte, Atlanta.

Regional trains: The TransitMatters playbook for the commuter rail system should be implemented, transforming it into a regional rail service. This means fully electrifying all lines, building full-length, high platforms at all stations, and adding infill stations where it makes sense. South Coast Full Build should be done. And many new lines would be added, like:

  • North Station – South Station – Logan Airport (perhaps connecting to a new people mover)
  • Providence – Worcester – Fitchburg
  • Providence – Fall River – New Bedford – Bourne – Hyannis – Provincetown
  • Portsmouth – Newburyport – Haverhill – Lawrence – Lowell – Fitchburg
  • A new route in the 128 right-of-way. Perhaps use the space that’s being taken to add a lane, and remove an existing lane to make it work (the outer urban ring)
Subway: Urbanists used to chatter about extending the subway lines substantially, going all the way to 128 in all directions. I no longer think this is necessary, since electrified regional rail would be sufficient for getting the suburbanites in and out of the city. But there are certainly some new services that I would add:

  • Extend the Blue Line on the west end to Charles/MGH, then continue on to Kendall.
  • Extend the Blue Line on the east end to Lynn and Salem.
  • Extend the Green Line from Union Square to Porter
  • Probably need to add some brand-new, independent subway lines (whether light or heavy rail), to provide one-seat rides to downtown Boston from: Watertown Square, Seaport, Everett, Waltham, and Nubian.
  • An inner urban ring, likely as a completely subterranean heavy rail line. Would need to be deep as heck but would be transformative.
Trams: This would be like a modern revival of the old streetcar system. They would use similar light rail vehicles as we see on the green line today, although perhaps with only one car at a time (especially if they ran every 3-5minutes). They would primarily operate in and around Greater Boston’s urban core: in Boston proper, Cambridge, Brookline, Quincy, etc. They would connect with subway and regional rail stations whenever possible. But perhaps the most innovative aspect of the new tram system would be that they would run completely at-grade.

How would this be possible? Because they would operate on a new type of street, which I call a tram street. These streets are like you see in many parts of Europe such as Switzerland. They are generally closed to private motor vehicle traffic, instead used by police and fire, delivery vehicles (which should only be big trucks when carrying something massive like i-beams for a high-rise anyway), and potentially abutters. So there would be no need for sidewalks, protected bike lanes, etc. Boston’s tram stops would cost a tiny fraction compared to subway stops – they would be like a simple bus stop. And the quality of life on these streets would be the envy of the world. People walking, cycling, chatting, playing. Far less noise and pollution since car traffic would be rare. And these streets would be far safer. A majority of the streets in Boston’s urban core should be tram streets.

Bus: Buses would still play an important role, as they are cheaper than other modes of public transit and they are flexible as their routes can be changed. Buses would no longer operate in the urban core of Boston, instead terminating at subway or tram stops. But bus routes would still serve quieter areas that are more suburban. And they would be more pleasant to ride as there would be plenty of physically-separated bus lanes on main corridors.
Vancouver BC comes the closest to a no-freeway major city in North America, with just one east-west freeway about 5 miles north and east from the city center. I've been there, and saw the careful zoning around that one freeway which minimizes the suburban sprawl usually found in freeway/expressway corridors around US cities. The Vancouver BC metro area has a robust elevated/tunneled rail transit system with a lot of TOD around the rail system's stations. In the case of Boston, if all expressways and turnpikes were to be eliminated inside Route 128, the one concern I have is that the Rte. 128 corridor would get a big development boost at the expense of the core metro cities. But maybe Boston/Cambridge/Somerville are so economically strong now that that would not be a factor.
 

Back
Top