Reasonable Transit Pitches

Out of curiosity, what if anything do the SL1 and SL3 gain by moving them out of the Transitway?

So it's hardly a slam dunk, let me start by saying that. But basically there are three reasons.

1) As seen in the ridership data above, the two primary markets for service through the Transitway are South Station-Seaport and South Station-Logan. The market for Logan-Seaport is much much smaller. (The huge caveat is that I haven't seen any SL3 data anywhere, so it's possible that there is a Chelsea/Eastie-Seaport market that is now being served by SL3, which would impact this calculus.)

If the primary destination for 90% of passengers coming through the Ted Williams Tunnel is South Station, then it seems worthwhile to consider sending buses straight there, minimizing their time in the Seaport -- perhaps one intermediate stop in front of the World Trade Center station (which happens to be just after the off-ramp). Let SL2 focus on South Station-Seaport and let SL1 focus on South Station-Logan, instead of trying to combine the two.

There isn't a great way for SL1 buses to skip stations in the Transitway, and moreover SL1 buses are forced to do a layover at Silver Line Way in order to switch to the wires. So it's a lot of wasted time.

2) The Transitway has speed restrictions due to the tight corners (which is why @Wash is suggesting the guideway). Well-maintained and segregated surface bus lanes, combined with transit priority signaling, likely could offer a (slightly) faster journey through the Seaport, especially given that the streets are already quite wide. Moreover, without the need to journey into the Transitway, SL1 buses would not need to switch to electric power, streamlining the journey overall.

Somewhere on my computer, I have a map comparing the current highly circuitous route that SL1 and SL3 buses take through the Seaport to a more direct route that could be enacted via single bus lanes on Summer St, Congress St, two blocks of D St, and one block around South Station. I'll see if I can dig it out. But I just did a quick check and the current inbound route is 1.8 miles with four intermediate stops, one of which includes a power switch, vs a bus lane alignment which would be 1.5 miles (much of it straightaway) and probably one intermediate stop.

(Or even down to 1.3 miles, if we ditch the intermediate stop, which might be worthwhile.)

3) In the long run, the Transitway should have LRT running through it. Now, I'm not opposed to also running buses alongside the LRT. But the challenge I see is that the Ted Williams Tunnel is always going to be a wildcard for buses running into the Transitway -- there will always be additional unpredictability due to running in mixed traffic. The overarching theme for LRT in Boston for the last 60 years has been trying to eliminate the intermixing of services that run in dedicated ROWs vs those that interact with mixed traffic. Relocating SL1 to the surface would increase predictability of services within the Transitway.

So, in summary:

1) SL1-via-Transitway takes detours to go places its riders don't need to go
2) The Transitway requires a power change and has speed restrictions which a surface route would eliminate
3) SL1 is always going to be intermingling with mixed traffic, which is at odds with the other services that run/will run through the Transitway
 
Not a Reasonable Transit Pitch, but when the Transitway goes LRT, there also needs to be a serious discussion of an LRT Harbor Tunnel to Logan (connecting to the People Mover Concept, not all terminals) and LRT for SL3 as it transitions into the north side Urban Ring.
 
Oh do you mean like this?

View attachment 14319

That's an interesting idea I hadn't considered before. I feel like the bus platforms are too far away from the subway platforms for this to be useful? Though it would be interesting to see the breakdown of SL1 passengers alighting at South Station -- how many are...
  • boarding the Red Line
  • walking to downtown or the financial district
  • transferring to the commuter rail
  • transferring to Amtrak
  • transferring to intercity bus
The new tower will include a more direct escalator/elevator connection to the bus station. No more of a walk than for CR pax
 
The Silver Line Way transition will, thankfully, be gone within a few years - it's clear that the next SL bus fleet will either be battery-electric or extended-battery-range hybrid.
 
This hasn't been talked about for a while: headhouse entrance to Sullivan Square on the East Somerville side of the tracks. There is another development on Broadway starting next to the Mount Vernon Restaurant and I think this is do-able for that area's growth
 
This hasn't been talked about for a while: headhouse entrance to Sullivan Square on the East Somerville side of the tracks. There is another development on Broadway starting next to the Mount Vernon Restaurant and I think this is do-able for that area's growth
Broadway's closer to the existing main entrance. The East Somerville headhouse would be mainly for the benefit of the neighborhood along Perkins and Pearl Streets. Speaking as someone who lived for a couple years on the corner of Pearl @ Myrtle, the extra walk to the main entrance is indeed annoying. And the neighborhood is dense enough to merit the extra entrance. But let's not overstate it...it's not depriving anyone on a thoroughfare of their fastest station walk. It's simply a neighborhood-specific value-added not unlike several of the neighborhood-specific egresses on the Red Line branches. No big production necessary: just an overpass to Perkins, pass-thru to the bus berths, and 2 Charlie gates.
 
Not a Reasonable Transit Pitch, but when the Transitway goes LRT, there also needs to be a serious discussion of an LRT Harbor Tunnel to Logan (connecting to the People Mover Concept, not all terminals) and LRT for SL3 as it transitions into the north side Urban Ring.

I would definitely prefer a combined LRT transit/footbridge over the harbor which would be such a great resource and also probably make Boston the only city in the US where the airport is literal walking distance from the downtown. I think there would probably be a lot of issues regarding shipping/airport traffic, but it's still nice to dream.
 
Feel like this belongs more in Crazy Transit Pitches, but am definitely intrigued by the idea of a footbridge. How high would the bridge need to be for clearance?
I agree better off there in a new thread for pedestrian connection to East Boston. If East Boston keeps growing, it just results in more and more residents cut off from the rest of the city without a bike/pedestrian connection to the rest of Boston.
 
Feel like this belongs more in Crazy Transit Pitches, but am definitely intrigued by the idea of a footbridge. How high would the bridge need to be for clearance?
OK this is into fantasy transit pitches. Just look at the Tobin Bridge for a comparison. Ship channel clearance is 135 ft. So you definitely need to match that. Bridge height for the Tobin design is 254 ft. which will never work that close to Logan airspace. Also, you need to have access run-up space at LRT grade -- and there really is not enough room on either side of the channel for that.

And who is going to want to walk up and over that span? Really?
 
You can pay for a heck of a lot of ferry service with the money you're going to use on your crazytown bridge. Just saying. Cargo ships and pedestrian traffic are probably mutually exclusive in this case.
 
*shrug* I don't feel strongly in favor of a bridge, it was just something I'd never thought of before (presumably because it's highly impractical, pun intended). The Tobin is a good comparison though, and does articulate the scale involved. I think in my head I was imagining "the Longfellow Bridge, but a bit higher, and maybe enclosed from the elements". Which is... not what we're talking about here, alas.
 
You can pay for a heck of a lot of ferry service with the money you're going to use on your crazytown bridge. Just saying. Cargo ships and pedestrian traffic are probably mutually exclusive in this case.

Would something like this enable both cargo ships and pedestrian traffic to exist in harmony? Asking honestly as I do not know the answer.
 
Would something like this enable both cargo ships and pedestrian traffic to exist in harmony? Asking honestly as I do not know the answer.
Yes, like the Chelsea Street Lift Bridge. But it would play havoc with any attempted transit operations (see SL3). Also the needed tower height may still be an airspace issue with Logan.
 
Yes, like the Chelsea Street Lift Bridge. But it would play havoc with any attempted transit operations (see SL3). Also the needed tower height may still be an airspace issue with Logan.

To be clear, the bridge I linked carries only bicycle/pedestrian traffic so I'm asking about a bridge of that ilk. Given the presence of the Sumner, Callahan, TWT, SL3, and Blue Line, a bridge from the North End to East Boston would be the biggest value-add for pedestrians, cyclists, and the like.
 
To be clear, the bridge I linked carries only bicycle/pedestrian traffic so I'm asking about a bridge of that ilk. Given the presence of the Sumner, Callahan, TWT, SL3, and Blue Line, a bridge from the North End to East Boston would be the biggest value-add for pedestrians, cyclists, and the like.
OK, my reply was based on the origin of the discussion, which was about Silver Line LRT (pedestrian/bike got added), and connecting SL LRT to Logan and Urban Ring North.
 
And who is going to want to walk up and over that span? Really?

Not at all saying the bridge is feasible with the airport or that it would be worth the likely insane cost, but the Golden Gate is 220' in height and quite longer than this would be and plenty of people traverse it on foot/cycle. It would likely be an attraction/destination itself
 

Back
Top