Reasonable Transit Pitches

[George_Apley]

Yeah, if you measure from the Forsyth entrance of Ruggles to Huntington/Forsyth intersection (which is further west than the GL station) it's over 1300 feet.

 

[Equilibria]

If, on the other hand, a D-E connector is built, and some trains from Brookline and Newton (and Needham) start going up Huntington, then I think the idea has real merit. Relieve some pressure on the inner core, increase access to Back Bay Station, and increase connectivity to Longwood Medical Area.

If that happens, the tunnel will hit Back Bay anyway, and the point will be moot

 

[Proposition Joe]

There is also an underground river underneath Forsyth, which would make a tunnel between the Northeastern stop and Ruggles impractical. This is also why Northeastern's tunnel system doesn't exist west of Forsyth Street.

Also, Northeastern is an above ground T stop so there would be no where to connect a tunnel.

 

[asap_mozart]

underground river?!?

 

[datadyne007]

underground river?!?

Remnants of the Stony Brook.

 

[Riverside]

If that happens, the tunnel will hit Back Bay anyway, and the point will be moot

I'm confused; I was referring to a connection between Brookline Village and Riverway. How will that hit Back Bay?

 

[Equilibria]

I'm confused; I was referring to a connection between Brookline Village and Riverway. How will that hit Back Bay?

We've had long conversations on various threads about extending the Huntington Ave. subway to South Station through Back Bay and along the Turnpike...

 

[Downburst]

Remnants of the Stony Brook.

To elaborate...

Yup, Stony Brook is buried from JP all the way up to the Fens, where it empties into the Muddy River right by those two stone buildings on the Fenway. Near NU it travels under Forsyth Street and under the footpath that connects Hemenway and the Fenway. This prevents any extension of the tunnels across Forsyth (unfortunately...) or, for that matter, from the NU stop to Ruggles.

Could anyone with the know-how estimate how the culvert might affect a future burial of the E Branch? I imagine navigating under the brook would be a bit of a challenge.

 

[Riverside]

We've had long conversations on various threads about extending the Huntington Ave. subway to South Station through Back Bay and along the Turnpike...

Oh, yeah, I remember those, I just wasn't referring to those particular proposals in my discussion of the merits of a Mass Ave E-to-Orange ped connection.

To clarify: all I meant was that if the T decides to lay 1500 feet of track along Route 9 between the Riverway stop and Brookline Village, and then starts routing some Riverside- and Needham-bound trains up Huntington Avenue (street-running and all), there would be greater impetus for building a direct connection between Symphony and Mass Ave, because it would allow riders from Newton, Brookline and Needham (as well as park-n-riders from MetroWest, boarding at Riverside) more direct access to Back Bay Station, Tufts Medical Center, the Financial District and Charlestown and Malden, thus relieving some pressure on the Green Line between Symphony and Haymarket.

 

[Equilibria]

Could anyone with the know-how estimate how the culvert might affect a future burial of the E Branch? I imagine navigating under the brook would be a bit of a challenge.

Well, it depends what we're actually talking about. It's romantic to call it a "buried river", but in reality it's a pipe with water in it. Those exist under every street in the city. Buried creeks and streams actually aren't that much of an oddity in Boston and the suburbs, and they run alongside stormwater outflows, sewage lines, and drinking water pipes.

Moving any large pipe is a pain, but I don't think the fact that it's a naturally-occurring flow makes it any worse. It's really all about culvert size and flow rate.

 

[Downburst]

Moving any large pipe is a pain, but I don't think the fact that it's a naturally-occurring flow makes it any worse. It's really all about culvert size and flow rate.

Understood. Thank you!

I studied the Stony Brook culvert as part of a class project and I know that many parts of it are at least large enough for adults to walk through while stooped over. I don't know if it's actually that big at Forsyth, but I would expect that the figures are locked away somewhere. Hopefully one day we will have reason to find out.

 

[Equilibria]

Understood. Thank you!

I studied the Stony Brook culvert as part of a class project and I know that many parts of it are at least large enough for adults to walk through while stooped over. I don't know if it's actually that big at Forsyth, but I would expect that the figures are locked away somewhere. Hopefully one day we will have reason to find out.

Well, for reference, MassDOT classifies as a bridge any culvert which exceeds 4ft. in diameter. It sounds like this would be close. I'm no expert on city pipes, but I think that both trunk water and sewage lines exceed that width as well...

 

[Deetroyt]

This is my idea for Urban ring, it would use the Grand Junction ROW north of the river, then join the B Line inbound all the way to Kenmore, where it would then follow the D outbound to Brookline Village, where it would boomerang to join the E inbound at Riverway (as has been proposed before). It would stay on the E until Brigham Circle, then turn right onto Tremont St. to Roxbury Crossing. Now Tremont here is not wide enough for reserved ROW, so it would need to be street running or a tunnel (if the Huntington tunnel ever got extended for the E, it could branch of that and go down Tremont). The reason I chose this though is because east of Roxbury Crossing, there is room on Malcolm X Blvd for a reserved ROW (leaving room for 1 lane of traffic going each direction). It would then turn north at Dudley Sq station, following the F Line on Washington st., which should have been put in place years ago. It break off the F LIne at Melnea Cass, which also has enough room for ROW while keeping 1 lane of traffic in each direction. It would then turn SouthEast on Mass Ave. intersecting with the Newmarket station on Fairmount. It would continue on Mass Ave. (still in a dedicated ROW) before turning East on Columbia rd. all the way to JFK/UMass station. I chose this setup because most of the roads have room for ROW down the middle. Ideally I'd like the Urban Ring to hit Uphams Corner, but I didn't think staying on Dudley Street after Dudley Sq. station had enough room for a ROW.

 

[Deetroyt]

 

[Deetroyt]

Not sure why the picture isn't showing but I"ve drawn it over Google maps if you care to look

 

[George_Apley]

Once you accept GJ/CommAve/Kenmore/Brookline Village/Huntington Boomerang to get rid of the $1B+ transBrookline tunnel, the southern half of the Urban Ring is the hardest part. If you've buried the E to Brookline Village you can shoot the Urban Ring up Huntington as a first phase while you figure out how to connect Dudley etc., and let Silver Line style busses handle it in the meantime.

If Huntington is buried, you can't tunnel down Tremont without a lot of expense, and mitigation. It's a pretty narrow street with old buildings abutting close to the road. You'd also need to blow up Brigham Circle to build a junction, especially if you want it to be a flying junction.

My fantasy map assumes that the Huntington line is buried. I opt to build my junction further up at Ruggles Street. Still a complicated build, but less mired by odd traffic flows, and probably a cleaner sub-street-scape. The subway would turn north east of Ruggles Station, either under SWC Park and Columbus or under Tremont with a subway station connection with the OL. Subway would continue to Melnea Cass and emerge in a portal, running in a reservation along the Boulevard.

This route missed Dudley, but crosses the Washington Street running line, and can have a junction at Wash and Melnea Cass, allowing one route of the Urban Ring to turn to Dudley, while others continue Southie/Seaport.

Alternatively, you could get to Dudley from Ruggles if the Madison Park area is ever blown up and redeveloped, or deep bored through the Smith Street/Tobin School area from around Longwood Ave to MXB. It's tough to hit Dudley proper without a major redesign of some part of Mission Hill/Lower Roxbury.

 

[Shepard]

Re-opening an old discussion about connecting SL Waterfront light rail to Boylston through the Tremont Street Tunnel. All the proposals I've seen here to do that are generally complex in scope. Isn't there a quite simple street-running option?

- Portal out on Essex, which we've pretty much ascertained here is viable given the geometry of the Piers Transitway loop
- Turn southbound on Surface Road, take a lane or two for street running trolley - priority signals are of course a must here
- Where the ramps start, veer onto the un-developable grassy strip between the westbound Pike ramp and Hudson/Curve Street (surface stop for Ink Block area at Harrison Ave?)
- Street run on a short stretch of Marginal to Shawmut, turn north and into a TST portal (Tufts Medical Center station and OL connection) and head north in the tunnel towards Boylston and beyond

Yes, future generations would probably rue the decision to do this on the cheap. But if this has any shot at happening, wouldn't this be the "least-build" option?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re-opening an old discussion about connecting SL Waterfront light rail to Boylston through the Tremont Street Tunnel. All the proposals I've seen here to do that are generally complex in scope. Isn't there a quite simple street-running option?

- Portal out on Essex, which we've pretty much ascertained here is viable given the geometry of the Piers Transitway loop
- Turn southbound on Surface Road, take a lane or two for street running trolley - priority signals are of course a must here
- Where the ramps start, veer onto the un-developable grassy strip between the westbound Pike ramp and Hudson/Curve Street (surface stop for Ink Block area at Harrison Ave?)
- Street run on a short stretch of Marginal to Shawmut, turn north and into a TST portal (Tufts Medical Center station and OL connection) and head north in the tunnel towards Boylston and beyond

Yes, future generations would probably rue the decision to do this on the cheap. But if this has any shot at happening, wouldn't this be the "least-build" option?

One big problem: the one-way pairs. You're not running outbound (SS) trolleys on Marginal when car traffic on that street flows only in the IB direction and is the traffic access point onto the Pike WB. Or on Shawmut when that street is one-way in the OB direction. It would hose everything upstream to Gov't Ctr. if only that one block were switched to 2-way.

So you'd either have to change Marginal into a 2-way (good luck with that) and go the long way around the block on 2-way Tremont...or spread the tracks on opposite ends of the Pike on Herald (OB) and Marginal (IB) then do a really fugly contraflow track across the Harrison Ave. bridge to get the OB track back on alignment to SS. Yuck.


Solution: deck the Pike all the way from Curve/Harrison to Tremont and run a trolley reservation in the middle between air rights buildings. Eliminates the one-way pairs problem and interference with traffic in general, and trolleys can cross the side streets at-grade timed when cars are stopped at red lights on the Herald or Marginal sides. Not the fastest trip in the world, but it is 'clean' flowing.


The portal insertion point at Chinatown Park down deep into the under-footprint of Essex St. on alignment into the Transitway is still going to be a royal PITA and tough sell on the neighborhood. But air rights does solve for the vexing one-way pairs problem, gives you something with just enough grade separation that it can plausibly last for 20 years of increasing loads until they figure out the rest of the infill tunneling, and drag some much-needed air rights development along with it.


Possible add'l upside to the decking: straight shot into the Back Bay busway if everything gets decked to Clarendon St. Now you're set up to spread around multiple service patterns without overwhelming the finite surface capacity. For example:

-- Southie/City Point <--> Central Subway
-- Southie/City Point <--> BBY loop
-- Southie/City Point <--> BBY loop pingback <--> Central Subway (off-peak and nighttime catch-all)

-- Dudley <--> Central Subway
-- Dudley <--> SS and SL Way
-- Dudley <--> BBY loop pingback <--> Central Subway (off-peak and nighttime catch-all)

-- Central Subway <--> SS/SL Way
-- Central Subway <--> BBY loop short-turn (peak commute hours)
-- Central Subway <--> BBY loop pingback <--> SS/SL Way (short-turn from North Station to SL Way that acts solely as a downtown circulator going around-the-horn to all transfer stops).

That's enough throttle and load-spreading over the more limited capacity of the surface setup to do its job while still supporting more overall destinations and service patterns.

 

[Shepard]

Oh, I completely agree that everything you jotted down here is preferable to the plan I presented. But decking the pike is exactly the type of maximalist build plan I'm trying to stay away from. As I wrote, I'm going after a "minimal build" solution - "let's get this done" instead of "let's get this done right" if you will.

To be honest, I don't think the one-way traffic on Marginal or Shawmut is really a problem - just use contraflow reservations for the opposite direction trolley line.

Take Marginal. Traffic flows westbound. So, send eastbound trolleys in a separate reservation adjacent to the pike, and run westbound trolleys alongside it in mixed westbound traffic if Marginal does indeed need all the capacity it can get. This also preserves the "Drive on the Right" logic and so is visually intuitive.

Now, take Shawmut. Traffic flows southbound. Northbound trolley can operate in a reservation on the east side of the street; southbound alongside it in potentially mixed southbound traffic. Again, preserving "Drive on the Right" logic.

I really doubt that this configuration over a few blocks would screw up all traffic to government center!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Taking that many blocks of parking spaces to make it all fit running contraflow is what'll kill it. Marginal's got both-sides parking from Harrison to Shawmut. ~30 spaces around 1 lane of one-way traffic Harrison-Washington, 22-25 spaces Washington-Shawmut with 2 one-way travel lanes that go to only a single lane when school lets out. Shawmut's another 20 spaces on both sides between curb cuts with 3 travel lanes. 70+ spaces on 3 blocks. That's a lot. Especially in a neighborhood that dense, with a major hospital and school on those 3 blocks, and a major adjacent highway interchange. Lots and lots of transient 30-min. or less parkers.

So, assume the contraflow track on Marginal is hugging the Pike wall side of the road because that's the only way it can be segregated without fouling curb cuts and the only way parkers on the other side of the road can parallel park without fouling the tracks. -30 spaces at minimum on those 2 blocks. And possibly a total parking ban on the block in front of the Quincy School at all hours except nights and weekends so those school buses turning in and out in front of the building don't even get close to the inbound trolleys when turning in/out. Possibly another -8.

Shawmut can't really reduce it to < 2 lanes when traffic making a U-turn around the block back up Tremont has to use Marginal and traffic going straight across the Pike has to sort for left turns at Herald. So contraflow track stays fenced off bolted to the school side of the street with 1 curb cut for the maint garage at the school. Other track runs mixed in the left traffic lane. -13 more spaces.


Now...remember, Tremont's a 2-way only 1 block further up Marginal from Shawmut. And it has that wide, wide turning wedge for around-the-block traffic. It's a 95% likelihood that the T and BTD are going to take one look at Shawmut and say, "Fuck it...just spend the extra $2M to lay the extra 800 ft. of track around the block and not have to deal with this." -27 more spaces on the Pike side of Marginal. Maybe a little bit of giveback on the other side if some land-taking of a strip of that private parking lot can convert the other side of the street to angled parking (less chance of blocking a trolley vs. parallel). But still another 18-20 losses as a best-case. Tremont should be OK with both-sides parking. Short block, no real obstructions for street-running, used to have street-running tracks as late as 1962.


Any which way you're out 50 spaces give or take a few. That is probably going to be unacceptable to the neighborhood since they can't easily be replaced anywhere near those blocks. In fact, the only plausible replacement that results in no net loss is...decking over 1 block of Pike to put a municipal lot there. Feel the excitement.




Think practical. Don't just look at cutting every possible corner to squeeze the price tag to a minimum. Whether you can ram this past the neighborhood or not, all the kvetching about lost parking and contraflow travel on multiple streets (esp. from the institutional heavies on the block: school and hospital) is enough to delay the project by several years while it's mired in painfully slow comment phase and drive the cost up by inflation and mitigation. Up to and including having to waste an air rights parcel on a parking lot if that's what it takes to nip the concern-trolling in the bud. If you want a bang-bang build in real life you're going to have to present a plan that heads off the concern-trolling preemptively. And that means *some* level of pot-sweetening beyond the minimum theoretical build to curry favor with the stakeholders, so long as it doesn't wreck the bang-for-buck of the whole project.

That means, at minimum, 2-way Tremont instead of contraflow Shawmut. Seriously...don't even think about shedding precious track-feet for straightest lines on a map when a perfectly serviceable 2-way is only 1 extra light up the street. And you may well have to bait some girders slapped across the Pike up-front as hedge against the odds of this stalling in an impasse. Keep in mind...you do not have to deck the ENTIRE Pike. It can be 2 blocks worth of median supports and bare, sun-filtering girders overhanging the WB side that support just a 20-ft. wide trolley reservation jutting off Marginal that leaves part of the right WB lane of the Pike in the shade. And then when MassDOT finds some developers to build real revenue-generating buildings over it, they can finish the job of covering over EB and the NEC, and laying the heavy-ass crossbeams that'll support the weight of a skyscraper on top. You don't have to have a whole second Pru Center shovel-ready in order to get a trolley through there without fucking up traffic or parking. It can be done cheaply. But you may be better off leading with that foot-in-door plan to sidestep all the neighborhood concerns that'll most definitely slow it down by years and most probably would bloat the cost a lot more than your bare-bones plan looked at first. Preemptive anticipation.