Reasonable Transit Pitches

[davem]

Bus Rebranding

I touched on this up in the SL Chelsea thread, but its more appropriate here.

The two distinct services on the current silver line are not going to be connected any time soon, and with the Transitway service being further expanded I think the Washington St routes really need to be rebranded.

My proposal: Spin off the Washington St Silver Line and all the CT routes into a separate brand. I would also include in this the 500 buses that take the Pike, and similar high capacity express routes. Whether the branding is different (painted busus vs regular) can be debated, but the service should be something that's better than an average bus, but lesser than true BRT. They would be included on the transit map, but as a smaller line then the actual transit routes, with no stops other then really important ones listed.

My thought is not only would this rationalize the existing services into something more logical, but it could also be a catalyst for improvement. As an example, I could see the 66 getting a CT6 or such, that only stops at major squares, and takes traffic light streets to speed up the trip (like St Paul). Simple things like signal priority would also be implemented as standard on the routes, and better shelters (but not something insane like Washington St). Right now there's no such upper tier bus routes (dispute the implication on the transit map and the attempt through the CT program), and this would establish that.

 

[George_Apley]

They should really combine the SL4/5, 500s, CTs, and Key Bus Routes into a brand and make them BRT-lite.

 

[davem]

They should really combine the SL4/5, 500s, CTs, and Key Bus Routes into a brand and make them BRT-lite.

The reason I didn't include the existing key routes is that a lot, like the 66, are terrible. Just like the SL4/5 brings down the Silver Line brand, the really slow routes will bring down this new brand.

Like yeah, the CT1 gets bogged down in traffic, but at least it skips stops.

 

[JeffDowntown]

The reason I didn't include the existing key routes is that a lot, like the 66, are terrible. Just like the SL4/5 brings down the Silver Line brand, the really slow routes will bring down this new brand.

Like yeah, the CT1 gets bogged down in traffic, but at least it skips stops.

It could also serve as an impetus to get some more bus lanes -- even if not perfect, at least somewhat speeding the journey.

We could also push for all door boarding/POP fares on these lines. Doable because of a limited number of stops.

 

[George_Apley]

The reason I didn't include the existing key routes is that a lot, like the 66, are terrible. Just like the SL4/5 brings down the Silver Line brand, the really slow routes will bring down this new brand.

Like yeah, the CT1 gets bogged down in traffic, but at least it skips stops.

Then reform the Key Bus Routes as well. Consider things like express and local service on certain routes - like the 66 for example, with expresses streamlining the route as well.

 

[CantabAmager]

I've used systems before that achieve this without the need for a totally new livery scheme at the magnitude of the SL - they use "A" and "S" after the route number to signify a key route (A) or a commuter route (S). The A-busses Routes receive a small dab of red paint while the S-busses receive the same but in a teal color (we might be able to accomplish something similar with those MTA-style 'blue background' front displays on the SBS). More importantly, the on-street stop indicators do as well: the busses the stop at a given stop are stacked: normal routes are portrayed in a yellow band, A-bus routes in a red-band, and S-bus in a teal-band on the signs themselves. Would look like this:

It works really well, you never have to stop or peer at a schedule, the A-routes come often enough that the wait will never be more than 10 minutes at any given stop. Makes the system far more intuitive from a customer's point of view.

In Boston: I'd argue that the Key Routes should be included (and more than that, they should receive a small livery update); yes it'd be great to whack a few stops here and there, but when you're standing on the street (especially in a city you might not know or an area you don't go to often), the frequency of the bus is going to matter more than the trip time. Key Routes are more frequent than the Crosstowns, I think it's far more important to distinguish the high frequency routes than it is to distinguish the quickest trip time. So "silver-ize" the keys (and adopt some sort of nomenclature that distinguishes a key route, the 1 and 66 are obviously key routes, but you'd never guess that from their name - So K1 and K66 perhaps, K57, K39, K7, etc... K? for the current SL4/5).

Then come up with a similar scheme for the express commuter routes (I'm just going to say "G" for the sake of having something, so G533, G....). Represent the routes on street insignia by color: Ks can be royal blue or something, Gs can be mauve - you get the idea. I'd say save the full-bore Silver livery for the "true" BRT of SL1/2/3 if it comes back/6.

 

[CantabAmager]

So just to elucidate the idea a little further, here's what I'm talking

K

Ready for roll-out (i.e. sub-15 peak headways on paper, sub-21 base headways):
K39
K28
K66
K1
K23
K111
K32
K57
K22
K77
K73
K31
K15
K71
K21
K93
K-Washington..

Sorta Ready for Rollout (significant ridership, but AM Base headways are 20+ mins):
K7
K47
K9 (hehe)
K89
K101
K86

Not ready for rollout, but significant ridership (headways too infrequent for K treatment):
K16
K116 (obviously 116 and 117 can be tinkered with)
K117
K70

A sign post would look something like this (with express-route/re-branded crosstown factored in):

K1
KX1
G511
99
33
etc...

 

[Shepard]

Geez, you think a sign that reads

K1
KX1
G511
99
33

is going to be intuitive?

Look, buses are inherently confusing, because they presuppose at least a degree of insider knowledge about the street layout, the geography, and the main commuter routes. There's a reason tourists don't often trust or use buses. And, especially in a city like Boston where the street network is crazytown, the effect is even more pronounced.

That's why I think that Davem's point about livery and branding is fair. DC's Circulator bus is the best case-in-point I can think of. It isn't BRT, but it's very tourist friendly and useful for residents as well. Hell, it even has its own website.

SL Waterfront / Airport / Chelsea is not really like the Circulator. I'd say it's most like London's Docklands Light Rail in terms of the service and the area served (though not the mode, unfortunately!) It's a fairly coherent whole, in that regard. SL Washington doesn't fit. SL Washington is much more like the 1 or 39 Bus in my opinion: a very very very key route that deserves a high level of service.

 

[CantabAmager]

Yeah I think it's pretty intuitive. K = frequent, KX = express, G = commuter, everything else is local. You don't have to use those exact designations, but the indicate at every stop the hierarchy of the busses that stop there. It's certainly better than what we have now - you'd probably want to include a map at each stop with route of the tangent bus lines, with the high-frequency ones outlined. It's not that hard to figure out given basic information on sign post - changing of the key routes to silver is more expensive and operationally more difficult than just changing the background on a display (we're getting a massive round of procurements, the new busses should have this capability).

The only reason the CT busses should receive any new branding is if they're brought up to a frequency that warrants it, they're middling ridership routes at best - why would the MBTA "rebrand" a service few people use because it runs infrequently, is disjointed due to half-hearted implementation, doesn't run all day, and is only a marginal increase over the Key routes they mimic. Emphasize the useful. CT's aren't useful - they could, but they aren't yet.

 

[Shepard]

Change of topic...

Are there accepted best practices these days for road-layout when it comes to street-running light rail on narrow roads? I'm thinking something similar to the Arborway E-line corridor, or hypothetically the 66 bus route. I was thinking something like this:

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

That's possible, hell it's probably the norm in a lot of places, but I don't see it happening on South Huntington. The way Boston drivers are I see way too many accidents waiting to happen.

 

[Arlington]

If the "host" city and developers could work together with tax increment financing, the following 2 HRT infill stations should be reasonable:

1) Red Line: Neponset (I-93-Morrissey)
2) Orange: River's Edge (Medford St Malden/Medford)

 

[The EGE]

Everything west of Adams Street is Ashmont catchment no matter what, so you've got a very small amount of worthwhile area to serve. Existing density is much more aligned with Neponset Ave (which gets decent service from the 201/202 and 210 buses) than with a potential Red Line station. You'd need a heck of a lot of new development to make it worthwhile, and there's just better sites for it.

River's Edge has more development upside, but too much of that has fallen through to really justify it. Existing area seems too do well enough with the 108 bus; making Middlesex Ave pedestrian friendly and getting safe ped access to Wellington is much more cost-effective. Down the road, though, if Orange took over the entire lower Western Route and all Ballardvale-north service was rerouted to the Lowell + Wildcat, it would be fully possible to convert Community College - Oak Grove to a true four-track local-express line. In that case, River's Edge would be a dandy infill for Malden locals that the Reading expresses could bypass.

 

[Arlington]

Everything west of Adams Street is Ashmont catchment no matter what, so you've got a very small amount of worthwhile area to serve. Existing density is much more aligned with Neponset Ave (which gets decent service from the 201/202 and 210 buses) than with a potential Red Line station. You'd need a heck of a lot of new development to make it worthwhile, and there's just better sites for it..

New development is the idea, and the infill station area 5000+ feet from any Ashmont-branch station--20 to 25% farther than Assembly is from Sullivan (which is only ~4000'). And there's a lot of crappy retail/industrial space very close at hand, just like there was at Assembly.

I'd expect a Neponset station to do particularly well for commuting home, where half of all the folks along Adams street who "A-only" in the morning from Fields Corner, Shawmut, or Ashmont when commuting AM-inbound will consider taking a B-train to Neponset if a B-train (1) happens to come first on their trip home and (2) it is 1-stop closer to all of Adams St than Shawmut, and 2-stops closer than Ashmont. In such case, you put the coffee& donut shops on the Ashmont branch and the new Neponset station would get the dinner&chore-shopping retail. And then stack residential tall on top of the station. The goal is to put more housing than bus can attract/serve.

River's Edge has more development upside, but too much of that has fallen through to really justify it. Existing area seems too do well enough with the 108 bus; making Middlesex Ave pedestrian friendly and getting safe ped access to Wellington is much more cost-effective. Down the road, though, if Orange took over the entire lower Western Route and all Ballardvale-north service was rerouted to the Lowell + Wildcat, it would be fully possible to convert Community College - Oak Grove to a true four-track local-express line. In that case, River's Edge would be a dandy infill for Malden locals that the Reading expresses could bypass.

Here again, that current demand can be handled by bus isn't proof that infill rail isn't worth it. It only says that new development and growth in ridership requires better service--such as TOD would afford (and help fund the transit).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Change of topic...

Are there accepted best practices these days for road-layout when it comes to street-running light rail on narrow roads? I'm thinking something similar to the Arborway E-line corridor, or hypothetically the 66 bus route. I was thinking something like this:

San Fran manages to keep it relatively efficient for both bus and trolley modes on very congested 2-lane Market St. I spent a lot of time riding the F on a couple visits to the Bay Area a few years ago, and it works very well for its relative simplicity.

Mini-high ADA platform (so they can use the historic trolleys): https://goo.gl/maps/Nfkpj1tRCFt
Low-level platform: https://goo.gl/maps/MAkYoQtDu2H2

Note how they take a row of parking and fashion a car lane turning out to the right of the islands so the trolleys and buses don't have to have left-handed doors. That's the main killer with having a center island platform. The trolleys would have to have PoP on the left-hand doors, and buses wouldn't be able to use the platforms at all. Also note how vehicle traffic does not get blocked when a bus or trolley is making a stop in the middle of the road. The turnouts have restricted speed limits as shown by the pavement markings, but it keeps the traffic flowing uninterrupted. And note as you scroll up and down Market on Street View that the roadway doesn't have to be widened at all to make this work.

The main requirements are:

-- Stations usually need to be placed mid-block where turn lanes aren't going to eat space.
-- Stations have to be pretty narrow, so service has to be frequent enough to regularly empty a platform and platforms need to be long enough (and have enough between-block space to be long enough) to form a safe single-file line for entering the vehicle.
-- Street-crossing needs to be easy and traffic-calmed around such narrow platforms. The speed-restricted turnout lanes make the crosswalks at the platform heads safe and straightforward without needing signaling, the turnouts are going to have very low traffic volumes when a transit vehicle is not present, and the pass-through fence allows some overflow egresses on the turnout. But if you have an overcrowding situation a *right-sized* tolerance for jaywalking across the thru traffic lanes also keeps the overflow in-check. That wouldn't be recommended on some Boston roads, but on Market from my own firsthand observations everything stays in enough balance to coexist pretty well.
-- Curb height for level boarding with a low-floor vehicle. If you want front-door trolley boarding, must do the Mattapan Line-style mini-highs and position them such that a turnout crosswalk is right at the end of an incline so single-file exiting passengers can get out of the way before the single-file line of entering passengers proceeds to the door. Also, adequate signage to not loiter on the mini-high so as not to block exiting passengers.


Something like that would work pretty well here as a legacy retrofit on narrow streets. Maybe not every street, but definitely some transit corridors. Including bus-only corridors where the curb turnouts are a real pain in the ass and overly prone to getting blocked by cars. It solves the whole problem of the clunkiness of left-handed boarding. It saves some traffic disruption by eliminating the need to change lanes to reach the curb. It's neutrally positioned for fare collection method, so the ever-fearful T doesn't have to give up its pathological insistence on front-door only boarding to make this work (though it obviously is the best of all worlds if they would, because it would ease dwell times and platform congestion). And it comes with some traffic-calming benefits baked into the design with the geometry of those car bail-out turnouts on the right-hand sides.

I could see this working as genuine ADA retrofits for the Huntington street-running stops. If they judiciously trimmed Fenwood and BoTH, this would be a potentially good setup for the E and 39 at Mission Park and Riverway. It would work at Heath if the Hyde extension moved the stop off the loop. It would allow for less invasive construction along S. Huntington and better traffic resiliency than the original Arborway restoration plan of side-running tracks and curbside ADA stops. It's not overly expensive. Much less so than the overpriced renovated reservation stations. And you can count off many, many other corridors where it would work.

I'm thinking Mass Ave. on the Cambridge portion of the 77 seems tailor-made for this in since all the stop turnouts really bog down that schedule a lot and you wouldn't even need to speed-limit the cars on the right-hand turnouts since the center median + a few claimed parking spaces offers 100% compensatory spacing, and the center median keeps the block lengths pretty wide by prohibiting left turns off the most insignificant side streets.


The only hurdles here are cultural. Some parking spaces need to be taken mid-block, which is a little difficult when so many streets--disproportionately represented by the very same transit corridors that would most benefit from a SF/Market-style stop setup--also have a crying need for parking spaces to be taken at intersections for flow-correcting left turn lanes. And the longstanding problem of the BTD not doing its job and looking the other way on 'neighborhood tradition' double-parkers is going to end up pinching too many entrances and exits to those right-hand car turnouts; the enforcement has to be up-to-snuff. But those are silly-easy problems to solve if City Hall had the backbone to commit to enforcement and stuck to its guns on taking parking spots when the flow advantages are for everyone's own good.

There'd be a little bit of a downside in winter with snow plowing since the narrow segmenting of the platforms and turnouts means snow has to be completely 100% clear to be able to pass by or use the platforms at full capacity. No plow mounds allowed. But for only a few streets and only a handful of places where these platforms occur...not a big deal. Supplement the plows with on-the-ground workers in snowblowers, and run more limited schedules until the stops are clear. Then bring in the dumptrucks and bucket loaders to cart the plow mounds offsite when it's a blizzard; if they could do that in whole neighborhoods for the Pats and St. Paddy's parades this past winter, they can do it on individual 200 ft. strips of platforms + turnouts same-day as the snowfall. It's not like the E runs past Brigham to begin with when there's accumulating snow on the Huntington pavement.


That's it. Unless I'm missing something ops-crucial or in the ADA fine print about new-construction platform width, that's the most inocuous way to solve the problem while ending up a net gain to traffic flow. And I know I was thinking just the same when visiting San Fran, so I took keen interest in watching how all vehicles interacted around these Market platforms and personally rode the shit out of a wide sampling of those stops when I was out and about to get a feel for how it worked up and down the whole corridor. I didn't see any obvious downside that wouldn't make those types of platforms work very well here if you picked the right corridors to apply it on.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

New development is the idea, and the infill station area 5000+ feet from any Ashmont-branch station--20 to 25% farther than Assembly is from Sullivan (which is only ~4000'). And there's a lot of crappy retail/industrial space very close at hand, just like there was at Assembly.

I'd expect a Neponset station to do particularly well for commuting home, where half of all the folks along Adams street who "A-only" in the morning from Fields Corner, Shawmut, or Ashmont when commuting AM-inbound will consider taking a B-train to Neponset if a B-train (1) happens to come first on their trip home and (2) it is 1-stop closer to all of Adams St than Shawmut, and 2-stops closer than Ashmont. In such case, you put the coffee& donut shops on the Ashmont branch and the new Neponset station would get the dinner&chore-shopping retail. And then stack residential tall on top of the station. The goal is to put more housing than bus can attract/serve.


Here again, that current demand can be handled by bus isn't proof that infill rail isn't worth it. It only says that new development and growth in ridership requires better service--such as TOD would afford (and help fund the transit).

Positioning is key for the Neponset stop. There are two distinct transit cavities at each of the Morrrissey Blvd. that correspond to maximum walking distance to the Ashmont Branch stations, out-of-range for typical rapid transit catchments because of difficulty of getting around particularly inaccessible stretches of the street grid. Specifically, the gap in E-W connecting streets spanning Neponset Ave. and Morrissey in the Victory Rd. to 1st rotary stetch; and between the two rotaries where the grid between Ashmont St. and Minot St. gets all choppy. With the residential density there you bet there's a transit need for a local stop. You just can't veer too far afield from those specific cavities before you do suddenly hit a cross street that puts in too-close a catchment range.

Second, and more financially compelling reason, to do it is TOD redev for the anachronistic 50's strip-mall stretch of Morrissey. Which would favor a stop siting at Rotary #1 by Freeport St. There is biiiiiiig TOD upside for that whole asphalt wasteland between Freeport St. and Conley St. If some megabucks developer dreams big enough, that could even have potential for a little bit of pay-in from the developer for building the station. I think the potential for such a station is joined at the hip with who dreams up what on this canvas, and how bold that redev is. No question the ceiling is high if they do it right.



Really don't think River's Edge/Edgeworth is all that realistic. It's still width-constrained same as it was when that stop was first proposed on the 1945 expansion plan. If the commuter rail track weren't there it probably could fit on a 2-track footprint just fine. But the CR track is there, and I can't see the abutters tolerating any land-taking. Second, as noted, the development around the area has not exactly been coming together like a well-oiled machine, so Malden's got a lot to prove before it can make a winning case for an infill. Third, the bus coverage is good. Can't ID any specific cavities like you can around the Morrissey rotaries.

Think for this area improving access to Wellington from lower Middlesex Ave. so it's not sheared off by the Route 16 monster. And some footbridge access from River's Edge Dr. to Middlesex & side streets. Something that would be doable if Pan Am abandoned the Medford Branch (inevitable if the Bud brewery warehouse stops dancing with them about a return of freight service). That adequately fills whatever transit gap is left between Wellington and MC.

 

[Scalziand]

The abutters for River's Edge are light industry/retail, not residential.

Neponset station might be appropriate for combining with fixing the Old Colony single track section.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The abutters for River's Edge are light industry/retail, not residential.

Neponset station might be appropriate for combining with fixing the Old Colony single track section.

OC's already double-tracked down there. It widens out to double right after the Park St. overpass and stays that way till Wollaston. Where it spans Rotary #1 it even has derelict side platforms from the old RR station that used to be there in an Attleboro-esque setup of 2 side platform tracks and 2 center passing tracks.

 

[Arlington]

The abutters for River's Edge are light industry/retail, not residential.

For my reasonable-infill pitch, I'm focused on Scalziand being right. Depends which side/quadrant of the tracks you look at, so both Scalziand and F-Line can be right.

I'd focus on the block immediately south of Medford St, where Scalziand is correct: abutters on the west side are commercial here. My favorite overpriced-but-urgent plumbing/appliance supply location is Marcone Supply (sure to have a part if you are a landlord or if your oven door cracks the day before Thanksgiving, as mine did) and for a considerable distance south on the west side it is all commercial

On the east side of the OL&CR embankment (along the aptly-named Commercial Street) it is all commercial and light industrial.

I'd think you'd have a choice as to which side purchase the necessary strip(s) to widen the ROW enough for a station. I'd rather take on the East, since that leaves room on both east and west to do TOD very near the station, with its back/base right along the tracks, serving as a visual and noise screen for the residential stuff across Pearl St on the west.

Also the "residential" immediately north of Medford St @ Pearl doesn't exactly look, ahem, owner-occupied. I suspect these are landlord-owned.

Then slightly further up Pearl St on the west side, you get the residential of which F-Line speaks. These are single-family homes that back right up to the tracks. In theory, if they are transit-riding households (possible, given the bus service that EGE cites), they should love the idea that the OL trains that ply their backyards from 5am to Midnight would finally stop a block or two away.

 

[Riverside]

Here's a set of proposals I've been tinkering with for a few weeks. It's possible that some or all of this falls a little beyond "reasonable", but none of it is "crazy," I'd say.

The Map

Red Line (HRT)

• 1.6 mile extension to Arlington Center. Provisions for later in-fill stop at Lake Street and for extension to Arlington Heights and beyond.

Orange Line (HRT)

• 3.7 mile extension through West Roxbury, taking over from Commuter Rail. Stops at Roslindale Village, Bellevue, Highland, West Roxbury, and a moderate Park-n-Ride at Rivermoor, just past the VFW parkway. I tinkered with a further extension to 128, Hersey, or even Needham Junction, but the environmental impact of going through Cutler Park seemed prohibitive, especially in the context of other planned extensions. I could be convinced of a peak-only single-track extension to Hersey, though.

Blue Line (HRT)

• Blue-Red Connector. Please, O God, allow this to remain a Reasonable Transit Pitch.

Green Line (LRT)

• 4 mile extension down Needham Branch. Stops at Newton Upper Falls (at Oak Street), Gould/128, Needham Heights, Needham Center and Needham Junction. I was blown away to learn of Hersey's high ridership, but that route seemed too circuitous for a Green extension. Some trains short-turn at Newton Highlands, Reservoir or Kenmore.
• Chestnut Hill Avenue track upgrades to allow for revenue services.
• Half-mile D-to-E connector at Brookline Village/Riverway. This is probably among the most challenging things I propose, but it really is very helpful, as it would allow some E trains to be extended out the Highland Branch, without adding extra trains into the Central Subway. (Granted, this would work much better if the Huntington Subway were extended.)
• 2 mile extension to Harvard via Lower Allston. My ideal plan would have a major interchange at Boston University, followed by East Allston (on the undeveloped land north of Cambridge Street), Stadium and Harvard, with provisions for in-fill at Beacon Park, pending that development. If West Station goes forward (which seems silly with Boston Landing just up the way, but whatever), Beacon Park and Boston University would get combined.
• Frequent short-turns on the C Line at Kenmore. This one is a maybe. I worry about capacity in the Central Subway, and the C is the lowest ridership candidate. But my proposal for the Gold Line (below) might make the benefit a wash.
• 2 mile conversion of Silver Line to light rail.
• 3.5 mile extension to Alewife from Lechmere. Stations at Union Square, Spring Hill, Porter, Alewife.
• 4 mile extension to West Medford. Stations at Brickbottom, Gilman Square, Lowell Street, Ball Square, College Avenue, Medford Hillside/Route 16, West Medford.
• 1 mile extension to Sullivan Square.
• 6.5 mile extension from Sullivan to the airport via Chelsea. Stations at Gateway, Everett, Mystic Mall, Chelsea, Box District, Eastern Avenue, Airport Junction, Terminal E, Terminal A and Harborside.

Gold Line (LRT)

• Medford to LMA via Grand Junction. Stations at Medford Center, Spring Street, Fellsway, Edgeworth, Wellington, Assembly, Sullivan, Inner Belt, East Cambridge (at Cambridge Street), Galileo, MIT, Cambridgeport, Boston University, Kenmore, Fenway, ending with a clockwise loop through Longwood Medical Area: Emmanuel, Simmons, Children's/LMA South, Beth Israel/LMA West. 7.75 miles of new track, almost entirely on existing ROW.

Silver Line (BRT)

• SL1, South Station to Logan
• SL2, South Station to Design Center
• SL3, Longwood Medical Area to Logan. Stations, starting with a clockwise loop through Longwood Medical Area: Simmons, Children's/LMA South, Beth Israel/LMA West, Emmanuel then Museum of Fine Arts, Ruggles, Melnea Cass Boulevard, Crosstown, Seaport, Logan Terminals, with provisions for a new station at Midtown, should development at Widett Circle ever come about. The existing World Trade Center station is redeveloped into a larger Seaport station that allows direct access from the Transitway onto the Mass Pike, as well as transfers to a new commuter rail extension up along the Haul Road. As the Seaport develops, more Old Colony trains will be diverted to this new station, freeing up capacity at South Station, but service will only start with a handful of trains daily (think of Long Island City in New York).

Indigo Line (EMU and DMU)

• Fairmount Line, with stations at Newmarket, Uphams Corner, Four Corners/Geneva, Talbot Avenue, Morton Street, Blue Hill Avenue, Fairmount and Readville, with lower-frequency branching service to Westwood/128, Rustcraft via Endicott and Dedham via Walnut Hill. The branch service might be low enough frequency to not quite count as rapid transit, but it's workable. Provisions for a later station at Midtown.
• Newton Line, with stations at Back Bay, Yawkey, Boston University or West Station, Boston Landing, Newton Corner, Newtonville, West Newton, Auburndale and Riverside
• Waltham Line, with stations at Porter, Belmont, Waverly, Waltham, Brandeis/Roberts and Weston/128.
• Watertown Branch, with a single station at Watertown Square but provisions for a near-future addition of a station at Arsenal. The Watertown Branch is intended to lay the groundwork for an eventual Green Line extension, as is, to a lesser extent, the Waltham Line. The tricky thing is making the initial Indigo Line service speedy enough to compete with the more-direct, but slower busses into Cambridge.
• Reading Line, with stations at Sullivan, Malden, Melrose Cedar Park, Melrose Highlands, Greenwood, Wakefield, Lake Quannapowitt/128, Reading, Reading Highlands/93.
• Peabody Line, with stations at Chelsea, Revere, River Works, Lynn, Swampscott, Salem State, Salem, Peabody, Danvers Endicott, Danvers, Hathorne
• North-South Rail Link, the simple version. I used to feel that this was a classic Crazy Transit Pitch, but now I feel less strongly. In any case, it is not critical. I envision it being primarily served by Amtrak and commuter rail, but also by the Newton Line (since there won't be a portal for the Fairmount Line to use). Haven't decided what to do with the north side, but I'm thinking half of Newton services go to Reading, and half to Peabody (or maybe short-turning at Salem or Lynn), while the other half of each of those services run into North Station Upper.

A couple of notes.

The Kenmore Bend of the Gold Line is a makeshift solution that I'm less than crazy about. In my ideal world, the transfer hub at Kenmore would be relocated to Boston University; the Pike would be decked to St. Mary's Street, which would be closed to through traffic, and trolleys would run from BU down to the Highland Branch just west of Fenway. After stopping at Fenway, Gold Line trains would continue on down Park Drive as shown here. This would also allow C trains to be rerouted to Fenway, allowing transfers to Gold.

The other problem is that the Kenmore Loop is single-tracked, which will become a bottle-neck pretty easily. That becomes more of an issue if we want to short-turn any Green Line services there, which becomes more and more necessary as we add service to Harvard, Needham and Dudley.

The LMA Loop is rather a crappy solution. One lane of parking would be converted to bus/trolley-only. The Urban Ring corridor north of here is ideal for LRT, but east of here, it's better for BRT. The LMA was a good enough place to tie the two together to avoid tunneling, but it's still a pretty crappy solution.

The Gold Line north of Sullivan should probably be the Green Line, but I was already concerned at the abundance of Green Line services. Would happily take suggestions on better ways to organize all that. At the very least, though, Gold Line riders from Medford have an abundance of transfer options (Indigo to Chelsea and North Shore, Green to Everett, Chelsea and Airport, Orange to State and Back Bay, Indigo to express to North Station, South Station, Allston and Newton, and Green to, well, everywhere).