Cut and cover on the B line to bury it below ground from Kenmore out to Washington Street. Eliminate Sutherland, Warren, Pleasant, Saint Paul and Griggs stops.
Note that if you're doing Urban Ring on the Grand Junction as light rail, you probably are burying the B at least as far as Amory St. to allow the Ring to act as a Green Line appendage. There'd be a BU East subway stop, a flying junction at BU Bridge for the B/UR split, and portals on the BU Bridge hillside for the Ring and the Amory/St. Paul block for the B.
Going further is probably a major surplus-to-requirement.
- There isn't a need for major load-bearing traffic past the Ring split.
- You've also successfully bypassed the BU Bridge traffic lights, the single biggest roadway time chew on the entire B route.
- Remaining B surface stops number only 11-13 (depending on what else gets consolidated east of Warren St.), right in line with all other branches for dispatching's sake. The B no longer has an off-scale number of stops to traverse.
- If Comm Ave. Phase III centers the reservation on the Packards-Warren stretch, it would be highly feasible to install a Blandford-style turnback yard on the block past Harvard Ave. for short-turns. That's additional traffic management flexibility for the highest-ridership portion of the line.
The only scenario where you MIGHT want to continue the subway past the Amory/St. Paul portal is if you were bringing back the A Line to Oak Sq. or Watertown. In that case a BU West subway stop in front of Agganis Arena, portal on the Babcock-Packards block, and relocated Packards surface stop before the Brighton Ave. lights could be desireable. But I doubt it...because the traffic management relief of the Urban Ring-supporting subway to BU Bridge alone takes out enough of the B's garbage through East Campus that you could probably easily support a Brighton streetcar branch off the Amory portal.
Cut and cover on the C line to bury it below ground from Kenmore out to Cleveland Circle. Eliminate Fairbanks, Saint Paul, Hawes and Brandon Hall stops.
This definitely serves no purpose because unlike the B, D, or E there's no additional major traffic loads you could put on the C. It functions fine as a surface line, only needing some judicious consolidation of [pick one] Kent or Hawes, Brandon Hall, and Dean Rd. 10 reservation stops is a nice, taut roster.
Cut and cover to bury the E line from Symphony out to Heath Street. Eliminate Fenwood Road, Back of the Hill and Mission Park stops.
Mostly yes, with
some asterisks.
There is substantial potential to make the E a load-bearing line. Elimination of the Copley Jct. bottleneck in favor of a new routing that hits Back Bay Station is a major (if expensive) boon to downtown circulation. BBY is the most overloaded Orange Line stop, a situation that's only going to get worse if Regional Rail pumps up a lot of Purple frequencies. It's very likely a second rapid transit touch is going to be necessary here within the next 25 years.
Figure it goes like this.
- Boylston outer tracks (shared with Washington St. light rail and Seaport/Transitway light rail).
- quad-track Tufts Medical Ctr. GL station under Eliot Norton Park, concourse-linked to Orange Line station. E-outbound/E-inbound on one island platform fed from the old Lenox St./Egleston tracks, Dudley-outbound/Dudley-inbound on the other island fed from the old City Point tracks. Seaport/Transitway built sharing the Washington platform if it's built using this alignment
- Tunnel continues under Tremont St., E tracks turn west under Marginal Rd. and Pike onramp. Dudley tracks turn east (and Seaport, if it uses this alignment).
- Cross under Pike, shift into Back Bay on alignment TBD (underneath Worcester Line tracks may work, with lower-level station)
- Turn onto Huntington, rejoin existing E tunnel at end of curve before Prudential Station.
- Disuse Copley Jct. for regular service, but retain as alt. routing.
Now...with Back Bay in tow you're carrying some serious ridership out onto Huntington. But also, there's potential to "alt-spine" the Central Subway with parallel grade separation to really super-size the Green Line. The targets in that scenario are:
- E-to-D run-thrus
- E-to-Kenmore Loop transfer connectivity where the halves of the Urban Ring meet
- D/E-to-Dudley run-thrus...if Silver Line-Washington is converted to light rail. This can help compensate for the fact that the south-half Urban Ring likely can't be light rail and will have to live in mixed traffic on lower-capacity BRT vehicles.
- D/E-to-Seaport run-thrus...IF the Transitway light-rail link-up happens to go through the same South End junction as the Dudley Sq. line. (TBD...we haven't even revisited the wreckage of Silver Line Phase III yet).
That's paydirt for a burying of the E through Brigham/Mission Park, and finding a path to portal-up to the D at a bi-directional junction that can either wrap back to Kenmore or go outbound to Riverside or Needham. Junction might be at Brookline Village if space can be found, or between BV and Longwood where the little league field offers some construction staging relief. Subway stops at 4 of 5 of the following, depending on how you play with stop spacing vs. intersections: Northeastern, MFA, Longwood, Brigham, Mission Park (probably a keep because the last Huntington-proper stop before the tunnel bails out).
Now...what's not going to happen is burial of anything under South Huntington.
- For one, the tunnel is probably going to exit the Huntington footprint en route to the D long before it gets to the S. Huntington intersection.
- Confines are so tight that the only way to branch S. Huntington is with an at-grade junction at tight curves. For all the effort just expended to get rid of Copley Jct. and create a high-performance "alt spine", it's counterproductive to introduce a brand new at-grade traffic clog.
- The lion's share of ridership is on Huntington-proper, with S. Huntington being negligible-share. With the hookups to Back Bay and other modes the Huntington ridership is going to explode even more, but S. Huntington probably will remain a bit player.
Rather...I think you keep S. Huntington as-is, and use surface trackage off Brookline Village as the new hookup now that the tracks on Huntington-proper are buried. Pearl St. to River Rd. to Huntington to Riverway. This is basically just the D-to-E surface trackage that the T has been sitting on for decades as a build option...only here it's just swallowed into the rest of the Heath, etc. branch. Advantages:
- Can thread service from EITHER traditional E trains via Brookline Village, OR by D trains from Kenmore...increasing service flexibility and improving JP transit a lot.
- The Brookline Village back-track to Riverway is fewer traffic lights and shorter street-running distance than the current E from Brigham to Riverway, so likely a slight improvement in transit time.
- Given the total grade separation from either feeder, travel time from JP to downtown improves massively.
- Hugely improved throughput increases the impetus for re-extending to Hyde Sq. (if that hasn't already been done) and Forest Hills.
Summary:
YES - Bury the E on Huntington for big-time traffic routings.
NO - Don't bury S. Huntington because no big-time traffic routings.
ADD - D-to-E linkage when you bury.
ADD - Copley Jct. replacement via Back Bay that's compatible with--at-minimum--thru-running to Dudley and--TBD--thru-running to Seaport.
Add a stop on the Braintree line at Morrissey Blvd near Boston Bowl.
Some call it "Port Norfolk", some call it "Neponset". Any way you call it, it's a no-brainer that really should've been greenlit already as part of all this new cars + signal replacement performance optimization. With the upcoming improvements they can add the stop and still make equal time to Braintree as today.