Reasonable Transit Pitches

[F-Line to Dudley]

I question the need for a stop at each terminal. If Massport builds the Logan people mover (monorail), than you would only need one light rail stop. Unless Logan and the MBTA can work togeather to combine the people mover and light rail to Chelsea and Cambridge.

The PM proposal isn't exactly fleshed out with any substantive details, so any other project attempting to leverage it through co-opting or transfer it's little more than dart-throwing at this point. What's certain is that any Urban Ring NE quadrant will go at least as far as Blue Line-Logan. Maybe it's hookable into the PM. Or maybe they don't do a PM in the traditional sense but rather a multi-use busway for SL1, Logan Express, and the trolleys. Could be literally anything.

Also not "resonable" per say, but I think a tunnel to connect the Seaport portion of the green and the Chelsea portion of the green would be a good investment.

We don't even know if it's technically feasible to lay another cross-Harbor tube that close to the Ted, so that's more a "Complete Unknown" Transit Pitch than even a Crazy Transit Pitch. It's 99.9% likely that ship sailed when they decided to make the Ted 2 roadway bores instead of 2 road + 1 transit = 3 bores nearly three decades ago.

I'd build that before I'd build the Blue Line out to Fenway. With a NSRL, there will likely be enough capacity for Blue Line riders to switch to Regional Rail to Back Bay/Yawkey or the Green Line. With that the Blue line would be redundant.

Keep in mind, BL-Kenmore only exists as a project as a transit trade-in settlement for tearing down Storrow Drive, in the same project area as the parkway teardown. The mechanics behind it getting advanced to design-build are wholly different/alien to anything else in the transit Universe of Projects. It doesn't advance on "build A before B" project priority logic like most others because the catalyst for kicking it off is so very different.

It would be plenty magnificently utilized, however. The options for thru-routing Green Line service from the Urban Ring or the E-to-D connection increase exponentially once Blue vacuums up Kenmore crowd-swallowing duties. The kickstarter mechanisms for the build may be different, but the fundamentals and multimodal coattails are solid.

Also with electrification speeding up stops on the Regional Rail, I think an infill Revere station would work. Not a wonderland stop, but maybe something near the Revere Chelsea border.

Upper Eastern Ave. is hurt by being in an oil tank farm and Logan Air Freight wasteland. The SL3/future-Green stop @ Eastern and the buses out of Chelsea hugging Broadway are where the riders are. Near the 1A/16/145 ramp-a-palooza the density is better (this was the only place there ever was a historic station in Revere), but ROW accessibility is in no-man's land surrounded by all those high-speed roads. All points north of 145 it's too close to Revere Beach or Wonderland to attempt anything.

Unfortunately it's either ridership famine or accessibility famine on any of the candidate sites.

I also question the use of a year round regional rail service to Cape Cod. It isn't a terribly dense area, like Fall River or New Bedford.

No, but the bridges suck monkeyballs year-round and have their own A.M./P.M. rush hours. Some people do indeed commute all the way to Boston from Falmouth, Sandwich, etc. RER-level service I agree has no business extending past Buzzards Bay on the mainland, but there is most definitely demand for a few commuter extras with last-mile connections into what's generally a pretty robust CCRTA bus network. So...maybe a few peak-period Hyannis trains running skip-stop, at most 90-120 min. headways off-peak in the offseason, and slightly more step-up in-season on the off-peak but still no more than 75 mins. or so.

I also think a couple of more infill stations in Providence between PVD station and TF Green would be nice. I think most riders south of PVD use the rail to get to Providence not Boston, therefore more infill urban Providence station would increase ridership a good bit.

RIDOT is serving up Cranston as a planned infill. Olneyville was proposed but deferred because of uncertainty over 6-10 Connector rebuild options serving up the station space. I guess we'll know when the highway project is shovels-in-ground whether that one can go back on the radar.

Also I think moving the Purple all the way up the Lowell line to Manchester would be nice, although I think that NH is too fiscally conservative for that to happen.

Nashua is what the MBTA needs, because it needs a layover yard for the Lowell Line in the worst possible way. And the station catchments UMass-Lowell to South Nashua are very much an in-district constituency. What NHDOT plans to do north of Nashua is their business. However, if they did manage to hold to going all the way to Concord, service was envisioned to be split from Lowell/Nashua locals and run as a wholly additional semi-express service layer...i.e. the Concord trains would run local in NH but stop only at Lowell and Anderson in MA, while Lowell/Nashua would keep running simultaneously as an all-local service. The split saves time to Boston from deeper in NH and saves seats for NH commuters who'd get crowded out on the locals.

So for RER purposes the Nashua turns would fit the mold at :30 min. bi-directional headways, while the Concord runs would probably be a traditional peak/off-peak split with significantly wider headways (whatever that adds up to). And the Concord runs would probably always be turning at North Station surface, never going in NSRL...since its only job upon crossing state line is delivering NH commuters to Boston's doorstep in timely fashion, and it would be a brutally difficult schedule to attempt to pair-match. There'll no doubt be a select number of run-thru Concord NE Regionals on Amtrak for the folks who need to get all the way down the coast.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Wait, really? That seems insane. Do you have a source or something handy? This I want to see...

NEC FUTURE study. Search the documents library on the fed site for the project. Short on details...because damn near everything NEC FUTURE proposed for shovel turns was short on details. Compared to some of the other really barking insane bypasses (clean-cutting the CT Shoreline, digging for miles under Philly, etc.) this one is comparably not-insane. It just lacks a compelling hook since they were only thinking in Amtrak terms...not whether that gave RIDOT/MBTA any more leverage to densify service on the old alignment.

It's probably not got the juice to actually happen...but, yes, it is indeed a real (and recent...last 24 months) proposal.

 

[George_Apley]

What this map really shows me is that when amateur planners don't know what to to do, the answer is always "extend the green line" lmao. That map has the green line going literally everywhere in the city, believe it or not there are other alternatives that don't involve extending arguable the worst rapid transit line in Boston

It's actually based on a lot of in depth discussion over several years, not just a "throw up your hands and extend the Green Line" concept. The Green Line is "the worst rapid transit line in Boston" because it's operationally crippled. With some of these extensions and necessary upgrades its ops would balance out and be pretty damn effective.

 

[George_Apley]

City of Newton didn't speculate what Needham would plan for stops in its intracity study and thus put in for NEBC...but Needham has also conceptualized a stop at Highlands for all the TOD around TV Place. In all likelihood it would be both, because the size of developable real estate at NEBC demands it but the lack of parking there makes that stop reliant on the circulator bus (fast-forward a few pages in the linkied report) to hit garages in the office park. Highlands, in addition to having its own TOD bona fides, is much more easily car-accessible from either the Kendrick or Highland exits and thus is going to be the far more opportune PnR stop for Riverside load relief. Stop spacing for NEBC is not a problem because the river and 128 wall it firmly off from either adjacent stop catchment, so a near- no-brainer to keep both.

Makes sense. Added.

You can also include the Needham St. stop shown in the presentation since that counts as an official 'ask' from the City, but it's awfully close walking distance to Waban on the D. Since they're seeking rail-with-trail from Eliot & Easy St.'s to the Charles River path, I bet if you extended the Waban-to-Route 9 ped ramps to meet Eliot St. you'd be able to tie that whole north-of-Upper Falls area into Waban's catchment instead. I'd expect the Needham St. stop to be Newton's first compromise when it's showtime.

Agree. I'll leave it out.

Twin City placement is obviously speculative, but would work best set back a little behind the plaza so access to McGrath + Somerville Ave. Ext. via ramps and Medford St. via path were more or less equitable. Brickbottom is going to be a significant catchment for this stop, so it can't be entirely Medford St.-facing.

It does still make for a much longer walk to the plaza itself, but I see your point about the catchment from the north.

Other miscellany. . .

• Commuter Rail, Worcester Line -- Millbury was an officially-proposed stop when the intermediates were being planned for the Worcester service restoration 2 decades ago, but the NIMBY's at the time were out in force leaving behind that peculiar stop spacing gap. MPO has kept this on their list, albeit with questionably low ridership projections for the prime location @ US 20 a short distance from the Pike/MA 122 exit and amid a lot of fungible TOD property. In an RER frequencies universe I bet this becomes a much more desirable addition.

I had a spacer in there but I didn't know the history of the spot. Added it back in.

• Urban Rail, Reading
• Blue Line, Salem

I have a similar map that shows these extensions, but I left it off this one. Love the detailed overview though.

Also thanks to all who've complimented the map!

 

[George_Apley]

Sorry for the repeat posts.

So, I brought back the E line to Forest Hills and that got me thinking more about what street-running lines are "reasonable".

For example, if the northern routing for the South Boston branch is undesireable from a ridership standpoint, where does street-running make sense? L Street to E Broadway?

While we're at it, what are thoughts about reconstituting the A Line? With Boston Landing, Newton Corner, and better bus coverage along the 57 route, is it advisable? Thinking not. Plus it could throw of balancing on the Green Line network overall given the addition of the Harvard branch and the Urban Ring.

 

[Shepard]

Busses, perhaps there’s a way to add a toggle on each category of “reasonable” and “stretch” ...? That way you don’t have to limit yourself but anyone can pull it back to essentials if they want. Probably that’s a lot of work - just a suggestion!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Sorry for the repeat posts.

So, I brought back the E line to Forest Hills and that got me thinking more about what street-running lines are "reasonable".

For example, if the northern routing for the South Boston branch is undesireable from a ridership standpoint, where does street-running make sense? L Street to E Broadway?

The northern routing is primarily undesireable because today there are no buses whatsoever on E St. There's a fairly large gap between the 11 on A St. and the 5/9/10 on E. Broadway @ Dorchester St. You have to means-test that transit hole with a bus route...AND see the route explode to Key Bus Route ridership levels...before considering putting a trolley there. Figure also that the post-conversion Transitway probably has enough capacity for 2 light rail branches and 2 bus routes before it's tapped out. SL1 is obviously going to stay permanently as one of those bus routes, SL2 will be displaced by the presence of Green, and SL3 will in all likelihood be displaced by the Urban Ring NE quadrant. However, Urban Ring SE quadrant Dudley-Southie is almost certainly going to have to be BRT because of lack of appropriate ROW...so the southern Ring buses will probably take up that last slot.

Since you have to replace SL2 with something approximate-ish and clipping the fringes of Reserve Channel may or may not be enough...that doesn't leave a lot of options left for multiple streetcar routes. Pretty much just City Point.

For a City Point branch, along the 7 route down Summer to E. Broadway to Farragut is the highest-demand catchment...though unlike the bus the trolley would probably have a self-contained Heath-style loop at Marine Park rather than going halfway around the block. Since the turn onto E. Broadway also blurs into the east extremes of the 5/9/10 and meets the 11 at Marine Park there's a pretty rich transit gravity well at the trolley terminus and an opportunity to redraw some routes after rapid transit is established. At a total of 5 blocks on Summer after the lane-drop and 5 blocks on E. Broadway it's only about 0.8 miles of true street-running where the trolley would lack left-lane separation from other traffic. Not bad.

While we're at it, what are thoughts about reconstituting the A Line? With Boston Landing, Newton Corner, and better bus coverage along the 57 route, is it advisable? Thinking not. Plus it could throw of balancing on the Green Line network overall given the addition of the Harvard branch and the Urban Ring.

Oak Square was the locus of the last effort at restoration in the early-90's. The jog down Tremont St. in Newton was always a low-ridership leg, and crossing the Pike rotary on a trolley to reach the wall of density on that side was insanity. If BL-Kenmore happens you are going to have additional slack in the Central Subway west of Boylston to play around with new service patterns. Plus the grade separation of the BU Bridge subway extension, plus the Huntington subway extension's 'filet' routings of E/D slots with Kenmore. Presence of another branch can probably be accommodated easily with all that gained routing elasticity.

Figure this: Brighton Ave. is exactly as wide as Comm Ave. through West Campus so all it takes is a parking diet and spatial reconfig of the left-turn lanes to carve a full reservation from Packards to Union Sq., giving the would-be Harvard Ave. and Union Sq. stops full B-style platforms. Does City of Boston want that street to be a car-centric hellscape forever? If not, wouldn't cost much to settle up that first 0.6 miles of reservation. From Cambridge St. to Oak it's 1.6 miles of street-running...with exceptions of reservation reappearing just long enough to plant a full station platform in front of St. Joseph Prep, and obviously Oak Sq. itself having a protected platform and its old storage yard back if the YMCA was open to bartering a parking swap. In theory a judicious lane diet at the St. Elizabeth's intersection (6 lanes!?!) nets some play there, and parking spot shifts elsewhere can create room such that San Fran Market St.-style mid-street bus+trolley combo platforms can serve any transit vehicle on a fairly slim profile (this is also how I'd recommend building any Hyde Sq./Forest Hills and City Point street-running stops).

A maximum stop roster past Packards (necessarily flipped to other side of the intersection) would be: Harvard Ave., Union Sq., Gordon St., St. Joseph's, St. Elizabeth's Med Ctr., Market St./Chestnut Hill Ave., Foster St., Lake St., Langeley Rd., Oak Sq. 13 (10 A + 3 shared B) surface stops outside the St. Paul St. subway portal...and you can go fishing for 1-2 cuts if re-spacing nets more efficiency. Won't displace the 57 all the way, but combination of this and extending the 71 TT to Newton Corner cuts out enough local demand to streamline the 57 a bit.

--------------------

Rapid transit to Watertown would be fastest covered by taking the Watertown Branch out of Porter Station on that GLX branch. I know on AB that's not exactly everyone's favorite routing, but doubling the length of the new Oak Sq. branch and re-engaging the Pike rotary just isn't going to fare well. And trying to mount a Big Western Dig to bring the Blue Line 5 miles under the B&A from Kenmore isn't going to fare well either. Value-for-money should be considered here, especially after the route starts hitting the 71 TT's catchment and cashing in tons of riders.

Watertown Branch is landbanked to School St., Watertown and wide enough for rail-with-trail on most of that portion. City of Cambridge got to do one of its water runoff remediation projects in front of the Reservoir right on top of the ROW in exchange for any future transportation needs being able to displace the bikeway path closer to the parkway, so this does not preclude future LRT when the path just left of the end-of-track offers a replacement. From School St. on the ROW ownership is lapsed, and properties are chopped up by new development. The new Gables apartments are a permanent blocker, but so long as the front parking lots all 1200 ft. to the east don't get systematically built over you can blow up the Lexus dealership and get grade separation as far out as Beechwood Ave.

Whether grade separation ends at School or Beechwood, from there it's street-running on Arsenal to the Square...0.75 miles at most. At near-50 ft. wide, Arsenal is a *hair* shy of being able to host a full reservation, but can probably traffic-separate trolleys left of the yellow paint with the appropriate parking and turn-lane diet that dragstrip richly deserves. San Fran-style middle-of-road platforms would work for the potential intermediates @ Beechwood and Irving St., while the traffic monstrosity of the Square itself can serve up a wedge-shaped reservation platform by compacting some of the turning lane excess. Galen's also pretty wide at 45+ feet, and likewise is a parking-centric monstrosity that could be restriped to be more transit-friendly and definitely could host San Fran-style platforms at its 1-2 intermediate stops between Watertown Carhouse and the loop at Newton Corner (raze a parking garage...any parking garage...abutting the north extent of the rotary for that multimodal transit center). Wires on Galen can be configured for both GLX and 71 TT use, while presumably the Newton Corner loop station is going to be some superstation.

--------------------

I don't know of any other places that would be appropriate for light rail. We know that Urban Ring SW+SE are brutal going for trying to piece together ROW, so that's going to be BRT. Everyone loves the concept of the 28 being converted to trolley out of Dudley, but the extreme length of that route--6 miles from a subway portal--makes it a dispatching nightmare. We're not doing boutique Greenway and Navy Yard historic trolleys out of an unsealed Haymarket portal running PCC's; that's silly when we have the proper Transitway connector and NSRL.

Based on what was still kicking on trolley pole come 1940, there aren't too many holes left in the map that you could say have thoroughly exhausted their Yellow Line options and are begging for rail.

 

[HenryAlan]

What this map really shows me is that when amateur planners don't know what to to do, the answer is always "extend the green line" lmao. That map has the green line going literally everywhere in the city, believe it or not there are other alternatives that don't involve extending arguable the worst rapid transit line in Boston

The vast majority of LRT on this map either already exists or is under construction. Most of the rest of it is suggested replacement for BRT in locations that are known to have high density ridership but are not well suited to heavy rail. The remaining bits are either branches off existing lines or short connections between lines for additional routing options. Which of these, in your opinion would make sense as heavy rail, keeping in mind the need to balance cost with benefit?

 

[ceo]

Twin City placement is obviously speculative, but would work best set back a little behind the plaza so access to McGrath + Somerville Ave. Ext. via ramps and Medford St. via path were more or less equitable. Brickbottom is going to be a significant catchment for this stop, so it can't be entirely Medford St.-facing.

I suppose if they remodeled the plaza to have a pedestrian passageway about where the Dunkie's is, that would work. But I can't see how you can get to Brickbottom from there, or indeed how you're going to connect the line from the Grand Junction up through the Valley Tracks area, even absent a revenue connection to the GLX. Maybe it could cross over the Fitchburg Line between BET and the McGrath Highway bridge, but you'd have to rebuild the bridge to make room for six tracks under it.

 

[34f34f]

Oak Square was the locus of the last effort at restoration in the early-90's. The jog down Tremont St. in Newton was always a low-ridership leg, and crossing the Pike rotary on a trolley to reach the wall of density on that side was insanity. If BL-Kenmore happens you are going to have additional slack in the Central Subway west of Boylston to play around with new service patterns. Plus the grade separation of the BU Bridge subway extension, plus the Huntington subway extension's 'filet' routings of E/D slots with Kenmore. Presence of another branch can probably be accommodated easily with all that gained routing elasticity.

Figure this: Brighton Ave. is exactly as wide as Comm Ave. through West Campus so all it takes is a parking diet and spatial reconfig of the left-turn lanes to carve a full reservation from Packards to Union Sq., giving the would-be Harvard Ave. and Union Sq. stops full B-style platforms. Does City of Boston want that street to be a car-centric hellscape forever? If not, wouldn't cost much to settle up that first 0.6 miles of reservation. From Cambridge St. to Oak it's 1.6 miles of street-running...with exceptions of reservation reappearing just long enough to plant a full station platform in front of St. Joseph Prep, and obviously Oak Sq. itself having a protected platform and its old storage yard back if the YMCA was open to bartering a parking swap. In theory a judicious lane diet at the St. Elizabeth's intersection (6 lanes!?!) nets some play there, and parking spot shifts elsewhere can create room such that San Fran Market St.-style mid-street bus+trolley combo platforms can serve any transit vehicle on a fairly slim profile (this is also how I'd recommend building any Hyde Sq./Forest Hills and City Point street-running stops).

A maximum stop roster past Packards (necessarily flipped to other side of the intersection) would be: Harvard Ave., Union Sq., Gordon St., St. Joseph's, St. Elizabeth's Med Ctr., Market St./Chestnut Hill Ave., Foster St., Lake St., Langeley Rd., Oak Sq. 13 (10 A + 3 shared B) surface stops outside the St. Paul St. subway portal...and you can go fishing for 1-2 cuts if re-spacing nets more efficiency. Won't displace the 57 all the way, but combination of this and extending the 71 TT to Newton Corner cuts out enough local demand to streamline the 57 a bit.

--------------------

Based on what was still kicking on trolley pole come 1940, there aren't too many holes left in the map that you could say have thoroughly exhausted their Yellow Line options and are begging for rail.

When I look at maps like this, I think about the glaring hole in the middle. How do we get from mid-Somerville/mid-Cambridge to Allston/West Station/Brighton? This could take a lot of pressure off the downtown core and would fit in nicely with Sullivan Station expansion and expanding transit to Everett and Charlestown.

I know this is more Crazy Transit Pitch, but since we're having this Big Picture discussion here, I'm dropping my crosstown LRT here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=172Yl2eojtBPIzU7CASYxq4xvseM&usp=sharing

Phase I is a connection between Sullivan Station and West Station, cutting through the heart of Somerville, Mid-Cambridge, and Cambridgeport (all of which could use some up-zoning along major streets/squares), with orange, green, red, and indigo/purple connections.

Phase IIa would bring the line to Oak Square down the route F-Line was just describing.

Phase IIb would extend the line north to Everett, taking the place of Everett's long-shot orange line spur from Sullivan.

An optional Phase IIc would split the line east from Sullivan into Charlestown, providing high-quality transit to a dense but underserved community and connecting Spaulding/MGH Charlestown with Cambridge/Somerville.

---------------

Roast me here, roast me on Crazy Transit Pitches, roast me wherever. But goddamn our network needs a northeast-to-southwest-oriented inner crosstown route.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I suppose if they remodeled the plaza to have a pedestrian passageway about where the Dunkie's is, that would work. But I can't see how you can get to Brickbottom from there, or indeed how you're going to connect the line from the Grand Junction up through the Valley Tracks area, even absent a revenue connection to the GLX. Maybe it could cross over the Fitchburg Line between BET and the McGrath Highway bridge, but you'd have to rebuild the bridge to make room for six tracks under it.

Duck-under at the current junction passing under the Fitchburg tracks, then popping up onto the Union Branch via flanking flyunder tracks. Go to Street View on Somerville Ave. Ext. underneath the McGrath overpass and you'll see the entire project area and how there's ample room for the duck-under interface. Really not complicated at all. Rest of the Lechmere hook-in follows GLX as being currently constructed.



Brickbottom needs upgraded to the carhouse leads for full revenue service, but the Lechmere and Union junction connections are being built now as part of GLX.

 

[whittle]

Figure this: Brighton Ave. is exactly as wide as Comm Ave. through West Campus

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this doesn't appear to be the case. Just checking in google maps: Brighton Ave is ~80ft wide and Comm Ave is 110-115ft (measured between curbs).

 

[George_Apley]

That may be true but I also work for a transportation engineering company in Boston and spend my entire day working on stuff like this. Its great in theory but the second railroad ops run the numbers it suddenly looks a lot less great. Then you hand it to the PM/CM team and realize how many billions it costs. Then you present that to the MBTA in a private meeting and they shoot it all down and thats the end of the contract.

So, no one (least of all me) is suggesting that this is stuff that should be proposed in bulk. I'm pointing out the possible expansions that are the most reasonable ways to expand the system from what it is now, to provide the most additional service.

Certainly someone with your background sees how the Green Line currently works, and sees the map's proposals as a nightmare. But it's been discussed to death here that these Green Line proposals are absolutely possible with the appropriate upgrades to the overall system. The Green Line's capacity can be much higher than it is now.

Obviously these projects combined cost multiple $Bs. But investments are going to need to be made. Some combination of these ideas are *needs* that Boston will suffer for without. The economic costs of allowing the continued stagnation of our transportation system are high.

I also take issue with your initial reaction that amateur planners see the Green Line as the 'silver bullet' to solve our transit problems. I'm a Green Line convert. I think *most* folks take a first look at the Green Line and, like you did, poo-poo it as the worst of all worlds.

 

[tysmith95]

Any plans to increase the frequency of the SL3? I'm sure the Tobin and N Washington St bridge will make the 111 bus worse for the next few years so more people will rely on the SL3 to the Blue Line to get downtown.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this doesn't appear to be the case. Just checking it google maps: Brighton Ave is ~80ft and Comm Ave is 110-115ft (measured between curbs).

I was going with the new roadway dimensions on Phase 2A reconstruction with the barriered bike lane narrowing the pavement. Should've clarified that. Reasons: the lane-drop on West Campus matches Brighton Ave.'s general traffic + parking capacity, and Phase 1's buffering of the trolley reservation with more plantings made for a less accurate comparison of what a minimal-width full reservation would look like.


But on second thought, Comm Ave. isn't the best analogy...Huntington Ave. is. Sample measurements:

• 95 ft. sidewalk-to-sidewalk through middle of Northeastern Station (facing platforms).
• 85 ft. sidewalk-to-sidewalk through the middle of Longwood Station (facing platforms).
• 85 ft. sidewalk-to-sidewalk through inbound side of Brigham Circle Station (offset platforms).
• 85 ft. sidewalk-to-sidewalk between Longwood Station and St. Alphonse St. where there's a left-turn lane.
• 80 ft. sidewalk-to-sidewalk 1) in front of the MFA building; 2) between Longwood Ave. and Worthington St.

So it holds that Brighton Ave. is:

1. ...guaranteed A-OK for a reservation between stations
2. ...almost certainly OK for keeping its left-turn lanes amidst the reservation if corner parking gets eaten and total pavement width does not expand.
3. ...*probably* OK at stations if the platforms at Harvard Ave. and Union Sq. are offset and not facing. Worst-case: eat parking at corners for Harvard Ave. Union Sq. has this lovely concrete wasteland on the site of the ex- turning loop to screw around with for reconfiging the intersection around a fat station stop.

 

[George_Apley]

Busses, perhaps there’s a way to add a toggle on each category of “reasonable” and “stretch” ...? That way you don’t have to limit yourself but anyone can pull it back to essentials if they want. Probably that’s a lot of work - just a suggestion!

Done. In the menu there are now layers called "Other Transit Concepts" and "Other Transit Concept Stations" that can be toggled on and off. I think I'm at the layer limit for the map now.

To the new "Other Concepts" layer, I added:

• Green to Oak Square
• Green to Newton Corner via Watertown
• Orange to Reading
• Blue to Salem
• Red to Dedham
  
• Plus a (crazier?) concept for a Rt 128 LRT between Weston Junction and the Burlington Mall roughly parallel to the interstate.
  

On the base layer I fixed the Southie Green Line branches to better reflect an SL2 replacement and a City Point line up the gut via E Broadway.

MBTA Build Concepts

 

[tysmith95]

Make it so the green line dosn't randomly stop in tunnels for no known reason.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Make it so the green line dosn't randomly stop in tunnels for no known reason.

They're already working on ending the scourge of timer signals with the Green Line Transformation project.

 

[tysmith95]

They're already working on ending the scourge of timer signals with the Green Line Transformation project.

Hallelujah.

It's terrible how low hanging fruit like Green Line improvements (signal priority, longer cars, new signals, etc) have been ignored for so long.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...rolley-cars/yeJaaXZMGOWGCoOqBmw9uK/story.html

From this, they should just hire you instead of spending 35 millions on consultants.

 

[George_Apley]

Rapid transit to Watertown...

Adding the "extras" layer to the map, I'm thinking about stop placement on a Watertown branch out of Porter.

Here's my brainstorm:

• Porter (subway under Commuter Rail)
• Portal west(?) of Walden St on south side of Commuter Rail tracks
• Sherman Street (West of Sherman adjacent to extant Jose's parking lot. Potential footpath access to Danehy?)
• Fresh Pond Either north of Fresh Pond Parkway or elevated over the parkway
• Strawberry Hill (@ Huron Ave)
• Mount Auburn (Behind Star Market)
• Either Grove Street OR Arlington Street (Which would need a new name... Coolidge Hill?)
• Watertown Greenway or if you like Watertown Mall (Behind Watertown Mall with path access to Arsenal Street)
• Arsenal (East of School Street where reservation ends and tracks join Arsenal Street)
• Beechwood Ave (Shared bus/trolley station)
• Watertown Square (Shared bus/trolley station somewhere between the branch of North Beacon St and Charles River Rd)
• Watertown Yard (On Galen Street adjacent to the car yard, which would be reactivated)
• Morse Street (Shared bus/trolley station)
• Newton Corner (Station and loop between Pearl and Washington west of Centre)