Reasonable Transit Pitches

On the E Line, could you put the road on a diet and make the lane with trolley tracks a transit only lane?

Even better would be putting the trolley tracks at the edge of the road, then putting a curb so that people don't park or stop in the Trolley lane.

There's more than enough room if you get rid of some of the parking, or get rid of a lane of traffic.

If you had a trolley/bus lane, with something to separate it from regular traffic, that would be ideal.

Huntington Ave? I’m guessing that would be very tricky, and made even more difficult by the fact that its a state route, an evacuation route, and has loads of hospitals near it.
 
Huntington Ave? I’m guessing that would be very tricky, and made even more difficult by the fact that its a state route, an evacuation route, and has loads of hospitals near it.

The only hospital on that route would be JP's VA Medical Center, which is past Heath Street. By the time you get to Longwood there is already a reserved medium for the Green Line.

And most traffic to/from Longwood would go through the J-Way and not on Huntington.
 
Would it be feasible to disallow boat traffic under the Chelsea bridge during rush hour? I know that the law currently states that boats have priority, however I think this should change.

It really hurts SL3.

If anything I think it would make sense to drudge out more of Lynnport and move some of the Chelsea operations over there, but I understand that might not be feasible.
 
If anything I think it would make sense to drudge out more of Lynnport and move some of the Chelsea operations over there, but I understand that might not be feasible.

City of Lynn's long term plan is to redevelop the whole waterfront to residential/commercial. Personally, I think the existing uses and insane amount of environmental remediation that'd be needed makes that unworkable, but that's the plan at least.
 
City of Lynn's long term plan is to redevelop the whole waterfront to residential/commercial. Personally, I think the existing uses and insane amount of environmental remediation that'd be needed makes that unworkable, but that's the plan at least.

There have been numerous proposals to add pipelines in New England, but they all get fought by environmentalists. What this does though is makes it so that oil and gas have to be shipped, either by rail, road, or ocean, to New England.

If we added a pipeline or two it would probably get rid of the need for the gas terminals in Chelsea/East Boston.
 
Would it be feasible to disallow boat traffic under the Chelsea bridge during rush hour? I know that the law currently states that boats have priority, however I think this should change.

It really hurts SL3.

If anything I think it would make sense to drudge out more of Lynnport and move some of the Chelsea operations over there, but I understand that might not be feasible.


Chelsea is part of the deepwater port, and thus the whole entanglement of fed regulations is in-play. That's where the infeasibility of precision-scheduling comes into play for trying to skew bridge openings to the off-peak. The boats themselves are almost entirely fuel ships...so it's all very single-purpose. And while that's non-explosive oil/gasoline, still not the kind of ships you want loitering in a group every day out in the Inner Harbor waiting for a shift change. The logistics just don't work.
 
Chelsea is part of the deepwater port, and thus the whole entanglement of fed regulations is in-play. That's where the infeasibility of precision-scheduling comes into play for trying to skew bridge openings to the off-peak. The boats themselves are almost entirely fuel ships...so it's all very single-purpose. And while that's non-explosive oil/gasoline, still not the kind of ships you want loitering in a group every day out in the Inner Harbor waiting for a shift change. The logistics just don't work.

Not sure if it's a deep water port, but the Fort Point Channel used to be open to ships but was closed years ago.

I think the Cheslea/East Boston area is too densely populated to have that type of traffic. Though again i'm not sure where you'd move operations if the port would be shut down.
 
On the E Line, could you put the road on a diet and make the lane with trolley tracks a transit only lane?

Even better would be putting the trolley tracks at the edge of the road, then putting a curb so that people don't park or stop in the Trolley lane.

There's more than enough room if you get rid of some of the parking, or get rid of a lane of traffic.

If you had a trolley/bus lane, with something to separate it from regular traffic, that would be ideal.

You might be able to do this on South Huntington, but I don't think it works on the section between there and Brigham Circle. The combination of narrowness and complicated car routing (think about the turn on to S Huntington) would make a reservation extremely challenging to fit.
 
Not sure if it's a deep water port, but the Fort Point Channel used to be open to ships but was closed years ago.

I think the Cheslea/East Boston area is too densely populated to have that type of traffic. Though again i'm not sure where you'd move operations if the port would be shut down.


Chelsea was dredged not too long ago for deeper ships to the fuel terminals lining both sides of the river, so Massport envisions that activity for the long haul.


There is direct rail access to Global Petroleum via the dormant East Boston Branch. Global + Pan Am were preparing the branch for reactivation in 2012 for an ethanol mixing operation that would've been worth 90+ tanker cars per night, but the NIMBY opposition fanned by Menino torpedoed it. But ethanol's the only thing that runs better by train than ship. Petroleum still hits its best shipping rate by ship.
 
You might be able to do this on South Huntington, but I don't think it works on the section between there and Brigham Circle. The combination of narrowness and complicated car routing (think about the turn on to S Huntington) would make a reservation extremely challenging to fit.

There is one place you can do a reservation: the Mission Hill stop. If the front street-facing parking lot at Mission Park Apartments were compacted and compensated on the backside of the complex, Huntington can very easily re-widen curb-to-curb to same full width as the reservation section...for one full block only. That is enough to do a complete ADA'd Mission Hill station with max-length platforms for the Type 10's and signal priority at the starting spots.

If matched with stop consolidation of Fenwood and Back of The Hill that would leave Riverway as the very last un-ADA'able Green Line stop until you come up with some creative solution for that one. Doing up Mission Hill with that asphalt-taking + stop consolidation would considerably speed up the E, especially on the street-running blocks between the Brigham and MH full platforms.

Only caveat is that the City is so extremely likely to play turf war here that the Housing Authority will never ever allow a parking relocation...much less parking reduction...at the MP Apts. "It is simply not done." So some very low-hanging fruit that does a world of good bridging the gaps on street-running Huntington will never practically be available.
 
Last edited:
How difficult would it really be to make a second transit only bridge that was tall enough to not need to be a draw bridge?
 
How difficult would it really be to make a second transit only bridge that was tall enough to not need to be a draw bridge?


Hard. Those barges are tall, and SL3 has to get down quickly into the Haul Road cut on the Eastie side. The grades would be on the cusp of physically impossible, and well past the point of performance-killing.


Tunnels are no-go either because of the dredging.
 
Not sure how reasonable this is, but a bus lane with signal priority along 16. Connect this with SL3. Build a new separated bus lane at Wellington Station. Continue that separated bus lane, parallel to the Orange Line/CR tracks, down to Sullivan Station.

You could also put a dedicated bus lane alongside the Newburyport Rockport line with a stop at Assembly and Sullivan.

Anyhow I think the silver should be extended down to Sullivan using some route. The extension down the Sullivan would also help a good bit with many of the Everett bus routes, weather a Wellington or Newburyport Rockport routing is used.

I think the Newburyport Rockport line routing is better as it would be quicker and could still serve Assembly. Assembly is a growing jobs center and could use some better bus service.
 
Also, unless it's opened to the public I think the MBTA should get rid of the GE commuter rail stop.
 
Also, unless it's opened to the public I think the MBTA should get rid of the GE commuter rail stop.

The plan is to open it to the public once the new development goes in. Currently it can't be opened to the public since there isn't a any way for the public access it.
 
The plan is to open it to the public once the new development goes in. Currently it can't be opened to the public since there isn't a any way for the public access it.

I mean even peak stops have one, two, or no people getting on/off. Absolutely not worth it in its current state. Mishawum gets more ridership and it doesn't receive any peak direction trains.

Of course with new development it might be popular. But I won't hold my breath.
 
Hard. Those barges are tall, and SL3 has to get down quickly into the Haul Road cut on the Eastie side. The grades would be on the cusp of physically impossible, and well past the point of performance-killing.


Tunnels are no-go either because of the dredging.

FWIW, you could (probably?) jack a tunnel...
 
I mean even peak stops have one, two, or no people getting on/off. Absolutely not worth it in its current state. Mishawum gets more ridership and it doesn't receive any peak direction trains.

Of course with new development it might be popular. But I won't hold my breath.

The developer of the 1200 new apartments on the south side of the tracks is proposing to build a brand-new ADA station--to be called "Lynnport"--with 80 parking spots and a busway: https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...built-there/niWa9JzdRE8B9yHP2mb1mN/story.html. The only state expenses, which still have to be approved, are for construction and staging inside of the actual ROW property lines...basically just the platform slabs.

The trial with the existing River Works stop is just this quickie thing they're trying to fast-track once the site access is established, since the platform pour for "Lynnport" will probably be the very last thing done as all else (parking, busway) is site prep -related and being done in conjunction with the apartment construction. With the developer having so much of his own money on the line, "a" stop needs to be open for Day 1 his units go out for rent even if that stop is the crappy old River Works and not its ADA replacement. That's the primary rationale behind it: ensuring "a" stop even if the state drags its feet on doing its responsibilities within the ROW envelope for "the" ADA stop.

True demand isn't going to show itself in the trial opening, as what commuters from the neighborhood do stop by will have to go past a busy, dirty construction site to get there. It'll still be handfulls of passengers. But that's not really the point, much like going by anemic off-peak train counts isn't the point when trying to picture how RER service levels will work. There's going to be 1200 apartments fronting this thing, 5 bus routes passing in front (2 of them distended expresses to Downtown Crossing via the tunnels), and the thrust of the Lynn Harbor revitalization land directly across the Lynnway from this stop's access driveway. And that doesn't even count what's on the other side, where if a second entrance were built to Bennett St. the whole THICK residential neighborhood near Market Square would get tied in, along with another 6 bus routes running down MA 107, and direct access to the Northern Strand Trail.

All of that is in the catchment, just needing *access* where there once was none. And off-peak frequencies that don't stink so badly it sends people back to their cars (stinky all-day frequencies less of a problem on Rockburyport than elsewhere, but obviously RER practices would be a huge assist here). A private developer is proposing to pay for all of it; it's not even a financial risk. As long as the state doesn't hopelessly screw it up by deferring the second entrance to the north off until some later century, there's nothing to hand-wring about it failing. The riders will come. They're largely already there as this is a highly transit-dependent area by bus, and a whole lot more housing is going up. The ridership is there strong enough even if the Harbor revitalization sputters out.

For all intensive purposes this in its final form will be the replacement for the B&M West Lynn stop shifted west about 2000 ft. Think of it that way rather than as a lipstick job on what we've known for the last 40 years as River Works.
 
FWIW, you could (probably?) jack a tunnel...

It's a 35 ft deep channel the whole length of the navigable river up to the Global Petroleum docks, 350 ft. wide at that depth just south of the Chelsea St. bridge then ballooning to 475 ft. just north of the bridge. Besides the question of where's the maneuvering room to jack a tunnel as this is an even more constrained area than where the Big Dig had to innovate the shit out of itself to sink the Pike under Ft. Point Channel...this would have to happen while the river STILL functioned day-in/day-out as a mission-critical deepwater port facility for fuel ships during whatever construction is required.

Throw on the approaches. The RR cut gives you a small assist on grades by starting into a tunnel by the Curtis St. underpass in Eastie, but alas it's curved. On the Chelsea side it's such a painfully long climb that you're tunneling under Eastern Ave., relocating a stop, and probably not getting back to grade until Cottage St. I don't think a 2500+ ft. tunnel--nearly the length of the Transitway on the Seaport side of the Channel--is the kind of expense you're looking to swallow for the sole purpose of keeping SL3 more timely. Especially when we've already established how gruesomely buses perform in curvy tunnels with stiff grades. Is that better than having to deal with several bridge openings per weekday? Maybe. But is an ass-performing BRT tunnel a near-billion dollars better than the bridge openings in an "all funding is constrained" universe? Underwhelmingly.


Salvation's only going to come by completing the Urban Ring circuit from the WEST...not trying to throw endless cash at a trip that's already got to tackle the crumbling Transitway pavement at 7 MPH, the D St. light, and the Ted before the bridge acts as some last straw. What we're seeing is a born-brittle operation acting brittle under the slightest pressure. SL3 is hardly anybody's idea of a dream route; it was just the one we could build in-budget today. Urban Ring NE with all that grade separation between Somerville and Chelsea Station is where those schedules start out robust and stay that way. If after the last stop in Chelsea a bridge opening throws a wrench into on-time arrival at Logan...well, it's at the END of the line instead of the halfway mark. You can plan to short-turn on the Chelsea side instead of proceeding to Logan when a bridge opening is known and scheduled, and direct passengers way ahead of time to other Logan-serving modes. Or just flush the system with run-as-directeds from the endpoint to balance things out.

The problem is not that we haven't yet thrown enough money at a 'fix' for the bridge. It's brand-new; it doesn't need fixing. It's that any service predicating itself on having zero hiccups all day long crossing a moving bridge with critical maritime traffic has ended up making too-brittle an assumption about itself. Maybe we just need to remind ourselves that SL3 was only really a down-payment on some useful Urban Ring infrastructure bootstrapped onto some *barely* found Transitway capacity, and not necessarily a gee-whiz perfect route plan unto itself. We won't have these problems if we complete the circuit from the west and simply relegate the bridge to occasional last-stop annoyance instead of make-or-break for the whole trip. That's a better way to strategize than simply having the single-minded Civil Engineering Strongman debate about "What bridge too high? / What tunnel too low?" for unlimited money.
 

Back
Top