Reasonable Transit Pitches

Since Depot street needs to be crossed anyway, why not just cross it prior to business cluster?
 
KCasiglio said:
Since Depot street needs to be crossed anyway, why not just cross it prior to business cluster?
Click to expand...
I considered that, but there are a few residences on the south side of Depot Street. You could maybe fit the tracks behind the houses, but the homeowners on the south side of Depot Street would probably put up more of a fight than the business owners on the north side of the street.
 
Shouldn't need to redo all the driveways for that business cluster, just the couple at the end of Robbins Rd. Those parcels are pretty small, and it might be worth buying them out entirely.
Bell.PNG
 
The EGE said:
Unlikely, unfortunately - a new crossing of those wetlands seems difficult to get approved.

View attachment 68237
Click to expand...
That depends. If the new rerouted crossing is entirely elevated on piers - not on fill - across the wetland, plus the crossing to be abandoned is reclaimed back to wetlands, then I think a rerouted crossing has a good chance.
 
KCasiglio said:
I hope to one day love something as much as you love elevated rail :p
Click to expand...
Well, that's pretty much the fallback for building a road or a rail line across a wetland. I had some experience getting Army Corps 404 permits.
But yeah, you are right, I grew up riding the elevated line through Charlestown, the South End and Roxbury, and I pretty much loved it. My favorite is the SkyTrain system in Vancouver BC, which I've ridden a few times. I wish the Boston metro area had something like it.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Well, that's pretty much the fallback for building a road or a rail line across a wetland. I had some experience getting Army Corps 404 permits.
But yeah, you are right, I grew up riding the elevated line through Charlestown, the South End and Roxbury, and I pretty much loved it. My favorite is the SkyTrain system in Vancouver BC, which I've ridden a few times. I wish the Boston metro area had something like it.
Click to expand...
I had the opportunity to ride the NYC N-Line over the weekend, which is elevated in Queens, and I must say, the experience looking at the cityscape below and beyond was quite mesmerizing. I do wish we still had something like that in Boston.
 
HenryAlan said:
I had the opportunity to ride the NYC N-Line over the weekend, which is elevated in Queens
Click to expand...
I was in NYC a few years back and had just gone to see Coney Island because it felt like a thing I should do at least once, but I didn't want to pay that much for food so I took the D up to somewhere, and yeah the views out the train were amazing.

And then I got off the train, went down to street level, and was immediately reminded why we don't build them like that anymore. I love riding the elevated trains in Chicago, New York, Paris, or Berlin, but my goodness elevated rail over narrow streets is miserable to be under. I cannot say with any amount of sincerity that Boston is not better off without the Els, I can only say that it's a shame the proper improvements to transport weren't made to substitute for them.
 
TheRatmeister said:
I cannot say with any amount of sincerity that Boston is not better off without the Els, I can only say that it's a shame the proper improvements to transport weren't made to substitute for them.
Click to expand...
Yes, there were definitely sections that weren't suited for elevated rail, but there are some locations in Boston where it would work well, such as Columbia Road.
 
TheRatmeister said:
And then I got off the train, went down to street level, and was immediately reminded why we don't build them like that anymore. I love riding the elevated trains in Chicago, New York, Paris, or Berlin, but my goodness elevated rail over narrow streets is miserable to be under.
Click to expand...
I agree. The old Boston els over narrow streets were noisy and ugly. It was a strange experience on the old elevated OL in Charlestown to be roaring by apartment windows literally just a few feet away. However, properly located and aesthetically designed elevated rail lines located over wide boulevards, wide parkways and highways can be an economical (compared to tunnelling) means of getting high speed rail transit into currently underserved regions of the Boston metro area.
 
HenryAlan said:
Yes, there were definitely sections that weren't suited for elevated rail, but there are some locations in Boston where it would work well, such as Columbia Road.
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree. I remember when the elevated trains came down in Boston; I was a young adult. The elevated over Washington Street and Main Street in Charlestown and both were a blight to those areas, and both areas improved radically when they were torn down. How would Columbia Road not avoid that fate? I think that Columbia Road should be the parkway that Olmsted envisioned with a subway running beneath it
 
Scott said:
How would Columbia Road not avoid that fate?
Click to expand...
Presumably because it's wide enough to be the boulevard Olmsted envisioned? The viaduct would not have the same sort of impact. But I just threw that out as an example of an underserved transit corridor that is wide enough for a modern viaduct, that would not create the kinds of issues you saw with the old Orange Line. It's easy enough to come up with other suggestions, such as Comm Ave, after Kenmore. The point is, that not every elevated rail line needs to resemble the old Charlestown El.
 
The vision that I would have for Columbia Road is the extension of the Red Line past Harvard. There is about the same density in Dorchester and North Cambridge. The train was put in a tunnel for good reasons and it was a great success. I believe that a subway on Columbia road would be too
 
Scott said:
The vision that I would have for Columbia Road is the extension of the Red Line past Harvard. There is about the same density in Dorchester and North Cambridge. The train was put in a tunnel for good reasons and it was a great success. I believe that a subway on Columbia road would be too
Click to expand...
I'd favor subway over elevated for that location, too, but again, it was just an example of where it could work to place an inobtrusive viaduct.
 
Scott said:
How would Columbia Road not avoid that fate?
Click to expand...
By being significantly wider, and with good street design. Curb-to-curb Columbia Rd is about 85 feet wide. For comparison the 'wide' parts of Washington St are 70 feet across, the narrow parts about 40 feet. Between stations the viaduct would be about 30 feet across, the supports underneath are about 10 feet across. That means all the street parking can fit under the viaduct, which is huge. That leaves almost 30 feet on each side for... lots of things. Here's one way you could divide it up:
Screenshot 2025-11-05 at 17.16.36.png
That's not to say this is better or equal to a subway, but it would not be intrusive in nearly the same way as the old Els were.
 
The point is
TheRatmeister said:
By being significantly wider, and with good street design. Curb-to-curb Columbia Rd is about 85 feet wide. For comparison the 'wide' parts of Washington St are 70 feet across, the narrow parts about 40 feet. Between stations the viaduct would be about 30 feet across, the supports underneath are about 10 feet across. That means all the street parking can fit under the viaduct, which is huge. That leaves almost 30 feet on each side for... lots of things. Here's one way you could divide it up:View attachment 68306That's not to say this is better or equal to a subway, but it would not be intrusive in nearly the same way as the old Els were.
Click to expand...

I didn't doubt it was wide enough I asked why should Cambridge get a tunnel and Dorchester have to settle for an elevated, which is not nearly as good? Hasn't this area been historically underserved? Is that to continue when there is a clear example of what to do, that works, on the other side of the city?
 
TheRatmeister said:
By being significantly wider, and with good street design. Curb-to-curb Columbia Rd is about 85 feet wide. For comparison the 'wide' parts of Washington St are 70 feet across, the narrow parts about 40 feet. Between stations the viaduct would be about 30 feet across, the supports underneath are about 10 feet across. That means all the street parking can fit under the viaduct, which is huge. That leaves almost 30 feet on each side for... lots of things. Here's one way you could divide it up: That's not to say this is better or equal to a subway, but it would not be intrusive in nearly the same way as the old Els were.
Click to expand...
Here's the graphic provided of Columbia Road by TheRatmeister, with a typical modern elevated LRV line added in by me. The LRV graphic is from Seattle's Link light rail system. Not a bad fit, in my opinion. Yes, tunnels would be ideal, but funding for transit is limited, and in many cases elevated is justifiable given the space available.

1762366988162.png
 
Charlie_mta said:
Here's the graphic provided of Columbia Road by TheRatmeister, with a typical modern elevated LRV line added in by me. The LRV graphic is from Seattle's Link light rail system. Not a bad fit, in my opinion. Yes, tunnels would be ideal, but funding for transit is limited, and in many cases elevated is justifiable given the space available.

View attachment 68310
Click to expand...
In this type of system, how do they implement stations? Do they span the entire road to get access from both sides? How does that access play with sidewalks, bike lanes, travel lanes, etc. ? (The access has to land somewhere.)

Really curious because I think elevated running could work for BLX on the Lynnway as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top